Genesis 3:16 is a commonly misunderstood verse, it is translated correctly, however the meaning is lost in light of modern meanings of words and phrases.
Gen 3:16 ~ "To the woman he (God) said: ......Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."
This phrase seems pretty straight forward doesnt it?
Let's go a mere 12 verses forward and read how the same wording is used:
Genesis 4:7 (caps mine) ~ "The LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. ITS DESIRE IS FOR YOU, but you must rule over it."
Sooo...what do you think, does this verse help you to see Gen 3:16 any differently?
I would like to point out that "your desire shall be to your husband," could actually mean the wife's desires are under the decision of the husband right? You know like if the wife is submitting to her husband and desires something of him (a new dress maybe) he being the leader, makes the decision (he better know to say yes!:goofball:)
I guess I take it as he shall rule over you and supply you. And I think I need to say here too, that the man's rule is to mirror Jesus' relationship with the church.
I think the issue is,
Some men rule over their wives and children with commands and law. God ruled in the Old Testament by law. These type of men I believe don't understand their position with Christ....one of love and mercy.
Some men rule over their wives and children with admonition and love. Jesus died establishing salvation, and thereby, the church, and His relationship with that church is one of admonition and love. These type of men I believe have it right.
Okay, it's very late... about 2 AM, so I hope this all makes sense... If not, please ask questions; I'm happy to clarify.
As Twosparrows said, "the meaning is lost in light of modern meanings of words and phrases." Put simply, many Hebrew words do not have exact equivalents in the English. Is the Translation of Genesis 3:16 accurate? Sure. But, we must realize that "desire" and the Hebrew word it is translated from are not completely synonymous. Additionally, the majority of dictionaries that Americans use give shortened, vague, watered-down versions of word meanings. If you've ever used the Oxford English Dictionary or taken an etymology course, you'll quickly realize just how lame most dictionaries are at actually capturing the full meanings of words. Another thing to keep in mind is that there are sometimes multiple Hebrew (or Greek) words that will all translate into the same English word. This indicates that English (at least in some ways) is a vaguer language. There are some English words that I've looked up that have a half dozen or so different Hebrew words that they're translated from. In short, where the Hebrew language may have 6 very specific different (but similar) words, we have one English word that is vague enough to incorporate all of them. All of that is why it's important to let Scripture interpret Scripture. We must look at the entirety of the Bible to help us understand context in terms of both word definitions and interpretive meaning.
All of that said, I'll address your A, B, and C points...
A) "We don't know God meant Adam and Eve or husbands and wives to be like in the beginning, it doesn't say what they were like before the fall."
While it's true that Moses doesn't expound upon the roles of husband and wife to the extent that Paul does, there are plenty of clues in the beginning of Genesis that help us to understand God's intention for men, women, and marriage:
1) Men and women are both image-bearers of God (Genesis 1:27).
2) The union of man and wife is blessed by God (Genesis 1:28).
3) One of the purposes of sexual intimacy between man and wife is to procreate and have civilizations (Genesis 1:28).
4) Husband and wife are the rule over other living creatures (Genesis 1:28). The Hebrew word for "rule" here is different than the one used in Genesis 3:16 in the curse... case in point that 2 different Hebrew words are often translated to the same English word.
5) Men, specifically, are given the charge of taking care of the land and of gathering food (Genesis 2:15-16).
6) Men are not supposed to be alone. They need helpers... not REPLACEMENTS, but HELPERS! There is a difference! God did not say, "Adam, you can't handle your responsibilities, so just sit back in your man chair while I bring in a replacement." (Genesis 2:18).
7) Adam is told to keep on working, even though God hasn't made his helper yet (Why do men think they can just be lazy and wait until they're married to act like men?). In fact, he's given another responsibility: naming the animals (Genesis 2:19-20). This is another instance where we see Adam having authority/headship/leadership.
8) Woman is the complement for man (not another man and not animals!!). Eve is literally made from Adam's rib. She is part of man, NOT her own separate entity (Genesis 2:22-24).
