Everyone in God’s covenants enters them by grace alone, i.e., divine favour and generosity not dependant on merit. Unmerited grace clearly applied to a Jewish baby born within the Abrahamic Covenant; equally to the Christian baby baptized by the Church and incorporated within the Covenant of Christ’s blood; likewise to the adult convert given faith to apprehend Christ161 and receive Christian baptism; and the human baby, starting with Cain as the world’s first infant, freely incorporated within the Universal Covenant of life through the two-way age-enduring merits of Christ’s righteous act that universally nullifies Adam’s act of disobedience162. The issue then becomes how one retains the benefits of that covenant as opposed to defaulting. The answer is faith or faithfulness [same word in biblical Greek] evidenced by fruit. The Jew who turned from JHWE to idolatry defaults his covenantal privileges; those in Christ who fail to produce fruit may remain in the Church but will not participate in the marriage of the Lamb, for every branch in Christ that fails to bear fruit will be removed163; members of the human race who fail to produce any fruit in the form of compassionate love ( agape) like Cain and the Matthew 25 “goats” remain on earth but become alienated from God’s loving care; they have a new master to look after their interests, and at least as far ahead as Scripture permits us to foresee will not be incorporated within God’s eternal Kingdom but will receive post-mortem punishment164.
160 Gen21:8-20
161 Eph2:8
162 Rom5:18
163 Cf. Jn15:2
164 Mt25:45-46
27
Cain, Abel and what God required of them
The following verse from Genesis is unquestionably covenantal in form, though most theologians for the last two thousand years have chosen not to regard it as such:
“If thou (Cain) doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? And if thou doest not well, Sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him”165
“Will you not be accepted?” could equally be translated “will your countenance not be lifted?” which is utilized by some versions of the Bible. The King James Version quoted above rightly understands “sin” to be referring to a person (the Sinful One), for he is lying or crouching (Hebrew: rabats) at the door and has a desire to control Cain. Sin per se could hardly be at the door in Cain’s case, it’s already in Cain’s heart and about to wreak havoc.
Cain is described elsewhere as “of the evil one”, confirming that the Sinful One was indeed at the portal of his soul and was able to master Cain and thereby control him, in fact own him166. From the human perspective, that would not have been so if Cain had responded differently to the challenge JHWE presented to him in Gen4:7, so the verse effectively reflects a Universal Covenant for fallen humanity; for Abel was fallen but he was accepted.
The focus of the Cain and Abel story which is drawn upon in the New Testament is not concerning Abel’s salvation but Cain’s reprobation (rejection), indicated by the vital yet typically glossed references to “this day” and “now” regarding the elder brother’s fate. The day he killed his brother he was cursed and entirely alienated from God and not before that day. When God told Cain to “do well”, He was not seeking perfection but to do what the young man intuitively knew to be right: offer like Abel the first fruits of his crop and certainly not go on to slaughter his innocent brother in cold blood. For no one is born devoid of at least one “talent” (the light of reason and a sense of justice) but some choose to bury it in the ground, and they will be condemned167. Cain, an agricultural farmer was not expected to steal from his livestock farmer brother Abel to sacrifice an animal in offering for his sin, as some translations imply (e.g., Young’s Literal). Comparing Scripture with Scripture we see that Cain and his sacrifice were not accepted because his works were evil whilst his brother’s works were righteous168. That was because the one exercised faith and the other didn’t, for one was a child of God, the other as confirmed in later Scripture was or had become satanic.
As second century Irenaeus had expressed the matter in this context: “It is the conscience of the offeror that sanctifies the sacrifice when (the conscience) is pure and thus moves God to accept the sacrifice as from a friend”169. Abel showed by his works and a good conscience that he had “faith” so was justified by that faith with reference to works (offering the best of his flock). Through the faithfulness of Christ ( ek pisteos christou)170, which some more recent theologians and Bible translators recognize needs to be 165 Gen4:7 King James Version
166 1Jn3:12
167 Mt25:14-29
168 1Jn3:12
169 Irenaeus against heresies book IV chap. 18 (3)
170 E.g. Rom3:22; Gal2:16; Gal3:22
28
distinguished from cognisant faith in Christ ( pisteos en Christo)171, expiation has been provided for the faults arising from human weakness for those who themselves seek to be faithful to God172. The understanding of some that Cain and Abel were expected to anticipate a future Sacrifice for sin by killing an animal is unsustainable; cultic sacrifices were not clearly established as a religious system until the Law of Moses.
Paul, James and the writer to the Hebrews make it clear why Abraham had been counted as righteous, being a belief in the God he had encountered evidenced by obedience, in his case that he would be rewarded with a great family173. No one in the Old Testament is declared to be justified on the basis of offering an animal sacrifice, so Abel cannot be an exception. Abel exercised faith and produced fruit in the form of good works.
Abel didn’t “get saved”, he remained accepted (justified) and was acknowledged as righteous within the Universal Covenant. Cain reprobated (became rejected) and was brand-marked for Satan, and as a warning to those who would cross him, but that was not at the point he failed to offer his first fruit in sacrifice, for although God was not pleased with his offering, He still held out an olive branch. Rather he was called to account immediately he had killed his brother. The issue was never the brothers’ religious observance per se for as always God delights in compassion more than religious offerings as Jesus Himself affirmed174.