Did Cain “Slaughter” His Brother?

Why does John say in 1 John 3:12 that Cain “murdered” his brother?¹ To be sure, Cain did unjustly kill Abel. Yet John does not say that Cain ἀπέκτεινεν (“killed”) his brother, as the Greek translation of Genesis 4 reports, nor does he use ἐφονεύσεν (“murdered”), the action prohibited in the Decalogue (Exod 20:13). Instead, John writes that Cain ἔσφαξενhis brother. The choice is striking: σφάζω is the technical term used throughout the Greek translation of the Pentateuch for sacrificing animals, and particularly in Leviticus 16 with reference to the slaughter of the goat whose blood is brought into the tent of meeting.² It is certainly possible to conclude with Brown that John is rhetorically emphasizing “the brutality of one brother’s action toward the other.”³ However, concluding this is the only reason for John’s word choice overlooks the overwhelmingly cultic use of the term in the Pentateuch and John’s emphasis on atonement.⁴ John’s lexical decision reflects the fact that Genesis 4 stands not only as the first human act of violence, but also as the genesis of a typological trajectory that takes on cultic logic in the two-goat rite of the Day of Atonement.⁵

This study will proceed as follows. First, the Cain and Abel narrative will be examined within its immediate literary context. Second, the connections between Genesis 4 and the relevant brother-conflict narratives of Genesis—Abel and Cain, Isaac and Ishmael, and Joseph and his brothers—will be traced, demonstrating that each of these stories participates in a shared sacrificial logic. Third, the study will show how this narrative-sacrificial pattern converges in the Day of Atonement ritual of Leviticus 16. Finally, these conclusions will be brought to bear on John’s use of the Cain and Abel narrative in 1 John, clarifying why σφάζω is not a rhetorical flourish but a theologically freighted choice.

The Slaughter of Abel

In this section, it will be argued that the Cain and Abel narrative is best read in sacrificial terms, with one brother functioning as the sacrificed figure and the other as the one who is sent away.⁶ Genesis 4 opens by carefully paralleling Cain and Abel (see Figure 1). Cain is the firstborn. Like his father, he is a man from the Lord to work the ground.⁷ Here, it seems, is the promised seed of the woman (cf. Gen 3:15).⁸ Abel is introduced as Cain’s brother and a shepherd. Both brothers bring gifts (מִנְחָה) to God according to their respective vocations—first Cain, the firstborn, then Abel. Contrary to narrative expectations, Abel’s offering is accepted while Cain’s is rejected. This reversal initiates Cain’s fall narrative in Genesis 4:5b–16, a section that is deliberately structured to mirror the chiastic pattern of Genesis 3 (see Figure 2).⁹

Figure 1

Genesis 4:1-5a

Figure 2¹⁰

Genesis 4:5b-16

As the narrative unfolds, Abel recedes from view, leaving God alone with Cain to address Cain’s anger. Genesis 4:7 is notoriously difficult to translate, a difficulty that underscores Morales’s observation that “all translation is interpretation, and the key to interpretation is context.”¹¹ Morales proposes the following rendering: “If you do well, will not [your countenance] be lifted? But if you do not do well, at the door a sin offering is lying down. Now to you will be his desire, but you must rule over him.”¹² It should be noted that the standard translation of חַטָּאָה as “sin” rather than “sin offering” is intelligible within the narrative. Nevertheless, the question is whether the immediate literary context and broader Pentateuchal context permit—and perhaps invite—a cultic construal. Several considerations indicate that to be the case. First, the garden of Eden is understood to be the first sanctuary, pointing forward to the tabernacle and temple.¹³ Given the structural interconnectedness between Genesis 2-3 and Genesis 4, it is likely that Genesis 4 should also be understood as pointing toward the tabernacle (See Figure 3).¹⁴ Furthermore, “[with] Leviticus at its heart and Sinai’s shadow cast from Exod 19 through Num 10, the Pentateuch’s cultic context must be appreciated throughout the extent of its pages.”¹⁵ Second, context determines whether the terms commonly translated “sin” (חַטָּאָה) and “crouching” (רָבַץ) should instead be translated “sin-offering” and “lying down,” respectively. Third, translating hattat (חַטָּאָה) as “sin-offering” and rabats (רָבַץ) as “lying down” makes sense of the Hebrew.¹⁶ Morales, noting the difficulty of squaring the masculine participle “lying down” with the feminine noun hattat, points to Leviticus 4:21-24 as an example of the feminine hattat being used with reference to a male sin offering, thus validating the use of masculine pronouns.¹⁷ Finally, the vocabulary used in Genesis 4:1-7 anticipates later Levitical practice. Azevedo identifies several lexical correspondences, the clearest being the phrase “at the door” in Genesis, which consistently refers in the Pentateuch to the sanctuary entrance where offerings are presented and atonement is sought.¹⁸ Given the above, it is likely that Genesis 4 should be read in light of the tabernacle, with Cain and Abel depicted as presenting their offerings “at the door of Paradise.”¹⁹

Figure 3

Genesis 2:4–4:26

Further, Cain’s rejection can be read in light of Leviticus 4:22, “When a leader sins, doing unintentionally any one of all the things that by the commandment of the LORD his God ought not to be done, and realizes his guilt, or the sin which he committed is made known to him, he shall bring as his offering a goat, a male without blemish, and shall lay his hand on the head of the goat and kill [שָׁחַט] it in the place where they kill the burnt offering before the LORD [i.e., the entrance to the tent of meeting (אֶל־פֶּ֝תַח אֹ֤הֶל מוֹעֵד֙) Lev 1:3]; it is a sin offering [חַטָּ֖את הֽוּא].” Such a reading seems to account for the apparent ambiguity in the text as to the reason for Cain’s rejection—Cain’s sin in his offering is unintentional. It also explains the reason why God has a conversation with Cain at all. The sin which Cain committed is being made known to him, and he is being told what to do about it.²⁰

The second half of verse 7 introduces a theme that will dominate fraternal relationships throughout Genesis: the question of rule. If חַטָּאָה is correctly rendered “sin offering,” then the pronouns “his desire” and “you must rule over him” most naturally refer to Abel, the only other male character to this point outside of Adam.²¹ This reading coheres with the narrative’s consistent juxtaposition of the two brothers. 

It also raises an immediate theological question: how does this dynamic relate to Genesis 3:16? Just as the sin of Adam and the woman introduced enduring strife into the marital relationship, so Cain’s sin inaugurates a future-oriented disruption of the brotherly relationship.²² Though atonement can be made for Cain’s sin, there are consequences for his actions—one way or another, his relationship with his brother will not be the same. From this point forward in Genesis, conflict between brothers becomes a recurring and defining pattern.²³

At the heart of this conflict lies the right of the firstborn. Morales writes: 

Because rebellion may result in the loss of the right of the firstborn (see 1 Chr 5.1), YHWH is here (Gen 4.7) instructing Cain on how, by repentance expressed through sacrificial worship, he may reclaim the blessing. Instead, Cain murders his rival. As the narrative unfolds, however, YHWH provides Seth as a replacement for Abel who had indeed inherited the rights of the firstborn, forfeited by Cain (Gen 4.24-25; 5.3).²⁴

Had Cain acted rightly, he would have ruled (מָשַׁל) over his brother as Adam’s firstborn son.²⁵ Instead, he sins with a high hand, killing his brother. Cain’s actions are ironic and sad. Cain can reconcile with the Lord through a hattat, but until the last word of Genesis 4:8, the reader is unsure what is going to happen. Perhaps Cain will offer a sacrifice and restore fellowship. Instead, as though Abel were the hattat, Cain slays his brother. Thus, rather than being reconciled, Cain is cursed and exiled from the presence of God, losing the rights of the firstborn to Seth, who replaces Abel.²⁶ His fate resonates with Numbers 15:30–31, where the one who sins defiantly despises the word of the Lord and is “cut off,” bearing his iniquity. Like Adam, Cain is driven out. Unlike Adam, he is expelled not merely from the garden, but explicitly “from the presence of the Lord,” condemned to bearing his iniquities (גָּד֥וֹל עֲוֺנִ֖י מִנְּשֹֽׂא; Gen 4:13) in the land of wandering east of Eden (קִדְמַת־עֵֽדֶן). 

