Cane Caldo has an excellent post today on the topic of the difference between the nature of temptation of men and women.
This is wrong. Men and women are even more different than that. Women are headstrong and challenging because they want what they want and they don’t give a damn about the whys and whatfors. In the female soul desire is mainlined. They want differently than we men do. The typical desire of a typical man is weighed thus: “Can I get the goods without getting in trouble?” A woman says to herself, “How do I get the goods without getting in trouble?” While the difference in words is subtle to the ear; the meanings are widely separated. The thought of doing without is a secondary consideration at best. That’s just in the nature of a woman, and why they need a leader.
Highlighting mine. I encourage you to read the whole post because it is short and extremely concise.
In particular, in the comments chokingonredpills and Oscar related this back to Genesis 3:16 which is God’s righteous judgment upon women. This is part of my response, and then I’m going to expound on it more.
“Genesis 3:16″ ~ chokingonredpills
Exactly! It’s a consequence of Original Sin and the Woman’s Curse that followed.
Be very careful because this is incorrect.
I would argue that hypergamy existed before the fall, and I would also argue that headship of the husband over the wife existed before the fall. Likewise, temptation existed before the fall as well or else how could Eve have been persuaded to be deceived lest she be tempted first.
The fact that Eve was able to be tempted and deceived by this specific phrasing:
Genesis 3:5 “For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.”
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.
It is clear that before the fall that the woman already had the capacity to be tempted to literally “become like God” which means that this is a part of her nature before the fall. It is not a consequence of sin but rather the way which woman was created.
Remember, it is the capacity to be tempted that gives us free will. Both men and women were created this way in order that we might choose God of our own free will rather than sin. This is the fundamental nature of Christianity.
Gen 3:16 gives the husband authority to rule — headship is different from authority — and then the New Covenant through Jesus takes back the authority and changes it to headship (Eph 5, 1 Cor 11, etc.) in order for the models of God-Jesus and Jesus-Church to be what husbands-wives strive for.
Nature of headship
The very nature of woman being able to be tempted in this way — a power play for power — means that headship before the fall must have existied. First, we must establish that authority is good. We know that is true because is the Creator and has all authority. His nature is that of love and goodness. Thus, by logical extension, authority is good.
Headship of the husband to the wife is meant for love, good, and edification of the woman just as God is the head of Christ and Christ the head of the Church.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I want you to understand that [a]Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of [b]Christ.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that of headship existing as an trait of creation of man and women, and not an extension of a curse of the fall. There are, of course, other logical arguments that argue headship before the fall as well.
We know that Adam failed in his headship for multiple reasons which God has outlined in Genesis 3:
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; 18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field; 19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
Note the “and” in the middle of the statement.
Adam’s first sin is of not being the head — Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife.Adam’s second sin is disobedience to God — and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it.
Note: the Hebrew does not have conjunctions such as “and” so the above is incorrect. However, the point still stands because Adam listened to his wife rather than God.
If there was no headship and man and woman were “equal” before the fall, would Adam be punished because he listened to his wife? No, because they would have been “equal.” Yet, God punishes Adam because he listens to his wife.
Likewise, it was only until after both of them ate the fruit that their eyes were opened. If Adam and Eve were equal then why wouldn’t their eyes have been opened after only Eve had eaten? This goes back to the command that Adam is put in charge of the garden, and then his wife is made a helpmeet for him (Gen 2). But they are both overall tasked to the garden (Gen 1).
Instead of being the head of his wife and chastising her when she brought him the fruit saying “God said don’t eat this fruit,” he instead ate of it and disobeyed. Then Adam later plays the blame game:
11 And he said, Who told thee that thou wast naked? Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?
12 And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.
The main point that I’m trying to make with this section is that we don’t truly understand the nature of God’s creation because we don’t look closely at the Scriptures.
If we fall into the trap of “woman’s nature” is that way because of the original sin, we miss the importance of free will.
Yes, God created man and woman with the ability to be tempted. What He created was very good because it gave us free will.
Instead of exercising our free will to choose good, we often blame our sin upon the first sin. This is another way in which we don’t embrace how God created us to be, and instead play the blame game just as Adam did. “Well, they’re only acting that way because Adam and Eve sinned.”
No. Men and women sin because they CHOOSE to act that way. To play the blame game like this is to choose the female hypoagency that the manosphere often decries. The ability to be tempted for power grabbing is a part of how God created women to be. Women choose to disobey God and give into temptation rather than follow God and do what He says. Likewise, the ability of husbands to fail to act as the head in marriage is husband giving into temptation rather than choosing to obey God.
