Genesis 4:7

If thou doest well. This verse presents certain linguistic difficulties that have led some modern commentators to think that a copyist’s error has changed the Hebrew text. That the translators of the LXX found its meaning obscure even in their time is apparent from their garbled translation of it. The rabbis tried to explain it in the sense that Cain’s offering was rejected because he did not follow precisely the rules of Levitical ritual. But the obvious contrast between the results of “doing well” and those of “not doing well” precludes such an explanation. The first clause reads literally, “Is there not lifting up if thou doest well?” What will be lifted up? The burden of guilt or the countenance? The expression “to lift up one’s face” for “to be joyful or innocent” is common in Hebrew (Job 11:15; 22:26; 2 Sam. 2:22), and probably appears here in an abbreviated form as a complement to the preceding statement that Cain’s countenance had fallen (v. 6). God wished Cain to understand that if he would mend his ways and live according to the divine precepts, there would be no more reason for God to show His displeasure and no more reason for Cain to show a disappointed and angry face. However, if Cain would not change, but would continue in the pathway of evil, sin would overwhelm him. The phrase “sin lieth at the door” (like a wild beast) is probably a proverbial one (see 1 Peter 5:8).

Sin. Some have suggested that the Hebrew word here translated “sin,” chatta’th, should be rendered “sin offering,” as it is in nearly half the passages where it occurs in the OT (see for example Ex. 30:10; Lev. 4:32; Num. 7:16, 22; etc.; cf. Hosea 4:8; Heb. 9:28; 2 Cor. 5:21). God would then be saying to Cain, “If you were innocent, your [bloodless] offering would be acceptable as a thank offering, would it not? And when you have sinned, is there not a sin offering ready at hand?” One difficulty in rendering chatta’th as “sin offering” should be pointed out. Chatta’th, is feminine, whereas the participle robes, “lieth,” is masculine. It should be feminine if it is to agree with chatta’th, its subject. This difference suggests that Moses was personifying “sin” as a wild beast crouching at the door, and so deliberately chose to make robes agree with the masculine wild beast of his figure of speech rather than with the subject in its literal sense as “sin” or “sin offering.”

Unto thee shall be his desire. This cannot refer to Abel as having a “desire” toward his elder brother in the same sense as Eve toward her husband (see Gen. 3:16), that is, to accept his supremacy. Such an explanation would seem to be at variance with the context and with divine principles. If sin is personified as a wild beast lying in wait for Cain, it would be appropriate to continue the comparison by translating, as does the RSV, “its desire is for you, but you must master it.”