INTRODUCTION
One of the most prominent debates being held to date is on the moral/gender issue. Albert Mohler states:
We look out on the horizon around us and realize that our culture has been radically changed. In this case, the storm is a vast moral revolution, and that revolution is not even close to its conclusion. In fact, there will likely be no conclusion to this moral revolution within our lifetimes, or the lifetimes of our children and grandchildren.[1]
Interestingly, Genesis 3:16 is the basis for much of the debate which transcends the moral/gender revolution and has given enlightenment to the prominence of feminist belief. These beliefs are combating the very nucleus of the family. Mohler explains the severity of the revolution
We are now witnesses to a revolution that is sweeping away a sexual morality and a definition of marriage that has existed for thousands of years. This is the morality and understanding of marriage that has been central to societies shaped by biblical witness and the influence of both Judaism and Christianity.[2]
To be sure, the moral/gender revolution was not built upon the passage of this paper; however, it does contribute greatly to the debate on the issue.
In understanding that this revolution has been an ongoing process it would suffice to look at this Biblical passage which has given rise to those who falsely utilize it with their own presuppositions. Within Genesis, Moses gives the creation account in chapter one. Following this is the creation of the first man and woman in chapter two. This leads to chapter three and to the fall of mankind which is where our text is observed in verse sixteen, “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.’” (NASB).
Within the above verse of Genesis 3:16, there is debate around the word meaning of desire in context. There are two mainstream views on this passage. The first view is that the desire of the woman is that of a passionate, sexual desire. She desires intimacy with man regardless of the pain she knows she will ascertain from childbirth. This desire is not merely physical as some would say. Instead others within this view also add that “woman will have a longing for intimacy with man involving more than sexual intimacy.”[3]This view has been the more traditional view held by evangelicals and most well-known. This view is more lexical in its consideration of meaning.
The second view is also based on what “desire” means in context of Genesis 3:16. This view states that the desire of woman is that of her desire to usurp the authority of her husband. Therefore, there is a continual struggle in that the woman wants to be in charge or control of the relationship. There are also different variations of this view as well. A prominent view of this understanding states “Genesis 3 indicates that the sexes reversed their respective roles with their fall into sin. An aspect of the curse that is subsequently placed upon the woman is Genesis 3:16b, which indicates that sin affected the hierarchical relationship, but did not disannul it. The ‘desire’ of the woman provides a reminder to all woman that the subordinate role still remains as her correct posture.”[4]As can be seen in this simple statement this view heavily relies upon contextual considerations within Genesis 3:16.
This papers methodology for delivering a correct interpretation of “desire” within the Genesis 3:16 passage will be a literal historical grammatical hermeneutic. A hermeneutic is described as “…the science that furnishes the principles of interpretation. These principles guide and govern anybody’s system of theology.”[5]Zuck explains hermeneutic as “…the science and art of interpreting the Bible. Another way to define hermeneutics is this: It is the science (principles) and art (task) by which the meaning of the biblical text is determined.”[6]However, there are myriads of differing opinions on what hermeneutical principles to apply and consistently employ. It is with the following definition of a Grammatical-Historical (G-H) hermeneutic that this paper will follow to prove its thesis
…we may name the Grammatico-Historical as the method which most fully commends itself to the judgement and conscience of the Christian scholars. Its fundamental principle is to gather from the Scriptures themselves the precise meaning which the writers intended to convey. It applies to the sacred books the same principles, the same grammatical process and exercise of common sense and reason, which we apply to other books… The grammatico-historical sense of a writer is such an interpretation of his language as is required by the laws of grammar and the facts of history. Sometimes we speak of the literal sense, by which we mean the most simple, direct, and ordinary meaning of phrases and sentences. By this term we usually denote a meaning opposed to the figurative or metaphorical.[7]
Using the G-H hermeneutic within this paper, an analysis with three main categories of historical, lexical, and contextual will conclude the papers thesis. First will be the historical, where the writer, setting, genre and background of Genesis 3:16 is examined. Second, is the lexical analysis which will look at the word within Genesis 3:16 “desire” in its different biblical usages to best convey its sole meaning in context. Last will be the contextual, where the immediate and larger context will be used to make light of the main meaning of the word “desire” from Genesis 3:16b.
