Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Genesis’ Category

138.     Were the teaching true that all women must suffer pain and servitude for the sin of Eve, then it were pertinent to ask, Why must they suffer thus,—because they are Eve’s offspring? Are not men equally the offspring of Eve? The only answer is, “Because they are female offspring.” But who made them female offspring,—women or God? GOD. Then are we taught that God is punishing women, not for their own fault, not because they are sinners, not even because Eve sinned; God is punishing women for what He Himself made them—because they are women, not men. Away with such an attack upon God’s reputation for justice! And further, the idea that “sorrow,” in this verse means labor pains, or periodical suffering in women, is far-fetched; the same word is used of Adam in the very next verse. This word is not used for such suffering anywhere in all the Scriptures.

139.     Since this passage in Genesis, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband,” has been the cause of much immorality among men, in the cruelty and oppression they have inflicted upon their wives; since this false translation has been the cause of much degradation, unhappiness and suffering to women; and since this translation has been made the very keystone of an arch of doctrine subordinating woman to man, without which keystone the arch itself falls to pieces; and since the Apostle Paul’s utterances on the “woman question” are always interpreted as though this perversion of the sense of Genesis 3:16 was his accepted foundation upon which he builds his super-structure, it behooves us to review again the history of the ancient translation of the word teshuqa, and this we will do with the aid of the appended table…

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

124. God spoke warningly to Eve at this time, telling her that she was inclining to turn away from Himself to her husband, and telling her that if she did so her husband would rule over her. The correct rendering of the next phrase of Genesis 3:16 is this: “Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,”…

127. All the stress of teaching woman’s supposed obligations to man is in the “shall be,” which is supplied by the translators. The force of the mandatory teaching, then, rests upon a hiatus in the sentence. If it be contended that the context proves that this is an imperative, then the previous sentences must be imperative, or the following. Must woman bear children in sorrow, whether she wishes to rejoice or no? Must the serpent bruise the heel of the woman’s seed, whether he will or no? As to the following clause: Must man rule woman, whether he will or no? We think women have more liberty in Christian countries than heathen because man loses the disposition to rule his wife when a Christian.

If this be a commandment of God, and man must rule woman, the more carnally-minded a man is the better he keeps that sort of “law!” But the Apostle Paul says: “The carnal mind . . . is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Romans 8:7). Thus we see that the context does not prove that this “shall be” of the sentence translated, “thy desire shall be to thy husband” is imperative. We can assert positively that this sentence is a simple future or present, warning woman of the consequences of her action. So it is rendered in all the ancient versions; never as an imperative. As a prophecy it has been abundantly fulfilled in the manner in which man rules over woman, especially in heathen lands. But Jesus Christ said, as much of women as of men: “NO ONE can serve two masters.”

Read Full Post »

LESSON 16.

GOD’S WARNING TO EVE

124. God spoke warningly to Eve at this time, telling her that she was inclining to turn away from Himself to her husband, and telling her that if she did so her husband would rule over her. The correct rendering of the next phrase of Genesis 3:16 is this: “Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,”—not as it has been rendered, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband.” This assertion, as to the correct meaning of the phrase we shall now prove. As we have said before, a misinterpretation of a passage of Scripture can be proved by the misfit. The usual construction put upon the language of this verse fits accurately nowhere; the correct interpretation fits all around.

125. The original word used here is teshuqa, and as it only occurs three times in the Hebrew language, its sense must be fixed (1) by studying its relation to other words in the sentences where it occurs: (2) by studying its derivation and structure: (3) and by studying the way it is rendered in the ancient versions of Scripture.

126. To study its relations to other words, we will leave it untranslated, but, write it in its proper sentences, inserting the noun equivalents for the pronouns used.

Genesis 3:16, “-and-to-Adam, Eve’s teshuqa.”

Genesis 4:7,11 “-and-to-Cain, Abel’s teshuqa”
(or perhaps sin’s teshuqa,)

Sol. Song 7:10, “-and-to-the-Church Christ’s teshuqa”
(as usually interpreted).

Now compare. No verbs are expressed. The conjunction is one for all and also the preposition. This is true of the Hebrew original also. In fact there is no variety in the three sentences, excepting in the proper nouns implied in the pronouns used. The sense of the three passages must be similar.

