In Genesis 4, Cain
and Abel are described as sons of Adam and Eve. In the course of time, Cain
brought some of the fruits of the soil as an offering to YHWH, and Abel brought
some of the firstborn animals of his flock. How would they have known it was
good to do that? Was offering a spontaneous action on their part, or did they
follow an already established custom? And, why was the offering of Abel
received with favor by YHWH and the offering of Cain not? Were these unexpected
outcomes or did the brothers know beforehand what was acceptable to God? The
most likely answers we choose depend heavily on how we view the origin of the
book of Genesis. The reader assuming a late origin of the book in the time of
the kings of Israel may interpret the cultic activity as a retroprojection of
later practices. However, he then has to deal with a distinction in the meaning
of the word mincha. This term is used in Genesis 4 for typifying both
offerings, while in Leviticus the usage of the word is restricted to non-bloody
offerings.
Another possibility
is a depiction of a spontaneous, internal compulsion of both brothers to give something
to God. However, that would make God’s negative reaction to Cain’s offer
difficult to understand. We do better to seek an answer in already existing
practices. The Book of Genesis tells us that God spoke many times with Adam and
Eve. Therefore, it is probable that He also gave instructions concerning
worship service and related cultic activities to be carried out by humanity.
Would the God who gave Noah detailed instructions for building the ark (6:14-16)
have neglected to give Adam, Cain, and Abel any verbal instructions regarding
sacrifice? Also we note that the text introduces the episode of the offering
rather casually so that one could believe that this depiction might not have
been the first time the brothers had brought sacrifices. Another presupposition
of the existence of earlier divine communication and an oral tradition is
likely with regard to events at the end of the same chapter. We read that
Seth had a sone and named him Enoch. “At that men began to call on the name of
the LORD” (4:26). This seems the origin of a specific and regular cult
practice.
In the New Testament
we read that Abel was reckoned amongst the prophets (Luke 11:50-51). Although
this is a later text, it points to the understanding of Abel as a receiver of
God’s revelations. In the same way, Enoch being another descendant of Adam
(Gen. 5:19-24) is also considered a prophet (Jude 14-15). Although in the Book
of Genesis these titles are lacking, yet it is possible to assume that more
traditions about God’s speaking survived, for instance, taking into account
practices understood in the word: “Enoch walked with God” (5:22).
A second example is a
precept about the animals in the ark. Noah received the command to take pairs
of animals with him, as depicted by seven pairs of the clean and one pair of
the unclean animals (7:2). The distinction between clean and unclean animals is
an issue here. The Jewish exegete Umberto Cassuto asks the question how it is
possible to speak of animals that are clean and not clean at a time when the
Torah laws distinguishing between these categories had not yet been formulated?
He suggests that the concepts of clean and unclean animals would already have
been in existence prior to the Torah, even among the Gentiles, particularly in
relation to sacrifices (Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis,
Part 11 [Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1974], 75). Also, Bruce Waltke suggests that
Noah may have known of the distinction through his walks with God, whereby this
author argues that the fundamental institutions of the ‘ceremonial laws’ reach
back to the original creation (Waltke, Genesis, 138). Both Cassuto
and Waltke assume a revelation that as such is not mentioned in Genesis.
A third example
concerns Abraham and obedience of practice. His son Isaac had received the
promise that he and his descendants will be blessed, “because Abraham obeyed me
and kept my requirements, my commands, my decrees and my laws” (26:5). Here
legal language of later books, especially Exodus and Deuteronomy, is used. We
do not know exactly which instructions are supposed in the cited passages (Waltke
writes: “The narrator means either the teachings of piety and ethics known by
the patriarchs prior to Moses or more probably the whole law of Moses. Genesis
is part of the Pentateuch and should be interpreted within that context. In
Deut. 11:1 the same list of terms refer to the whole law of Moses.” Genesis,
368). Somewhat earlier in the book, God declares that He had chosen Abraham “so
that he will direct his children and his household after him to keep the way of
the LORD by doing what is right and just” (18:19; cf. the expression “righteous”
in Gen. 6:9). The terms ‘right’ and ‘just’ are not explained. However, the
reader may gain a general impression from the later descriptions. For instance,
Genesis18 clearly shows that the attitude of Abraham is in stark contrast to
the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, thereby suggesting an
attitude of obedience to what YHWH had previously revealed.
My point is that an
earlier revelation can be presupposed in several instances in the Book of
Genesis, while the content of that revelation has not been written down
in this book. (Mart-Jan Paul, “Oral Tradition in the Old Testament and Judaism,” in
Hans Burger, Arnold Huijgen and Eric Peels, eds., Sola Scriptura: Biblical
and Theological Perspectives on Scripture, Authority, and Hermeneutics [Studies
in Reformed Theology 32; Leiden: Brill, 2018], 123-36, here, pp. 123-26,
emphasis added)