Hebrews 11 lists many of the heroes of the faith, such as Noah, Abraham, Moses, Gideon, and David—men whose deeds are well-known. Yet the man whose name heads the list was not known for leading brave men against an overwhelming enemy, capturing a city, or delivering God’s people out of slavery. In fact, very few words are devoted to Abel in the book of Genesis.
We know that he was born after his brother Cain and that he was a keeper of sheep (Gen. 4:2). The text also says that Abel brought of the firstlings of his flock and of their fat to the Lord, which were accepted (v. 4). The last thing we read concerning him is that he was talking to his brother in a field when Cain murdered him (v. 8). With so little being recorded about him, why does he top the list of faithful men?
First, the length of time one serves God is not a factor in determining his salvation. Nothing indicates that he would have ever been anything other than a man of faith had he not been deprived of his future life. As it was, he died in full fellowship with God, his sins having been forgiven. What, then, demonstrates his faith?
By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks (Heb. 11:4).
Only one thing is mentioned as a criterion for Abel’s faithfulness—his correct worship. Since what he did was by faith, and faith comes by the hearing of the Word of God (Rom. 10:17), Abel was responding to something that God had commanded him to do. The writer of Hebrews explains further just a few verses later when he mentions the “sprinkling of blood” in connection with Abel (12:24). As good as what he offered was, it could not do what the blood of Christ did, and the two are contrasted.
Under the Law of Moses, the sprinkling of blood was done for the mercy seat, the Holy Place, the altar of burnt offering, the book, and the people (Lev. 16:15-19; Heb. 9:19-22). We do not know if Abel sprinkled the blood upon himself, an altar, or both when he gave his offering. While it is true that, under the Law of Moses, this sprinkling of blood was done, it can hardly be a surprise that under the Patriarchal system blood sacrifices were also required, since “without shedding of blood there is no remission” (Heb. 9:22).
The writer of Hebrews also tells us that the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sin (Heb. 10:4); the animal blood served as a type of that shed by Christ: “Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption” (Heb. 9:12). The fact is that blood has always been required for the purging of sins, whether under the Law or prior to the law when God first created the world. But the blood of sprinkling offered by Christ speaks better things than that which was offered by Abel (Heb. 12:24).
Why then is Abel listed as a hero of the faith? The answer is that he obeyed God by giving Him the kind of sacrifice He required. How simple is that! Although Cain did give God an offering of his own, which undoubtedly did cost him something (and perhaps was even a heartfelt gift), nevertheless, it was not what God had required. Therefore, God rejected it. It contained no blood with which to purge sins.
Abel is, therefore, referred to as faithful because he worshipped God the way God required. Something so uncomplicated should be imitated. God considers as faithful those who worship as He has commanded. Not a few take the approach that Cain did—they give to God what pleases them. Since the beginning of the world, mankind has never learned this lesson: Man the creature cannot worship God the Creator as he wishes.
Man’s Thinking
No sooner did God give a command than man began to deliberate on how important it really was and how many variations to the command could be found. If God said He wanted a blood sacrifice, a man with the PETA mentality came along to see if just the fruit of the ground would suffice. It did not. If God specified a fire that he wanted used with the censers, Nadab and Abihu wondered whether or not the source of the fire really mattered. It did (Lev. 10:1-2).
When God said that He wanted no graven images, Israel decided just weeks later to see if He really meant it; He did. If God specified that the Levites should be priests, Jeroboam speculated that it would probably be all right to make priests from any of the other tribes, also. It was not. In fact, the changes he made in worship were called “a great sin” (2 Kings 17:21).
Notice that none of these examples involves deep theological thinking. All Cain had to do was offer a blood sacrifice. All Nadab and Abihu had to do was use the fire God had specified rather than some other fire of their own choosing. All Jeroboam or any of the kings who followed him needed to do was to destroy the golden calves (in Dan and Bethel) and be certain that only the Levites served as priests.
Simplicity
No, man has not grown any wiser in the 21st century. God says for the men to exercise leadership in worship (1 Tim. 2:8-14), but today’s churches want an “expanded” role for women. So now they are deaconesses and Scripture readers, treasurers, and (in denominations) evangelists.
God commanded us to sing, but people say, “Let’s use instruments of music, or we will lose our young people” (as if they cannot understand the principle of authority taught in Colossians 3:17).
God says that He wants the local church to be organized under elders and deacons (1 Timothy 3; Titus 1), and most religious groups assume that He is happy with the “pastor” system under which they operate.
God says that the church is be supported by members giving as they have been prospered (2 Cor. 9:6-7), and many assume that means having fundraisers.
God says that His people must live righteously in order for their prayers to be heard (Ps. 66:18; cf. I John 1:5-7), and many think that means that they only have to be holy while they are in the assembly—that how they dress and behave outside is irrelevant.
People do not stand condemned for not comprehending the deep subjects found in the Bible. The fact is that we do not follow the things that are easy to understand. All that God requires is that we do what He said in the way He said it. Are you Abel?
DEAR MR. PRESIDENT
Gary W. Summers
[Editor’s note: Religion and politics don’t mix—right? Okay; so in general we do not write political articles, and this is not one, either. We do, however, devote attention to moral issues, which sometimes intersect with the realm of political activity. This is one of those occasions. As always, we are only speaking of things that can be documented.]
Dear Mr. President,
On Wednesday, August 19th, of the past week, you called upon religious leaders to help you promote the truth about your health care reforms. You said that people were mischaracterizing the issue and that there were
fabrications that have been put out there in order to discourage people from meeting what I consider to be a core ethical and moral obligation, and that is that we look out for one another, that I am my brother’s keeper, I am my sister’s keeper, and in the wealthiest nation on Earth right now, we are neglecting to live up to that call.
