Charis

Natural Use
does NOT necessarily mean sexual. The only “evidence” for that is Strong’s concordance (with only ONE witness BTW- in this Romans passage ONLY). I think the writers of Strong’s were male, and that is where their focus was (SEX as a woman’s “natural use”)

If you look in the lexicon at Tufts at the greek words translated “natural use” you will not find sex even mentioned-
“natural use” is a pretty accurate reflection of the Greek, and I think Genesis 1 shows that the Natural Use GOD intended is not restricted to SEX (I think that was imposed on this text by tradition, and I think its an insulting view that the “Natural Use” of women is all about sex- I can’t believe that’s what GOD means, because I know GOD and HIS character better than that)

chresis= use http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/cgi-bin/ptext?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.04.0058%3Aentry%3D%2335956

physikos= natural

But I dislike debating with you. You appear to make up your mind and you don’t seem willing to look objectively at the evidence. I don’t expect to be heard on this. I expect you to line right up with the traditional interpretation and assume that its my “issues” rather than assuming that my “issues” give me insight on some scriptures which you can’t see because you lack the experience of having been treated as if your “natural use” is all and only about sex.

I knew you would disagree, Cheryl.

I did look up the words and I know that the “meet” connection is just in English

“burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly”

unseemly= . ungracefulness; awkwardness; disfigurement; brings discredit, disgrace;
(as well as “in moral sense, indecorum, obscene or disgraceful conduct”) from here

and the word “lust” is not restricted to sexual lust. see BLB lexicon

Frankly, I think its a good description of some forms of hard compism. They bring discredit and disfigurement to marriage as well as the scriptures and God. And the men do lust for each other in the sense of for the envy and lust for male power and position.

And I consider it a lie and a slander on God’s character to think that he is only concerned about the SEX being conventional and NOT the “natural use” for which he created women which is not about sex but about being an equal companion, a help MEET.

Michael

I have some far out thoughts on Romans 1. For example, I wonder when Paul said “For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:”Rom 1:26 if the “natural use” was really about relationship, not sex (as it is traditionally taken)? Eve was created for RELATIONSHIP! Is a marriage that only has sex and no RELATIONSHIP “vile affections”? “And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman,” Rom. 1:27 God intends woman not to be a sex toy but to be a HELP MEET, to be heard, respected, valued.

Rom 1:27″And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

Have you EVER heard it interpreted as anything but homosexuality? But I think it might mean that they exalt men and go off on workaholism (or some other form of consuming fleshly lust) and leave “the natural use” of woman which is as EZER/HELP MEET to be respected, heard, valued as co-heir…. so they trade in the help MEET for a MEET recompense of their error. Any wonder the divorce rate is so high in the “church”?

Romans 1 continues:

28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.

and they think this is about “the other guy” and they are superior because they go sit in a pew once a week…

tiro,

I’ve wondered that too, having just passed menopause and having just spent several years re-evaluating my entire “marriage doctrine” and discovering so much of it was sand and the “house” built upon it was a disaster. Also, observing my own teenagers, and 20something children so focused on sexuality. Its like a blindness- kept in place by hormones, momentum, fear of change… I have wondered if everyone goes through their own re-play of “Adam and Eve”, their own personal experience with Genesis 3 consequences of the Fall. Their own awakening (HOPEfully!) Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord for HIS deliverance! (I hope some people don’t take as looooooong to “get it” as I!)

I feel frustrated at having to keep repeating myself.
Its like you are seeing this in 3D and I see it in 4D. There is another dimension in the Garden that we DON’T HAVE ANYMORE.
The man was NOT frustrated before the Fall.
The intimacy they had was satisfying FAR BEYOND anything mere sex offered.

I still think you are imposing things on the text that aren’t in there. You make much of that when others do it and don’t seem to be willing to see it when you do it. You are IMPOSING frequent sexuality and your own experience of the centrality of that to marital intimacy. Its not in the text.

