6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 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.Remember as I said in my last blog post that this is many times compared to Gen. 3:16, which I'll quote again here:
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.Granted, there's a similarity. Let's look at it more closely:
Gen. 3: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
אל־האשה אמר הרבה ארבה עצבונך והרנך בעצב תלדי בנים ואל־אישך תשוקתך והוא ימשל־בך׃ ס
Gen. 4: "And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
הלוא אם־תיטיב שאת ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רבץ ואליך תשוקתו ואתה תמשל־בו׃
Looking at the lexicon for the Hebrew for Gen 3:
and thy desire
תְּשׁוּקָה tshuwqah (tesh-oo-kaw')
a longing -- desire.
and he shall rule
מָשַׁל mashal (maw-shal')
to rule -- (have, make to have) dominion, governor, indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule(-ing, -r), have power.
And for chapter 4
And unto thee shall be his desire
tshuwqah
and thou shalt rule
mashal
But reading the English, they really are not all that similar. The subject and objects are reversed, and it appears that the thing being subordinated is a "him," not an "it," which sin would be.
Note Wesley's commentary on the passage:
Unto thee shall be his desire - He shall continue in respect to thee as an elder brother, and thou, as the first - born, shall rule over him as much as ever. God's acceptance of Abel's offering did not transfer the birth - right to him ...Note that the meaning of the word sin can also mean sacrifice (again from the lexicon below).
sin
chatta'ah (khat-taw-aw')
an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender
Scoffield:
Matthew Henry matches this thought about the sin referring to sacrifice:Or, sin-offering. In Hebrew the same word is used for "sin," and "sin- offering," thus emphasizing in a remarkable way the complete identification of the believer's sin with his sin offering (cf) Jn 3:14 2Cor 5:21.
Here both meanings are brought together. "Sin lieth at the door," but Song also "a sin-offering croucheth at the [tent] door." It is "where sin abounded" that "grace did much more abound" Rom 5:20.
Abel's offering implies a previous instruction (cf) Gen 3:21 for it was "by faith" Heb 11:4 and faith is taking God at His word; Song that Cain's unbloody offering was a refusal of the divine way. But Jehovah made a last appeal to Cain Gen 4:7 even yet to bring the required offering.
The Lord reasoned with this rebellious man; if he came in the right way, he should be accepted. Some understand this as an intimation of mercy. If thou doest not well, sin, that is, the sin-offering, lies at the door, and thou mayest take the benefit of it. The same word signifies sin, and a sacrifice for sin. Though thou hast not done well, yet do not despair; the remedy is at hand. Christ, the great sin-offering, is said to stand at the door, Re 3:20. And those well deserve to perish in their sins, that will not go to the door to ask for the benefit of this sin-offering. God's acceptance of Abel's offering did not change the birthright, and make it his; why then should Cain be so angry?Really, again, we don't even need the commentaries. A straightforward reading does not indicate that it's sin that desires to rule him and he will have mastery over it. It really makes no sense to refer to sin as being his and him. Sin is referred to elsewhere in the Scripture as an "it" (e.g., Jer. 17:1; 1 Cor. 15:56).
Yes, there's some parallelism, but that doesn't mean that the passages should be compared so directly--especially when there are notable differences. A reversal of subject and object is pretty significant. And the the fact that it doesn't make sense to refer the his and him to sin is another pretty big obstacle. In reading other commentaries, however, it is essential to twist this meaning to bolster the Gen. 3:16 "battle of the sexes" argument. Note this comment on Gen. 3:16 from Bible.NET: The Bible Studies Foundation (and I've seen this elsewhere):
Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.”[Ed note: their translation--this is certainly not the standard translation of Gen. 3:16] Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain.Is it just me, or are we seeing circular reasoning? At least it's called an interpretation here, though! I've not seen the "second" reason before--but if you take my interpretation from last week's blog about desire not being entirely sexual, per se, then we're good (although, I think this argument is patently silly). ;)
And I just have to mention the sexism, again, of this sort of harmful interpretation. Woman is being directly equated to sin! I'm a sinner, no doubt, but that's a little harsh. And another harsh implication is revealed in the lexicon about sin "lieth" at the door:
liethNote my emphasis on the word "lurk." If you look at my post on Gen. 3:16, you'll see that I threw in some "catty" imagery:
rabats (raw-bats')
to crouch (on all four legs folded, like a recumbent animal); be implication, to recline, repose, brood, lurk, imbed
Does a husband who's been taught this from the pulpit see his wife as eager to usurp him: prowling for the first chance to pounce upon any opportunity to rule?No kidding, having read these commentaries for so long and "brooding" about them (since that apparently is my curse ;)), the "lieth at the door" supposed link to Gen 4:7 had laid that imagery in even my head. Lying in wait--ready to pounce. Yeah, that's a healthy way for a man to think of his wife.
I just have to say, to cover myself, that anyone reading this that thinks I am some feminist trying to get out from being ruled by "the man" just doesn't know me. I'm not a doormat by any means, but I know that the Lord has given me a role to play--and it's a privilege! In being submissive to my husband, I am imaging the Church in beautiful white marriage clothes, being readied for the marriage feast of the Lamb--betrothed to Christ Himself!
God has placed on us (women in particular) some limitations. He's our Creator. I'm OK with that. To honor them is the least I can do--after all, he died to purchase me. The Scriptures are pretty clear that God doesn't want women to pursue becoming pastors or church leaders, so I won't. Doesn't mean I can't (as in women are inherently not capable); it means I shouldn't. It's an obedience issue--and it glorifies God when we honor His requests. And in the bigger picture, it glorifies Him and it symbolizes the wonderful culmination of our very purpose and existence. To be forever with Him as His collective betrothed where there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female. In a place He's specially prepared, where there will be no more death, and where God Himself will wipe away every tear from our eyes. Now THAT's a perfect marriage!
1 comment:
My bro wrote in some interesting comments--I'll share exerpts here:
Perhaps no other passage of scripture has been so misunderstood or deliberately twisted to excuse sin, or rationalize one’s actions. With pun firmly intended, I submit that this passage has been usurped by commentators and preachers to promote either sexism or hyper-Calvinistic determinism. Often we are taught that this passage really means that the woman’s desire is to rule over her husband, but that he shall rule over her instead. I believe that we should read scripture as written and that the “desire to rule over” concept is just not in this passage.
The Hebrew word translated here as desire is tesh-oo-kaw’; in the original sense of stretching out after; a longing:— desire. This word appears only three times in the Hebrew Old Testament; in Gen. 3:16, once again in 4:7, and the final time in Song of Solomon 7:10. I think it is highly illustrative that the passage appears only three times. Moreover, each time it is used, it has a strong active influence over the whole passage. We’ve already looked at Gen. 3:16 so let’s look at Gen 4:7 and later Song. 7:10
Gen 4:7 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.
Different commentators explain this passage in different ways. Some hold, and with some plausible merit, to “sin” as actually referring to “sin sacrifice,” and that if Cain sins, he has a sacrifice to offer close at hand, “lying at the door.” Other commentators hold that the passage refers to sin itself lying at the door waiting to pounce on Cain and either control or devour him.
Both of these explanations seem strained. If God had wanted us to understand the meaning of “sin” as a “sin sacrifice,” he could have directed Moses to make sure of this and not use ambiguous language. This is the first narrative passage dealing with humans offering sacrifices to God. To not use explicit language to differentiate between sin and the sacrifice for sin would be unfathomable. It would be akin to Moses writing of the first day of creation in Gen. 1:5 as “the evening and the morning were the first time period.” God did not equivocate in that passage, He made sure that we knew that a literal day was recorded and meant. Simply on first usage grounds, I reject the interpretation of Gen. 4:7 of “sin” meaning “sin offering.”
The second interpretation is closer to the truth, but also misses the mark somewhat. “Sin” is more plausible than “sacrifice” in this passage. However, I believe that “sin” is a substitute for the personification of evil, namely Satan himself, thus the reference to “his” and “him.” I interpret this passage as: If you do well, shall you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, Satan lies at the door. And toward you shall be his desire and you shall rule over him.
