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.
- 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.