But I don’t wish to keep explaining myself. I feel some of the comments are misjudging me. Good and frequent sex does not a good marriage make- I know of what I speak. IF they had it (which you have convinced me they did on occasion), it was a nice perk (like chocolate to a child) but was NOT a centerpiece of the Garden experience. That experience was so far beyond sex and chocolate that Adam felt satisfied and so did Eve.

Humans also are one of the only ones who appear to mate even when there is no possibility of conception. Only in humans is the “one flesh union” a huge part of our inner souls. Animals are just not in the same category.

Are you claiming that “one flesh union”= sex?
and that humans are in a different category because humans do it even when there is no possibility of conception?

I say “one flesh union” is far deeper than just sex. Just sex does not make a “one flesh union” or animals would have a “one flesh union”. I think in the Garden they knew about the other aspects very deeply, in a very heavenly kind of way and that sex was just not as important as fallen man has made it.

And though I agree that a woman’s desire for her husband is much more than physical, just think how it would be if she never ever had any sexual desire except during fertility (like animals). I think it would take away a lot of the sexualization of media, the exploitation of women, and it would make women much less dependent upon male opinion. And I think men would adjust. Monogomous men who followed the Law lived close to such a pattern (sex only in fertile periods). Two week abstinence every month was part of the Law (Lev 15:19ff; Lev 20:18)

If it was this way, I wouldn’t see it as a bad thing either, but it would give an idea that in the garden before sin, that the woman and man were quite mismatched sexually. I also don’t see this as a redemptive thing. I would need you to explain this because I don’t see this as anything to do with salvation.

I don’t see them as sexually mismatched before the Fall. They had much deep intense intimacy of other kinds. We have no comprehension of how good it was for them. We think sex is “ultimate”. Like a child might think chocolate is ultimate and say “what you want to take time for sex when you could be eating chocolate instead?”. Well they had intimacy which was so far beyond sex- face to face intimacy with God so that they would say “what you want to spend time on sex when you could be doing this instead?” They were not sex obsessed like modern mankind, nor did they feel a lack. Think of two children together. They never think about sex (hopefully). That’s how I see them in the Garden. They were God’s children.
Young children remain “naked and unashamed” to this day (unless violated)
Animals are “naked and unashamed”
Neither children nor animals are sex obsessed

I think that before the Fall the man and woman were not sex obsessed. We impose that on there. And I think “desire” of Genesis 3:16 has a libido component. I think the frequency of sexual activity increased after the Fall. Interesting that God never even mentioned Adam KNOWING his wife pre-Fall. If it was such a central part of what marriage is all about then its odd that it is really unclear that they ever even had sex before the Fall.

I got stuck wondering about the issue of polygamy being brought into this discussion… I don’t think anyone here would consider polygamy a good thing. But it occurred to me that if you take “be fruitful and multiply” as a command which must be obeyed lest one sizzle in hell, then I suppose a polygamist could be viewed as just doing his duty by impregnating as many women as possible to protect them from disobeying God’s command and incurring God’s judgment…

Personally, I don’t perceive God as being that way…

Lin,
Seems like a red herring to bring in polygamy.
Polygamy cannot be blamed on the woman’s “desire” (or lack thereof)

Lin,

I am not claiming that the woman has higher libido than the man. I am suggesting the possibility- based upon two mentions of childbirth in the immediate context of this “desire” (right in Genesis 3:16)- that this “desire” God speaks of toward her husband does have a component of an increase in her libido as a consequence of the Fall. Again, I don’t see this as a bad thing. I see this as a redemptive thing.

I also believe the ‘be fruitful and multiply’ command is a very strong indicator that they had sex before the fall. This was a command of God to them.

The first man and woman certainly were not going to “fill the earth” so God’s commission in Genesis 1 must go forward to the rest of us.

