Did Abel or CainDid Abel or Cain Offer a Lamb in Sacrifice to God?
Archive of Comments and Discussions - Questions and Answers From All-Creatures.org

Our subjects cover: animals, religion (Christian, Jewish and others); diet and lifestyle (vegan and vegetarian); and other miscellaneous subjects.

By John Vujicic

See Our Readers' Comments at the end of the article.

The Church has traditionally taught that Adam’s younger son Abel who is depicted as righteous was a shepherd and that he on a certain occasion killed one of his lambs and presented its fat as a sweet smelling aroma to Yahweh. Cain on the other hand is depicted as a farmer who presented an oblation – that is, a bloodless sacrifice – which consisted of herbs, vegetables and grains. It is claimed that God rejected Cain’s sacrifice but accepted Abel’s with which He was very pleased. Of course, the Church to date has not satisfactorily explained just why was Abel’s sacrifice accepted while Cain’s rejected. Mostly it is argued that God rejected Cain’s sacrifice because it was bloodless and an oblation. But nothing can be further from the truth. Let us take a closer look at this subject but with an open and unbiased mind, if at all possible – since from childhood we were indoctrinated with the traditional teaching of the Church.

God Himself says that the original Law was corrupted and perverted by the lying pen of the scribes [Jeremiah 8:8]. Therefore it is reasonable to pose a question: is it possible that here we deal with the lying pen of the scribes and that the role of Abel and Cain is actually reversed? That is, is it at all possible that the original and uncorrupted text actually said that Abel presented an oblation and a bloodless sacrifice while Cain actually slaughtered an animal and presented its fat portions in sacrifice to God? I believe this to be the case and I also believe that I can give sufficient evidence to vindicate this belief.

I will first of all give extracanonical material and then analyze it in the light of the biblical evidence. In the Essene Humane Gospel which may or may not be authentic these words are ascribed to the lips of Jesus concerning Cain’s and Abel’s sacrifices:

“But ye believe that Moses commanded such creatures to be slain and offered as a sacrifice unto God and eaten. Ye believe wrongly; ye do not know of temple oblations; for at no time did the True God delight in or demand flesh and blood offerings, but only the pure oblation the unbloody sacrifice…For Abel offered up the grains and the fruits of the earth…But I tell ye: Satan, the evil one, maketh the truth a lie, and giveth to the sons of man, flesh and blood, the burnt offering, the unholy law of evil doers, things that my Holy Father hateth and abhoreth. Know ye not, before ye standeth one greater than even Moses! Yea, even the holy one, who Moses spake of is here and restoreth the truth of the law, that all may for a certainty know that God is true and every man whosoever keepeth not the Holy Law is a liar. For I tell ye, the Holy Law of Moses and Adam are one; even as my Prophets spake unto Israel, I speak. The Holy Law changeth not, but evil men speak according to their desires of the flesh and lust after things unlawful. For of that, which ye offer unto God in purity, ye may eat of freely, for it is lawful, but of that kind which ye offer not in purity, shall ye not eat. The hour cometh when all sacrifices and blood feasts shall cease, and ye shall again worship God according to holy law and a pure oblation.”

Here we are told that Abel actually offered a pure oblation and in fact the bloodless sacrifice - fruits and grains. This ancient gospel therefore reverses the roles of Cain and Abel. In another part of the Essene Humane Gospel Jesus said:

“And did not Abel know the pure oblation and was put to death on account - for Satan entered into Cain and bloodshed was manifested in the earth, and man and beast crieth unto God and God heareth their cries. ‘But I did not recognize Cain’s blood offering’ nor did God the evil of Satan but grieved over the evil of mankind that spread over the land even as waters cover the sea basin. For truly, I say to you, for this end have I come into the world that I may put away all blood offering and eating of flesh.”

There is another ancient manuscript which likewise reverses the roles of Cain and Abel. The World Bible Publishers have put a book together which is compiled of ancient manuscripts which did not find their way into the canonical Bible. This book is entitled The Lost Books of the Bible and the Forgotten Books of Eden. Various translators were used to translate the manuscripts from their original tongues. The manuscript we are interested in is entitled Adam and Eve. For the translation of this manuscript we are indebted to two great Bible scholars: Dr. S.C. Malan, Vicar of Broadwindsor and Dr. E. Trumpp - Professor at the University of Munich. Ethiopic and Arabic originals were used for the current English translation. In the 77th chapter we find a story of Cain’s and Abel’s offerings. Adam instructed both of his sons to take something “of their sowing” and to offer it to God. Abel did exactly what his father told him, but Cain offered a lamb instead. It is said that God accepted the offering of Abel but rejected the offering of Cain and condemned his “murderous thoughts.” It is also pointed out that Abel actually did as was the custom of his father - implying that Adam himself was always presenting a pure oblation and not a bloody sacrifice. The Book of Jubilees - written in Hebrew - which was discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls and which was held in great esteem at Qumran, corroborates the fact that Adam actually offered an oblation and therefore a bloodless sacrifice:

“And on that day when Adam went out from the Garden of Eden, he offered a sweet-smelling sacrifice - frankincense, galbanum, stacte, and spices - in the morning with the rising of the sun” [Jubilees 3:27].

This is quite interesting since we also know for certain that the Jews who lived in Egypt, in an area known as the Elephantine, although they built a Temple there - an exact replica of the Jerusalem one - did not kill the lamb during their Passover observance nor did they ever offer blood sacrifices. They only authorized and sanctioned the practice of a “pure oblation”. The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Vol. 2, on p. 60, says:

“Meal offerings [oblations] and incense are specified as the only ritual procedures to be followed, as was done formerly. Another smaller Aramaic text dealing with the proposed reconstruction of the temple states specifically that sheep, oxen, and goats were not offered there.”

This ancient papyrus which is dated to the 5th century B.C.E. clearly shows that in Elephantine the Jews did not follow Hezekiah’s and Josiah’s reforms nor did they, like other Jews, sacrifice only in Jerusalem or present bloody sacrifices. The document clearly shows that these Jews appealed to the former practice of pure oblation only.

Christians generally believe and argue that the reason why Cain’s sacrifice was rejected is because it was not a blood sacrifice. But Jesus, according to this Essene gospel argues that exactly opposite is true. Jesus says that Abel was killed because of his pure sacrifice and that bloodshed was manifested in the Earth against both animals and humans through Satan’s influence on Cain. Jesus further pointed out that his explicit mission on this Earth was to put an end to both animal sacrifice and meat eating. In the Clementine Homilies - an early document which contains the preachings of Apostle Peter - points out that Adam and his son Abel could not have possibly sacrificed animals to God, since Peter plainly states that Adam as the true Prophet hated bloody sacrifices:

“He himself being a true prophet, fittingly gave names to each animal, according to the merits of its nature…He hates sacrifices, bloodshed, and libations” [Homily III, Chps. 21 and 26].

Since Peter says that Adam hated bloody sacrifices and libations, that is, wine offerings, it is obvious then that he, being a true Prophet, would not offer the same. It logically follows that Abel would not do so either since it is testified that he was righteous and in fact followed the example of his father Adam. Remarkably, Hebrews 11:4 strongly implies that the text of Essene Humane Gospel is and must be true and correct. Please note the text as it stands in the King James Bible:

“By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts: and by it he being dead yet speaketh.”

The Interlinear Greek-English New Testament by Dr. George Ricker Berry reads:

“By faith Abel a more excellent sacrifice than Cain offered to God, by which he was born witness to by being righteous, God bearing witness to his gifts: and through it, having died, yet speaks.”

God rejected Cain’s gift and approved of Abel’s gifts [plural], because this kind of sacrifice was righteous. The Greek word dikaios implies “justice” and that what is “morally right” - as can be ascertained from virtually all Greek-English lexicons and dictionaries. Because Abel’s gifts represented what is “just” and “ethical,” God accepted it and declared Abel to be right and just. On the other hand, God rejected Cain’s gift because it was representing bloodshed, death and ultimately what is morally wrong and unjust. Abel’s gifts were indeed nobler and by far more excellent than Cain’s gift which demanded bloodshed and great suffering to one of God’s innocent creatures. That the story of Genesis 4 is reversed by the “lying pen of the scribes” is evident from the fact that Abel offered gifts. The plural Greek word is used in Hebrews 11:4 and refers to various fruits of the ground which Abel offered. In contrast, Cain offered one kind of gift - the fat portions of the firstborn. If Abel killed the animal and presented it as sacrifice - as the “lying pen of the scribes” insinuates,  how then could the author of Hebrews argue that his sacrifice is morally and ethically better than his brother’s bloodless sacrifice? Is it morally right and just to slash the throat of an animal? Is it just and humane to subject an animal to terror, pain and great suffering? How would you like if someone subjected you to pain and suffering? How would you feel if you were locked up awaiting the butcher’s knife?

James the Just and those who were led by the Twelve and the elders also believed only in the pure oblation and would not offer blood sacrifices.The Ebionites possessed a book called The Ascents of James - where it was said that James spoke against the bloody sacrificial cultus of the Temple and against those who killed animals in order to eat their flesh. If James spoke against the Temple and bloody sacrifices and condemned those who ate flesh, naturally then he would not participate in the bloody sacrificial cultus. THE Church Fathers unanimously testify that James from his birth never tasted animal flesh. But the book of Acts clearly shows that there were four Essene-Nazarean-Ebionite brothers who made [rather, renewed] their Nazarite vow, since they had to shave their head. According to the Jewish Pentateuch, the renewal of the vow and even the original making of the Nazarite vow demanded an ANIMAL SACRIFICE.  Acts 21:26 speaks of an OFFERING which was to be presented by the priest on behalf of all of them. It is of great significance for you to realize that this word “offering” is translated from the Greek word “prosphora” which always implies “an oblation” and therefore “a bloodless sacrifice.” The word is number #4376 in Strong’s where it is thus defined:

“presentation, an oblation, a bloodless sacrifice.”

A Critical Lexicon and Concordance to the English and Greek New Testament, by the great scholar, Ethelbert Bullinger, on p. 548, thus defines the word “prosphora:”

“an offering, oblation; STRICTLY WITHOUT BLOOD; opposite to “thusia” [sacrifice] and “holocautoma” [burnt offering].”

