PERFECTION

PERDITION

OR

`In process of time'. Literally, `At or after the end of some days', `some' being often expressed by the plural

form alone. Nothing is certain as to what days are intended.

Some think the sabbath is meant, some the end of the year, or at some set time like harvest. The important fact

to observe is that there was some recognition of appointed time, and hence the implication is that Abel's faith was

connected with `a word of God', as all faith has ever been.

`An offering' (minchall). This word is often used as a contrast to zebah, a sacrifice with blood, but standing

alone it is often used for sacrifice in general. As the passage stands in the A.V. the word `also' in verse 4 (`And

Abel, he also') simply adds the action of Abel to that of Cain. If, however, the word `also' be read after the verb, as

it actually stands in both the Hebrew and in the LXX, there is a possibility that a deeper lesson is intended. There is

something suggestive in the Greek of Hebrews 11:4 too. There is no word for `excellent' there, which is supplied.

Translating the words just as they come we read, `By faith more sacrifice Abel than Cain offered'. Is it possible that

in this simple and literal statement we have fuller light on Genesis 4 than the A.V. gives us there? In what way did

Abel offer `more sacrifice'?

Coming back to this chapter and reading the `also' after the verb we have, `And Abel he brought also of the

firstlings of his flock', and this at least opens the way for the implied thought that Abel brought a bloodless gift even

as Cain did, but that he `brought also' the lamb which alone made any other offering acceptable. This at least is

exactly the teaching of the epistle to the Hebrews. All the typical offerings, even though they were of bulls and

goats and ordained by God, were in measure but the offering of Cain in this sense, that they sought to render the

offerer accepted without the precious blood of Christ which alone cleanses and gives access. On the other hand a

bloodless sacrifice was acceptable (see Heb. 13:15), but only when sanctified by the blood of Christ.

The LXX rendering of Genesis 4:7 is somewhat strange, and the relation of the existing Hebrew text with the Greek is too

complicated to be dealt with here. We give it, however, for what it may be worth, for it seems to suggest that the

mistake of Cain was not so much in the offering that he did bring, as in the offering that he refused:

`If thou hast brought rightly, but not rightly divided it, hast thou not sinned?'

However difficult it may be for us at this date to reconcile such a rendering with the Hebrew of Genesis 4:7, we

must give the credit of common sense to the translators of the LXX that they felt that such a translation expressed

the teaching of the passage. Cain sinned through a failure to discern the difference between the offering of fruit,

which had in it no confession of human unworthiness, and the offering which involved the shedding of blood, which

pointed to the one Sacrifice for sin and acceptance which was to be offered by the Lord Himself.

If we understand the word `sin' in verse 7 to mean Cain's own transgression, the sense is not very clear. `If thou

doest not well' indicates sin, and the statement resolves itself into, `If thou art a sinner - thou art a sinner'. But `sin'

(i.e. the same Hebrew word) is spoken of in Exodus 29:14 as having flesh, and skin, and capable of being `burnt

with fire'; it has `blood' according to Exodus 30:10; the worshipper could `lay his hand' upon its head according to

Leviticus 4:29, and it could be `eaten' according to Leviticus 10:17. This is sufficient to prove that `a sin offering'

in the shape of a bullock, a goat, or a lamb could be the true meaning of the word `sin' in Genesis 4:7. The

statement `sin lieth at the door' is today a proverb, but a proverb that has arisen from this very translation, and

therefore not a proof that such would be the interpretation which Cain would give to the term. The idea that sin was

typified as in the act of springing upon Cain is hardly justified by the usage of the word `lieth'.

When we read in Psalm 23:2, `He maketh me to lie down in green pastures', we certainly have no thought of a

beast of prey in the act of taking a spring. We are not to suppose that when Jacob saw the flocks of sheep `lying' by

the well that they were preparing to spring at him, or at one another (Gen. 29:2). The word is indeed spoken of a

leopard, but not in the act of springing on its prey, but the very reverse: `the leopard shall lie down with the kid' (Isa.

11:6). The word is spoken of the couching of sheep, and wild beasts, lions, leopards and asses, of the needy that

shall `lie down' in safety (Isa. 14:30); of flocks that `rest' (Song of Sol. 1:7), but not one passage can bear the

meaning often read into Genesis 4:7. The door belongs neither to Cain or to Abel. So far as the Scriptures actually

state it can just as well be the door of the primal tabernacle mentioned in Genesis 3:24. Over 40 times in the

Pentateuch is this word used of the `door' of the tabernacle. The sense therefore of Genesis 4:7 seems clearly to be:

`If thou doest not well, a sin offering coucheth at the door of the tabernacle'.