I believe the New Testament parallel to this passage would be Luke 22:31
And the Lord said, “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as wheat.”
Satan desires us, even longs after us, to deceive us, to blind us from the truth, to turn us from the True and Living God. Satan desired Cain as well. God is told Cain that if he repented he would be able, through the power of God, to overcome Satan, but if he did not repent, Satan would be lying at the door longing (desiring) to devour him. What we see here is a corruption of the desire we are to have as husband and wife, we are supposed to desire each other sexually, we are to desire the best for each other and seek the other’s best interests, and we are to desire the things of God for each other. Satan on the other hand desires us for our hurt, he desires us to do his will, he desires us to be selfish and cruel and to disregard God’s Word. As we know from I Pet. 5:8;
Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour.
...
Actually, I would assert that the usage of “desire” in Gen. 3:16 and in Song 7:10 both refer to sexual desire and that the “many interpreters” here mentioned have it right. Unfortunately, both the allegorical and the puritanical schools have wrongly influenced the biblical interpretation of sexual desire and sexual intercourse in the Song of Solomon and elsewhere in the Bible. To them, sex is dirty, sex is regulated and sex is prohibited. Yes, they say, we have to use it to procreate, but God wants us to “do our duty” and then move on with our lives. Obviously, Christ’s love for the Church is non-sexual, and since that is compared to a husband’s love for his wife, in their interpretation real biblical husband and wife love is ultimately to be mostly non-sexual too. Therefore, Song of Solomon and parts of Ecclesiastes and Proverbs are to be understood allegorically, and not in a sexual way. I will of course refute this type of interpretation below. Let’s look at Song of Solomon 7:10 and discuss the obvious parallels to Gen 3:16.
Song of Solomon 7:10 I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me.
Interesting parallel don’t you agree? In Genesis 3:16 we see woman’s desire toward man, and in the last usage of the word in the Hebrew Old Testament we see man’s desire for woman. What seems to be so hard to understand from these two passages? The wife will desire (long after) her husband sexually and as a companion, and the husband will do the same towards his wife. There is nothing greater than true love between a man and a woman, including all three aspects of love: unconditional, brotherly/sisterly and erotic, that God has given us to enjoy while in mortal bodies, besides the love and fulfillment found in Him. God wants us to desire our husbands and wives. How many times in the Old and New Testaments did God tell us not to forsake our wives or to find love with a strange woman? How many times did God commend the virtuous wife and proclaim woe on the adulteress? How many times did God say that we are to be satisfied with the breasts of our wife; to drink from our own cisterns; and to be ravished with the love of our wives (Prov. 5:19; Song 7:8; Prov. 5:15; Song. 4:9)? If you really read these passages as written, they are clearly talking about the joys of sexual union between a man and his wife. God gives us a graphic, yet beautiful picture of sexual bliss and enjoyment with our spouses.
Yet, we don’t like to think of God’s word as having something so common, so earthy or sensual in it, so we relegate it to allegory or worse yet, ignore it altogether. However, it would be a cruel God indeed who would create man and woman perfect, marry them in this state of perfection, tell them to procreate, give them different sexual organs that fit together for pleasure, and then either not give them instruction, or worse yet, tell them that they are not to enjoy the sexual experience, but only use it for child-bearing. Yes, we know that mankind has since fallen, and that mankind has corrupted God’s original intended purpose regarding marriage and sexual union, but this is all the more reason that God moved holy men to write of what the proper desire should be between a man and wife.
Let us get back to the second point of Gen. 3:16 the statement that “he shall rule over thee.” Many commentators have looked at this as part of the curse on the woman. I don’t believe this is accurate. Again, I contend that since this is a first usage passage, the first usage of pronounced curses, God would have made abundantly clear that woman was to have pain in childbirth, longing for her husband and subjugation to her husband all together as part of her curse for disobeying God’s command not to eat of the tree. Instead we see a definite pronounced curse, “pain in childbirth,” and then a statement, clearly separated from the curse, that she will desire after her husband and he would rule over her.