The G-H hermeneutic will reveal this paper’s thesis that the correct understanding of “desire” within the context of Genesis 3:16 means a desire to have authority over the relationship. First is a look at the historical background of Genesis.
HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
To form a good foundation for Genesis 3:16 wherein a G-H hermeneutic is utilized, the historical setting needs to be drawn out. This analysis sets the background and foundation by which all other information rests. Within this analysis, the circumstances of the author’s writing will be made known. Also clearly stated will be any cultural distinctions that need to be made for a strong understanding of the Genesis 3:16 text. Duvall and Hays make this analysis clear in saying, “As readers we do not determine the meaning of biblical words; rather, we try to discover what the biblical writer meant when he used a particular word. We should always keep in mind this distinction between determiningmeaning and discoveringmeaning.”[8]
Looking at Genesis, which starts the Old Testament, an overview is given by Paul Benware, “The Old Testament is the story of the nation of Israel, a nation unique and distinct from all the nations of the earth because God Himself entered into a covenant relationship with them. It is the story of a nation designed by God to bring glory to Himself and salvation to mankind – a story of the great spiritual victories and defeats of men and the amazing faithfulness and grace of God.”[9]The Old Testament is comprised of thirty-nine books. Out of these thirty-nine books the first five are called the Pentateuch or the Law and were written by Moses. Allis in his reexamination of the first five books of the Old Testament being from Moses states that, “The ‘five books’ of Moses or of the Law can be traced back to early times. We have seen that they are clearly referred to by Josephus. In the Hebrew Bible the Massoretic note at the end of the Pentateuch begins with the words: ‘The five–fifths of (the) Law are concluded.’
”[10]Additionally the time of writing is of importance also. Norman Geisler notes that
There are three reasons for believing that Moses complied Genesis during the first forty years of his life (before 1487 B.C.). (1) During this period Moses came to faith in God and the desire to deliver his people… He must have studied Israel’s history and God’s promises to Abraham’s descendants at this time. (2) Later, while in Midian, Moses would not have had access… to all the records of his people. (3) By the third period of his life, Moses was busy as a leader and writer of the other books of the Law. It is more likely, then, that Genesis was compiled while his early interest in his people’s past and their deliverance gave him access to the records of their history and the promises of God to deliver them.[11]
As seen above, Moses is the author of Genesis and wrote this monumental book in the first half of his life.
The book of Genesis is a foundational book which runs its many themes throughout God’s completed word, the Bible. This can be attested to by the numerous quotes from Genesis that are found all throughout the Bible. Grisanti makes this claim in saying, “The book of Genesis, the first book of the Bible, deals with themes and events that lay the foundation for the rest of Scripture. As the first words of the book suggest (“In the beginning”), Genesis introduces many theological threads that are woven throughout the tapestry of the entire Bible.”[12] In view of this there is also a division within the book of Genesis on genre. The first genre which makes up “the majority of Genesis involves prose narrative. This narrative has prayers, speeches, and other types of direct discourse interspersed throughout it.”[13]However, this has been challenged and “various scholars have suggested that Genesis falls into two general sections: Primeval history (chaps. 1-11) and patriarchal history (chaps. 12-50). The first section encompasses four significant events: creation, the fall, the flood, and the rebellion at Babel.”[14]How is it that these two are in conflict as to whether Genesis’ genre is narrative or historical and what is the solution? Eugene Merrill distinguishes the differences as such
In the Old Testament, history is national and not familial or tribal; it is recordkeeping and not storytelling (though the latter can be used for the former) … Second, history is a series of accounts… with cause-effect sequences given much more weight than plot…History is a tapestry of accounts in which there is a place for each account and each account is in its place. History in the Old Testament is characterized by God who acts through representation… in the form of both prophet and king. In narrative forms God either speaks directly or is very much behind the scenes (as in Ruth).[15]
It is therefore to be concluded that the book of Genesis is a historical book with contributions that answer many of mankind’s questions of who, what, when, where, and why we are alive.
Genesis 3:16 can be concluded in the historical genre as a writing of God through Moses around the year 1487 B.C. that deals with the beginning of history and all it entails. A part of this is the fall of mankind and the appendant curse, of which Genesis 3:16 declares, “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.’” (NASB). This “desire” of the woman in Genesis 3:16 is still not brought to light in the historical background information of the text. What is made known in looking at the background analysis is that the verse has literal implications for us today. The application of this verse is for all mankind to know that there is a literal curse (cause-effect) which has fallen upon mankind due to sin. The historical analysis reveals this paper’s thesis that the correct understanding of “desire” within the context of Genesis 3:16 means a desire to have authority over the relationship. Next is the examination of the Hebrew word in Genesis 3:16 for “desire”.
