Bruce Waltke in his article “Cain and his Offering”, Westminster Theological Journal 48 (1986) 363 — 372 considers the various arguments surrounding the rejection of Cain’s offering. He first considers the possibility of Cain’s offering was rejected because it was not a bloody sacrifice. Based upon his review of terms used for involuntary and voluntary sacrifices, Waltke explains that the word used or sacrifice in Genesis 4 references a voluntary sacrifice. “The unusual element of the story from a lexical viewpoint is not that Cain’s offering is bloodless but Abel’s is bloody! In any case, by using minha Moses virtually excludes the possibility that God did not look on Cain’s offering because it was bloodless” (366).

Waltke considers the description of the sacrifices given by Cain and Abel. Abel’s sacrifice was the best. However, there is nothing to indicate that Cain’s offering was the best of the produce. The theology of the Hebrews and of others from the ancient near East was that God was in title to the first and best share of all produce, whether plants or animals. “Abel’s offering conformed with this theology; Cain’s did not” (368).

Waltke also analyzes the text in light of the rules regulating priests. Noting that an unqualified priest was not permitted to serve at the altar, Waltke demonstrates that Cain is described in terms which would disqualify him as a priest.

“Elsewhere Yahweh rejected  the gifts of Korah (Num 16:15), Saul’s men (1 Sam 26:19), and  apostate Israel (Isa 1:13), not because of some blemish in their  offering, but because of their deformed characters. Cain’s flawed character led to his feigned worship” (371).