Pick your Poison: A Girardian Reflection on Cain and Abel

Seeing that God accepts Abel's sacrifice of meat, but not his of fruits of the soil, Cain gets angry. God does not leave Cain alone, however, he speaks with him and warns him of the danger of his attitude. Cain does not listen and sees his jealousy flesh out in Abel's murder. God's punishment of Cain is that the ground will no longer be his livelihood and that he will be a wanderer. However, Cain marries, his wife gives birth, and he builds a city (4:17).

Girard argues that the Israelite sacrificial system, in its brutality and explicitness, uncovers the scapegoat phenomenon (ganging up on one person of a group in order for it to be reunified and protected) and works against human sacrifice. In this story, obviously prior to Israel, Abel and Cain both bring offerings to the Lord, both of which will have a place in the sacrificial system of Israel. From Girard's view, though, Abel's makes more explicit the nature of violence which endangers society. The rivalry that develops between Cain and Abel ends in murder and leads to Cain's city. If animal sacrifice is to uncover the scapegoat violence, is it possible that the story conveys that not participating in this violent practice leads to human violence? That the story confirms the necessity and benefit of violence--the founding of a city, but also a different form of violence for those who follow Abel? If this is true, the value of sacrifice is not in it being an animal over grain (hence the silence on God's reason for selecting Abel's offering and not Cain's), but in its deferral of violence to non-humans. Is it possible the story indicates that violence is necessary for the post-Fall, pre-Jesus society and that neglecting one form will lead to the worse one?