The Real Reson God Rejected Cain's Sacrifice & Accepted Abel's (Genesis 4)

“The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering,but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.” (Genesis 4:4)

While not all conspiracy theories are baseless, individuals who adhere to extreme conspiracy theories often see “proof” in everything they observe, a phenomenon known as “confirmation bias.” For example, if a neighbor’s child winks, they might interpret it as a sign that he is part of the Illuminati. They view it as further confirmation that he also arranges his cubes in his backyard in a pyramid shape. The doctrine of Divine Abuse frequently exhibits confirmation bias, as it purports to find “proof” of its tenets throughout the scriptures, fancying themes of bloodshed, wrath, and punishment as allegedly central to the biblical narrative. In a manner akin to the confirmation bias observed among Calvinists regarding the offerings and sacrifices in the Law, and as illustrated in Genesis 3:21, Genesis 4:4 stands as yet another quintessential instance:

The Lord looked with favor on Abel and his offering, but on Cain and his offering he did not look with favor.

Genesis 4:4

Contrary to Genesis 3, the narrative of Cain and Abel introduces us to the concept of sacrifices in the Bible for the first time. These siblings were not adhering to any specific law. Rather, they, like many in the Ancient Near East, made offerings to God, hoping to gain His favor. Similar to the situation in Genesis 3:21, there are various traditions regarding why God favored Abel’s offering over Cain’s.

Cain and Abel According to Divine Abuse

A prevalent tradition among fundamentalists suggests that Abel’s offering was accepted due to bloodshed and the killing of an animal, whereas Cain’s offering was rejected for lacking bloodshed and death. For example, according to John MacArthur:

We see that Abel did what God required…. He brought the right sacrifice that was required by God…. It was better because it was blood, and it was better because it was required as a sacrifice for sin.

“Abel did what God required“? “It was better because it was blood“? “A sacrifice for sin“? The Genesis text says absolutely nothing about what God requires, nor does it mention blood or sin. It’s a mystery to me where MacArthur conjured up such ideas in the text. His interpretation is yet again a classic example of the Anachronism Fallacy, as sacrifices in the manner he describes would only be instituted thousands of years later during the time of Moses.

More critically, the text does not support MacArthur’s Calvinistic interpretation of why God accepted Abel’s offering. The Bible mentions various types of offerings, and it is unclear why MacArthur concluded that Abel’s offering is related to sin when the text does not even hint at this.

However, the most significant challenge to MacArthur’s interpretation lies in the Book of Leviticus. Chapter two clearly states that God accepts bloodless (non-animal) sacrifices without issue. If the children of Israel were permitted to offer agricultural produce, it’s perplexing why God would react negatively to Cain’s similar offering. Additionally, the New Testament references to this story (Matthew 23:35; Hebrews 12:24) do not imply that the absence of blood was the reason for God’s rejection of Cain’s offering, further undermining MacArthur’s Calvinistic perspective of Penal Substitution Atonement.

Why Was Cain’s Offering Rejected?

While Genesis chapter four introduces the first sacrifice, it has nothing to do with wrath, sin, or bloodshed. Notice verse two: “Abel kept flocks, and Cain worked the soil.” Cain brought fruit because he was a farmer. It is no sin to be a farmer. But as a farmer, he, too, could have picked the best portion of his fruits, which apparently he didn’t. Therefore, God’s issue was not with the lack of killing and bloodshed but with the quality of the offering he was gifted with.

According to the text, the key difference lies not in the type of offering (blood versus harvest) but in the quality of the offerings. While Cain “brought some fruit,” Abel presented “fat portions from some of the firstborns.” These were akin to the Grade Five Wagyu Beef of ancient times—exceptional offerings indicative of great care and value. These were the pampered cattle that enjoyed afternoon back rubs. Abel’s choice of the “fat portions” suggests he offered the very best he had. In contrast, Cain’s offering seems more generic, akin to selecting some overripe bananas that were just short of spoiling, thinking they shouldn’t go to waste (if only Cain knew the culinary potential of banana bread…).

This distinction underscores that Abel gave something of great value—arguably the most significant gift he could offer. The focus was on the quality of the sacrifice rather than on its kind, a principle that God constantly emphasized in the Law given to Israel (e.g., Leviticus 22:21; Deuteronomy 6:5; Malachi 1:8) to highlight the importance of offering one’s very best, regardless of its kind. Abel brought his very best, while Cain, perhaps, saw an opportunity to use up produce that was less than ideal.