Perhaps Sin is Not Crouching at the Door (Genesis 4:7)
Whenever one challenges a translation that most English translations use, it is natural to be skeptical. I know I was… at least initially. But, as I have chewed on the data and worked it over in my mind, I have become much more sympathetic to the idea that most English translations get Genesis 4:7 wrong.
Genesis 4:7 is most commonly interpreted as sin personified as a wild animal crouching outside the door, ready to pounce! But, I would like to advocate for an alternative understanding. Perhaps Genesis 4:7 is not talking about sin crouching at the door but about God providing a sin offering for Cain as a means of reconciliation.
English Translations and Genesis 4:7
I imagine that most readers did not even know there was a possible alternative rendering of Genesis 4:7. This is largely because of the near-unanimous translation of Genesis 4:7. Here is a list of major English translations with their rendering of Genesis 4:7.
| ESV | 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.” |
| NASB | “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” |
| CSB | If you do what is right, won’t you be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” |
| NET | Is it not true that if you do what is right, you will be fine? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at the door. It desires to dominate you, but you must subdue it.” |
| NIV | If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it.” |
| LEB | If you do well will I not accept you? But if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. And its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” |
| KJV | If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. |
| NKJV | If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin lies at the door. And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” |
| RSV | 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 for you, but you must master it.” |
| YLT | Is there not, if thou dost well, acceptance? and if thou dost not well, at the opening a sin-offering is crouching, and unto thee its desire, and thou rulest over it.’ |
A quick survey of the major English translations of Genesis 4:7 shows that only the YLT (Young’s Literal Translation) departs from the norm. All other translations are rather unified on this verse. So, why does the YLT offer the translation of sin offering rather than sin?
Sin and Sin Offering are the Same Word in Hebrew
It may surprise the non-Hebrew student to know that in the Hebrew Bible, the word for sin and sin offering are the same. The Hebrew word is hattat (חַטָּאת), and the premier Hebrew Lexicon (known as HALOT) states that hattat is used 155 times in reference to sin, and 135 times in reference to sin offering. If you think that is confusing, remember that in most cases the meaning is contextually obvious.
Perhaps an illustration might help. For example, the word “bank” in English has many different meanings. And although the word “bank” can mean more than four distinct ideas, the fluent English speaker has no problems discerning which meaning is intended because the context usually makes that clear. So it is in other languages, and so it is with the word hattat (sin, or, sin offering). So, this is not really a textual issue. We know what the text says. But what does it mean?
The Complicating Factor of Hebrew Gender
Many languages utilize gender to communicate effectively. For example, in Spanish, when referring to small house, you would use the phrase casa pequeña. Casa, the Spanish word for house, is feminine (usually marked by ending in a), and so the adjective pequeña must also end with the letter a. But, if you were referring to a small horse, the phrase would be caballo pequeño. The Spanish word for horse, caballo, is masculine (usually marked by ending in o). Thus, the adjective must now agree with the noun it modifies, taking the form pequeño. Isn’t grammar great?!
Although English does not follow any gender rules for grammar, Hebrew does. And the word for sin or sin offering, hattat, is feminine. However, the complication is that the words that are supposed to be modifying sin or sin offering in Genesis 4:7 are masculine! Let me try to illustrate that with my own translation, emphasizing the gender of the words in question.
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin (fem)…. It is he who is crouching at the door. His desire is for you, but you must rule over him.
So, to be clear, sin is feminine. However, the verb “crouching” is masculine, along with the modifier of desire and object of rule. So this verse is a grammatical oddity and not your average Hebrew! How do we make sense of these grammatical oddities?
Examples of Masculine Modifiers to the Feminine Word Sin Offering
Although having masculine modifiers with a feminine noun is rare, it is not without precedent. In fact, the best precedent we have in the Hebrew Bible is when a male sin offering is used. For example, Exodus 29:14 talks about a sin offering (feminine) but refers to the offering with a masculine modifier. This works because the sin offering is a male bull. Leviticus 4:21 and 4:23-24 provide similar examples where the feminine noun, sin offering, is referred to by masculine modifiers because the sin offering itself is male.
So, although it is rare to have masculine modifiers for a feminine noun (we should expect feminine modifiers), the examples we have of this are when the sin offering is male (a bull, goat, etc.).
Challenging the Idea of “Crouching” in Genesis 4:7
But a sin offering would not be crouching ready to pounce! The idea of sin crouching at the door ready to pounce is such vivid imagery and preaches quite well. But, the word translated as “crouching” might not mean that at all. It is the Hebrew word ravats (רבץ), which is often used of the peaceful rest of flocks and herds. In fact, you are probably familiar with Psalm 23:2, “He makes me lie down in green pastures.” The word for “lie down” is the same word, ravats (רבץ). I have yet to see a commentary on Psalm 23 say that the Lord makes us crouch down ready to pounce. The point is that the word for crouching could just as easily (perhaps more easily) refer to lying down, resting, and waiting peacefully. Context has to determine that as well.
What Would Genesis 4:7 Mean as a Sin Offering?
If we take hattat to mean sin offering instead of sin, a viable interpretation of Genesis 4:7 is still possible. Rather than a warning that sin is ready to pounce and devour Cain, this verse would be an offer of God’s mercy and an opportunity to offer a sacrifice to reconcile with God. If I might paraphrase Genesis 4:7 it would be like this:
If you do the right thing, you will be accepted. But if you do not do the right thing, there is a sin offering available for you to use to cover that transgression.
The last phrase is most problematic. “Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it” could be interpreted in a couple ways in this view. Some have interpreted the “Its desire” as “His desire” in a reference to Abel’s desire and love for Cain. And as the older brother, Cain must “rule over him.” That works quite well with the grammar of the passage, but the difficulty is that Abel might be too far removed to be the natural referent of the pronoun. It is not impossible, but is a little difficult in my mind.
The other main option would be to take the masculine pronouns as a referent to the sin offering. So, the desire of the sin offering is for Cain. In this case, it is the personification of the sin offering (which is similar to how the traditional view personifies sin in this context). And the phrase, “you must rule over it” would be a reference to the need for Cain to care for the sin offering and appropriately offer it.
I should note that the word for “rule” is not inherently negative. It is the word that is used of the luminaries having “rule” over the day and night (Gen 1:16), and of Abraham’s servant who watched over all his possessions (Gen 24:2). So, a generic care might be completely appropriate in this context.
Why Talk about a Door in Genesis 4:7?
One last piece of evidence that I think is worth considering would be the mention of the “door” (פֶּתַח). Although the typical understanding of this passage is metaphorical, specifically that sin is crouching just outside the door, ready to pounce once someone exits, it is possible this reference to the door could be actual.
This word for door is the same word that is used regularly for the entrance to the tabernacle (cf. Exod 29:4, 11, 32; 38:8, 30; 40:5, 6, etc.). Although the tabernacle or temple did not yet exist, it later became the place for the Israelite to bring his sacrifice (Lev 1:3). In fact, the altar is specifically described as being “at the entrance” (פֶּתַח) of the tabernacle (Lev 1:5).
If, as I would contend, the tabernacle and temple are symbolically oriented to point back to the garden of Eden, then the door referred to in Genesis 4:7 could simply be the entrance to the garden of Eden. When mankind was banished from the garden of Eden, a cherub was placed east of the garden, guarding the entrance (Gen 3:24). So, the garden of Eden, just like the tabernacle (Exod 26:18-22), had an east entrance.
Rather than humanity going as far away from the garden as possible, it is more likely they stayed nearby. And whenever they offered sacrifices to the Lord, they most likely offered them at the entrance of the garden, the place of closest proximity to God’s presence. The mention of the door/entrance in Genesis 4:7 gives some strong considerations why it might be better to translate hattat as sin offering rather than sin.
Newer is Not Always Better
It might interest readers to know that Michael Morales has written an academic treatment on this issue, proposing that sin offering is a more viable translation. In Morales’s article, he mentions the fact that, in addition to Young’s Literal Translation, Adoniram Judson (1788–1850), Adam Clarke (1762–1832), and Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown (1877) all translate hattat as sin offering.
The Greek translation of the Old Testament, which happened sometime in the 3rd century BC, also gives evidence that the sacrificial context was thought by those translators to be prominent.
“Have you not sinned if you offer rightly but do not divide rightly? Be still! His recourse will be to you, and you will rule him.”
Lexham English Septuagint, Gen 4:7
Notice that, although the issue of sin versus sin offering is not really addressed in the translation, the translators clearly identify a context of sacrifice. Furthermore, they also take the last phrase to be a reference to Abel (as mentioned earlier).
This is obviously a bit of a difficult issue. But, I am becoming increasingly convinced that, although most English translations translate Genesis 4:7 as sin, there are strong reasons for challenging that interpretation.
Photo by Geran de Klerk on Unsplash
Peter Goeman
Peter serves at Shepherd's Theological Seminary in Cary, NC as the professor of Old Testament and Biblical Languages. He loves studying the Bible and helping others understand it. He also runs The Bible Sojourner podcast and Youtube channel.
13 Comments
theotherdisciplewhomJesusloved
Thank you for the fascinating study! (reposted in your podcast comments)
I’ve listened to Barrick’s lecture and your podcast audio and would like to offer a few remarks if I may:
1) Ge 4:7 appears to present 2 Conditional statements (I can’t read Hebrew so please correct me). And so if the sin offering (animal to be sacrificed) is already at the door (whether Cain’s or Eden’s) can Cain still DO WELL without the sin offering? Your paraphrase above implies that Cain can, in which case why would God put the sin offering there to begin with? Barrick states the sin offering is already at Cain’s door (@41min) ready to yield to Cain’s decision; hence, Cain must do something with it to do well. The common view (if I may call it that) avoids mixing these two conditionals. Simply put, whatever ‘doing well’ means, it would certainly entail turning away from sin. Vice versa.
2a) Barrick also draws a direct parallel between the sin offering’s (animal’s) desire for Cain and Eve’s desire for Adam (in his ppt slide @40:40), which as you sense is troublesome. Clearly the animal’s desire is not for personal intimacy (as in SS 7:10). So if the animal is merely yielding to Cain, in what way is Cain positively ‘caring for’ or ‘stewarding’ the animal if he needs to slaughter it? Surely this is not how Adam ought to care for Eve!
2b) If we lean towards this being Abel’s desire for Cain it still seems to stretch the semantic range. The desire a) is not physical intimacy in marriage, b) nor is it Abel’s will to dominate Cain, c) so we’re left with some generic hope on Abel’s end for Cain’s wellbeing (your podcast @26:55). The latter option seems contrived and sucks the force out of God’s warning. In what way would Cain need to steward (rule) his righteous brother and his good will towards him? All in all the alleged parallels here between Ge 3:16 and 4:7 seem to break down in my humble estimation.
2c) Regarding Ge 3:14-19, I do not share Barrick’s optimism that this passage is laden with God’s mercies. It is beyond me to accept how pain (even if non-physical sorrow) is present before the Fall (@27:55). Even if I did take Eve’s desire as positive I don’t see anything positive in God’s cursing of the serpent or Adam, do you? Barrick spinning death here into a grace of God as a doorway to rest or an end to the pain of this world is a bit mind-boggling for me. Perhaps a case of finding a valid truth in the wrong text!
3. Further light may be shed in asking what exactly is the ‘way of Cain’ (Jd 11)? Jd likens the false teachers to ‘unreasoning animals’ (v10) who by instinct destroy themselves. The letter is replete with descriptors of their ‘sensuality/licentiousness (v4), gross immorality (v7), defile[ment of] the flesh (v8), car[e] for themselves (v12), and following after their own lusts (v16). These all seem to support the common view that Cain’s own sinful (i.e. murderous, envious, fleshly) desires mastered him. Put differently, these are sins of commission – not a sin of omission wherein an animal (sin offering) God provided Cain was left alone.
4. I’d also marshall in the Q John posed: “for what reason did [Cain] slay [Abel]?” (1 Jn 3:12). The answer is just as much Abel’s righteous deeds as it is Cain’s evil deeds. But why? It must be because of Cain’s sinful envy, a failure to love his brother and instead harbor murderous hate. I’d submit that Abel’s righteousness ought to have nothing to do with Cain’s decision over a sin offering (which as you note concerns reconciliation between Cain and God) if Cain loved his brother from the heart. But alas, Cain hated Abel for his righteousness and spurned the Lord.
5. I cannot speak to your gender argument, as that is above my paygrade, but it seems that the problems with Barrick’s view outweigh the benefits. And to be clear, I wholeheartedly share your appreciation for Dr. Barrick’s ministry and work, as he’s spoken at my church and now-graduated church plant and I’m sure has benefited many of the members including myself.
Nevertheless I wanted to thank you again for this most intriguing Bible study. I will be running this by my elders and am open to hearing any follow-up responses you may have!
Blessings to you and to yours
Joe
I agree with you that the true meaning is sin offering. Just as God told Abraham at the symbolic sacrifice of Isaac, I have provided a ram in the thicket. God is always willing to go one step further and since He is not willing that any should perish, it makes perfect sense God would provide a blood sacrifice for Cain. And not only that , that it would be docile and not even put up a fight, just as His Son sacrificed without a fight but willingly layed down His life for us, after all, where sin abounds, grace does much more abound
Jill
https://www.jstor.org/stable/528484?seq=1
In this paper “THE HEBREW MASAL” by Allen Howard Godbey, on the 17th page (of 20), he talks about the translating of the Hebrew word masal as “rule.” He agrees with the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon that the word actually doesn’t mean rule at all, but rather “to make like”. He suggests Gen 3:16 should read “Thy longing shall be toward thy husband; and he shall be likewise toward thee.” For Gen 4:7c something to the effect of “His (Abel’s) longing shall be toward thee, and you shall be likewise toward him.”
I’m also wondering if the sin offering could be Christ, and that is the “He” in view here. “His (Christ’s) longing shall be toward thee, and you shall be likewise toward Him.”
Would love to hear your thoughts on these ideas.
Thank you!
Peter Goeman
Thank you for pointing to the journal article. It is a fascinating read, but I’m not sure I agree with his conclusion. The evidence from the Greek translation of the old testament also goes against his conclusion. It seems unlikely to me, at least, given the evidences, I understand it, that the Greek translators really missed, something by that much here. They understood the route to be related to ruling, and it also makes sense in the context to me. But I love thinking about texts from different angles, so I’m going to think about it more. Thanks for bringing it to our attention!
Nathan Wilkins
Adam Clarke also provides a very similar analysis for this verse.
PHILIP ETTEDGUI
Did you notice in the Geneva Bible translation there is a footnote that states that the ruling over him refers to Cain having been the first born, and by doing wrong he would be relinquishing or failing to act like a first born. By doing right he would be acting in accordance with his birthright and rule over Able (in a good way, as first born are designated to act)
Peter Goeman
I will have to look at that, thanks for the heads up!
Stephen Duwe
Great article! Helpful indeed. Loved finding your website and seeing all you’ve been up to since college/seminary.
After reading this, my thought becomes: what does this mean for Gen 3:16 and the curse on the woman? As many do, I will connect these two verses in teaching on the curse or womanhood or counseling, etc. to explain the “desire” of the woman. it seams to come up often enough. Wondering if I need to adjust my parallel thoughts between the verses?
Peter Goeman
Great to hear from you Stephen! Glad the article was thought provoking. Interestingly enough, I used to interpret Gen 3:16 positive and 4:7 negative. But over the past few years I have moved to interpreting both as positive statements. Gen 3:16 speaks of the positive love a woman has for her husband (cf Song of Songs 7:10). Irv Busenitz wrote an article that really impacted me on that issue. But early on I saw more disconnect between the two passages. I think I’m moving slightly closer now since I interpret them both more positively now. It is an interesting issue.
George Williams
Thanks
Michele
I love this article SO MUCH. My entire blog site is to try to encourage others to study the words in their bibles, but I never see anyone else explaining this, until your article here. =) We can see all sorts of truths when we look at the Hebrew and Greek and parts of speech… it is quite amazing. I’ve found 2 major things thus far: No deadly wound was healed, and the English words for forever, eternal, eternity and everlasting (G165, G166) does not mean that AT ALL. The proper word for eternal and everlasting is G126 which is only used 2 times. It’s pretty incredible and just shows the depths that Satan will go to attempt to deceive God’s set-apart saints. Thank you for sharing, Peter! <3
Michele
Here are the direct links to the studies I mentioned:
https://scripturestudy.guide/the-deadly-wound-was-served-not-healed/
https://scripturestudy.guide/hell-is-not-eternal/
And the beasts explain why this is happening. Here is my personal interpretation:
https://scripturestudy.guide/antichrist-beasts-in-revelation-include-the-7-churches/
Richard Foerster
Finally, I have found someone who would more acurately voice my thinking on this subject. For years I thought there was another intrepretation for this verse. The conventional view often troubled me, so I looked deeper and was amazed at how easily (and grammatically viable) this optional view ‘can’ fit. My immediate problem stemmed from the parrallell reference (from Gen 3:16 – 4:) with the use of desire for both Eve and Cain. I tried to reconcile Eve’s desire with that of a crouching lion. seeking to devour Adam. Along with realizing that ‘crouching’ could also mean ‘resting’. I had to allow further studies to understand the contextual use (the text is about the “offerings”) and close association of the sin/sin offering (Christ is considered as sin/sin offering for us 2Cor 5:21). My searching opened the possibility that both venues promote a more accurate warning / promise from GOD. It was refreshing to see that God was offering a solution to Cain’s diliema, as well as a warning. The focus could be from which side of the sin/offering you stand.