A fair comparison?

Continuing from last blog, let's look at Genesis 4:6-7:

6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 7 If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Remember as I said in my last blog post that this is many times compared to Gen. 3:16, which I'll quote again here:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Granted, there's a similarity. Let's look at it more closely:
Gen. 3: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee."
אל־האשה אמר הרבה ארבה עצבונך והרנך בעצב תלדי בנים ואל־אישך תשוקתך והוא ימשל־בך׃ ס
Gen. 4: "And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
הלוא אם־תיטיב שאת ואם לא תיטיב לפתח חטאת רבץ ואליך תשוקתו ואתה תמשל־בו׃

Looking at the lexicon for the Hebrew for Gen 3:
and thy desire
תְּשׁוּקָה tshuwqah (tesh-oo-kaw')
a longing -- desire.

---

and he shall rule
מָשַׁל mashal (maw-shal')
to rule -- (have, make to have) dominion, governor, indeed, reign, (bear, cause to, have) rule(-ing, -r), have power.

And for chapter 4
And unto thee shall be his desire
tshuwqah

---

and thou shalt rule
mashal

But reading the English, they really are not all that similar. The subject and objects are reversed, and it appears that the thing being subordinated is a "him," not an "it," which sin would be.

Note Wesley's commentary on the passage:

Unto thee shall be his desire - He shall continue in respect to thee as an elder brother, and thou, as the first - born, shall rule over him as much as ever. God's acceptance of Abel's offering did not transfer the birth - right to him ...

Note that the meaning of the word sin can also mean sacrifice (again from the lexicon below).

sin
chatta'ah (khat-taw-aw')
an offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender

---

Scoffield:

Or, sin-offering. In Hebrew the same word is used for "sin," and "sin- offering," thus emphasizing in a remarkable way the complete identification of the believer's sin with his sin offering (cf) Jn 3:14 2Cor 5:21.

Here both meanings are brought together. "Sin lieth at the door," but Song also "a sin-offering croucheth at the [tent] door." It is "where sin abounded" that "grace did much more abound" Rom 5:20.

Abel's offering implies a previous instruction (cf) Gen 3:21 for it was "by faith" Heb 11:4 and faith is taking God at His word; Song that Cain's unbloody offering was a refusal of the divine way. But Jehovah made a last appeal to Cain Gen 4:7 even yet to bring the required offering.

Matthew Henry matches this thought about the sin referring to sacrifice:

The Lord reasoned with this rebellious man; if he came in the right way, he should be accepted. Some understand this as an intimation of mercy. If thou doest not well, sin, that is, the sin-offering, lies at the door, and thou mayest take the benefit of it. The same word signifies sin, and a sacrifice for sin. Though thou hast not done well, yet do not despair; the remedy is at hand. Christ, the great sin-offering, is said to stand at the door, Re 3:20. And those well deserve to perish in their sins, that will not go to the door to ask for the benefit of this sin-offering. God's acceptance of Abel's offering did not change the birthright, and make it his; why then should Cain be so angry?

Really, again, we don't even need the commentaries. A straightforward reading does not indicate that it's sin that desires to rule him and he will have mastery over it. It really makes no sense to refer to sin as being his and him. Sin is referred to elsewhere in the Scripture as an "it" (e.g., Jer. 17:1; 1 Cor. 15:56).

Yes, there's some parallelism, but that doesn't mean that the passages should be compared so directly--especially when there are notable differences. A reversal of subject and object is pretty significant. And the the fact that it doesn't make sense to refer the his and him to sin is another pretty big obstacle. In reading other commentaries, however, it is essential to twist this meaning to bolster the Gen. 3:16 "battle of the sexes" argument. Note this comment on Gen. 3:16 from Bible.NET: The Bible Studies Foundation (and I've seen this elsewhere):

Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.”[Ed note: their translation--this is certainly not the standard translation of Gen. 3:16] Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain.

Is it just me, or are we seeing circular reasoning? At least it's called an interpretation here, though! I've not seen the "second" reason before--but if you take my interpretation from last week's blog about desire not being entirely sexual, per se, then we're good (although, I think this argument is patently silly). ;)

And I just have to mention the sexism, again, of this sort of harmful interpretation. Woman is being directly equated to sin! I'm a sinner, no doubt, but that's a little harsh. And another harsh implication is revealed in the lexicon about sin "lieth" at the door:

lieth
rabats (raw-bats')
to crouch (on all four legs folded, like a recumbent animal); be implication, to recline, repose, brood, lurk, imbed

Note my emphasis on the word "lurk." If you look at my post on Gen. 3:16, you'll see that I threw in some "catty" imagery:

Does a husband who's been taught this from the pulpit see his wife as eager to usurp him: prowling for the first chance to pounce upon any opportunity to rule?

No kidding, having read these commentaries for so long and "brooding" about them (since that apparently is my curse ;)), the "lieth at the door" supposed link to Gen 4:7 had laid that imagery in even my head. Lying in wait--ready to pounce. Yeah, that's a healthy way for a man to think of his wife.

I just have to say, to cover myself, that anyone reading this that thinks I am some feminist trying to get out from being ruled by "the man" just doesn't know me. I'm not a doormat by any means, but I know that the Lord has given me a role to play--and it's a privilege! In being submissive to my husband, I am imaging the Church in beautiful white marriage clothes, being readied for the marriage feast of the Lamb--betrothed to Christ Himself!

God has placed on us (women in particular) some limitations. He's our Creator. I'm OK with that. To honor them is the least I can do--after all, he died to purchase me. The Scriptures are pretty clear that God doesn't want women to pursue becoming pastors or church leaders, so I won't. Doesn't mean I can't (as in women are inherently not capable); it means I shouldn't. It's an obedience issue--and it glorifies God when we honor His requests. And in the bigger picture, it glorifies Him and it symbolizes the wonderful culmination of our very purpose and existence. To be forever with Him as His collective betrothed where there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither male nor female. In a place He's specially prepared, where there will be no more death, and where God Himself will wipe away every tear from our eyes. Now THAT's a perfect marriage!

A harmful interpretation?

I think it's time someone challenged some prominent, old notions about Genesis 3:16. Most of my readers will agree that a straightforward reading of Scripture is the best way--it avoids reading things into it and taking presuppositions to it. So let's do that:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Ok, this is obviously after sin. Keep that in mind. This is Eve's punishment for disobedience. First part is pretty clear. It's gonna hurt--a lot (I'm told ;))--to have children, and it even has cost many women their lives. Pretty clear. Let's move on.

“And thy desire shall be to rule over your husband, but he will rule over you instead." That's what is says, isn't it? That's what many commentaries would have you believe--and sadly many sermons I've heard. Let's look at that statement again: “And thy desire shall be to rule over your husband, but he will rule over you instead."

Note the changes/additions? Now read it again as it really reads: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." If you have a desire "to" something, does that mean you want to take it over? Could it not be that her desire has to do with her husband himself--as a person, lover, attention-giver, companion, provider. I've read that the word for "desire" can also be translated as "longing." I have a desire for my husband's attention, companionship, love. I also have a desire to love and help him. Always? No. I'm not perfect. But does this other interpretation of "desire=rule" set up a harmful expectation from both husband and wife? Does a husband who's been taught this from the pulpit see his wife as eager to usurp him: prowling for the first chance to pounce upon any opportunity to rule? I would hope not, but I'm sad to say that I do think that is the case for some. I would also hope the wife would not use this as an excuse for her sinful desire to usurp her husband when the temptation strikes: "Well, I was cursed with this desire to usurp my husband." And what harmful sexist implications are there if women were inherently subordinate in a "perfect" world, created in God's image just as Adam was. Sexism and alleged misogyny of the Scriptures are negated by the fact that sin caused the problem and that the role of woman as subordinate is in actuality a punishment and an obedience issue. How could it be an indication of more-limited potential if she can also be a joint heir with Christ?

Note also the "and he shall rule over thee." There's no contrariness here. Shouldn't there be a "but" if she's being rebuffed?

Now to the punishment part. The husband ruling---either way, whether she's trying to usurp or not---is considered a punishment. Who wants a ruler, raise your hand? Male or female, the fact is we don't want ANYONE to rule over us--we want to be the boss. It's called pride, and it's called sin, and guess what? Women don't have the market on those---more like half of it.

Additionally, some commentaries go so far as to say that the woman was punished with subordination because of her "going off on her own" and doing something without Adam's approval. Well (1) Gen 3:6 says Eve gave to her husband "with her." In other words, it's pretty clear (again from a straightforward reading) that he was right there--she wasn't "off on her own." (2) If subordination was a punishment for her sin, just how was she being insubordinate before sin? For the life of me, I can't see how some commentaries, including Matthew Henry's (which I highly respect) put this pre-Fall heirarchy in place. The only Scriptural support I can see for that is in 1 Tim. 2:13, but this is followed by an "and" in v. 14 referring to Eve's being deceived. Certainly Adam being created first has some role in his headship, but I can't see a reason to think this would imply pre-Fall headship. And how could it, with the subordination being part of the post-Fall curse?

Now it gets a bit trickier, how is this desiring a punishment? Well, I must admit that's a little harder to explain perhaps to everyone's satisfaction, although it makes perfect sense to me. If you have a desire to please someone and to have the sole affections of someone--a perfect companion, a perfect relationship (some may see this as romantic--and that's the point: most would agree that women are inherently a bit more romantic/idealistic about relationships than men), this "ruling" thing can really get in the way. Especially if the husband is being sinful. And, remember, this curse came after sin. Man's leading of his wife is, because of sin, far from ideal. A curse for someone who's at times striving for and often unrealistically hoping for a perfect relationship. I'll admit this an interpretation, but is it a harmful one? Does it make sense of the straightforward reading?

Question is, will anyone admit to the "usurping" as an interpretation (which I'd be willing to entertain if someone can explain away these problems adequately), or will it continue to be preached unchallenged from the pulpit, sit not-so-quietly in our Bible commentary (and perhaps our psyche) continuing to cause damage and likening the meaning of Gen 4:7 to this passage? By the way, I'll tackle Gen. 4:7 and its (dis)similarities to Gen 3:16 in another blog soon.

I would encourage you to be a Berean and read up and think on these things. I welcome your comments---and corrections even---as I continue prayerfully studying this issue.

Zero Tolerance

Rog & Ri went down to the cabin this weekend, but I opted to stay home--not enough room with several other visitors this weekend. Apart from those short weekend getaways, I don't travel a lot, but when I do, I usually see a bumper sticker or two that amuse me. My last trip down to Cumberland had a doozy. Actually, it wasn't even a bumper sticker. It was a window sticker that took up the entire rear window. "No Tolerance for Intolerance." Complete with a swastika and a crossout "o." Roger asked what it meant (not that he didn't "get" it, but that he thought it was self-defeating in that it was not at all clear what the "political" affiliation was from what was given, but, in reality, it was clear enough). Playing on the ridiculous nature of the sticker, I said "Nothing at all. It's self-refuting." Ya just gotta wonder what these kinda people are thinking.

I think I need to get a bumper sticker that says "Zero tolerance for vehicle statements that make no sense" or "No tolerance for whatever I want to have no tolerance about. You got a problem with that?" Or "Everyone is intolerant of something. For most it's something totally misperceived and likely inconsequential."

Anyway, thought some of you might have some "doozies" to share, too. After all, there is a blog for crummy church signs. I'm sure there's probably another one for bad bumper stickers, but we can post 'em here too. Of course, if you have ideas for bumper stickers that SHOULD exist, do tell. Enjoy your weekend!

Disgusting jobs & the Superbowls

It was an interesting week last week. After having a few people over for the Superbowl, many of us got sick the next day, but not a consistent enough pattern to call it food poisoning--we think it was a highly contagious virus. We sure know how to throw a party. If it's not a fire that makes my guests evacuate, it's a horrible illness resulting in a Superbowl party that just keeps going throughout the week (a different bowl though). And Mariah's getting bunk beds this week! Anyone care to sleep over? :)

Which brings me to a show on cable about a guy that goes around doing disgusting jobs for a day called "Dirty Jobs" that I've seen a couple times. As most people know it takes a lot to disgust me, being a biologist of sorts. I would submit that this guy has never done anything worse than I have as a mom (and biologist for that matter). My entire family having had stomach flu last week (including myself), I think I can say, you just can't top that. Then there's maybe cleaning out the guinea pig cage or the cat box or the yard (dog). As a friend of mine with 4 children that seem to always be sick--particularly with GI ailments--says “it would be nice to get through a few days without having to deal with one of the many 'p'’s that accompany pets and children” (I'll be "delicate" and not spell them out for you). Wonder if anyone's submitted "mom" for a job for this show?

But I wouldn't trade it for anything. At the end of the day, I can at least take a shower and say, "It's all worth it," count my many blessings, and get ready for whatever gets thrown (or dropped, overflowed, spilled, etc.) at me the next day.

The effects of the Curse on our tongues, apparently

While reading through 1 Chronicles with Ri, I've noticed that both parents and place-namers didn't have much of a qualm in naming something in a totally unpronouncable way. Ri enjoys me—a normally smooth, quick reader—stumbling over the words, I think.

But how could this possibly relate to the Curse of Gen. 3? Is it possible our tongues just don't work as well as they used to? A lot has been lost in the time since the Fall, y'know. Seriously, nowadays, who would name their child Azmaveth or Aliahba--especially when they're gonna be an "-ite" from Baharum or Shaalbon? Then there's Dodo. Easy enough to pronounce, but for a mighty man, I bet people didn't take him as seriously. Hmm. Maybe there was another reason. ;)

On a funny note, when explaining the "-ite" phenomenon with Ri, I spoke of how we have mostly "-an" in the States: Bostonians, Cincinnatians; how Germans have "-er," e.g. Berliner, Frankfurter, Hamburger (at which she busted out). Then I told her how our past-President Kennedy told the people of Berlin he was a jelly donut for improper use of an indefinite article. Now that's some incentive for good grammar, folks! Not sure we learned as much from the Bible tonight as we should have, but it was certainly interesting by the time we were done.

Inspiration regarding perspiration

A fellow blogger has inspired me to create a new blog entry. She challenged her readers to come up with alternate ways to say the same short sentence. It was a fun mental excercise. I've been wanting to post a similar thing about some funny names we use at work to describe our work as editors, e.g., as we sometimes slave over a piece that really wasn't quite ready for the publication but needed to go anyway. Here are some of the "red-pen names" we've come up with over the years (and a few new ones just for fun). Feel free to suggest more (or is that Moore?):

Edita Lott
Edita Little
Edita Moore
O. Mita Lott
Eddy T. Moore
Eddy T. Nunn
Ed E. Tonnes
Max
Minnie
Cookie T. Moore
Erasmus Tofit
Ned S. Werk
Ima Dunn