The Gift of Prophecy

Genesis 4:7: Insights Into the Cain-Abel Narrative

Let us look at one more example in Genesis where Ellen White’s insights correlate with the best (but often overlooked) understanding of the Hebrew original of a biblical passage. In Genesis 4 we find the familiar narrative of Cain and Abel. After Cain and Abel brought their respective offerings to the Lord, and the fruit of Cain was rejected while the animal sacrifice of Abel was accepted, Cain’s “face fell” (verse 5). The Lord came to him, and said (verse 7, usually translated thus): “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 [Heb. teshuqah] is for you, but you must master [Heb. mashal] it” (NASB). According to this usual way of translation, the picture is a negative, sinister one, in which sin is compared with a demon or wild beast that desires to dominate Cain, but Cain must master it. Because the grammar of this verse is almost identical to Genesis 3:16 (using the same Hebrew words for “desire” and “rule/master” and with pronouns that modify them), the latter passage is also often interpreted in a very negative way: the woman’s “desire” is to try to dominate the man, but the man must “master” her. ²⁵ GOP 161.3

A careful study of Genesis 4:7 by one of my former doctoral students has challenged this negative interpretation based upon a close reading of the Hebrew text. ²⁶ My own more recent study builds upon his analysis, looking at further facets of the Hebrew original, and arrives at the same basic conclusion. ²⁷ I share here only a few salient points of the research. First, elsewhere in Scripture there is no other reference to “sin” described as a demon or as a wild animal “lurking” after its prey, with the need for humans to “master” it. Such a picture seems out of character with the theology of sin in the rest of Scripture. GOP 162.1

Second, the possessive pronoun “its/his” (in the phrase “its desire”) in this verse is in the masculine, and therefore, according to a fundamental rule of Hebrew grammar in which the pronoun agrees with its antecedent noun in gender, the noun to which “its/his” refers should be in the masculine. But the word for “sin” is in the feminine! The nearest possible antecedent to the masculine possessive pronoun in this verse is “Abel” (verse 4)! GOP 162.2

Third, Abel is the only one who fits in the literary flow of the overall shame-honor plot of the narrative. Abel is the one to whom Cain’s anger/displeasure is implicitly directed in previous verses. In context, this displeasure is because he presumed that he had lost (or was in danger of losing) his firstborn status by his noncompliance with the prescribed ritual. Cain had been “shamed,” and his face “fell” (in modern shame-honor language, he “lost face.”) God promises that if he does well, he will be accepted: literally, his “face will be lifted up”—his honor will be restored. All of these points are supported by key Hebrew terminology in the text. ²⁸ GOP 162.3

Hence, the translation of Genesis 4:7 becomes a positive one: “His [Abel’s] desire will be for you, and you [Cain] will rule over him.” God promises Cain that if he does well, the “desire” (or respect) of Abel for Cain will be restored, and Cain will have the predominance of the firstborn son as before. This translation is supported by the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament (LXX): “to thee shall be his submission, and thou shalt rule over him.” GOP 162.4

Even though (to my knowledge) no modern Bible versions in Ellen White’s day (or even today) follow the LXX and gives this positive translation implied by the Hebrew original, Ellen White favors this translation already in several of her earliest statements interpreting Genesis 4:7. She clearly regards this passage (verse 7b) as referring to Cain and Abel in the context of restoring his firstborn status and its prerogatives of honor over Abel. Note her citation of Genesis 4:7b in the following: GOP 162.5

Abel’s offering had been accepted; but this was because he had done in every particular as God required him to do. If Cain would correct his error, he would not be deprived of his birthright: Abel would not only love him as his brother, but, as the younger, would be subject to him. Thus the Lord declared to Cain, “Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” ²⁹ GOP 162.6

Three more times Ellen White either cites or paraphrases Genesis 4:7b, giving this same basic interpretation: GOP 163.1

Abel’s offering had been accepted; but this was because he had done in every particular as God required him to do. If Cain would correct his error, he would not be deprived of his birthright: Abel would not only love him as his brother, but, as the younger, would be subject to him. Thus the Lord declared to Cain, “Unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” ³⁰ GOP 163.2

The angel tells Cain that it was no injustice on the part of God, or partiality shown to Abel; but that it was on account of his own sin, and disobedience of God’s express command, why he could not respect his offering—and if he would do well he would be accepted of God, and his brother should listen to him, and he should take the lead, because he was the eldest. ³¹ GOP 163.3

There had been no injustice on the part of God, and no partiality shown to Abel; if he would do well he would be accepted of God, and his brother should listen to him, and he should take the lead, because he was the eldest. ³² GOP 163.4

Remarkably, Ellen White follows an interpretive tradition (the LXX) that was not represented by the modern translations of her day. Likewise, she goes against the prevailing understanding in her day of the corresponding passage in Genesis 3:16, interpreting this text as a blessing in order to preserve the unity and harmony in the home. ³³ GOP 163.5