There are many passages in the Old Testament which clearly show that the bloody sacrificial cult was never sanctioned or instituted by God. His holy prophets vigorously repudiated the cult and claimed that it was of diabolical origin. In Jeremiah 7:21-23 we read:

“…Add your burnt offerings to your sacrifices and eat meat which I did not command your fathers to eat. Neither did I command them concerning burnt offerings or sacrifices in the day when I brought them out of the land of Egypt” [Aramaic Peshitta, translated by Dr. George Lamsa.]

But this text of Jeremiah is also preserved in another form and version. The words are quoted by no lesser authority than Jesus himself. The words are ascribed to Jesus in the Gospel of the Holy Twelve which is said to have been translated by Rev. Jasper Gideon Eusely in the late 1800’s. Here Jesus talks with the Pharisees about sacrifice and in order to condemn sacrifice and support his view he quotes the text of Jeremiah saying:

“Is it not written in the prophets, put your bloody sacrifice to your burnt offerings, and away with them, and cease ye from the eating of flesh, for I spake not to your fathers nor commanded them, when I brought them out of Egypt, concerning these things. But this thing I commanded saying: Obey my voice and walk in the ways that I have commanded you, and ye shall be my people, and it shall be well with you. But they harkened not nor inclined their ear.”

Both Peshitta and this version speak dually – concerning sacrifice and meat eating. Neither of these two practices God actually commanded or sanctioned when He led them out of Egypt. In the early centuries of the Christian era the epistle of Barnabas was accepted by virtually all Church Fathers and Christians of their time as genuine and authentic. It was only later that its authenticity was questioned and finally rejected and is now classified with other apocryphal books. In chapter 2 verses 9-10 Barnabas writes:

“For so the Lord saith again to those heretofore: Did I at all command your fathers when they came out of Egypt concerning burnt offerings of sacrifices? But this I commanded them, saying, let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour, and love no spurious oath.”

Barnabas quotes this from the Old Testament of his day. Whoever wrote the epistle of Barnabas, could not have invented this passage anymore than I could invent a passage now that is not in our canonical bibles. The author would have been challenged by his opponents. It is therefore certain that this text was dropped later by the Masoretes in the 6th century and that’s why it is now not found in the Masoretic text or the bibles based on that text. The passage of Barnabas supports the passage of Jeremiah and also shows that God did not speak about sacrifice nor did He give them permission or injunctions concerning the fellowship sacrifices from which they could eat meat. The text of Leviticus 7 therefore must be a forgery and insertion by the lying scribes and priests.

There is also another passage in the canonical Bible which clearly shows that God did not and could not have given any commands concerning the sacrificial cult. I will quote it from the Greek Septuagint Bible translated by Sir. Lancelot Brenton, since it was the Bible which agrees with the Old Testament passages quoted in the New. In Isaiah 43:22-24 God tells Israel:

“I have not now called thee, O Jacob; neither have I made thee weary, O Israel. Thou hast not brought me the sheep of thy whole-burnt-offering; neither hast thou glorified me with thy sacrifices. I have not caused thee to serve with sacrifices, neither have I wearied thee with frankincense. Neither hast thou purchased for me victims for silver, neither have I desired the fat of thy sacrifices.”

These passages clearly contradict the passages inserted by the lying scribes and they plainly show that God never asked for nor did He ever give any commands concerning sacrifices and burnt offerings. In Isaiah 1:11-12 God says:

“Of what value to me is the abundance of your sacrifices? saith the Lord: I am full of whole-burnt-offerings of rams; and I delight not in the fat of lambs, and the blood of bulls and goats: neither shall ye come with these to appear before me; for who has required these things at your hands?” [Greek Septuagint Bible].

So many Christian commentators try to downplay this passage arguing that God did not reject sacrifices per se but rather He objected to sacrifices presented without respect and those which are not accompanied by faith and the corresponding holy life. But this is not true at all. If that is the case then God could not ask: “who has required these things [sacrifices and burnt-offerings] from your hands?” It certainly was not God. That God did not prescribe the sacrificial cult and that He never gave any commands concerning sin offerings and trespass offerings is clearly stated in Psalm 40:6-7:

“Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but my ears You have opened; whole-burnt-offering and sacrifice for sin You did not require.”

But the lying pen of the scribes has written many passages where God allegedly demands and prescribes sacrificial victims and their blood in order to atone for sins of the Israelites. In Psalm 51:16-17 the psalmist says to God in prayer:

“You do not desire sacrifice, or I would bring it; You do not delight in burnt offerings. My sacrifice O God is a broken spirit; and broken and contrite heart, O God you will not despise.”

Jesus himself pointed out on several occasions that God desires mercy and not sacrifice. The psalmist points out that God would not despise prayer as He despised sacrifice. In Isaiah 1 God clearly stated that He hates and despises burnt offerings and sacrifices and that He was disgusted with the fat and blood of slaughtered animals. It is very clear that the psalmist did not believe in a sacrificial system since he said that he would have offered sacrifices if God asked him to do it. But since God never asked for sacrifices he therefore would not offer the same. In Barnabas 2:12 we read:

“A sacrifice pleasing to God is a broken spirit; a smell of pleasing aroma to God is a heart that glorifies Him that made it.”

