The Sacrifices of Cain and Abel.
Most Bible readers will be aware of the story of Cain and Abel, a story infamous as the first murder in the Biblical narrative. It’s a story that catches the imagination because just one generation after the first sin in the garden of Eden we already have what most people would classify as the most serious kind of crime taking place. It can be debated as to whether any one sin is any worse than another but at a purely instinctual level most of us will agree that murder seems about as serious a sin as is possible in human terms.
However, it’s at this point that agreement over the understanding of this passage in Biblical history pretty much stops. Preachers have been regaling congregations with various interpretations or applications of this passage since the beginning of Christian preaching and yet, as we will shortly see, the use of this passage to support various pet doctrines is not necessarily justified.
For example, I have heard it said that the two offerings, fruit and vegetables from Cain and a lamb brought by Abel, represent true and false worship offered by God's people. Various authors and speakers go on from that basic premise to suggest this true and false worship may be expressed in terms of which day of the week you worship on, the style of music used in your worship, the order of service or liturgy used or any number of other particulars of Christian worship. I don't want to use this occasion to dive into any of these controversial topics but I do want to question whether or not this story can be used or extrapolated to cover these kinds of questions.
Techniques or Methods for Biblical Interpretation.
In most disciplines the method used by those who practise the discipline is described or summarized in order that others may make use of it or apply it to other situations. So, if a particular method is used to solve a mathematical problem and proves successful or convenient then that method is recorded in order that it might be of service in the solution of other mathematical problems in the future. This practice is the basis of most academic disciplines. The same is true of Bible study. In this case the method, termed Hermeneutics, presents a number of principles which may be used or applied to the understanding of different passages of scripture.
In the case of Scriptural interpretation there are numerous techniques each more fantastic than the last. The Jewish ‘midrash’ hermeneutic encouraged scholars to ‘read into’ passages the most amazing interpretations. Every act, word, number or article could be endowed with enormous significance and a whole set of theories built upon minor details of Biblical narrative. It is fair to say that one of the most commonly accepted hermeneutic methods among Christians today is what is known as the ‘Authorial Intent Hermeneutic”.
This method consists of trying to deduce what the original author of the passage was trying to say to his readers. (A variation on the idea of CIE – context is everything – with the context in this case being historical and authorial.) In all cases it is also important to note that the Bible, as an inspired work, actually represents the intent of two authors – the Divine Author and the human author. Thus in trying to understand what a passage is really saying we need to consider what the intent of the human author was and what the intent of the Divine Author, working through him, might be.
Since around 85% of the Bible consists of narrative it may be that we are tempted to look for further meaning or application of the stories told. Again, many great sermons have been built upon very shaky ground as preachers tried to tease out their own meaning from scriptural passages and make an application for their listeners that would enable each listener to go away feeling as though they’d had some new truth revealed.
A slightly humorous example of this might help explain why such interpretation and application, unless constrained to some extent, can be so dangerous. A young preacher I once listened to happened across the passage in Genesis chapter 11 which refers to the building of the Tower of Babel. The narrative records that, since no stone was available, the builders used ‘brick for stone and slime for mortar’. (Gen. 11:3 KJV) Now, the impending embarrassment might still have been averted if this young preacher had enough sense to look for the meaning of this passage by either going back to the original language or by consulting a modern translation of the Bible. He did neither.
Our young man, ill informed, made what appeared to him to be a logical connection. Slime, he thought, is slippery. Furthermore, the tower of Babel was an unsuccessful affront to God’s authority. He made a connection and constructed a delightful little treatise on the subject of how important it is that we, Christians, build our lives not on something slippery like slime but on something solid and reliable. The sentiments this young preacher expressed were, no doubt, sound but his use of scripture to support this presentation was nonsensical. The bitumen used by the Mesopotamian builders was about as far from slippery slime as can be imagined and the remains of their brick towers and Ziggurats are still visible to this day, thousands of years later.
So, if we are looking for a rule or method to use in seeking application of scripture what could we use? It seems reasonable that any application or further meaning of a scripture beyond the principle of Authorial intent should be based on a Christological interpretation. That is, an interpretation or application that points to Christ and his ministry. Hence if there is to be any meaning attributed to a passage beyond the intent of the original author/Author then it should be in terms of Christ and his ministry of Salvation.
So, to summarize. When seeking to understand what any passage of scripture is really saying we must first try to determine what the Author/author of the passage intended the passage to convey to his readers. This will mean knowing some historical background to the message or narrative. It will mean learning some history and it will mean that scripture must be compared with scripture. If additional meaning or application is to be attributed to the passage then it must be with Christ and his ministry as the focus.
Application to the Story.
Let’s see how this works with the story of Cain and Abel and their very different sacrifices. To do this we’ll use exactly the hermeneutic outlined above – first looking at the historical and authorial context then exploring the secondary Christological application if appropriate.