Churchianity is based on hyperagency of husbands and hypoagency of wives and children. This is the say that the husband is responsible for making his wife happy, and he is responsible for the choices of his wife and children. This is false.
We are responsible for choosing what is good and right according to God for what we are responsible for. For single men that is ourselves. This is the very nature of dominion. For married men that is choosing what is good and right for you, your wife, and your children. However, if they choose to not submit or disobey respectively then those consequences do not fall on the husband — they fall on the wife and children.
In the case of children, the father often takes responsibility for the children because it is his duty to correctly train up his children. But if he does and they continue to make the same mistakes it is on them. Continuing to absolve others of responsibility will lead to spoiled child syndrome.
Paul’s exhortation on women
This is one of the most difficult passages in the Scriptures for most modern Christians because most Churchians and egalitarians try to eliminate these verses or attempt to twist them to mean something else:
1 Timothy 2:12 But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. 13 For it was Adam who was first [h]created, and then Eve. 14 And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, [i]fell into transgression. 15 But women will be [j]preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with [k]self-restraint.
Like in 1 Corinthians 11, Paul affirms the headship model here. However, the most interesting part is verse 15. Why would women be preserved through bearing children in faith, love, sanctity, and self restraint?
Note the nature of verse 12 and compare it to verse 15. Women were/are power grabbing within the church and marriage. Obviously, this goes back to the creation order and how the original sin took place.
The interesting part if the solution. The solution is based on the greatest commandment and the second which is like it. Women are not exhorted in the Scriptures to agapao love their husbands, and it has been some debate within the Christian manosphere blogs if this is even possible. This is a debate for another time. However, we know that women are able to love their children with agapao love.
Matthew 22: 36 Master, which is the great commandment in the law? 37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. 38 This is the first and great commandment. 39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
When women have children they are able to understand what it means to love another person unconditionally. This is the reason why they are saved through childbearing in faith, love, sanctity, and self restraint. It is this understanding of loving another unconditionally through experience which changes their mindset so that they can truly understand what it means to love God with all of their heart and love their neighbors as themselves.
I would say that women have this capacity, but it is not fully realized until they have children. Hence, why I believe that the married manospherian women are correct that it is possible for women to love unconditionally, but they need to have that revelation through the experience of childbearing and children.
Women that only “love” selfishly are those that abort their children, or they divorce which rips apart their childrens’ lives. They are not Christians and not of God. They are not preserved through bearing children in faith, love, sanctity, and self restraint because they eschew them all in the name of selfish power grabbing.
Conclusions
- God created humans — male and female — with the ablity to be tempted, often by different things because of different responsibilities.
- Headship of the husband to the wife was present before the fall, and it was good.
- Adam’s sin is of non-headship (listening to his wife) and eating of the fruit of the tree. Take this lesson from Adam because this was before he ate of the tree. Be the head in your marriage because that is the way men and women were created.
- For women, power grabbing is one of those things that they were created with the ability to be tempted with. Saying part of the created nature was a result of original sin is to say that God’s creation was not good. Don’t do this.
- Churchianity is based on hyperagency of husbands and hypoagency of wives and children. This is false. Husbands have the responsibility to be the head and to call out sin and not give into it, but they don’t have responsibility for the choices of their wives.
- Wives learn how to love unconditionally because they are preserved through bearing children in faith, love, sanctity, and self restraint as per 1 Timothy 2. Abortion and divorce are selfish power grabs.
These are all essentials that need to be learned in order to have a correct view of what is GOOD and what is NOT GOOD. We know that which God created is GOOD and that which man stepped into when he sinned is NOT GOOD. But it is easy to get some of what is GOOD and NOT GOOD confused. If we confuse GOOD and NOT GOOD we deceive ourselves.
Christianity and masculinity 
Genesis 3:16 isn’t about hypergamy. It is about a desire to control.
The phrase “desire after her husband” means she wants to control him, just as it is to describe what sin wants to do to Cain in the next chapter.
@ ar10308
Yes, I know. I would argue that hypergamy was there before the fall as I was listing things that I believed were there before the fall.
However, you are correct it is not related directly to the power-grabbing nature of women that we were discussing.
Some of the most selfless women I’ve ever known were Catholic nuns who never had any children. So I’m not convinced that child-bearing is necessary. Although my question is whether the Greek there meant bearing children, raising them, or both/either?
@ Donal
Good point. I would suspect that is part of the “gift of celibacy” to put it into 1 Corinthians 7 terms. Rather, if you are single and devoted to Christ all out you can learn to love God with all your heart, and that will likewise spill over to human relationships loving others as Christ has loved us.
As for childbearing:
G5042 — τεκνογονία — teknogonia — tek-nog-on-ee’-ah
From the same as G5041; childbirth (parentage), that is, (by implication) maternity (the performance of maternal duties): – childbearing.
G5041 — τεκνογονέω — teknogoneō — tek-nog-on-eh’-o
From a compound of G5043 and the base of G1096; to be a child bearer, that is, parent (mother): – bear children.
G5043 is Teknon which is children, and G1096 is Ginomai which means to cause to be or to come to pass.
It seems like teknogonia in particular by implication is about childbearing and parental duties. So both… especially since faith, love, sanctity, and self restraint are not one time deals. They are actions.
“15 But women will be [j]preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with [k]self-restraint.”
Good point DS. Curious, isn’t the greek for “woman” also the same for “wife”? That is, they are the same word and usage depends on context?
@ Donal
Yep.
G1135 — γυνή — gunē — goo-nay’
Probably from the base of G1096; a woman; specifically a wife: – wife, woman.
Usage depends on context Same with men/husbands as well:
G435 — ἀνήρ — anēr — an’-ayr
A primary word (compare G444); a man (properly as an individual male): – fellow, husband, man, sir.
Typically, if the Scriptures talk about all men… such as Jesus’ self descriptor “Son of Man” then it will use “anthropos” as a human race type of man.
Thanks DS.
What about Hebrew? That had different words for man/husband, woman/wife, right?
It’s always about Choice. Choose God or choose against God. That, at the end, is the meaning of Life.
It was kind of amazing that I was reading 2 Timothy this morning, and reflecting on those passages. (Though a few verses up are probably more “controversial” these days) And the fascinating part, after reflecting and listening to God, is that every discussion trying to argue away this topic can never get around this concept: How do you call yourself a Christian if God isn’t Faithful?
That’s really the Sin & Blasphemy that comes up in response to these passages. God repeated this message, in Love, multiple times for a reason. He’s not sold anyone out: he’s telling us how to Live and how to Love him. Is it hard? At times. But it requires *choosing* God. That means choosing your Soul over your Temptations. Which is the message a sinful World simply does not want to hear.
@ Donal
Not as familiar with Hebrew yet.
Based on the word usage from Genesis for Adam’s “wife” (e.g. Eve) that I’ve looked over it may be unclear:
Adam calls her “woman” and then it uses the same word when God talks about a man leaving father and mother, cleaving to his “wife” and becoming one flesh.
H802
נשׁים אשּׁה — ‘ishshâh nâshı̂ym — ish-shaw’, naw-sheem’
The first form is the feminine of H376 or H582; the second form is an irregular plural; a woman (used in the same wide sense as H582).: – [adulter]ess, each, every, female, X many, + none, one, + together, wife, woman. Often unexpressed in English.
Wow, you really covered a lot here today. Great job!
This is a pretty good post. I do agree with Donal, however, that women can love sacraficially if they haven’t had children. The Greatest Commandment applies to ALL of us, after all. Meaning it has to be possible. The thing is, we each have to choose to do it in each and every situation, or sinfully choose not to do it. I suspect that it would become easier to choose to do it after having children, but I could be wrong about that.
Also, the part where you mentioned Eve bringing the fruit to Adam to eat is incorrect. The Scripture said that Adam was with Eve, so he must’ve been there the whole time.
@ FBNF
Not quite.
Genesis 3:6 When the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was desirable to make one wise, she took from its fruit and ate; and she gave also to her husband with her, and he ate.
Hence, what I said is correct… Eve brought Adam the fruit (from the tree). But we don’t know if she was tempted alone or if they were together when she was tempted.
@ DS,
That verse doesn’t say she brought Adam the fruit. It says she gave it to him WITH HER. Meaning he was already there in the immediate area, she didn’t have to go off and find him.
@ FBNF
You’re wrong here. Bringing and giving are two different things.
You can bring something (e.g. brought food from the store, or in this case take it from the tree and bring it to where they are together), and then give it to them in person (e.g. hand it off to them).
Hence, why I said when Eve brought the fruit to Adam, and [when she was about to give it to him] he should have chastised her.
1. She was tempted (v1-5) — likely alone as Scriptures mention Adam was not deceived 1 Tim 2:13-14
2. Adam and Eve likely have a discussion and Adam chooses his wife over God (v17 “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife”)
3. Eve grabs and the fruit and eats, and brings and gives it to her husband and he eats.
The text implies that Eve is alone when tempted, and it also implies a conversation between Adam and Eve. We don’t know if the conversation was had after Eve had brought the fruit, or if it was after she had brought the fruit and eat it, or if it was after she had brought the fruit, eaten it, and then given it to Adam.
