Some thoughts on Cain and Abel

The story of Cain and Abel tends to get only a light dusting. But it is worthy of deeper investigation. The question that we all ponder is: “Why was Cain’s offering unacceptable?”

There has been much speculation about this, and much of it unsupportable. In particular, three reasons are often suggested: 1) Cain’s offering was unacceptable because it did not involve blood; 2) Cain’s offering was unacceptable because it was not of sufficient material quality;  3) Cain’s offering was unacceptable because it was of little "economic" value i.e., it was not sufficiently sacrificial.

All these reasons lack something vital: scriptural support.

The offering did not have to be a blood offering. It was not made as a sin atonement. Both brothers offered what was appropriate for their vocations. Cain’s sacrifice was not rejected because of any left-wing vegan leanings.

Nor is there any hard evidence that Cain’s offering was of poor quality. It is true that of Abel’s offering we read that it was “of the firstborn of the flock, and their fat” and no comparable description of Cain’s—but such descriptions are more apt for animal offerings. It would be odd to describe an offering of the fruit of the land as the “first sprouted.” The material of Cain’s offering is not described in any negative terms.

Furthermore, there is no suggestion, whatsoever, that Cain’s offering was less economically valuable to Cain than Abel’s was to Abel. It was not rejected because it did not cause enough "pain" to Cain. 

In summary, it appears that the acceptance and rejection of the offerings had nothing to do with the material type, quality, or relative value. 

So what did it have to do with?

We see the hint in the historically ordered Hall of Fame of Old Testament Saints found in Hebrews 11. These OT saints are praised for an intuitive grasp of God’s immutability, a grasp which looks nothing like the later-derived monstrous Greek-philosophy inspired doctrine of immutability that renders God as a blob of cosmic energy. The praiseworthy saints of Hebrews 11 understood the only solid-ground doctrine of immutability that one can learn from scripture: God is unchanging in the sense that we can put total trust in his promises. The OT saints of Hebrews 11 had faith that God would keep his promises made in the garden and later to Noah, Abraham, Moses. etc. 

And who is the first of these saints mentioned in Hebrews 11? It is Abel.

By faith Abel offered to God a better sacrifice than Cain (Heb 11:4)

Though not seeing it fulfilled in his abbreviated life on earth, Abel believed the promise that God made to his (Abel's) parents, that one would come to crush the head of the serpent. Cain did not. Even those who understand this are still tempted to add something to faith—but Abel did not offer a better sacrifice (i.e., more substantive or valuable in some sense) because he had faith. No,  the sense is rather this: because Abel had faith in God’s promise, his sacrifice was deemed better. If Cain was the one who had faith, his vegan sacrifice would have been the one that was accepted and Abel's offering of the first born of the flocks would have been rejected.

God says as much. In talking to Cain after his offering is rejected, God says: “If you [Cain] do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door.”

God is not telling Cain to improve the quality of his offering. He is telling Cain to improve the quality of his heart.

That’s how I see it. I could be totally wrong.