We have discussed (cf. Part I, Ch. 3, Sec. II, 1–103) the fact that God has been working to save fallen men, though the human fall was brought about by man’s own failure. God’s providence to restore fallen men by having them lay the foundation to receive the Messiah began with Adam’s family.
As discussed in the “Introduction”, Adam, due to his blood relationship with Satan, was placed in the midway position where he could deal with either God or Satan. Therefore, in order that fallen man of the midway position might be separated and shifted from Satan to the Heavenly side to lay the foundation to receive the Messiah, he must himself set up certain conditions of indemnity. Consequently, Adam’s family should have set up the condition of indemnity to restore the foundation of faith and the foundation of substance (incarnation), and, on the foundation to receive the Messiah automatically laid by the previous two, should have finally received the Messiah before the providence of restoration could be realized.
First, in order that the foundation of faith may be laid, there must be certain conditional objects as the price of restoring it through indemnity. Originally, Adam, due to his disbelief, lost God’s Word given as the condition to lay the foundation of faith. Consequently, in order for Adam, who fell into a position where he was unable to receive God’s Word directly, to restore the foundation of faith, he should have set forth certain conditional objects acceptable to God’s will in place of the Word, with an absolute faith. This conditional object to be set forth in Adam’s family in place of the Word was the offering.
Second, there must be a central figure to restore the foundation of faith before laying the foundation at all. The central figure to restore the foundation of faith in Adam’s family was, of course, Adam himself. Therefore, it was natural for Adam to offer the sacrifices. His doing so acceptably or not could decide the success or failure of laying the foundation of faith.
The Biblical record shows that Adam could not offer the sacrifices, but, instead, Cain and Abel did this. What must have been the reason? According to the principle of creation, man was originally created to deal with only one master. Therefore, God cannot work His providence in the principle of creation with any being that is in the position to deal with two masters. If God should accept Adam and his offering, Satan would also try to deal with them on the basis of his having a blood relationship with Adam. In that case, Adam would be placed in the non-principled position to have to deal with two masters, God and Satan. God, not being able to work such a non-principled providence, had to conduct the providence of dividing Adam, the origin of the two characters of good and evil, into two beings; namely, the being representing good character and the being representing evil character. For this purpose, God gave Adam two sons, respectively representing good and evil. He had each offer sacrifices by setting them in the respective positions to deal either with God or Satan; that is, He put them in the position in the principle of creation of dealing with one master.
Then who, between Cain and Abel, the sons of the same father, is supposed to stand in the position to deal with God as the representation of good, and who is to stand in the position to deal with Satan as the representation of evil? Both Cain and Abel were the fruit of Eve’s fall. Consequently, this question was to be decided according to the course of the fall of Eve, who was the origin of the fall.
Eve’s fall consisted of two kinds of illicit love affairs. The first one was the spiritual fall through love with the archangel. The second was the physical fall through love with Adam. Both are, of course, the same in that they are fallen actions. However, when we want to decide which is more aligned with the Principle and more forgivable, we must say that the second act is more so than the first. This is because the second act of the fall was that in which Eve had intercourse with Adam, who was going to be her spouse in the Principle, out of her desire to go back to God’s side after realizing the illicit nature of the relationship with the archangel (cf. Part I, Ch. 2, Sec. II, 2–77). The first act of the fall was that in which she had the relationship with the archangel, who was not her spouse in the Principle, out of the excessive desire to enjoy what it was not yet time for her to enjoy; that is, to become like God, with her eyes opened (Gen. 3:5).
Cain and Abel were the fruits of Eve’s illicit love. Therefore, God had to discriminate conditionally between the two types of illicit acts of love committed centering on Eve, and had to set up Cain and Abel in the respective positions representing different situations. That is to say, Cain, being the fruit of the first love, was placed in the position to deal with Satan, as the representation of evil, symbolizing the first fallen act of love with the archangel. Abel, being the fruit of the second love, was placed in the position to deal with God, as the representation of good, symbolizing the second fallen act of love with Adam.
Originally, there was a standard in the Principle which provided that the first son succeed to the birthright. So, Satan also had more attachment to the elder than to the younger. Besides, Satan, being in the position of the ruler of the created world, intended to take Cain, to whom he was more attached. Therefore, God took Abel.
