# Cain's Sacrifice



## Ravens

I seem to detect two different strands of Reformed interpretation when it comes to the sacrifice of Cain. As I recall, Michael Horton in _In the Face of God_ ties Cain's sacrifice into the promise of the Seed in Genesis 3 and the subsequent sacrifice-clothing of Adam and Eve. However, most other Reformed works that I turn to (and my reading isn't extensive in this area, just what I can get my hands on) seem to downplay that approach, and locate the "sin" in the inner disposition of Cain. It seems like Silversides, Candlish, Keil & Delitzsch, Calvin, etc., lean towards the "inner disposition" view.

What are your thoughts? Was Cain rejected because he refused to come to God through God's revealed way, namely, the promise and the sacrificial seals? Or was he rejected because he brought an acceptable offering (many point to the grain offerings in Leviticus, but I don't know if that's valid to read into Genesis 4) with an unacceptable spirit?

I realize it could be "both-and" in some way, but nevertheless, I'm wondering what the "Big Point" is, and how it relates to the "metanarrative" of Scripture. I confess that I find Horton's view to make far more sense, both canonically (e.g., the concept of sacrifice in Scripture and the necessity thereof) and contextually (it preserves the "flow" of Genesis as the account comes directly after the clothing of Adam and Eve and the expulsion from Eden). 

I think the reference to Abel in Hebrews 11 could point either way, so I didn't bring it up. If you say "both-and", explain it a little bit (if you wouldn't mind) and go into detail.

So: Thoughts?


----------



## VictorBravo

I think "both/and" with a focus on the idea that Cain sort of haphazardly grabbed some of his grain and carelessly sacrificed it, whereas Abel took the choicest of the firstlings. I'm getting this from looking at the contrast in the Hebrew, which shows in the AV too. Cain took of the fruit of the ground (not "firstfruits"), Abel took the firstling and the choicest parts (the fat).

Elsewhere (like in Exodus) we see the "firstfruits" discussed. There the root word is almost identical to "firstlings" in this passage, and not at all similar to the word for "fruit of the land."

So, in my fairly naive view, I think we have some reason to think Cain's heart wasn't in the right place, and because of that, he gave carelessly. That seems to fit with the idea that sin was lying at his door.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I am convinced that Cain's sacrifice was unacceptable on account of his heart, which led him to proffer that which was unacceptable in form. In other words, his offering was _entirely unacceptable,_ the will-worship of his offering being an index of his rebellious heart.

So my slight disagreement with Vic would be that I don't see Cain as being slipshod in his choice, but rather refusing to trade his own sweated labors for a sheep of Abel's flock. I doubt it was the best of his field either, but after he rejects God's exemplary means I don't even think it mattered if the fruit was hi-quality or not.

Cain said, in essence, "God ought to accept from the labor of my hands that which I deem worthwhile." The contrasts with Abel's offerings are more than superficial. Beside being an *atoning* sacrifice, Abel's is "of the fat" or best; nothing at all is said about the quality or first-fruit of Cain's, which was not bloody (a requirement that is simply fundamental). Even assuming God was in the habit of receiving "peace" offerings of grain at this time (and there is no indicator that he had authorized them), Cain is clearly not at peace with God, for his "offering" is rejected.


----------



## Davidius

Contra_Mundum said:


> Cain said, in essence, "God ought to accept from the labor of my hands that which I deem worthwhile." The contrasts with Abel's offerings are more than superficial. Beside being an *atoning* sacrifice, Abel's is "of the fat" or best; nothing at all is said about the quality or first-fruit of Cain's, which was not bloody (a requirement that is simply fundamental). Even assuming God was in the habit of receiving "peace" offerings of grain at this time (and there is no indicator that he had authorized them), Cain is clearly not at peace with God, for his "offering" is rejected.



