Jewish Tradition on Yetser Tov and Yetser Ra:

1. Genesis Rabbah 9:7:
   • The Midrash, Genesis Rabbah 9:7, discusses the interpretation that “very good” refers to both the good and evil inclinations. This is a classic Rabbinic interpretation highlighting the necessity of the evil inclination for human progress and activity.
   • Source: Sefaria.
2. A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion:
   • This Oxford Reference work provides a summary of Jewish beliefs, including the interpretation of the evil inclination as necessary for human creativity and enterprise.
   • Source: Oxford Reference.
3. Kiddushin 30b:
   • This Talmudic passage discusses the Torah as the antidote to the evil inclination, emphasizing the importance of Torah study in controlling negative impulses.
   • Source: Sefaria.
4. Andy Ashenden’s Commentary:
   • Andy Ashenden discusses the Jewish interpretation of the “yetser tov” and “yetser ra” in his commentary, advising Provisionists not to adopt this framework for interpreting Genesis.
   • Source: Andy Ashenden on Twitter:

“Provisionists, do not take up the ‘yetser tov’ and ‘yetser ra’ as your interpretation of Genesis. Rabbi Nahman bar Shmuel bar Nahman said in the name of Rav Shmuel bar Nahman: ‘Behold it was very good’ – this is the good inclination; ‘and behold it was very good’ – this is the evil inclination. Is the evil inclination, then, very good? This is a rhetorical question. Rather, were it not for the evil inclination, a man would never build a house, would never marry a wife, would never beget children, and would never engage in commerce.

You can also see the Oxford Reference in A Concise Companion to the Jewish Religion, where they write: ‘As a well-known Midrash (Genesis Rabbah 9: 7) puts it, were it not for the ‘evil inclination’ no one would build a house or have children or engage in commerce. This is why, according to the Midrash, Scripture says: ‘And God saw everything that he had made and behold, it was very good’ (Genesis 1: 31). ‘Good’ refers to the ‘good inclination’, ‘very good’ to the ‘evil inclination’. It is not too far-fetched to read into this homily the idea that life without the driving force of the ‘evil inclination’ would no doubt still be good but it would be a colourless, uncreative, pallid kind of good.’

The means of controlling this evil inclination is studying the Torah, ‘One of the most remarkable Rabbinic passages in this connection states that the Torah is the antidote to the poison of the ‘evil inclination’ (Kiddushin 30b).’

The conclusion of this is that, ‘God has ‘wounded’ man by creating him with the ‘evil inclination’.’ The solution? That the Torah is the fix to that wound because man just needs to reign in that evil.”

Addressing Warren McGrew’s Position:

Given that Warren McGrew rejects the concept of regeneration, it is important to highlight how this affects his interpretation of human nature and sin.

1. Christian Theology:
   • The Christian doctrine emphasizes the inherent sinfulness of humanity and the need for divine intervention through the Holy Spirit. Regeneration is viewed as a fundamental transformation, enabling believers to overcome sin through God’s grace (John 3:5-6, Titus 3:5-6).
2. Biblical Consistency:
   • The Bible presents a view of human nature that goes beyond merely managing inclinations. It emphasizes the need for a new heart and spirit, a renewal that comes through the Holy Spirit (Ezekiel 36:26-27, 2 Corinthians 5:17). This transformative process is central to Christian teaching and is inconsistent with merely controlling inclinations through external means like Torah study.

By rejecting regeneration, McGrew’s position diverges from the traditional Christian understanding of sin and redemption. This makes adopting the Jewish concept of “yetser tov” and “yetser ra” even more problematic, as it does not align with the broader narrative of transformation and renewal found in the New Testament. This inconsistency should be considered when evaluating McGrew’s theological arguments.