127. All the stress of teaching woman’s supposed obligations to man is in the “shall be,” which is supplied by the translators. The force of the mandatory teaching, then, rests upon a hiatus in the sentence. If it be contended that the context proves that this is an imperative, then the previous sentences must be imperative, or the following. Must woman bear children in sorrow, whether she wishes to rejoice or no? Must the serpent bruise the heel of the woman’s seed, whether he will or no? As to the following clause: Must man rule woman, whether he will or no? We think women have more liberty in Christian countries than heathen because man loses the disposition to rule his wife when a Christian.

If this be a commandment of God, and man must rule woman, the more carnally-minded a man is the better he keeps that sort of “law!” But the Apostle Paul says: “The carnal mind . . . is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Romans 8:7). Thus we see that the context does not prove that this “shall be” of the sentence translated, “thy desire shall be to thy husband” is imperative. We can assert positively that this sentence is a simple future or present, warning woman of the consequences of her action. So it is rendered in all the ancient versions; never as an imperative. As a prophecy it has been abundantly fulfilled in the manner in which man rules over woman, especially in heathen lands. But Jesus Christ said, as much of women as of men: “NO ONE can serve two masters.”

(Additional Lessons on”teshuqa”)

16 God’s Warning to Eve 122-129 54
17 The Ancient Renderings of’ Teshuqa 130-137 57
  Chart showing changes in the translation of the  Hebrew word “teshuqa” in Genesis 3:16 from the original turning to “lust”and then”desire.”    
18 History of the Translation of Teshuqa 138-144 61
19 Review With Chart 145 65

Read Full Post »

Satan’s Lying in Wait

LESSON 15.

SATAN’S LYING IN WAIT.

114.     …”Every word of God is tried,” and if we attempt to insinuate a false interpretation into it, it proves, on close inspection, a misfit all around. We shall demonstrate, by the misfit all around, that the usual interpretation of Genesis 3:16 is not correct. It bears a resemblance to the correct interpretation … but it does not fit accurately anywhere.

118.     We have said, and shown, that the idea of God’s passing a punitive sentence upon Eve, after the wonderful prophecy regarding her in verse 15, is inconsistent. But the rendering which we give is perfectly consistent with the context. We know that the Serpent was pronounced “subtil,” and Eve was said to have been “beguiled,” or deceived. Here, then, is a perfect fit in place of a misfit. This, as we believe, the correct rendering, became lost to us in the “days of mingling” (see par. 86), when the first version–the Greek–was made; when, as we have shown, the natural tendency would be, and was, to conform the story of Eve to the story of Pandora. …

121.    …The Septuagint gives the correct reading here, which is, “thy sighing,”—the whole sentence meaning, then, “A snare hath increased thy sorrow and thy sighing.” Many ancient authorities agree with the Septuagint.

Notes

Read Full Post »

123. Eve was, then, the first woman to forsake her (heavenly) kindred for her husband. She reversed God’s marriage law,—”Therefore shall a man forsake his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife.” Had Eve remained steadfast with God, Adam might through the double influence of God and Eve, have returned to God. Marriage might have been consummated by Adam, the husband, forsaking the devil, his father, and cleaving to his wife, thus returning, like the prodigal he was, to the heavenly Father’s home.

124. God spoke warningly to Eve at this time, telling her that she was inclining to turn away from Himself to her husband, and telling her that if she did so her husband would rule over her. The correct rendering of the next phrase of Genesis 3:16 is this: “Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee,”—not as it has been rendered, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband.”

95…… Now please rub your eyes carefully, search the latter end of chapter three of Genesis, and point me the place where the Bible teaches that Eve was expelled from Eden. I cannot find such teaching. I find that the one whose duty it was to “till the ground,” was expelled; the one who was “taken out of the ground” was expelled; but I find no account of the sex which was to bear children “in sorrow,” in the story of the expulsion; and I choose to believe that something of the odors of Eden have enveloped motherhood ever since creation. Yet Eve must soon have abandoned Eden to follow Adam (see pars. 122, 123, 137).