This is what I was going to say. The appearance of the grain offering in later revelation does not imply that it was part of the oral revelation given before the Mosaic law. The need for blood as atonement for sin, on the other hand, goes back to the very beginning.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Contra_Mundum said:


> I am convinced that Cain's sacrifice was unacceptable on account of his heart, which led him to proffer that which was unacceptable in form. In other words, his offering was _entirely unacceptable,_ the will-worship of his offering being an index of his rebellious heart.
> 
> So my slight disagreement with Vic would be that I don't see Cain as being slipshod in his choice, but rather refusing to trade his own sweated labors for a sheep of Abel's flock. I doubt it was the best of his field either, but after he rejects God's exemplary means I don't even think it mattered if the fruit was hi-quality or not.
> 
> Cain said, in essence, "God ought to accept from the labor of my hands that which I deem worthwhile." The contrasts with Abel's offerings are more than superficial. Beside being an *atoning* sacrifice, Abel's is "of the fat" or best; nothing at all is said about the quality or first-fruit of Cain's, which was not bloody (a requirement that is simply fundamental). Even assuming God was in the habit of receiving "peace" offerings of grain at this time (and there is no indicator that he had authorized them), Cain is clearly not at peace with God, for his "offering" is rejected.



Excellent Bruce. Something just occurred to me that I want to get your opinion on. Do you suppose part of the "both" might have also been that he didn't want to have to go to his own brother and trade, in kind, for some of his grain to get an animal that might have been an acceptable sacrifice? This would require he humble himself, which was clearly not present as you note in his disposition toward God.

I can imagine that there is an unspoken, older brother "pride in the flesh" aspect in not wanting to acknowledge that his younger brother had something he needed in order to worship God. It almost seems like there's even a parallel to Ishmael's pride in the flesh as well.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

I definitely think there was pride present. I'm not sure we can draw out from the text that he didn't want to "dignify" his younger brother with a trade. They must have traded for things at other times, given the apparent division of labor.

I think it speaks more to his pride that he had "forced" from the ground--which had been cursed by God, remember--produce, by the sweat of his brow. He was "proud" of what he had done, though "suffering" somewhat for the sin of his father. "So, why shouldn't God accept that which I have wrested from this ground? I have submitted to this curse, broken my back for this curse; I think God owes me to receive from my work."


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Excellent.

Cain certainly does show how blinding sin is. He's sort of the father of will worship.

I used to think the Israelites were crazy in the desert wondering how they could start rebelling after such a short time when they've actually been in the presence of mighty works but, lately, I'm beginning to see how men and women around me are really no different. What is striking about Hebrews is how we are even more to be judged that Christ has been manifest.

But it just seems remarkable to my mind that a man can be aware that God is telling him something but then just decides he's going to kill his brother instead. But then it makes complete "sense" given the Fall.


----------



## VictorBravo

SemperFideles said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am convinced that Cain's sacrifice was unacceptable on account of his heart, which led him to proffer that which was unacceptable in form. In other words, his offering was _entirely unacceptable,_ the will-worship of his offering being an index of his rebellious heart.
> 
> So my slight disagreement with Vic would be that I don't see Cain as being slipshod in his choice, but rather refusing to trade his own sweated labors for a sheep of Abel's flock. I doubt it was the best of his field either, but after he rejects God's exemplary means I don't even think it mattered if the fruit was hi-quality or not.
> 
> Cain said, in essence, "God ought to accept from the labor of my hands that which I deem worthwhile." The contrasts with Abel's offerings are more than superficial. Beside being an *atoning* sacrifice, Abel's is "of the fat" or best; nothing at all is said about the quality or first-fruit of Cain's, which was not bloody (a requirement that is simply fundamental). Even assuming God was in the habit of receiving "peace" offerings of grain at this time (and there is no indicator that he had authorized them), Cain is clearly not at peace with God, for his "offering" is rejected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excellent Bruce. Something just occurred to me that I want to get your opinion on. Do you suppose part of the "both" might have also been that he didn't want to have to go to his own brother and trade, in kind, for some of his grain to get an animal that might have been an acceptable sacrifice? This would require he humble himself, which was clearly not present as you note in his disposition toward God.
> 
> I can imagine that there is an unspoken, older brother "pride in the flesh" aspect in not wanting to acknowledge that his younger brother had something he needed in order to worship God. It almost seems like there's even a parallel to Ishmael's pride in the flesh as well.
Click to expand...


The discussion drove me back to Calvin's commentary. He doesn't really address whether the grain sacrifice would have been appropriate (in some places he almost seems to assume it), but he does talk about the elder pride aspect. Certainly the theme keeps coming up: Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, etc., down even to David's older brothers.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

victorbravo said:


> The discussion drove me back to Calvin's commentary. He doesn't really address whether the grain sacrifice would have been appropriate (in some places he almost seems to assume it), but he does talk about the elder pride aspect. Certainly the theme keeps coming up: Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, etc., down even to David's older brothers.



Vic,

Honestly, the reason it seems so obvious to me is because I'm a middle brother that still struggles with sin in my heart in my attitude toward younger siblings. To my shame I could have been _just_ like Cain or Ishmael in my attitude to my younger brother apart from the grace of God. I still have an "older brother" pride that needs to be mortified.

Whether or not the type of sacrifice was in view, it doesn't surprise me in the least that Cain could not abide his younger brother's sacrifice being accepted. I think that probably gnawed at him that he actually had to be more like Abel in his worship.


----------



## VictorBravo

SemperFideles said:


> victorbravo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion drove me back to Calvin's commentary. He doesn't really address whether the grain sacrifice would have been appropriate (in some places he almost seems to assume it), but he does talk about the elder pride aspect. Certainly the theme keeps coming up: Ishmael, Esau, Reuben, etc., down even to David's older brothers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Vic,
> 
> Honestly, the reason it seems so obvious to me is because I'm a middle brother that still struggles with sin in my heart in my attitude toward younger siblings. To my shame I could have been _just_ like Cain or Ishmael in my attitude to my younger brother apart from the grace of God. I still have an "older brother" pride that needs to be mortified.
> 
> Whether or not the type of sacrifice was in view, it doesn't surprise me in the least that Cain could not abide his younger brother's sacrifice being accepted. I think that probably gnawed at him that he actually had to be more like Abel in his worship.
Click to expand...


That and he flat out couldn't worship like Abel, because it wasn't _what_ Abel did, but the "by faith" through which he did it.


----------



## Ravens

Thanks for the responses, folks; they have helped me to see that my opening post was very poorly phrased. So to clarify the issue, would it be fair to say that we all agree that 1) Cain's heart was the root of his problem, and 2) this heart manifested itself in offering an unworthy sacrifice.

So there seems to be three options:

1) There was nothing wrong with what Cain offered unto the Lord; the problem was in how he offered it.
2) Cain's offering was unacceptable not because it was "the fruit of the ground", but because it was not the first-fruits of the ground, or "chief part", etc., and not much care was given to it.
3) Cain's offering was unacceptable because he failed to approach God in the manner God had set up (blood sacrifice), and instead approached him in a way of his own devising that he felt God would be obliged to respect.

I confess that 3 makes the most sense to me, but I also confess that I am biased, in that I want 3 to be the case, because I see it making beautiful sense out of Scripture, whereas 2 makes the Cain account to seem somewhat disjointed and out of place. And I am aware that my bias might color my analysis. 

Is this something that we simply have to form a tentative opinion on, without nailing anything down as solid?

Bruce, you said:



> Beside being an atoning sacrifice, Abel's is "of the fat" or best; nothing at all is said about the quality or first-fruit of Cain's, which was not bloody (a requirement that is simply fundamental).



The underlining is mine. So are you saying that at least one of the emphases of the text is to undergird the necessity of blood atonement? Do you think applying the _analogia Scriptura_ in reaching this conclusion is a "lock"? Or is it possible that a worthy grain offering would have been acceptable?

Victor:

I'm going to risk saying something very foolish. I'm an ignorant child of this modern era, and have just now realized that I might have misunderstood the term "first fruits" all of my life. I've been working under the assumption that it was the "first yield" of the harvest. If so, wouldn't "first fruits" be more of a chronological reference than a "quality" reference? 

I know that the term is often tied to a sense of "quality" and "the best", but would Cain really have been able to offer "first fruits" year round? I realize I could save myself possible public embarrassment by looking that up right now, but it's pretty late here.

Anyhow, I'm just wondering if the lack of the term "firstfruits" really denigrates the quality of Cain's offering, since, perhaps, it wasn't that time of the harvest.

Thanks again for the replies. There's a bit of fog on this issue, and I want to know, not only what can I believe, or what the text possibly or even probably teaches, but what in fact the text _does_ teach.


----------



## Ravens

John Bunyan:



> Cain brought of the fruit of the ground, as of wheat, oil, honey, or the like; which things were also clean and good. Hence it is intimated, that his offering was excellent; and I conceive, not at all, as to the matter itself, inferior to that of Abel's; for in that it is said that Abel's was more excellent, it is not with respect to the excellency of the matter or things with which they sacrificed, but with respect to Abel's faith, which gave glory and acceptableness to his offering with God, "By faith he offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain" (Heb 11:4).


----------



## Ravens

Pink:



> The record of Genesis 4 is exceedingly terse and much is gathered up which scarcely appears on the surface. The central truth of the chapter is that God is to be worshipped, that He is to be worshipped through sacrifice, that He is to be worshipped by means of a sacrifice which is appropriated by faith (cf. Heb. 11:4).





> The nature of the offerings which Cain and Abel brought unto the Lord, and God’s rejection of the one and acceptance of the other, point us to the most important truth in the chapter. Attention should be fixed not so much on the two men themselves, as upon the difference between their offerings. So far as the record goes there is nothing to intimate that up to this time Cain was the worst man of the two, that is, considered from a natural and moral standpoint. Cain was no infidel or atheist. He was ready to acknowledge the existence of God, he was prepared to worship Him after his own fashion. He "brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the Lord." But mark three things. First, his offering was a bloodless one, and "without shedding of blood is no remission" (Heb. 9:22). Second, his offering consisted of the fruit of his own toil, it was the product of his own labors, in a word, it was the works of his own hands. Third, he brought of "the fruit of the ground," thus ignoring the Divine sentence recorded in Genesis 3:17, "Cursed is the ground." Abel "brought of the firstlings of his flock and the fat thereof," and to secure this, sacrifice had to be made, life had to be taken, blood had to be shed. The comment of the Holy Spirit upon this incident is, that "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain" (Heb. 11:4). He does not state that Abel was more excellent, but that the offering which be presented was more pleasing and acceptable to his Maker.


----------



## BobVigneault

Whenever I'm trying to make sense of human behavior I often take matters back to THE GARDEN where the variables are few and ask the same question with the Garden as the back drop. Murder was a recent meditation of mine. The recent murders of these young co-eds has really upset me. I have four daughters and so I was a bit shaken at the randomness of these killings. Why do people murder?

Instead of looking to society for the answers I looked at the Garden and the first murder. Why did Cain kill Abel? We can remove a myriad of layers of cultural influence right away because culture was very primitive. We know it wasn't his parent's fault (as far as nurturing goes, that is), or television, The Matrix, the internet or alcohol and drugs. So why?

The most obvious reason seems that it was for jealousy. Cain was jealous of Abel. But that doesn't work for me. Lots of folks get jealous and they don't kill someone because of it. If every jealous sentiment ended in murder then I would conclude that Cain killed Abel because he was jealous.

I believe the key is verse 7b of Gen. 4 - "And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

We know that as a result of the fall, both men were totally ruined and totally without ability to come to the Creator. Their 'hearts' were no more or no less acceptable than they are in history. Abel was not more acceptable because he listened to his heart, his heart was deceitfully wicked. Cain and Abel each shared the capacity to murder, as do we.

God said that sin crouched at the door and sought to rule. He speaks of sin as something that has a desire. It is a positive force for destruction and evil. Cain and Abel's only protection against this force is to control it. But how do we control sin. Sin's power is broken only by atonement. This is a creation ordinance. God killed animals and covered Adam and Eve. Without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness of sin. Though we don't read the specific command to offer a blood sacrifice I believe that it is strongly implied because the principle of blood atonement is universal through out all of redemptive history.

We all sin and we all suffer the condition of sin. We all have within us the ability to murder. Some, however, are more successful in struggling against sin. There are two reasons for this: the first, the constraint of the Holy Spirit and second, the blood atonement of Christ. 

Abel's sacrifice was an atoning sacrifice, looking forward to Christ's work on the cross. Cain's sacrifice was a sacrifice of thanksgiving which is ONLY appropriate AFTER sin has been atoned for. Those are my ruminations on the topic.


----------



## VictorBravo

JDWiseman said:


> Victor:
> 
> I'm going to risk saying something very foolish. I'm an ignorant child of this modern era, and have just now realized that I might have misunderstood the term "first fruits" all of my life. I've been working under the assumption that it was the "first yield" of the harvest. If so, wouldn't "first fruits" be more of a chronological reference than a "quality" reference?
> 
> I know that the term is often tied to a sense of "quality" and "the best", but would Cain really have been able to offer "first fruits" year round? I realize I could save myself possible public embarrassment by looking that up right now, but it's pretty late here.
> 
> Anyhow, I'm just wondering if the lack of the term "firstfruits" really denigrates the quality of Cain's offering, since, perhaps, it wasn't that time of the harvest.
> 
> Thanks again for the replies. There's a bit of fog on this issue, and I want to know, not only what can I believe, or what the text possibly or even probably teaches, but what in fact the text _does_ teach.



