And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering:
And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. Grotius and LeClerc consider this offering to have consisted of the wool and the milk of the flocks; but the original word, "firstlings," nowhere bears the sense of wool; the Hebrew word "fat" cannot signify milk, consistently with the punctuation of the text: and those articles were not used as sacrificial offerings. х bªkorowt (H1062), when used in reference to beasts, always means firstlings, and cheeleb (H2459), fat] (Leviticus 3:3; Leviticus 4:8; Leviticus 4:31; Leviticus 4:35). These constituted in later times, by God's appointment, the proper materials of sacrifice; and though the first-born of the flock were wholly devoted to the Lord, yet, in many cases, the presentation of the fat was sufficient, the rest of the carcass being retained by the offerer. If this were the case, it would imply that permission to use animal food had been granted to our first parents, with the institution of animal sacrifices.
The offerings of the brothers were apparently, as represented in our version, very different-that of Abel's an animal sacrifice, while that of Cain's was a bloodless oblation. The original text, however, does not convey the idea of any direct opposition between them; because, literally rendered, the passage would be as follows: 'And Cain brought of the fruit of the ground a minchaah (H4503) to Yahweh; and Abel brought (the same): he also (brought) of the firstlings of his flock, and of their fat. And Yahweh had respect to Abel and to his minchaah; but to Cain and to his minchaah He had no respect.' It appears, then, from this translation, that Cain and Abel equally brought a minchaah-a bread offering. Both manifested, by the very act of offering, their faith in the being of God, as well as their sense of dependence upon Him as creatures; and both of them acknowledged, by the nature of their offering-namely, the fruit of the ground, from which their subsistence was derived-His claims to their gratitude as well as to their worship. But Abel brought something over and above the minchaah; and it was in reference to this additional circumstance that the apostle (Hebrews 11:4) calls it pleiona (G4119) thusian (G2378), rendered, in our version "a more excellent," but literally 'a greater' or 'fuller' sacrifice; and that Abel's was a double offering-that it consisted of more materials than one, appears further from the apostolic testimony in the same passage, where it is spoken of as doorois (G1435), gifts, not gift.
And the Lord had respect unto Abel and to his offering. The Hebrew word rendered "had respect to" signifies, not only to look upon with favour, to pay regard to the prayer or request of any one, but also to look with a keen, earnest, penetrating glance. And hence, Theodotion, the Greek translator in the second century, rendered it enepurisen, he kindled, or set on fire. Most writers coincide with this opinion, that the mode in which the divine approval was manifested was by a miraculous flash of lightning darted from heaven, and consuming the sacrifice. To such a view, indeed, it has been objected that the silence of Moses must be considered a strong presumptive proof that no such visible and striking sign of the divine favour was given; and that it is far more likely that the acceptance of the one brother, as well as the non-acceptance of the other, was inferred from an observable difference in the aspect of Providence toward them in their temporal concerns, Abel enjoying during the following season a high degree of prosperity, whereas Cain may have experienced frequent disappointments and severe losses.
The silence of the historian, however, cannot with any propriety be considered as an argument against the hypothesis of a miraculous enkindling: for, in his brief and rapid narrative, Moses passes over numberless circumstances, both interesting and important, the occurrence of which was undoubted. In this particular case of the divine acceptance of a sacrifice, he might consider it superfluous to describe the mode, as their own history and instituted rites had rendered the Hebrew people familiar with it; and when, in addition to this obvious consideration, the language of the apostle is duly weighed, which seems plainly to imply that God testified of Abel's gifts in some unmistakable manner at the time of presentation, it is a fair and legitimate inference that the divine approval was shown by the miraculous descent of fire, kindling the bundle of logs on the altar, as was frequently done afterward (Genesis 15:17; Leviticus 9:24; Judges 6:21; Judges 13:19-20; 1 Kings 18:38; 1 Chronicles 21:26; 2 Chronicles 7:1; Psalms 20:3).
This portion of Abel's offering, therefore, would be a holocaust, as were all the sacrifices of which we have any account before the institution of the Mosaic ritual. But this, though probable, is a mere conjecture founded on the record of what was done at subsequent periods; and it may be that on this primitive occasion God 'testified of Abel's gifts' in some other way than by fire from heaven, as the Hebrew phrase, 'the Lord looked upon Abel and upon his offering,' viewed in connection with the sequel of the story, shows that the Divine Being continued for a considerable time after the fall to maintain a condescending and familiar relationship in visible form with the primeval family.
It remains to be noticed that Abel's offering was presented not only on the same occasion, but at the same spot as Cain's; because, although there is no express mention of the fact, it is manifestly implied that Abel as well as Cain brought his offering "unto the Lord" - i:e., as some think, to the east of the garden, where the symbols of God's presence were exhibited, or, perhaps, to a sacred tabernacle (Genesis 4:7; Genesis 3:24.) The circumstances of time and place, then, being exactly the same, one would have expected that the result would have been similar also; but that was not the case; and the question arises, What was the ground of the very opposite reception which God gave to the offerings of the two brothers? It is evident that the cause cannot be ascribed to any marked difference in the material quantity or quality of their respective oblations. Nor is it to be sought in a regard to the antecedent lives of the worshippers; because, though "the way of the wicked is an abomination to the Lord" (Proverbs 15:9), and "it is iniquity, even their solemn meeting" (Isaiah 1:13), there is no evidence that Cain must, at this time, be ranked in such a class.
He not only observed the stated seasons of religion, but, in the opinion of Faber and many others, must have been a man of exemplary conduct, since nothing but the consciousness of high moral rectitude could have sustained him in the settled opinion that, having been guilty of no moral crime or social offence, he stood in need of no expiatory sacrifice. Passing from this in the meantime, the whole tenor, if not the express terms of the narrative, leads us directly to look for the reason of the acceptableness of the one and the non-acceptableness of the other offering in the character of their oblations, and in the temper or motives of the brothers in presenting them. The one offering wanted that which constituted the other, "a more excellent sacrifice" (Hebrews 11:4); and since the deficiency did not originate either in accident or in ignorance, because both enjoyed the best opportunities of learning from the lips of their parents the appointed method of worship, it must have arisen from design-a settled and deliberate purpose on the part of Cain to discard the idea of an animal sacrifice.
Accordingly, the apostle expressly states that Abel presented his oblation in faith; and as faith implies a previous revelation, no conceivable reason can be assigned for the acceptance of his sacrifice, except that the additional blood-offering he brought was made in accordance with a known declaration of the Divine Will, and was a rite instituted by God to typify the work of the promised Redeemer. In observing this rite with pious fidelity, he came before the Lord in the character of a sinful creature, expressing a deep sense of sin, a spirit of humiliation and sorrow on account of it, as well as a firm reliance on the appointed method of reconciliation and acceptance.
Cain's offering, on the other hand, was an act of will-worship, indicating no confession of sin or contrition for it, marked by an arbitrary pride of self-righteousness, a presumptuous disregard of the hope as well as of the necessity of an atonement, and presented deliberately as a thank offering, the only expression of religious feeling which a dependent and rational creature is required to give. By this rejection of an animal sacrifice he avowedly indicated his persuasion that such an offering would be displeasing to the benevolent mind of God, and, while it revolted the feelings of humanity, was a useless effusion of blood, inasmuch as the immolation of an innocent beast had no natural tendency to promote the interests or comfort the mind of man. In short, Cain exhibited the first example of an unbeliever, who rejected all light but that of his own reason, confided in the general benignity and goodness of the divine character, and flattered himself that in offering a portion of his property as a token of his gratitude for all he possessed, the tribute would be accepted, of whatever quantity it consisted, or in whatever form it was rendered. His offering was defective, and offered in a spirit of determined will-worship. This was 'the error of Cain' (Jude 1:11); a renunciation of the benefits of the instituted mode of atonement for sin (Kennicott), and a going about to establish a righteousness of his own (Romans 10:3).