Timshel
First published at https://justinsteubs.substack.com/p/timshel
Why does a loving God allow bad things to happen? It may be the most frequently asked question about Christianity & certainly one of the most difficult to answer. If God is all-powerful, why does He permit murder, betrayal, cruelty & suffering? Why create a world where human beings can inflict so much pain on one another?
Human beings are naturally concerned with themselves. We protect our lives, defend our interests & seek to preserve what we have. Nobody has to teach a child to cry when hungry or pull away from something painful. These instincts are already within us. If God created us with the instinct for self-preservation, there must be a reason. Perhaps the more interesting question is why a Creator whose nature is love would give human beings such a powerful concern for themselves.
The Bible tells us in 1 John 4:8 that “God is love.” Yet the same Creator who gave us the capacity to love also gave us the instinct to protect ourselves. Those two qualities are not necessarily contradictory. Self-preservation helps sustain life while love calls us to recognize that other lives matter just as much as our own. The challenge begins when protecting ourselves becomes more important than loving someone else.
That tension sits at the heart of the story of Cain & Abel. It is also central to John Steinbeck’s East of Eden, a novel that explores whether we are prisoners of our circumstances or people capable of choosing something different. Steinbeck built much of his masterpiece around a single Hebrew word from Genesis that he believed held the answer.
That word is timshel. Steinbeck understood it to mean “thou mayest.” Those two words suggest something extraordinary about our relationship with God: We are not necessarily destined to become the worst versions of ourselves. We face choices that carry real consequences, including the choice to love or reject love.
The First Brothers
The story begins in Genesis 4, shortly after Adam & Eve have been expelled from the Garden of Eden. Their first son, Cain, becomes a farmer who works the ground. Their second son, Abel, becomes a shepherd who tends sheep. Both brothers eventually bring offerings to God, but something unexpected happens.
God regards Abel’s offering favorably while rejecting Cain’s. Genesis tells us that Cain brings fruit from the ground while Abel offers the firstborn of his flock, including their fat portions. The passage does not explicitly explain every reason for God’s different responses, although Hebrews 11:4 later emphasizes Abel’s faith. What Scripture makes unmistakably clear is Cain’s reaction. He becomes furious, his countenance falls & jealousy begins consuming him.
This is where the story becomes particularly revealing about God’s character. God does not abandon Cain or condemn him as hopeless. He does not simply wait for Cain to commit a terrible act. Instead, He approaches Cain & asks why he is angry. Then He offers a warning that will become central to Steinbeck’s novel thousands of years later.
Genesis 4:7 in the King James Version reads, with the conjunctions adapted to the style of this article:
“If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? & if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. & unto thee shall be his desire, & thou shalt rule over him.”
Notice the timing. Cain has not murdered Abel yet. He is angry, resentful & jealous, but the terrible act remains in the future. God describes sin as something crouching at the door, waiting to overpower Cain. Then He calls Cain to master it.
This is not the behavior of a God who desires Cain’s destruction. It is the behavior of a God who sees someone moving toward disaster & intervenes with the truth. Cain is being warned that his emotions do not have to determine his actions. Jealousy does not have to become violence. Anger does not have to become murder.
God does not approve of Cain’s offering simply to make him feel better. He does something more meaningful by giving Cain an opportunity to respond differently. Sometimes love is not approval or reassurance. Sometimes love is the uncomfortable truth we need to hear before making a decision we cannot undo.
John Steinbeck’s Great Question
When Steinbeck published East of Eden in 1952, he was not simply retelling Genesis. He was exploring whether human beings are fundamentally shaped by inheritance, circumstance or personal choice. The novel follows generations of the Hamilton & Trask families in California’s Salinas Valley, where Steinbeck grew up. Through their lives, he examines the same jealousy, favoritism & moral conflict found in the story of Cain & Abel.
