The contrast between Cain and Abel, as reflected in their names, did not just concern their personalities; it was also manifested in their respective occupations. While Cain was “a tiller of the ground” (Gen. 4:2, NKJV), a profession requiring physical hard work, Abel was “a keeper of sheep” (Gen. 4:2, NKJV), a profession implying sensitivity and compassion.

 Cain was the producer of the fruit of the ground. Abel the keeper of the sheep. These two occupations not only explain the nature of the two offerings (fruit of the ground from Cain and a sheep from Abel) — they also account for the two different psychological attitudes and mentalities associated with the two offerings: Cain was working to “acquire” the fruit he would produce, while Abel was careful to “keep” the sheep he had received.

 Read Genesis 4:1-5 and Hebrews 11:4. Why did God accept Abel’s offering and reject Cain’s offering? How are we to understand what happened here?

 “Without the shedding of blood there could be no remission of sin; and they [Cain and Abel] were to show their faith in the blood of Christ as the promised atonement by offering the firstlings of the flock in sacrifice. Besides this, the first fruits of the earth were to be presented before the Lord as a thank offering.” — Ellen G. White, Patriarchs and Prophets, p. 71.

 While Abel complied with God’s instructions and offered the vegetable offering in addition to the animal burnt offering, Cain neglected to do so. He didn’t bring an animal to be sacrificed, but only an offering of “the fruit of the ground.” It was an act of open disobedience, in contrast to the attitude of his brother. This story has often been viewed as a classic case of salvation by faith (Abel and his blood offering) in contrast to an attempt to earn salvation by works (Cain and his fruit of the ground).

 Although these offerings must have had spiritual significance, they did not have any magic value in themselves. They were always merely symbols, images, pointing to the God who provided the sinner not only sustenance but also redemption.