LOL! Now my anti spam word is ADAM! Is someone trying to tell me something or what?

We should explore what good there is in “patriarch” vs “patriarchy”. I will bookmark that thought in my mind.

A couple of years ago (almost to the day) I started a thread on this topic at christianforums.com. It was quite a barn burner, generating 72 followup posts. You may find it an interesting read, especially considering the wide ranging audience that frequents those haunts (be kind to me, remembering this was two years ago when I was just beginning to earnestly study not only marriage and the creation account but the bible in general). Here is the link: Patriarchy – contrasting the societal and biblical ideas Ironically, the posts ended with me giving an etomological analysis of the word patriarch. I suppose I could argue that it was so good, no one had a response. But I know better.

Ha! My anti-spam word was “MALE” in all caps. Is such name calling really necessary?!? :-0

I have seen some pretty wild interpretations of Genesis 3:16b in my day. Frankly, the one by Ortlund, while oppressive to women, is not the worst of its kind. But I do want to point out that conservative males are not universally in the patriarchal camp, nor are all egalitarian ideas necessarily “liberal” (at least not in fact, although they are to patriarchal thinkers). The problem for many conservatives is a knee jerk fear of radical feminism. But those conservative males (like me) who do not see burning bras around every corner (and who find it refreshing to hear a woman “roar” every once in a while) are far more open and less fearful of an egalitarian view. We don’t need to twist the bible in order to feel protected from those evil women’s libbers.

I don’t know if you are familiar with Dr. Robert Lewis. He is pastor at large of Fellowship Bible Church in Little Rock. By the name, you can probably tell this is a pretty conservative bunch of believers. He is also founder of Men’s Fraternity, a kinder, gentler version of Promise keepers. You may find it interesting what his views are on Genesis 3 (I know this because I have attended his Men’s Fraternity bible studies for the last 4 years). You will be happy to learn that he holds a similar view to Cheryl’s “Unfaithful Watchman” in regards to Adam’s dismal performance in the garden. He has little regard for patriarchy, calling its promotion a “moral failure” on the part of men. If you would like a counter “conservative” take on the marriage partnership that should be far more encouraging, I would recommend his book “Rocking the Roles: Building a Win-Win Marriage”. Also, a little more intimidating to some because of the title but also far more positive in relation to the fall and Eve, is his book “The New Eve”. Take heart ladies – not every “conservative”, and dare I say not even every “patriarch” (we should explore that word some time), is a woman oppressing, wife dominating fiend.

“People love roles, rules and formulas”

Well, I do love rules (my nickname when we play games is “RULE BOY”).

50 Cheryl,

Great points. Of course, you have thought this much farther through than I.

Charis,
I suggest your fourth dimension differs little from the 4th dimension Ortlund sees things through. Where in the text do you discern that “There is another dimension in the Garden that we DON’T HAVE ANYMORE”? I see nothing to suggest that. What we know is that the result of the fall is that our relationships will be much harder because of our sinful tendancies. But I see nothing in the punishments and prophecies of Genesis 3:14-17 to suggest that pre-fall intimacy is impossible or that some component of it has been lost to us. Moreover, if you are correct, you have actually diminished sex post-fall into less than God intended it to be. In fact, you seem to suggest that frequent sex within marriage is actually a bad thing; part of the consequences of the fall.

Although scripture has a LOT to say about sex and its important, positive contribution to the marital relationship, it makes no mention of the idea that either sex was less frequent or good pre-fall, or that frequent, good sex post-fall is some kind of substitute for some mystical relational dimension we have subsequently lost.

43

Prior to reading your translation of Genesis 3:16 (I wonder why I have never looked at scripture4all.org on this verse as I rely heavily on it for so many others) I was under a similar impression as Kathleen. Having read “traditional” translations, it seemed to me that the “punishment” (pain IN childbirth) would have no meaning to Eve unless she had already experienced painless childbirth. I am rethinking as your analysis makes much more sense with the cleaner reading of the Hebrew.

I am not sure it matters in the long run. Would it be a big deal if Eve had already had a few children pre-fall? It still wouldn’t change the impact of the changes in conception, pregnancy, and child birth that you outline the fall brought about, would it?

Of course, the bible doesn’t say she had children pre-fall, nor does it say she didn’t have any. Either conclusion seems to be an argument from silence. The bible also doesn’t say that Cain was her first child specifically (or Able her second, for that matter). As best we can tell, Cain is the first child of any consequence. The only thing the bible is consistent in is leaving out mention of children who don’t factor into the Genesis story line. Although I leave open the possibility that some of those unmentioned children may have been pre-fall, I won’t lose any sleep over it. I will make a point of asking once I get to heaven though, just to satisfy my curiosity ;-).

26 Cheryl,

“Sometimes I just wish that men would stop thinking that they know who women are and just take the time to ask women how they think instead of just assuming.”

LOL – every man should read “For Men Only” by Shaunti Feldhahn and Jeff Feldhahn (of course, every woman should read its counterpart – “For Women Only”)

Charis,
You seem to have some underlying issues with sex but I can’t quite put my finger on what you are getting at. I do know that neither Cheryl or Lin take the position that the “one flesh” union is only physical. We all know that sex within marriage is designed by God for purposes of not only being fruitful but also fostering “oneness” with all of it’s relational and emotional implications. It is in fact all of these non-procreative, non-physical realities which starkly contrast human sexual relations from those of the animals. Since Adam and Eve clearly had that kind of “bond” from the very beginning, and because God designed sex as both the ultimate expression of that bond and a primary contributor to it, it seems illogical to me to believe Adam and Eve could have become “one flesh” as scripture says they did as a matter of fact, without “normal marital relations” having been involved.

I’m doing that ‘AFLAC duck talking to Yogi Berra’ head shake* when reading Ortlund. Let me see if I get this right. On the one hand he says that Eve really didn’t sin at all, it was Adam. On the other hand he is saying that Eve did sin by usurping Adam’s headship. How can Eve sinfully usurp Adam’s headship with the sin nature he gave her when she does it before he commits his sin? Arrrggghhh! Am I properly interpreting Ortlund’s chicken and egg paradox or have I shaken my head too much to grasp this?

*The reference is to a commercial where the AFLAC duck listens in on a conversation with Yogi Berra, who, for those who are not sports literate, has spoken some classically insane lines like “cash is as good as money”. It is a very funny commercial. For the uninformed – youtube it.