The Rebellion of Women

[Kevin H]

11 hours ago, Hanseng said:

 

What evidence would that be?

The Bible originally did not have the chapter and verse divisions. Hebrew linguists point out that Genesis  seen as one message, and in a poetic form. It is the story of the Seed. This message can be understood as:

The curse on the serpent, and being in the dust (death)

And I will put enmity between you (the serpent) and the woman, between thy seed and her seed, and you will do one action which you plan to be a fatal attack to the Seed, but it will only end up being merely a wound, while that action will be how He (The Promised Seed) will destroy the sin problem. And to the woman (who is not cursed) you will have pain in childbirth. This is more than "labor pain" but after carrying the child for 9 months, the mother TENDS to have a special connection to the child that tends to be deeper than others can have. She will share deeper the joys and pain for her child, and living in a sinful world the pains will more than likely outdo the joys. Well, she can simply avoid this pain by not having a family; but the tendency of the woman would be to have desire for her husband, and the family, thus even with the pain there is still the female tendency to have the family. The fact that the man get's his talk later shows a cluelessness where men don't naturally have the same tendency to the wife and family as the mother has, even as they try and do have desire, but the male tendency is for this to be not as intense as the tendency in the women. 

So we get a picture of a very dysfunctional family. We are living in a sinful world, but there is the promise that the Promised Seed will resolve the sin problem. But the family will have a lot of pain, especially in the motherly joy and pain of the child's life, and that very likely, there will be something missing in her relationship with her husband. 

But the hope for this painfully dysfunctional family is the promised gospel, THE PROMISED SEED, that the Hebrew grammar (beyond my education level) connects the "He" in verse 16 as the exact same "He" as verse 15, that as mentioned, this is the story of "HE" How He deals with the serpent and the sin problem, and how He works with sinful fallen humanity. The only way to get through life on a fallen planet is for the woman, her children and her husband to allow "HE" the Promised Seed who will resolve the sin problem will lead us through if only we let Him rule over us. The Promised Seed is not some pie in the sky, way down in the future, hopefully, maybe.... but HE is already there! Right at the start of sin, there HE IS! 

[Hanseng]

 1 Peter  3:6 reminds us that Sarah referred to Abraham as Lord. That Greek word is the same one used in Genesis 3:16 LXX. There it says that Adam would rule over the woman. In both cases the Greek word is essentially the same, one a noun, the other a verb. The linguistic connection is very strong.

[Hanseng]

4 hours ago, Kevin H said:

But the hope for this painfully dysfunctional family is the promised gospel, THE PROMISED SEED, that the Hebrew grammar (beyond my education level) connects the "He" in verse 16 as the exact same "He" as verse 15, that as mentioned, this is the story of "HE" How He deals with the serpent and the sin problem, and how He works with sinful fallen humanity

The passage is  plain enough to me, no machinations required.  

15  And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her Seed; He shall bruise your head, And you shall bruise His heel.”
16 ¶  To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire [shall be] for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” NKJV

     15  I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers; he will strike your head, and you will strike his heel."

 16 ¶  To the woman he said, "I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." NRSV
 

       15  and enmity I put between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; he doth bruise thee — the head, and thou dost bruise him — the heel.’
16 ¶  Unto the woman He said, ‘Multiplying I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception, in sorrow dost thou bear children, and toward thy husband [is] thy desire, and he doth rule over thee.’ YLT

Even though the text says the woman's desire shall be for her husband and he shall rule over her, the "he" does not refer to the husband, immediately antecedent?

 Maybe you are right but I seriously doubt it, in the light of other passages which plainly say what the text in Genesis 3: 15,16 appears to be saying.

[Hanseng]

Isa 3:12  [As for] my people, children [are] their oppressors, and women rule <04910> over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause [thee] to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.

Note that women ruling over men is likened to men being oppressed by children. Men ruled by women become objects of scorn and ridicule Same word used in Isaiah 3:12 as in Genesis 3:16.

Lamentations 5:8 uses the same word, saying that servants ruled over the conquered Jews. 

Joel 2:17 Some versions translate this word to make Israel a byword and mockery when they are ruled over by the heathen. How much more when women rule over men, especially in the spiritual realm, the very thing elements in Adventism desire.

Want a woman to rule over you? Kamala in 2028.

[Hanseng]

On 11/2/2026 at 12:03 PM, Kevin H said:

So we get a picture of a very dysfunctional family

This isn't evidence. It's speculation with a dose of pop psychology. No version I'm aware of supports your Hebrew scholar's view. With Stendahl's view of Galatians, about half of the Bible versions support his understanding of Galatians 3: 23-25,  as well as the context. Can you provide a commentary of two that support the view that the "he" in question is the serpent, not Adam? K+D does not.

There are those in the church who hold that only trained language scholars can properly understand Scripture. I'm not among that group

F.C. Gilbert was a Hebrew scholar in the eyes of some people. He came out with an interpretation of Daniel 8 "based on the Hebrew." W.W. Prescott demurred. If I remember correctly, Gilbert said the Hebrew supported a view [of the daily?] which has since been largely repudiated. If I remember correctly, Prescott pointed out that Gilbert's knowledge was not adequate to overthrow the work of numerous Hebrew scholars whose translation work did not support Gilbert's view. It's known as a private interpretation. Your "evidence" is quite thin. It is not the kind of evidence that I look for in determining the meaning of Scripture.