Superb work on the hermeneutics here! The widow exception in verse 9 really is the linchpin, when I encountered it years ago studying covenant theology it shifted my whole framework. The argument from Reformed principles like general equity alongside redemptive trajectory builds a case thats hard to refute. I appreciate how thorough this was without losing the thread across 27 subponts.
I agree that "some laws regulate sinful or sub-optimal social structures without endorsing them as God’s permanent will ... [these laws] (a) regulate rather than establish a practice, (b) lack grounding in creation theology, (c) protect the vulnerable within problematic structures..."
I suggest that 'Regulatory and Protective Principle' would be a better term than 'Concession Principle'. People always use Matthew 19:8 as an example of the so-called concession principle. But that verse is the only one they cite. Can you give other examples of 'the concession principle'? I can't.
I don't agree that Matthew 19:8 is about a concession for divorce for hardness of heart. In Matthew 19:8 is Jesus telling the hard-hearted Pharisees (and the crowd who are listening) that Deuteronomy 21:1 mentions how Moses reluctantly suffered hard-hearted men divorcing their wives, but that the purpose of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was not to give hard-hearted men a concessive permission to divorce their wives, it was to regulate (restrict) a husband's right to REMARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE. It prohibited a man from remarrying a woman he had divorced if she had married another man afterwards and that second marriage of hers had ended.
It's a misnomer to say that Matthew 19:8 (or Deuteronomy 24:1) exemplify a 'concession' principle. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 exemplifies the Regulatory and Protective Principle in Old Testament Law. Jesus was denouncing the Pharisees and religious leaders who were fixating on Deuteronomy 24:1 to boost their arrogant male-privilege, and were ignoring the purpose of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which was to protect women from hard-hearted men.
Thank you for your question. I am aware of the controversy and the Susan Foh paper. I should have quoted the updated ESV version (your desire shall be for your husband). With regard to the meaning of the passage, I am not a Hebrew scholar and I was drawing from Phillip Payne's interpretation in The Bible and Biblical Womanhood, chapter 1. "Sin desires Cain, which means that sin desires to control or manipulate Cain. Similarly, “Your desire will be for your husband” probably means “Your desire will be to control or manipulate your husband.” The fall had transformed the relationship of Adam and Eve from sharing dominion over God’s creation into a fierce power struggle, with each party trying to control the other." The exegesis, as you know, is derived from a parallel passage in Gen 4:7. I understand that even this meaning is contested. I have been persuaded by Payne's interpretation based on the parallel passage.
I respect Philip Payne but I think his interpretation of Gen 3:16 is wrong. He more or less replicated Susan Foh’s error, which effectively fed steroids to hard-hearted men who believed they are entitled to dominate, control and abuse women.
Andrew A. Macintosh did a thorough study of the word תְּשׁוּקָה (teshûqâ): “The Meaning of Hebrew תשׁוקה,” Journal of Semitic Studies 61 (2016):365-387.
His conclusion —
“In summary, I conclude that ‘desire’ is not a proper rendering of the Hebrew word תְּשׁוּקָה in the Hebrew Bible or in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rather, on the evidence of comparative philology and of the ancient versions, ‘concern, preoccupation, (single-minded) devotion, focus’, appears to be more likely.”
Superb work on the hermeneutics here! The widow exception in verse 9 really is the linchpin, when I encountered it years ago studying covenant theology it shifted my whole framework. The argument from Reformed principles like general equity alongside redemptive trajectory builds a case thats hard to refute. I appreciate how thorough this was without losing the thread across 27 subponts.
Re the 'Concession Principle'
I agree that "some laws regulate sinful or sub-optimal social structures without endorsing them as God’s permanent will ... [these laws] (a) regulate rather than establish a practice, (b) lack grounding in creation theology, (c) protect the vulnerable within problematic structures..."
I suggest that 'Regulatory and Protective Principle' would be a better term than 'Concession Principle'. People always use Matthew 19:8 as an example of the so-called concession principle. But that verse is the only one they cite. Can you give other examples of 'the concession principle'? I can't.
I don't agree that Matthew 19:8 is about a concession for divorce for hardness of heart. In Matthew 19:8 is Jesus telling the hard-hearted Pharisees (and the crowd who are listening) that Deuteronomy 21:1 mentions how Moses reluctantly suffered hard-hearted men divorcing their wives, but that the purpose of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 was not to give hard-hearted men a concessive permission to divorce their wives, it was to regulate (restrict) a husband's right to REMARRIAGE AFTER DIVORCE. It prohibited a man from remarrying a woman he had divorced if she had married another man afterwards and that second marriage of hers had ended.
It's a misnomer to say that Matthew 19:8 (or Deuteronomy 24:1) exemplify a 'concession' principle. Deuteronomy 24:1-4 exemplifies the Regulatory and Protective Principle in Old Testament Law. Jesus was denouncing the Pharisees and religious leaders who were fixating on Deuteronomy 24:1 to boost their arrogant male-privilege, and were ignoring the purpose of Deuteronomy 24:1-4 which was to protect women from hard-hearted men.
Thank you for this Barbara. I will study this further and reconsider my language. I think what you are saying is correct.
Why did you use this translation of Genesis 3:16? — “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
The ESV renounced that translation after receiving so much pushback about it. Why are you still keeping it alive?
Thank you for your question. I am aware of the controversy and the Susan Foh paper. I should have quoted the updated ESV version (your desire shall be for your husband). With regard to the meaning of the passage, I am not a Hebrew scholar and I was drawing from Phillip Payne's interpretation in The Bible and Biblical Womanhood, chapter 1. "Sin desires Cain, which means that sin desires to control or manipulate Cain. Similarly, “Your desire will be for your husband” probably means “Your desire will be to control or manipulate your husband.” The fall had transformed the relationship of Adam and Eve from sharing dominion over God’s creation into a fierce power struggle, with each party trying to control the other." The exegesis, as you know, is derived from a parallel passage in Gen 4:7. I understand that even this meaning is contested. I have been persuaded by Payne's interpretation based on the parallel passage.
Thanks for interacting, Ralph.
I respect Philip Payne but I think his interpretation of Gen 3:16 is wrong. He more or less replicated Susan Foh’s error, which effectively fed steroids to hard-hearted men who believed they are entitled to dominate, control and abuse women.
Andrew A. Macintosh did a thorough study of the word תְּשׁוּקָה (teshûqâ): “The Meaning of Hebrew תשׁוקה,” Journal of Semitic Studies 61 (2016):365-387.
His conclusion —
“In summary, I conclude that ‘desire’ is not a proper rendering of the Hebrew word תְּשׁוּקָה in the Hebrew Bible or in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rather, on the evidence of comparative philology and of the ancient versions, ‘concern, preoccupation, (single-minded) devotion, focus’, appears to be more likely.”
Here is my interpretation of Genesis 3:16 —
https://cryingoutforjustice.blog/2016/04/17/the-womans-desire-in-genesis-316-lets-be-consistent-with-the-context-and-with-actual-life-pt-2-of-2/
Thanks Barbara. I will take a look and reconsider my position.