Thus, we don’t know if Adam gave in because Eve had already eaten the fruit or because they agreed to do it together and disobey God or some potential other reason I’m missing.
@Deep Strength –
Do you have an email address where I could contact you? There’s something I want to ask you about without posting it in the comments where anyone could find it with a Google search. You can email me by putting a dot between my first and last names and using that as a Gmail address. (And after you do, feel free to delete this comment, which will be completely off-topic no matter which discussion thread I post it in.)
“Yes, God created man and woman with the ability to be tempted. What He created was very good because it gave us free will.”
I have been reading CS Lewis’s science fiction books of late. How I missed them all these years is beyond me.
In his second book, he talks a great deal about the nature of the creation story and the fall. If I am correct, and noting I haven’t finished the book yet (no spoilers please), he says that God created the one rule to give us the opportunity to be obedient. There was no other opportunity for real obedience in the garden. Everything else that was KNOWN was permissible and good. (The forbidden tree was that of the Knowledge of Good and Evil).
In this case, how would man prior to the fall have exerted headship over the woman outside of this one rule? I guess my idea of headship is leadership exerted towards another being who is capable of making another possible choice (someone with moral agency and not an infant or animal) concerning things most especially that can cause sin and things that require obedience even without explanation. I guess Adam could have made decisions for them as a pair but had she chosen to walk this way or that or eaten this or that, it would not have been disobedient to God’s rule and thus not sinful. I have puzzled over this a bit. It’s hard as a sinful woman to see what headship looks like outside the context of sin, disobedience, and it’s consequences. But then it is hard to see God outside that context too. I guess that makes sense since I know no other way. I can’t imagine real innocence of being.
I mean, was there another way Adam and Eve could have sinned since there was only one rule? That God did not put in place a set of rules in the garden as he did for Moses is interesting. A few from the 10 could have applied but then I guess murder or theft or bearing false witness or blasphemy etc might have made no sense to innocents or as I think Lewis alludes to, to even mention such possibilities in the garden would have been to corrupt innocence, a sinful thing in and of itself and the very thing Satan did.
And as a side note, the books are excellent for any who have not read them. I am enjoying them greatly.
Good post, DS.
@ happyhen11
Yep, it took both of them sinning and eating the fruit before their eyes were opened. Eve ate and her eyes weren’t opened; it was only after they both ate that their eyes were opened. Hence, Adam was punished for listening to his wife over God.
I don’t think of Christianity in terms of rules, and I don’t think the story in the garden makes that much sense either thought of in that way. The interesting part of Christianity is that if you focus in on rules then you miss the entire point.
Galatians 5:1 It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery.
The fundamental nature of Christianity lies in relationships with God and with others (e.g. love God with all your heart, soul, mind, strength, and love your neighbor as yourself).
Insomuch as Adam and Eve should have focused on the freedom they were given in all creation to have dominion, multiply, and the like in it, they instead chose to focus on rules and what they could not do — and eventually did — instead of an abundant life.
This is why focus on the law leads to a Pharisaical nature, while focusing on love and relationships leads to what the Father created and Christ died for.
Gotcha. Legalism is something our Church actively discourages as a failing in the basic understanding of sin as disease and not so much as crime. And thus the sacrifice of Christ is not so much that of retribution and punishment but of healing the breech and setting us free from the disease of sin that leads to rule of Death. As Fr Stephen Freeman writes ” Christ did not die in order to make bad men good – he died in order to make dead men live.”
I speak only in terms of rules as that is the language Lewis chooses and a language I think is apt to the story he is telling. None of his allegories are literal interpretations of scripture obviously. As much as Aslan is Christ in Lewis’s Narnia, it is not a complete parallel though a very good one. One I guess could just as easily say “prescription for continued health and well being” as “rule” for God is the Great Physician. I guess my thought, and probably more a thinking out loud/rhetorical one, is imagining what would headship have been in the garden just as imagining what walking and talking with God would have been or what marriage was in the garden. Thank you for writing this post. It has given me much to think about.
@happyhen11 –
In this case, how would man prior to the fall have exerted headship over the woman outside of this one rule?