Joshua, I'd say that the word for firstfruits definitely implies chronology: the first of the crop. It is identical to the Mosaic idea of the first born being dedicated. I think what is understood is that when you have a blessing from God, be it a crop or a newborn animal or a son, you acknowledge that everything that comes to you is from God. That is acknowledged by giving the first of everything.

So there is a quality aspect, not in the sense that the first harvested fruit tastes better than later fruit, but rather, the first fruit is the best because it is first. It is the exact opposite of saying, "I'll take what I need and if there is anything left over, I'll give it to God."

Just to clarify, I'm not committed to arguing against the blood atonement aspect for God's rejection of Cain's offering. It just strikes me that the thrust of the passage, and the passage in Hebrews 11:4, tells us that the real thing Cain missed was faith.

It very well could be that all men were required to offer a blood sacrifice. Or, possibly, a grain sacrifice may have been honored. Regardless of that, Cain clearly had prideful envy, no humility, and a desire to justify himself. I'd guess that even if Cain had bought a blood sacrifice from Abel, it would not have been accepted either, because of lack of faith. Sin would still lie at his door. He could protest all he wanted that he followed the "rules", but blindly trying to follow the rules doesn't save the undone.


----------



## BobVigneault

Vic, how would you define 'faith' as you are using it as a requirement of acceptance for Cain and Abel?


----------



## VictorBravo

BobVigneault said:


> Vic, how would you define 'faith' as you are using it as a requirement of acceptance for Cain and Abel?



Looking to God for justification rather than self. Obedience follows. 

But outward obedience with the thought that I'm just as good as brother Abel would not be faith.

I'm thinking along the lines of broken spirit and contrite heart of Psalm 51 and elsewhere.

But really, I should pull back from too much speculation. We're told that Cain offered fruit of the land and Abel offered a firstborn animal and the choicest parts, not my "what-if".


----------



## BobVigneault

I agree Vic, and I would say that Abel recognized the justifying work of God through the shed blood of Christ as symbolized in the sacrifice of atonement. Yes, of course I'm reading into the text as well. Thanks for your answer.

I have another question for anyone.

Why didn't God shed Cains blood for murdering Abel? God is not under the law but doesn't his mercy here take away from the strict command of Gen 9:6?


----------



## fredtgreco

victorbravo said:


> BobVigneault said:
> 
> 
> 
> Vic, how would you define 'faith' as you are using it as a requirement of acceptance for Cain and Abel?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking to God for justification rather than self. Obedience follows.
> 
> But outward obedience with the thought that I'm just as good as brother Abel would not be faith.
> 
> I'm thinking along the lines of broken spirit and contrite heart of Psalm 51 and elsewhere.
> 
> But really, I should pull back from too much speculation. We're told that Cain offered fruit of the land and Abel offered a firstborn animal and the choicest parts, not my "what-if".
Click to expand...


I think that Bruce has the correct idea, in that it is a both that flows from one. Namely, Cain brought the wrong sacrifice because his heart was wrong - so both were wrong.

I believe that Cain's lack of faith was directly related to the kind of sacrifice he brought. Why? Because faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God (Romans 10:17). So we can conclude, I think, that God did not leave Abel and Cain to guess at what was the proper sacrifice. He told that what He wanted (which is what He always does with worship). So Cain disobeyed the Word of God, and wanted to do what he thought was right, instead of what God thought was right. The definition of a lack of faith.


----------



## Mushroom

I think the Hebrews 11 passage is the best description of why Cain's offering was rejected and Abel's accepted. By faith Abel's was better. Faith is a gift of God. Cain had not this gift. All of the other aspects of the event, whether of blood or heart, flow from that fact.


----------



## MW

The Genesis narrative emphasises the acceptance of the person first and the offering second. What was offered was secondary to the status of the person who offered. Heb. 11:4 provides the proper focus when it ascribes Abel's more excellent sacrifice to his faith. But then the action itself cannot be discounted as if it were of no significance. Heb. 11 describes various actions from the viewpoint of an unseen and/or future reality as secured by divine fiat. The action of Abel, therefore, by virtue of the fact that it was based on the unchanging certainty of God's word, was normative for the community of faith.

