Ever since the fall, the cross of Christ has been present in the Old Testament in shadows and types[1] of sacrifices. For example, Adam and Eve were given the promise of a coming Seed whose heel would be bruised (Gen. 3:15), and they were clothed in the skins of sacrificial animals (Gen. 3:21). The wrath of God was only appeased in the event of the flood after Noah offered up a whole burnt offering (Gen. 8:20–21). YHWH provided a substitute lamb in place of Isaac (Gen. 22:13). Judah became the prevailing tribe after he offered himself in place of Benjamin (Gen. 43:9; 44:32–33). However, due to a difference in translation, most modern commentators do not see the cross at the center of the narrative of Cain and Abel. In this article, I hope to show how the proper translation of Genesis 4:7 presents a righteousness through sacrifice that finds its ultimate fulfillment in the cross of Christ.
1. James M. Hamilton Jr., Typology: Understanding the Bible’s Promised-Shaped Patterns (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Academic, 2022), 26, defines typology as “God-ordained, author-intended historical correspondence and escalation in significance between people, events, and institutions across the Bible’s redemptive-historical story.”
In Genesis 4, Cain and Abel both present offerings to God, and God accepts Abel’s offering and not Cain’s. In response, Cain becomes angry. God speaks to Cain in Genesis 4:7, and the English Standard Version represents how most translators understand the underlying Hebrew:
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it (Genesis 4:7, emphasis added).
Normally, translators translate ḥaṭṭāṯ as “sin,” and this translation creates the idea that sin is ready to pounce on Cain with evil desire. In this above reading, Cain is exhorted to rule over sin, or to overcome it in his own strength.[2] But major Hebrew lexicons acknowledge that in the appropriate context, the word could be translated as “sin offering,”[3] with the overall translation reading,
2. Although there is not a precise consensus on how commentators understand “sin,” many commentators place the emphasis on Cain’s will without mention of God’s offer of mercy to Cain.
3. Ludwig Koehler, Walter Baumgartner, M. E. J. Richardson, and Johann Jakob Stamm. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1994–2000), 306. David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew, vol. I–VIII (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993–2011), 3:198-200. Francis Brown, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977), 308-310.
If you do well, will you not be exalted? But if you do not do well, there is a sin offering lying at the door. His [Abel’s] desire is for you, and you [Cain] will rule over him.
This translation shifts the focus of the passage from Cain’s struggle to conquer his own sin to how his sin is so deeply engraved on his heart that he rejects the mercy of God in Christ in the type of the sin offering. I’ll spend the rest of this article showing how lexical, grammatical, and contextual considerations support this translation, concluding with a look at the importance of sin offerings in Israel’s relationship with YHWH.
Lexical Considerations for a Genesis 4:7 “Sin Offering”
Lexically, although the Hebrew word rḇṣ is normally translated as “crouch” in Genesis 4:7, it never actually means “crouch” elsewhere in the Old Testament. In fact, it is a near antonym to that meaning, and should instead be translated as “lie” (NKJV).[4] Some point to Genesis 49:9 as one instance where rḇṣ might be translated as “crouch,” which says, “Judah is a lion’s cub; from the prey, my son, you have gone up. He stooped down; he crouched as a lion and as a lioness; who dares rouse him?” Commentators often cite Genesis 49:9 in support of the translation “crouch,” yet when these same commentators actually comment on Genesis 49:9, they interpret that word differently. For example, Victor Hamilton cites Genesis 49:9 to support the idea of sin lying in wait,[5] but he then says about Genesis 49:9 that “the lion, having recently eaten, has retired to its sleeping quarters to digest its meal. Even while it is reposing, nothing else tries to invade its territory, so powerful is the lion.”[6] As such, the idea of crouching to pounce is foreign to rḇṣ. Instead, as Hamilton himself notes, this word simply means to lie down, such as a donkey lying under its burden and unable to move (Exod. 23:5). The idea of lying docile, unable to move, does not fit with the translation of ḥaṭṭāṯ as “sin,” but it does fit with a “sin offering” lying near the altar. Thus, “sin offering” is a more natural translation lexically.
4. HALOT: “lie down, rest.” The only text that HALOT uses to support the translation “lurk” is Genesis 4:7, which is the verse under question. BDB does not translate Genesis 4:7 differently from any of the other uses of this word.
5. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: The New International Commentary on the Old Testament, vol. 1–2 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1990–95), 1:227: “To be sure, the normal meaning of Heb. rāḇaṣ is ‘to lie down (in rest).’ See, for example, the verb in this sense in connection with sheep (Gen. 29:2), with other animals in tranquility together (Isa. 11:6), and with people (Isa. 14:30; Ezek. 34:14). Gen. 49:9 is the one other clear instance, besides Gen. 4:7, that permits the translation ‘lie in wait for, lurk.’”
6. Ibid. 2:658. See also Bruce K. Waltke, and Cathi J. Fredricks, Genesis: A Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2001), 608: “Here the lion does this in order to rest, not to pounce.”
Grammatical Considerations for a Genesis 4:7 “Sin Offering”
Grammatically, there is dissonance between the gender of the noun ḥaṭṭāṯ, which is feminine, and the gender of the verb rḇṣ, which is masculine. Such a mismatch is not unheard of in Hebrew,[7] but by understanding ḥaṭṭāṯ as a “sin offering,” the difficulty is removed altogether. The gender of a verb may respect either the lexical gender of the noun or the natural gender of the object to which the noun refers. For example, Leviticus 4:22–26 gives directions regarding the male goat sin offering for a ruler. Then in verse 24, the word “sin offering,” which is a feminine noun, is connected to a masculine pronoun, so that the sentence reads: “It [masculine] is [added by translators] a sin offering [feminine].” A masculine pronoun is used instead of the feminine one since the offering is a male goat, which is evident when compared to Leviticus 4:27–31. There, directions are given for a common person’s sin offering, which is a female goat. Whereas Leviticus 4:25–26 consistently use masculine pronouns to refer to the ruler’s sin offering, Leviticus 4:30–31 consistently use feminine pronouns to refer to the common person’s sin offering. As I will argue next, Cain ought to be considered as a ruler, and thus he ought to offer up a male goat as a sin offering. Thus, in light of Leviticus 4:24, the translation of ḥaṭṭāṯ as “sin offering” removes the grammatical issues of the text.
7. Gesenius, Friedrich Wilhelm, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, ed. E. Kautzsch and Sir Arthur Ernest Cowley. 2nd English ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1910), § 145.
Contextual Considerations for a Genesis 4:7 “Sin Offering”
Contextually, the translation of ḥaṭṭāṯ as “sin offering” fits better due to the text’s birthright theme. One major theme of Genesis 4:7 regards how Cain may maintain his birthright over Abel, and YHWH presents two ways for doing so. In the first half of Genesis 4:7, God says, “If you do well, will you not be accepted?” (NKJV). The word that is translated “accepted,” śᵉēṯ, is related to the root word nśʾ which generally means “to lift up” (cf. NASB and ASV).[8] śᵉēṯ occurs only seven times, but its basic meaning is “exaltation, eminence, dignity, honour, majesty.”[9] Its only other occurrence in the book of Genesis is in Genesis 49:3, which says, “Reuben, you are my firstborn, my might, and the firstfruits of my strength, preeminent in dignity and preeminent in power” (ESV). The word translated “dignity” is śᵉēṯ. From here, we see that this word is related to the rights of the firstborn.[10]
8. HALOT 1301, DCH 8:105.
9. DCH 8:105.
10. Going back to Lev. 4:22, although it is a different word, yet the word there for ruler, nāśı̂ʾ, is from the same root word nśʾ, and it clearly is related to a member of Israel functioning in a leadership role in the nation, which is one of the benefits of being the firstborn.
The idea of firstborn rights has a long history in Genesis, beginning in chapter 4 with the relationship between Cain and Abel. Genesis 4:1–5 are structured around several small chiasms that compare Cain to Abel. Additionally, Gordon Wenham notes that “within 4:1–17, ‘Abel’ and ‘brother’ occur seven times, and ‘Cain’ fourteen times,” highlighting how the relation of these two brothers drives the passage.[11] The record of Lamech’s sin is also relevant. Lamech, another apparent firstborn, repeats Cain’s sin, and in his account, the text says he murdered a “young man.” This highlights that an important aspect of Cain’s sin is that he murdered his younger brother. Thus, what YHWH says to Cain in the first half of Genesis 4:7 is simply that if Cain does good, he will maintain his birthright, which fits into a theme that runs throughout Genesis.
11. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1–15: Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 1987), 96.
The second half of Genesis 4:7 also relates to Cain’s birthright. The second half is the controversial clause, “And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it” (NKJV). There are two parts to untangling this clause: to what (or to whom) does the pronoun “it” refer, and how should the word “desire” be understood? Beginning with the second question, the word “desire” only occurs in Genesis 3:16; 4:7; and Song of Solomon 7:10, and it can be a positive or negative. As commentators acknowledge that both Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 are difficult texts, it seems wise to look at the one other use of this word to ascertain its meaning, which is Song of Solomon 7:10. There, “desire” clearly has a positive connotation, which suggests that it should be understood as having a positive connotation in Genesis 4:7. With that said, the analysis may move on to the pronoun’s antecedent. The pronoun “it” is masculine, and as such, ought not to refer to sin, which is feminine, as previously noted.[12] Rather, the pronoun refers to the only other male in Genesis 4, namely, Abel. Thus, instead of speaking about sin’s negative desire for Cain, Genesis 4:7 speaks about how Abel will still respect Cain (“his [Abel’s] desire [positive] is for you [Cain]”), and Cain will maintain his firstborn right over Abel (“And you [Cain] will rule over him [Abel]”).[13]
12. Neither does it make sense for it to refer to a “sin offering,” since there is no meaning to that understanding: “The sin offering desires you, and you will rule over it”?
13. Francis Turretin, Institutes of Elenctic Theology, ed. James T. Dennison Jr., trans. George Musgrave Giger, vol. 1-3 (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 1992-1997), 1:678-679, has an extended discussion of why the pronoun cannot refer to sin but must refer to Abel.
Seeing that the two halves of Genesis 4:7 relate to Cain maintaining his birthright over Abel, what differs between them is the way in which he may do so. The first way is if Cain does “good.” The word translated “well” is the verb form of the word “good,” a word that dominates the first two chapters of Genesis. Thus, YHWH is saying to Cain that if he lives a life the reflects the pre–Fall condition of the world, then, naturally, he will maintain his birthright over Abel. Due to the presence of original sin, this is now impossible for him. Furthermore, Cain’s vocation and offering in Genesis 4:3–5, in light of Genesis 3, suggest that he is attempting to approach God in a pre-Fall manner.[14] As Cain’s attempt to approach God in his own righteousness failed, this first way of maintaining his birthright cannot succeed for a fallen man.
14. Roland C. Mathews IV, “In the Shadow of Adam’s Death: Cain, Abel, and the Hope of Life” (Th. M., Greenville Presbyterian Theological Seminary, 2018).
The first way being shut, YHWH in His mercy and kindness provides a second way for Cain by means of a substitutionary sacrifice, “a sin offering lying at the door.” Here, if Cain does not do good, then he must offer up a sin offering if he is to approach God and maintain his birthright over Abel. It would not make sense for this second way to be about getting his sin under control. The Bible only ever offers two ways to blessedness: perfect obedience or imputed righteousness. Having clearly fallen, what Cain needs is not a stern warning to rule over his sin, but a sacrifice to atone for his sin. Sadly, instead of taking YHWH’s offer of mercy, Cain takes matters into his own hands and murders his brother, subverting the issue of birthright by eliminating his other sibling.[15] Thus, in the context of birthright, the translation “sin offering” fits better and maintains the Bible’s clear distinction between works righteousness and imputed righteousness.
15. This act is similar to Esau’s intentions to murder Jacob for stealing his blessing and his birthright (Gen. 27:41–45).
Conclusion
For lexical, grammatical, and contextual reasons, the translation of ḥaṭṭāṯ as “sin offering” is preferable. Instead of YHWH calling Cain to conquer his own sin, YHWH is calling Cain to faith in the promised Seed whose heel would be bruised. Most of Scripture, including Genesis 4:7, could be viewed as a running commentary on Genesis 3:15. As we saw in the opening paragraph, the Old Testament is full of sacrifices that foreshadow the cross of Christ. What it means for the promised Seed to be bruised is expanded and explained through the Mosaic sacrificial system, of which the sin offering was a part. For example, at the heart of the sacrificial system is the Day of Atonement (Leviticus 16), where two goats are taken as sin offerings to atone for the sins of Israel. Then Isaiah, with great clarity, presents the Suffering Servant, the promised Seed, as a sacrificial lamb to take away the sins of His people (Isa. 52:13–53:12). Thus, long before the incarnation of the Seed, the people of God knew that the One whose heel was to be bruised would be a sacrificial lamb who would take away His people’s sins.
What was still lacking was the knowledge of the particular person who would do so. Then, in the fullness of time, Christ came, and John the Baptist identifies Him as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the World!” (John 1:29). Being a sacrificial lamb, when Christ died upon the cross He died to redeem His people from the curse (1 Cor. 5:7; Mark 10:45; Gal. 3:13). And here is the sin offering that is given to Cain: YHWH is presenting to him Christ crucified (1 Cor. 10:1–4). Here the mercy and grace of God is on full display, providing a pardon for a sinner, but so too is man’s depravity. The horror of Genesis 4 is not that Cain failed to get his sin under control, nor that he rejected the Old Covenant sacrificial system, but that he rejected the gospel: Christ crucified and freely offered to him. Because of Adam’s fall, we all have inherited original sin, including its corruption—corruption so deep that it rejects the mercy of God in Christ. Thus, Genesis 4 continues the theme of Genesis 3 in displaying the depths of sin. Fallen humanity, by nature, will reject the cross; our wills are in bondage to sin. To be saved, we need not only the promised Seed of Genesis 3:15 but the promised enmity as well to turn our hearts from following sin to trusting in the promised Seed.