Read Full Post »

344. But Paul adds very important conditions beyond the mere birth of a Redeemer into the world, with which Christian women must comply before their social redemption will be wrought out, “If they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety” (R. V.). Alas! women did not “continue.” It seems clear that within fifty years after Paul’s utterance, they had largely yielded their faith,¾that they were to be saved on precisely the same conditions as men sinners. They accepted the mischievous teaching that in addition to meeting the conditions laid down for men sinners, they must do penance for the sin of Eve (as though Christ’s atonement had not been sufficient for Eve’s transgression). Faith went; love and loyalty to Jesus Christ and His atonement waned; and finally they accepted a precisely opposite condition to the one laid down by Paul so impressively,¾with sobriety.” They have now, through the weary generations since, too often bent themselves to the task of winning approval from God, by yielding all their nobler instincts towards pure living within the marriage relation to the sensual “desire” of their husbands, in mistaken obedience to the misinterpretation of Genesis 3:16. The meaning of the Greek word translated “sobriety,” we set forth as “self-restraint” (see par. 327). The word is sophrosune, and 4 Maccabees 1:31 tell us, “sophrosune is the mastery of the lusts.” Several sayings in the Greek classics tell us the same. Paul declares, and we are sure it is the truth of God, this self-control is an essential in woman’s social redemption. Woman can never be matured as a useful instrument in God’s hands, or an efficient servant of His Church, until she comes to understand that “she is not her own; she is bought with a price,” and it is neither her duty nor her privilege to give herself away to any human being,¾in marriage or in any other way. Her bodily appetites are subject to God’s control and cannot be indulged in violation of conscience; any other teaching is but teaching woman how to be a pleasing slave. There is no social redemption for woman until the chain that binds her to the lusts of her own, and of man’s flesh is broken, and she maintains the inviolability of free will, as her sustained attitude towards every human being, including her husband. There is no method of moral improvement remaining, after the loss of a free will. To attempt to accept any means or method of salvation from sin different from or beyond the simple act of accepting Christ’s atonement for sin,¾be that act “circumcision,” which Paul so strongly denounced, or woman’s service in the lusts of the flesh, is to accept a condition in which “Christ shall profit you nothing,” “Christ has become of no effect unto you” (Galatians 5:2-3).

345. …” Luther, who established for the Protestant Church the truism: “It is a great error to seek ourselves to satisfy God’s justice for our sins, for God ever pardons them freely by an inestimable grace,” never paused to think that as to women this is true also. To the present day, the women of the Protestant Church are taught by Bible commentators to keep to penance (seek to satisfy God’s justice) for Eve’s sin by silence in the Church and obedience to man.

Read Full Post »

95. The rest of the story (excepting Genesis 3:16, which we next explain), on the very face of it, bears evidence of Eve’s favor with God, through her confession and faith. After the eating, God assigns to Adam his particular vocation (Genesis 3:19). Adam was to earn his bread by tilling the soil, “till thou return unto the ground, for out of it thou wast taken.” Eve was not taken out of the ground, in the same sense as Adam; when she became an identity apart from Adam, it was by God’s taking her out of Adam (Genesis 2:21). Now please rub your eyes carefully, search the latter end of chapter three of Genesis, and point me the place where the Bible teaches that Eve was expelled from Eden. I cannot find such teaching. I find that the one whose duty it was to “till the ground,” was expelled; the one who was “taken out of the ground” was expelled; but I find no account of the sex which was to bear children “in sorrow,” in the story of the expulsion; and I choose to believe that something of the odors of Eden have enveloped motherhood ever since creation. Yet Eve must soon have abandoned Eden to follow Adam (see pars. 122, 123, 137).

96. We are taught, in Revelation 22:14, that those who “wash their robes” (the R.V.is the correct reading here), “have right to the tree of life.” If this be true for deliberate sinners, much more is it true for a wholly deceived person. We have shown that Eve was a believer. We see no reason why Eve should have found a “flaming sword” between herself and the tree of life. Adam was thrust out of Eden, with a flaming sword between himself and the tree of life, “lest he put forth his hand and take of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.” But if Eve was already “living” spiritually, the same motive could not have existed for cutting off her access to the tree of life; she already had eternal life.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »