Board index ‹ Specific Bible verses, texts, and passages ‹ Genesis

[Lucky]

This is one of those things that I never would have believed. Apparently consent was never taught to some women? And this was the heart of the purity movement? Then again, I just read in the bible yesterday, Genesis 3:16

16 To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;in pain you shall bring forth children.Your desire shall be contrary to[f] your husband,but he shall rule over you.”

And I see it being taught apparently? https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/brett-kavanaugh-evangelical-women_us_5bb3a28de4b0ba8bb211985b?utm_source=reddit.com

What do you believe? And if you don't mind asking, where are you generally from? What is your experience with this?

[jimwalton]

What I believe is that you seem to have misunderstood the entire verse. Let's break it down. Adam & Eve sinned, and we are hearing the consequences of that sin. Notice that Genesis 3.16-19 are not curses. Only the serpent was cursed (14-15) and the ground (17). The woman and the man are not cursed. God is guaranteeing that they will notice the change because the change is real. What has changed for the woman (3.16) is her perception of function (purpose and meaning in life) and her relationships (with God and each other).

First of all, we notice that labor pain is not new, but only increased. Despite the promise of blessing through woman and the blessing of childbearing, there will be increased anguish through the same experience. What before was pain that brought blessing will now be pain that will bring blessing but also anguish. The "increase" is the element of anguish that will now be part of the experience. We will soon discover (Gn. 4) that her children will struggle with each other and one will kill another. Sin's invasion will cause a pall to hang over all humanity. Some women will be sterile. Some children (and even mothers) will die in childbirth. Disease will now be a factor and will possibly claim the lives of her offspring. This is all a result of her sin, not a curse from God.

Second, "your desire will be for your husband" has a variety of meanings. (A) Her human desire to procreate and her maternal instinct will be dependent on the cooperation of a male, which puts him in a potential position to dominate. She will now feel an urgency to procreate because of the threats to human life. (B) Instead of a spontaneous equality (chapters 1-2), such a relationship will have to be produced by exertion (compare to v. 19 where food will take more exertion also). (C) Their intimacy has been tragically subverted. They have already seen blame taint their relationship.

Third, "...and he will rule over you" shows the corruption that has now entered their relationship. The wonder of marriage becomes a dysfunction of pride and power, competition and domination. Hierarchy will now be the reigning paradigm rather than the equality that God created and intends. This is not God's curse, but the inevitable consequence of them acting according to self-interest (Gn. 3.1-7). In our fallen world, those with power (typically males) will use their power to exploit and abuse those with less power (typically females and children). It is not license for male supremacy, but rather its condemnation. Subjugation and supremacy are perversions of creation.

So let's go back to your post.

> Apparently consent was never taught to some women?

Are you talking about sexual consent? That's not part of this text.

> And this was the heart of the purity movement?

That's not part of this text either.

> Do you think women control their bodies?

Of course they do, but that's not part of this text either.

We obviously need to talk more. Please don't take that article as normative; it's horrible. I'll wait for your reply.

[Lucky]

> and the ground

If I take away your house with a curse, was the house cursed?

> we notice that labor pain is not new, but only increased

Fair... still a curse though

> We will soon discover (Gn. 4) that her children will struggle with each other and one will kill another.

Are you trying to say that childbirth really means the entire experience of being a parent?

> This is all a result of her sin, not a curse from God.

I guess I misread all of those "I will..." phrases.

> "your desire will be for your husband" has a variety of meanings.

> Hierarchy will now be the reigning paradigm rather than the equality that God created and intends.

First, you're chopping a sentence in half and acting like its two separate things... I take the two together to read that man has control over her desires. Second, you're basically admitting that man has rule over woman. How do you recover and claim that a woman has control over her body..?

[jimwalton]

> "and the ground" If I take away your house with a curse, was the house cursed?

I don't understand this question. I was making the point that in the text only the serpent and the ground are cursed, not the man and/or the woman. If you want to talk about the curse of the ground, then I need a question. When I read your question, I'm struggling to relate it to the text. God didn't take the ground away, he didn't take anything away from the woman, or from the man that I can think of, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. You'll have to clarify.

> Fair... still a curse though

No, not a curse—that's my point. The text is specific about what is curse, and therefore what is not. What God says to the man and the woman are not curses. Kidner calls it a punishment. Scofield, Blocher, and Spurgeon call it a "changed state." Mary Evans and Spurgeon both emphasize that we clearly see and understand it is not a curse—"God doesn't use 'curse' terminology." Speiser says it's simply the cause-and-effect result of her actions. Walton states that God is merely assuring that this consequence will emit from their actions. So it does matter that this is not a curse. We have to be careful to interpret well.

