Biblical Ponderings

[wlotus]

To the woman [God] said, “...Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
~Genesis 3:16b, NKJV

In the later years of my identification as an evangelical Christian, I understood this account of God's word to Eve after Adam and she sinned to be a warning: God was warning Eve that because they were no longer sinless, men would oppress women, rather than women and men living and ruling the earth (not each other) as complete equals as Eve and Adam had done up to that point (Genesis 1:27-30). But it was only this afternoon that I realized God made no mention to Adam of a backlash against men because of the way they had oppressed women. It couldn't be because God (as the writer of this account knew God) did not know; according to the Bible, God knows everything. So was that part of God's word left out by the writers (or later editors), who were products of their misogynistic culture? Or, perhaps, did God not say anything to Adam about the inevitable backlash, because he knew Adam's sinful state would not allow him to hear and understand the danger of giving in to that sinful desire to rule over women?

Discuss.

Comments

[tracied.livejournal.com]

There is word about that. God's punishment to man would be that he would have to labour and work the earth, and be a labourer. There may be stuff left out, but I don't think so. My understanding of it is, that women would have pain in childbirht, they would desire their husbands but he would "rule" over her. Not in the I'm the boss of you kind of rule, but the responsibility for. And in her desiring of her husband, she would be disappointed because it would no longer be the close three way relationship between man, God and woman. Man's punishment would be the heavy responsibility of providing for and working land that would no longer be as fruitful as when they were in the garden. Which, I believe fits if you look at the area in which they lived.

But here is the beauty of it. Jesus changed all that. He brought grace. And woman no longer has to fear birth, and her desire can be for a deeper relationship with Jesus. Man and woman are equal. Different of course but equal. Man has grace. And he is instructed to love his wife, as Christ loves the church.

I don't know if that makes any sense. SO much of my faith is tied to the emotional, "knowing" in my spirit the truth, even though there is so much I don't understand and may never understand until I get to Heaven.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

It is unfortunate that many Christian men still use that verse to justify ruling over women. They are able to convince themselves of that, because the word translated "rule" is the Hebrew word "mashal". the creators of Strong's Concordance define "mashal" as follows:

a primitive root; to rule: (have, make to have) dominion, governor, reign (bear, cause to, have) rule, have power.

If the creators of Strong's can be believed, the verse as it was written in Hebrew by the author was not saying the man would merely have responsibility for the woman. It was saying the man would have dominion over her. If the author (Hebrew copier/editor) meant something softer than that, they would have chosen a different word.

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by this: Jesus changed all that. He brought grace. And woman no longer has to fear birth, and her desire can be for a deeper relationship with Jesus. Man and woman are equal. Different of course but equal. Man has grace. And he is instructed to love his wife, as Christ loves the church.

Women do have to fear childbirth. Mortality rates for women and babies are still extremely high in many parts of the world, regardless of what religion is practiced. Men (and women) still have to work, and Christianity has not really supported the idea of equality between men and women.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

In all fairness, there are some pockets of Christianity (http://www.cbeinternational.org) which fully support and teach the idea of equality between men and women (and not that "separate but equal" hockypock some Christians tout as "equality"). They are getting the message out there, but it's slow going, especially in parts of the country and parts of the world where patriarchal Christianity is still the status quo.

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

Oh to be sure, although I don't think egalitarianism is something Christianity, in general, has done much to support or promote, and I always tend to raise an eyebrow whenever someone says "different, of course, but equal" because, in my experience, it's generally used to justify unequal treatment.

[wlotus.livejournal.com]

That has been my experience, too. And the more they try to explain their thinking on it, the worse it sounds to me. I toss it all into the same "hockypock" bucket and leave it there.

[jane-etrix.livejournal.com]

the more they try to explain their thinking on it, the worse it sounds to me.

Too true!