There is one final observation concerning Abel. Sculthorpe has argued persuasively that the language of “seed” (זֶרַע) in Genesis 3:15 is intentionally chosen to describe the means by which Eve’s offspring will accomplish salvation. He writes, “Moses uses ‘seed’ (זֶרַע) as a metaphor for the promised Savior (Gen 3:15) because the promised Savior will do what seeds do—go into the ground, which is akin to death, and then reappear out of the ground alive, which is akin to resurrection, and he will do so on “the third day.”²⁷ Cain is driven away to exile, but Abel, like a seed, is placed into the ground by the hands of his brother. Yet, death does not silence Abel. Instead, as though going into the ground has brought him into God’s presence, he cries out to God (Gen 4:10).²⁸

At this juncture, the promise of Genesis 3:15 appears imperiled. Cain is evidently the seed of the serpent, and Abel, the seed of the woman, is dead.²⁹ Yet, just as God promised to “put (שִׁית) enmity” between the “seed” (זֶרַע) of the woman and the “seed” (זֶרַע) of the serpent (Gen 3:15), so he “appointed” (שִׁית) for Eve another “seed” (זֶרַע) in the place of Abel (4:25). From a narrative perspective, Seth is “Abel redivivus.”³⁰

Excursus: The Mark of Cain

Since Cain’s exile features prominently in this paper, it is worth addressing the mark of Cain. Many interpreters understand Cain’s mark (אוֹת) to be a merciful promise of protection.³¹  Such a conclusion, however, conflicts with the broader legal and theological framework of the Pentateuch: high-handed sin incurs exclusion and judgment rather than mercy. Numbers 15:30–36 is a paradigmatic text, wherein the command to cut off high-handed sinners is followed immediately by the execution of a man who breaks the Sabbath with a high hand. Read against this backdrop, it is difficult to conclude that Moses presents Cain, the first murderer, as preserved in a positive sense.³² Some scholars, disturbed by the idea of Cain receiving mercy, propose that God’s mark of protection preserved Cain as a warning against similar offenses.³³ However, this also seems to cut against the grain of the Pentateuch.³⁴ In Exodus 21:14, for example, God commands, “Whoever strikes a man so that he dies shall be put to death (מ֥וֹת יוּמָֽת). But if he did not lie in wait for him, but God let him fall into his hand, then I will appoint for you a place to which he may flee. But if a man willfully attacks another to kill (הָרַג) him by cunning, you shall take him from my altar (מִזְבֵּחַ) [which is “at the entrance (פֶּתַח) of the tent of meeting” (cf. Lev 1:5)], that he may die.” Similarly, in Deuteronomy 19:11–13, protection is explicitly denied to murderers. God commands that if a murderer seeks shelter in a city of refuge, he should be pursued, removed from the city of refuge, and put to death. 

Perhaps a more canonically consistent conclusion is that the mark serves to distinguish Cain from Abel.³⁵ Cain—the presumed seed of the woman (4:1)—is marked as distinct from Abel, the actual seed of the woman (4:25), thereby indicating that he is not the promised seed.³⁶ The promise of vengeance likely functions in a twofold manner. First, it heightens the distinction rather than mitigating Cain’s punishment. Cain does not want to be like Abel, and God ensures he will not be. Those who find him will not hate and “kill” (הָרַג) him as he “killed” (הָרַג) his brother.³⁷ The structure of Genesis 4:5b–16, which mirrors the chiastic structure of Genesis 3 (see Figure 3), reinforces this reading. Davidson has shown that the term “garments” (כְּתֹנֶת), especially when paired with the verb “to clothe” (לָבַשׁ), is elsewhere in the Pentateuch restricted to priestly contexts. Thus, when God clothes Adam and Eve, the act gestures toward restored access to God by grace.³⁸ Cain’s mark, by contrast, gestures toward the opposite reality, one in line with his reception of God’s curse.³⁹ Rather than indicating mercy, Cain’s mark likely functions as a visible representation of what Numbers 15:31 states explicitly: “his iniquity shall be on him.” Cain bears his guilt publicly as one who stands outside the sphere of blessing and promise. He is sent away from the divine presence, bearing his sins in the realm of judgment, marked as one who despises the word of the Lord and the Lord’s people.⁴⁰ Second, if the multiplication and wickedness in Gen 4:17-24 parallels that of Genesis 6:1-8, then the structure of Genesis 1:1-11:9 perhaps indicates that the promise of vengeance serves to delay judgment until, like the Amorites in Genesis 15:16, his iniquity and that of his descendants is complete.⁴¹

The Sacrifice of the Beloved Son

In the LXX, σφάζω, the term used in 1 John 3:12, is regularly used to translate the Hebrew term שָׁחַט, which occurs forty-seven times in the Pentateuch—forty-three of those instances with explicit reference to the sacrificial system. The only two occurrences in Genesis are found in Genesis 22:10 and 37:31, with reference to Isaac and Joseph.⁴²

Isaac and Ishmael

Within the overarching structure of Genesis, Genesis 21–22 stands in deliberate correspondence with Genesis 12:1–7.⁴³ In Genesis 12:7, God promises Abraham, “To your offspring (זֶרַע) I will give this land.” Yet between the initial promise of offspring and the birth of Isaac, Abraham fathers another son through Hagar—Ishmael. When Isaac, the child of promise, is finally born, Ishmael persecutes him.⁴⁴ In response, Sarah demands that Hagar and Ishmael be “cast out” (גָּרַשׁ). The Lord affirms her demand, instructing Abraham, “Whatever Sarah says to you, do as she tells you, for through Isaac shall your offspring (זֶרַע) be named” (Gen 21:12).

Ishmael is “cast out” (גָּרַשׁ) just as “YHWH ‘drove out’ (וַיְגָ֖רֶשׁ) the first humans from Eden after their sin (Gen 3:24), disinheriting them from both the garden and the tree of life, and then he ‘banished’ (גֵּרַ֨שְׁתָּ) Cain, the seed of the serpent, further eastward to a life of homeless wandering after he murdered his brother (Gen 4:14).”⁴⁵ So, Abraham “sent away” (שָׁלַח) Ishmael, his firstborn son, and Hagar, the boy’s mother, to live in the “wilderness” (מִדְבָּר).⁴⁶

By contrast, Abraham is commanded to offer Isaac, the promised seed, as a burnt offering (וְהַעֲלֵ֤הוּ לְעֹלָ֔ה) on the mountain of God.⁴⁷ As father and son ascend the mountain together, Isaac asks, “Where is the lamb for a burnt offering?” (Gen 22:7). Abraham replies, “God will provide for himself the lamb (שֶׂה) for the burnt offering, my son” (Gen 22:8). Upon reaching the appointed place, Abraham builds an altar, binds Isaac, and lays him upon it.⁴⁸ He then “reached out his hand” (וַיִּשְׁלַ֤ח … אֶת־יָד֔וֹ), “took” (לָקַח) the knife, and prepared to “slaughter” (שָׁחַט) his son (Gen 22:10). At that decisive moment, the Lord intervenes, staying Abraham’s hand, providing a ram (אַיִל) as a substitute, and reaffirming his covenant promises. 

Thus, the fraternal “promise-shaped pattern” is established.⁴⁹ Like Cain, the seed of the serpent, Ishmael is driven out. Like Abel, Isaac, the promised seed of Abraham, is presented as a sacrificial offering and, through divine intervention, is figuratively resurrected (Heb 11:19).⁵⁰

Joseph and His Brothers

The conflict and hope that characterize fraternal relationships throughout Genesis reach their climactic resolution in the story of Joseph and his brothers.⁵¹ Sigmon observes, “By paralleling the relationship of Cain and Abel directly at the outset, the Joseph narrative prepares the reader for its reversal by the end of the story.”⁵² There are several lexical points of contact between the two stories, such as the repeated use of brother (אָח) and blood (דָּם).⁵³  Thematically, Joseph is the favored younger son who is treated as the firstborn.⁵⁴ As with Cain toward Abel, Joseph’s brothers hate him and plot to kill him. Just as Cain is in a field (שָׂדֶה) with Abel before murdering him, so Joseph is in a field (שָׂדֶה) before his brothers decide to murder him.⁵⁵

Given these parallels and the narrative pattern already established, the reader is conditioned to expect that Joseph will experience death and resurrection, while his brothers will bear the consequence of exile. Strikingly, Joseph does both. 

Levenson notes the threefold movement of Joseph’s figurative death.⁵⁶ First, he is thrown into a waterless pit (בּוֹר) (37:24), a term frequently associated elsewhere in Scripture with the grave (e.g., Ps 30:2–4, 9–10). Then, Joseph goes down (יָרַד) to Egypt as a slave (39:1), echoing Jacob’s declaration that he will go down (יָרַד) to Sheol to his son (37:35). Finally, Joseph is put into prison (39:20), later identified as a pit (בּוֹר) (41:14). Together, these movements portray Joseph as one who has descended into death. 

The initial stage of this descent is especially significant in light of Genesis 22. Similar to how a ram (אַיִל) dies in the place of Isaac, who was about to be slaughtered (שָׁחַט) by his father, so a goat (שְׂעִ֣יר עִזִּ֔ים) is slaughtered (שָׁחַט) by Joseph’s brothers in his place (37:31).⁵⁷ The brothers dip (טָבַל) Joseph’s coat (כְּתֹנֶת) into the goat’s blood and present it to their father, who accepts the substitute. Jacob cries out, “A fierce animal has devoured him. Joseph is without a doubt torn to pieces” (Gen 37:33). Like Abel, Joseph is “killed” by his brothers. Throughout the ensuing narrative, Joseph’s family consistently speaks of him as though he is dead (cf. Gen 42:21–22, 38). Consequently, when Joseph reveals himself to his brothers, it is as though he has been raised from the dead. Fittingly, the first thing they declare to their father when they return is not, “Joseph is ruler over all the land of Egypt,” but “Joseph is alive!” (Gen 45:26).⁵⁸

Yet Joseph’s story not only involves death and restoration; it also includes exile. Although the term “drive out” (גָּרַשׁ) is not used as in the narrative of Adam, Cain, and Ishmael, the term “sent away” (שָׁלַח) is used. While שָׁלַח is a common term, its close connection with גָּרַשׁ regarding Adam’s expulsion from the garden (Gen 3:23-24) and the reoccurrence of the terms together when Ishmael is exiled establishes a pattern wherein the reader is not surprised by Moses’s use of שָׁלַח in the context of exile away from the promised land/people. Thus, Adam and Ishmael are “driven out” (גָּרַשׁ) and “sent away” (שָׁלַח), while Cain is driven out (גָּרַשׁ), and Joseph is “sent away” (שָׁלַח).⁵⁹

As God “sent out” (שָׁלַח) the man from the garden of Eden, and Abraham “sent away” (שָׁלַח) Ishmael from the promised land, so God “sent” (שָׁלַח) Joseph to Egypt (Gen 45:5, 7, 8). Yet, unlike Adam, Cain, and Ishmael, Joseph is sent away for sins he did not commit.⁶⁰ Furthering this contrast is that, unlike Cain, who is driven out “from the presence of the Lord” (מִלִּפְנֵ֣י יְהוָ֑ה) (Gen 4:16), God is repeatedly said to be with Joseph (Gen 39:2, 21). Joseph thus embodies both sides of the fraternal pattern: he is the one who dies and lives again and the one who is exiled.

The pattern that first appears in Genesis 4—the death and restoration of one brother and the exile of the other—is established in Isaac and Ishmael and reaches its narrative climax in Joseph. Yet even here the pattern points beyond Genesis itself to the central day of Israel’s liturgical calendar and the structural center of the Pentateuch: the Day of Atonement, on which two goats, sent in opposite directions, constitute a single atoning sacrifice.⁶¹

The Atoning Dyad⁶²

“Without question, the Day of Atonement was at the heart of Israel’s calendar and life,” as well as “the structural and thematic center of the Pentateuch, the literary summit to which and from which the narrative drama ascends and descends.”⁶³ Significantly, Leviticus 16:1 indicates that the Day of Atonement takes place immediately after—and in response to—the events of Leviticus 8-10.⁶⁴ By the conclusion of Leviticus 9, the crisis introduced at the end of Exodus appears resolved. Whereas Moses had been unable to enter the “tent of meeting” (אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד) because the glory of the Lord had settled on it (Exod 40:34–35), the proper consecration of Aaron and his sons and the offering of prescribed sacrifices enable Moses and Aaron to enter the tent and emerge to bless the people. The glory of the Lord again appears before all Israel. God dwells in the midst of his people.⁶⁵

Tragically, as in Genesis 3, death intrudes into God’s presence. Nadab and Abihu take (לָקַח) their censers and draw near (קָרַב) to the Lord in a manner he had not commanded, resulting in their immediate death.⁶⁶ In the aftermath, two questions arise: what to do about death in God’s presence, and how can mankind draw near to God?⁶⁷ The answer is the Day of Atonement. 

At the heart of Leviticus 16 lies the stated purpose of the ritual: “to make atonement” (Lev 16:16–20).⁶⁸ This purpose is framed and enacted through the ritual of the two goats brought to the entrance (פֶּתַח) of the tent of meeting. Together, these two goats accomplish a single act of atonement.⁶⁹ One is slaughtered, its blood carried into the inner sanctuary, effecting purification and symbolic restoration to life. The other is sent away alive to Azazel, bearing the sins of the people away from the presence of the Lord.⁷⁰ A full exposition of Leviticus 16 and its ritual complexities is beyond the scope of this study. Instead, the purpose of this section is more focused: to demonstrate that the two-goat rite of the Day of Atonement gives cultic expression to the pattern already traced in Genesis. 

The Two Goats

One goat is chosen by lot for the Lord to function as a “sin offering” (חַטָּאָה) on behalf of the people of Israel (Lev 16:5, 15). After first making atonement for himself and his household, the high priest “slaughters” (שָׁחַט) this goat, carries its blood inside the veil, and sprinkles it on and before the mercy seat (הַכַּפֹּֽרֶת).⁷¹ By this act, atonement is made for the Holy Place itself (Lev 16:16, 20).⁷² The movement of the high priest bearing the blood is theologically significant. As Parry observes, “On the Day of Atonement, Adam’s eastward expulsion from the Garden is reversed when the high priest travels west past the consuming fire of the sacrifice and…through the veil woven with images of cherubim…to the original point of creation, where he pours out the atoning blood of the sacrifice, reestablishing covenant relationship with God.”⁷³ Given the well-established parallels between the tabernacle and the Garden of Eden, and the close association between death and expulsion from Eden, the priest’s ascent into the inner sanctuary functions symbolically as a reversal of exile—a movement from death toward restored life in God’s presence.⁷⁴

A second goat is likewise chosen by lot, this time for Azazel, but still designated a “sin offering” (חַטָּאָה) for the people of Israel (Lev 16:5).⁷⁵ The high priest lays both hands on the head of the goat and confesses over it “all the iniquities (עָוֺן) of the people, and all their transgressions (פֶּשַׁע), all their sins (חַטָּאָה)” (Lev 16:21). The goat then “bears” (נָשָׂא) on itself all Israel’s “iniquities” (עָוֺן) to a remote area, “sent away” (שָׁלַח) to the “wilderness” (מִדְבָּר) (Lev 16:22).⁷⁶

As Morales succinctly concludes, “the two goats…proceed in opposite directions, one journeying into the garden of Eden via its lifeblood and the other away from YHWH, to the wilderness loaded with Israel’s sins.”⁷⁷ One blameless goat, like the seed of the woman, is slain and figuratively resurrected; like Abel in particular, its blood is poured on the ground before the Lord (cf. Gen 4:10).⁷⁸ The second goat, like the seed of the serpent, is sent away from the presence of the Lord into the wilderness, and like Cain in particular, “bears iniquities” (נָשָׂא עָוֺן) upon it (cf. Gen 4:13).⁷⁹ Yet unlike the seed of the serpent, this goat is itself “without blemish” (תָּמִים), underscoring that it bears sin not its own but that of the people. 

As has been demonstrated, the Cain and Abel narrative stands at the fountainhead of a typological pattern that culminates in the Day of Atonement. It remains to be shown, however, whether John draws upon that pattern in 1 John and, if so, why.

Did Cain “Slaughter” His Brother?

In Atonement and Ethics in 1 John, Armitage writes, “the LXX does in fact use σϕάξω… in the story of the sacrifice of Isaac in Genesis 22, and in the directions for the celebration of Yom Kippur in Leviticus 16-17. [However, to] relate, as 1 John 3:12 does, that Cain ἔσφαξεν τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, slaughtered his brother, is a great step up from the simple LXX statement, ὐπέκτεινειν, and certainly from the original Hebrew,(וַיַּהַרְגֵֽהוּ).”⁸⁰  More likely, Armitage concludes, John’s use of σφάζω does not arise from the Genesis narrative itself. Instead, John relies on later interpretive traditions in which Cain is transformed from a man who killed his brother to a paradigmatic embodiment of wickedness.⁸¹ As such, 1 John 3:12 “goes far beyond the Hebrew Bible in portraying Cain’s offering and character as flawed, the NT perspective being coloured by the LXX reading.”⁸²

Armitage rightly cautions against assuming that sacrificial terminology always signals cultic intent. Yet, as has been demonstrated, John’s use of σφάζω with reference to the sacrificial system cannot be dismissed so readily.⁸³ Further, given the nature of Scripture and divine inspiration, it is more likely that John has rightly grasped the theological logic already embedded in Moses’s presentation than that non-biblical traditions have driven him to conclusions “far beyond” the intent of the Torah. If the Cain and Abel narrative was designed to inaugurate a typological trajectory that takes on cultic significance in the Day of Atonement, then John’s use of sacrificial language in 1 John 3:12 is best understood as a faithful canonical extension of that same trajectory within his epistle. Proving this, rather than explaining every detail of 1 John, is the aim of this section. 