LEXICAL ANALYSIS
The second method to apply in a G-H hermeneutic is the lexical examination of our key word “desire” from Genesis 3:16b. On this Terry notes, “To understand, therefore, the language of the speaker or writer, it is necessary, first of all, to know the meaning of his words…Next we examine the usus loquendi, or actual meaning which it bears in common usage…”[16]The common usage is the key to the understanding of the text. If it is used selfishly, its meaning is changed by the reader to convey not what the writer originally intended it to mean but what the reader so inclines. Terry writes
There are certain general principles of thought and language which underlie all intelligible writings. When one rational mind desires to communicate thought to another it employs such a conventional means of intercourse as are supposed to be understood by both. Words of defined meaning and usage serve this purpose in all the languages of man, and accordingly, if one understand the written thoughts of another, he must know the meaning and usage of his words.[17]
The Hebrew word תְּשׁוּקָה(“desire”) from Genesis 3:16b will be viewed in context to see if there are other meanings of the word that can be utilized. Also, a look at its usage in the Old Testament will show two variations of meaning. Which one is correct for the Genesis 3:16 passage will be concluded in the contextual analysis.
Within Genesis 3:16 many have come to different understandings of the passage because of the numerous interpretations based on the word “desire”. Robert Vasholz believes “The ‘your desire’ is the woman’s affection for her husband.”[18]Walter Vogels states that “…the desire of the woman would then be her desire to control to possess, or to manipulate her husband. It would refer to her desire for power in that relationship.”[19]Irvin Busenitz also remarks that “…in spite of the Fall, the woman will have a longing for intimacy with man involving more than sexual intimacy.”[20]Still yet another contribution to the understanding of Genesis 3:16 “desire” by Lucien Ouellette says, “Woman, knowing that she will suffer from child-bearing, shall nevertheless long for marital intercourse.”[21]Lastly, Michael Stitzinger concludes
Moreover, Genesis 3 does not disregard a positional distinction between male and female. The events of the fall relate, among other considerations, that there was a sinful disregard for the headship established in the previous chapter. The specific meaning of Gen 3:16b becomes vital to understanding the role relationship…Gen 3:16 pronounces a curse upon the woman, with emphasis upon the abusive rule that man will exercise. The “desire” mentioned provides a reminder to the woman that the subordinate role still continues for her and is the correct position for woman in every age.[22]
As can be seen through the vast differences of opinion on the meaning of Genesis 3:16 “desire,” many major and minor contradicting and broad interpretations have been concluded.
The lexical understanding of the Hebrew תְּשׁוּקָה(“desire”) means simply a “desire or longing.”[23]The Theological Wordbook says
This noun only appears three times in the OT, once in Song 7:10 [H 11]. The woman says of her beloved: ‘I am my beloved’s and his desire is for me.’ The two remaining references are Gen 3:16 and 4:7. In the latter passage God is speaking to Cain and says to him that sin is like a crouching beast ‘hungering, intent upon’ Cain.”[24]
It is interesting to note that with such minimal lexical understanding and semantic range of the word there are many diverse interpretations. However, with the lexical understanding of the word “desire” what can be drawn about the Genesis 3:16 passage?
First, because the use of the word may mean a sexual desire in one form of the semantic range found in the context of Song of Solomon, does not mean that expression of the word should be used for all references in Genesis. Second, the word “desire” in reference to the woman does not make reference or even show in its semantic range the slightest hint of hierarchical order as some have posited within the marriage relationship. Third, as will be seen in the contextual analysis, the context should determine meaning. In the Theological Wordbook of the Old Testamentit continues to explain
There are two differences between the Gen passage (3:16) and that in the Song of Solomon. In the former the reference is to the wife’s desire for her husband. In the latter it is the bridegroom’s desire for the bride. Second, in the Gen passage the reference to ‘desire’ is in a context of sin and judgement. In the latter, the reference is in a context of joy and love.”[25]
To make sense of this Terry notes
Some words have a variety of significations, and hence, whatever their primitive meaning, we are obliged to gather from the context, and from familiarity with the usage of the language, the particular sense which they bear in a given passage of Scripture… Hence the importance of attending to what is commonly called the usus loquendi, or current usage of words as employed by a particular writer, or prevalent in a particular age. It often happens, also, that a writer uses a common word in some special and peculiar sense, and then his own definitions must be taken, or the context and scope must be consulted, in order to determine the precise meaning intended.[26]
It is for this reason as stated above that we have taken the meaning of the word and its variance and will apply it next to the context.
The lexical analysis reveals this paper’s thesis that the correct understanding of “desire” within the context of Genesis 3:16 means a desire to have authority over the relationship. This is based on a normative understanding of “desire” and looks to the context for surrounding meaning. A look at the surrounding meaning is intended within the next section of contextual analysis. To take the context and the scope of the word and determine the precise meaning of the intended passage according to a consistent G-H hermeneutic.
CONTEXTUAL ANALYSIS
The last section of the G-H hermeneutic is the contextual analysis. This section is the most important part of a proper hermeneutic because as Duvall and Hays state, “When it comes to interpreting and applying the Bible, context is crucial. In fact, we would go so far as to say that the most important principle of biblical interpretation is that context determines meaning. When we ignore the context, we can twist the Scriptures and ‘prove’ almost anything.”[27]This seems to be the reason for so many differing opinions on Genesis 3:16. For it has already been seen that not only are there numerous variations about “desire” found in Genesis 3:16, but also differing conclusions on the book of Genesis as a whole. Nevertheless, it is within this analysis where the previous studies will be brought together, and in context, shed light on a correct interpretation of the passage of Genesis 3:16 “desire”.
Inside Genesis 3:16, the context is that of judgement to Adam and Eve respectively and mankind as a whole, “To the woman He said, ‘I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you’” (NASB). The understanding of this text is not hard. However, the understanding of “desire” within this single verse is difficult to understand because it is not in its full context. The full context comes out of chapter one, which explains the creation account. Then in chapter two, the creation of man and woman is seen. The Lord gives them work and explains to them what they can do and what not to do. In chapter three, Adam and Eve are seen in judgement after they have both partaken of the tree which the Lord told them not to eat from. The following context is found in relation to this discussion from God to Adam and Eve from Genesis 3:13-19
Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this you have done?” And the woman said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” The Lord God said to the serpent, “Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.” To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.” Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’; Cursed is the ground because of you; In toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the plants of the field; By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return” (NASB).
From this larger context it is clearly seen that the Lord is punishing both Adam and Eve for the sin of disobedience. Within the immediate context of Scripture along with the larger context, it does not seem to be speaking of a sexual desire of the woman towards her husband in any way. Yes, it is true that to have children as God commanded them and for the pain in childbirth clause of God’s punishment to come true Eve would need to have relations with Adam. However, this is not being spoken of in the context. Instead it looks like the text should read like that of Allen Ross says, “Because Eve’s desire probably refers in this context to her prompting Adam to sin, it is better to translate the verse ‘Your desire wasfor your husband.’”[28]Within this view the woman’s desire which was before the Fall in perfection, now is broken because of sin.
Chandlish also favors this view in stating
(1) The woman is to live, and to be the mother of all living children, being called Eve on that very account (ver. 20); – but she is to bring forth children in sorrow (ver. 16). (2) She is to be subject to her husband; for such is the import of the phrase, ‘Unto him shall be thy desire, and he shall rule over thee’ (ver. 16); it denotes the dependence of affection or of helplessness on the one hand, and the assertion of authority and power on the other.[29]
It seems like the “desire” of Eve being spoken of is not that of her original desire for Adam before the fall when she was created and brought to Adam as a helpmate. Instead, considering the context of “desire” in Genesis 3:16 which is referencing judgement, her desire has been marred and changed from that which it once was. Instead of being the helpmate she was created to be, she, now as a sinner, has a desire or longing to lead the relationship. Still this does not seem to be connoting a hierarchical order within the text as Stitzinger states, and most assuredly does not describe a sexual desire as Busenitz proclaims. Of this latter view just stated, Lohr proclaims, “We certainly need to question definitions that relate the term (desire) to a ‘strong libido,’ ‘sexual appetite,’ ‘unbridled sexual desire,’ ‘nymphomania,’ and so on…”[30]The reason being is because it does not bring the context of scripture into view.
