Some commentators have pointed out the interesting conjunction of the rare Hebrew word teshuqah (“desire”) and mashal, meaning “to rule” in both Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7. This points to a probably purposeful parallel the author is drawing between the sinful act of Adam and Eve and that of their son Cain. So let's consider both those stories, looking for other parallels between them:
Genesis 2-3 Genesis 4
Adam is to till and keep the garden (2:15) Cain was a tiller of the ground (4:2)
God warns against the tree of knowledge (2:16-17) God warns Cain to do well (4:7a)
Serpent tempts Adam and Eve (3:1-5) Sin crouches like a lion for Cain (4:7b)
They eat of the fruit (3:6-7) Cain kills Abel (4:8)
God: “Where are you?” (3:9) God: “Where is your brother Abel?” (4:9a)
They deny responsibility (3:10-13) He denies responsibility (4:9b)
Adam punished with cursed ground (3:17-19) Cain punished with cursed ground (4:10- 12a)
God's provision of garments (3:21) God's provision of a protective mark (4:15)
God's punishment is exile (3:22-24) God's punishment is exile (4:12b-14,16)
In this last parallel, one can point to the common phrase “drive me from” found in 3:24 and 4:14.
Regarding 3:1-5 // 4:7b, Kline notes that 'sin crouching at the door' is “in illustration of temptation's assault on Cain and recalling the serpent of Gn. 3.” In a similar vein, McKnight says, “The personification of sin and how it develops in order to master the human, as well as the insight into human nature, reminds the reader of the serpent and sin of the Fall.” And if Speiser's understanding is correct that the word translated “sin” instead refers to the name of an ancient demon, then the parallel between the two verses becomes even stronger.
Another parallel between the two accounts is found in 3:14 and 4:11, the only places where God actually uses the traditional formula “Cursed are you.” (Wenham)
The two stories may help in both directions in helping to understand them. Thus, Wenham notes that God's question in Genesis 3:9 has been taken to indicate God's ignorance of Adam and Eve's location. However, the parallel question in 4:9 is immediately followed by an indication that God knew the answer all along.
From the above correspondences, one can now propose that the sins of the parents and their oldest son may be even closer than first suspected. And so we are ready to tackle the meaning(s) behind the parallel verses 3:16b and 4:7b. The problem we begin with is that neither of these two passages is exactly crystal clear in itself. Thus, Heron states that “God's statement in 4:7 is notoriously untranslatable,” and Ellison proclaims, “The Heb. of v. 7 is difficult.” In marked contrast, Hamilton says, “Here is a case where the clear meaning of 4:7 illuminates a less clear meaning of 3:16,” and Wenham states his opinion that in Genesis 3:16, “it is more difficult to grasp the author's precise intention.”
Here is how the RSV translates these two verses in which God addresses Eve and Cain, respectively:
“To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen. 3:16)
“If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (Gen. 4:7)
The parallels between these two verses is not perfect, however. Thus, at this point Heron notes that the consequences of doing evil in 4:7 “do not have the same sort of unconditional negativity that one finds elsewhere [such as in Genesis 3:16]...It seems to be the expression of a divine hope for Cain that, unfortunately, will not be fulfilled.”
Similarly, Wenham points to other differences between the two verses and concludes: “Clearly then, though the writer of Genesis wants to highlight the parallels between the two stories, he does not regard the murder of Abel simply as a rerun of the fall. There is development: sin is more firmly entrenched and humanity is further alienated from God.”
“Will” or “Shall?”
One of the first interpretation barriers is whether to translate certain words in these passages as “shall” (indicating a punishment) or “will” (a mere prediction of fact). Translators and commentators are divided on that subject, as you can see below:
In commenting on 3:16, Ellison says that “rule over” is “not a command, as it is normally rendered; NIV is correct with 'he will rule.'” Kaiser agrees with this assessment.
For a contrary view, Foh says, “Therefore, just as Cain was instructed to rule over and master sin, so the husband must rule over his wife.”
Hamilton: “It is less clear whether God describes or prescribes these consequences. In other words, are these negative consequences engineered directly by God, or is God simply informing the woman the way it is to be from this moment on? Perhaps this question is inappropriate, for it may assume ways of thinking that are alien to the ancient Hebrew mind. That is, it is difficult to conceive of an ancient Israelite who did not attribute all phenomena in life to God. In God's second word to the woman one does hope that God is speaking descriptively and not prescriptively. For this consequence deals with a marriage relationship that will go askew: the woman shall desire her husband but he shall lord it over her.” Keep Hamilton's conclusion in mind as you read below since his view is not universally shared.
“Desire”
There is a similar disagreement regarding the exact meaning of the Hebrew word teshuqah. The problem is that it only appears three times in the Old Testament: the two Genesis passages in question and Song of Songs 7:10. Depending on whether one chooses either Genesis 4:7 or Song 7:10 as the appropriate parallel will have an effect on its meaning in 3:16. This has given rise to two different basic understandings of what “desire” refers to.
One standard way of taking the word in Genesis 3:16 is a reference to sexual desire, as we see in Song of Songs: “I am my beloved's and his desire is for me.”
Wenham says, “Women often allow themselves to be exploited in this way because of their urge toward their husband: their sexual appetite may sometimes make them submit to quite unreasonable male demands.”
Brauch feels that Eve's desire for Adam implies a sexual desire, to which L.A. Turner agrees.
For several reasons, I doubt that this is the best interpretation. In the first place, one could argue that it is just as likely for the man to be led into unfortunate associations due to sexual desires as for women. Also, it is a view which unfairly characterizes women as being swayed by emotion much more than by reason. And thirdly, it utilizes the Song of Songs passage in a quite diverse context rather than the much closer and appropriate parallel use of “desire” in Genesis 4:7.
The only way to salvage this view, in my mind, is to adopt the suggestion made by a few commentators that the primary reason for this sexual desire by women is in order to have children. We see this sort of desire throughout the Old Testament; just witness Eve's jubilance expressed in Gen. 4:1. That explanation would indeed fit well with the first part of 3:16 referring to childbirth.
In my mind, the alternative interpretation of “desire” makes much more sense. This is appropriately based on the demonstrably closer parallel between Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7.
Foh argues that Eve will have the same type of “desire for her husband that sin has for Cain; a desire to possess or control him.” Wenham comments, “There is a logical simplicity about Foh's interpretation that makes it attractive, but given the rarity of the term 'urge', certainty is impossible.” But rarely is “certainty” possible; probability is all we can hope for here.
C.J. Collins also states that, “in parallel with 4:7, the desire is that to master.”
Hess: “In both cases the desire is one of authority, and the struggle is one of the wills that exists between people.”
Victor Hamilton has done a good job of summarizing this viewpoint: “What 4:7 describes is sin's attempt to control and dominate Cain. Because his offering has been rejected by God he is seething with anger. In such an emotional state he is easy prey for sin which crouches lionlike and wants to jump on him. Cain is to fight back, turn the tables, and dominate sin and its desire. Applied to 3:16, the desire of the woman for her husband is akin to the desire of sin that has poised ready to leap at Cain. It means a desire to break the relationship of equality and turn it into a relationship of servitude and domination. The sinful husband will try to be tyrant over his wife. Far from being a reign of co-equals over the remainder of God's creation, the relationship now becomes a fierce dispute, with each party trying to rule over the other. The two who once reigned as one attempt to rule each other.”
“Rule over”
If anything, there is even greater division of opinion regarding the implications of this phrase in Genesis 3:16, mainly as to whether it is something commanded and whether or not it is a desirable thing. Taking a negative stance toward the situation are the following two commentators, as well as those quoted above:
Carr: “The man's rule over the woman here is a tragic reflection of the original connectedness between them.”
Wenham: “It is...usually argues that 'rule' here represents harsh exploitive subjugation, which so often characterizes woman's lot in all sorts of societies...”
But C.J. Collins rejects the common view that Eve's “husband will dominate her. His reasoning is as follows: The word mashal does not usually have negative associations unless the context demands it...the 'ruling' [in Gen. 4:7] is not a punishment but the necessary remedy. If we apply this to 3:16, we conclude that God describes a condition of human marriages that is all too familiar, namely, competition for control. The proper remedy is a return to the creational pattern of the man's leadership – loving, not dominating.”
The problem with Collins' reasoning is that the direct context for 3:16 does describe the various negative consequences resulting from the Fall, neither the remedy nor the original “creational pattern.” It appears as if he has thrown hermeneutical principles out the window in order to support his view of male headship in marriage.
As Atkinson says regarding 3:16, it is “hard to see how discussions of 'male headship' as an 'ordinance of creation' can be sustained by a appeal to this chapter. This chapter describes how things should not be; this is the broken world.” And Hess pointedly adds, “It is no more sinful to reject and seek to overturn it than it is to use weed killer in light of Genesis 3:18.”
And the way to overturn a divided marriage in which the two parties fight for control is not necessarily for the male to be the head of the family since the “creational pattern” was joint leadership. This is where the model of Genesis 4:7 breaks down in when taken too far in explaining Genesis 3:16. The struggle between good and evil is an eternal one in which God's will is that good must win, whereas the relationships between husband and wife were never intended to be in such eternal conflict.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments