And unto thee shall be his desire. Nearly all commentators refer this to sin, and think that, by this admonition, those depraved hosts are restrained which solicit and impel the mind of man. Therefore, according to their view, the meaning will be of this kind, If sin rises against thee to subdue thee, why dost thou indulge it, and not rather labor to restrain and control it? For it is thy part to subdue and bring into obedience those affections in thy flesh which thou perceivest to be opposed to the will of God, and rebellious against him.' But I suppose that Moses means something entirely different. I omit to notice that to the Hebrew word for sin is affixed the mark of the feminine gender, but that here two masculine relative pronouns are used. Certainly Moses does not treat particularly of the sin itself which was committed, but of the guilt which is contracted from it, and of the consequent condemnation. How, then, do these words suit, Unto thee shall be his desire?' [240] There will, however be no need for long refutation when I shall produce the genuine meaning of the expression. It rather seems to be a reproof, by which God charges the impious man with ingratitude, because he held in contempt the honor of primogeniture. The greater are the divine benefits with which any one of us is adorned, the more does he betray his impiety unless he endeavors earnestly to serve the Author of grace to whom he is under obligation. When Abel was regarded as his brother's inferior, he was, nevertheless, a diligent worshipper of God. But the firstborn worshipped God negligently and perfunctorily, though he had, by the Divine kindness, arrived at so high a dignity; and, therefore, God enlarges upon his sin, because he had not at least imitated his brother, whom he ought to have surpassed as far in piety as he did in the degree of honor. Moreover, this form of speech is common among the Hebrews, that the desire of the inferior should be towards him to whose will he is subject; thus Moses speaks of the woman, (Genesis 3:16,) that her desire should be to her husband. They, however, childishly trifle, who distort this passage to prove the freedom of the will; for if we grant that Cain was admonished of his duty in order that he might apply himself to the subjugation of sin, yet no inherent power of man is to be hence inferred; because it is certain that only by the grace of the Holy Spirit can the affections of the flesh be so mortified that they shall not prevail. Nor, truly, must we conclude, that as often as God commands anything we shall have strength to perform it, but rather we must hold fast the saying of Augustine, Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt.'
The NET Bible has four notes dealing with Gen. 4:7, I will post notes 3) and 4) here:3 tn The Hebrew term translated “crouching” (רֹבֵץ, rovets) is an active participle. Sin is portrayed with animal imagery here as a beast crouching and ready to pounce (a figure of speech known as zoomorphism). An Akkadian cognate refers to a type of demon; in this case perhaps one could translate, “Sin is the demon at the door” (see E. A. Speiser, Genesis [AB], 29, 32-33).
4 tn Heb “and toward you [is] its desire, but you must rule over it.” As in Gen 3:16, the Hebrew noun “desire” refers to an urge to control or dominate. Here the desire is that which sin has for Cain, a desire to control for the sake of evil, but Cain must have mastery over it. The imperfect is understood as having an obligatory sense. Another option is to understand it as expressing potential (“you can have [or “are capable of having”] mastery over it.”). It will be a struggle, but sin can be defeated by righteousness. In addition to this connection to Gen 3, other linguistic and thematic links between chaps. 3 and 4 are discussed by A. J. Hauser, “Linguistic and Thematic Links Between Genesis 4:1-6 and Genesis 2–3,” JETS 23 (1980): 297-306.
Sporadic theological and historical musings by Edgar Foster (Ph.D. in Theology and Religious Studies and one of Jehovah's Witnesses).
Saturday, September 26, 2020
Genesis 4:7 (John Calvin)
While reading Genesis 4:7 recently, I began thinking about Jehovah asking Cain whether he would get the "mastery" over sin or not. This verse implies humans are capable of subduing wrong desires (sinful inclinations) with Jehovah's help, but that idea would seem to conflict with the ideas of John Calvin, Martin Luther and many others, who seem to believe we cannot master sin, but any such act is all God with none of our efforts. But somebody correct me if you think I'm misreading Calvin or Luther. In any event, note what Calvin writes about Genesis 4:7:
My understanding of Calvin is that he believed that man was incapable of doing what is pleasing to God, period, including putting faith in God. How I understand reformed theology is that the primary Cause of everything is God, but that man is held responsible through secondary causation (don't ask how such a view is coherent, because I don't think it is), and that man's desire, and thus all that comes from it (the secondary causation) is evil, if there is something good it is because of God's grace. So I think you're reading Calvin correctly, he says it pretty clearly:
ReplyDelete" for if we grant that Cain was admonished of his duty in order that he might apply himself to the subjugation of sin, yet no inherent power of man is to be hence inferred; because it is certain that only by the grace of the Holy Spirit can the affections of the flesh be so mortified that they shall not prevail. Nor, truly, must we conclude, that as often as God commands anything we shall have strength to perform it, but rather we must hold fast the saying of Augustine, Give what thou commandest, and command what thou wilt'"
That being said, I agree with David Bentley Hart that the God of Calvinism is essencially the moral equivalent of Satan.
Good old Hart, never afraid to spell things out in a stark manner :)
ReplyDeleteWhat you say also can be supported by a quote from Calvin, wherein he claims that the human mind "conceives, desires, and undertakes, only that which is impious, perverted, foul, impure, and infamous. The heart is so steeped in the poison of sin, that it can breathe out nothing but a loathsome stench. But if some men occasionally make a show of good, their minds nevertheless ever remain enveloped in hypocrisy and deceitful craft, and their hearts bound by inner perversity" (Institutes 2.5.19).
It seems that Calvin could not make sense of predestination. He refers to God's predestining of humanity as the incomprehensible decretum horribile.
ReplyDeleteNot to be too blunt, but I think Calvin's theology is one of the most morally reprehensible theologies on offer, the roots lay in Augustine, who was a genius but who was led astray in ways that had bad theological effects (his struggle with learning greek certainly didn't help).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I've never seen a coherent moral account of the Calvinistic doctrine of double predestination.
Great comments brothers. Calvin ironically said "There will, however be no need for long refutation when I shall produce the genuine meaning of the expression." His explanation is so long-winded as to be a sedative.
ReplyDelete(Compare with what Mark Twain said of the Book of Mormon:
"it is such a pretentious affair, and yet so "slow," so sleepy; such an insipid mess of inspiration. It is chloroform in print. ... the act [of writing the book] was a miracle — keeping awake while he did it was, at any rate.”
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/263961-all-men-have-heard-of-the-mormon-bible-but-few )
And I appreciate the NET Bible appeal to Akkadian to provide background to the meaning.
I appreciate the quotes, Jim. Always learning something from you brothers :)
ReplyDeleteAnd there the Akkadian goes again.
I read something interesting from P. Schaff tonight about Calvin. I might post that excerpt tomorrow.