• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Gen 4:7 and Gen 3:16

Memphis Dwight

Memphis Dwight

Member
Just recently I read an article in a church bulletin. It was written by Edward Fudge. Many know of Fudge's work to create the notion that the lost are obliterated somehow after the judgment instead of being eternally conscious of their separation from God.

In that bulletin article, there was the talk of the 'battle of the sexes' and significant error happened. It is when one verse is misinterpreted and then another verse is interpreted off of that one.

It was said that Gen 3:16 lays the groundwork for the false notion that the woman would have a natural longing to oppress her husband. And this supposedly can be substantiated by the use of the same language in verse 4:7. It is in this second passage that sin is put forth as a sin-person or the devil and he is longing to trap or catch and control Cain.

I looked up that passage and some commentaries.

Here is the original passage:
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.

What I've maintained all along is that there are two thoughts presented here. The second sentence is a new one being introduced and is independent of the first.

But what some of the low level scholars want to do is they want to believe that the sin mentioned in the first sentence is a metaphor for the devil and that in the second sentence, "his desire" refers back to that sin-person. But it is not. Here are a few commentators:

John Wesley (co-founder of the Methodist movement):
All this considered, Cain had no reason to he angry with his brother, but at himself only. 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, (which Cain was jealous of) nor put upon him that dignity, and power, which is said to belong to it, Gen 49:3.

Scofield (world famous theologian) says this of the word sin in that passage:

[1] sin

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.

Then there is the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary:

7. If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted?-A better rendering is, "Shalt thou not have the excellency"? which is the true sense of the words referring to the high privileges and authority belonging to the first-born in patriarchal times.

sin lieth at the door-sin, that is, a sin offering-a common meaning of the word in Scripture (as in Ho 4:8; 2Co 5:21; Heb 9:28). The purport of the divine rebuke to Cain was this, "Why art thou angry, as if unjustly treated? If thou doest well (that is, wert innocent and sinless) a thank offering would have been accepted as a token of thy dependence as a creature. But as thou doest not well (that is, art a sinner), a sin offering is necessary, by bringing which thou wouldest have met with acceptance and retained the honors of thy birthright." This language implies that previous instructions had been given as to the mode of worship; Abel offered through faith (Heb 11:4).

unto thee shall be his desire-The high distinction conferred by priority of birth is described (Ge 27:29); and it was Cain's conviction, that this honor had been withdrawn from him, by the rejection of his sacrifice, and conferred on his younger brother-hence the secret flame of jealousy, which kindled into a settled hatred and fell revenge.


Lastly, Matthew Henry writes:

4:1-7 When Cain was born, Eve said, I have gotten a man from the Lord. Perhaps she thought that this was the promised seed. If so, she was wofully disappointed. Abel signifies vanity: when she thought she had the promised seed in Cain, whose name signifies possession, she was so taken up with him that another son was as vanity to her. Observe, each son had a calling. It is the will of God for every one to have something to do in this world. Parents ought to bring up their children to work. Give them a Bible and a calling, said good Mr. Dod, and God be with them. We may believe that God commanded Adam, after the fall, to shed the blood of innocent animals, and after their death to burn part or the whole of their bodies by fire. Thus that punishment which sinners deserve, even the death of the body, and the wrath of God, of which fire is a well-known emblem, and also the sufferings of Christ, were prefigured. Observe that the religious worship of God is no new invention. It was from the beginning; it is the good old way, Jer 6:16. The offerings of Cain and Abel were different. Cain showed a proud, unbelieving heart. Therefore he and his offering were rejected. Abel came as a sinner, and according to God's appointment, by his sacrifice expressing humility, sincerity, and believing obedience. Thus, seeking the benefit of the new covenant of mercy, through the promised Seed, his sacrifice had a token that God accepted it. Abel offered in faith, and Cain did not, Heb 11:4. In all ages there have been two sorts of worshippers, such as Cain and Abel; namely, proud, hardened despisers of the gospel method of salvation, who attempt to please God in ways of their own devising; and humble believers, who draw near to him in the way he has revealed. Cain indulged malignant anger against Abel. He harboured an evil spirit of discontent and rebellion against God. God notices all our sinful passions and discontents. There is not an angry, envious, or fretful look, that escapes his observing eye. 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? Sinful heats and disquiets vanish before a strict and fair inquiry into the cause.


This is all very important because the way that bulletin article just parroted error was egregious.
 
Interesting.

For whatever it is worth, the Seventh-day Adventist denomination has been preaching for about 150 years that the eternal fate of the damned is to be burned UP, (eternally burned), not eternally burnING. There are scripture arguments for both views. I think that the preponderance of evidence goes with the SdA view. It matches the view of a compassionate God who allows folks their choice, including that of a refusal to be remade into something capable of living in His presence.

As to the argument that they have an immortal soul, wasn't the first lie spoken by the serpent, "You will NOT surely die?" And doesn't the Bible clearly say that God ONLY has immortality? *shrug* Guess we'll find out for certain some day. Oh, and if the soul is immortal, then what is wrong with the oriental idea of re-incarnation? Did you and I, perhaps, argue this topic once before in another life in ancient Egypt? *grin*

As to the main thrust of your post, *shrug* who knows. The wording IS very similar, both in English and in Hebrew. And sin WAS crouching at Cain's door, desiring to gain control over him. It succeeded, too. And many wives DO seem to have an overwhelming desire to control their husbands. And many husbands DO meekly go along to keep peace, never recognizing that God doesn't honor their abdication -- He still holds them accountable. After all, when He showed up in the garden that evening, the first words out of His mouth weren't "Eve! You've gone and done it now!" but "Adam ..."

I haven't read this fellow's pamphlet, but the idea that these two passages have similar language because God was WARNING Adam, who had just flubbed it in this area, that he had to get a handle on it, is NOT a new idea. It has been around for quite some time, and I think has as much or more merit as the commentaries you mentioned. But, you're absolutely welcome to disagree.
 
I think God's compassion toward the wicked has already been demonstrated in the sending of His Son to die. Any further compassion for those that have rejected every opportunity implies that their state was by accident or not wholly of their own choosing.

And there is no scriptural indication that there will a time element involved in the hereafter, something that would be necessary for any obliteration-of-the-wicked scenario. The eternal realm is a timeless state, an ongoing present - no past nor future. For an entity to be annihilated, there must be some passage of time - and of course, in eternity, time is no more.
 
Cecil:
As to the main thrust of your post, *shrug* who knows. The wording IS very similar, both in English and in Hebrew. And sin WAS crouching at Cain's door, desiring to gain control over him. It succeeded, too. And many wives DO seem to have an overwhelming desire to control their husbands. And many husbands DO meekly go along to keep peace, never recognizing that God doesn't honor their abdication -- He still holds them accountable. After all, when He showed up in the garden that evening, the first words out of His mouth weren't "Eve! You've gone and done it now!" but "Adam ..."
Click to expand...

The wording is similar but we must plug in our critical thinking skills.
Sin is used in the bible elsewhere for sin offering. Christ was made sin for us.
When you say sin was crouching at Cain's door, do you mean the temptation to sin? I don't know that temptation to sin and sin have been used interchangeably like that.

Some wives do want control over their husbands. But not all. This passage simply paints a picture for the first woman and as a pattern for every woman that comes after her. It is the ideal that was to be from the beginning. Its just that now, after sin separated man from God, that God has to articulate it. Adam was formed first,( I Tim 2:13) and Eve is to continue to respect his preeminence over her. Cain was the firstborn son and Abel would still look up to him, he would not lose that position.
 
Dwight: I thought I HAD plugged in my critical thinking skills.

Here's a link to where someone else did so as well. http://www.earnestlycontending.com/mara ... ssion.html The author notes that the word used for "desire" in Gen 3 is only used in 2 other places, and in both places connotes a desire for dominance and control. Get from that what you will. Gen 4:7 is one of them.

A far more in-depth discussion, critical thinking cap and all, can be found at http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hil ... re-WTJ.doc . It is from the Westminster Theological Journal, 1974/75. I think it deals pretty well with whether the pronoun "it" refers to sin or Able.

Finally, just to be perverse, Romans 5:21 says "... so that as sin reigned in death ...". So, it seems that "sin" IS described elsewhere as having a dominant or ruling characteristic. Could it have been trying to gain that dominance over Cain? The context would seem to support the theory.

Of course, there are exceptions among women. That's why they're so endlessly fascinating. They come in all sizes, shapes, and attitudes! Wives are WONDERFUL creatures! Everybody oughta have two or three! But that doesn't negate this ugly little beast that tries to rear its ugly head in the breasts of so many of them from time to time. Nor does it negate God's warning to Adam as to his responsibility when it does -- whether he finds it convenient or to his liking, or not.
 
Cecil,
Do you see how this is a pivotal thing? For those espousing the notion that patriarchy is evil, they claim that 3:16 is description of how things would be. They say that woman would be against man and man would viciously dominate the woman.