In understanding the meaning of “desire” to be that of a desire that was for her husband and is now in desire to usurp his authority, a parallel should be drawn. In so doing it is bringing into context the usage of this word by the original author, Moses. Genesis 4:7 is the only other reference within the same book and by the same author that this word is used. This is the best evidence that the word should be used as controlling or leading, as the thesis of this paper points out. In Genesis 4:7 God says to Cain, “If you do well, will not your countenancebe lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it” (NASB). Here within the context the word “desire” is plainly and clearly referring to the desire of sin being for Cain. This desire or longing of sin for Cain is a desire and longing to control or lead him. The desire and longing of sin is tempting Cain in Genesis 4:7 and yet Cain did not master this temptation of sin. It ultimately took him over and he committed murder.
If we take Moses’ teaching and usage of the very same word, in the very same book, we can conclude his usage to mean a desire or longing in a negative sense. This is how he used it twice, once in Genesis 3:16 in relation to Eve’s desire or longing to be over her husband, and again in Genesis 4:7 in relation sin desiring and longing to control Cain. Susan Foh makes note of this conclusion in saying, “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.”[31]It can be said since there was only Adam and Eve, and that Eve was made for Adam as a relational helpmate, that the longing or desire is to lead or have authority over the relationship in the larger context. This would allow for a consistent understanding of the second half of Genesis 3:16b, “Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you” (NASB). Adam now needs to strive to actively rule or lead in his relationship with Eve.
Within the contextual analysis, a look at the immediate and larger context of Scripture was taken. It was then seen that “desire” in Genesis 3:16 corresponded to the thesis of the paper. The “desire” of Genesis 3:16 is a desire to usurp Adam’s authority in their relationship. Now to bring all of the analysis together to form the larger picture of Genesis 3:16 “desire.”
CONCLUSION
In conclusion to this paper’s thesis on Genesis 3:16, “desire” means a desire to have authority over the relationship. It is important to note all the contributing facts of the paper which were all in accordance with a proper G-H hermeneutic following an analysis of the historical, lexical, and contextual understanding of the passage.
First, the historical analysis showed the background of the text and its literary genre. Within this section was the fact that Genesis 3:16 still today has relevance to all mankind. This is seen in part by the fact that this is such a major topic in the world today as Albert Mohler was quoted as stating in the introduction. Second, the lexical analysis showed the semantic range of the Hebrew word “desire” from Genesis 3:16. A consistent keeping to that semantic range comes through in this paper’s thesis. A look at other interpretations was also seen. Third, the contextual analysis showed that Genesis 3:16 “desire” clearly points to desire meaning a desire to have authority over the relationship. This is seen in the immediate context, as well as the larger context of Scripture. The contextual has also shown the parallel between both Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 which uses the word “desire” in both. All this brings the thesis to the natural conclusion to make meaning of “desire” as a desire to have authority over the relationship.
In keeping with a consistent G-H hermeneutic on the Genesis 3:16 understanding of “desire” the original meaning of the passage was drawn out as the author originally intended. This paper’s methodology has brought consistency in the contextual understanding of the passage. Bringing a proper understanding to the text which is in line with the rest of Scripture. This paper has not completely exegeted the Genesis 3:16 passage, but it does now have the groundwork for more studies to be built upon it in the furthering of God’s word.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allis, Oswald T. The Five Books of Moses: A reexamination of the Modern Theory that the Pentateuch is a late compilation from diverse and conflicting sources by authors and editors whose identity is completely unknown. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001.
Benware, Paul N. Survey of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody, 1988.
Busenitz, Irving A. “Woman’s Desire for Man Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered”. GTJ 7:2 (1986): 203-212.
Candlish, R. S. Exposition of Genesis. Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, Inc, 2001.
Duvall, Scott J. and Hays, Daniel J. Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach o Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012.
Foh, Susan T. “What is the Woman’s Desire?”. WTJ 35 (1975): 376-383.
Geisler, Norman L. A Popular Survey of the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006.
Grisanti, Michael A. The World and the Word. Tennessee: B&H, 2011.
Harris, Laird R. Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament. Chicago: Moody, 1980.
Lohr, Joel N. “Sexual Desire? Eve, Genesis 3:16, and תְּשׁוּקָה”. JBL 130, no. 2 (2011): 227-246.
Mohler, Albert R. Jr. We Cannot Be Silent. Nashville: Nelson Books, 2015.
Ouellette, Lucien. “Woman’s Doom in Genesis 3:16”. EBISCO: 392-399.
Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.
Ryrie, Charles C. Dispensationalism. Chicago: Moody, 2007.
Sandy. Brent D. and Ronald L. Giese Jr. Cracking Old Testament Codes. Nashville: B&H, 1995.
Stitzinger, Michael F. “Genesis 1-3 and the Male/ Female Role Relationship”. GTJ 2:1 (1981): 23-44.
Terry, Milton, S. Biblical Hermeneutics: A Treatise on the Interpretation of the Old and New
Testament. New York: Hunt and Eaton, 1890.
Vasholz, Robert I. “He (?) Will Rule Over You”. Presbyterion 20/1 (1994): 51-52.
Vogels, Walter. “The Power Struggle Between Man and Woman”. SBL (1996): 198- 209.
Zuck, Roy B. Basic Bible Interpretation: A Practical Guide to Discovering Biblical Truth. Colorado: David C. Cook, 1991.
Walvoord, John F., and Roy B. Zuck, Dallas Theological Seminary. The Bible Knowledge Commentary: An Exposition of the Scriptures. Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1985.
[1]Albert Mohler Jr., We Cannot Be Silent(Nashville: Nelson Books, 2015), Preface xiii.
[3]Irving A. Busenitz, “Woman’s Desire for man Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered”, 203.
[4]Michael F. Stitzinger, “Genesis 1-3 and the Male/ Female Role Relationship”, 23.
[5]Charles C. Ryrie, Dispensationalism(Chicago: Moody, 2007), 89. Page 91 gives description to the literal; grammatical-historical hermeneutic.
[6]Roy B. Zuck, Basic Bible Interpretation (Colorado: David C. Cook, 1991), 19.
[7]Milton S. Terry, Biblical Hermeneutics(New York: Hunt and Eaton, 1890), 70; 101.
[8]Scott J. Duvall and Daniel J. Hays, Grasping God’s Word (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2012), 163.
[9]Paul N. Benware, Survey of the Old Testament (Chicago: Moody, 1988), 17.
[10]Oswald T. Allis, The Five Books of Moses (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2001), 119. Within this book Allis defends Moses as the author of the Pentateuch against a modern theory that says it is instead a late gathering of material from conflicting sources.
[11]Norman L. Geisler, A Popular Survey of the Old Testament(Grand Rapids: Baker, 2006), 36.
[12]Michael A. Grisanti, The World and the Word(Tennessee: B&H, 2011), 170.
[13]Ibid, 172. This is the position of which Grisanti holds too, that Genesis is narrative prose. This he says is debated today amongst other scholars as is listed in the following footnote.
[14]Ibid, 173. Opposing view to Grisanti’s narrative prose.
[15]Brent D. Sandy; Ronald L. Giese Jr., Cracking Old Testament Codes(Nashville: B&H, 1995), 91.
[16]Terry, Hermeneutics, 73.
[17]Ibid. 71.
[18]Robert I. Vasholz, He (?) Will Rule Over You, 51.
[19]Walter Vogels, The Power Struggle Between Man and Woman, 204. This view is also prominent among others. Susan T. Foh is a proponent of this view in her writing, What is the Woman’s Desire, 383.
[20]Busenitz, Woman’s Desire for Man, 203.
[21]Lucien Ouellette, Woman’s Doom in Genesis 3:16, 392.
[22]Stitzinger, Genesis 1-3, 43; 44.
[23]Laird R. Harris, Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament(Chicago: Moody, 1980), 913.
[24]Ibid.
[25]Ibid.
[26]Terry, Hermeneutics, 79.
[27]Duvall; Hays, Grasping, 149.
[28]Allen P. Ross, Bible Knowledge Commentary(Colorado: David C. Cook, 1983), 33.
[29]R. S. Candlish, Exposition of Genesis(Lafayette, IN: Sovereign Grace Publishers, Inc, 2001), 58.
[30]Joel N. Lohr, Sexual Desire? Eve, Genesis 3:16, and תְּשׁוּקָה, 246.
[31]Susan T. Foh, What is the Woman’s Desire?, 383.
pastorparido.wordpress.com 