either of God or man, she is the party held responsible. If she is not
possessed of sufficient mental capacity to judge for herself in all
things, how can she know when she should obey or when disobey? If
implicit obedience is her duty, is there any justice, then, in punishing
her for obeying the order of him whom she is bound to obey? Those who
construe this and other portions of the Word of God to suit themselves,
would protest loudly enough against the "manifest injustice" if it were
meted out to them. But we know there is no unrighteousness with God. The
Bible expressly declares that "God is no respecter of persons," and that
"his ways are true and righteous altogether."

If then we examine this text (Gen. iii, 16) candidly, even taking the
generally accepted translation, and construe it with the same fairness
with which we would construe a sentence the meaning of which was not in
dispute, the conclusion arrived at would be very different from what it
usually is; and it would be apparent that the words, "And thy desire
shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee," has reference to
the subject of generation, of which the entire passage treats. There
are, however, some commentators who incline to the opinion that the
words "and he shall rule over thee," might with equal propriety be
rendered, "He shall _have power with thee_." We know that at this very
time the promise of the Messiah--the seed that was to bruise the
serpent's head--was given to the woman. "He," thy husband, "shall have
power with thee," would not then be an inappropriate termination to the
sentence relating to generation. Raschi, a celebrated Hebrew writer and
rabbi, who flourished in the twelfth century, supports this reading, "He
shall have power with thee;" but the majority of commentators and the
Talmud are against such a rendering. It is to be borne in mind, however,
that the Talmud is not the Pentateuch, and that learned and sincerely
pious commentators have differed, and do so still, as widely as the