Quote:
Originally Posted by JDWiseman 
Victor:
I'm going to risk saying something very foolish. I'm an ignorant child of this modern era, and have just now realized that I might have misunderstood the term "first fruits" all of my life. I've been working under the assumption that it was the "first yield" of the harvest. If so, wouldn't "first fruits" be more of a chronological reference than a "quality" reference?
I know that the term is often tied to a sense of "quality" and "the best", but would Cain really have been able to offer "first fruits" year round? I realize I could save myself possible public embarrassment by looking that up right now, but it's pretty late here.
Anyhow, I'm just wondering if the lack of the term "firstfruits" really denigrates the quality of Cain's offering, since, perhaps, it wasn't that time of the harvest.
Thanks again for the replies. There's a bit of fog on this issue, and I want to know, not only what can I believe, or what the text possibly or even probably teaches, but what in fact the text does teach.
|
Joshua, I'd say that the word for firstfruits definitely implies chronology: the first of the crop. It is identical to the Mosaic idea of the first born being dedicated. I think what is understood is that when you have a blessing from God, be it a crop or a newborn animal or a son, you acknowledge that everything that comes to you is from God. That is acknowledged by giving the first of everything.
So there is a quality aspect, not in the sense that the first harvested fruit tastes better than later fruit, but rather, the first fruit is the best because it is first. It is the exact opposite of saying, "I'll take what I need and if there is anything left over, I'll give it to God."
Just to clarify, I'm not committed to arguing against the blood atonement aspect for God's rejection of Cain's offering. It just strikes me that the thrust of the passage, and the passage in Hebrews 11:4, tells us that the real thing Cain missed was faith.
It very well could be that all men were required to offer a blood sacrifice. Or, possibly, a grain sacrifice may have been honored. Regardless of that, Cain clearly had prideful envy, no humility, and a desire to justify himself. I'd guess that even if Cain had bought a blood sacrifice from Abel, it would not have been accepted either, because of lack of faith. Sin would still lie at his door. He could protest all he wanted that he followed the "rules", but blindly trying to follow the rules doesn't save the undone.