Cheryl Schatz

Now concerning Mark’s answers about Eve not being banished from the garden.
Mark, you said:

1. First of all, we need to remember that this verse is within the corpus of punishment and curse. Therefore to assume that anything in these verses is ‘positive’ neglects the context. I say this to comps as well, since some believe that this verse is a remedy to the fall (that the husband shall rule over wives). This is wrong. This is a judgment on Eve and Adam therefore nothing here should be considered positive. Eve’s desire is not positive, nor is the husbands rule.

There is no judgment at all. For a judgment God has to say “I will…(do this)” or “cursed is…” but no judgment can be brought by the phrase “you will…” Please prove the judgment since you are once again assuming it.

Secondly the woman’s desire can be looked on as good and bad depending on whose eyes the actions are viewed through. For the man her desire is a good thing. But for God her desire if it is putting him first before Him, then it can be a bad thing. God is meant to be first in our lives. But certainly there is no ill-will meant in the passage. What ill-will does the woman hold? The passage doesn’t say that her desire is against the man. Since the word can be used as a bad thing if “sin” is doing it and can be a good thing if a “lover” is doing it, it cannot be assumed that it is bad unless the text says that she has bad motives or thoughts toward him.

The next thing that hasn’t been dealt with yet is that the grammar attaches her pain in childbearing with her desire for the man. Please explain how these two are connected together in your view?

2. The above translation does not correctly translate the ‘ ‘el’ or ‘for’ your husband. It is true that the preposition here could translate as ‘for’ or ‘to’ but I think the best translation which fits the context should be ‘against’. Therefore the text should read “your desire shall be against your husband.”

In the Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon, the main 3 meanings of this word have to do with a direction towards anything. The only negative meaning has to have a context to be of a hostile character. What words would “el” link to in the context that would provide the evidence of a “hostile character”? You cannot just use the word alone. There has to be evidence of hostility. Please provide your evidence of a “hostile character” from the text. I will be awaiting your answer.

The reason I believe this is simple. There are only 2 occurrences of this precise construction, that is ‘desire’ (teshuqah) with ‘’el’ as well as with the rest of the verse with the ‘rule’ of husband…Gen 4:7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

The problem that you have with this example is that the hostile character is clear and evident in Gen. 4:7. The hostile one is “sin”. Now please prove what the hostile character is in Genesis 3:16. I see no hostile character at all and so I am very interested in what you are going to answer for this dilemma.

Therefore the preposition in 3:16 would be better translated as against (which is of course one of its many meanings) since the intention is the same. Eve’s desire will be against her husband (namely trying to dominate him) but he will rule (lord over negatively) her.

The passage says nothing about the woman “dominating” the man. That is an addition to the text for sure. You need to try again.

And just to clarify my view of Genesis 3:16…Eve is not the same as every other woman. We are all the offspring of Adam after he sinned and we all have inherited his sin nature. Eve did not inherit his sin nature, so any negative reactions of wives does not necessarily reflect back to the the mother of the living. Some women do live out their sin nature by trying to dominate their children, their friends, their husband and anything else in their path. This is not a trait of women in general, but it is a trait of the sin nature. Yet the general nature of women is not domination of men but the desire to be free from domination.

Since again the context is in the middle of punishment this is the intended meaning of the verse. With sin, Adam and Eve’s relationship is destroyed.

There is no additional “punishment” given to Eve nor is anything cursed on her behalf. I have not seen any answer of yours to this problem. Do you have an answer? If I missed seeing it, please point me to your reasoning from the Scriptures on the issue of punishment/curses that involve only two sinners and not the woman.

She will try to usurp his authority and he will lord it over her. It is a complete corruption of the original design.

The problem is that once again you are begging the question. You are assuming that God gave the man an authority over the woman when you have given nothing to prove such a claim. She cannot “usurp” an authority that God never gave him. And the original design is not authority/submission but authority/authority. Please prove your case instead of assuming it.

Again Cheryl’s view conflicts with mainstream egalitarianism. Richard Hass agrees on this particular meaning for verse 16- quote “Susan Foh suggests that woman’s desire here is not a sexual desire but a desire to dominate, just as sin has a ‘desire’ to ‘rule over’ Cain (Gen 4:7).

Do you mean Richard Hess?

This is the “tradition” that has come from years of comp exegesis, but as I pointed out above, a negative desire cannot be proven from the text without a hostile character. Eve is not shown as a hostile character.

Applying the basic hermeneutical principle of translating an expression in one context by the same expression in a nearby and related context…Foh seems to have gotten it right…” (pg 92 Discovering Biblical Equality).

Richard Hess and Susan Foh are following the tradition comp interpretation and I haven’t seen them prove a hostile character in this passage. Have you?

It is not good enough for Cheryl to use 3:16 as her proof text for why Eve left the garden. In fact it has nothing to do with the sort. Verse 16 is a punishment and prophecy of the woman. Rather than a perfect relationship, she will now desire against her husband- to dominate him.

Verse 16 does not qualify as a proof of a punishment for Eve. And the only domination in the verse is Adam’s rule over her. Do you have any other verses that gives a second witness to the hostile character of Eve?