Cain and Yom Kippur in 1 John

First John is pastoral, both in assuring his readers and criticizing his opponents.⁸⁴ Those to whom John writes have eternal life (1 John 5:13)—they are experiencing “intimate, loving, in-one-another participation…with God.”⁸⁵ John states plainly how they have such life with God: “God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation (ἱλασμός) for our sins” (1 John 4:9-10). The term “propitiation” (ἱλασμός) is used five times in the LXX, most notably in Leviticus 25:9 referring to the Day of Atonement (ἡ ἡμέρα τοῦ ἱλασμοῦ).⁸⁶ It occurs twice in the New Testament: 1 John 2:2 and 4:10. Given the context of 1 John 2:2, Brown is likely correct when he writes, “the just (dikaios) Jesus, a Paraclete in the Father’s presence, is ‘himself an atonement for our sins,’ a reference to the OT ritual of the Day of Atonement.”⁸⁷ Within the sacrificial schema described in previous sections, Christ, the atoning Lamb, has brought John’s audience into the presence of God. In contrast, John says that his opponents are “antichrists” who “went out, that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (1 John 2:18-19). John, concerned about helping his readers distinguish between these two groups, contrasts them in 2:18-4:6. The structure of this section is displayed in Figure 4.⁸⁸

Figure 4

1 John 2:18–4:6

In the first section (A: 2:18-27), John contrasts those who did not remain (μένω) and so made it evident (φανερόω) that they were antichrists (2:18-19) with those who remain (μένω) in Christ and so have confidence when Christ appears (φανερόω) (2:28).⁸⁹ The distinguishing factor is whether they let the gospel abide (μένω) in them (2:24), i.e., whether they confess Christ and so have eternal life. The parallel section (A’: 4:1-6) likewise delineates based on whether one listens to the apostles and confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. 

In the second section (B: 2:29-3:10), John indicates who has been born of God by distinguishing those who practice righteousness (πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν δικαιοσύνην; 2:29) and do not sin (πᾶς ὁ γεγεννημένος ἐκ τοῦ Θεοῦ ἁμαρτίαν οὐ ποιεῖ; 3:9) and from those who sin (πᾶς ὁ ποιῶν τὴν ἁμαρτίαν; 3:8; cf. John 8:34) and do not practice righteousness (πᾶς ὁ μὴ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην; 3:10). The former have been born of God; the latter are children of the devil.⁹⁰ In the parallel section (B’: 3:19-24), John indicates how his readers can know (ἐν τούτῳ γνωσόμεθα; 3:19, 24) that they are from the truth and that God abides in them by whether they have the Spirit and keep God’s commands, specifically to believe in Jesus Christ and love one another (3:23). 

In the central section (C: 3:11–18), John invokes the only explicit Old Testament reference in the epistle—the account of Cain and his brother. Framed by the contrasts that surround this section, Cain functions paradigmatically as the embodiment of the antichrists: those who despise God’s word, reject the means of atonement God has provided, and so live outside the presence of God. When John writes that Cain “slaughtered” (ἔσφαξεν) his brother, he is highlighting the danger of the antichrists who claim to know God while denying the incarnation and refusing repentance. They are like Cain, who inverted the way back to God by transforming what should have been an act oriented toward life and restoration into an act that produced death and exile. Plainly stated, proclaiming a gospel that denies the incarnation and the need for repentance is like offering one’s brother as a sin-offering. The gospel, like sin offerings, is meant to reconcile people to God. Denying the incarnation, like killing one’s brother, places one under God’s judgment. 

Furthermore, by pointing to Cain’s action, John also points to the danger of the antichrists’ direction. Cain and Ishmael were sent away because they did not love their brothers, showing that they were not the seed of the woman.⁹¹ Joseph likewise experiences exile because his brothers hated him. Now, the antichrists “went out from us that it might become plain that they all are not of us” (2:19). In essence, they are heading in the wrong direction, one that only leads to judgment.  In contrast stands Christ, the better Abel, who actually experienced resurrection from the dead, displaying the love of God when he “laid down his life for us” (3:16) as “the propitiation for our sins” (4:10), so that his brothers might be forgiven of their sins and cleansed of all unrighteousness (1:9), and thus pass from death to life (3:14) to have “fellowship with the Father and with his Son Jesus Christ” (1:3). John exhorts his readers to walk in the way of Christ, not Cain. Yet in directing attention to Cain, John also points beyond him to the only means by which atonement is secured.

Within the biblical narrative, Cain’s slaughter of his brother inaugurates two typological trajectories: movement toward God through death and resurrection, and movement away from God through exile that culminates in judgment. By drawing attention to Cain’s act, John simultaneously gestures toward its canonical resolution in Christ. Christ fulfills the Day of Atonement, in which these two movements are brought together in a single atoning act.⁹² Like the goat for Azazel, Christ bears the curse on behalf of others, becoming “a curse for us” (Gal 3:13), bearing our sins in his body “outside the camp” (1 Pet 2:24; Heb 13:12). Like the goat for the Lord, Christ sanctifies the people through his own blood, granting believers “confidence to enter the holy places” and enabling them to “draw near” to God (Heb 10:19-22). He is the one to whom the Cain and Abel narrative ultimately points: the single, blameless offering by whom atonement is accomplished and eternal life is secured. Christians must reject all idolatrous impostors and cling to him (1 John 5:21).

Conclusion

If the standard conclusion is correct that John uses the term σφάζω to refer to the brutality of Cain’s action, then “the term does double duty.”⁹³ John is drawing from typological waters that flow from Genesis 4 to the Day of Atonement. By placing Cain at the center of his letter, John sharpens the contrast between the two opposing ways. On the one hand are those who have passed from death to life, who abide in God, hold fast to his word, and, therefore, love the family of God. On the other hand, there are those who remain in death, go out from the community, despise God’s word, hate the brothers, and so align themselves with the way of Cain. Simultaneously, John magnifies Christ, “the Lamb who was slain” (τὸ Ἀρνίον τὸ ἐσφαγμένον; Rev 5:12), who bore outside the camp the sins of those who abided in death so that they might pass “from death to life” (1 John 3:14). In so doing, John encourages his readers to reject false teaching and love other Christians, especially the members of their local church. 

