Tell me more ×
Biblical Hermeneutics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professors, theologians, and those interested in exegetical analysis of biblical texts. It's 100% free, no registration required.

The purpose of this question is to examine if Abel's hermeneutic principles can be reversed out of the text. The presupposition is that Abel had access to the information contained in Genesis 1-3. This is an exercise in hermeneutics and I would hope we don't get into debating about Cain and Abel being literal sons of fictional parents.

This is related to Jack's question on hermeneutical approaches.

A question concerning why Abel raised sheep was answered by Monica but the issue of the sacrifice was not included.

share|improve this question

2 Answers

up vote 3 down vote accepted

I can provide a simple answer, which is a partial non-answer.

Abel only knew what his parents told him, but that knowledge was mixed with faith. The Bible does not provide a full primitive history of the priesthood, or of sacrifices. Although it can be argued that God's killing of animals to clothe Adam and Eve does forge the original seed-idea for sacrifice. It also naturally created a 'subconscious' sense of atonement for guilt and shame/nakedness by sacrifice. Pagan religions probably all inherited a corrupted version of this ancient practice. Somehow from God's sacrifice for Adam and Eve, they knew that in approaching God there was no way to do it, but by an atoning sacrifice.

In the case of Abel, his faith seems to 'shine' in his 'attitude'. Abel gave the 'firstborn' of his flock by faith (Heb 11:4). Cain could have done the same with his fruit and God would have accepted that. The idea of the firstborn, or first-fruit is a major theme in the Bible. The first-born represented what 'belonged to God' and signified much more blessing to come after. Just as the first grains signified late end-of-harvest crops. In this way Jesus, who is is the 'firstborn among many brothers' signifies the resurrection of many brothers. (Rom 8:9)

I think the idea is, Abel saw both the need of an atoning sacrifice and the mercy of God extended in giving so much good things to men, that he gave the first fruits of his wealth. He knew his first-fruits should be carried back to its source in thankfulness. His brother, just grabbed any old fruit. Of course Abel's faith wold later be strictly symbolized in the Levitical Priesthood and Temple practices under Moses.

So 'Where did Abel get the idea to sacrifice sheep?' He mixed the words of his parents, and the natural observation of the earths bounty with faith. With such little light his faith is commended.

share|improve this answer
1  
Nice analysis, picking up on first fruits vs not. +1. One nit: actually, Kayin went first per the text and Hevel followed his lead. (The text says gam, also, so this isn't just the text reporting in arbitrary order.) Possibly Hevel is trying to one-up his brother by offering better stuff? – Monica Cellio Jun 8 '12 at 19:34
Err, sorry, I was looking at the Hebrew text when I wrote that so didn't transform the names to Cain and Abel. With luck you knew what I meant. :-) – Monica Cellio Jun 8 '12 at 20:58
Hi Monica. Thanks, I saw your point about the order, so removed the insinuation that Abel offered his sacrifice first. Cheers – Mike Jun 9 '12 at 4:01
Cheers Mike, and welcome to BH. I hope you continue to contribute. – Monica Cellio Jun 10 '12 at 3:09

It is instructive to evaluate the hermeneutic of Abel based on the presumption that he had access to scriptures containing creation and the fall. Abel, based on his interpretation of the scriptures he had, chose to be a shepherd. He is commended for offering a proper sacrifice, often ignoring the fact that in order to offer the sacrifice, he had to dedicate his life to being a shepherd. His devotion to God was not a single act, but a lifelong commitment.

Meanwhile, Cain, having access to the same information as Abel, dedicated his life to working the earth. What is the difference, based on the scriptures available to them?

Consider the curse (or the consequence):

17 ¶ And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Questions:

  1. Did the curse apply to all men, or just to Adam?
  2. If it applied to all men, why and how did Abel choose to live outside the curse?
  3. If it only applied to Adam, why did Cain choose to live under the curse?

Consider the gift from God:

21 ¶ Unto Adam also and to his wife did the LORD God make coats of skins, and clothed them.

Observation: Discussions concerning the garments usually specify that a single lamb was slain, though we are told that the plural skins were used, and we are not told the kind of animal.

It is inferred from Abel's sacrifice, that the animals slain for Adam and Eve were sheep. The presumption of the inference is that Abel was attempting to mimic the first sacrifice.

The inference is supported:

Re 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

The Greek word for foundation (katabole) has the sense of throwing down in reference to Adam and Eve being thrown out when they were fallen. This suggests that the lamb slain... is a reference to the animal slain at the time that the whole world began to groan, having been thrown down.

Furthermore, the world for said (AMR) is identical for the word for word and lamb. When God created the world, he said... He created by his Word and by the Lamb.

The skins that God provided him were symbolically a covering provided by the death of the Lamb, the creator of the world.

The presumption that God killed an animal to obtain the skins rather than create animal-less skins is warranted, from:

Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission.

If there was no shedding of blood, Adam did not receive forgiveness.

What possible reasons would he have for mimicking the first sacrifice? The possibilities might include: 1. He presumed that the gift given to Adam and Eve after the curse was a good gift and he wished to give a good gift. 2. He thought he must somehow he was obligated repay God for the sacrifice made for Adam and Eve.

In the first instance, Abel dedicated his life to raising sheep so that he could give God a good gift in return. In the second, he dedicated his life to raising sheep as an obligation. How we interpret his motivation speaks more of us than of Abel.

Either way, the end result is the same, his hermeneutic led him to an interaction with God based on the gift that God gave, In contrast, Cain chose to live under the curse, and to give a gift reflecting the curse.

We are told that Abel had a hermeneutic where the guiding principle was faith. (Heb 11.4) The implication is that Cain did not share that faith. Since it was a hermeneutic of faith, we can eliminate the possibility that Abel felt obligated to sacrifice.

As a hermeneutic of faith, there are two elements that must be examined:

15 And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

24 So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.

He trusted God would conquer the serpent, and that the road back to Eden was only temporarily blocked by the angels who kept the way open.

Heb 11.6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

16 But now they desire a better country, that is, an heavenly: wherefore God is not ashamed to be called their God: for he hath prepared for them a city.

It is plausibly concluded that Abel believed God, and attempted to enter into a relationship by offering a good gift back to God, choosing to live in the promise rather than the curse.

The hermeneutic of faith trusts God, believes that God desires to give good gifts, and responds by returning the good gifts that have been received.

1Jo 4:19 We love him, because he first loved us.

share|improve this answer
This argument relies on the premise that God killed an animal to provide the skins (so Abel modelled that, etc). Do you have a source for that premise? – Monica Cellio May 17 '12 at 20:27
@Monica I don't understand the question. Are you proposing that God obtained the skins without killing animals? – Bob Jones May 18 '12 at 5:10
@Monica you must be referring to the sages who say that it was linen or wool, not skin. However, google "first sacrifice" and you will see that the skins have been considered a type of Christ for centuries by the church. The implication is supported by Heb 9:22 And almost all things are by the law purged with blood; and without shedding of blood is no remission. Hence if Adam was forgiven, then the skins were a symbol of it derived by the shedding of blood. – Bob Jones May 18 '12 at 5:33
Ex 26.14 refers to badger skins to cover the tabernacle, the same sages do not suggest that it was covered with badger wool. – Bob Jones May 18 '12 at 5:42
I am suggesting that, per the premise of the question which calls for using only Gen 1-3, we do not know if an animal was killed to make the skins. Surely God, who can do anything, can produce skins without first producing and then slaughtering the animal. (I'm not arguing for wool/linen.) I'm not saying God did; I'm saying we don't know. – Monica Cellio May 18 '12 at 13:16
show 9 more comments

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.