Italian Design
And your desire is for your husband, and he does rule over you. Genesis 3:16
Desire – This verse has created an incredible amount of grief within the Body. For centuries the Church interpreted the verse as a prescriptive curse, claiming that God intentionally turned the tables on the equality of creation as punishment for Eve’s sin. Under this interpretation, God deliberately authorized men to rule over women. Moreover, this interpretive scheme considers sexual desire as part of the curse. Women were forever plagued with sexual desire for their husbands but husbands were given the power to dominate these emotionally-distressed creatures. If you find this interpretation a bit shocking, go pick up nearly any commentary on Genesis written prior to 1950.
Of course, things have changed. Now conservative commentaries modify this interpretation by removing the sexual overtones and suggesting this is not a curse but rather a description of reality in the post-fall world. Of course, many theologians resist the former language of domination, but they nevertheless argue that the Bible teaches women are to be submissive to men.
In 1921, Katherine Bushnell challenged much of this interpretive scheme in her book God’s Word for Women. In a field dominated by men, her work remained largely ignored. The “curse” model of Genesis interpretation continued. Nevertheless, Bushnell’s scholarship points to a linguistic sleight-of-hand that ultimately created the “curse” model, thanks to a Catholic monk named Pagnino. According to Bushnell’s research, the crucial term, teshuqah, has two distinct linguistic etymological backgrounds. The first follows the path of the LXX, winding its way back through ancient Syraic, Ethiopic and Arabic roots to the Hebrew text. This path provides us with the meaning “turning.” With this meaning, the statement in Genesis is not about Eve’s “desire.” It is about Eve turning away from God and toward her husband as the center of her life. In other words, God observes that Eve’s sin is the result of Eve’s decision to make Adam more important than God. She chooses to take of the fruit because she opts for her evaluation of what is best in the fulfillment of her role as ‘ezer kenedgo. She puts her choice ahead of God’s commandment.
The other linguistic stream follows Pagnino. Instead of tracing the root of the word back through the LXX and the ancient texts, Pagnino introduced a new meaning to the term based on the rabbinic use in the Babylonian Talmud. He picks up the theme of the “Ten Curses of Eve” from this commentary on the text. His translation of the Old Testament in 1528 replaced “turning” with “lust”. Every English translation since 1528 has adopted Pagnino’s translation. Wycliffe, Cloverdale, Tyndale, Douey and the Authorized Version all followed Pagnino’s treatment of teshuqah as “lust,” later toned-down with “desire.” Of course, the rest is history. Centuries later we are still dealing with this Italian design, much to the detriment of half of the Body of the Messiah.
Over and over we have encouraged each other to base our understanding on the original texts. For most of us, that seems difficult since we do not read Hebrew and Greek. But there are ways to explore these languages without years of seminary training. With this little peek into the manipulation of translation, we have all the more reason to test the interpretations we get in English translation. For 500 years, the English Bible has carried this Italian monk’s personal preference as if it were God’s word. It’s time to ask the question: If God really intended men to rule over women, then how do you explain Sha’ul’s admonition for husbands to love their wives with the same self-sacrificial love that Yeshua exhibited for the Body? How do you explain the “golden rule” applied to marriage? How do you explain all the references to outstanding women in the early congregations (and in the Tanakh)? It seems we maintain the translation “desire” because it is closer to what men would like to think rather than what God actually says.
Maybe it’s time to change all that – starting right now at home. After all, what did our Lord say? “They will know you are My disciples by your love for one another.”
Topical Index: desire, teshuqah, turning, Bushnell, Pagnino, Genesis 3:16
There is a very interesting link with yesterday’s Word today, but it is invisible for most of us. If you translate de LXX greek ‘apostrophe’ back to hebrew, you get the word ‘teshuvah’, only one letter different from the present hebrew text (v/b for q). That word indeed meens ‘turning back’ or ‘restoration’. The same root as yesterday’s Word: ‘shuv’. Could it be the writers somewhere in the past made a mistake in spelling? It does not seem likely if we look at the effort made in preserving the hebrew texts as they are today, but there are more texts which contain errors of the copiers.
This would support very much what Skip is telling us today!
It leaves me with a question, though: is this part of the vers prescriptive or descriptive? If the latter is the case in the second part of the sentence, than this must also be the case in the first part.
At first it doesn’t look like that’s going to happen: Eve makes a deal with God in acquiring her new ‘man’ (ish). But later on she admits her mistake in the names she gives to her other sons.
Kees Brakshoofden
Holland
“she admits her mistake in the names she gives to her other sons.”
Then she makes another mistake, by focusing all her affections on Cain, when her “ish” turns out to be something less than she desires.
As a result of this process, her other son Abel, the first “Good Shepard,” becomes the first “Sacrificial Lamb.”
Shalom Shabbat
As in every judgment the judge’s sentences let us know something of what happened with the accused person. If we take time to read the sentence carefully we can discover what happened with Eve. This is a justice principle: the sentence must keep balance with the accused person’s action. Search a little bit, and as I told already, we can discover what Eve did.
Ishmael, good luck in getting folks to accept the oh so obvious on this one.
This is not a matter of luck, we are talking about levels of perception or consciousness. We are talking about sex, but not sex between Adam and Eve. Why God established that Eve belongs to Adam??? With whom does she had sex that now God must remember her to whom she belongs??? To whom she was ‘ezer kenedgo???
Chill Mr. Silva. I know there is no such thing as luck. It is just an expression I took liberty with, not to offend you Sir. Please forgive me. As to the rest, I already knew where you were coming from, but like I said, it is not too well understood or accepted.
Such is live… if we want to find the answer, first we must learn to ask the correct questions. Don’t you think?? One more note. Yolanda, when I decided to participate of this forum I’m not answering looking at the name of the person who wrote. I like to focus on the idea. Thank you!!!
–and your desire is for your husband, and he does rule over you. Genesis 3:16–
–the crucial term, teshuqah– turning–
–teshuvah–‘turning back’ or ‘restoration’.–
“Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is near”.. (Mathew 3.2)
–We are (both) His body (on earth)and His bride (in heaven).
Let us rejoice and be glad and give him glory! For the wedding of the Lamb has come, and his bride has made herself ready. (Revelation 19.7)
And what is now our relationship with our Messiah? Does He not (now) reign over heaven and earth? Have we not been invited to the marriage supper of the Lamb? Have we accepted His (extended) invitation?- “whosoever will?”
The proof of the puddin’ sure has been in the eatin’ on this one! As a woman, I am not convinced it is not a curse because I know too many women who still turn to man to fullfill them instead of YHVH, an expectation men were never meant to fulfill; it has been a futile struggle, ending many marriages. As John and Stasi Eldridge wrote in their book ‘Captivating’ women are to get the desire of their heart filled by YHVH, and only then are they satisfied, enabling them to truely love and be loved by their husbands.
My hardcopy of the Bible is The Jurusalem Bible. As I recall it is a Catholic translation.
Genesis 3:16 reads:
“Your yearning shall be for your husband,
Yet he shall lord it over you.”
I do not see any overt sexual connotation before, after, or in this verse. Nor do I see a granting of authority to the husband.
I read it: “as a punishment that foolish man will abuse your love.”
yearn intr.v. , yearned , yearning , yearns . To have a strong, often melancholy desire. To feel deep pity, sympathy, or tenderness: yearned over.
That might be true in English, but the text isn’t written in English. We really don’t care what the English word is. We need to know what the Hebrew word is. The reason you don’t see any overt sexual overtone is because the church modified the translation offered by Pagnino (after a few centuries) in order not to be so chauvinistic. But the history of behavior in the church continues to subtly assert the predominance of men, based in part on the mistranslation of this text.