In the previous post on not curses but punishments, I discussed how it was solely the serpent and the ground that were cursed. Adam and Eve were not cursed by God but rather punished. Like the previous post, I believe that God will open your eyes on this post to see the Truth of the punishments.
Now, let’s take a look at the specific punishments that God gave for Adam and Eve.
Genesis 3:14 The Lord God said to the serpent,
“Because you have done this, Cursed are you more than all cattle, And more than every beast of the field; On your belly you will go, And dust you will eat All the days of your life; 15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall [d]bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.
16 To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply Your pain [e]in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children; Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.”
17 Then to Adam He said, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree about which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat from it’;
Cursed is the ground because of you; In [f]toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the [g]plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread, Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”
There are two specific punishments given to Eve:
- I will greatly multiply Your pain [e]in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children;
- Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.
There are two specific punishments given to Adam:
- Cursed is the ground because of you; In [f]toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the [g]plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread,
- Till you return to the ground, Because from it you were taken; For you are dust, And to dust you shall return.”
One of the points that Churchians and egalitarians like to tout is that the ‘curses’ — or rather punishments — given to Adam and Eve were broken by Jesus on the cross. Specifically, the ‘desire for the husband and he will rule over you.’ However, we know this is incorrect. Women still have pain in child birthing, men still have to toil, and we still have a physical death. These punishments are only redeemed when a new heaven and new earth is created by God in Revelation 21.
Revelation 21:Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth; for the first heaven and the first earth passed away, and there is no longer any sea. 2 And I saw the holy city, new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, made ready as a bride adorned for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne, saying, “Behold, the tabernacle of God is among men, and He will [a]dwell among them, and they shall be His people, and God Himself will be among them[b], 4 and He will wipe away every tear from their eyes; and there will no longer be any death; there will no longer be any mourning, or crying, or pain; the first things have passed away.”
Going back to the passage:
I will greatly multiply Your pain [e]in childbirth, In pain you will bring forth children;
H6093 — ‛itstsâbôn — its-tsaw-bone’ — From H6087; worrisomeness, that is, labor or pain: – sorrow, toil. Total KJV occurrences: 3
In fact, there was pain and labor in child birth before the fall. If you look at the particular wording, it specifically says that pain and labor in child birthing will be greatly multiplied or increased. That doesn’t mean there was no pain or labor before the fall; rather, there was pain and labor but after the fall it was greatly increased. Indeed, as the punishment for sin, we can say that women’s child birthing has been made more difficult.
This is an important point because most people, even Christians, believe that pain is an evil thing. Pain is actually a good thing when viewed through the lens of people born with insensitivity to pain. For example, the fact that fire and boiling water is hot is taken for granted for parents trying to teach young children to stay away from the stove. This is not the case for those without the ability to experience pain which often leads to dangerous situations including physical scarring if not death.
Interestingly, the same thing happened with Adam with work.
Cursed is the ground because of you; In [f]toil you will eat of it All the days of your life. 18 “Both thorns and thistles it shall grow for you; And you will eat the [g]plants of the field; 19 By the sweat of your face You will eat bread,
Genesis 2:15 Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it. 16 The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “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.”
It’s not that Adam did not work before the fall. The Scriptures in the prior chapter, Genesis 2, indicate that it was Adam’s job before the fall to be a steward of the garden. Now, because of his sin the ground was cursed. Thus, men’s work has been made more difficult.
Now, to bring this back somewhat of a full circle to other things I’ve written about. I have already explored the strong case for why there was headship before the fall. Let’s take a look at it from the perspective of punishments.
Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.
Egalitarians believe that prior to the fall Adam and Eve were equal. They also believe that since Eve was ‘cursed’ by God — which we now know to be incorrect — that the coming of Jesus and His redemption that husbands and wives should be equal in marriage. However, we don’t find this in the Scriptures even in the New Testament. There are many passages that affirm the headship-submission model: Ephesians 5, Colossians 3, Titus 2, 1 Corinthians 11, 1 Corinthians 14, Titus 2, 1 Peter 3.
Let’s analyze the format of the punishments. Each of the punishments was not something new. Woman already had pain and labor in child birthing; it was just made more difficult. Man already tended to the garden; it was just made more difficult. Man was already formed from the dust; death reigned through sin, and he returned to the dust.
The logical conclusion is that headship was already present prior to the fall. After the fall, God redirected the desire of the woman to be like God instead toward man giving her a choice to want to be like him (evil, usurpation) or to be submissive to him (good). There is evidence for this.
