The sacrifices of Cain and Abel
On p. 99 of David Limbaugh's book "The Emmaus Code," he quotes J. Vernon McGee as saying "The life is in the blood. This is a great, eternal truth. This explains why Abel's sacrifice was acceptable and Cain's was not. It is the blood that maketh an atonement for the soul." He also uses Leviticus 17:11 and Hebrews 9:22 to back up his point. Is this an acceptable interpretation? The Genesis account doesn't appear to specify the reason for God's rejection of Cain's offering.
Leviticus 17:11 points out how instrumental blood is in sustaining life. Hebrews 9:22 explains that in Godās plan of salvation the shedding of his Sonās blood was necessary to forgive sins. 1 John 1:7 states a similar truth. The animal sacrifices prescribed in the Old Testament ceremonial laws pointed ahead to Jesusā sacrifice on the cross.
When it comes to Godās acceptance of Abelās sacrifice and his rejection of Cainās sacrifice, the Genesis account simply speaks of God looking upon one brotherās sacrifice āwith favorā and ānot lookingā upon the other brotherās sacrifice with favor.
Hebrews 11:4 informs us that it was not the kind of sacrifice the brothers brought that resulted in Godās different reactions to their sacrifices. It was a matter of one brother (Abel) bringing a sacrifice to God out of faith in the promised Savior, while another brother (Cain) brought a sacrifice to God with a different motive. Godās different reactions toward the brothers is explained not by what they brought, but by what was in their hearts. That account of Cain and Abel shows us already what we would learn from a later account in Scripture, that āThe LORD does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heartā (1 Samuel 16:7).