It is generally accepted that Moses wrote the book of Genesis and that he did so at some point during the Exodus of the newly formed Israelite nation from Egypt. While seeking to understand authorial intent (Moses) it is probably helpful to consider that the majority of Moses’ other 4 books in the Bible contain information about ceremonies, worship and the covenant between God and his people. Bearing this in mind it is easy to imagine that Moses might well have seen in the story of Cain and Abel an opportunity to emphasise the importance of sacrifices that were acceptable to God.
It is, I believe, helpful to digress somewhat at this point and consider the actual mechanism by which Moses 'wrote' Genesis. There is a certain amount of debate as to whether Moses even did write the first five books of the Bible but since Jesus readily refers to this material and says nothing to dispute it's being attributed to Moses we might accept that he was the author. A valid question remains as to how Moses got hold of the information he recorded in his writings. Clearly he was not present at creation or during the deluge so how did he receive that information?
One solution to this problem is to suggest that Moses received the narrative via Divine dictation while he was up on the mountain at Sinai. Others suggest that Moses may well have had time to compile his writings from records he accessed while in Midian prior to his return to Egypt. No doubt his early education in the palace of the Pharoah was excellent preparation not only for his leadership role but also for the scholarly work of compiling and presenting the many laws and histories vital to the inception of the new nation of Israel.
Personally I think the second explanation more probable because there are numerous textual clues indicating that Genesis was 'compiled' from existing writings or clay tablets. We will not consider this topic in any depth (it would take a whole other sermon to do so!) but Meredith Kline (1970) and P J Wiseman (1948) give an in-depth treatment of this subject in which they examine the textual and linguistic clues still evident in the modern narrative and point out the starting and closing phrases typical of individual tablets from that era.
If we accept the view that Moses compiled Genesis from existing accounts and carried out, perhaps, a suitable amount of editing then we find our supposition of intent very valid indeed. Why did Moses select one story but omit another? Why does he give great detail about one event then skip vast time periods with almost no detail at all? The answers are provided for us if we accept that there may simply have been no records still available for certain time periods and/or Moses includes a great amount of detail about things which are of utmost significance for the fledgling nation of Israel following the Exodus from Egypt. If this view is acceptable then the inclusion of the story of Cain and Abel's sacrifices is of obvious importance to a nation who have just been given intricate detail about how to worship Jehovah the 'right' way.
In considering authorial intent we also need to look at the intent of the Author (God) who inspired Moses to carry out the work and to include certain information whilst omitting other detail. In this example all three (Author, author & Christological application) are so closely intertwined that this exercise is simple. What message, if any, might God wish to put across to his people, Israel, by inspiring Moses to include this story in Genesis? With the obvious implication that the ‘lamb’ in the story is representative of The lamb (Jesus) it seems reasonable to assume that once again the import of the message is the importance of basing our relationship with God on the correct sacrifice – for us that means the sacrifice of The Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world.
If there is any additional meaning to be drawn out of this story it is that we must be careful not to substitute anything, however good, for full dependence on the sacrifice of Jesus. The simple fact is that Cain somehow developed an attitude in which he hoped his own ‘gift’ to God could somehow substitute for the work of the Lamb while all the time what he was actually doing was rejecting the offered salvation and hoping to make his own sacrifice and have that accepted by God in place of the Lamb. How ironic then that some would use this story as the basis for a salvation conditional upon our efforts.
A perceptive reader might be inclined to ask whether sticking to these strict guidelines in interpreting scripture is necessary. Why not, they might ask, allow each reader to prayerfully add their own interpretation or application to the original meaning or authorial intent? Let’s consider for a moment where this could lead.
We have seen that this is a story about sacrifice. A story about the Lamb and the importance, or should we say necessity, of making the ‘Lamb’ the centre of our hope and not trying to substitute our own good activities. Why not take this story and make it about something else? Why not look for other interpretations? If your particular fascination is with the Saturday/Sunday question or the debate about forms and styles of worship why not take this story of two different sacrifices and apply it to your problem? Why not take the 'right' sacrifice to refer to organ music while the 'wrong' sacrifice is applied to guitars and drums?
The answer is simple and straightforward. We may use tried and trusted techniques such as the Authorial Intent Hermeneutic and we may look to the context of a passage to discover its meaning but we must then draw a line under our efforts and stop at that point. To step over that line is to move into an area without boundaries in which any and every 'interpretation' must be at least considered. Who can say where this might lead. One person might use this story to justify or condemn a day of worship. Another might use it to condemn certain styles of worship or the music used. But, if we've stepped over the line, why stop there? Why not use this story to, I don't know, condemn vegetarianism?
The problem is simple. Once you step over the line into personal interpretation then the only limit is the credulity of the audience set against the charisma of the speaker. This is precisely what has gone on whenever any cult or offshoot organisation has formed. Some charismatic speaker has learned to 'use' scripture to support their own ideas and ideals and has led a group of people into extremism with sometimes horrific consequences.
In Summary.
How vital it is then that, as Christians, we learn not only to accept the sacrifice of The Lamb rather than trying to substitute any effort or sacrifice of our own but that we 'study to show ourselves approved' by learning to methodically and carefully interpret the Word of God so that we may not be 'blown about by any wind of doctrine'.