So, are you and Cheryl claiming that a woman who never has children has disobeyed God’s command in Genesis 1? Or is that null and void nowadays now that the earth is pretty full? Were only the early women “required” to give birth or else be in disobedience to a command of God? What happened to the women who were infertile or never married?

Only female humans had the “consequence” of “your desire will be for your husband”. Female animals only mate when fertile.

Animals (even monogamous ones) fulfill “be fruitful and multiply” WITHOUT “your desire will be for your husband”. They have a periodic appetite they feed which takes care of being fruitful and multiplying. You have noted that conception and birth would need to have been infrequent with immortals.

I don’t think there will be sex in heaven, yet people will be more satisfied. What if the intimacy in the Garden was intensely satisfying without lots of sex? What if sexual intimacy was infrequent before the Fall, just a periodic appetite as it is for animals?

Cheryl,
I don’t feel really comfortable with putting it this way:

we can assume that Adam and Eve had normal sexual relations in the garden just as they were commanded by God.

I don’t like your use of the work “commanded” in that context. I’ll use commissioned. They were commissioned to “be fruitful and multiply” not to “have sexual relations”. Some animals are fertile annually and that is when they mate. So, they can “be fruitful and multiply” and only have sex rarely.

Your point about “they will become one flesh” makes more sense as evidence that they did have marital relations, although I do not believe that becoming “one flesh”refers to mere physical “connection”. I believe it means much more than that. The other question mark about the context of the “one flesh” remark is that it is a general statement not really applying to the first man and woman since they had no father and mother to leave:

23And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.

24Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

And, you are right that he does not mention increased desire. But God does tell Eve “your desire will be for your husband” in the context of mentioning increased pregnancy and childbirth twice. Many church fathers understood it as a sexual desire (in a very disrespectful demeaning manner). While I disagree with their disrespect of a woman’s sexual desire, I do wonder if they were seeing something that we have wrongfully dismissed (because we don’t want to acknowledge that the increased sexual desire of the woman is a consequence of the fall)?

Cheryl,
Can you tell me from the passage where we know that the first man and woman had marital relations before the fall? I don’t see it in there. I’m not saying they did or didn’t nor would I ever claim “sex is a consequence of the fall” as God told them clearly to “be fruitful and multiply” before the fall, and they would not be able to do that apart from sex. But I don’t see any indication in the text that they did have sex before the fall. Maybe they were just busy enjoying each other’s and God’s company, the great fellowship and non-sexual affection and intimacy? When you just assume they had sex aren’t you imposing something on the passage? reading your own assumptions into it? (You point that out to others when they do it)

I think that the “desire” in “your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you” must have a sexual component to it. I base this on the context of Genesis 3:16 which mentions pregnancy and childbirth twice. As you observed, God increases her fertility post-Fall per Gen 3:16. I think God not only increased her fertility but also increased her sexual desire. The consequences of the Fall are not God’s “curse” or “punishment” but are genuinely redemptive. Thus seeing increased sexual passion in marriage as a consequence of the Fall does not make me view sexual passion as “negative”.

I believe the “desire” spoken of in Genesis 3:16 has other components besides the sexual component. She desired to please, to satisfy, to “be enough” for her husband. This can go off the deep end into husband idolatry- where she lives to please man instead of God. I say this from personal experience living in a woman’s skin.

Interesting exchange, there 🙂

I imagine your blog is scary for people like HPK, Cheryl. Threatens their “status quo”. If he really paid attention to what you are teaching, he might find out that the Bible doesn’t REALLY justify him being king over his wife. Little does he know that “the TRUTH shall set you FREE” and “he who loses his life will FIND IT”.

Are you possibly alluding to the thought that Adam only became male after the “part” was taken out? Did God add testosterone after the “part” was taken out? If not, then how could we understand that Adam was just as male as he was before the “part” was taken out?

I realize y’all have moved on to another post on this topic, but I wanted to suggest the possibility that testosterone was added after the Fall. Not that Adam had none before the Fall, but more was added- which has the side effect of increased aggression. And that the woman- in a “corresponding” or “complementary” way- had her hormones adjusted to increase her fertility and her desire (which was needed, now that death had been introduced).

Unto the woman HE [God]said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee. Gen 3:16

Do you see the multiplied conception, fertility, desire for her husband? and the increased aggression?

Cheryl,

Does the Bible identify the moment sin entered the world?  The responsibility for the entrance of sin into the world seems to be laid upon Adam, so I wonder if Katharine Bushnell is onto something here?:

31. After Adam was created, Genesis 1:31 tells us, “God saw everything that He had made, and, behold, it was very good.” Therefore Adam was very good; but this condition did not last. Genesis 2:18 tells us that presently God says: “It is not good that the man [or “Adam”], should be alone.” The “very good” state of humanity becomes “not good.” What had wrought signs of this change?
    …
    33…
    Whyte quotes Behman as teaching,—
    “There must have been something of the nature of a stumble, if not an actual fall, in Adam while yet alone in Eden . . . Eve was created [he should say, “elaborated”] to ‘help’ Adam to recover himself, and to establish himself in Paradise, and in the favor, fellowship and service of his Maker.”

Sorry about my HTML formatting.  You have such a handy new editor that does all that for us! 🙂  Here, I fixed it for easier reading:

What a coincidence!
Perhaps you would want to post on Mart DeHaan (of Radio Bible Class) blog where he asks:
”Have cultural changes trumped the social order of the Bible? Or have we in some way misunderstood the intent and wisdom the Apostle Paul when he wrote, “God is not the author of confusion but of peace…Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says” (1Cor 14:33-34).”

What a coincidence! 🙂
Perhaps you would want to post on http://www.beenthinking.org/2008/12/01/women-in-high-places/”>Mart DeHaan (of Radio Bible Class) blog where he asks:

”Have cultural changes trumped the social order of the Bible? Or have we in some way misunderstood the intent and wisdom the Apostle Paul when he wrote, “God is not the author of confusion but of peace…Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says” (1Cor 14:33-34).”

Hi Cheryl,

That was very clear and I agree with you.  I could read everything that you wrote that Adam did not do and see my own failure and treachery as “keeper of the home” and “help meet” to my husband (although, unlike Adam, I think I was deceived by all the teaching about women keeping quiet and my MISunderstanding of submission).

The Greek word translated “homemaker” (NKJV) or “housekeeper” is oikouros. This is a compound word from oikos– house, household, family; and ouros– a guard, be “ware”, guardian, a watcher, a warden. So, the word ” oikouros” translated “keepers at home”  carries the meaning of watchman a similar meaning to the Hebrew shamar used of Adam’s “keeper” assignment.

I think “KEEPER of the home” has nothing to do with domestic servitude.  Making it about domestic servitude really robs women, children, husbands, and the body of Christ and is a form of deception and treachery from what source?  From the same source as the deception in the garden: none other than “the father of lies”.

YWC, Pinklight 🙂

God ministered to me very deeply when HE unveiled to me in HIS Word that HE is the overarching KEEPER:

1 Peter 1:5 Who are kept {5432} by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.
Click Here to read 1 Peter 1:5 in several parallel versions.
1 Peter 1:5 – kept/guarded/protected phrouros
5432 phroureo- {froo-reh’-o} AV – keep
from a compound of 4253 and 3708 horao {hor-ah’-o}
describes God and means the “oureo”(KEEPER) “before; above”

So, we have Adam assigned to “keep” (protect, guard, watch) the garden; we have wives assigned to “keep” (protect, guard, watch) their households; we have GOD who keeps, guards, protects us by HIS power “unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time”.

The vaunted “Titus 2 woman” is called the oikouros translated “homemaker” (NKJV) or “housekeeper”. This is a compound word from oikos– house, household, family; and ouros– a guard, be “ware”, guardian, a watcher, a warden. of the home,

To me, this call upon her sounds very similar to Adam’s.  I think it encompasses protecting, warning, and spiritual warfare on behalf of her household (and has little if anything to do with “housekeeping” in the traditionally understood sense of domestic servitude)

Insightful, Don!

I wonder if the older women are given that responsibility because they understand- by long experience and trial and error- the nature of living in a woman’s skin with a sinful man?  “WIVES, submit to your husbands” Eph 5 and “Likewise you WIVES…” 1 Pet 3 are clearly addressed right to WIVES, whom God, Peter, and Paul apparently trust to discern the meaning apart from male “intermediaries” (and or “scholarly credentials”, I might add).

I have seen teaching of passages which Paul, Peter, God address exclusively to wives and women “twisted” in a certain way which on the surface- seem “beneficial” to men (in the way it stifles conflict and accountability) but really is not at all in the man’s best interest.  Some Christian “marriage books” sound to me more like manuals to enable ongoing husbandly immaturity, sin, and selfishness.

Interestingly, I have had several older female Christian mentors and never once one who teaches me “to love husband and children” in warm fuzzy weak non-confrontational way I think some  perceive a “Titus 2 woman”.

That is an interesting observation, Don

The famous passage whence cometh the concept of the “Titus 2 Woman” also has a relative of that same word twice within the span of a few verses.

For women to have “sophron…….” is apparently EXTREMELY important to Paul and to God!

I got to digging into the Greek words and roots in Titus 2:4-5:
I noticed  the repetition of a similar word: sophron (rendered “sober”) and sophronizo (rendered “discreet”)
Titus 2:4-5 That they may teach the young women to be sober <4994>, to love their husbands, to love their children,
[To be] discreet<4998>, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.
So I looked at all the definitions under those entries (<4994> <4998>)  and I looked at their root words which are listed “sozo” and “phren”: <4982> <5424>
Here’s a list of the meanings (you can look at the links if you want to see for yourself):

to restore one to his senses,
to moderate, control, curb, disciple
to hold one to his duty
to admonish, to exhort earnestly
of a sound mind, sane, in one’s senses
curbing one’s desires and impulses, self-controlled, temperate
and from the roots:
to keep safe and sound, make well, heal, restore, save—> the mind, the faculty of perceiving and judging

I see in there God’s intention that the mature women teach the neos (newer, younger) to the end that their mind will be whole, sound, healed, that they will live consecrated, set apart for God, being able to perceive what is good and constructive and what is evil, that they have the charge to GUARD their home/marriage and keep themselves safe, protected, and chaste within their home and with their husbands.

Cheryl,

I have often wondered WHY God put 1 Tim 2:12 in there?  I’m sure HE knew the difficulty and strife which would result.  When I was a hierarchalist, I used to think something like  “I don’t understand it, but HE must have had HIS reasons.  HE’s capable of making his will crystal clear without this muddy water if HE wanted.”

I still don’t understand why God didn’t avoid putting in verses which HE knows were destined to be used to muzzle women?

When Paul (and the Holy Spirit) said “she”, the reference can only grammatically go back to a single “woman” in verses 11 & 12 since Eve is dead and gone and she cannot do things in the future.

I think “Eve” is representative, and the passage is prophetic.

Bushnell saw it that way too. This is from her book “God’s Word to Women:

827. The “childbearing” of Revelation 12 is that same “childbearing” of 1 Timothy 2:15, of which the Apostle Paul speaks prophetically, in connection with those words about the formation of woman after man, in the spiritual sense. He says of woman: “She shall be saved through the childbearing [R. V.], if they continue in charity and holiness with sobriety.”

If you consider me your enemy for this, I hope that someday you’ll see that I warned you because I cared, not because I’m afraid or ignorant or un-Christlike. Jesus strongly opposed false teachers, and I’m only following his example.

