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 Heb. 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 Gen. 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 Gen. 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:

However difficult it may be for us at this date to reconcile such a rendering with the

Hebrew of Gen. 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 Exod. 29: 14 as having flesh, and skin, and capable of being

"burnt with fire"; it has "blood" according to Exod. 30: 10; the worshipper could "lay

his hand" upon its head according to Lev. 4: 29, and it could be "eaten" according to

Lev. 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 Gen. 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".