gengwall

Wow! What a discussion. I love it.

I will now post my view as requested by Cheryl in #316 above. Before I do that, and since I have been reading a bunch of legal complaints in the last 24 hours related to Obamacare, let me first say that my statement incorporates all the testimony in the preceding posts numbered 1-394. LOL. *shakes head to remove legalese cobwebs*. Most of what I will post has been represented and debated by the many participants and so should not be a great surprise. A little of what I post may cause me to lose some allies from the debate. But so be it. I will try to do this in a systematic way, and I will try to be brief (but will fail miserably).

I must again start with what I believe is Cheryl’s view. Here is a slightly 😉 hyperbolic paraphrase of what I “hear” in Cheryl’s (and pinklight’s) argument.

God: Eve, there are some unfortunate consequences that are going to affect you personally because of the situation. You will have an increase in sorrow and in pregnancy and raising children will be generally not fun. This is all that jerk Adam’s fault, of course. Yet you will not succumb to what would be perfectly justified anger toward him. No indeed. Instead, you will continue to desire to connect deeply with him on the soul level in such a way that you are best friends; a level where you can share all your hopes and dreams with him. Yet, can you believe this, that dirty rotten no good so and so will not only not appreciate your efforts to be his soul mate, but he will take advantage of your goodness and purity and lack of ill will and instead dominate and oppress you all of your days. There is more, I’m sad to say. You, being female, will pass on your goodness to all your daughters. Oh sure, now and then one of them might go against her better nature and fall to her sin nature that she inherits from that misogynistic pig husband of yours, but by and large all women will naturally be kind hearted and model this pure desire you have for Adam. But since Adam is both evil and male, he will pass on only his abusive, ruling nature to men and they will subject their wives in the future just as Adam will subject you.

Now, that is quite dramatic, but it is in essence the argument that Cheryl puts forth as the correct interpretation of Gen 3:16.

I see Gen 3:16 as more balanced than that. But I still must postpone my interpretation and first look at the rest of scriptural teaching (not biblical history) when it deals with marriage.

When God instructs us about marriage in scripture, He always maintains a balance between husband and wife. Genesis 2:24 is the best example of this. Although He created them distinctly male and female, the two are equal and create, in godly marriage, a one flesh union. 1 Cor 7 is also a stark example, with Paul addressing husband and wife with instructions to be explicitly equal in relation to each other in sexual matters. We see the balance in Song of Solomon, where neither lover is dominant and both of their desires are unconditionally met. And we see it in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3, where, although making gender distinctions, the instructions to each gender have equal weight and produce balanced results to the marriage. In all of these cases God’s teaching on marriage is gender balanced, with neither gender being better or worse, or getting more or less, than the other.

Why would God deviate from the pattern here? Why would God all of a sudden elevate one gender while denigrating the other? Moreover, why would God predict a pattern of behavior that is neither lived out in real life human experience or addressed in subsequent teaching? It just doesn’t make any sense unless Gen 3:16 has nothing to do with marriage; unless it is exclusively about Adam and Eve. But nobody suggests that that is the case. So I am left with the conclusion that such an interpretation is unreasonable and unscriptural. But do I have support for a more balanced view? I believe I do.

When I look at Gen 2:24, I see the model of godly marriage. I think all would agree. When I look at Ephesians 5, I see instructions on how to strive toward bringing our marriages back to that godly model in defiance of our sinful tendencies. I think others agree, although to varying degrees. But where in scripture are the specifics of sin addressed to which Ephesians 5 is applicable? I believe it is in our verse, Gen 3:16. To me, Gen 3:16 is the sin axis around which Gen 2:24 and Eph 5 rotate – the ideal of Gen 2:24 on one pole, the path to return to the ideal on the other pole of Eph 5. Of course, for this to be true, one would need to establish that Eve’s “desire” is sinful. I would even contend that it is sin of the same kind as Adam’s “rule”, i.e. sin that is directly harmful to Adam.

I am already going too long. Let me summarize my objections and opinions that lead to the above conclusion quickly.

On conjunctions – Cheryl is correct that the conjunctions could be translated “yet”, but that is only one possibility. If the verse says what she says it says, then her conjunctions are correct. But you can’t decide what the conjunction must be and then determine the meaning of the conjoined phrases. You have to determine the meaning of the phrases and then the conjunctions fall in line. It is just as likely that phrases 2 and 3 are not subsequent and antithetical to each preceding phrase, but are instead simply items 2 and 3 in a list of consequences and not so intimately related to the preceding phrases. So “and” is just as valid an interpretation.

On “desire” – we continue to use that word because it is in all the modern translations, but we all know that “desire” is somewhat inadequate. The correct term is more likely “turning”. Other synonyms may be “inclination”, or “attention”, or “interest”, or “focus”. The point is that whatever “desire” is, it can be positive or negative based on context.

On prepositions – This “desire” or “turning” is almost unanimously viewed as “to” or “toward” Adam, and justifiably so because that is the general meaning of the preposition being used. But, that preposition can also mean “against” as it does in Gen 4:8 when Cain rises “against” Abel. In cases where the two actors in the phrase are antagonists, against is a proper and often more appropriate translation. It could work in Gen 4:7 as well, and maybe should be used: “Its (sin’s) desire (or turning) is against you (Cain) and you must rule over it”. Certainly, the element of antagonists is satisfied and the verse does not lose any meaning or power when “against” is substituted for “for” or “toward”.

Cheryl acknowledges this usage but insists that there is no antagonist in Gen 3:16 to justify it there. I am incredulous at the suggestion that Adam is not antagonistic to Eve. Not only has he brought humanity to this point through his rebellion, and caused significant and painful consequences to Eve, but the future, which the verse is explicitly addressing, will be one where he engages in an oppressive and abusive rule over her. In the future, Adam and Eve will absolutely be antagonists. So, Eve’s “turning” could absolutely be against Adam.

On sin nature – Cheryl’s trump card is that there is no second witness to Eve sinning outside the garden so whatever “desire” is, it can not be claimed with scriptural support to be sinful. I counter that Adam’s “rule” also has no second witness, and although Cheryl has suggested numerous scriptural solutions to that challenge, they are woefully unconvincing. I, on the other hand, contend that God is sufficient witness to Himself. God is not a false prophet, and so there needs be no second witness to a prophecy about Adam’s sinful rule that proceeds directly and audibly from God. The same is true for any sinful behavior on Eve’s part. We can quibble about rebellion and deception all we want, but if God is saying Eve sinned, we’d best believe it.

So, my view of Gen 3:16 is that it is God’s prophecy about the destruction, due to sin’s influence in the world, of godly marriage as testified to in Gen 2:24. Both Adam and Eve, (and subsequent husbands AND wives) are party to this destruction – Adam through unloving “rule” and Eve through a disrespectful “turning”. The good news is that we can fight for our marriages and work to return them to their rightful design. Some people throughout history were able to do that on their own. Never-the-less, God gives us the behavior patterns to implement through His instructions via Paul in Ephesians 5, and Peter in 1 Peter 3. We can return to a Gen 2 model of marriage, but only if we recognize that both Husband and Wife have Gen 3 described flaws that need correction.