I don’t consider you my enemy. My original point for Cheryl (which was buried and lost I am afraid) is to be careful not to be allied with the accuser of the brethren…. and “whatsoever you sow, that shall you reap”

As Cheryl requested, we can stop taking up space with this and I will just remain in disagreement with you about branding Foster, Pat Robertson, Dallas Willard, Rob Bell, Donald Miller, etc… as heretics. My circles teach respect for God’s anointed even though they be imperfect and even though I don’t agree with every word out of their mouths. (If they need correction, God know it, there is a biblical route, and I am not part of that loop)

To top it all off…
when I think of the handful of rare Christians I have known who truly exuded Christlikeness…
represented among them are
Seventh Day Adventists and devout Catholics.

(Might as well put it all on the table while I am at it)

So tell me, what practices has the church lost, and why call ordinary Biblical prayer by a new name if nothing has changed?

contemplative prayer is not a “new name” as far as I know. It is a description. contemplate means “think”, “meditate”

I was in evangelical churches of many flavors for 25 years, and the corporate prayers were pretty much laundry lists of what we want from God….

That is my experience.

And while I am at it, I will “out myself” some more into the company of your “heretic” list. I like my present church very much. It is very refreshing and spirit filled 🙂 We had a sunday school video series taught by Pat Robertson. The young adult Sunday school which my daughter attends is reading “Velvet Elvis”, and last quarter they read “Blue like Jazz”. We have a woman elder who often delivers prophetic messages. Yet my pastor- with whom my husband and I are engaged in marriage counseling- used the distasteful and unbiblical (to me) term “servant-leader” about my husband. ((((yuck!!!))))

Let me add to my black sheep credentials by bragging about my adult son and daughter- who moved away before we switched churches… My son read “Blue Like Jazz” 4 times and said it is the best Christian thing he has ever read… so I had to read it and I like it. My son is the one who first attended our present church (with a former girlfriend). My daughter called me up to send her copy of Foster’s “Celebration of Discipline” (which was a text at her Christian college) because she is going to study it with a group of friends. I haven’t read that one yet, but I would never refer to my christian brother as a heretic. And I have the utmost confidence in my daughter’s spiritual maturity and discernment to be able to hear and respond to God’s voice from a frail human vessel (after all, she was raised by ME- the chiefest of frail human vessels :p)

There we go.
Are you all sufficiently alienated, suspicious, and fearful of anything and everything I say?
YIKES!!!

Surely Paul never claimed to be perfect, but he nonetheless spent a great amount of time and many words to point out false teachings and name knowing false teachers. He warned, he taught, he scolded, he comforted. He never tolerated even the smallest “mixture”, the tiniest falsehood, and never used his own imperfection as an excuse to keep quiet

Paul:
Phil 3:10 I want to know Christ—yes, to know the power of his resurrection and participation in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, 11 and so, somehow, attaining to the resurrection from the dead.12 Not that I have already obtained all this, or have already arrived at my goal, but I press on to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus took hold of me. 13 Brothers and sisters, I do not consider myself yet to have taken hold of it. But one thing I do: Forgetting what is behind and straining toward what is ahead, 14 I press on toward the goal to win the prize for which God has called me heavenward in Christ Jesus.
15 All of us, then, who are mature should take such a view of things. And if on some point you think differently, that too God will make clear to you. 16 Only let us live up to what we have already attained.
~
He sounds patient with those who differ.
He’s doesn’t sound like he is overly concerned with points where they differ.
He sounds like he knows full well that there is a process involved in spiritual growth.
He sounds motivated to become like Christ.
I love Paul.

We don’t condemn the people, Charis, but the teachings.

I’ve seen otherwise. Lumping mainstream christian teachers, churches, colleges, etc. by name all together with one broad “heretic” brush because one has an issue with the terminology “spiritual formation” and “contemplative prayer” is divisive IMHO and displeases the Lord.

The Samaritan woman at the well did not have the “doctrinal” t’s crossed and i’s dotted. Nevertheless, she spoke with spiritual authority greater and more powerful than any of the pharisees who would have viewed her as an immoral pagan heretic.