---

Footnotes

1. Unless otherwise noted, English translations are taken from the English Standard Version (ESV). ↩︎
2. As is noted below, the LXX consistently translates the term σφάζω from the Hebrew term שָׁחַט within the Pentateuch. ↩︎
3. Raymond E. Brown, The Epistles of John, Anchor Yale Bible (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1982), 442. ↩︎
4. Contra Brown, who writes, “In the present passage the verb [ἔσφαξεν] has no necessary cultic significance.” Brown, The Epistles of John, 442. ↩︎
5. The paper argues from the understanding of typology put forward by James M. Hamilton Jr., especially in his work, Typology. He writes, “Typological Interpretation establishes historical correspondence on the basis of lexical points of contact (i.e., the re-use of significant terms), quotations, repeated sequences of events, and similarities in salvation historical significance and covenantal context. As these features are discerned in the text, interpreters detect author-intended parallels between people, events, and institutions, and they have textual warrant to perceive growing significance in the repeated patterns.” James M. Hamilton Jr., Typology-Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns: How Old Testament Expectations Are Fulfilled in Christ (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Academic, 2022), 27. ↩︎
6. While Genesis 4 nowhere says that Abel is sacrificed, this study argues that Genesis 4 introduces categories that are taken up later with the establishment of the tabernacle, and specifically the Day of Atonement. ↩︎
7. Kenneth Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, NAC, vol. 1A (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1996), 264.  ↩︎
8. Note the inclusio formed by Cain’s birth in Gen 4:1 and Seth’s birth in Gen 4:25, inviting comparison between the brothers. ↩︎
9. Ojewole’s work on Genesis 3 is noteworthy for his proposed chiastic structure. See Afolarin O. Ojewole, “The Seed in Genesis 3:15: An Exegetical and Intertextual Study,” (PhD diss., Andrews University, 2002), 97-105. For works that note structural similarities between Genesis 3 and 4:5b-16, see Brian O. Sigmon, “Between Eden and Egypt: Echoes of the Garden Narrative in the Story of Joseph and His Brothers,” (Marquette University, 2013), 121-23; John Kinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis, (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1910), 100; Claus Westermann, Genesis 1-11: A Continental Commentary, trans. John J. Scullion S.J. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press), 285.  ↩︎
10. While Gen 4:5b-16 intentionally mirrors the chiasm in Gen 3, it is also intentionally asymmetrical. In the first instance of asymmetry (3:7-8), Cain’s sin is not followed by an attempt to cover his shame and hide from God out of fear of judgment. In the second instance of asymmetry (3:16-19), there are no grace-filled consequences to endure in hope. Shameless Cain receives only the serpent’s curse. Hamilton notes the grammatical similarity between Gen 3:14 and 4:11. Hamilton, Typology¸13-14. ↩︎
11. For example, LXX translates Gen 4:7 as “ουκ έαν ορθώς προσενέγκης ορθώς δέ μη διέλης ήμαρτες ήσύχασον προς σέ ή αποστροφή αύτου και συ αρξεις αύτου.” After providing the translation of the LXX: “Is it not [so] that if you offer correctly, but you do not correctly divide [it], you sinned? Be still. Towards you [will be] his/its return and you will rule him/it,” Lohr notes the attempt by the LXX translator to explain the “cryptic Hebrew in terms of cultic sacrifice” Joel N. Lohr, “Righteous Abel, Wicked Cain: Genesis 4:1–16 in the Masoretic Text, the Septuagint, and the New Testament,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 71, no. 3 (2009), 488-89. ↩︎
12. L. Michael Morales, “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb: Resurrecting an Exegetical Fossil in Genesis 4:7,” The Bible Translator 63, no. 4 (2012):186. For similar translations, see Matthew Henry and Thomas Scott, Matthew Henry’s Concise Commentary (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, 1997), commentary on Gen 4:1-7; Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871), Genesis, accessed Dec 22, 2025, https://ccel.org/j/jfb/jfb/JFB01.htm#Chapter4. ↩︎
13. See Gordon Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story,” in “I Studied Inscriptions from before the Flood”: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1–11, eds., Richard S. Hess and David T. Tsumara (Winona Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns, 1994), 399-404; Richard M. Davidson, “Earth’s First Sanctuary: Genesis 1–3 and Parallel Creation Accounts,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 53, no. 1 (2015), 67-80; T. Desmond Alexander, From Eden to the New Jerusalem: An Introduction to Biblical Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2008), 20-31; G.K. Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission: A Biblical Theology of the Dwelling Place of God, NSBT 17 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004), 66-80. ↩︎
14. As suggested in the discussion of the Day of Atonement below, the narrative material in Leviticus—particularly Leviticus 8–10 and 16—appears to follow the same narrative progression as Genesis 2:4–4:26. Genesis 2, like Leviticus 8-9, depicts the establishment of priests in God’s presence. Genesis 3, like Leviticus 10, recounts the priestly failure and the intrusion of death into sacred space. Genesis 4:1-16, with its parallels to the Day of Atonement, then functions as a narrative response to Genesis 3. 
    The only other narrative unit in Leviticus, Leviticus 24:10-23, may correspond to Genesis 4:17-26. The blasphemer parallels the Azazel goat in that he is taken outside the camp, and those who heard him lay their hands on his head. Unlike the goat, however, he is put to death, anticipating the judgment that will ultimately fall on those who remain exiled from God’s presence.  ↩︎
15. Morales, “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb,” 187; cf. Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 49-74. ↩︎
16. Cf. Joe Gehrmann, “The Cross in Genesis 4.7: Cain Rejected and Rejecting,” Christ Over All. April 9, 2025, https://christoverall.com/article/concise/the-cross-in-genesis-4-7-cain-rejected-and-rejecting. ↩︎
17. Morales, “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb,” 187-88.  ↩︎
18. Joachim Azevedo, “At the Door of Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Genesis 4:7,” Biblische Notizen 100 (1999), 56; Morales highlights Leviticus 1, “When any man brings near an offering to YHWH … he shall bring it to the entrance (פֶּתַח) of the tent of meeting, that it may be accepted before YHWH.” L. Michael Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, NSBT 37 (Downers Grove, IL: Apollos, IVP), 56. Davidson argues that the provision of clothes for Adam and Eve in 3:21 implies the sacrifice of an animal, the animal acting as a substitute. It is perhaps here that God teaches Adam and Eve about sacrifice, and thus Cain and Abel seem to know about sacrifice. Davidson, “Earth’s First Sanctuary,” 76-77, cf. Azevedo, 55-56. ↩︎
19. From the title of Joaquim Azevedo’s article, “At the Door of Paradise.” Morales argues that Genesis 2-3 prefigures the Holy Place and the Holy of Holies, and Genesis 4:1-16 prefigures the outer court of the tabernacle. Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 56-57. ↩︎
20. Azevedo, “At the Door of Paradise,” 51-52. Arguing that the phrase gam-hu’ (lit. “also-he”) in Gen 4:4 should be understood “as moreover, in addition [to],” Davidson proposes, “The first fruits thank offerings were to be brought in addition to the foundational animal sacrifices. Genesis 4:3-4 appears to highlight the fact that Cain only brought the first fruit offering, but did not see the need to offer in addition an animal sacrifice showing his dependence upon the blood of the Substitute, as God had made clear in Eden to Adam and Eve. Abel, on the other hand, brought both.” Davidson, “Earth’s First Sanctuary,” 78-79.  ↩︎
21. “Morales, “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb,” 188.  ↩︎
22. For the view that the terms “desire” and “rule” should be understood negatively, see Susan T. Foh, “What Is the Woman’s Desire?,” Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974–75): 376–83. For the view that the terms should be understood positively, or at least as intentionally ambiguous, see Jacques B. Doukhan, “Tragic Curse, or Messianic Hope? Reading Genesis 3:16 in Light of Genesis 3:15,” Religions 15, no. 9 (2024): 1116. ↩︎
23. Morales is careful to point out that the statement about Abel’s desire, like the statement about the woman’s desire in Gen 3:16, is “future-oriented and general,” rather than specifically about some sin that Abel is presently committing. Thus, the author of Hebrews can hold forth Abel as an example of faith, and as will be demonstrated, Moses can present Abel as a type of blameless sacrifice. “Morales, “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb,” 188-89. ↩︎
24. Morales, “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb,” 188. Morales notes that the rivalry between brothers over the right of the firstborn is a constant theme throughout Genesis, a point which will be addressed below. See also Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown, Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (Genesis), Genesis 4:1-26. ↩︎
25. The verb מָשַׁל (“to rule”) occurs eight times in Genesis. Significantly, three of these instances appear in Genesis 1–4 (1:18; 3:16; 4:7), while four occur in the Joseph narrative (37:8 [twice]; 45:8; 45:26). The first occurrence in the Joseph narrative is significant for its parallel to Genesis 4, “His brothers said to him, ‘Are you indeed to reign over us? Or are you indeed to rule over us (מָשׁ֥וֹל תִּמְשֹׁ֖ל בָּ֑נוּ)?’ So they hated him even more for his dreams and for his words.” Compare Gen 4:7b “you must rule over him” (וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ) and the hatred of Cain for his brother. The parallel perhaps invites the reader to consider whether Joseph’s later rule over his brothers represents the kind of rule God originally held out to Cain—one forfeited through disobedience. In this respect, Cain’s failure recalls Samuel’s rebuke of Saul: “You have done foolishly. You have not kept the command of the LORD your God, with which he commanded you. For then the LORD would have established your kingdom forever” (1 Sam 13:13).
    Joseph’s dream imagery seems to reinforce this connection. Joseph dreams that he would rule over the sun, moon, and stars, which God established as “lights” (מָאוֹר) “to rule (מָשַׁל) over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness” (Gen 1:14). Noting the connection between the “light” (מָאוֹר) in cosmos and in the tabernacle, Morales writes, “one may discern the profound homology between the cosmos and cult: just as the cosmos was created for humanity’s Sabbath communion and fellowship with God, so too the cult was established for Israel’s Sabbath communion and fellowship with God.” Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 190. Essentially, not all rule (מָשַׁל) is bad. Rather, just as the rule of the sun and moon brings God’s people into the light of his presence (cf. Lev 23-25), so too will “God… resurrect the hope of Sabbath rest by restoring the throne of Adam” through the promised seed of the woman, whom Eve possibly believed to be Cain (Gen 4:1). Samuel C. Emadi, “Covenant, Typology, and the Story of Joseph: A Literary-Canonical Examination of Genesis 37-50,” (PhD diss, The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2016), 60. 
    But Cain despises his birthright, and he rules over his brother through violence, perhaps reflective of the disordered rule indicated in Gen 3:16. Joseph, by contrast, embodies a good form of rule. By forgiving and ruling over his brothers well, “Joseph is an anti-Cain. He is truly his brothers’ keeper.” Emadi, “Covenant, Typology, and the Story of Joseph,” 101. More broadly, Joseph’s rule over Egypt broadly presents him as “a new Adam mediating God’s blessings to the nations—a beloved son and a servant king.” Emadi, “Covenant, Typology, and the Story of Joseph,” 73. ↩︎
26. Within the context of the narrative, these rights should likely be understood in light of Genesis 3:15. As Genesis progresses, God promises to bless Abraham in ways that correspond to and reverse the effects of the curse. See James M. Hamilton Jr., God’s Glory in Salvation through Judgment: A Biblical Theology (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2010), 82. This blessing is then passed to subsequent generations. Though the blessing is distinct from firstborn rights, the younger brother who receives the blessing always seems to receive first the rights of the firstborn, whether by providence (Isaac in Gen 21), trickery and deception (Jacob in Gen 25-27), or favoritism (Joseph in Gen 37; 49).  ↩︎
27. Thomas J. Sculthorpe, “Why Does Moses Call the Promised Savior a ‘Seed’? Resurrection Typology in Genesis 1–3,” Kenwood Bulletin 1 (2025): 42. ↩︎
28. Though God says in Gen 4:10 that “the voice of your brother’s blood (ק֚וֹל דְּמֵ֣י אָחִ֔יךָ) cries out to me from the ground,” Hebrews asserts that Abel himself is the one who is speaking and who still speaks (Heb 11:4; 12:24). The fact that God hears Abel’s cries hints that Abel has drawn near to him. In light of that, it is noteworthy that Gen 4:10 is the only time in the narrative where Abel speaks.  ↩︎
29. Mitchell L. Chase, “Resurrection Hope in Daniel 12:2: An Exercise in Biblical Theology,” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2013),102. ↩︎
30. Jon D. Levenson, The Death and Resurrection of the Beloved Son: The Transformation of Child Sacrifice in Judaism and Christianity (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993), 78. Chase notes that this seems to be the interpretation of the LXX translator, who translates “appointed” (שִׁית) as “raised up” (ἐξανέστησεν). Mitchell L. Chase, “The Genesis of Resurrection Hope: Exploring Its Early Presence and Deep Roots,” JETS 57, no. 3 (2014), 473-74. ↩︎
31. Mathews, for example, concludes that God promises Cain that “[nothing] more than the original sentence (banishment) will occur. To insure this and to diminish Cain’s fears, he safeguards the impenitent Cain as though he were his kinsman or protector (gōʾēl).” Mathews, Genesis 1:1-11:26, 277. ↩︎
32. Consider also how the New Testament authors consistently refer to or allude to Cain as wicked (e.g., John 8:39-47; 1 John 3:12; Jude 1:11).  ↩︎
33. Byron notes the various ways rabbinic interpreters have attempted to rectify the apparent injustice of Cain’s prosperous life and lineage. See John Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition: Jewish and Christian Interpretations of the First Sibling Rivalry (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 123-65. ↩︎
34. Cassuto is correct to observe that “Cain does not find refuge and protection in the Lord; the Lord fully implements the punishment and curse imposed upon him in the beginning.” Cassuto also concludes, however, that the death penalty precludes divine execution and that God saves Cain from vigilante justice since there is no governmental structure to formally condemn Cain. Thus, exile is a de facto city of refuge for Cain. Umberto Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part 1, From Adam to Noah, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961), 195, 221. He goes on to compare Cain’s mark to Rahab’s scarlet cord, stating, “Having submitted to the sentence, Cain is entitled to be delivered from blood-revenge.” Cassuto, Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 227. The Rahab narrative, however, signals her saving faith in YHWH within a story that evidences God’s commitment to bless the nations through Abraham. Thus, the function of the Rahab narrative, and so her scarlet cord, stands in direct opposition to the function of Cain’s narrative and mark. See Dallas R. Goebel, “From Sodom to Gehenna: The Old Testament Typology of Sodom and Gomorrah as God’s Eschatological Judgment” (PhD diss., The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2025), 115-28.  ↩︎
35. The difficulty of the text is that it seems to leave so much unstated. The challenge is accounting for the data in the immediate, Pentateuchal, and canonical contexts.  ↩︎
36. It is perhaps significant that God “put” (שׂוּם) a mark on Cain similar to how God “put” (שִׁית) enmity between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent.  ↩︎
37. The use of הָרַג in Genesis gestures toward this conclusion. The term occurs sixteen times. Of these, eleven explicitly concern the nations or the seed of the serpent seeking to kill the line of promise (Gen 4:8, 14, 15, 25; 12:12; 20:11; 26:7; 27:41-42; 37:20; 37:26). Three depict Simeon and Levi acting like the nations by killing the men of Shechem (Gen 34:24-25; 49:6). One depicts Lamech, Cain’s offspring, murdering a young man (Gen 4:23). One occurs in Abimelech’s plea to God for mercy (Gen 20:4), which, as Sculthorpe notes, concerns barrenness rather than physical death. Sculthorpe, “He Makes Her Desert like the Garden of YHWH,” 97-101. 
    This pattern coheres with Jesus’ repeated insistence in John’s Gospel that the world loves its own and seeks to kill the seed of the woman (e.g., John 3:19-20; 7:7; 8:37-44; 15:18-19). It may also lie behind John’s exhortation in his discussion of Cain: “And why did [Cain] murder [his brother]? Because his own deeds were evil and his brother’s righteous. Do not be surprised, brothers, that the world hates you” (1 John 3:12-13). ↩︎
38. Davidson, “Earth’s First Sanctuary,” 77. Beale likewise concludes that “the divine provision of clothing to Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:21 appears to indicate a gracious reaffirmation of their inheritance rights over creation, despite their former rebellion.” Beale, The Temple and the Church’s Mission, 30. ↩︎
39. See James M. Hamilton Jr., “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman: Inner-Biblical Interpretation of Genesis 3:15,” Southern Baptist Journal of Theology 10, no, 2 (Summer 2006), 33. ↩︎
40. Mathews highlights the parallel between Cain’s expulsion and the exile experienced by Israel in Numbers (cf. Num 14; Deut 2:14-15) and promised in Leviticus (Lev 18:24-28; 26:33-35) and Deuteronomy (Deut 28:64). Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, 276. ↩︎
41. Byron notes Philo’s conclusion that “according to the law, sevenfold punishment is given (to Cain).” Since Philo does not specify which law he is referring to, Byron proposes Lev 26, which speaks of “vengeance” (נָקַם; Lev 26:25) and the number seven (שֶׁבַע). Byron, Cain and Abel in Text and Tradition, 110-11. ↩︎
42. Of all the uses in the Pentateuch, there are two that do not seem related to the sacrificial system: Numbers 11:21 and 14:16. In the former instance, Moses may be thinking of cultic practice regarding handling meat. In the latter, Moses is likely speaking rhetorically. L. Michael Morales, Numbers 1–19, Apollos Old Testament Commentary (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023), 272, 348.  ↩︎
43. For the chiastic structure of the Abraham narrative, see Sculthorpe, “He Makes Her Desert like the Garden of YHWH,” 118-26. Cf. Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 11:27–50:26, New American Commentary 1B (Nashville: B&H Publishing Group, 2005), 89-90. ↩︎
44. Gen 12:9 reads, “Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne to Abraham, laughing (צָחַק).” Paul interprets this as persecution, saying that “he who was born according to the flesh persecuted him who was born according to the Spirit” (Gal 4:28-30). See Sculthorpe, “He Makes Her Desert like the Garden of YHWH,” 125n32. It must be noted that, in each instance of brother conflict evaluated in this paper, it is the wicked action of the brother(s) against the promised seed that leads to exile.  ↩︎
45. Sculthorpe, “He Makes Her Desert like the Garden of YHWH,” 125.  ↩︎
46. While the term “sent away” (שָׁלַח) is not used in Genesis 4, it is used in Genesis 3 alongside “drive out” (גָּרַשׁ). In Gen 21, the two terms are used together, strengthening the connection between Adam’s and Ishmael’s respective exiles. Likewise, while the term “wilderness” (מִדְבָּר) is not used in Gen 4, there are thematic parallels within the Pentateuch between wilderness and “wandering” (נ֖וֹד).  ↩︎
47. Morales writes of Gen 22, “The binding of Isaac on Mount Moriah in Genesis 22 contains cultic terminology clustered together elsewhere only for the ordination of the Levitical priests (Lev. 8-9) and for the Day of Atonement (Lev. 16), and probably served to prefigure the entire cultic economy – even as the foundation story for the Jerusalem temple.” Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 73, 225-27.
    Barry, commenting on the extensive use of the term “burnt offering” throughout Exodus and especially Leviticus, notices that it occurs six times in the chapter and once in Gen 8:20, with reference to Noah’s offering. This, he argues, strengthens the connection between Gen 22 and Lev 16. Richard Barry, “The Two Goats: A Christian Yom Kippur Soteriology,” (PhD diss, Marquette University, 2017), 71. For the significance of the burnt offering, see Morales, Exodus Old and New, 29.  ↩︎
48. For a brief introduction to Jewish interpretation of the binding (Akedah) of Isaac that understands the event sacrificially, see J. Edwin Wood, “Isaac Typology in the New Testament,” New Testament Studies 14 (1967): 583-89. ↩︎
49. A nod to the title of Hamilton’s work, Typology-Understanding the Bible’s Promise-Shaped Patterns. See his discussion of typology in Hamilton, Typology, 4-28.  ↩︎
50. Morales notes that there are five offerings covered in Leviticus 1:1-6:7, which can be categorized into three groups (and meanings): purification (expiation), ascension (consecration), and peace (fellowship) offerings. He goes on to argue that the order is significant, indicating the journey one must take to dwell in the Presence of God. Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 123-25. In light of this, perhaps it is significant that Abel seems to correspond to the hattat offering, while Isaac seems to correspond to the olah offering. Perhaps Joseph, who is likewise substituted for by a goat, corresponds to the fellowship offering, since fraternal reconciliation is accomplished through him. See Emadi, “Covenant, Typology, and the Story of Joseph,” 101-102; Sculthorpe, “He Makes Her Desert Like the Garden of YHWH,” 155-58.  ↩︎
51. Emadi, “Covenant, Typology, and the Story of Joseph,” 99-100. Levenson writes, “In [the story of Joseph in Genesis 37-50] is concentrated almost every variation of the theme that first appeared in the little tale of Cain and Abel and has been growing and becoming more involved and more complex throughout the Book of Genesis.” Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 143. For a sampling of scholars who acknowledge allusions to Gen 4 in Gen 37, see Emadi, “Covenant, Typology, and the Story of Joseph,” 99n183. ↩︎
52. Sigmon, “Between Eden and Egypt,” 134.  ↩︎
53. Sigmon, “Between Eden and Egypt,” 135-36. ↩︎
54. See Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 55-60. As Isaac was the firstborn of Sarah, so Joseph was, in fact, the firstborn son of Rachel, whom Jacob speaks of in Gen 44:27-29 as though she were his only wife. Commenting on the phrase “the son of his old age” (בֶן־זְקֻנִ֥ים ה֖וּא), Emadi concludes, “A more likely interpretation is that בֶן־זְקֻנִ֥ים typecasts Joseph with an Isaac-like identity. Joseph appears on the scene much like the first son of promise, and, as such, the covenantal and dynastic expectations for Isaac (and Jacob) are now linked to him.” Samuel Emadi, “Covenant, Typology, and the Story of Joseph,” 70.  ↩︎
55. Sigmon, “Between Eden and Egypt,” 137-38. ↩︎
56. Levenson, Death and Resurrection, 150-52.  ↩︎
57. Though the word pair שְׂעִ֣יר עִזִּ֔ים is used throughout the Pentateuch with reference to sin offerings, it is possibly significant that it is used in Leviticus 16:5, speaking of the two “male goats” (שְׂעִירֵ֥י עִזִּ֖ים) for the sin offering.” As Emadi notes, it is interesting that Israel must also provide one ram for the burnt offering (וְאַ֥יִל אֶחָ֖ד לְעֹלָֽה) on the Day of Atonement (Lev 16:5), a sacrifice to which Gen 22 perhaps pointed. Emadi, “Covenant, Typology, and the Story of Joseph,” 119.  ↩︎
58. I owe this insight to Sam Emadi from episode 13 of Bible Talk. See also Emadi, “Covenant, Typology, and the Story of Joseph,” 120n247. ↩︎
59. Further, Joseph is “thrown” (שָׁלַךְ) into a pit in the “wilderness” (מִדְבָּר) (37:22) before he is sent away from the promised land/people into exile in Egypt. Though obviously a different term, שָׁלַךְ—when it lacks a dagesh as in 37:22—is pronounced similar to שָׁלַח, perhaps strengthening the resonance with Ishmael being sent out (שָׁלַח) into the wilderness (מִדְבָּר). ↩︎
60. Genesis thus ends in an astonishing reversal. Unlike Adam, whom God sent out (שָׁלַח) from the garden “lest he reach out his hand and take from the tree of life and live forever” (וָחַ֥י לְעֹלָֽם) (Gen 3:22), Joseph is sent (שָׁלַח) “to preserve life” (לְמִֽחְיָ֔ה) (Gen 45:5). ↩︎
61. Geller writes, “P has positioned [the Day of Atonement] at the center of his Pentateuch. It describes the rite at the central shrine, in P’s religious geography at the center of the chosen ‘nation of priests.’ Stephen A. Geller, “Blood Cult: Toward a New Understanding of the Priestly Ritual,” Prooftexts 12, no. 2 (1992), 103. See also Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 23-34. ↩︎
62. This section title is taken from the title of Andrei Orlov’s book The Atoning Dyad. While Orlov’s overall argument is similar to this paper’s, his presuppositions and methodology are plainly different, since he is unconvinced by modern exegetical arguments connecting the patriarchal narratives and Yom Kippur. He believes, however, that such scholarship highlights features of the biblical text that influenced later rabbinic schools to arrive at conclusions similar to those of modern scholarship. Andrei A. Orlov, The Atoning Dyad: The Two Goats of Yom Kippur in the Apocalypse of Abraham(Leiden: Brill, 2012), 6-7. ↩︎
63. Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 167.  ↩︎
64. For a recent treatment of Leviticus 8-10 as narrative, see John Goldingay, “Leviticus 8–10 as Narrative,” Themelios 50, no. 3 (December 2025), accessed December 15, 2025, https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/themelios/article/leviticus-8-10-as-narrative.  ↩︎
65. Anderson states, “The construction of the tabernacle is the climax of creation. At Sinai, God descended to earth and drew Israel to himself. Creation remained unfinished until the day the tabernacle was completed.” He then concludes, “[When] the daily sacrifices began (Ex 29:38-42, Lev 9) the goal of all creation would be consummated. The promise of God is now on the verge of realization: ‘I will dwell among the Israelites, and I will be their God’ (Ex 29:45).” Gary A. Anderson, “Biblical Origins and the Problem of Evil,” Pro Ecclesia 10, no. 1 (2001), 22, emphasis original. ↩︎
66. Given the events described in the previous two verses, the actions of Nadab and Abihu are both astonishing and reminiscent of Gen 3, whereby they take (לָקַח) their censers like Eve takes (לָקַח) the fruit. See Barry, “The Two Goats,” 172.  ↩︎
67. Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 148-49. Anderson writes, “When the priesthood was consecrated and the altar lit, God’s purpose for the world was completed… But no sooner has creation come to closure than its very centerpiece, the tabernacle, was violated. In consequence of this, the Day of Atonement served to set creation aright.” Anderson, “Biblical Origins and the Problem of Evil,” 24-25.  ↩︎
68. For the chiastic structure of Leviticus 16, see Angel M. Rodriguez, “Leviticus 16: Its Literary Structure,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 34, no. 2 (1996). See also Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 177. ↩︎
69. Lev 16:5 states that the two goats together comprise a sin offering, and each goat is said to make atonement (Lev 16:10, 16). See Barry, “The Two Goats,” 249. Contra Geller, “Blood Cult,” 105.  ↩︎
70. For different conclusions about what is meant by “Azazel,” see Charles L. Feinberg, “The Scapegoat of Leviticus Sixteen,” Bibliotheca Sacra 115, no. 460 (October 1958): 320-33. ↩︎
71. Though it is not explicitly stated, the fact that the blood was sprinkled before the mercy seat indicates that it was likely sprinkled onto the ground. See Roy Gane, Cult and Character: Purification Offerings, Day of Atonement, and Theodicy, (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2005), 137n61. ↩︎
72. Sklar notes that, despite the different scholarly opinions on the precise nature of atonement, “there is basic agreement that כִּפֻּר refers to sin being dealt with in such a way that the broken relationship between the LORD and the sinner is mended.” See Jay Sklar, Sin, Impurity, Sacrifice, Atonement: The Priestly Conceptions (Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press, 2005), 2. ↩︎
73. Donald W. Parry, “Garden of Eden: Prototype Sanctuary,” in Temples of the Ancient World, ed. Donald W. Parry (Salt Lake City, UT: Deseret Book, 1994), 135.  ↩︎
74. Morales concludes, “Movement away from God is…understood as a descent away from life (creation) toward death (chaos); and, conversely, movement toward God is expressed as ascent from death to life.” He goes on to write that, “exile was ‘the death of deaths’ for Israel.” Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 49, 249-49, emphasis original. Sculthorpe argues that the structure of the Garden narrative supports such a conclusion. Sculthorpe, “He Makes Her Deserts,” 69. For the relationship between the tabernacle and the Garden of Eden, see footnote 11. For the argument that death is spatial rather than merely the cessation of bodily functioning of an individual, see Jon D. Levenson, Resurrection and the Restoration of Israel: The Ultimate Victory of the God of Life (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2006). ↩︎
75. Traditionally, the ideal was that the goats were identical, as though one goat were accomplishing two things. “It is a merit that the two he-goats for the Day of Atonement should be equal in color, stature, and price, and both (bought) at the same time.” Michael L. Rodkinson, trans., The Babylonian Talmud: Original Text Edited, Corrected, Formulated, and Translated into English, vol. 6 (Boston, MA: The Talmud Society, 1918), 87. ↩︎
76. Morales writes, “Broadly, then, the scapegoat signifies expulsion (from Eden, within the cultic geography established by the tabernacle).” Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 180. Given that the door of the tabernacle faced east, it is likely that the scapegoat bears Israel’s sins east of the tabernacle. Rooker notes that this might lie behind Psalm 103:12, “As far as east is from west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.” Mark F. Rooker, Leviticus, NAC, vol. 3A (Nashville: B&H Publishing, 2000), 221. ↩︎
77. Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 180.  ↩︎
78. Barry argues that Isaac being sacrificed as a burnt offering likely indicated that he was a suitable (i.e., תָּמִים) sacrifice. Barry, “The Two Goats,” 87. The author of Hebrews holds forth Abel as an exemplar of faith who still speaks (Heb 11:4; 12:24). Though Joseph is often caricatured as deeply flawed, the allusions to Genesis 3 in Genesis 39 indicate him to be an anti-Adam who succeeds where Adam fails. See Sigmon, “Between Eden and Egypt,” 148-69. ↩︎
79. Like Cain, the death of the goat is never explicitly stated. The question can be asked: What happens to the goat? If, as has been argued, Cain corresponds to the scapegoat, then perhaps Gen 4:17-24 provides the answer: the goat symbolically takes the sins among the wicked nations in the realm of God’s judgment. Within the narrative of Genesis 1-11, the nations from Cain’s line come under God’s judgment and are destroyed by the waters of the Flood. This event, which creates the expectation of another worldwide judgment, typologically prefigures the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah and will one day destroy the nations (Deut 32:22; 2 Pet 3:6-7). Goebel, “From Sodom to Gehenna,” 46-108. Thus, the scapegoat would function for Israel in a manner analogous to Paul’s repeated warning to the churches: “Do not be like the nations” (e.g., 1 Cor 6:9; Eph 5:6; Col 3:5-6). 
    In light of that, it is noteworthy that the scapegoat is sent outside the camp, the same place where the remains of the sin offerings are burned (Lev 16:27). It is as though the goat takes the sin of Israel away from the presence of the Lord into the land destined for the fiery wrath of God’s judgment. Mathews seems to make a similar point when he writes, “the burning of the animal carcasses outside the camp on the Day of Atonement is paralleled by the crucifixion of Jesus’ body outside the city (Hebrews 13:10-14).” Kenneth A. Mathews, Leviticus: Holy God, Holy People, Preaching the Word (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2009), 139n8. Leviticus 24:13-23 seems to parallel this. There, a man who blasphemes God is said to “bear his sin” (וְנָשָׂ֥א חֶטְאֽוֹ ).   Thus, he is brought “outside the camp” (מִחוּץ֙ לַֽמַּחֲנֶ֔ה), those who heard him blaspheme “lay” (סָמַךְ) their hands on his head, and he is stoned to death (מוּת). ↩︎
80. Chris Armitage, Atonement and Ethics in 1 John (London: T&T Clark, 2021), 144-45. Emphasis original. ↩︎
81. Armitage, Atonement and Ethics in 1 John, 144. ↩︎
82. Armitage, Atonement and Ethics in 1 John, 150.  ↩︎
83. Though it is beyond the scope of this paper to address, such a dismissal also underplays John’s use of σφάζω in Revelation, the only other New Testament book that contains the term, overlooking the instances in which σφάζω is explicitly sacrificial (e.g., Rev 5:9). See Schreiner, who concludes that John’s use of σφάζω “does double duty, reflecting the language of sacrifice and martyrdom,” Thomas R. Schreiner, Revelation, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2018), 247-49, 252-53.  ↩︎
84. Much has been written on the polemical nature of 1 John. E.g., Rodney A. Whitacre, Johannine Polemic: The Role of Tradition and Theology, SBL Dissertation Series 67 (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), 121-25; Brown, The Epistles of John, 92-104. However, Griffith is likely correct in stating, “it is far more likely that…the whole of 1 John… has a pastoral rather than polemical outlook, since nowhere are the views of opponents positively stated and refuted.” Terry Griffith, “A Non-Polemical Reading of 1 John: Sin, Christology and the Limits of Johannine Christianity,” Tyndale Bulletin 49, no. 2 (1998), 25. ↩︎
85. Clive Bowsher, Life in the Son: Exploring Participation and Union in John’s Gospel and Letters, New Studies in Biblical Theology 54 (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2023), 126. ↩︎
86. Leviticus 25:9 and Numbers 5:8 are the only instances in which ἱλασμός is given as a translation of כִּפֻּר. In Psalm 130:4, it is used to translate “forgiveness” (סְלִיחָה), in Ezekiel 44:27, a “sin-offering” (חַטָּאָה), and in Amos 8:14, “guilt” (אַשְׁמָה). Jobes points out that the cognate noun hilastērion (ἱλαστηρίον) is used regularly in the LXX to refer to the atonement lid of the ark of the covenant. Karen H. Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John, Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2014), 79. For the view that ἱλασμός here refers to propitiation, see Daniel L. Akin, 1, 2, 3 John: An Exegetical and Theological Exposition of Holy Scripture, New American Commentary 38 (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2001), 80-83. For the view that it relates primarily here to expiation, see Brown, The Epistles of John, 220-22. ↩︎
87. Brown, The Epistles of John, 240. Brown also highlights that Jesus is not described with the term hilaster, i.e., the one who offers atonement, but hilamos, i.e., he is himself the atonement. Brown, The Epistles of John, 218. ↩︎
88. For a compelling proposal of structure that sees 1 John 3:11-18 as the chiastic center of 1 John, see Ron J. Bigalke, “Unravelling the Structure of First John: Exegetical Analysis, Part 1,” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 69, no. 1 (2013): 1–10; Ron J. Bigalke, “First John Structure Resolved: Exegetical Analysis, Part 2,” HTS Teologiese Studies / Theological Studies 69, no. 1 (2013): 1–7. See also, John C. Thomas, “The Literary Structure of 1 John,” Novum Testamentum 40, no. 4 (1998): 370–81. ↩︎
89. Jobes, 1, 2, & 3 John, 120. ↩︎
90. Commenting on Genesis 4, Hamilton writes, “The escalation of hostility seen in Cain’s descendants (see esp. 4:23–24) points to his line as representing those whose actions mirror the one who “was a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44). The point here is not that Cain’s line has been physically sired by Satan; rather, the Bible commonly describes people figuratively as children of those whose characteristics they emulate.” Hamilton, “The Skull Crushing Seed of the Woman,” 33.  ↩︎
91. It should be noted that, from Genesis 4 onward, hating the seed of the woman has been the outward manifestation of rejecting God’s promise and purposes. The inverse is also true. Those who hope in God evidence that hope by loving the brothers (cf. Matt 25:31-46). ↩︎
92. Morales, Who Shall Ascend the Mountain of the Lord?, 128. ↩︎
93. Schreiner, Revelation, 249, commenting on the use of σφάζω in Revelation. ↩︎