9) Adam names the "creature" that is his wife. This shows a similar kind of dominion that he has over the animals (Genesis 2:23).
10) Because man needs a helper and because woman is his complement and not her own entity, a man should leave his parents and form a union with a woman (Genesis 2:24).
11) Husband and wife should feel no shame in being naked with each other (Genesis 2:25).
So, we see from those verses that, although men and women are both image-bearers of God, they ARE different from one another. Without any description at all of Adam and Eve's sex-specific anatomy, we know that they are different because of how the text relates them to each other. Adam is given specific tasks that show his authority and dominion, while Eve is referred to as a helper.
Jumping into the New Testament, there are multiple passages that tell us that one of the purposes of marriage is illustrate the relationship between Christ and the Church. This also clues us in as to the headship/submission idea. God knew ahead of time that Adam and Eve would sin and redemption of mankind was His plan from the beginning. Before Adam and Eve were even created, He know that His Son would atone for sin. So, while the New Testament was written after The Fall, I don't think that it's correct to look at what it says about marriage as consequences of The Fall. Rather, various passages in the New Testament are instructing men and and women how to do marriage RIGHT; not how to live out the curse.
B) "That's not the extent of the curse. The Lord continues on and states the rest of the curse." Yes, you're correct. Adam is cursed as well. Also each curse is a two-part curse: something that will happen to them, and then something that they will do. I write could an essay on that, but, in short, there is change to both the environment (the process of bringing forth children and the ground being cursed) and human nature (woman's "desire" and man needing to work harder to provide) here.
C) "Even if you don't think it's a curse, or qualifies as part of a curse, how is feminism THE curse spoken of in Genesis?"
I didn't mean to imply that feminism is THE curse. What I mean to convey is that feminism is a byproduct of the curse.
"Why do you think that particular sinful way of thinking is the curse? I'm asking you why you think it is."
Well, back to looking at things in context and letting Scripture interpret Scripture, we must remember that this is a curse. When I was studying this particular passage many years ago, I asked myself: "Why is it describing desire as a curse? Why would that be a curse?" I was thinking of desire as being the same as love, but it's really not (and there are separate words in the Bible for love--this isn't the same thing). When I come to a point where the interpretation I naturally arrive at for a verse doesn't jive with the context, that's a red flag to me that I'm missing something, and so I do further research.
As Twosparrows said, Genesis 4:7 uses the same word. It tells us that sin/Satan desires us. Because it's the same word, there must be a meaning befitting the word in both verses. We weren't there when God spoke the curse in order to ask questions, and the Bible doesn't talk a whole about it. BUT, the Bible does talk a lot about the relationship between sin and man, and it's NOT a loving one. Sin craves us; sins wants to find its way into our lives; sin wants to master us; sin wants to overcome us. The word used for that relationship between sin and mankind is the same word used to describe what women's attitude toward their husbands will be.
As far as the word "rule" goes, it, too, is used in the Genesis 4:7 verse that Twosparrows quoted. It's used a ton in the Old Testament, and from skimming those verses, it appears to have the same meaning that we typically give to the word "rule" today. It's the word used when the sun and moon are created to say that they "rule" over day and night. It's the word used to describe Pharaoh's authority over Egypt... The one thing I would not here (again) is that it IS a different word that "to have dominion over." In writing what God told him to, Moses specifically chose to differentiate the two. And there's a lot we could say about that, but I think what we can come back to here is that this part of the curse is to Eve and that it's describing what the change to her attitude/nature will be. God is addressing Eve here and basically telling her that she'll continue on in the same sin that she initiated in the garden. The difference here, is that not all men will be as passive as Adam; some will go to the extreme to rule over women. While it's true that men have headship, some, as we know, twist that role into being dictators and abusive husbands. Essentially, God is announcing a sort of "battle of the sexes" here. And because man's authority will be challenged by women, he will be tempted to use force to control her.
One last thing (and then I'm going to bed!)... I think that Eve's curse of desiring her husband is appropriate because it both illustrates some of what she attempted to do when she sinned (becoming like God; overcoming limitations; mastering knowledge she wasn't intended to have; trying to gain authority that wasn't really hers) and the fact that the relationship between God and mankind changed after The Fall. Before The Fall, there was unity between God and mankind. After The Fall, the relationship was marred. Mankind has never since had the respect for God's authority as he had before The Fall. There is a lack of deference for God's authority, even within the church. As marriage illustrates the relationship between Christ and the church, it's fitting that how Eve/woman relates to her husband mirrors how the church relates to God... an imperfect, and often-times unwilling, submission. There is a continual struggle to recognize Him as having headship over us. What we were created for, and what was natural in the Garden of Eden, is no longer second-nature; it became something we must work at.
Ugh, okay, not in bed yet... still thinking... decided to hop on here and say more...
@Victory
You said: "Doesn`t Ephesians 5 22-25 explain the role of husband and wife more clearly? As new testament believers are we not redeemed from the curse of the law? We shouldn`t have strife between husband and wife.Our marriages should be days of heaven on earth."
First of all, the New Testament doesn't void out the Old Testament. Secondly, the curse given to Adam and Eve predates The Law. The two are completely different things. The Law is basically commandments; that's not what the curse is. God isn't really commanding Adam and Eve, He's matter-of-factly telling them how things have changed. That sin nature doesn't die with the New Testament. While we are in the process of sanctification as believers, we're not glorified until we're in Heaven; only then are we released from the curse. Redemption and consummation of redemption are separate things. Saying that we're released from the curse upon redemption is like saying that husband and wife are one the moment they say their vows. In fact, the process is not complete. The fullness of our restoration will not be experienced under glorification/the consummation of our redemption.
@GntlGnt
I disagree (I think... not sure I'm understanding you correctly). See my previous post really, but, again, this is a CURSE. God isn't describing how loving the wife will want to be or how much the husband will want to provide for his wife; he's not describing the ideal marriage. You're pointing out submission here as a curse, but I don't think that it is. We may feel like submission is a curse, but mankind was supposed to submit to God from the very beginning (and Jesus submits to the Father). Submission is the natural order of things; it's how things are supposed to be! Submission isn't the consequence of the curse. BUT, failure to submit did cause The Fall.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding you here, but I've heard this misinterpretation a lot where people think that submission is this evil punishment. It's NOT. Submission is the ideal; the fact that we see it as something less than that just further illustrates our sin nature, as described in the curse.
Thinking that submission is a curse is a feminist lie that stems straight from Eve refusing to submit to God and then usurping her husband's role by talking him into sinning. Eve didn't want to submit, and she passed that *lovely* part of her nature down to all of us women. But we should resist, rather than emulate.
I think Two and Pixy are on the right track. This is a good example of how we have to get out of our Western language and thought and get into the original language and culture of the Bible.
Here's what really gets lost in all of this Adam and Eve stuff and what Paul alluded to in his writings: Adam was a "type" of the Messiah. I believe he could have redeemed Eve after she ate the fruit. He failed to do so and instead joined her in eating it and while it is possible that he did not believe the serpent he went along with her because he was afraid to challenge the serpent because it likely would have killed him. However, I think it's possible that had he died at the hands of the serpent God would have protected Eve, Adam would have been risen from the dead and things on this Earth would have been a whole lot different, but Adam was not obedient and so there had to be a second Adam that would be obedient. This is why Jesus so emphatically declared that He kept all of the commandments of God. He was the Redeemer because He did not fail to pay the price of redemption and so was obedient to the command God gave Him when He sent Jesus to us.
Because Adam failed to lead and chose to follow he will suffer under the curse the constant attempts of his wife to usurp his authority because he has proven that he is not capable to lead and is not trustworthy. This is the case for all of man kind from that time until now and it likely opened the door for the Jezebel spirit to enter the world. Now it is only by the Spirit of God that women have the ability to understand and accept the idea of submitting to their husbands and recognizing their leadership in their lives.
Can you read Hebrew? Because those who translated the bible decided to word it just as you read it. The problem is that people don't read the bible for what it says. They want to read the bible for what they want it to say.
You said yourself, you don't know the original language, you're speculating.
Why not just admit that it's a guess? Could you do that? Or is it more important that you feel you're right?
Oh by the way...Feminism is relatively new (as a whole), say 60s, maybe late 50s. It's modern, you yourself have said this. There are some instances in history of feminist movements and women not listening to their husbands, but the majority of women through history could probably be satisfied being housewives and loving mothers and so forth.
I guess that particular genesis curse kicked in kind of late!
But the ground has been cursed since men can remember.
You said: "Why not just admit that it's a guess? Could you do that? Or is it more important that you feel you're right?"
Interpretation based on a study of the context, a study of the original language, and prayer, is not a guess. And no, "feeling" right is not why I responded to this. I would like to interpret Scripture accurately, but not out of a pride, because I want to understand what God is saying to me. If you honestly believe that I've interpreted Scripture incorrectly, then I'm open to alternative explanations (that are supported by Scripture). You're saying that you disagree with me here, yet offer no Biblical support for the interpretation that you arrive at.
"Can you read Hebrew?"
I'm not fluent in Hebrew, no, but I've studied it a fair amount and there are some excellent resources out there that aid in interpretation.
"Oh by the way...Feminism is relatively new (as a whole), say 60s, maybe late 50s. It's modern, you yourself have said this. There are some instances in history of feminist movements and women not listening to their husbands, but the majority of women through history could probably be satisfied being housewives and loving mothers and so forth.
"I guess that particular genesis curse kicked in kind of late!
"But the ground has been cursed since men can remember."
The word "feminism" is newer; the concept/movement is not. The attitude that fuels feminism is the same attitude that Eve had in the Garden of Eden. And there are multiple feminists in the Bible. Many of Paul's writings are testament to that fact. If women were handling womanhood the way God intended for it to be, then many passages in the New Testament simply wouldn't exist. Would Paul have needed to tell women to be quiet in church, if they were already being submissive and acting appropriately? Going back to Proverbs, there are multiple verses that talk about the contentious wife. Obviously, she existed, or she wouldn't have been written about. Is being so quarrelsome that your husband would be better off living on the roof not feminism? It's a mark of not being content in one's role as wife. At it's core, that's what feminism is: women who are not content in their roles as women/wives/mothers (as defined by Scripture) deciding to abandon their roles.
Wow, there's still absolutely nothing that changes the use of the words in the bible.
Did you know that the woman is a gift to the man, not a curse?
And if Eve was cursed to forever want to control her husband, and all women, including you and I. (Because it's a curse, and we're not free of it) then if anything it's more of a curse for the man, isn't it? Having to put up with his mean, controlling wife. Why is it a curse for women if men are naturally supposed to lead and be in charge?
You yourself have said that's the way God created women to be, gentle and soft spoken and help mates.
You are basically calling women a curse to men, and if all women are cursed to control their husbands, and Two knows it, why bother even looking to get married?
Men are cursed to till the soil, and work the ground! And they still do, because they go to work and provide for their families, BECAUSE they're cursed to have to work hard, it's on-going, you understand? It doesn't stop. Women are cursed with painful childbirth, if any woman wants to get married and have children, she'll have to suffer pain through child birth, and that still happens right, to every women, would you say, who's had children?
Okay, well... Then every woman desires to control men, including the finest and most virtuous women, because it's a CURSE. And the curse doesn't end on us as individuals until we die or praise Jesus, The Lord comes back!
But I tell you, I just don't feel the need to control my husband, boss him around, tell him I'm head of the house now, and I don't like being protected or taken care of! I really like the idea of all that stuff. But the curse isn't lifted!
