An argument against Susan Foh's interpretation of Genesis 3:16.
The following quote is a comment by Susanna Krizo at Kevin DeYoung's post New Wave Complementarianism: A Question and a Concern. I'll give a link to Kevin's post at the end.
BEGIN QUOTE
Despite all efforts, it is not possible to create an analogy between the woman and sin, for as Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato explains, when the objects are found to be dissimilar, the analogy is invalid. In chapter 3 God speaks to Eve about the man’s rule, while in chapter 4 God speaks to Cain about his own rule over sin; one is acted upon while the other is the actor. In other words, Cain is warned that he must resist sin to protect himself, but the woman is warned that the man is going to rule over her when she turns to him.
The pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, (ca 250 B.C.) translated teshuwqah, usually translated “desire” in Genesis 3:16, with apostrophê, which means “to turn,” “to resort, to recourse,” and rhetorically, “when one turns away from all others to one, and addresses him specially.”
Sin does not turn to Cain for help; sin crouches at his tent door, ready to attack, and it is Cain’s responsibility to control, and master sin. Eve does not crouch at Adam’s tent door ready to devour him, instead she turns to him for help when becoming a mother and caring for an infant, which gives the man an opportunity to rule over her.
Sin is an enemy, the woman isn’t.
END OF QUOTE
Comment made by Susanna Krizo December 25, 2013 at 7:53 pm, at Kevin DeYoung's post New Wave Complementarianism: A Question and a Concern.
Rachel, since you did your thesis on Gen 3:16 you are probably aware of the argument put forward by Krizo. I'm putting this here in case it is of interest to your readers.
If Susan Foh no longer believes what she said in her paper "What is the woman's desire?" it would be so healing to hear her saying so and explaining her reasons why she changed her mind.
It would be healing to many victims of domestic abuse who have suffered under the complementarian megaphone that gave Susan Foh's paper such prominence.
I would love to hear Susan Foh and Rachel Darnell conversing in a non-judgemental space.
I've never been able to verify the internet rumour that Susan Foh got divorced. I read somewhere that she used to wear a head-veil in church. If that was true, her husband may have been a hard complementarian and eventually she couldn't stand being tightly controlled by him.
I am learning so much in this series. Thanks!! Please do continue!
I'm so glad you're enjoying it! I'm learning a lot too!
This series is so good!
Thank you Meredith!
An argument against Susan Foh's interpretation of Genesis 3:16.
The following quote is a comment by Susanna Krizo at Kevin DeYoung's post New Wave Complementarianism: A Question and a Concern. I'll give a link to Kevin's post at the end.
BEGIN QUOTE
Despite all efforts, it is not possible to create an analogy between the woman and sin, for as Rabbi Moshe Chaim Luzzato explains, when the objects are found to be dissimilar, the analogy is invalid. In chapter 3 God speaks to Eve about the man’s rule, while in chapter 4 God speaks to Cain about his own rule over sin; one is acted upon while the other is the actor. In other words, Cain is warned that he must resist sin to protect himself, but the woman is warned that the man is going to rule over her when she turns to him.
The pre-Christian Greek translation of the Old Testament, the Septuagint, (ca 250 B.C.) translated teshuwqah, usually translated “desire” in Genesis 3:16, with apostrophê, which means “to turn,” “to resort, to recourse,” and rhetorically, “when one turns away from all others to one, and addresses him specially.”
Sin does not turn to Cain for help; sin crouches at his tent door, ready to attack, and it is Cain’s responsibility to control, and master sin. Eve does not crouch at Adam’s tent door ready to devour him, instead she turns to him for help when becoming a mother and caring for an infant, which gives the man an opportunity to rule over her.
Sin is an enemy, the woman isn’t.
END OF QUOTE
Comment made by Susanna Krizo December 25, 2013 at 7:53 pm, at Kevin DeYoung's post New Wave Complementarianism: A Question and a Concern.
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevin-deyoung/new-wave-complementarianism-a-question-and-a-concern/
Rachel, since you did your thesis on Gen 3:16 you are probably aware of the argument put forward by Krizo. I'm putting this here in case it is of interest to your readers.
If Susan Foh no longer believes what she said in her paper "What is the woman's desire?" it would be so healing to hear her saying so and explaining her reasons why she changed her mind.
It would be healing to many victims of domestic abuse who have suffered under the complementarian megaphone that gave Susan Foh's paper such prominence.
I would love to hear Susan Foh and Rachel Darnell conversing in a non-judgemental space.
I've never been able to verify the internet rumour that Susan Foh got divorced. I read somewhere that she used to wear a head-veil in church. If that was true, her husband may have been a hard complementarian and eventually she couldn't stand being tightly controlled by him.