"AND Abel was a keeper of sheep, but Cain was a tiller of the ground. And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an, offering unto the Lord. 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. But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.”
The ordinary' interpretation of this passage is merely that Cain brought his offering, even the fruit of the ground; and that Abel brought his, namely, the firstlings of his flock with the fat. Now those who understand it in this way I think overlook altogether 'the meaning and value of one word in the passage, a word on which it seems to turn, as, on a pivot—the word “also," I mean, which, if duly considered, evidently gives us to know that Abel not only brought the same kind of offerings as Cain, but also, or in addition thereto, that he brought of his firstlings with their fat, as an offering to God.
Thus in a figure he brought a full Christ, namely, the fruit of the ground, or a meat offering, and at the same time, both the sin and the burnt offering, with the fat of the latter; all this being in accordance with God's mind, as afterward expressed in the Mosaic law, which required that the meat offering should accompany the burnt offering. These were "HIS GIFTS," referred to in Heb. 11;, this word being in the plural, to show that Abel brought offerings OF BOTH KINDS, proving him to be a true believer, a worshipper, which Cain evidently was not, seeing that he rushed into God's presence without blood, without any sense of his being a sinner needing atonement to make him fit to be there.
Then there is another thing. In Heb. 11 we read, according to our received version, "By faith Abel offered unto God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, by which he received witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts." Now what is here rendered "more excellent," in the original is πλείονα "more abundant." And that, such is the true rendering, I fully believe. Abel's offering was surely not more excellent than those brought by his brother, seeing that in the latter there was no goodness whatever, but, altogether the contrary, nothing that admitted of any such comparison; but more abundant they were, as I have here sought to show, this being the thing, that gave them their value, that made them acceptable to God. In the meat offering Christ is presented as the one in whom the Father is infinitely well pleased, the perfect man living wholly to God; in the victims He is foreshown as laying down His life to make full atonement for sin. In Cain's offerings there was nothing of this, they were the fruit of the ground, lying under the curse, as it was, showing that he did not realize either his own alienation by nature from God, or the fact of the whole creation being subject to vanity. This made the whole thing defective; had he, like his brother, brought the sacrifices also, his worship would have been genuine, but these he left out, and hence God had no respect to his offerings.