First, I want to thank you, Mr. President, for consulting with religious leaders. I have been preaching for 43 years with the primary goal of saving the souls of men. You are correct, of course, in saying that we are our brother’s keeper, a fact ironically introduced by the first murderer on earth. When God asked Cain about his brother, he asked that famous question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Gen. 4:9). The entire Bible answers this question, “Yes.”
Jesus healed people wherever He went (Mark 6:54-56) and taught that love means compassion (Matt. 25:31-46). Since you have sought the thinking of religious leaders and have shown familiarity with some of the Scriptures, I am emboldened to provide my insight into a few Biblical subjects, which I pray that you will consider carefully.
Since you have spoken of moral and ethical obligations, could you explain how you reconcile those words (and your seeking the help of religious leaders) with your position in favor of abortion—even late term abortion? The Bible teaches respect for human life. One of the Ten Commandments that God gave to Israel was: “You shall not murder” (Ex. 20:13; all quotations are from the New King James).
The only question that is relevant to the topic of abortion would be: “Is what is in the womb alive?” We read in Genesis 25:22 that the twin sons in Rebekah’s womb “struggled together within her.” A prophecy of the two brothers follows. Can any theologian or politician argue that they were not alive? Yet your director of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, would have approved Dr. Tiller’s murder of those twins.
Is there no moral obligation to keep children alive until the time of their birth? How about John the Baptizer in Luke 1? His mother was an older woman who had been barren for many years when she conceived. Mary, the mother of Jesus, went to visit her, and the babe (the Greek word is brephos) leaped in Elizabeth’s womb, thus indicating life (Luke 1:41, 44). Would it have been murder if Elizabeth had decided to have an abortion? If it would have been in her case, then why is it not in the case of all other children?
Perhaps none of the religious leaders that you have consulted with have ever mentioned it to you, Mr. President, but the same Greek word that refers to the babe in the womb also is used by the Holy Spirit to refer to a ‘fetus’ that has been born. In Luke 2:12 and 16 Jesus was a “Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger.” The same Greek word (brephos) that is used of John before birth is used to describe the child Jesus after His birth.
While I am on the topic of morality, sir, and since you brought up Biblical language and teaching, will you not consider what the Bible teaches about homosexuality? Paul, the inspired apostle, selected personally by Jesus (Acts 9), said that the practice involves “vile passions” and that it is “against nature” (Rom. 1:26). In fact, Paul also says that this “shameful” practice results from men who “did not like to retain God in their knowledge” (Rom. 1:27).
The purpose of bringing up this topic is not to encourage some kind of legislation to outlaw the practice, but neither do we think that government should encourage an immoral practice such as homosexuality. Let me exhort you to continue to uphold the Defense of Marriage Act, signed into law by Bill Clinton on September 21, 1996. As you know, Mr. President, God created, in the beginning, one woman for one man for life. You and your wife and daughters are a model of the type of family God had in mind at the Creation. Two people of the same gender being “married” makes a mockery of God’s Divine design. Please hold firm on this issue.
You might wonder why I should spend so much time on these other moral issues; the reason is this. The Bible teaches that, if one part of it is upheld, then all parts must be upheld. Consider these verses:
For whoever shall keep the whole law, and yet stumble in one point, is guilty of all. For He who said, “Do not commit adultery,” also said, “Do not murder.” Now if you do not commit adultery, but you do murder, you have become a transgressor of the law (James 2:10-11).
The application is easy to see. If you urge people to be their brother’s keeper, you cannot at the same time encourage murder (abortion) or immorality (homosexuality). Anyone who appeals to the Scriptures for moral authority must be subject to and abide by all that the Word of God teaches.
Can religious leaders count on your support on these moral matters? But now, let us return to the health care issue which began this discussion. You have called upon us to help fight the misinformation that is out there. To be sure, many people are protesting the plan and are worried about some of the provisions. Many have taken the time to actually read the 1,018 pages of HR3200 or the 615 pages of the Senate version. Some may have drawn incorrect conclusions, and we would all like to clear up any misconceptions there might be, if we can.
Once again, you used the Biblical terminology, decrying the use of those who have been “bearing false witness” against your health care plan. At this point, however, things become a little murky—because on August 11th, when you were in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, you said, “I have not said that I was a single payer supporter.” That sentence seems straightforward. You said you had not said you were a single-payer supporter.
The problem is that in 2003, you said, “I happen to be a proponent of a single payer, universal health care plan. That’s what I’d like to see.” In 2007 you said, “But I don’t think we’re going to eliminate employer coverage immediately. There’s going to be potentially some transition process. I can envision a decade or 15 years out or 20 years out.”
You made it clear in 2003 that you are a proponent of a single payer, universal health care plan, and in 2007 you made it clear that you wanted to do away with employer coverage, yet on August 11th you said you have never said that you are a single payer supporter. Uh, sir, are you bearing false witness against yourself?
Mr. President, some of us are confused. For all we know, you may be confused, since you are contradicting yourself. May I make a suggestion? It might be wise to step back and learn specifically what the American people want. It does seem that some reforms would be beneficial, but most people are suspicious of a bill requiring two reams of paper to print. God has given us everything that pertains to life and godliness (2 Peter 1:3) in fewer than 400 pages of the New Testament!
Why not take the time to figure out if the American people want a health care system that is run by our government—or if we want one that allows for competition between various companies? Right now it looks as though the majority of people do not want either the House or Senate plan in their current forms. We do not need meetings where people are hostile and are shouting at each other; we need quiet discussion and deliberation on what is best for the citizens of this country.
If you are still reading, thank you for your patience. A predecessor of yours, George Washington, observed the connection between this nation’s success and morality: “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports….” Thank you for bringing morality to the forefront of discussion. May the Bible continue to influence you and your administration (Acts 20:32).