Again Barnabas quotes a passage from the Old Testament which was not preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic text and therefore most of the English bibles. In Psalm 50 God points out that He does not want burnt offerings which the Jews presented daily as His food. God categorically says that He does not eat flesh and that He does not drink blood but that He wants only spiritual sacrifices – praise and thanksgiving. The text is controversial even though the context clearly shows that most translators render it wrong. I guess they do so because they are influenced by the traditional concept that God was pleased with whole-burnt-offerings since it was presented to Him as a “pleasant odour.” I will quote the text as it stands in the New King James Bible:

“Hear, O my people, and I will speak, O Israel, and I will testify against you; I am God, your God! I will not reprove you for your sacrifices or your burnt offerings, which are continually before me. I will not take a bull from your house, no goats out of your folds. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle on a thousand hills. I know all the birds of the mountains, and the wild beasts of the field are mine. If I were hungry, I would not tell you; for the world is mine, and all its fullness. Will I eat the flesh of bulls, or drink the blood of goats? Offer to God thanksgiving, and pay your vows to the Most High…Whoever offers praise glorifies me” [verses 7-14, 23].

Most translators understand the statement to be in the negative and therefore use the words “I will not reprove you.” The Hebrew text however could be also rendered “Will I not reprove you?” If we apply the words “I will not reprove you” and if we should understand that God was pleased with all their burnt-offerings which they continually presented to Him, why then did He refuse to take them and why does He say that He does not eat flesh or drink blood? If God had no problem with their sacrificial cult why then did He introduce the text by saying that He will speak to His people and testify against them? The context of the text necessitates the interrogative statement: “Will I not reprove you?” If this is however denied then the only other possible way to understand the text is in a manner that some translators do who add a clause “for the lack” and make it read thus:

“I will not reprove you for the lack of sacrifices or your burnt offerings which are continually before me.”

Either way the text shows that God condemned the sacrificial cult and that the only sacrifice He wants is actually the sacrifice of “thanksgiving” and “praise.” God does not only say that He will not accept their slaughtered animals but He also directly contradicts several lying insertions of the lying scribes where it is directly and plainly stated that God actually eats the flesh and drinks the blood of the victims offered as whole-burnt-offerings.


In Leviticus 1:9, 13 and 17 we are told that the burnt offerings and the fat thereof are sweet savour [KJV] to God. Other translations render this phrase: pleasing aroma, sweet odour, pleasant fragrance. The word sweet savour comes from word number #5207 in Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary and is defined: pleasant, delight. According to this text the fat and blood were to be a delightful fragrance to God.


In Exodus 29 we are told how often the meal for God was to be presented. Please note the following text:

“Now this is that which you shall offer upon the altar; two lambs of the first year day by day continually. The one lamb thou shalt offer in the morning; and the other lamb thou shalt offer at even: And with the one lamb a tenth deal of flour mingled with the fourth part of an hin of beaten oil; and the fourth part of an hin of wine for a drink offering. And the other lamb thou shalt offer at even, and shalt do thereto according to the meat [meal: see Center Reference] offering of the morning and according to the drink offering thereof, for a sweet savour, an offering made by fire unto the LORD. This shall be a continual burnt offering throughout your generations at the door of the tabernacle” [King James Bible, verses 38-42].

This morning and evening offering had nothing to do with expiation for sin. They were completely consumed on the altar. They were daily food or meal for God. The wine was to be His drink. In this meal God supposedly delighted. It was a sweet odour to His nostrils.

In Leviticus 3 we find the following statement:

“...and he shall offer of the sacrifice of the peace offering an offering made by fire unto the LORD; the fat that covereth the inwards, and all the fat that is upon the inwards, and the two kidneys, and the fat that is on them, which is by the flanks...and Aaron’s sons shall burn it on the altar upon the burnt sacrifice, which is upon the wood that is on the fire: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD...and the priest shall burn it upon the altar: it is the food of the offering made by fire unto the LORD...all the fat is the LORD’s. It shall be a perpetual statute for your generations throughout your dwellings, that ye eat neither fat nor blood” [King James Bible].

This text tells us that all the fat belonged to God. It was to be presented to Him as a meal which was to “delight” His appetite. The Israelites were forbidden to eat blood. This is because the blood of animals was offered as a drink to God along with wine libations. In Ezekiel 44:7 it is explicitly stated that God’s bread [food] was fat and blood. The following verse is from the King James Bible:

“In that ye have brought into my sanctuary strangers, uncircumcised in heart, and uncircumcised in flesh, to be in my sanctuary, to pollute it, even my house, when ye offer MY BREAD, the FAT AND THE BLOOD.”

In Leviticus 1:2 [The Bible for Today] states:

“Sacrifices to please me must be completely burnt on the bronze altar. Bulls or rams or goats are the animals to be used for this sacrifice.”

In a footnote we are told:

Sacrifices to please me:  These sacrifices have traditionally been called “whole burnt offerings” because the whole animal was burnt on the altar. A main purpose of such sacrifices was to please the LORD with the smell”.

It also points out that the word goat in Hebrew actually means male goat. It is important for you to realise that the Hebrew word for “ram” and “he-goat” is one and the same. Thus it is evident from all these texts that burnt offerings were presented to God so that He may partake of a meal and nourish Himself. Its smell was to delight Him.


The true Prophets who protested against the sacrificial cult most definitely did not recognise Leviticus 1-7. They most definitely did not believe that fat and blood were to be presented to God as His food, bread or meal. Neither did they recognise the priests who believed they offered daily bread [food, meal] to God. That priests offered bread to God can be verified from the following texts:

“They [priests] shall be holy unto their God, and not profane the name of their God: for the offerings of the LORD made by fire, and the bread of their God, they do offer: therefore they shall be holy...No man that hath a blemish of the seed of Aaron the priest shall come nigh to offer the offerings of the LORD made by fire: he hath a blemish; he shall not come nigh to offer the bread of his God. He shall eat the bread of his God, both of the most holy and, the holy” [Leviticus 21:6, 21-22 King James Bible].

No priest with any blemish was allowed to present a meal offering to God. He however was allowed to join God in His meal and eat the “bread of his God.” In Isaiah 1:11 God explicitly states that fat of the sacrifice does not please Him. He claims that He does not delight in it. But the deceived Jews believed that the fat and blood was the sweet odour to His nostrils. In Isaiah 43:23 [Greek Septuagint] God says that He did not desire the fat of their sacrifices. God does not depend on food and drink. He is transcendent - self sufficient. Can’t you realise that the self-sufficient and immortal being cannot possibly depend on food for nourishment? If God was dependent on fat and blood of the animals then He would have starved to death when they were not presented to Him. How can God who is immortal depend on mortal food? For whatever is sustained by causes and things external to itself, must be mortal and on the way to decay, when anything on which it lives begins to be wanting. How can God who is far transcendent from us and who lives in unapproachable light, whose face no mortal can see, who has no physical body that can be touched, whose very angels are “flame of fire” - be possibly nourished on things pertaining to the body, that that which is mortal should support that which is immortal? The deceived Jews completely failed to understand God’s character. They refused to worship Him on His terms but rather chose to worship Him in the exact manner the pagans worshipped their gods and goddesses.


You may agree that God did not actually consume the fat, blood, grain, oil and whatever else was offered to Him. You may believe that He only enjoyed the pleasing aroma of the sacrifice. You may think that burnt offerings and incense were presented to Him in order to give Him some pleasure and delight. Whoever wrote the text of Genesis 8:20-22 must have believed that the aroma from the sacrificed victims Noah supposedly sacrificed delighted the nostrils of God so much that He actually regretted the act of destroying the Earth with its life. Can you really think that God who knows the end from the beginning, who is absolutely perfect Being can be actually a subject to temporal pleasure and sensual enjoyment? Can He really be soothed and made gentle by a scent which is soon passing away? For if God can be overcome by pleasure and delight then He also must be subject to its opposite - sorrow, pain and grief. God however should be free from passions and weakness of the mortals if we believe that He is everlasting and immortal. Moreover, every kind of pleasure is in a way a flattery to the mortal body and is related to the well known five senses. But if God above feels the five senses He then also must have a physical body which relates to them. If God can appreciate the sweet fragrance arising in smoke towards heaven, then He should also be annoyed by the stench arising from the Earth. Just what pleasure and delight could God possibly get from burnt offerings?


Does He delight to see an innocent creature slaughtered and bled to death? Does His ear take pleasure in continually hearing their cries and moans? Does He delight in seeing the rivers of blood? Does He delight in seeing stomachs cut open - blood and excrement gushing out? Does He delight to see the heart of a dead animal still bounding with the life left in it and the trembling, palpitating veins in the viscera? Even we humans are moved with sympathy and grief when we witness the slaughter of innocent animals. The children cry and resist their slaughter. Try to spend a day in the modern slaughterhouse where thousands of innocent animals are slaughtered, butchered and cut to pieces. I wonder if the smell of all the bloody mess would really delight your appetite. Since we who are evil do not delight in the butchery of animals but kill them and eat their flesh only because we are slaves to our savage lusts, how then can we even think that God who is the source of love, kindness, tenderness and compassion could possibly delight and take pleasure in burnt offerings or other kinds of sacrifice? Since God Himself insisted that sacrifices, burnt offerings and incense did not please and delight Him, why then continue to believe that He actually instituted these pagan, barbaric rites?


But someone will say that the burnt offerings were presented to God in order to calm His wrath and to appease Him. But why should God change His mind and angry state just because someone kills a bull, lamb, goat or pair of doves? What “magic” is there in their fat, blood or smell to cause Him to forget the wrong and evil one has done against Him? Was this sacrifice to be some kind of a bribe? Does God need “toys” like a little child in order to cool His fits of rage? Those who believed so and actually presented burnt offerings in order to appease God were grossly deceived and totally failed to understand the perfect nature, justice and ethics of God.


In Numbers 28:2 God allegedly said:

“My offerings and the bread of my offerings made by fire for a sweet savour to me they shall observe, to offer to me in their due season.”

In 28:6 it is alleged that this system was commanded by God on Mount Sinai:

“It is a regular burnt-offering which was ordained at Mount Sinai for a sweet aroma, an offering made by fire to the LORD.”

In these two chapters [28 and 29] we find a detailed description of sacrifices and drink offerings which were to be presented on Sabbaths and annual Sabbaths - New Moons, Passover, Unleavened Bread Festival, Pentecost, Feast of Trumpets, Day of Atonement and Feast of Tabernacles. After listing all these additional sacrificial victims God allegedly stated:

“These things you shall do to the LORD at the time of your feasts, besides your vows and your freewill offerings and your burnt offerings and your meal offerings and your drink offerings” [Numbers 29:39].

The lying pen of the scribes has introduced and sanctioned a system that was identical to that of the pagan nations. God however clearly stated that He never spoke to them on Mount Sinai after He led them out of Egypt concerning burnt-offerings and sacrifices and He categorically states that He never caused them to worship Him with burnt-offerings and sacrifices. Prophet Micah was a good and a righteous man. If God really and truly commanded that His “bread” be offered to Him as a “pleasing aroma” then most certainly he would have done so. However, Micah clearly says that He would not offer any burnt-offering to God since that is not what God wants and that is not what He asked His people to do. In Micah 6:6-8 the righteous prophet says:

“With what shall I come before the LORD, and bow myself before the High God? Shall I come before Him with whole-burnt-offerings, with calves a year old? Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams or ten thousand rivers of oil? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? He has shown you, O man, what is good; and what the LORD require of you but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”

Micah asked a good and valid question: how and with what should he appear before God in order that his worship would be pleasing and acceptable to Him? If God really and truly commanded the Israelites to honour Him with whole-burnt-offerings and various sacrificial gifts and to please and delight Him with all the “fat and blood” of calves and rams then Micah would have done so. If Micah came before God with calves and rams and the pleasant aroma of their fat at least then the Christian commentators could not say that the burnt-offerings were presented by a sinful person without respect and a corresponding holy life. But Micah knew better. He just like all holy and righteous prophets knew that the sick and disgusting sacrificial cult was never instituted by God and that is why he says that he would never kill and burn neither humans in sacrifice nor an animal victim. Micah clearly points out that God had plainly shown to humanity what He wants and in what He delights. What God wants us to do is diametrically opposed to the pagan and barbaric sacrificial rituals where innocent creatures of God are cruelly immolated.


But there was another hand that wrote a psalm and obviously the person whose hand wrote this psalm did not agree with Micah. This person delighted in and was very proud to worship God with burnt-offerings and to delight Him with “fat animals” and the “incense of rams.” Please note Psalm 66:13-15:

“I will go into your house with burnt-offerings; I will pay you my vows, which my lips have uttered and my mouth has spoken when I was in trouble. I will offer burnt sacrifices of fat animals, with the sweet aroma of rams; I will offer bulls with goats.”

This person relied on the lying passages of the Jewish Pentateuch and this person believed that the temple in Jerusalem was God’s House where He actually lived in the darkest room called “Holy of Holies.” But Micah did not believe in this and he would not offer any burnt-offerings to God. He knew that those who slaughtered animals and presented “fat animals” did so “unlawfully” and in fact transgressed God’s Law by murdering innocent and beautiful creatures of God. In Proverbs 21:27 we find this statement:

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination; because they bring it in an unjustified way” [The Aramaic Peshitta].


“Tainted is the sinner’s sacrifice; the hand that offers it is stained with guilt” [Knox Version].


“The sacrifices of the ungodly are abomination to the Lord, for they offer them unlawfully” [The Greek Septuagint].

The author clearly understands that those who offer sacrifices are stained with blood and guilt and through that act become sinful and ungodly. God very much hated the violence and the immolation of His creatures and that is why He abhors the burnt-offering. In Isaiah 6:18 God says:

“For I the LORD love justice; I hate robbery for burnt offering” [King James Bible].


“For I the Lord love justice; I hate robbery and wrong with violence or a burnt offering” [The Amplified Bible].


“For I, Jehovah, love judgement, hating plunder in burnt offering” [The Hebrew-English Interlinear Bible, by J.P.Green].

The Hebrew word “gazel” implies “violence, force” and therefore the text literally translated would read:

“For I, Yahweh, love ethics. I hate brutality in burnt-offering.”

In Proverbs 15:18 we are told that to God “sacrifice” is an abomination while the prayer is His delight. We are told that those who offer sacrifices are “wicked” while those who offer their prayers in sacrifice are “just:”

“The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination to Yahweh; but the prayer of the just is His delight.”

In Ecclesiastes 5:1 we read:

“Keep your foot when you go to the house of God; for to draw near to hear and obey is better than to give the sacrifice of fools too ignorant to know that they are doing evil” [The Amplified Bible].


“Be careful about going to the Temple. It is better to go there to learn than to offer sacrifices like foolish people who don’t know right from wrong” [Good News Bible].

A righteous and a wise man knows that he goes to the temple to learn and give God a sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving. Micah was such a wise man and therefore he would not offer any sacrificial victim. The fools however go to the temple to present burnt-offerings – fat and blood – and in doing so they do not realise that they are doing a wicked and an abominable thing. The author of Psalm 66 was one of such fools who was proud to present “fat animals” and the “sweet aroma of rams.” In Isaiah 66:2-3 God categorically states that any Israelite who resorts to the worship of sacrifice with the so-called “clean” animals is no better in His sight than the pagans who resorted to human sacrifice and the sacrifice of animals that the Jews regarded as unclean and abominable. To God a Jew or an Israelite who sacrificed a “bull” was as guilty as a pagan who sacrificed a “human.” Please read very carefully and prayerfully this very powerful passage. I give it to you as it stands in the New International Version:

“This is the one I esteem, he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word. But whoever sacrifices a bull is like one who kills a man, and whoever offers a lamb, like one who breaks a dog’s neck…They have chosen their own ways, and their souls delight in their abominations.”

Please note: God esteems or is pleased with those who are humble and of contrite spirit but He is appalled with those who sacrifice bulls or lambs. To him they are as guilty as those who sacrifice humans and dogs. God clearly shows that the sacrificial cult was of their “own way” and therefore most certainly an abomination to Him. God was most definitely displeased and in fact appalled with the sacrificial cult of the Israelites and all other pagans for that matter. God emphatically states that Israel’s statutes which they have devised are “strange” that is, something “forbidden” and He says that those who sacrifice animals and eat of its flesh He will just not accept. Please note Hosea 8:11-13 as it stands in the Greek Septuagint Bible translated by Sir. Lancelot Brenton:

“Because Ephraim has multiplied altars, his beloved altars are become sins to him. I will write down a multitude of commands for him; but his statutes are accounted strange things, even the beloved altars. For if they should offer a sacrifice, and eat flesh, the Lord will not accept them.”

Please note the text of Isaiah 22:12-14:


In Amos 6:4-7 we find further evidence that God did not approve of those who killed animals in order to eat their flesh nor did He approve of those who drank wine:

“Lying on ivory beds…they dine on lambs from the flock, and stall-fattened veal…they drink wine…that is why they will be the first to be exiled”  [Jerusalem Bible].

God condemns those who sleep on beds of ivory. In order to enjoy this luxury, one must slaughter many elephants. There were many wicked people in the days of Amos. But God especially despised those who killed animals in order to gratify their craving for flesh. God could not stand the “winebibers” and the “gluttonous eaters of flesh.” The author of Proverbs 23:20 was aware of this fact. That is why he gave this advise to those who would read his sayings:

“Be not among the WINEBIBERS, among the GLUTTONOUS EATERS OF FLESH.”

The Tanakh reads:

“Do not be of those who GUZZLE WINE, or GLUT themselves ON MEAT.”

The Greek Septuagint reads:

“Be not a WINE-BIBBER, neither continue long at feasts, AND PURCHASES OF FLESH.”

The ancient Nasaraeans of Gilead and Bashan, the Essenes and the Ebionites regarded any feast where WINE and FLESH was served as REVELRY. For them anyone who ate animal flesh was a glutton. In Ezekiel 34 we find a parable which God spoke. From this parable we can clearly see that God cares for the sheep and is displeased when they are mistreated. Although the sheep represent the Israelites and the shepherds their leaders, the literal application must also be valid. Otherwise, no logical comparison could be made. God says to the shepherds:

“You shepherds of Israel are doomed. You care only for yourselves, but never care for the sheep. You drink the milk, wear clothes made from wool, AND SLAUGHTER AND EAT THE CHOICEST SHEEP - never caring for the sheep…I, Lord Yahweh, declare that I am your ADVERSARY. I will take my sheep away from you and never again will allow you to care only for yourselves. I WILL RESCUE MY SHEEP FROM YOU AND WILL NOT ALLOW YOU TO EAT THEM.”

And please also note Zechariah 11:4-6:

“Thus saith the Lord Almighty, FEED THE SHEEP OF THE SLAUGHTER; which their possessors have slain, AND HAVE NOT REPENTED: and they that sold them said, blessed be the Lord; for we have become rich; and their shepherds have suffered no sorrow for them. Therefore I will no longer have mercy upon the inhabitants of the land”  [The Greek Septuagint Bible.”

The Good News Bible:

“The LORD my God said to me, act the part of the shepherd of a FLOCK OF SHEEP THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUTCHERED. THEIR OWNERS KILL THEM AND GO UNPUNISHED. They sell the meat and say, praise the LORD! We are rich! Even their own shepherds have no pity on them.”

The Jerusalem Bible:

“Pasture the sheep BRED FOR SLAUGHTER, whose buyers KILL THEM AND GO UNPUNISHED, whose sellers say of them, blessed be Yahweh; now I am rich! And their shepherds handle them without kindness.”

God condemns both sellers and buyers who think they could slaughter His innocent creatures and get away with it. God says that because they have no pity on sheep but mercilessly slaughter them, He Himself will no longer pity the cruel inhabitants of the earth but will deliver them all to destruction.


God in the beginning forbade anyone to kill for food. All creatures were created to be strictly herbivorous beings. At the end of time, when God’s eternal Kingdom be established,  all creatures will again be forced to revert to herbivorous diet. No living soul will be permitted to consume another living soul. Therefore you better learn to live on a vegetarian diet while still in the flesh, for to do so later might be too late. Isaiah 11:6-9 gives us a vivid picture of the wonderful vegetarian world of the future:

“The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion will feed together, and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child will put his hand into the viper’s nest. THEY SHALL NEITHER HARM NOR KILL ON ALL MY HOLY MOUNTAIN, for the earth will be FULL OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF YAHWEH.”

The only reason why Christians kill animals and eat their flesh is because they do not know God neither His care for ethics on which basis He declared Abel righteous and morally right because of his bloodless sacrifice. But there is another way in which we can irrefutably prove that it was Cain who offered a lamb in sacrifice and not Abel. This is not written in any book which can be corrupted and falsified but is rather a universal law which God Himself established and which no being in the universe could forge or fabricate. This Law is the living Law set in motion in every living creature. It is as real and as powerful as the laws which govern every facet of this universe. This Law the Essenes called The Law of Preservation.

God created all living things to live a life to its fullest. From the very beginning God forbade that any living creature should kill another living creature. For that reason He implemented a fruitarian/herbivorous diet. No living soul was allowed to eat the flesh of another living soul or to bring any harm to another living creature. God made sure that every living creature would have this Cosmic Law of Preservation written in its own soul and mind. Every living being is aware of this Law but very few choose to live in accordance with it. God made every living creature capable of feeling both pain and pleasure. An object feels neither - because it is a thing and not a living organism. These two attributes are absolutely essential for survival and the preservation of life. Imagine if you could not feel pain. You would not be able to survive. If caught on fire unaware you would burn to death because there would be no feeling of pain to warn you that your life is in danger. The feeling of pain is there to tell us that something is wrong in our system. It could be physical sickness and disease or danger or mental and psychological problem. Sometimes we resort to extreme pain in order to preserve our life. In urgent cases and in difficult circumstances people have their limbs amputated and other very painful surgeries performed even without anesthetic - in order to save their lives. Pain is absolutely necessary for the preservation of life. All living creatures - from the smallest and least important to the largest and most important - feel pain. But at the same time all these living creatures also feel pleasure. Pleasure is also absolutely essential for survival. Nothing gives you more pleasure than food when you are absolutely starving. The same is true of water when you are dying of thirst. Now both food and drink are absolutely required for your survival and the preservation of life. In order to insure you would eat and drink, and so preserve your life - God gave you an urge to eat when you feel hungry and drink when you feel thirty. At the same time he gave you taste buds to appreciate the pleasure of the same. Because offspring is absolutely essential for survival, God made sex pleasurable to insure the procreation of the living species. There is also great pleasure in sleep when you are tired and in everything else that is essential for your survival and perfect existence.

You must realize that animals - just like you and I - are also capable of feeling both pain and pleasure. Just observe them how they react when they are hurt and how when they are full of joy. So then what does the Cosmic Law of life preservation has to tell us? Simply this: God intended and it is His will that every creature which has the breath of life live a life that is full of joy and pleasure. God does not want that any of His creatures that He created would be mistreated and subjected to pain. God is horrified when He beholds the slaughter of billions of animals. In America alone, so many animals are slaughtered annually for food alone, that the column of their dead bodies would stretch from earth to the moon, back to earth and then to the moon again. Imagine how God must feel about this. He who created all life and all living beings to live and enjoy the beauty of nature never intended for man to breed animals for his own selfish needs and lusts. God created all manner of foods that we can eat. There is no need to harm and cause pain to animals by slaughtering them mercilessly. Even on new earth God says that just as in the beginning, all living creatures will live in peace and harmony with each other and that wolf and the lamb shall dwell together. This will come about because then everyone will know God and no one will resort to harm and destroy on all His holy mountain [Isaiah 11:9]. We have seen that the Essene literature presented Jesus as vegetarian who condemned the Jewish ritual of sacrifice and the eating of animal flesh. Jesus was fully aware of this Cosmic Law and he actually summarized it in one single sentence. Jesus urged all people to observe this eternal and perfect Law by saying:

“Do for others what you want them to do for you: this is the meaning of the Law of Moses and of the teachings of the prophets”  [Matthew 7:12].

Jesus did not teach anything new. He taught the same thing that the true Law of Moses had taught and what the true Prophets had taught all along. Jesus was merely restoring the true teaching long lost and rejected by the hierarchy of the Jews and all other nations. Jesus urged people everywhere to restore the Edenic utopia on earth. He taught his followers to pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is done in heaven. God does not allow the angels to run slaughterhouses and eat flesh. He does not allow the slaughter in war. His will is implemented in heaven and therefore everything is in harmony. It is truly a paradise there. But Jesus said that we should pray that God’s will be implemented on earth too. How can you pray for God to implement His will on earth if your table is full of flesh from the slaughtered animals? How can you pray for His will to rule on earth if you hunt, fish, and kill in war? Remember that Jesus did not promise you veal and stake in paradise but rather “manna” and the “fruits of the Tree of Life.” So you better learn to live on herbs, vegetables and fruits now because it could be too late to learn it in paradise. On the basis of all this evidence it is therefore reasonable to conclude that it was Cain who slashed the throat of an innocent lamb and who shed its blood and not Abel and that for this very reason God rejected it since it was a synonym for murder and butchery. God accepted Abel’s sacrifice because it was a synonym for justice, righteousness and ethics.

Those who cannot realize this truth must have a blind soul.

Our Readers' Comments:

Go on to comments: By John Sandford - 22 Mar 2009
Return to: Did Abel or Cain Offer a Lamb in Sacrifice to God?
Return to: Discussion Table of Contents