70 replies to this topic

[Dawn]

The word for "desire" in Gen 3:16 is the Hebrew word "teshuqa" and in the Septuagint it is rendered "turning". The word "teshuqa" appears three times in the OT:

Gen 3:16 Gen 4:7 and Song of Songs 7:10

In all three cases the word is translated "turning" in the Septuagint.

Also, the Early Church Fathers seem to be ignorant of any other sense by "turning" for this word. All of these employ "turning": Philo (a Jew - not an ECF - who died 60AD), Clement of Rom (d.100), Irenaeus (d. 202), Tertullian (born 160), Origen (b. 186), Epiphanius (b. 310 ) Jerome (b. 335) Ambrose (b.340) Augustine (b354) and Theodoret (b. 386).

[Fortigurn]

Koehler, on L., Baumgartner, W., Richardson, M., & Stamm, J. J. (1999, c1994-1996). The Hebrew and Aramaic lexicon of the Old Testament. Volumes 1-4 combined in one electronic edition. (electronic ed.) (1801). Leiden; New York: E.J. Brill, said:

תְּשׁוּקָה: II *שׁוק, Bauer-Leander Heb. 496r; MHeb. תְּשׁוּקָה (in meaning the same as in BibHeb.; Dalman Wörterbuch 450); DSS (Kuhn Konkordanz 237); SamP. tēšūqāttək, tēšūqāttu, on the gemination and vowel lengthening see LOT 5: p. 63, §1.5.3.1: sf. תְּשׁוּקָתֵכְ/תוֹ: desire, longing Gn 316 47; Song 711, there is no need for the cj. for וְעָלַי rd. וְאֵלַי, as in BHS (→ II עַל 6); on the content see e.g. O. Keel Das Hohelied (Zürcher Bibelkommentare, AT 18; 1986) 232f. †

Harris, on R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (913). Chicago: Moody Press., said:

2352a תְּשׁוּקָה (tĕšûqâ) desire, longing.

This noun appears only three times in the ot, once in Song 7:10 [H 11]. The woman says of her beloved: “I am my beloved’s and his ‘desire’ is for me.” The two remaining references are Gen 3:16 and 4:7. In the latter passage God is speaking to Cain and says to him that sin is like a crouching beast “hungering, intent upon” Cain. In the former passage God says, “Your ‘desire’ shall be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” This is obviously neither an intensification nor a warping of a pre-existing hierarchy between the sexes for no such hierarchy is alluded to.

There are two differences between the Gen passage (3:16) and that in the Song of Solomon. In the former the reference is to the wife’s desire for her husband. In the latter it is the bride-groom’s desire for the bride. Second, in the Gen passage the reference to “desire” is in a context of sin and judgment. In the latter, the reference is in a context of joy and love.

Swanson, on J. (1997). Dictionary of Biblical Languages with Semantic Domains : Hebrew (Old Testament) (electronic ed.) (DBLH 9592). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems, Inc., said:

9592 תְּשׁוּקָה (tešû∙qā(h)): n.fem.; ≡ Str 8669; TWOT 2352a—LN 25.12-25.32 desire, urges, longing, i.e., a very strong emotion or feeling to have or do something (Ge 3:16; 4:7; SS 7:11[EB 10]+), note: this strong desire may refer to sexual urges or desires, or a desire to dominate, or just be independent of the man, other references may also be possible.

Brown, on F., Driver, S. R., & Briggs, C. A. (2000). Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Strong's, TWOT, and GK references Copyright 2000 by Logos Research Systems, Inc. (electronic ed.) (1003). Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems., said:

†[תְּשׁוּקָה S8669 TWOT2352a GK9592] n.f. longing;—of woman for man, אֶל־אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ Gn 3:16 (J); of man for woman, אֲנִי לְדוֹדִי וְאֵלַי תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ Ct 7:11; of beast to devour, fig. אֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתוֹ Gn 4:7 (J). (G ἀποστροφή Gn, ἐπιστροφή, Ct whence NesMarg. 6 proposes תְּשׁוּבָתֵךְ Gn 3:16, which Ball Hpt reads in all; but how explain the unusual and striking word in MT?).

