Our first foray from Genesis 1-3 into a post-fall world presents us with a pretty disturbing picture. We witness mangled worship, rebellion against God and unchecked emotion leading to murder, all a taste of what a world now riddled with sin will be like. We see how horrible sin is and what man in rebellion against God is capable of, especially if we allow sin to rule us to the neglect of the counsel of God. Yet in the midst of the darkness we see the sparkle of God's promise and grace that anticipates the coming of the seed of the woman that we celebrate this Christmas season. Those who look at a sin-infected world with all its horrors and conclude there is no God or an inadequate God, fail to take seriously the reality of the fall and neglect the great redeeming work of God to bring remedy and hope through Jesus Christ.
(comment from Ray) God tells Cain that sin's "desire is for [him] and [he] must rule over it," reminding us of the curse upon Eve that her "desire shall be for [her] husband and he shall rule over [her]." The language seems to point to a connection, but it is less than transparent (to me, at least).
(comment from Stan) The words "desire" and "rule" in Gen. 4:7 are identical those of Gen. 3:16, and both are expressed in the aftermath of sin's entrance. The connection for us to make could well be the active elements of contending with sin. Sin finds a friend in the desires of our hearts that are drawn to it, embrace it and cultivate it in our lives. The result of sin entering through the door of desire is that it climbs to the throne of our hearts to rule over us, and we become ensnared in it. Paul employs the same imagery in Rom. 6, where he says in vs. 12: "Let not sin therefore reign in your mortal bodies, to make you obey their passions." James 1:14-15 is also instructive for us in the ascendancy of sin.
Crouching Sin, Hidden Desire
We bear witness in what the Apostle Paul calls a “present evil age” (Gal. 1:4) and calls us to caution because “the days are evil” (Eph. 5:15). Our witness takes place in the face of spiritual opposition. God alerts us to this in Gene. 4:6 where He says, "sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must rule over it." To help orient us to the age in which we live, I’ve copied from my sermon blog on Genesis 4:1-16.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Stan,
I have a question for you regarding the Genesis passage. First, just a minor correction... "Gene. 4:6 where He says, "sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must rule over it." This is actually the Gen 4:7 verse.
When the Scripture says that "its" desire is for you, can't that be translated as "his" desire is for you...referencing Able, the younger brother?
תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ
(i hope the Hebrew comes out ok in the blog)
This is masculine 3rd person. Translating it as "its" implies that it is neuter, but it's not...so wouldn't that be more of an interpretation than a translation?
It's very similar to the previous chapter ...
...Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." (Gen 3:16)
where the word for desire is תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ
female, second person.
So if Gen 4:7 was translated with "his" rather than "its" our interpretation would be more along the lines of the order between older and younger brothers, as in Gen 3:16 the word lends itself to the interpretation of the order between husband and wife.
thoughts?
The gender of the pronoun can be a big help in identifying its antecedent. As you mention, "its desire" (ESV, NASB) could be translated "his desire," making Abel the antecedent, leading to a couple of different interpretations, including the one you suggest. However, I think those translators who render the pronoun as "its" have good warrant from the context with sin's personification, especially recognizing that the serpent is identified with Satan (cf. Rev. 12:9). It seems less than a straightforward way to reach back to Abel rather than the closer antecedent.
Makes sense Stan...but even if the antecedent is sin, since it's personified it could still be the interpretation if the translation rendered it as "his desire" rather than "its desire." So i don't see the benefit of changing the underlying word gender from masculine to neuter.
Certainly by changing the "his" to an "its" the translators have restricted the interpretation of the text beyond what the text itself restricts it to.
I guess i just like leaving the interpretation in the hands of the reader rather than the translator.
Post a Comment