The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers, vol. 1

I. Cain and Abel Tested by Sacrificial Offering System

Next in historical sequence after the expulsion from Eden the test was applied to Cain and Abel, Adam and Eve’s first descendants, as recorded in Genesis 4. This particular test was likewise designed to prove whether they too would believe in and obey the word of God. In accordance with previous instruction Abel brought “of the firstlings of his flock”—a type of the coming Christ, “the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). Cain, on the contrary, brought only an offering “of the fruit of the ground,” which was not in compliance with the divine directive. CFF1 83.3

Picture 1: Abel’s and Cain’s Offering:
By His Offering Abel Recognized the Principle of Atoning Blood Substitution, and Aroused the Hatred of Self sufficient Cain With His Disobedient, Bloodless Offering.
Page 84

The brothers obviously understood the purpose of the system of offerings that God had ordained, designed to express personal faith (Hebrews 11:4) in the atoning death of a coming Saviour. This involved the symbolic sin offerings. These bloody sacrifices dramatized the underlying principle that “without shedding of blood is no remission” (Hebrews 9:22) ¹ CFF1 84.1

Such was the ordained way of acceptable approach to God, instituted immediately after the Fall. CFF1 84.2

1. FATAL LACK IN CAIN’S BLOODLESS OFFERING

Abel followed God’s instructions. Therefore God had “respect unto Abel and to his offering” (Genesis 4:4). But Cain brought only a bloodless offering of the fruit of the ground—the product of his own labor. The fundamental principle of substitutionary sacrifice was thus omitted—the declared recognition of the need of a Redeemer. That is why “by faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain” (Hebrews 11:4). Taking God at His word, he had grasped the basic principle of salvation—sin, penalty, death, substitution, and restoration—with righteousness and life received through the vicarious, sacrificial atonement of another. Abel’s sacrifice clearly represented Christ, laden with the sinner’s sins, in the sinner’s place and stead. Cain’s bloodless offering may have been an acknowledgment of the sovereignty of God and an act of worship, but there was no recognition of the forfeiture of his own life because of his sin nor of his need of salvation from its penalty of death. ² CFF1 85.1

Abel, on the other hand, pouring out the lifeblood of the innocent victim, acknowledged the forfeiture of his own life and sought the mercy of God through the sacrificial substitute. We have dwelt upon this because these two brothers represent the two religious classes that have existed and will continue to exist to the end of time. Here again is revealed the gospel in Genesis, the Abel class recognizing the Redeemer as the sole hope of man. And by New Testament times both the Redeemer’s name and His identity are boldly proclaimed by the apostles as man’s only hope. “Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved” (Acts 4:12). CFF1 85.2

It may also be observed that Cain’s murder of Abel was the first example of the enmity that God declared would exist between the serpent and the seed of the woman—in other words, between Satan and his subjects and Christ and His followers. CFF1 85.3

Picture 2: The First Death of a Human:
The First Death, That of Abel, as the Fruit of Sin Brought Anguish to the Hearts of Our First Parents. But Death Called for Restoration Provided Through Christ.
Page 86

2. LARGER INVOLVEMENTS OF SIN, DEATH, AND SALVATION

So it was that the promise of a Redeemer was immediately followed by the institution of a perpetual reminder and a penitential acknowledgment of man’s sin—a sacrificial confession of faith in the promised Redeemer. This provision was to impress constantly upon fallen man the solemn truth that it was sin that had caused death. Life, that only God could give, was to be taken—for if man had remained obedient to God, there would have been no death of man or beast. CFF1 86.1

In time man came clearly to understand that his sin would cause the death of the coming spotless, sinless Lamb of God, man’s divine Substitute (2 Corinthians 5:21; Hebrews 9:14; 1 Peter 1:19). Nothing could actually expiate man’s sin save the death of God’s own Son, who would give Himself a ransom to save the guilty. CFF1 86.2

Moreover, the coming of the Redeemer would also vindicate the character and veracity of God and His word and will before the universe, and establish the justice and integrity of the government and law of God. Thus Christ said, when He came, “Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me” (John 12:31, 32). CFF1 87.1

That act of dying for the salvation of man would not only make the restored Paradise accessible to men but would justify God in dealing with the rebellion of Satan as well as of defiant man. It would reveal the subversive nature of sin and establish the perpetuity of the word and law of God—and thus show to all that the “wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). CFF1 87.2

This sacrificial rite, established by God Himself, came to have a place in perverted form, it should be added, in most of the ancient religions of mankind. Though mankind had departed far from God, and had lost the true knowledge of Him, yet this one basic principle of forfeiture of life because of sin, and of redemption through a substitute as the only ground of hope, still remained in varying degrees and in distorted forms in most religions, which merely sought to placate their false gods thereby. CFF1 87.3