No, the bread and wine of the communion service doesn't save us, however, it symbolizes what Christ did for us in order to be able to save us.

I agree with you.

Whereas Israel esteemed him as a sacrificial animal, with the concomitant shedding of blood; the Church does so with symbols that do not involve death of animals but of plants: the fruit of the vine and the grain of the field.

It's ironic, considering that the offering of Cain (who offered of the ground) was rejected in favour of the blood sacrifice of Abel. Now if we offer blood, it would no longer be accepted.

I wonder what it all means, if it means anything at all.

....
...

Neither the animal blood sacrifice prior to the cross, nor the communion emblems after the cross have any salvific powers in and of themselves.

It is FAITH demonstrated by one partaking in the ritual that is important.

Prior to the cross the blood sacrifice was to show faith in the coming Messiah who would die and shed His blood for their salvation. (Albeit this concept was most often overshadowed by the pagan counterfeit sacrificial systems)

After the cross, we know the all sufficient sacrifice has been made, the blood was shed, so there is no more blood sacrifices, but we partake of communion showing FAITH that Christ's body was broken and that His blood was shed that we might be saved.

To engage in animal sacrifices now would be showing A LACK OF FAITH that Christ as truly come and that His blood and sacrifice is all sufficient.

James Peterson,

Very interesting observation. Thank you for sharing. Got my wheels turning. So, why did Jesus replace animal sacrifices with bread and juice to symbolize His atonement? Great question.

Because I didn't know the answer, I googled "meat and drink offerings" to see what others had to say. And I smiled to myself, because the question actually revealed my own ignorance of the sacrificial requirements.

I was pointed to Numbers 15.

The blood sacrifices were to be ACCOMPANIED by the "bread and wine communion". After Calvary, there was no need to prefigure the blood sacrifices, so all that remained was the "bread and wine communion", which we now practice.

Perhaps Cain's sacrifice was not accepted because of the state of his heart in his offering, rather than that he offered something contrary to supposed regulation. But then again, I may again be wrong.

Will think about it some more.

.....
...

Cain's offering was a thank offering, consisting of part of the harvest God has given us strength to reap. But it was unacceptable because it wasn't preceded by the sin offering, symbolizing the blood shed for our redemption. Before we can thank God for what He has done through us, we must first acknowledge our need of what He has done for us.

The Pharisee and Publican were the New Testament counterpart to Cain and Abel.

And the Biblical basis for this is ....?

...
..

Cain and Abel sacrifice were both first-fruit offerings according to the law. Cain offering was not accepted because he failed to bring the best(cheleb) of his fruits as Abel did.

Gn 4: 3 "And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering 4503 (minchah a donation, a tribute...mainly used (113x) as meat offering)unto the LORD. 4. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat 2459 (cheleb)thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering 4503(minchah): "

A. The way it is introduced the KJV says : "And in process of [qets,an extremity, after]time it came to pass". Here it infer that some timing came. The YLT word it as "And it cometh to pass at the end of[qets]days" I looked at the usage of qets which is often translated or used as the end or border of a certain period of time. A harvest occurs at the end of a planting season, whereas the firstfruit offering occurs at the beginning of the harvest.

Also the law specifies that we are not to delay it.

Ex 22: 29.Thou shalt not delay [to offer] the first of thy ripe fruits, and of thy liquors: the firstborn of thy sons shalt thou give unto me. 30. Likewise shalt thou do with thine oxen, [and] with thy sheep: seven days it shall be with his dam; on the eighth day thou shalt give it me.

I think there's a spiritual purpose behind not delaying "to return the fat(cheleb, the best) of our harvest" which I bring at the conclusive reflection of this study the connection between the failed first-fruit offering with the sin offering which is symbolized as "the fat is lifted up".

B. It specifies that Abel "also brought the firstlings .... and of the fat 2459 (cheleb, best) thereof." The word cheleb here mean the choicest of the herds. The requirement to bring the "best" for an acceptable first fruit offering is described in Num 18:12 "All the best 2459 of the oil, and all the best 2459 of the wine, and of the wheat, the firstfruits of them which they shall offer unto the LORD, them have I given thee."

Cheleb is the same word used in the Bible for the fat of humans, or beast, and the abundance of the land. So according to this law Cain should of brought also "the choice" or "the best" of his crops.

C. Another indication it is that the word minchah was used to describe both Cain and Abel offering which means "a tribute". Minchah is used 113 times for a meat offering. Minchah comes from "an unused root meaning to apportion, i.e. bestow."

Offerings are very specific in function and purpose, so there are 15 different words used to describe each different type of offerings. So if Abel would of presented a sin offering(chattaath h2398) or a burnt offering('olah h5930) or a tresspass offering('asham h8170) or a sacrifice(zebach h2077) one of these words would of been used to describe it. It was not. By the choice of Moses' words including minchah to describe this offering event, it is definetly not a sin offering and more in line with the firstfruit offering which is by definition a tribute to the Lord.

D. Gen 4:7 indicates that a sin offering was crouching at Cain's door because he didn't do well. Isn't this suggesting that he hadn't sin yet?

YLT Gn 4:7 Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering 2403[chattaath] is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.'


A Reflection on the word Fat(cheleb) used in a Firstfruit Offering & Sin Offering

Wave offering, tithes, and firstfruit offerings are all heave offering(teruwmah). Notice ruwm (meaning "to be high actively, to rise or raise") is the root word of Heave Offering-- teruwmah. Interestingly, the fat(cheleq) in a sin offering is to be "taken off" or "lift up" (ruwm H7311) and to be burn which becomes a sweet aroma to the Lord.

Lev 4:8 "And he shall take off 7311 (ruwm) from it all the fat 2459 (cheleb) of the bullock for the sin offering; the fat 2459 (cheleq)that covereth the inwards, and all the fat 2459(cheleq) that [is] upon the inwards, ... 10. As it was taken off 7311 (ruwm) from the bullock of the sacrifice of peace offerings: and the priest shall burn them upon the altar of the burnt offering."

The fat(cheleb) in the sin offering, peace offering, and trepass offering is the same word used in the firstfruit offering that instructs us to give the best(cheleb) of our fruits back to the Lord. So spiritually speaking if these fruits(seeds), gifts or talents, if they are put to use(planted), we will end up with an increase of that original fruit. So since the fruit originally was created by the Lord, and given to us to put to use, He is entitled to His portion of the harvest which generated an increase. Plus we know that it is He that created the sun and gives us the rain for these fruit to multiply. Giving Him the best of the fruits at the beginning of our harvest -- is a tribute and acknowledgement of Him as the originator and behind all the steps in generating that harvest. So when we come to lift (heave) God up in our simple offering of returning to Him the best -- it is an intellectual acknowledgement, statement of gratitude of that agape that was first given to us continually in so many form to produce that harvest. This is how we recognize Him as God and glorify His name in the land.

If we don't glorify Him by returning what He is entitled to, then, we have stolen His glory and have not recognized(minchah, a tribute) Him as our God. Thus by default we are recognizing ourself as gods by keeping His due glory. This is what Paul says how our heart gets darken and we become fools (Rom 1:21-27) and all kind of sins stems from this. I see this as the root of all sins. A sin offering was crouching at the door of Cain after he didn't return the best(cheleb) at the appointed time which the law says that it shouldn't be delayed. Also it is the description of the fall of Lucifer in Ezek 28:17 when he lifted up himself in his own heart by failing to see that his beauty came from the Lord. When we do not recognize the Lord as God -- the giver of all gifts -- we lose appreciation of Him thus we cannot love-- agape-- Him(or others) in return.

So this is why the remedy for sin is symbolized in the sin-offering as a returning of the fat(cheleb) which is lifted up(heaved) and burned. Thus a returning to the Lord the best of the fruit which the seeds was first given to us, multiplied by Him by which we have stollen by not returning His entitled shared of the cheleb of the fruit at the first-fruth offering. So the first step is man to come to recognize the Lord as God (Hos 2) meaning recognizing His Sovereignty -- all things comes from Him. With that recognition, man will stop stealing His glory and will return it to Him in due season. I believe that's when true agape (=the presence of His glory which fills us with abundance of more gifts) can dwell back in our hearts and flow freely continually back and forth between us and back to the Lord (and others). So in application, when we give the best of our fruits of our gifts to bless others we really give them to the Lord. Jesus says if we clothe, feed, or lodge anyone in need we do it to Him.

That is a VERY true thought indeed; and I appreciate the effort you spent in answering the question. From the context it does appear that Abel offered the best of himself and possessions to God, whereas Cain treated the offering as Esau did his birthright, a necessary but meaningless thing .... until of course, he saw the response from God. THEN, he began to want the respect God showed for Abel.

...
..