Cheryl Schatz

to continue with gengwall’s comments:

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.

I have not yet found a single Hebrew lexicon that lists “turning” as a viable option. It is in the text but just not for the for this word. But I do agree that the context will determine the meaning. We agree here.

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”.

I agree that when there are antagonists that there is can be the meaning of against for the preposition.

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.

But Adam’s antagonism cannot be considered. I am not at all suggesting that Adam is not antagonistic toward Eve, but you cannot change the subject around. A woman who has a sin nature would certainly be antagonistic toward Adam but you cannot make Eve into a sinner by suggesting that she cannot help but sin. There must be something else to make this an absolute. Also notice something that is against your position. Eve’s desire is listed first and the coordinating conjunction is in the direction from longing to rule. If God wanted to tell us that Eve would respond to Adam’s rule with antagonism, then God would have placed Adam’s rule first and then Eve’s desire after that as a result of his rule. But with the order that it is written, her desire cannot be taken as a result of his rule, but something that is there first.

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.

We both agree the Hebrew word for rule means a lording it, or mastery of another person and that is sinful. What we both agree that the word used for Eve is not necessarily a negative word. God cannot be made to say that Eve is sinful no matter how hard you try. The word order is wrong, it is a coordinating conjunction, not just a conjunction listing unrelated words in unrelated order. And God is not saying that Eve “sinned” a second time. If she was a rebellious sinner she would also have been kicked out of the garden.

I think that you need to work harder to get a second witness for God’s word with the inspired words, the inspired grammar and the exact word order (not the rearranging of cause and effect as you have made in the passage) cannot be used as a witness against Eve. I am open to hearing a valid witness to “longing” as a bad thing. But so far you haven’t presented anything that would hold up in court. And I am unwilling to attach sin onto the woman without a Biblical charge of sin that will hold up to the required two or three witnesses. I do not want to meet Eve in heaven and tell her that I charged her with sin because it made my thoughts on marriage fit. That may be a good reason to believe it, but it isn’t good enough in my opinion. Like I said, I could be wrong , but I would like to see the evidence that I am wrong.

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”.

And what disrespectful “turning” against my husband are you charging me with? I would like to see the evidence you have against all women.

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.>

Yes, please do tell us what the flaws are from Genesis 3 that God is charging against all women. I would be interested to hear it. I would also like to know if you have a second witness to this “flaw” or if Genesis 3:16 is the lone charge against all wives?

Well, this has certainly turned out to be an interesting discussion. Certainly passionate and thought-provoking and I think has pushed us into the passage deeper than even I thought to go. Good going!