If this were a curse directed at Eve specifically as the wife of Adam, and further directed at all wives in perpetuity through the ages, then we run into a conundrum. The easiest way to circumvent this curse would be to not marry. Since God ordained marriage, and then made marriage a means to subjugate women and create in them a usurping lust if the standard interpretation is to be followed, we have a God who is capricious and cruel - God forbid this school of thought! Unmarried women would not have to worry about being subjugated to their husbands, nor would they have to worry about longing after them. As a matter of fact, if this were a God-given curse to wives, then the extremely ungodly people living right before Noah’s flood would have done everything to flaunt their avoidance of God’s curse by not marrying, but by remaining single and engaging in fornication or other sins. We know that this was indeed probable to some extent, but interestingly the Lord Jesus himself describes the times of Noah in Matthew 24:38
For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark.
Fascinating! Instead of seeking to avoid God’s curse, the women of Noah’s time jumped right in and got married, knowingly and deliberately bringing the curse upon themselves. Can we finally see the folly and unreasonableness of this interpretation?
For these reasons, I believe that God is here prophetically stating fact. Throughout the ages, men are going to rule over women. For most of the centuries and millennia that follow, the men are going to take this rule too far and lord it over their wives. Most of the time, society will ignore the needs of women and restrict their movements and freedom. Yes, God later ordained that in Christ, women are to be submissive to their husbands, and that they are not to preach in the church, nor are they to teach the men (although they are permitted to teach other women) and part of this is based on Eve’s and consequently womankind’s greater tendency to be deceived than man (I Tim. 2:14). But God tempers this command with an even weightier one for the husband, namely that we are to love our wives as Christ loved the church, and gave himself for it (Eph. 5:25). Did God know that mankind would use Gen. 3:16 as an excuse for tyrannical lordship over the wife? Of course He did. I firmly believe that is why He placed the greater responsibility on the man. If we truly love our wives with agape love, lordship will turn into godly leadership and self-sacrifice for the greater good of the wife.
In order to adopt the “rule over you” usage as a curse, we must also adopt the “desire after” part of Genesis 3:16 as a curse because these two concepts are connected. Without twisting the meaning of scripture and ignoring the God-honoring sense of “desire” of Song 7:10, I don’t see how this can be done. If God wants us to “desire” each other as husband and wife, then this desire is not a curse, and neither can the “ruling over” part be a curse. Have men turned their dominion over women down through time into a curse? The answer is obviously - yes, sinful men have done this. Does having God know and predict this equate to Him sanctioning it? No, it does not. Is that the reason God had to specifically address the love of the husbands to the wives in Ephesians 5? It may very well be. God had to shake the culture of that day, even among the early church, that wives were to be loved sacrificially and just as Christ loved them and gave Himself for them.
We see a similar parallel with the issue of slavery in the New Testament. The Apostles never directly condemn slavery, but they instruct the slave owners and masters to treat their slaves honorably, and furthermore to treat believing slaves as brothers in Christ. God is here moving these men to write in effect “treat your slaves with respect, and treat your Christian slaves as brothers”. One cannot long accept someone as a brother and continue to keep him as a slave. It is not without merit that many historians have credited Christian thought and action with the abolition of slavery in almost every country. The countries that still do practice slavery today are all either polytheistic or Muslim. Just as God had to command husbands to love their wives, so He had to command slave owners to respect and love their slaves. Once this command is obeyed, ultimately there can be no tyrannical despotism, but only a loving, caring shepherding of the individual. Thus domestic abuse and slavery ends, and an unconditional love for a brother/sister in Christ results.
Finally, let’s take a look at the first and last “desire” passages as if they were one. (Gen 3:16, Song of Solomon 7:10)
Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me.
What a great picture we see here. The wife desires her husband, and freely admits to being her husband’s prized possession. The husband is acknowledged as desiring his wife wholeheartedly, and the rule that he has over her is not burdensome, but is as nothing compared to the sacrificial love he has for her. If these two verses were properly viewed in this light, we would see a perfect picture of Ephesians 5:25-33
Post a Comment