Let us take an example from the Bible. God said to Cain, “If you do not do well, sin is couching at the door.” (Gen. 4:7). From this, we may understand that Cain was placed in a position to deal with Satan. When the Israelites fled out of Egypt, God smote not only all the first-born of the Egyptians but also of their cattle (Ex. 12:29), because they were all in the position of Satan’s objects (Cain’s position). On the other hand, when the Israelites were restored into Canaan, only the Levities, who were in the position of the second son Abel, could carry the ark of the covenant (Deut. 31:25). There is also a Biblical record saying that God loved the second son Jacob and hated the first son Esau while they were still in their mother’s womb (Gen 25:23). This is because only the distinction of being the first-born or the second justified their respective positions of Cain and Abel. In the case of Jacob’s blessing of his grandsons, Ephraim and Manasseh, he blessed them by crossing his hands to lay the right hand on the head of Ephraim, the younger son, to whom he wanted to give priority (Gen. 48:14). This, too, is because Ephraim was in the position of Abel. According to this principle, God had Abel and Cain offer sacrifices, having set them up respectively in the positions where each could deal with only one master, either God or Satan (Gen. 4:3-5).
God accepted Abel’s offering and rejected Cain’s. What must have been the reason? God accepted Abel’s offering (Gen. 4:4) because he offered the sacrifice acceptable to God’s will through good faith, in the objective position from which God could take it (Heb. 11:4). In this way, the foundation of faith to be set up in Adam’s family was laid. This was also to teach that God is ready to accept any man, though fallen, if a favorable condition is formed enabling God to take him. It was not because God really hated Cain that He rejected Cain’s offering. It was because God could not accept his offering unless Cain himself set up a certain condition justifying the acceptance of the offering, for Cain was placed in a position in which he could be taken by Satan.
By this example, God showed us that, in order for a man in the position of object to Satan to return to God’s side, he must set up a certain condition of indemnity. What kind of condition of indemnity should Cain have set up? This was the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature which we will discuss in detail later.
In order for Adam’s family to lay the foundation of substance, Cain would have had to set up the “condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature” so that God might be able to accept this offering with joy. How then should he have to set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature?
The first human ancestors fell through the archangel, thus inheriting his fallen nature. Therefore, in order for fallen man to remove the fallen nature, he should have set up the condition of indemnity, according to the principle of restoration through indemnity, by taking a course in reverse to the way he obtained the fallen nature.
The archangel fell by failing to love Adam, whom God loved more. Therefore, the fallen nature of not taking the same position with God, came about. Consequently, in order to remove the fallen nature, Cain, who was in the position of the archangel, should have loved Abel, who was in the position of Adam, thus taking the same position with God. Next, the archangel fell because he failed to receive God’s love through Adam, who was closer to God, as the mediator. The archangel intended to take Adam’s position instead. Therefore, the fallen nature of not keeping one’s position came about. Consequently, in order to remove this fallen nature, Cain, who was in the position of the archangel, should have taken the position to receive God’s love through Abel, who was in the position of Adam, as the mediator, so that he might be able to keep his position.
Then, the archangel fell by his domination of Adam and Eve, who were supposed to dominate him. Therefore, the fallen nature of reversing domination came about. Consequently, in order for man to remove this fallen nature, Cain, who was in the position of the archangel, should have set up the law and system of domination by standing in the place to obey Abel, who was in the position of Adam, and to be dominated by him.
The will of goodness that man should not eat the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil should have been conveyed to God by Adam, by Adam to Eve, and by Eve to the archangel, thus multiplying goodness. However, on the contrary, the archangel conveyed to Eve the will of unrighteousness that the fruit could be taken and eaten, then Eve conveyed this to Adam, thus causing the human fall. Therefore, the fallen nature of multiplying sins came about. In order to remove this type of fallen nature, Cain, who was in the position of the archangel, should have established the position to multiply goodness by standing in the position relative to Abel, who was closer to God than himself, and by receiving the will of goodness through Abel.
Now, let us draw several examples corresponding to the offerings of Cain and Abel. In our individual body, our mind, which directs us toward goodness (Rom. 7:22) is in the position of Abel, while our body, tending to serve the law of sin (Rom. 7:25), is in the position of Cain. Consequently, only when our body obeys our mind’s command will our individual body be made good. However, in reality, our body always rebels against the command of our mind, thus repeating the same action in which Cain killed Abel. Therefore, our individual body becomes bad. Accordingly, life in religion may be called life to make our body obey our mind, directed toward the will of God,just as Cain should have obeyed Abel. Besides, man fell to the position of being deceitful above all things (Jer. 17:9); so he was supposed to go before God only through the created things, by setting these things in the position of Abel. This was the “offering”. Man’s tendency to look for good leaders and good friends, seen from the result, is derived from the desire of the divine mind to stand before God, by finding one who is in the position of Abel closer to God and by becoming one with him.
Christian faith teaches us to be gentle and humble so we may secure a position before God by finding in our daily life an Abel-type person, through these virtues. Starting from the individual to the family, the society, the race, the nation, and the world, there are always two types of persons; namely, Cain-type and Abel-type. Therefore, in order to restore all these to the original position of creation, the Cain-type person must obey and surrender to the Abel-type person. Jesus came to the world as the Abel whom the whole of mankind was to serve and obey. Therefore, he said, “…no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (John 14:6).
If Adam’s family had succeeded in setting up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature through Cain’s obedience to Abel, they could have set up the foundation of substance on the foundation of faith already established. They could thus have restored the four position foundation, originally designed at the creation, by receiving the Messiah on the family-level foundation to receive the Messiah. However, Cain killed Abel, repeating the original fallen nature through which the archangel caused man to fall, and thus Adam’s family failed to set up the foundation of substance which was to be established then. Consequently, the providence of restoration centering on Adam’s family ended in failure.
The foundation to receive the Messiah is realized by establishing the foundation of substance on the basis of having restored through indemnity the foundation of faith. From the standpoint of offering sacrifices, the foundation of faith is to be restored by acceptably making the symbolic offering, and the foundation of substance is to be realized by acceptably offering the substantial offering. Let us then inquire into the meaning and purpose of the symbolic offering and the substantial offering.
God’s three great blessings to man, the purpose of His creation, were to be realized when Adam and Eve, after having perfected their respective individualities, would become husband and wife, then multiply their children to form a family, and, further, they would come to rule the whole of creation. However, due to the fall, the three great blessings were not realized. In order to restore this, we must follow the course in reverse and establish the foundation of faith by offering the symbolic sacrifices through which both the condition of indemnity to restore the created things and the symbolic condition of indemnity to restore man can be set up at the same time.
Next, we must lay the foundation to receive the Messiah, after having set up the foundation of substance by offering the substantial sacrifices, which can be set up at the same time as the condition of indemnity to restore the children, and on this basis to restore the parents. Therefore, we may consider the meaning and purpose of the symbolic offering separately.
As we have discussed in the chapter on the “Fall of Man”, Satan, who came to dominate fallen men, has also dominated all things which were supposed to be under man’s dominion. It is for that reason that the Bible says all things are in travail together (Rom. 8:22). Therefore, the first purpose to give symbolic offerings with created things is to set up the condition of indemnity to restore all things, which are the symbolic substantial objects of God. Then, in order for man, who became deceitful above all things due to the fall (Jer. 17:9), to go before God, he must go through the created things, which are closer to God than himself, according to the order in the principle of creation. Accordingly, the second purpose for making symbolic offerings is to set up the symbolic condition of indemnity in order to restore substantial men before God.
Next, the substantial offering is an offering of the internal type; so, it is to be realized only on the basis of having acceptably made the symbolic offering of the external type, following the pattern of creating all things first and man afterwards. Therefore, we must first make the symbolic offering in an acceptable manner, thus setting up the condition of indemnity to restore all things, and the symbolic condition of indemnity to restore man at the same time. On that basis we must make the substantial offerings as the condition of indemnity to restore man substantially. Substantial offering means to set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature in order to restore substantial man. If a Cain-type person should set up the condition of indemnity to restore children by making the substantial offering with the Abel-type person, this will also be reckoned as the condition of indemnity to restore parents, which will be elucidated; so, this substantial offering will become an acceptable one.
In order for Adam’s family to set up the foundation to receive the Messiah, Adam himself must first lay the foundation of faith through the symbolic offering. As noted above, the offering did not begin with Adam, because if Adam should offer the sacrifices, the offering would be for both God and Satan to deal with, so it would be in a non-principled position. Besides, there is another reason from the aspect of feeling and heart. The fallen Adam in fact was the very person who caused God the grief which will last thousands of generations. Therefore, Adam could never be the object of God’s heart, with whom God could directly deal in His providence of restoration.
Therefore, God had the second son Abel offer symbolic sacrifices instead of Adam. Thus the condition of indemnity to restore all things and the symbolic condition of indemnity to restore men were set up at the same time. Then, on this basis, if Cain and Abel had set up the condition of indemnity to restore children through the substantial offering, Adam, as the parent, would have stood on this foundation of substance and thus the foundation to receive the Messiah could have been realized at that time.
In order to offer the substantial sacrifices by setting up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature, the central figure to offer the sacrifice should be decided first. Therefore, we must understand the Abel’s symbolic offering had two purposes: first, to set up the foundation of faith in place of Adam; and second, to decide on Abel as the central figure to make the substantial offering.
The condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature was to be set up by Cain, and we must know how this could result in Adam’s family setting up the condition in its entirety. If the human ancestors had obeyed God’s words, God’s will could have been realized at that time; and, if the Jewish people had believed in Jesus, the will of Jesus could have been realized in his lifetime. In this case, too, if Cain had set up the condition of indemnity to remove the fallen nature by obeying Abel, both Cain and Abel could ha