Gen. 4 is rarely understood today because of the mistranslation which occurs in all modern versions at ver. 7. Cain's "dominion" did not have to do with sin, but with his right as firstborn over his brother. Who would receive the blessing, and serve as priest of the family? When God had respect to Abel and his offering, the younger was chosen over the elder. That is why Cain became angry and disconsolate. He was instructed that if he did well he would retain his dominion; nevertheless, having done ill, there was a sin-offering at hand which he could sacrifice. If Cain made this sacrifice, the order of the family would be restored by Abel submitting to Cain and then Cain would retain his priority. As it happened, Cain refused the sin-offering, and chose rather to take matters into his own hand by killing his competitor; for which he was cast out of the family altogether, giving rise to two families, in fulfilment of the curse of Gen. 3:15 concerning two "seeds."


----------



## VictorBravo

armourbearer said:


> The Genesis narrative emphasises the acceptance of the person first and the offering second. What was offered was secondary to the status of the person who offered. Heb. 11:4 provides the proper focus when it ascribes Abel's more excellent sacrifice to his faith. But then the action itself cannot be discounted as if it were of no significance. Heb. 11 describes various actions from the viewpoint of an unseen and/or future reality as secured by divine fiat. The action of Abel, therefore, by virtue of the fact that it was based on the unchanging certainty of God's word, was normative for the community of faith.
> 
> Gen. 4 is rarely understood today because of the mistranslation which occurs in all modern versions at ver. 7. Cain's "dominion" did not have to do with sin, but with his right as firstborn over his brother. Who would receive the blessing, and serve as priest of the family? When God had respect to Abel and his offering, the younger was chosen over the elder. That is why Cain became angry and disconsolate. He was instructed that if he did well he would retain his dominion; nevertheless, having done ill, there was a sin-offering at hand which he could sacrifice. If Cain made this sacrifice, the order of the family would be restored by Abel submitting to Cain and then Cain would retain his priority. As it happened, Cain refused the sin-offering, and chose rather to take matters into his own hand by killing his competitor; for which he was cast out of the family altogether, giving rise to two families, in fulfilment of the curse of Gen. 3:15 concerning two "seeds."



Rev. Winzer, would you include the AV as a mistranslation as well?:

"If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."

Because I've only recently run across the view you've stated and found it intriguing. I note that there is a difference between the Septuagint and the Masoretic Hebrew, but I'm not quite equipped enough to figure it out (give me a few days  ). But I know so far that the word for "sin" also is used often for "sin offering." Then the last sentence becomes less enigmatic.


----------



## MW

victorbravo said:


> Rev. Winzer, would you include the AV as a mistranslation as well?:



No, it faithfully translates "his." The translation of "sin" is literally what is required by the Hebrew. I am against including "explanation" in the translation. By retaining "sin" the reader can come to see the connection between the sin-offering and Jesus, 2 Cor. 5:21, compared with Rom. 8:3.


----------



## Ravens

Matthew,

I don't mean to draw attention away from the other important issues you raised in your post, but could you clarify this statement:


> But then the action itself cannot be discounted as if it were of no significance. Heb. 11 describes various actions from the viewpoint of an unseen and/or future reality as secured by divine fiat. The action of Abel, therefore, by virtue of the fact that it was based on the unchanging certainty of God's word, was normative for the community of faith.



If the action cannot be discounted as if it were of no significance, then what truths can we draw out of the different offerings? Do you think there is any significance to the faithful man offering a blood sacrifice, while the faithless man brought the fruit of the ground? Or is that more or less a non-issue?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## MW

JDWiseman said:


> If the action cannot be discounted as if it were of no significance, then what truths can we draw out of the different offerings? Do you think there is any significance to the faithful man offering a blood sacrifice, while the faithless man brought the fruit of the ground? Or is that more or less a non-issue?



Not a non-issue, but a secondary issue. I would be wary of any interpretation which found significance in Abel offering animal sacrifices without giving attention to the description of faith in Heb. 11:1. As long as the significance of the offering is drawn from the faith of Abel there should be no difficulty. Given that faith is the substance of things hoped for, and Abel offered in faith (Heb. 11:4), his blood sacrifice had reference to a future Sacrifice; just as Moses' keeping the passover (ver. 28) looked forward to Christ our Passover, or was "a testimony of those things which were to be spoken after" (Heb. 3:5).


----------

