Two Old Testament Sacrifices? Part 2

In the article I mentioned in my previous post, there was an alternate explanation about Cain and Abel that I had never thought about before. Again, when it said that Abel presented the “fat” of his firstlings of his flock, wearing the glasses tinted by exposure to church doctrines, I just assumed that there was the sacrifice of an animal involved. I never really noticed that the Bible does not say that there was an animal killed.

The article presents the view (with scriptural and historical support) that the “fat” that was offered was actually milk/cream/cheese. There is no mention that the sacrifice is meant as an atonement for sin. And even if it was, if God requires blood for forgiveness of sins, why is there no mention of blood? No mention that Abel had been obedient to anything God had directly told him to do.

A group that is considered heretical called the "Artotyrites" also known as the African Montanists apparently thought Abel offered the dairy products of his flock:

In the second century the African Montanists were sometimes called the "Artotyrites" because they added cheese, instead of wine, to the bread in the Eucharist on the ground that the Aquarii, and first men offered the fruits both of the earth and of their flocks (Gen. iv. 3, 4).

Josephus said in his writings that Abel offered milk “They had resolved to sacrifice to God. Now Cain brought the fruits of the earth, and of his husbandry; but Abel brought milk, and the first-fruits of his flocks: but God was more delighted with the latter oblation, “

More food for thought is the pondering about the actual Hebrew word translated fat:

The Hebrew of the Old Testament was originally without vowels. The vowel marks were added at a later time. The particular word render "fat" in the account of Cain and Abel (there are a number of different Hebrew words that mean "fat") is spelled the same as the word for milk and curds. Only the vowels are different. The present Hebrew vowel system didn't come into use until about the ninth or tenth century AD. In fact, it seems likely that when Genesis was written that there was no difference between khay'-leb and kheh'-leb (both of which are spelled cheth - lamed - beth). Both clearly evolved from the same word, and Genesis being one of the oldest Hebrew works, it may be that there was no difference in pronunciation at that time.

Perhaps at the heart of God’s displeasure was the heart of Cain.

Genesis Chapter 4:2-7 could be said to even allude to that. Now Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. 3And in the process of time it came to pass that Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the LORD. 4Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat. And the LORD respected Abel and his offering, 5but He did not respect Cain and his offering. And Cain was very angry, and his countenance fell. 6So the LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry? And why has your countenance fallen? 7If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it." NKJV

Perhaps Cain was simply more selfish than Abel…..perhaps he did not bring the best of his crop….or the first fruit. Is that what the verse above mean when it says, “in the process of time it came to pass.” Young’s Literal Version says: “And it cometh to pass at the end of days” which does not sound very first fruit like now does it?

The article goes on to say that The Septuagint, in the form that it's come down to us, has it that Abel offered from his "fat ones". The point being that Abel offered from his best, while Cain from the worst part of his crop. The mimetic theory of Girard explains a lot but I think that it is only a factor in the problem with man when he is “in Adam.” He is a selfish “me, me, its all about me” type of creature which leads to the coveting which leads to rivalry…..which in turn leads to violence. Cain’s reaction to God’s preference for Abel’s offering certainly seems to support the fact that he was caught up in rivalry with his brother.

A side note that this article brings out was God’s response to the murder of Abel. It is not a verse that could be used to support capital punishment because God chose mercy instead: "Whoever kills Cain will suffer a sevenfold vengeance." Gen 4:15 NRSV. And he “marked” him.

Later, to Noah, was given the law of capital punishment along with the concession to eat flesh. But the death penalty was not the law from the beginning. So assuming that neither of these instances is really about animal sacrifice, Noah’s offering was the first animal sacrifice in the scriptures….and this series of articles has a nifty little answer for that as well.

This just struck me as one more precept to put on the top of the stack of precepts that leads me to believe more and more that even though God allowed it, perhaps even purposed it, sacrifice was not for HIM but for US.