Genesis 3:2 The woman said to the serpent, “From the fruit of the trees of the garden we may eat; 3 but from the fruit of the tree which is in the middle of the garden, God has said, ‘You shall not eat from it or touch it, or you will die.’” 4 The serpent said to the woman, “You surely will not die! 5 For God knows that in the day you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 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.
We can see that the temptation that Satan used for Eve is stimulating her innate hypergamy. You will be like God. This is why I come to the conclusion that hypergamy is a feature of women, not a bug. It was present before the fall because Eve had the ability to be tempted by it. Like any feature, it can go out of haywire without self control. In this case, instead of eating of the tree of life, she chose the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Instead, when God punishes Eve, He redirects her desire — her hypergamy — toward her husband.
Yet your desire will be for your husband, And he will rule over you.
In a Christian understanding of attraction, I explored the uses of the word desire in Hebrew. It’s used two more times. Once Genesis 4 and another time in Song of Songs.
- Gen 3:16c Yet your desire (teshûqâh) will be for your husband, And he will rule (mâshal) over you.”
- Gen 4:7 If you do well, [e]will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire (teshûqâh) is for you, but you must master (mâshal) it.
- Song of Solomon 7:10 — The Union of Love — “I am my beloved’s, And his desire (teshûqâh) is for me. 11 “Come, my beloved, let us go out into the [l]country, Let us spend the night in the villages. 12 “Let us rise early and go to the vineyards; Let us see whether the vine has budded And its blossoms have opened, And whether the pomegranates have bloomed. There I will give you my love. 13 “The mandrakes have given forth fragrance; And over our doors are all choice fruits, Both new and old, Which I have saved up for you, my beloved.
What is the choice? The fruit of the tree tells the tale. It is the knowledge between good and evil. What is good and what is evil? Good is the choice to submit to her husband. Evil is the choice to rebel against and usurp her husband.
The usage in Genesis 4 describes the sin desire that wants to rule over Cain. Likewise, the sinful desire of women in the punishment is to not just usurp headship but also the desire to be like man. However, appropriately subjugated desire mastered through submission to headship results in sexual desire in marriage both for her and her husband toward her as seen in Song of Songs.
We understand that feminism and egalitarianism does not push women toward independence from man or even equality with man. Rather, feminism pushes women to be like man, and for men to take the subordinate role in a relationship to be like women. This has been crassly termed by feminists and anti-feminists alike as penis envy.
Now, let’s put all of the parts together.
Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve lived in perfect headship-submission in harmony. However, after the fall, Eve gets her just desserts punishment from eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil — the choice to choose between good (submission) or evil (usurpation, rebellion, desire to be like man) in her relationship with her husband. Prior to the fall, her submission was present and easy; after the fall, her choice is more difficult, much like the other punishments.
Additionally, there is some interesting information in regard to the punishments.
1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.
1 Timothy 2:9 Likewise, I want women to adorn themselves with proper clothing, [g]modestly and discreetly, not with braided hair and gold or pearls or costly garments, 10 but rather by means of good works, as is proper for women making a claim to godliness. 11 A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 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.
There is a reason why work for men and child birthing and submission for women were responsibilities before the fall and emphasized in punishment. It is also reflected in the nature of responsibilities of each sex post-salvation. Paul’s inspiration from God was extremely profound.
Conclusions
Let’s pull back all of the blinders and gaze upon the Truth.
- The serpent and the ground were cursed, not Adam and Eve.
- Adam and Eve were not cursed but punished.
- The punishments were not original. They had roots in the nature of man and woman and their responsibilities before the fall. These are:
- Death — man started from dust and returned to dust. God told Adam about this punishment prior to eating the fruit in Genesis 2.
- Toil and work — man stewarded the garden before the fall and had to work harder after the fall. In Genesis 2, God tells man to be a steward of the garden. His job is made more difficult by sin.
- Labor and pain — women had pain and labor in child birthing before the fall but it was multiplied more after the fall. Her job is made more difficult by sin.
- Submission — women desired to be like God, but God redirected the desire toward the husband thus giving woman a choice between good and evil. A woman can give into sin desire if she wants to usurp the husband’s position to be like man, or she can choose righteousness by submitting to her husband to be like woman. Her responsibility is made more difficult by sin.