Gesenius, on W., & Tregelles, S. P. (2003). Gesenius' Hebrew and Chaldee lexicon to the Old Testament Scriptures. Translation of the author's Lexicon manuale Hebraicum et Chaldaicum in Veteris Testamenti libros, a Latin version of the work first published in 1810-1812 under title: Hebräisch-deutsches Handwörterbuch des Alten Testaments.; Includes index. (876). Bellingham, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc., said:

תְּשׁוּקָה f. (from the root שׁוּק No. 2), desire, longing, Gen. 3:16; 4:7; Cant. 7:11.

[Fortigurn]

Dawn, on May 18 2009, 04:16 AM, said:

Also, the Early Church Fathers seem to be ignorant of any other sense by "turning" for this word. All of these employ "turning": Philo (a Jew - not an ECF - who died 60AD), Clement of Rom (d.100), Irenaeus (d. 202), Tertullian (born 160), Origen (b. 186), Epiphanius (b. 310 ) Jerome (b. 335) Ambrose (b.340) Augustine (b354) and Theodoret (b. 386).

Because they just followed the LXX, not the Hebrew.

[Dawn]

Harris, on R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (913). Chicago: Moody Press., said:

2352a תְּשׁוּקָה (tĕšûqâ) desire, longing.

There are two differences between the Gen passage (3:16) and that in the Song of Solomon. In the former the reference is to the wife’s desire for her husband. In the latter it is the bride-groom’s desire for the bride. Second, in the Gen passage the reference to “desire” is in a context of sin and judgment. In the latter, the reference is in a context of joy and love.

Who says so? Does the Bible really say that marriage after the fall is a curse? That is the "implication" if we read "desire" as a context of "sin and judgement" ? Just exploring this.

[Evangelion]

Not "as", but "in".

[Dawn]

"In" what?

[Evangelion]

In the context of sin and judgement.

An alternative translation is offered by the NET Bible:

[indent]
To the woman he said, “I will greatly increase your labor pains; with pain you will give birth to children. You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”
[/indent]

The footnote reads as follows:

[indent]
tn Heb “and toward your husband [will be] your desire.” The nominal sentence does not have a verb; a future verb must be supplied, because the focus of the oracle is on the future struggle.

The precise meaning of the noun תְּשׁוּקָה (tÿshuqah, “desire”) is debated. 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.” 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. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.)

In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle. See further Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975): 376-83.
[/indent]

Nobody is saying that marriage after the fall is a curse. But whichever way you interpret Genesis 3:16, it does appear that the husband/wife relationship changed as a result of the fall.

[Dawn]

Evangelion, on May 18 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Nobody is saying that marriage after the fall is a curse. But whichever way you interpret Genesis 3:16, it does appear that the husband/wife relationship changed as a result of the fall.

Thanks Ev - good stuff. I'll search out the article by Susan T Foh - I guess it's on-line?

Anyhow, I'm not convinced Eve sought to control her husband after the fall, or that it was a "punishment". Why would God want to punish Eve with a desire to control her husband? How cruel is that to a human being? So I think that may be a fallcious argument - I'm not sure - but I am thinking about it.

Also I think Eve was a believer and not a pagan woman who was out to "dominate" her husband - she believed God when he said that she would bring forth seed that would bruise the serpent's head because when she gave birth to Cain she said "I have gotten a man from the Lord".

But certainly for Christian couples married in the Lord there should be no "power struggles" at all - and nothing of this "desire" to control - by either gender.

Recently I am very interested in a more biblical egalitarian approach to Christian marriage, for the simple reason that in my own marriage we both thought it would be good to explore this different angle - an angle which neither of us had ever considered or even entered our heads - and yet within 24 hours of trying it and endeavouring to retrain our approach on it, the egalitarian values gave us a totally new and positive dimension to our relationship as husband and wife which we had never experienced before (as opposed to the more traditional "complementarian" approach with male headship which occasionally didn't work for us, producing misunderstanding, resentment and pain on both sides). So we've decided to continue learning about a more biblical egalitarian approach for now and see how it goes - but it is not easy as we are both very much conditioned to the trad. view of man over woman and woman must submit, but we are finding our way, and so far it is good for us (but for others I understand the complementarian way works best - each to decide for themselves).

However, from this I am exploring how this might relate to Christ and the ecclesia.

I have some other points, but time is lacking, but basically it seems all three verses should really read the same in order for them to make sense.

[Evangelion]

Good points Dawn. I also take issue with the NET's translation and interpretation.

[Jeremy]

Given that Adam was punished at least in part for listening to his wife (instead of to God), one might have thought that God made it less likely for Eve to dominate her husband, not more.

[Richie]

Or God was simply stating something factual: women do want to control their husbands. Not necessarily in a nasty way (although I am sure that happens) but in the sense that they look at their husbands as a work in progress and want to fashion them into something. They want their husbands to dress, speaks, act, work in a certain way. A husband is like a walking, talking Ken doll.

[Richie]

Jeremy, on May 18 2009, 05:40 AM, said:

Given that Adam was punished...

I am not comfortable with the term punished. It implies the concept of original sin when looking at how Adam's curse affects us. Instead I think we should look at the curse as God's way of teaching man about the flesh. We all share in Adam's curse because we all need to learn the same lesson. I suppose you can say Adam personally was punished but you need to qualify it.

[Jeremy]

Richie, on May 18 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

I am not comfortable with the term punished. It implies the concept of original sin when looking at how Adam's curse affects us. Instead I think we should look at the curse as God's way of teaching man about the flesh. We all share in Adam's curse because we all need to learn the same lesson. I suppose you can say Adam personally was punished but you need to qualify it.

Gen. 3 v 17-19:
'Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." '

Adam sinned against God, and he was punished for it - end of story. The curse, the toil and the death weren't there before; now they were. I don't see any hint about original sin in this. Disobedience = death. Simple as that.

[Richie]

I have a feeling you didn't read my whole post. You need to qualify it. I am a bit touchy at the moment because we're dealing with doctrines here that border on original sin. You can't say that we share in Adam's curse if it was a punishment and then try and say you don't believe in original sin, unless you qualify your comment.

[Fortigurn]

Dawn, on May 18 2009, 08:09 PM, said:

Harris, on R. L., Harris, R. L., Archer, G. L., & Waltke, B. K. (1999, c1980). Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (electronic ed.) (913). Chicago: Moody Press., said:

2352a תְּשׁוּקָה (tĕšûqâ) desire, longing.

There are two differences between the Gen passage (3:16) and that in the Song of Solomon. In the former the reference is to the wife’s desire for her husband. In the latter it is the bride-groom’s desire for the bride. Second, in the Gen passage the reference to “desire” is in a context of sin and judgment. In the latter, the reference is in a context of joy and love.

Who says so? Does the Bible really say that marriage after the fall is a curse? That is the "implication" if we read "desire" as a context of "sin and judgement" ? Just exploring this.

The comment didn't say that marriage after the fall is a curse. It just said that the word for 'desire' in Genesis 3:16 takes place in the context of sin and judgment.

[Jeremy]

Richie, on May 18 2009, 03:16 PM, said:

I have a feeling you didn't read my whole post. You need to qualify it. I am a bit touchy at the moment because we're dealing with doctrines here that border on original sin.

I know, and I was conscious when I wrote my last post that that might have been behind what you wrote.

Quote

You can't say that we share in Adam's curse if it was a punishment and then try and say you don't believe in original sin, unless you qualify your comment.

I didn't say we were punished; I said Adam was punished. It really is as simple as that, dear bro.

[Richie]

Well in the spirit of the atonement, you're a heretic. Just kidding.

[Jeremy]

[Fortigurn]

Dawn, on May 18 2009, 10:27 PM, said:

Evangelion, on May 18 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Nobody is saying that marriage after the fall is a curse. But whichever way you interpret Genesis 3:16, it does appear that the husband/wife relationship changed as a result of the fall.

Thanks Ev - good stuff. I'll search out the article by Susan T Foh - I guess it's on-line?

Probably not. It's in the Westminster Theological Journal (37:376-384), 1975. I've attached it. Ive also attached a review of a critique of the article (from Bibliotheca Sacra).

Quote

Recently I am very interested in a more biblical egalitarian approach to Christian marriage, for the simple reason that in my own marriage we both thought it would be good to explore this different angle - an angle which neither of us had ever considered or even entered our heads - and yet within 24 hours of trying it and endeavouring to retrain our approach on it, the egalitarian values gave us a totally new and positive dimension to our relationship as husband and wife which we had never experienced before (as opposed to the more traditional "complementarian" approach with male headship which occasionally didn't work for us, producing misunderstanding, resentment and pain on both sides). So we've decided to continue learning about a more biblical egalitarian approach for now and see how it goes - but it is not easy as we are both very much conditioned to the trad. view of man over woman and woman must submit, but we are finding our way, and so far it is good for us (but for others I understand the complementarian way works best - each to decide for themselves).

