Contents
Interpretation 1: Abel’s sacrifice was substantially better than Cain’s.
Arguments in favour of this view:
1. The Greek text of Hebrews 11:4 says that Abel’s sacrifice was “pleiona” compared to Cain’s sacrifice. This means a greater sacrifice.
This says something about the sacrifice itself—its extent—and not something about the person sacrificing.
2. In Genesis 4:3–4 we read that Cain brought to the LORD an offering of the fruit of the ground,
while Abel also brought of the firstborn of his flock and of their fat portions.
This formulation suggests that Abel presented his sacrifice with greater care and love than Cain did.
The LORD was more delighted with [Abel’s] oblation when he was honoured with what grew naturally of its own accord, than he was with what was the invention of a covetous man, and gotten by forcing the ground
1.
Arguments against this view:
1. The Greek term “pleiona” does not only indicate greater
or more substantial,
but can also mean more excellent in value
(see, e.g., Matthew 6:25; Matthew 12:12; Luke 11:13).
2. In Genesis 4 nothing is said about the substantial value of Cain’s sacrifice. The difference from Abel’s sacrifice simply stems from both of them working in agriculture: Abel was a keeper of sheep, and Cain a worker of the ground. We should not infer from the description in Genesis 4 that Abel’s sacrifice of cattle implied greater care than Cain’s. After the fall a harvest of grain had to be brought by the sweat of man’s face and in a constant struggle against thorns and thistles—all without the modern agricultural machinery as we know it today.
3. The size or magnitude of a sacrifice does not determine its value before God (see Luke 21:1–4).
4. The description as given by Flavius Josephus regarding the difference between Abel’s and Cain’s sacrifices is based on untenable fantasy. Nowhere does God’s Word teach that agriculture represents a form of forcing nature by the ingenuity of man who is never satisfied and always wants more (as implied with Josephus).
Interpretation 2: Abel’s sacrifice showed his realization that atonement for man’s guilt is possible only through satisfaction.
Arguments in favour of this view:
1. Abel’s sacrifice testified to an awareness of sin. By killing an animal, a first-born, he acknowledged that man is no longer worthy of life. He deserves death on account of his disobedience to God. Abel already understood that there had to be a substitutionary sacrifice through which all sins would be completely atoned for.
2. Hebrews 11:4 says that Abel sacrificed by faith. In the context of the letter to the Hebrews, the content of faith is that Jesus Christ needed to sacrifice himself for the guilt of man.
3. We also find such a guilt-conscious sacrifice with Noah after the flood (Genesis 8:20–21). Noah realized that he and his family had taken sin with them into the ark and that it was still present when they stepped out on dry ground. God would have just cause to kill them too. He therefore sought refuge, with his sacrifice of a pair of all (!) the clean animals, behind vicarious blood.
Arguments against this view:
1. It is possible that Abel, in his choice of sacrificial material, expressed all his guilt and hope in the once-off atoning sacrifice and satisfaction of God’s Son. But in Genesis 4, and also in Hebrews 11:4, this argument is not actually mentioned.
Interpretation 3: Abel’s sacrifice was more acceptable because his attitude was better than Cain’s.
Arguments in favour of this view:
1. The apostle John writes in his first letter (1 John 3:12) that Cain’s deeds were evil and his brother’s were righteous.
2. We also read in other places in God’s Word that God does not accept our prayer or sacrifice when our life is unacceptable to God (see Psalm 66:18, Proverbs 15:29, Isaiah 1:15, 1 Timothy 3:8, 1 Peter 3:7).
The most plausible interpretation:
A combination of interpretations 2 and 3.
4 By faith Abel offered to God a more acceptable sacrifice than Cain, through which he was commended as righteous, God commending him by accepting his gifts. And through his faith, though he died, he still speaks.