> Are you trying to say that childbirth really means the entire experience of being a parent?

Not specifically, but yes in general. The word in the text is וְהֵרֹנֵךְ , which means the gamut from conception through pregnancy to childbearing. It obviously primarily means the 9 months from conception to birthing. The term "pains" (עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ), however, is more along the lines of mental or psychological anguish instead of physical pain. Some commentators see in this term the possibility of the expansion of thought to how a woman will also worry about her children as they go through life and experience sorrow for what life brings to her babies. Most scholars, however, contain the thought to the birthing process.

> I guess I misread all of those "I will..." phrases.

About the "I will" statements, as I mentioned, Walton explains that in v. 16 it means "God will ensure that it will happen." That's the only "I will" statement I see. I don't see any in vv. 17-19.

> I take the two together to read that man has control over her desires.

They are two independent clauses joined by a conjunction. The first clause is "your desire will be towards your husband" (I can't write the Hebrew for you because the forum messes is all up trying to write right to left). Most scholars translate "desire" (tishuqtik) as "Desire; to have a violent craving; a desire bordering upon disease; one’s basic or inherent instincts." Condren, however, contends the word means "return." Hebrew grammar experts say, "A verb-less clause, to be taken in present tense. Descriptive rather than prescriptive. She desires to carry out an ordained function: childbearing. Now, however, there is a new urgency brought on by the reality of death. And she is dependent on Adam to fulfill that function."

So here are some comments:

* Walton: "One’s basic or inherent instincts, in this case, a desire to procreate, which necessitates the cooperation of the male. The woman’s desire, which renders her dependent, is traceable to her need to fulfill her maternal instinct. And, sociologically, her needs put him in a position to dominate."
* Anonymous: " 'You will desire to control him.' The wife’s willing submission was corrupted; the husband’s loving leadership was corrupted."
* Condren: "The term doesn’t mean either an affection desire for her husband (sexual desire, SoS 7.10), or a desire to contend with him adversarially for leadership, but rather speaks of a “return” to her husband. After she eats the fruit, their intimacy is tragically subverted and their relational separation is on full display as the man tells God the woman is to blame (3.12). Nevertheless, the woman returns to the man in an effort to recapture the original unity of male and female (2.24). She is attempting to return to the one with whom she intrinsically belongs. She is trying to recapture God’s original design for the husband-wife relationship."
* Derek Kidner: "This phrase, with the reciprocating one that follows, portrays a marriage relation in which control has slipped from the fully personal realm to that of instinctive urges passive and active. 'To love and cherish' becomes 'to desire and to dominate.' Now the pull of sin will always be towards domination."
* John Davis: "This desire was given to alleviate the sorrows of womanhood and to bind the hearts of husband and wife ever more closely together."

No one is saying that it means the man has control over her desires. What the text says is that her desires will be towards her husband. You can see that some of them say that her drive to reproduce is dependent on the man, that their intimacy is now subverted, and that "being one flesh" will have devolved because of their actions of self-interest into "desire and dominate." Nowhere does anyone see the notion that the man has control over her desires.

> Second, you're basically admitting that man has rule over woman.

Only in a demented sense. God ordained an equality that because of their self-interest has devolved into power plays. The man is physically bigger and stronger, which puts him in a position to dominate, the result being oppression of her and patriarchy.

"He will rule over you" is the Hebrew *yimsol*: "Control; dominate; dominion; mastery; lordship." Where you get that this means he has control over her *body* I don't know. Again, the comments:

* Grenz: "Hierarchy arises as a consequence of the first sin. This is not a prescription of what is morally necessary for godly relationships but a description of life after the fall."
* Hamilton: "The wonder of marriage becomes a matter of domination. The relationship of equality is broken and it turns into one of servitude and domination."
* Steve Tracy: "This is no divine prescription, but a tragic predication of sin’s effects on the human race. In our fallen world, those with power (typically males) will use their power to exploit and abuse those with less power (typically females and children)."
* Blocher: "The destiny of woman as help-meet and companion will not cease to make itself felt. But, because of sin, this blessing too will turn into a caricature of itself. The man will abuse his status, take advantage of his position and exploit the desire that drives the woman towards him, turning it into the chains of slavery. He will dominate the woman who seeks his love."
* John Davis: "The woman would be ruled by the man."
* Briscoe: "One of the awful consequences of sin is the abuse of women."
* Phyllis Trible: "This statement is not license for male supremacy, but rather it is condemnation of that very pattern. Subjugation and supremacy are perversions of creation."

When I read these they make sense to me, but they don't seem to claiming that a man has control over a woman's body. In other words, that Huffington Post article about what some churches do is just whacked. If I dare say it, some Christians are just so weird (a category Christians certainly don't have the corner on).