All you need is right there in Ephesians 5. That homily of Chrysostom's on Ephesians 5 is about as good as it gets from early Christian commentary, on any subject. Chrysostom was a complementarian, not an egalitarian, but I don't think you'll find anything there which you'll disagree with, and much which you will consider very favourably. I've attached that as well.

Attached Files

•  Foh___A_Woman__s_Desire.pdf   395.27K   3 downloads
•  Woman__s_Desire_For_Man.pdf   213.06K   3 downloads
•  Chrysostom___Homily_20_On_Ephesians.pdf   287.06K   3 downloads

[Richie]

What does egalitarian mean?

[daysha]

Prior to eating the fruit, perhaps Eve ought to have turned to Adam for advice or counsel. She turned to the snake instead.

Perhaps God was telling Eve that from then on she would turn to her husband for counsel & advice when confronted by dodgy snake-like reasoning.

[Fortigurn]

Richie, on May 18 2009, 11:48 PM, said:

What does egalitarian mean?

See attached.

Attached Files

•  Terms.pdf   144.96K   4 downloads

[nsr]

Richie, on May 18 2009, 02:52 PM, said:

Or God was simply stating something factual: women do want to control their husbands. Not necessarily in a nasty way (although I am sure that happens) but in the sense that they look at their husbands as a work in progress and want to fashion them into something. They want their husbands to dress, speaks, act, work in a certain way. A husband is like a walking, talking Ken doll.

[Richie]

It's great! You don't have to worry about finding out what "fashion" means and so on.

[Richie]

My wife just said:

my babe said:

Deep down a woman does want an authority figure, or not just an authority figure - a leader in the house. Women chat, chat, chat when a decision needs to be made and what they really want is for the man to come in and say with confidence "OK, this is what we are going to do".

Hmm, that makes a lot more sense than anything I said.

[nsr]

Quote

It's great! You don't have to worry about finding out what "fashion" means and so on.

It doesn't sound great to me.

Quote

Deep down a woman does want an authority figure, or not just an authority figure - a leader in the house. Women chat, chat, chat when a decision needs to be made and what they really want is for the man to come in and say with confidence "OK, this is what we are going to do".

Why do they then subsequently argue with every single thing he suggests?

Edited by nsr, 18 May 2009 - 04:07 PM.

[Richie]

Your wife worries about your appearance and you can concentrate on more important matters.

[Dawn]

Evangelion, on May 18 2009, 02:33 PM, said:

I also take issue with the NET's translation and interpretation.

How would you render it? I don't know if you are fluent in Biblical Hebrew - I'm not, but I was interested to learn about the renderings in the Septuagint (which, for all it's detractors, is - as I understand it - the earliesttranslation from Hebrew in history)

[Dawn]

Richie, on May 18 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

Jeremy, on May 18 2009, 05:40 AM, said:

Given that Adam was punished...

I am not comfortable with the term punished. It implies the concept of original sin when looking at how Adam's curse affects us. Instead I think we should look at the curse as God's way of teaching man about the flesh. We all share in Adam's curse because we all need to learn the same lesson. I suppose you can say Adam personally was punished but you need to qualify it.

Well I wonder whether the tree of the knowledge of "good and evil" could be translated as the tree of the knowledge of "pain and pleasure" - and as such the "curse" for Adam brought pain into the equation. Or would that be a translation which is not true? Anyone good with hebrew?

[Dawn]

Jeremy, on May 18 2009, 03:09 PM, said:

Richie, on May 18 2009, 02:55 PM, said:

I am not comfortable with the term punished. It implies the concept of original sin when looking at how Adam's curse affects us. Instead I think we should look at the curse as God's way of teaching man about the flesh. We all share in Adam's curse because we all need to learn the same lesson. I suppose you can say Adam personally was punished but you need to qualify it.

Gen. 3 v 17-19:
'Then to Adam He said, "Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, 'You shall not eat from it'; cursed is the ground because of you; in toil you will eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; and you will eat the plants of the field; by the sweat of your face you will eat bread, till you return to the ground, because from it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return." '

Adam sinned against God, and he was punished for it - end of story. The curse, the toil and the death weren't there before; now they were. I don't see any hint about original sin in this. Disobedience = death. Simple as that.

Yes and it's interesting in the NT Eve is mentioned only twice - but Adam is referred to 11 times and the sin of disobedience is placed at his feet "by one man" sin entered the world. Eve "transgressed" because she was "thoroughly deceived". Adam was not deceived - therefore he was ultimately responsible for sin entering the world.