- In context: Prior to the fall, Adam and Eve lived in perfect headship-submission in harmony. However, after the fall, Eve gets her just desserts punishment from eating of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil — the choice to choose between good (submission) or evil (usurpation, rebellion, desire to be like man) in her relationship toward her husband. Prior to the fall, her submission was present and easy; after the fall, her choice is more difficult, much like the other punishments.
There is beauty in each of these punishments to man and woman.
As I wrote in God is good, hard toil and hard child birthing lead to immense satisfaction and joy afterward. There is almost nothing more beautiful than a mother holding her new born baby after a hard labor. For men, a hard days work and relaxation afterward is one of the most satisfying feelings in the world. Likewise, there is beauty in the the choice of a wife to submit to her husband in the oneness that it creates.
Finally, God was gracious in not letting man be immortalized in sin if he had partaken of the tree of life after partaking of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Christianity and masculinity 
Pingback: Not curses but punishments (Genesis 3) Part 2 – Manosphere.org
You sir deserve a standing ovation for your labors. Well thought out and well stated.
The word “yet” always confused me because I read it to tie back to childbirth. Meaning childbirth is going to suck but you’ll still desire your husband sexually.
@ Marie
There isn’t a “yet” or an “and” really. Hebrew doesn’t have all of the parts of sentences that English does, so contextual evidence must be used to determine the meaning.
If you translate the Hebrew literally it says:
Obviously, English translation interpolates.
Since it is God talking we infer that 1 becomes 2:
1. “toward woman said”
2. Unto woman [he/God] said,
Then we infer since God is speaking that He’s giving the punishment.
1. “increase increase sorrow pregnancy, sorrow beget sons,”
2. [I will] “greatly multiply” [thy] sorrow [in] child birthing, [in] sorrow “thou shalt bring forth” children
It goes to the husband it’s another statement since there’s no conjunctions. The subject is woman, so all of the statements are directed at her like in the previous statements.
1. “desire toward man/husband, he rules”
2. [Your] desire [is] toward [your] husband, he [will] rule [over you]
Thus, this becomes this:
Of course, we look to the Hebrew scholars to make a right translation knowing they know the general flow of the language. The translation I used above is NASB which uses “yet” while I used KJV in this comment which uses “and.” There is no conjunction there in Hebrew so the translators just picked a conjunction. Don’t put much stock into that conjunction as it doesn’t exist.
Here’s some resources if you want to look at the Hebrew/Greek:
Good stuff!
The curse of Adam is that enjoyable satisfying work becomes drudgery.
“After the fall, God redirected the desire of the woman to be like God instead toward man giving her a choice to want to be like him (evil, usurpation) or to be submissive to him (good). ”
Hadn’t noticed this before in Scripture, but it is there — part of the punishment was a re-direction or stepping-down of female status. The enemy led Eve to set herself next to God, and God therefore reduced the relational potential, from one of direct opportunity with God and his presence, to one of overt and severe submission to man, human males. The Lord said not only will you not ‘be like me’ but because you tried to FORCE it, I am casting you into an even more dependent state upon the male, from whom you arose physically. This set the ‘test of obedience’ bar for females far higher thenceforth, and made access to the Lord much more difficult, as obedience first would have to be proven to male authority, before relationship with God was considered. At that time on Earth, the Lord appeared materially to both Adam and Eve, and access was direct.
A good essay, quite at odds with what is taught in modern ‘christian’ churches, which assume both female ‘equality’ and that modern empowered females don’t need no man — indeed, that it is ‘unsafe’ and unsightly for their daughters to be dependent upon a mere man; thus the Western matriarchies are required. Good Christian men don’t WANT the matriarchies, you see? No no no no! They HAVE to have them, in order for females to be safe! They HAVE to cuck-out other men because, uh, protecting vulnerable women blah lie blah. Thus the nations end up being over-run by such men, the weaklings and sellouts we see everywhere as our pastors and judges and political rulers.
@ ray
If I can take this and critique it and advance the concept…
I don’t think it’s so much of ‘stepping down of status’ or even making ‘submission more overt or severe.’ After all, she was already in perfect headship-submission with Adam prior to the fall. I think it’s a greater emphasis on the knowledge obtained (e.g. knowledge of good and evil) and hence the highlighting of the choice.
Very astute observation that woman did have access to the fruit of the tree of life, but after the fall wives have the desire for men to be providers for them. This is the women have ‘increased needs’ or ‘increased dependence’ on man.