The parallels are deliberate. Charles Trask resents his brother Adam because their father seems to favor Adam’s gift over his own. Years later, Adam’s sons, Cal & Aron, repeat a similar struggle for their father’s approval. Across generations, Steinbeck shows how jealousy can become almost hereditary, not necessarily through biology but through patterns families pass from one generation to the next.
At the center of the novel is Lee, a thoughtful & educated Chinese American man who works in Adam Trask’s household. Lee becomes fascinated with Genesis 4:7, particularly the words God speaks to Cain about overcoming sin. He notices that different English translations seem to communicate different ideas, so he begins investigating what the original Hebrew actually means.
The King James Version uses “thou shalt,” which Lee interprets as a promise that Cain will overcome sin. The American Standard Version uses “do thou,” which sounds more like a command. But Lee wonders whether the Hebrew allows another interpretation, one that neither guarantees victory nor merely orders Cain to achieve it.
In the novel, Lee consults a group of elderly Chinese scholars in San Francisco. They study Hebrew, examine the biblical passage & spend two years considering its meaning. Eventually, Lee returns with what he believes is an extraordinary discovery.
The word is timshel. According to Lee, it means “thou mayest.” Not that Cain inevitably will conquer sin or that he has already been condemned to failure, but that he may overcome it. The possibility exists, yet the decision remains his.
There is an important linguistic distinction here. The Hebrew word in Genesis 4:7 is more accurately transliterated timshol. Scholars disagree about its precise grammatical force, with many modern Bible translations favoring a command such as “you must rule over it.” Steinbeck’s interpretation is not an uncontested translation of Scripture, but its literary significance is unmistakable.
Steinbeck was interested in what happens when a person understands that neither ancestry nor circumstance has completely settled the question of who that person will become. His characters may inherit destructive tendencies, experience terrible suffering or make catastrophic mistakes, but they still face moral decisions. Their past may explain some of their behavior, but it does not automatically excuse what they choose to do.
This is the responsibility that comes with free will. We can point to our parents, our upbringing, our circumstances or the people who have hurt us. Those influences may be real & sometimes profoundly damaging. But understanding why we are inclined toward a particular decision is not the same as surrendering responsibility for making it. We may not have chosen the circumstances that shaped us, but we remain responsible for the choices we make within the freedom available to us.
The difference between “thou shalt” & “thou mayest” becomes the difference between a life already written & a life that still requires choices.
Cathy, Aron & Cal
Steinbeck develops this idea most powerfully through three characters whose lives intersect in devastating ways.
Cathy Ames, who later becomes Kate, is one of the novel’s most disturbing figures. She is manipulative, calculating & capable of extraordinary cruelty. Steinbeck presents her as someone who repeatedly exploits the trust & affection of others, raising the uncomfortable question of whether people are born evil, shaped by their parents & upbringing or become evil through the choices they make. Perhaps it is some combination of all three. But if our circumstances influence who we become, does that mean they determine who we must remain?
Cathy marries Adam Trask, gives birth to twin sons & abandons her family. She eventually becomes the proprietor of a brothel, where she continues manipulating people for personal advantage. Her cruelty seems almost effortless, yet Steinbeck does not make her a simple explanation for the behavior of her children.
Her sons, Aron & Cal, develop very different personalities. Aron is idealistic, innocent & determined to believe in goodness. He sees the world as he wishes it to be, often struggling when reality contradicts his expectations. Cal is more complicated. He recognizes selfishness, jealousy & darkness within himself, qualities that remind him of the mother he barely knows.
Cal fears that he has inherited Cathy’s nature. If his mother was cruel, perhaps cruelty is simply part of who he is. If he recognizes evil within himself, perhaps he is destined to repeat her behavior. His struggle is not merely whether he will make the right choices but whether he is capable of making them at all.
This is where Steinbeck’s interpretation of timshel becomes so important. Cal does not have to become Cathy. His mother’s decisions do not determine his own, just as Adam’s failures do not necessarily determine the lives of his sons. Cal may possess the capacity for cruelty, but he also possesses the capacity for goodness. The question is which capacity he will cultivate.
Lee’s understanding of timshel offers Cal something more demanding than reassurance. It offers him responsibility. Cal cannot simply blame his mother for every cruel impulse or his father for every moment of rejection. His family history may help explain his struggles, but it cannot make his decisions for him.
That is both the burden & the gift of freedom. If Cal were destined to become his mother, he would have little reason to resist the darkness he fears. But if he can choose differently, then his actions matter. He cannot claim credit for goodness he never chooses, nor can he escape responsibility for wrongdoing by insisting that his past made it inevitable.
The Gift of Time
There is another part of creation that I find fascinating. God gave us the instinct for self-preservation. He gave us the capacity to love. He gave us the freedom to choose. But He also placed us in time, where yesterday is behind us, tomorrow is ahead of us & the decisions we make today can change the direction of our lives.
I don’t believe these features of our existence are accidents. If God created us intentionally, then our ability to learn, grow, recognize mistakes & change course deserves consideration. We are not frozen permanently in the moment of our worst decision. We have the opportunity to acknowledge what we have done, seek forgiveness & choose a different path.
Christian theology has long understood God as eternal, existing beyond the limitations of time as we experience it. The Bible also describes angels who rebelled against God, including Satan. Traditional Christian teaching generally regards their rebellion as irrevocable, although Scripture does not explicitly explain that permanence as a consequence of existing outside time. We should be careful not to claim certainty about a heavenly realm we understand only imperfectly.
But the contrast raises an interesting question. Could one of the purposes of our earthly existence in time be to give us opportunities to repent? Perhaps time is more than the measure of our lives. Perhaps it is also a gift that allows us to recognize our failures, reconsider our decisions & return to God while the opportunity remains.
Consider Peter, who denied Jesus three times before being restored. Consider Paul, who persecuted Christians before becoming one of Christianity’s most influential apostles. Consider the prodigal son, who abandoned his father, squandered his inheritance & eventually returned home to find his father waiting with open arms. Each story reminds us that a person’s past does not necessarily determine that person’s future.
This does not mean we can postpone repentance indefinitely. Our earthly lives are finite, & Scripture repeatedly calls us to respond to God while we have the opportunity. Nor does repentance erase every consequence of our actions. We may receive forgiveness while still carrying responsibilities for the harm we have caused.
But what an extraordinary gift it is to be able to change. We can be wrong today & acknowledge it tomorrow. We can recognize the damage caused by our selfishness & begin repairing what we can. We can turn away from God, recognize what we have lost & return to Him.
Perhaps this is another dimension of Steinbeck’s timshel. The freedom to choose would mean far less if every mistake permanently determined who we must become. But within the life God has given us, the next choice may be different from the last.
We cannot change yesterday, but while we have tomorrow, we may still choose differently.
God Is Love
To understand why this matters beyond literature, we need to return to the Bible’s description of God’s nature. In 1 John 4:8, the Apostle John writes, “He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.” The same declaration appears again in 1 John 4:16. Scripture does not merely describe love as something God does. It identifies love as inseparable from who He is.
Think about what that means. Before humanity existed, before there were marriages, friendships or families, God was love. Love did not originate with human beings. If we accept the biblical account of creation, love existed before we did because love is part of the Creator’s eternal nature.
Genesis 1:27 tells us that humanity was created in God’s image. If God is love & we are created in His image, then our capacity to love is not some accidental feature of human existence. It is connected to the very reason we were created. We were created by love with the capacity to love.
But that raises another question: Can love exist without the freedom to choose? Imagine a marriage in which one spouse has absolutely no ability to leave, disagree or withhold affection. Every expression of love is compulsory. Every declaration of devotion is predetermined. The outward behavior might look perfect, but would we recognize it as genuine love?
I don’t think we would. We might call it obedience, programming or control, but something essential would be missing. Love becomes meaningful because it is freely given, not because someone has been deprived of the ability to do otherwise.
The same principle applies to our relationship with God. If God created human beings who could only obey Him, who could never reject Him & who were incapable of making any decision contrary to His will, what kind of relationship would that be? Perhaps perfect obedience, but would it be freely chosen love?
This is where I believe God’s nature becomes central to understanding free will. God does not give us freedom despite being love. He gives us freedom because He is love. That distinction changes the way I think about creation & the responsibility that comes with being human.
Get Justin Steubs’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Freedom is not merely permission to do whatever we please. It is the capacity to make meaningful choices while accepting that those choices carry consequences. God does not need to force us to love Him for love to be possible. He calls us to love, warns us when we turn away & holds us accountable for how we respond.
Can God Do Anything?
People often say that God can do anything. Scripture certainly describes God as all-powerful, but it also tells us that His actions are consistent with His nature. Titus 1:2 says that God cannot lie. Hebrews 6:18 similarly declares that it is impossible for God to lie. This does not suggest that God is weak or that some higher authority has restricted His power. It means dishonesty contradicts His character.
If God is love, perhaps the relationship between love & freedom operates through a similar principle. God cannot make forced affection become freely chosen love simply by commanding it. Those are different things. The very meaning of freely given love involves the possibility of a genuine response.
That does not mean every aspect of free will is simple or that Christians agree on how human freedom relates to God’s sovereignty. They do not. Some traditions emphasize the freedom to accept or reject grace while others place greater emphasis on God’s initiative in transforming the human will. But the broader philosophical point remains worth considering: If God desires a relationship characterized by freely given love, then the freedom to respond meaningfully seems inseparable from that relationship.
Freedom introduces risk. We can choose kindness or cruelty, generosity or selfishness, honesty or deception. We can choose to protect someone or exploit them. We can choose to forgive or nurture resentment. Love requires the possibility of a meaningful choice, but meaningful choice also permits the possibility of choosing badly.
It also introduces accountability. If our decisions are meaningful, we cannot treat their consequences as though they belong entirely to someone else. The freedom to choose carries the responsibility to answer for what we choose. Cain demonstrates that principle in the most devastating way.
The Choice Cain Made
After God warns Cain that sin is crouching at his door, Cain goes into the field with Abel & kills him. The warning did not prevent the murder. Cain’s anger became violence, his jealousy became hatred & his brother paid the ultimate price.
God then confronts Cain, asking where Abel is. Cain responds with the famous question, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” It is difficult to imagine a more revealing answer. Cain has murdered his brother, yet he attempts to avoid responsibility for the person whose life he has taken.
Cain might have blamed God’s rejection of his offering. He might have blamed Abel for receiving God’s favor or pointed to his own humiliation as the reason for his anger. But none of those circumstances required him to murder his brother. His feelings were real, but his decision remained his responsibility.
God does not excuse Cain’s behavior. He declares that Abel’s blood cries out from the ground & imposes severe consequences. Cain will struggle to cultivate the earth & become a fugitive, wandering from place to place. Yet even after the murder, God’s treatment of Cain reveals something about the relationship between justice & mercy.
When Cain fears that someone will kill him in retaliation, God places a protective mark upon him. Cain is punished, but God does not permit others to treat his life as worthless. This is a difficult kind of love to understand because it does not resemble the sentimental version of love we often celebrate. God warns Cain, holds him accountable & still places limits on the vengeance others may take against him.
Love does not always mean approval. Sometimes it means correction, consequences & mercy operating together. God’s rejection of Cain’s offering was not necessarily a rejection of Cain as a person. His warning was an invitation to change course, not a declaration that Cain was beyond redemption.
The story also reveals something important about personal responsibility. God does not ask Cain what his parents did wrong or whether Abel made him feel inferior. He confronts Cain about his own actions. Whatever influences shaped Cain’s anger, the murder was his decision.
Why Does God Allow Bad Things to Happen?
When people ask why God allows bad things to happen, they often assume that an all-powerful God could eliminate evil without changing anything essential about human existence. But could He eliminate every possibility of wrongdoing while preserving meaningful moral freedom?
Imagine a world where every time someone attempted to lie, the words disappeared from their mouth. Every time someone intended violence, their body became incapable of acting. Every time someone considered betrayal, the thought was erased before it could become a decision. Such a world might contain far less cruelty, but it would also raise profound questions about whether human beings remained free moral agents.
Would honesty mean the same thing if lying were impossible? Would faithfulness have the same significance if betrayal could never occur? Would forgiveness exist if nobody could ever wrong another person? I believe there is a meaningful connection between the freedom God gives us & the love He calls us to practice.
That does not mean God approves of evil. Cain’s murder is condemned, not celebrated. Nor does it mean God is indifferent to suffering or that every tragedy can be explained by someone’s bad decision. Disease, natural disasters & the suffering of innocent children raise additional theological questions that the free-will argument alone cannot fully answer.
But much of the evil we experience comes directly from human choices. War, murder, betrayal, theft, exploitation & cruelty are not simply unfortunate events that appear without human involvement. They are often the consequences of people choosing to harm others.
God could prevent every such decision by eliminating our ability to make it. But doing so would fundamentally change what it means to be human. Perhaps the freedom that makes evil possible is also part of what makes freely chosen love possible.
There is another side to that freedom that deserves equal attention. If we insist that God allows us to choose, then we must also acknowledge that our choices belong to us. We cannot celebrate free will when it allows us to pursue our desires, then deny our responsibility when those desires lead us to hurt someone else.
That is not a complete explanation for every instance of suffering. It is an attempt to understand why a Creator whose nature is love might create beings capable of choosing something other than love. It also suggests why God calls us to take responsibility for our decisions rather than surrendering that responsibility to our circumstances.
Steinbeck’s Final Blessing
The most powerful expression of timshel comes at the end of East of Eden. Cal Trask has spent much of his life struggling with the fear that he is fundamentally evil. He wants his father’s approval but repeatedly feels overshadowed by his brother Aron, just as Cain once resented Abel.
In an attempt to win his father’s affection, Cal earns money & offers it as a gift. Adam rejects the money because of how it was earned, leaving Cal humiliated & angry. The parallel with Cain’s rejected offering is unmistakable.
Cal responds by taking Aron to see their mother, Cathy, revealing a truth Aron is emotionally unprepared to accept. The revelation devastates Aron, who subsequently enlists in the military & dies during World War I. Adam suffers a stroke, leaving Cal overwhelmed with guilt. He believes his actions have destroyed his brother & father, confirming his deepest fear that he has inherited his mother’s cruelty.
Cal sees himself as another Cain. But Lee refuses to accept that Cal’s future has already been determined. He brings Cal to Adam’s bedside & asks the dying father to give his son a blessing, something that will allow Cal to continue living without surrendering to the belief that he is irredeemably evil.
Adam can barely speak. With tremendous effort, he raises his hand & whispers a single word.
Timshel.
That is the final word of Steinbeck’s novel. Adam does not tell Cal that his actions were harmless or that the consequences have disappeared. He does not promise that Cal will become a good man, nor does he condemn him to repeat his mother’s cruelty. Instead, he gives Cal the possibility of choosing what comes next.
This is where Lee’s understanding of the word becomes especially powerful. Cal cannot change who his mother was. He cannot undo his father’s rejection or erase what happened to Aron. He can acknowledge those circumstances without allowing them to become permanent excuses for every decision he makes.
Cal may choose differently. He may confront the darkness within himself rather than surrendering to it. He may live a life that is not defined entirely by his family’s history or his worst mistake. But the possibility of choosing differently also means accepting responsibility for what he does next.
It is a remarkable ending because Steinbeck refuses to give readers the certainty they might prefer. We do not learn whether Cal becomes a good man. We are left with the knowledge that his choices still matter.
The blessing is not a guarantee. The blessing is the possibility.
Created by Love, Called to Love
I keep returning to the idea that if God is love, then we were created by love. That is an extraordinary way to understand our existence. We are not simply the products of a universe indifferent to whether we love or hate, build or destroy, forgive or retaliate. Within the Christian understanding of creation, our existence begins with a Creator whose nature is love.
Genesis tells us we are made in His image. Jesus teaches that the greatest commandments are to love God & love our neighbors. First Corinthians 13 describes love through patience, kindness, humility, truth & perseverance. First John tells us that we love because God first loved us.
The theme runs throughout Scripture. Love is not merely one virtue among many. It is central to the relationship between God & humanity as well as the relationships we are called to have with one another.
But love is not the same as approval, comfort or the absence of consequences. God loved Cain enough to confront him before he committed murder. He did not approve of Cain’s anger, excuse his violence or eliminate the consequences of his decision.
Similarly, genuine love sometimes requires us to tell people truths they do not want to hear. A parent who refuses to correct a child is not necessarily being loving. A friend who silently watches someone destroy his life is not necessarily being kind. Love seeks what is good, even when the truth is uncomfortable.
Love must also be expressed through choices. We can choose to tell the truth when lying would be easier. We can choose to forgive when resentment feels justified. We can choose to remain faithful when temptation offers an easier path.
Those decisions are not always simple, nor does Christianity teach that human determination alone is sufficient to overcome sin. Scripture also emphasizes our need for God’s grace, forgiveness & transformation through Jesus Christ. But the call to respond remains.
Perhaps this is one reason God allows us to experience the consequences of our choices. Responsibility teaches us that our actions matter beyond our immediate desires. It reminds us that freedom is not merely the ability to pursue what we want, but also the obligation to consider what our decisions will do to others.
Thou Mayest
Perhaps the greatest lesson in Cain’s story is not simply that jealousy can lead to murder. It is that God confronted Cain before the murder occurred. Cain was warned. His anger had not yet become violence, his resentment had not yet become murder & his future actions still carried moral responsibility.
Steinbeck took that moment & built an entire novel around its implications. Are we destined to repeat the mistakes of our parents? Are we permanently defined by the circumstances of our childhood? Does recognizing evil within ourselves mean we must eventually surrender to it? Or do we retain the possibility of choosing something different?
I believe the answer is connected to God’s nature. If God is love, then love is not an afterthought in creation. It is foundational. And if genuine love requires a meaningful response, then our freedom to choose is not simply an unfortunate feature of human existence. It is part of what makes love possible.
That freedom carries enormous responsibility. We can use it to hurt others, destroy relationships & repeat patterns that have caused suffering for generations. Or we can use it to practice kindness, faithfulness, forgiveness & self-sacrifice.
Our parents influence us. Our childhood shapes us. Our circumstances can make certain choices easier or more difficult. None of that should be dismissed, particularly when people have experienced circumstances beyond their control. But influence is not the same as destiny, just as understanding the reasons behind someone’s behavior is not the same as excusing it.
We cannot always control our circumstances. We cannot erase the consequences of yesterday. We cannot make every person love us or prevent every tragedy. But we can take responsibility for the choices before us, seek God’s grace when we fail & refuse to believe that our worst decisions must become our permanent identity.
And perhaps this is why time matters so much. God has given us lives in which choices unfold, consequences become visible & opportunities for repentance can arise. We do not know how many tomorrows we have, but while we are here, the possibility of turning toward God remains. A decision made yesterday need not be the decision we make tomorrow.
That is what makes Steinbeck’s final word so powerful. It is neither a promise that everything will turn out well nor a sentence declaring that failure is inevitable. It is a reminder that the next choice still matters.
God is love. Love gives us a reason to choose what is good while freedom makes that choice meaningful. We are not forced to love, nor are we relieved of responsibility when we choose otherwise. And within the time we have been given, grace offers us the possibility of repentance & a different future.
When we stand at the door with sin crouching on the other side, we are reminded of two words that have echoed through literature & theology.
Thou mayest.