One way that springs immediately to my mind is that Adam would have been acting as project leader in their work taking care of the Garden. I work as a computer programmer in a small team, and the project leader’s role is to make sure everyone’s working on the same thing. “This week we’re going to work on feature X. Bug Y is important too, so we’ll get to that next week.” Similarly, if Adam and Eve were cooperating as leader and helper on the task of taking care of the Garden, he might have been saying things like, “Okay, today let’s trim the roses. Tomorrow we’ll go check on the mangoes, and see if we need to start a new row of trees yet.” And Eve could have offered plenty of suggestions and advice without trying to usurp the row of leader: “By the way, Adam, I noticed the petunias yesterday. I think they could use some work soon.” “All right Eve, we’ll do those tomorrow and we’ll check the mangoes next week.”
I’m sure there are other ways, but that’s one that comes naturally to my mind.
“Hence, what I said is correct… Eve brought Adam the fruit (from the tree). But we don’t know if she was tempted alone or if they were together when she was tempted.”
New here so sorry if I get the formatting wrong.
You insist that Adam was elsewhere, but the scripture is not clear, due to the lack of small words. Many translations add the words “who was” between “husband” and “with” (ESV: “…and she also gave some to her husband who was with her”), presumably for clarification. Are they in error?
Scripture seems to indicate that he was right there, and God’s judgement on Adam would tend to indicate this.
“Eve ate and her eyes weren’t opened; it was only after they both ate that their eyes were opened. Hence, Adam was punished for listening to his wife over God.”
Well spotted. I’ve never noticed that before. Thank you.
@ Wizard Prang
Most analyses I’ve seen suggest that Eve was tempted alone. If you search for “was eve tempted alone” these three will pop up immediately:
https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/adam-and-eve/was-adam-with-eve-when-she-spoke-to-the-serpent/
http://www.tlogical.net/adameve.htm
http://www.godandscience.org/doctrine/adam_with_eve_at_fall.html
The TL;DR lines of evidence are as follows:
1. Given that Adam was “with her” when they ate the fruit, why would the Scripture leave out Adam when Eve was being tempted?
Gen 3:1a “Now the serpent was more crafty than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said to the woman, And he said to the woman”
This is the Hebrew word “with” which is not present during any of the serpent-woman conversation in v1-5 but is present in v6 “with her” husband:
H5973 — עם — ‛im — eem
From H6004; adverb or preposition, with (that is, in conjunction with), in varied applications; specifically equally with; often with prepositional prefix (and then usually unrepresented in English): – accompanying, against, and, as (X long as), before, beside, by (reason of), for all, from (among, between), in, like, more than, of, (un-) to, with (-al).
2. 1 Timothy 2 — Eve was deceived but Adam wasn’t. If Adam had listened to the serpent he would’ve been deceived.
3. Adam would’ve blamed the serpent rather than his wife.
Gen 3:12 The man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate.”
4. Adam is punished for listening to his wife and not the serpent.
Gen 3:17a Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
5. God told Adam not to eat of the tree, and the serpent starts by spreading subtle lies:
“From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not [n]eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.”
Gen 3:3b ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’”
If Adam was there, he would have been able to tell the serpent “you’re lying!” when the serpent says […] or touch it, […]” as that’s not what God had said. Once you start to introduce subtle lies, it’s easier to spread more lies because of deviation from the truth.
Of course, this may also indicate that Adam may have failed to communicate God’s command directly to his wife.
Conclusion:
Basically, v1-5 implies that the woman was alone based on the text, and the rest of Gen 3 of Adam blaming Eve and God punishing Adam for listening to his wife also imply that he was not with her when she was tempted. Likwise, it does imply that there was a conversation post-temptation where Adam was convinced to choose his wife over God.
I’m confident saying this with 99% certainty that Eve was tempted alone, and then Adam was convinced by his wife to disobey God.
Greetings
I’m a newly convert from Denmark, just had my eyes opened (for the 2th time) this summer and I am studying the bible intensely thise days and find your blog to be very helpful. It’s nice to see that others try to find out about the truth, and not just what they want to be the truth – your will, not our will, God.
Bless you, american brothers and sisters.
“And let those who love you be like the sun when he emerges in all his strength!” – Judges 5,31
@Faitos:
Welcome!
Pingback: A detailed timeline and how to guide on the process of finding a wife | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere
Pingback: Insecurity underlies the human condition and reveals our need for a Savior | Christianity and masculinity
The part about becoming a mother leading to the capacity for selfless love caught my eye and reminded me of things I’ve read in neuroscience studies. When a woman is pregnant her brain literally undergoes transformation in certain areas that relate to love, particularly in relation to expression of the neuropeptides oxytocin and dopamine. Women are biologically more capable of love after a healthy pregnancy and birth.