But first things first:
Here's a link to where someone else did so as well. http://www.earnestlycontending.com/mara ... ssion.html The author notes that the word used for "desire" in Gen 3 is only used in 2 other places, and in both places connotes a desire for dominance and control. Get from that what you will. Gen 4:7 is one of them.
Click to expand...

The thing is, if it doesn't mean "dominance and control" in one place, then it doesn't in the other two.

One of the 3 places is Song of Solomons 7:10
I [am] my beloved's, and his desire [is] toward me.

Does that sound like dominance and control?

Now I'm not claiming that the use of the word inherently means sexual desire. Its slightly more general than that.

But look at the context of Gen 4:7. Just look at it and ask the question: What was the topic at hand? Was it not that Cain and Abel were offering two different sacrifices? So if thats is the case, then there is a controversy that God is weighing in on.

Think of it as being written like this:
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. [notice the added parenthesis]

The part in parenthesis is put that way by me to show that the next sentence is connected to the excellency/acceptance that Cain would retain should he offer the right sacrifice. The part in parenthesis is an explanation telling Cain via hinting that a lamb would be the right sacrifice and not vegetables. Its also prophetically points to Christ whom was made sin and was the spotless lamb.
 
Well, Dwight, if you're happy with all of that, then I'm happy that you're happy. I don't happen to find the argument very convincing.

First, my Group Dynamics textbook says that ANY time two or more people are associated, whether in a church, company, committee, team, family, or simple two-person friendship, one takes the lead. Do any of us seriously contend that this observation is wrong?

Gen 3:16 merely gives notice that in the family, it is NOT up for grabs. The designer of the famiy designated the male to that role. He is to execute it as God executes it towards us.

Yes, there are those who abuse the role, both inside and outside the church. Or PM. Take it up with them.

Yes, the feminists despise the passage. They want the role for themselves -- make no mistake. I'm supremely uninterested in their ranting.

I have enough to do learning to execute the role in a Christlike way myself.

As to interpretation, I have no problem with Song of Solomon having the male desirous of entering into a relationship with her where he was the leader, the one calling the shots, the initiator to her responder. The effective modern marriage theory stuff I've seen pretty much says that is the way men and women, respectively, are wired. Oh well. Nothing new under the sun.

Finally, as to your parenthesis -- my Bible doesn't have them. As best as I can tell, Cain is ticked off, and it is to HIS MISDIRECTED ANGER that God is speaking. Cain has directed his anger towards his brother. God is telling him that he himself flubbed up, sin is trying to latch onto him, and he needs to straighten up, fly right, and gain the dominance over the sin trying to dominate him.

Of the two links I gave in my last post, the first was admittedly lightweight. The second however, is pretty exhaustive. And it agrees with me.

I doubt that you do or will, so we'll just have to disagree. No, I don't see that understanding it your way is pivotal. Or if so, it's an argument for the other side -- Someone had to be in charge, and God designated who it must be. Take it up with God.

It isn't a particularly easy job, and I don't particularly want or enjoy it, but God didn't ask my preference. He just made me an outie. ;)
 
Memphis,

The Battle of the Sexes thing can be taken from 3:16 standalone without needing collaboration from 4:7 anyway. Odd that you should quote Mathew Henry as he contradicts you're point in his commentary of Gen 3:16

...II. She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1Ti_2:11, 1Ti_2:12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris - at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num_30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been. If man had not sinned, he would always have ruled with wisdom and love; and, if the woman had not sinned, she would always have obeyed with humility and meekness; and then the dominion would have been no grievance: but our own sin and folly make our yoke heavy. If Eve had not eaten forbidden fruit herself, and tempted her husband to eat it, she would never have complained of her subjection; therefore it ought never to be complained of, though harsh; but sin must be complained of, that made it so. Those wives who not only despise and disobey their husbands, but domineer over them, do not consider that they not only violate a divine law, but thwart a divine sentence...
Click to expand...

Though he does not say all women are like that, it is possible Fudge's materials say all women are like that, and I agree that would be erroneous. Henry's commentary explains it better in how he says that women that oppose God will be eager to take dominion over their husbands as well. I also have to second Cecil in that the Song reference is not a problem, it says she is his and he wants her to be his, its the same concept rightly applied. What is the specific complaint with the idea that women, at least out of God's will women, will try to take control of their husbands ect? The text doesn't preclude the idea and I believe supports it standalone. I will agree that 4:7 and 3:16 do not directly relate though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top