I think, in part, this is a very purposeful consequence which gives good benefits to women who choose righteousness and bad benefits to the women who choose evil. This would be consist with God’s character. The “choice” bears good fruit or bad fruit.
Submission is the standard prior to the fall, and submission is still the standard after the fall. But after the fall, there is now choice that bears good fruit or bad fruit.
I’ll chime in with kudos also for the post and clarity of your hard thinking.
Have you read through the chapter 2 questions from the CBMW book of Recovering Biblical Manhood or some title? Dalrock had a post referencing the questions. I ask because I’d like to see someone like you or Dalrock make a series of posts for each question. It wouldn’t be 51 straight posts but something done as fillers for slow times. My desire for having a group of men from here to go through those QandAs is almost enough to look into starting a blog. Unfortunately, my church isn’t the place for a good examination of it, like goes on here, even though we use the questions in our new members course folder.
@ Swanny River
Thanks.
Can you link me to the document(s)?
I’m trying this from a phone, so my search was short. If this doesn’t work then I can try again.
http://cbmw.org/topics/complementarianism/recovering-biblical-manhood-womanhood/
That’s supposed to be a download but I’m sure I’ve seen just the questions at a website. Thanks for evenconsidering this. They take on so many questions that keep popping up in the sphere, that I think a lot of efficiency and benefit can be gained from reviewing their Q &A.
http://cbmw.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/RBMW.pdf is the pdf.
It’s a copyable PDF, so we could just pull it straight to text.
Thank you Looking Glass. In regards to your comment to me several posts ago, my first thought was, Doh! I’m well aware of knowing to ask questions but I acted ignorantly of that and let my button get pushed and entered into a wrestling match. With hi dsight though, your suggestion is a mirror for my heart, because I realize I don’t want to engage my brother, because it seems too hard, as if I’ll need a flawlessly spirit filled effort to reach him, but he will still be an emotional based socialist missionary just dying to fit in. Using the family analogy, it seems that boxing his ears and telling him to shut up would be just as effective, like two young brothers might resolve it, but that is because I see him as impenetrable and that obviously is not loving, nor in my authority to make that call. I’ll either ask questions or keep quiet around him the next time he spouts BP heresy or we run across a relevant passage.
@Swanny:
I had to remember which conversation that was, haha.
I find the suggestion that it’s best to be more “Christ-like” generally applies in this situation. You can’t beat sense into people, sadly, but you can ask questions that break them. We forget that part of the reason the Pharisees hated Jesus was due to him constantly humiliating them in public. He was hoisting them on their own petards, but he accomplished that by destroying their arguments.
That problem, in Church groups, is everyone wants to be relaxed, comfortable and not challenged. But heresy always has to be challenged and removed right when it happens. Otherwise, it festers.
There is a theme in femcentric Christianity that Adam failed as a leader and that is why Eve was deceived. From the text, Adam had provided leadership and a warning to Eve as she was able to repeat his instruction, (Gen 3:2-3). Additionally Eve did not blame Adam v 13 but the serpent and neither did God condemn Adam for his leadership. It appears that God agreed that Adam sinned in part because his wife disobeyed Adam’s leadership.
The modern parallels that men won’t defend the nation so women must enlist, husbands do not lead the household so women must step up, men won’t provide so women must get jobs ad nausem is for the most part a deception. Women like Eve, do not want to submit to their husbands and fathers.
Feminism is the woman’s desire to define her self and her limits, which is to say no limits. It is Sartre’s Existentialism married to a estrogen enriched solipsism. The desire to be as a god is the desire to decide for oneself what is right and wrong according to their own being and the coveting of becoming an object of worship. Feminism is the rejection of the limits and definitions that God has placed and supplanting them for girl-power. Empowerment is her road to godness, feelings are her source of ethics and men are her rival for authority. Jesus is not the ruler of the world who will come to judge sin, but the model boyfriend who just loves her for who she is and helps her become all she can be. The systems are now in place to make near impossible for a husband or father to lead a contentious woman.
@ Swanny River
I looked over it. It’s basically a very long winded section and you don’t even know what they really stand for at the end. I honestly don’t want to write on that garbage.
Biblical Patriarchy is the way to go.
Pingback: Genesis 3, the sin nature of women, good leadership, and female contentment | Christianity and the manosphere
DS,
Before going further, I want you to know that I believe Christian marriage is a hierarchy where the husband is the head (and is commanded to love his wife), and the wife is to submit to her husband in everything. Specifically, I am not an egalitarian.
“Biblical Patriarchy is the way to go.”
I am interested in your reasoning. Do you have a post where you give your definition of Biblical Patriarchy?
Here are some of my thoughts regarding the status of women as found in the Bible:
– Women in the Old Testament were effectively property, first of their father, and then of their husband.
– Jesus treated women as people, not property. In other words, there was a change in women’s status when Jesus lived on earth. Jesus was moving from the Old Covenant to the New Covenant. In the process, rules were being superseded by attitudes. For example, actual adultery is replaced with thinking about adultery. [Matt. 5:27-28 NASB] 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; 28 but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”
– In regards to their relationship to God, Paul equates men with women. [Gal. 3:28 NASB] 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. [emphasis mine]
When I read the questions in the CBMW PDF, I see the idea that men and women were designed by God in a way that is complementary while, nonetheless, the man is the higher authority in marriage and family. Unfortunately, many who claim to be complementarian today believe that women have a status that is equal to men. That is, they say “I am a complementarian” but their words and actions show they are actually egalitarian.
As I see it, patriarchy was the social structure in the Old Testament, and complementarianism replaced it in the New Testament. Personally, I don’t like the use of patriarchal or complementarian. I think it should be adequate to say that one is a Christian, and it should be understood that the Bible is the source of correct teaching. Then, no matter what you call it, it will be understood that the husband is the head of the wife, and she is to submit to him. The problem is not the name of the scriptural position, but knowing and following the Bible correctly.
@ OKRickety
Biblical Patriarchy is husband and fatherly authority in marriage: headship and submission.
I always see this claimed, mainly by feminists. I’ve NEVER seen any proof of this.
Women had/have marital rights as in the OT to the NT: food, clothing, sex. In both the OT and NT wives are under the authority of their husbands. Daughters are under the authority of their father and then husbands.
You misunderstand this. In the Sermon on the Mount which you are quoting Jesus says earlier:
Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
The point is that the law points to God, but people — namely in Jesus’ time the Pharisees — can twist it. The Law itself is consistent through both the OT to the NT. Jesus further clarifies what the kingdom of God is like because the culture(s) of the day were twisting God’s words.
Namely, authority is is meant to love: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and Love your neighbor as yourself.
Paul is speaking in the context of unity as everyone are children of God. He’s not talking about marital or Church hierarchy.
The system of authority of fathers in families is Patriarchy which is consistent from the OT to the NT.
Feminists and christofeminist claim that the Bible was oppressive to women in OT, but there is no evidence of this from the Law. The Law does not treat women as property as they have various rights under the Law even though they are under authority. If anything, it was man who twisted God’s Law to do what they wanted because of sinful nature.
I used to think there was a switch from “Patriarchy” to “Complementarism” but when you study the Scripture more in depth that’s just a false narrative parroted by feminists.
I still find it funny that Wives had legal, enforceable right to sex with their husbands in the OT. There’s plenty of jokes about how horrible Jewish Women are (having knowing several male Jews, it’s a form of joke they love to tell), but I get a chuckle out of the reality that it stretches back several thousand years.
DS,
Lest you have missed it, I believe in the headship of the husband/father and that his wife and children are to submit to him. Although I would not describe this as patriarchy, you do.
As to the status of women in the New Testament, what you refer to as unity, I consider to be equality. However, it is equality in value (all Christians, both men and women, are children of God), but not equality in hierarchy. I don’t think we actually differ greatly in our understanding of the concept of hierarchy in marriage, although we disagree on what name to use to describe it. Rather than describing the pattern as patriarchy or complementarianism, I would prefer to refer to it as the Biblical pattern. Technically, I agree that it is patriarchy, but I would choose to avoid this description in order to avoid the negative connotations, hoping that “the Biblical pattern” would be more easily accepted as truth. (Contrary to Dalrock, I believe the CBMW is [was?] in agreement with this hierarchy. I think they coined “complementarianism” for the same reasons I mentioned.)
I don’t think I misunderstand Matthew 5 as much as you may think. I may have described the one section poorly, but there are 5 sections (Matt. 5:21-26, 27-30, 31-37, and 43-48) where Jesus contrasts the listeners’ understanding of the Law (“it was said”) with an understanding that God’s desire is for a more godly attitude and associated behavior. Your statement “Namely, authority is meant to love: Love God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength and Love your neighbor as yourself.” is very much in line with the idea that having the right attitude will result in living as God desires.
“The Law itself is consistent through both the OT to the NT.”
