Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘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,”…

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.”

Advertisements

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 »

Lessons in Humility

380. Says Mr. Murray: “No tree can grow except on the root from which it sprang. Through all its existence it can only live with the life that was in the seed that gave it being. The full apprehension of this truth in its application to the first and the second Adam cannot but help us greatly to understand both the need and the nature of the redemption there is in Jesus.”

381. “When the Old Serpent . . . spoke his words of temptation into the ears of Eve, these words carried with them the very poison of hell. And when she listened, and yielded her desire and her will to the prospect of being as God, the poison entered into her soul and blood and life . . . All the wretchedness of which this world has been the scene, all its wars and bloodshed among the nations, all its selfishness and suffering, all its ambitions and jealousies, all its broken hearts and embittered lives, all its daily unhappiness, have their origin in what this cursed, hellish pride, either our own, or that of others, has brought us. . . .”[2]

382. “Even as we need to look to the first Adam and his fall to know the power of sin within us, we need to know well the Second Adam and His power to give within us a life of humility as real and abiding and over-mastering as has been that of pride . . .

Until a humility which will rest in nothing less than the end and death of self; which gives up all the honor of men as Jesus did, to seek the honor that comes from God alone; which absolutely makes and counts itself nothing, that God may be all, that the Lord alone may be exalted,¾until such a humility be what we seek in Christ above our chief joy, and welcome at any price, there is very little hope of a religion that will conquer the world.”

383. “I cannot too earnestly plead with my reader, if possibly his attention has never yet been specially directed to the want there is of humility within him or around him, to pause and ask whether he sees much of the spirit of the meek and lowly Lamb of God in those who are called by His name . . . and his eyes will be opened to see how a dark, shall I not say a devilish pride, creeps in almost everywhere, the assemblies of the saints not excepted. Let him begin to ask what would be the effect, if in himself and around him, if towards fellow-saints and the world, believers were really and permanently guided by the humility of Jesus.”

384. Mr. Law says: “Pride and humility are the two master powers, the two kingdoms in strife for the eternal possession of man. There never was, nor ever will be, but one humility, and that is the one humility of Christ. Pride and self have the all of man, till man has his all from Christ. He therefore only fights the good fight whose strife is that the self-idolatrous nature which he hath from Adam may be brought to death by the supernatural humility of Christ brought to life in him,¾Address to the Clergy, p. 52.

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 »

94. It is not by one single verse, such as Genesis 3:16 (the correct translation and interpretation of which is doubtful-see future lessons), that Eve’s greater culpability can be established, in spite of clear statements to the contrary, and many other incidental Scriptural proofs. For instance, God asked Adam, “Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?” and He lays no such charge of express disobedience at the door of Eve. And also note that whereas the Almighty told the Serpent that his creeping gait, dust for his food, and his final mortal injury were to be “Because thou hast done this;” and whereas the Almighty told Adam that his drudgery, his fight with thorns and thistles, and his final return to the dust out of which he was made, were to be “because” Adam has done thus and so, God nowhere says that Eve’s sorrowful and oppressed part is “because” she has done anything. Rather, from the highly honoring words regarding Eve the Almighty has just addressed to the Serpent we have sufficient reasons for concluding that all this might result to Eve because God has elevated her to the honorable position of an enemy of Satan and progenitor of the coming Messiah. William Law says that Adam’s sin, which brought ruin to the world, “is not to be considered as that single act of eating,” but “his express open, voluntary act and deed” of “refusing to be that which God created him to be.” On Romans 5:14, where “Adam’s transgression” is spoken of as causing death to the entire human race, that high authority, Bengel’s Gnomen says, “Chrysostom on this passage shows exceedingly well, what Paul intended to prove by his argument, ‘that it was not the very sin of the transgression of the law [Eve transgressed it, under deception], but that of the disobedience of ADAM, this was what brought universal destruction.”‘ (The capitals are ours.)

Read Full Post »

LESSON 11 (excerpts)

EVE AND HER TRADUCERS.

.

85.  In our next Lesson we will show that the N. T. teaches that Adam, rather than Eve, was the one who brought sin into the world, and death through sin. But how, then, can we account for this slandering of Eve’s character? Where did it take its source? We think the answer to these questions is simple enough. Historically speaking, the earliest definite accusation against woman as the source of all evil is the pagan Greek myth of Pandora. According to Hesiod, who lived about 800 B.C., Jupiter was angry because Prometheus (“Forethought”) had stolen fire from heaven, and in revenge ordered Vulcan to make a beautiful woman. Minerva adorned her with all gifts, and she was named Pandora (“All-gifted”),—but Mercury gave her a deceitful mind. She was brought to Epimetheus (“Afterthought”), who received her, contrary to warnings, in the absence of Prometheus. When admitted among men, Pandora opened a casket and allowed to escape all the evils of mankind, excepting delusive hope. There are many variations of this myth, but they all teach the one view,—that woman is the source of human ills.

86. The time between the O. T. and the N. T. story has been called in Jewish history “the days of mingling,” because of the effort, on the part of the Jews, to reconcile the teachings of the O. T., and the customs of the Jews, with Greek paganism. Archdeacon Farrar[1] tells us that at this time, “Palestine was surrounded by a cordon of Greek cities in which many Jews mingled freely with the heathen population. In Jerusalem itself we witness the growth of a wealthy and powerful party, in close alliance, alternately, with the Greek kings of Syria and of Egypt.  Fascinated by the attractions of Greek life and literature, they wished to adopt Hiellenistic ideals, and to obliterate the most essential distinctions of Jewish life and religion. This semi-faithless epoch was described as ‘the days of mingling.'”

87. It is nothing strange, then, that during this time the attempt should have been made to reconcile the story of Pandora and the account of Eve in Genesis; and the most ancient extant reference to Eve as the source of evil is to be found in that book of the Apocrypha which is known as Ecclesiasticus, or The Wisdom of Ben Sira. This, a Palestinian production of uncertain date, was originally written in Hebrew, probably about 250 B. C., but early translated into Greek, in Egypt, and it contains these words: “From woman a beginning of sin; and because of her all die” (25:24). Tennant tells us that “Ben Sira was the precursor of the Talmudic teaching as to the Fall.”[2] We shall presently show what some of that Talmudic teaching was as regards Eve,—so please do not forget this point.

Other Jewish writers, of later date, enlarge upon this culpability of Eve. At Alexandria, particularly, was the effort carried forward of reconciling the Scriptures with Greek pagan teachings. Unfortunately for Christian theology, after the Greek version of the O. T. was made at Alexandria (B. C. 285 saw its beginning), these Jewish, uninspired writings, called The Apocrypha, all written in Greek, not Hebrew, were incorporated with that version, which was used, to the exclusion of the Hebrew Scriptures by the Church; and many of the church fathers quoted the Apocrypha as authoritative; and all were influenced by its teachings. Thus it easily happens that the character of the mythological Pandora is ascribed to Eve. No saying that reflects upon Eve’s character can be traced further back than “the days of mingling.”

88. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons in 177 A. D., following the teaching of Ben Sira and other Jews, says of Eve: “Having become disobedient, she was made the cause of death, both to herself and to the entire human race.” But Tertullian of Carthage, a few years later, is particularly severe, and visits Eve’s sin on all Christian women, in the following language: “Do you not know that you are an Eve? God’s verdict on the sex still holds good, and the sex’s guilt must still hold also. YOU ARE THE DEVIL’S GATEWAY, you are the avenue to the forbidden tree. You are the first deserter from the law divine. It was you who persuaded him [Adam] whom the devil himself had not strength to assail. So lightly did you esteem God’s image. For your deceit, for death, the very Son of God had to perish.” But, except for woman, would humanity have ever afforded any entrance of the Son of God into the world, to perish, or for men to preach?

89. Many of the theological views of the present day show the shaping of Tertullian’s hand upon them, for, to use the concise statement of Lippincott’s Biographical Dictionary, “He acquired great influence among the Christians of his time.” Not a few of his literary works remain to this day. With such a view of woman, to start with (shut out by perpetual “guilt” from participation in the merits of Christ’s atonement), it is small wonder that the next Scripture verse that we shall consider (Genesis 3:16), has been construed, in accordance with the teaching of the Talmud and Tertullian, as God’s perpetual curse upon the entire female sex.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »