Gênesis 3

Gênesis 3

Utley - CHERUB. . .CHERUBIM (BDB 500, KB 497) One of several types of angelic beings mentioned in the OT (i.e., Cherubim, Seraphim [see SPECIAL TOPIC: SERAPHIM], national angels, Arch Angels, Messenger Angels). This particular type of angelic being guarded sacred areas (cf. Gen. 3:24; Exod. 25:18-22; 1 Kgs. 8:6-7; Daniel 10). It is mentioned over 90 times in the OT, but only once in the NT (cf. Heb. 9:5). Etymology is uncertain. from Akkadian "intercessor" or "mediator" between God and mankind from Hebrew there is a possible word play between "chariot" and "cherub" (cf. Ezek. 1; 10) some scholars say it means "brilliant appearance" (i.e., like the Shekinah; see SPECIAL TOPIC: SHEKINAH) Physical form ‒ This has been difficult to ascertain because of varying descriptions within the Bible and varying animal-human forms found in the ANE. Some link them to winged bull of Mesopotamia winged eagle ‒ lions of Egypt called "griffins" winged creatures on Hiram's (King of Tyre) throne sphinx of Egypt and similar forms found in King Ahab's ivory palace in Samaria Physical Description The form of the Cherubim is linked with the form of the Seraphim of Isaiah 6. Examples of different forms Number of faces (1) two ‒ Ezek. 41:18 (2) four ‒ Ezek. 1:6,10; 10:14,21 (3) one ‒ Rev. 4:7 Number of wings (1) two ‒ 1 Kgs. 6:24 (2) four ‒ Ezek. 1:6,11; 10:7,8-21 (3) six (like Seraphim of Isa. 6:2) ‒ Rev. 4:8 Other features (also called "the Living Creatures") Human hands ‒ Ezek. 1:8; 10:8,21 Legs (1) straight, no knee ‒ Ezek. 1:7 (2) calf feet ‒ Ezek. 1:7 Flavius Josephus admits that no one knew what a cherub looked like (cf. Antiquities of the Jews, VIII.3.3). Places and purpose found in the Bible Guardian of the tree of life, Gen. 3:24 (possibly used as imagery in Ezek. 28:14,16) Guardian of the Tabernacle over the Ark of the Covenant; Exod. 25:18-20; Num. 7:89; 1 Sam. 4:4; Heb. 9:5 depicted on veil and curtains of the tabernacle; Exod. 26:1,31; 36:8,35 Guardian of Solomon's temple two large carved cherubs in Holy of Holies; 1 Kgs. 6:23-28; 8:6-7; 2 Chr. 3:10-14; 5:7-9 on walls of inner shrine; 1 Kgs. 6:29,35; 2 Chr. 3:7 on panels that were associated with the several lavers; 1 Kgs. 7:27-39 Guardian of Ezekiel's temple ‒ carved on walls and doors; Ezek. 41:18-20, 25 Connected with transportation of deity possibly imagery for wind; 2 Sam. 22:11; Ps. 18:10; 104:3-4; Isa. 19:1 guardian of God's throne; Ps.80:1; 99:1; Isa. 37:16 guardian of God's portable throne chariot; Ezek. 1:4-28; 10:3-22; 1 Chr. 28:18 Herod's temple ‒ painted on walls (i.e., guardian cf. Talmud "Yoma" 54a) Revelation throne scene (i.e., guardian cf. Revelation 4-5) QUESTIONS - Why did God have the cherubim guard just the east side of Eden (Genesis 3:24)? ANSWER - Genesis 3:24 says, “He drove out the man, and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword that turned every way to guard the way to the tree of life.” According to this verse, only one side of Eden was guarded—the east side. Was it possible for Adam and Eve to have sneaked in another way? Part of understanding this passage is a consideration of the Hebrew perspective regarding directions. The Jewish people listed directions starting with “east,” unlike Western cultures that typically list the compass points starting with “north.” To say “at the east of the Garden of Eden” could have been a reference to the edge of Eden. Though this is not definitive, it appears to fit the context of the passage. In addition, the presence of the sword-bearing cherubim stresses that Adam and Eve were forcefully expelled from the Garden of Eden. The word cherubim is plural, indicating several angelic beings, either on the eastern side or the edge of the Garden, who completely blocked the way to the tree of life. The added facts that the sword was flaming and “turned every way” (which might mean that each angel had a sword) also emphasize the strong security God had provided. There was no possibility that Adam and Eve or any other person could later reach the tree of life. Another possibility may be that guarding the “east side” of Eden is related to Genesis 2:8, which says, “And the LORD God planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man whom he had formed.” If Eden was in the east, then guarding “the east” would make sense. In this interpretation, guarding the east means to guard the area where Eden was located. Either way, the emphasis is that God completely protected the tree of life from any humans who would approach it. Whether the intended idea is protecting “the edge” or protecting “the location” of Eden, God’s Word emphasizes that Adam and Eve were removed from the Garden of Eden, unable to return. The Bible mentions the tree of life again, when it shows up in the new heaven with the Lord. Revelation 22:1-3a notes, “Then the angel showed me the river of the water of life, bright as crystal, flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb through the middle of the street of the city; also, on either side of the river, the tree of life with its twelve kinds of fruit, yielding its fruit each month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations. No longer will there be anything accursed.” At the end of time, God’s people will experience the blessings of a restored creation and renewed access to the tree of life. GotQuestions.org WHAT IS THE WOMAN’S DESIRE? SUSAN T. FOH The current issue of feminism in the church has provoked the reexamination of the scriptural passages that deal with the relationship of the man and the woman. A proper understanding of Genesis 3:16 is crucial to this reconsideration of the Biblical view of the woman. In Genesis 3:16 God pronounces judgment on the woman. Two areas of the woman’s life are specifically mentioned: childbearing and her relationship to her husband. The latter is the concern of this article; “yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16b, RSV). A. Common Interpretations The translation of תשוקה causes a large part of the difficulty in understanding Genesis 3:16b. There are three typical interpretations. (1) תשוקה is frequently equated with sexual desire. The woman’s craving for her husband “will be so strong that to satisfy it she will be ready to face all the pains and sorrows of childbearing.” (1) “… Thy desire shall be to thy husband—thou shalt not be able to shun great pain and peril for childbearing, for thy desire, thy appetite, shall be to thy husband …” (2) The woman still desires marital intercourse though the result, conceiving and bearing children, brings pain. This interpretation closely links verse 16b with verse 16a (as does the RSV rendering of the waw as “yet,” which could be translated “and”), and so fits the immediate context. (2) תשוקה is viewed as “the desire that makes her the willing slave of man.” (3) It is that “immense, clinging, psychological dependence on man.” (4) Seeing no reason to limit the scope of “desire” to sexual appetite, Clarence J. Vos would not exclude from it the woman’s desire for the man’s protection. (5) Keil and Delitzsch see “desire” as a morbid yearning; the woman “… was punished with a desire bordering upon disease (תשוקה from שוק to run, to have a violent craving for a thing) …” (6) (3) Calvin states that Genesis 3:16b means that the woman will desire only what her husband desires and that she will have no command over herself. (7) The woman’s desires are wholly subservient to her husband’s, as a result of God’s judgment. (8) Despite the differences in the interpretation of תשוקה, all of the commentators cited above agree that, through the woman’s desire for her husband, he rules her. In other words, because the woman desires the husband in some way, he is able to rule over her. B. Objections to the Preceding Interpretations (1) The interpretation of תשוקה as sexual desire appears to be contradicted by etymology. Biblical scholars are well aware of the danger of confusing diachrony and synchrony in the use of this tool, but all sources of help must be weighed when there are only three occurrences of the word. (9) The verbal root appears to be שוק for which BDB suggests three homographs. BDB would relate תשוקה to the Arabic root šāqa, to desire, excite desire. (10) However, as they are aware, the phonemic equivalent of the Hebrew š is s in Arabic, a fact recognized by G. R. Driver (11) and Koehler-Baumgartner. (12) This suggests that the proper etymology in Arabic would be sāqa, to urge, drive on, impel, (13) a meaning consonant with the interpretation to be argued below. (2) The rule of the husband, per se, is not a result of or punishment for sin. The headship of the husband over his wife is a part of the creation order. The commentators have dealt with this problem in two ways. The one ignores or misunderstands the New Testament interpretation of the creation order. (14) It is suggested that before the fall, man and woman were equal and that neither ruled. … and he shall rule over thee, though at their creation both were formed with equal rights, and the woman had probably as much right to rule as the man; but subjection to the will of her husband is one part of her curse. (15) The other more frequent method of dealing with this problem is to differentiate between the husband’s God-ordained headship and his “rule” in Genesis 3:16. The woman was subordinate to her husband from the beginning, but the “supremacy of the man was not intended to become a despotic rule, crushing the woman into a slave …” (16) as it does after the fall. Before the fall, man’s rule was gentle; afterwards it is tyrannous. Rule (משל) in Genesis 3:16 is said to suggest suppressing or overcoming. (17) Not all agree that the post-fall rule of man is different in quality. Some have suggested it is different only in extent; after the fall, the woman is wholly subject to her husband (causing one to wonder what the pre-fall limits on the husband’s authority were). This total subjection of the woman makes her liable to arbitrary treatment by her husband; so the complete rule of the husband can lead to a reign of tyranny. (18) Practically, then, there is no difference in the rule of worse quality and that of greater extent. (3) The preceding solution satisfies the demands of the overall context, i.e., the tyrannous rule of the husband seems an appropriate punishment for the woman’s sin. However, if the woman’s desire makes her a willing slave of her husband (A.2) or if she has no desires except for husband’s (A.3), the hardship of punishment in Genesis 3:16b is absent, because the woman willingly submits herself to her husband’s rule. But willing submission contradicts the context of judgment and clashes with the New Testament commands to submit to the husband’s authority (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; 1 Pet. 3:1), as well as experience. C. Genesis 3:16b and Genesis 4:7b תשוקה occurs only three times in the Old Testament (Gen. 3:16; 4:7; Song of Solomon 7:10). (19) A comparison of Genesis 3:16b and 4:7b reveals that the Hebrew is the same, except for appropriate changes in person and gender; but the English translation (RSV, ASV) varies. (20) כך-ימשל תשוקתך והוא אשך-ואל 3:16b כו-תמשל ואליך תשוקתו ואתה 4:7b RSV … Yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. … its [sin’s] (21) desire is for you, but you [Cain] must master it. ASV … and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. … and unto thee shall be its desire; but do thou rule over it. In Genesis 4:7 sin’s desire is to enslave Cain—to possess or control him, but the Lord commands, urges Cain to overpower sin, to master it. An active struggle between Cain and sin is implied; the victor of the struggle is not determined by the words God speaks to Cain. E. J. Young notes the similarity of language in Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 but fails to account for it. As we examine the language of the Lord, we note that it is capable of two interpretations. First of all, however, it is well to compare it with the similar language in Genesis 4:7. In that verse we read, ‘and his desire is unto thee.’ The meaning in this context of the fourth chapter is that what sin desires is what Cain will carry out. His desire is unto Cain in the sense that Cain is a slave thereto, and must perform whatever sin’s desire may be. In the present verse Gen. 3:16 we may render, ‘and unto thy husband is thy desire.’ It is obvious that the meaning here is the reverse of what it was in the fourth chapter. Is it not clear that in this third chapter the meaning cannot be that the desire of the woman is unto the husband so that he must do what she wishes? Is it not clear that the woman is not here pictured as a despot who compels the man to do the thing she desires? Plainly this is not the meaning of the text. (22) The above argument relies on certain presuppositions about the nature of the husband/wife relationship and about what the passage means. Young neglects the primary exegetical consideration—context. The passage, he continues, has two possible meanings, which we have considered before: (1) The desire of the woman will be subject to her husband (A.3). (2) The wife has a yearning for her husband, as a disease (A.2). Young prefers the first alternative. (23) What Young considers an obviously impossible meaning for “desire,” the meaning which “desire” has in the same syntactical setting only 15 verses away, is not impossible. The woman has the same sort of desire for her husband that sin has for Cain, a desire to possess or control him. This desire disputes the headship of the husband. As the Lord tells Cain what he should do, i.e., master or rule sin, the Lord also states what the husband should do, rule over his wife. The words of the Lord in Genesis 3:16b, as in the case of the battle between sin and Cain, do not determine the victor of the conflict between husband and wife. These words mark the beginning of the battle of the sexes. As a result of the fall, man no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship. Sin has corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband. The woman’s desire is to control her husband (to usurp his divinely appointed headship, and he must master her, if he can. So the rule of love founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny and domination. Experience corroborates this interpretation of God’s judgment on the woman. If the words “and he shall rule over you” in Genesis 3:16b are understood in the indicative, then they are not true. As Cain did not rule over sin (Genesis 4:7b), so not every husband rules his wife, and wives have desires contrary to their husbands’ and often have no desire (sexual or psychological) for their husbands. As we have stated earlier on the basis of context, the woman’s desire does not contribute to the husband’s rule; the opposite is the case. The two clauses, “and your desire to control shall be to your husband” and “but he should master you,” are antithetical. The presence of the personal pronoun הוא (אתה in Gen. 4:7) supports this understanding of the relationship of the two clauses. The participants of two parallel but in some ways different activities are brought into prominence by realizing them as grammatically similar items in preverbal positions. A common way of doing this is to refer to the two participants by means of explicit pronoun subjects. (24) The use of the personal pronoun in preverbal position (הוא) is unusual and redundant and brings the participants into contrast. (25) D. Summary Contrary to the usual interpretations of commentators, the desire of the woman in Genesis 3:16b does not make the wife (more) submissive to her husband so that he may rule over her. Her desire is to contend with him for leadership in their relationship. This desire is a result of and a just punishment for sin, but it is not God’s decretive will for the woman. Consequently, the man must actively seek to rule his wife. The reasons for preferring this interpretation are: (1) It is consistent with the context, i.e., it is judgment for sin that the relation between man and woman is made difficult. God’s words in Genesis 3:16b destroy the harmony of marriage, for the rule of the husband, part of God’s original intent for marriage, is not made more tolerable by the wife’s desire for her husband, but less tolerable, because she rebels against his leadership and tries to usurp it. (2) It permits a consistent understanding of תשוקה in the Old Testament also consistent with its etymology. (3) It recognizes the parallel between Genesis 3:16b and 4:7b. The interpretation of 4:7b is clearer; we know from the context that sin’s desire to Cain involves mastery or enslavement and that Cain did not win the battle to rule sin. (4) It explains the fact that husbands do not rule their wives as a result of God’s proclamation in Genesis 3:16b. (Further support is implied by the New Testament commands for wives to be submissive to their husbands and the requirements for elders to rule their families.) בך-והוא ימשל is not an indicative statement, for if God states that something will come to pass, it will. Westminster Theological Seminary, Philadelphia. Notes: 1 - David R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage; a Sociological Study, London, The Epworth Press, 1953, p. 196. 2 Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Kansas City, Mo., Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1967, p. 22 3 John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (International Critical Commentary), Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1930, p. 82. 4 Gini Andrews, Your Half of the Apple; God and the Single Girl, Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1972, p. 51. 5 Clarence J. Vos, Woman in Old Testament Worship, Delft, N. V. Vereinigde Drukkerijen Judels & Brinkman, n.d., p. 24. 6 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten Volumes, V. 1: The Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., n.d., p. 103. Cf. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, Columbus, The Wartburg Press, 1942, p. 172. 7 John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, v. 1, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1948, p. 172. 8 Cf. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1, Jerusalem, The Magnes Press, 1961, p. 165, and Edward J. Young, Genesis 3: A Devotional and Expository Study, London, Banner of Truth Trust, 1966, p. 127. 9 As J. Barr also recognizes, “Etymology and the Old Testament, Language and Meaning (Oudtestamentische Studien, Deel 19), Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1974, p. 2. 10 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver & Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company, 1907, p. 1003. 11 G. R. Driver, “Notes and Studies: Theological and Philological Problems in the Old Testament,” Journal of Theological Studies, XLVII, 1946, p. 158. 12 Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testamenti Libros, Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1953. KB recognizes the derivation as from säqa by their distinguishing only two verbal roots, p. 957. One must suspect that the major influence which made BDB willing to contradict the usual phonemic equivalence and associate תשוקה with the Arabic šaqa was the notion that תשוקה was a reference to sexual desire. The sounder lexicography may have been overruled by a commitment to the understanding of the passage. 13 Edward William Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, Bk. 1, Pt. 4, London, Williams and Norgate, 1872, p. 1470. 14 1 Corinthians 11:8; 1 Timothy 2:13a. The source of and reason for the creation of the woman is significant. Man is created first; he is the source of the woman’s existence; and she is created for the sake of the man. Therefore, the head of the woman is man. 15 Clarke, p. 22. 16 Keil & Delitzsch, p. 103. Cf. Calvin, p. 172, and Young, p. 127. 17 Vos, p. 25 18 Keil & Delitzsch, p. 83. 19 Because the context of Song of Solomon 7:10 is ambiguous, it is not possible to determine the precise meaning of תשוקה in this case. We shall only suggest that the meaning of “desire” proposed in this article is credible in Song of Solomon 7:10. Note that the immediate context is that of possession: “I am my beloved’s …” 20 KJV translated them the same; in Gen. 4:7, “… and thou shalt rule over him.” The problem is that Cain does not in fact rule, whether the antecedent of “him” is sin or Abel. Therefore, the future indicative or predictive translation of Gen. 4:7 is incorrect. 21 The masculine pronouns refer to the feminine noun “sin” חטאת A. R. Hulst in Old Testament Problems (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1960, p. 1) says: “The Hebr. active part. rōbēṣ ‘beseiger’, is often used of an animal that lies in wait for its prey.… It is quite possible then, that the writer’s use of the masc. suffixes has been determined by this mental image of ‘the croucher’.” Cf. Robert S. Candlish, The Book of Genesis, v. 1, Edinburgh, Adam & Charles Black, 1868, p. 99; G. R. Driver, p. 158; Keil & Delitzsch, p. 112. The only other alternate antecedent for the masc. pronouns is Abel; then the rule of Cain as the first born is in view. This interpretation is unlikely because (1) “Abel” is distant from the pronouns and does not occur in God’s words to Cain but only in the preceding narrative; (2) it is not conclusive that the first born ruled his younger siblings; for instance, rule over his brothers is given to the supposed first born only at the death-bed of Isaac, and it is given to the second born Jacob by mistake (Gen. 27:29); and (3) what is the meaning of “desire” in such a case? Calvin (p. 203–4) explains the desire of Abel for Cain as that of an inferior for the superior, in this case the first born Cain. “Moreover, this form of speech is common [?] among the Hebrews, that the desire of the inferior should be towards him to whose will he is subject; thus Moses speaks of the woman (3:16) that her desire should be to her husband.” Calvin’s interpretation of “desire” in Gen. 3:16 and Gen 4:7 is consistent, but it is not appropriate in Song of Solomon 7:10, where the man’s desire is to his beloved. According to Calvin’s theory, the man would then be the inferior. 22 Young, p. 126–7. 23 Ibid., p. 127. 24 Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, The Hague, Mouton, 1974, p. 150. 25 Ibid.; cf. Takamitsu Muraoka, Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew, thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1969, p. 42.