Are you suggesting that the Mosaic Law still applies to Christians today? Or, as I believe, that it was still in effect until Jesus’ death, when the Old Covenant ended and the New Covenant began?
@ OKRickety
So basically now we agree on the model of Patriarchy, but disagree on the term.
There is a reason why I use the term Patriarchy, and why I won’t back up from it which I have already written on earlier this year.
Basically, it’s important to recognize how the meaning of the term should be different for Christians than it is for the world. It’s an excellent way to witness to both Christians and non-Christians when you explain why Patriarchy is good. The only reason why I can see that a Christian would not want to advocate and explain the term Patriarchy to others is fear of what they might say. I don’t believe in shying away from sharing how it applies to my faith.
Mosaic Law does not apply because it has been superseded by higher standards, but it is a still a strong guidepost on the intentions of a Holy God when taken through the lens of the New Covenant. Cane prefers the term handrail: it helps keep you safe on the way to a destination.
“So basically now we agree on the model of Patriarchy, but disagree on the term.”
I don’t think we ever disagreed on the hierarchy of marriage and family (see the beginning of my first comment on this thread).
“Mosaic Law does not apply because it has been superseded by higher standards, but it is a still a strong guidepost on the intentions of a Holy God when taken through the lens of the New Covenant. Cane prefers the term handrail: it helps keep you safe on the way to a destination.”
I agree that the Mosaic Law was a handrail to guide God’s people to the “destination” of the New Covenant. Today, it provides a means to better understand God’s character and His desires for us, but we must always remember that it has been replaced by a greater way.
Pingback: A Christian understanding of attraction and the role it plays in marriage Part 2 | Christianity and masculinity
Deep Strength:
teshûqâh
This was a bone of contention when my pastor confronted me this evening. I shared about how this word in Genesis 3 had a negative connotation, i.e., the overwhelming desire from the wife to control, manipulate her husband and usurp his leadership. However, her punishment was that her husband will rule over her. He disagreed strongly with me and almost suggested that this perspective was dangerous, must not be shared to other husbands (in our small group for young couples) for the fear of them believing that they could treat their wives harshly or beat them down.
My pastor laid out the two other instances where teshûqâh was mentioned in the Bible. He pointed out that the word used in Song of Songs was a positive one. And therefore, Genesis 3 should be interpreted in a positive light meaning that God had “punished” Eve (and all wives) to have a longing over her husband. That part about her husband ruling over her was ignored. The pastor then backed up with another occurrence of the word “desire” in Genesis 3:6 and explained that this word was used more than 20 times in the Bible. He added that the Hebrew word for the “desire” used here was interchangeable with teshûqâh. In other words, Eve had the desire (longing) for the fruit from the tree but God punished her by desiring (longing) for her husband.
I argued that every verse in Genesis 3 as God handed out the punishment to the serpent, Eve and Adam had a negative connotation. It made no sense that the teshûqâh reference in God’s punishment to Eve should carry the same meaning (positive longing) in Song of Solomon rather than the negative connotation referenced in Genesis 4 where sin is crouching at the door and longing to master Cain.
@ Choking
I believe it’s both as I outlined above. Namely,
1. If a wife choose to submit and respect, it’s a positive rule which leads to sexual desire as hinted in Song of Songs.
2. If a wife chooses to rebel, the nature of the relationship will be one of discontent and contentiousness over rule, as describe in Genesis 4 with Cain battling with sin.
The Gen 3:6 desire is also used both in a righteous and wicked contexts (and if you look through it about half and half). So it’s clear that the choice is there for good or evil [desire].
To sum it up, this is the easiest way to understand it:
In general, the punishments of God highlight the “fruit” of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. You ate the fruit. Now that you know what good and evil is… will you choose good or evil?
God’s design is for headship and submission in marriage, much like how the Trinity is one but has a natural hierarchy. Will a wife choose good by submitting and respecting (and the sexual desire that comes with it), or will she choose evil (and the contentious fighting over authority that comes with it).
Pingback: United flesh and knowingly actions – Immanuel Verbondskind – עמנואל קאָווענאַנט קינד
Pingback: The curses/punishments are disruptions to natural order | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: A Christian understanding of attraction, and the role it plays in marriage Part 3 | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: The general process of sanctification with moral discernment, moral agency, and mature theosis | Christianity and masculinity
Pingback: A Christian understanding of attraction, and the role it plays in marriage: Dominion is baked into the cake. Part 4 | Christianity and masculinity