Lin

Cheryl, my concern is that I do not think ‘desire’ is a good translation for teshuqa. Although I do see why others would think that it is. I view her ‘turning toward her husband’ and “away from God’ as sin.

“I believe that it is no less than neutral as it is not a sin. I do not believe that it is harmful to him.
”

Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.”

You do not see any cause and effect here? Her turning toward her husband instead of God causes the husband to rule over her. This is enabling sin. I think it does hurt Adam.

” don’t think that the Bible commands that one initiates submission first for either gender. I think that is equal. But I do see a responsibility for men to sacrifice first and Jesus loved and sacrificed for his Bride.”

I cannot seperate the teaching for married men in this passage from verse 18 which teaches all to submit to one another in the Body. That is what being filled with the Spirit looks like.

The passages you mention are simply a way for the husband to submit to his wife. Culturally, this would have been seen as radical at the time and perhaps his societall position would make it necessary for him to model this first. AFter all, she was considered chattel in that society. Submitting, as it is understood in the Greek, was a step up for the wife. And verse 18 makes it equal for married believers in the Body. There is no way around that unless some, like Grudem, are willing to say vs 18 does not apply to some in the Body which only reads into the text.

Gengwell, come back! Did you see my explanation above?
.

“While I believe that the husband has the responsibility to initiate the sacrificial love for his wife”

Here is an example for Mark that Cheryl and I can disagree. I disagree with this because in Eph 5, the teaching starts earlier with we must be filled with the Spirit and then that we must all submit to one another. I do not see any command that one initiates first. If there is one, I would love to see it.

“I am having a really hard time trying to phrase this so you all will understand how terribly insulting this is to men. Another attempt.

What you are saying is that scripture tells us that men are universally inclined to be tyrants and women are universally inclined to be martyrs.
”

And I was trying to explain it so it would NOT be insulting! I certainly failed at that!

My point is that patriarchy institutionalized and made the sin of ‘ruling’ over a cultural endeavor. It made it not only normal but expected. (And God works through this societal sin for His own purposes. INcluding allowing polygamy which is horrible)

We see instances of partriarchal sin being overridden in the OT but for the most part it was societal in general and a result of the fall. It was not God ordained as comps want us to believe.

Of course there were manipulating women. Look at Sarah insisting Abe have sex with her maid! And he did it! (There is that tango. right?)

But the sin of patriarchal society made her to be worthless without bearing a son. This is just one example of many.

Please do NOT be offended. You are one of the good guys who sees us as equal in being co heirs in EVERYTHING the Lord has for us.

“Of course it isn’t in application. Not all husbands “rule” over their wives, for example. But don’t you believe all husbands have an inclination to rule and that relates directly back to this verse?”

I think you guys are talking about two different things. A husband’s rule was institutionalized sin within the culture and society.
(remember: Better to burn Torah than teach it to a woman)

Jesus Christ can change that. I wish the comps could understand that an adult believer wanting rule over another adult beliver is sin and in many cases actually ‘usurps’ the function of the Holy spirit within that believer.

I am at a loss as to how anyone who knows anything about ancient history can ignore the fact that the sin of Patriarchy was institutionalized after the fall. The results of the fall that we read about right away with Lamech, and on through the OT, only prove that the sins of the fall would result in women turning toward men for all their needs and men would in return, rule over them. I mean this is the basis of history until the last 100 years in some form or another. There might be a few matriarchal cultures but they are quite rare and are usually the result of men refusing to work.

Even as women were treated better as time marched on, they still could not own property without a man’s permission. And voting for women is relatively new from a historical perspective. Why? Because patriarchy was seen as God’s intention.

Even the OT laws, written to deal with sinful hearts, we see God regulating how women are treated. Women were mostly seen as child bearers for the husband. And a male son was worth more to the husband. The horrible way women were viewed is a direct result of sin and institutionalized patriarchy. It is all a result of sin.

And if she could not bear children she was viewed as worthless. Look at polygamy in the OT. And even today, women in Muslim countries live close to how women lived in ancient history. (Ever read the code of Hammurabi? My goodness! Women had it much worse under the pagans)

Now, what about the sins of women in marriage within a patriarchal society? It is usually manipulation. Something that is culturally acceptable. So yes, women are sinful but to think that Gen 3 means she wanted usurp his authority, we have historical proof that is not true.

I believe that the ‘desire/ turning’ is negative because she turns away from her personal relationship with God and turns toward her husband instead. I do not think that is positive at all.

Which is why Jesus Christ is such an awesome Savior!

Since Adam named the animals wouldn’t it make sense that he had come across the serpent earlier. Even named him?

“I agree with gengwell, Gen 3:16 is not making women doormats.”

Women made themselvs doormats by turning to their husbands instead of God. So, it is horrifying that comps teach this as a virtue. Women should look to Jesus Christ as their authority and leader if they are saved. They are also given the indwelling Holy Spirit and do not need an earthly layer between them and Christ.

“Do you really think Eve was looking for the messiah? How would she even know what the messiah was?”

I probably should not have used the term Messiah. I am simply relating back to what God said to the serpent which Eve heard and her response to her first child.

15I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring[e] and(M) her offspring;
(N) he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

The implication is that she wanted him to be what God had told her would come and consequently would happen to the evil one when she said:

“I have purchased a man with YHWH”

“I agree with gengwell, Gen 3:16 is not making women doormats. It’s showing her corrupted nature within the marriage. Her desire will be to usurp her husbands authority, and his sinful response will be to oppress his wife. Look at what i wrote regarding the grammatical similarities with Gen 4:7.”

You cannot get ‘usurp her husbands authority’ out of that passage. Sorry, it is not there. Why? Because he had no authority over her to begin with. YOu cannot usurp something that does not exist. It is simply not in there. God never once told Adam he was in charge of Eve. YOu have to read that INTO the creation account. As a matter of fact, God would not have told them it was to be a One Flesh Union. He would have made it clear it was an authority/follower relationship. He would not have given both dominion.

And by the way, that is a fairly recent interpretation. For thousands of years it was taught that male authority came AFTER the Fall. Not before. But then as folks became more literate and could read for themselves they realized that was teaching sin as a virtue so you guys had to do something so you invented creation order to mean authority. That is becoming more and more of a problem so now they are mapping the Trinity to human relationships. I am almost afraid to find out what they will do next!

Did you look at the translation chart I linked to earlier about the translations of teshuqa over the centuries?

“This is actually the point where I differ from most of my egal friends. As Mark has said, there is nothing positive or good in Genesis 3:16b. Just as I can not agree with hard complementarian views that males are the heroes of Genesis 3:16 whose “rule” is simply a godly counter to those evil women and their cunning, sinful, ways, I can also not agree that females are universally the perpetual poor, pitiful, “doormat” victims of those abusive, domineering males. It takes two to tango. I sincerely believe Genesis 3:16b describes how BOTH genders contribute to the breakdown of marriage in this fleshly, sinful world. It contains neither heroes nor martyrs.”

I agree with this. It is a result of sin and HER choice that she turns away from God and toward her husband. Then it became ingrained in the culture. (Gengwell, if you can tell me how a Muslim woman can escape her environmental prison living in a Muslim country, let me know. Does she have a choice in that tango?)

“Cheryl has told me before that Eve was not “a threat”. What a wrong understanding of sin. I would challenge Cheryl to find any scripture which talks about sin in this way. Sin is rebellion against God. Paul makes it clear in Romans that no one seeks God (Rom 3:11), no one does good, not even one (Rom 3:12). Sin makes us dead (Eph 2). So the question must be asked, is Eve included in this. She must be, since she was a sinner and since none of these exclude Eve as having a different sin nature.”

Mark, are we reading the same Bible? I do not know what you mean by ‘threat’ but after reading your comments here, you simply cannot see the reality of the Word because of your male supremacy filter. If you could ‘banish’ that filter, it would really become more clear. :o)

The Word is very clear. Eve was deceived. Adam sinned on purpose. What did Eve do after she was deceived? SHE ADMITTED IT!. What did Adam do? Blamed Eve and God.

Can you not see the parallels to this truth and what is taught in 1 Timothy 1-2?

Yes, Eve was ashamed not rebellious! She believed the serpent. But look again after the fall…what did Eve do? She was hoping that she purchased a man from God…the promise of the One who would crush the serpent.

(BTW: We have many who do the same thing the serpent did in the Garden. They say, surely God did not say…and they use this same trick to dumb down sin. I say this because I think I understand what you are worried about here)

But, I am simply stunned at the way you are adding to Gen 2-3 what is not in the Word. The Word is clear. Eve was deceived. Adam sinned willfully and dealt treacherously with God. Eve admitted she was deceived. Adam blamed God and Eve. Even the responses to sin was totally different for them both!

On another note: How do you get it out of Genesis 3, that Eve wants to dominate Adam? When the word clearly says, the husband would seek to dominate her because she ‘turned’ toward him instead of God. She becomes a doormat looking to her husband for her needs instead of trusting God for her needs. Patriarchy is born of sin. YET, God works through sinful man all through the OT and regulates his sinfulness later through the law.

“I am also glad to hear that you do not see Gen 3:16 as positive. If this is your’s and gengwell’s view, why is it you never say anything to combat Cheryl when she does say it is positive?”

Where have you been? I have disagreed with Cheryl on several things but not on the essentials. For one thing, I wanted to study this further because I was having a hard time thinking of some of Gen 3 as positive. (Maybe that comes from experiencing labor pains?) But I do see some of it as positive. What God told the serpent about what would happen through the Woman is VERY positive and positive for women. I think you comps miss that and it’s importance.

‘Do you agree that the desire of the woman is ‘against’ her husband?”

ABSOLUTLEY NOT! That is ridiculous. This is another area of disagreement with many egals for me. I think desire is a horrible translation and brings in the sexual element which I think too much is made of. The problem that God is saying will happen (He is not commanding…it is a consequence of her sin) is that she will TURN AWAY from God and toward her husband. Doing so is SIN!

You cannot see that because your comp filter tells you that Adam was in charge of Eve before the fall. And you ignore ‘One Flesh Union”. The fall is what ruined the One Flesh Union and brought in the sin of patriarchy and men wanting pre-eminance. A quick glance at history after the fall only proves that women were more than willing to turn toward their husbands and even be treated horribly.

“Again if the banishment is not an issue why is it never communicated that way to Cheryl? For Cheryl’s opinions to work, the banishment (or lack of for Eve) is vital. Once that crumbles her whole view does. For example if Eve was banished her ‘deception’ is not as innocent as Cheryl makes out. This therefore has implication on 1 Tim 2, since the argument is she is a ‘decieved false teacher’ as opposed to a deliberate false teacher. This distinction between deliberate and decieved flows all the way from Gen for Cheryl, to support her exegesis of other passages.”

You are reading WAY too much into this theory of banishment. The whole thing does not crumble over that. You wish it did and are grasping at straws. My view is that it does not matter. And I made that clear in my last comment. Eve was looking for that promised Messiah. The correct translation is: “I have purchased a man with YHWH”

Eve seemed to be more focused on that. Another reason it does not matter is because of what Gen 3 already told us about Eve would turn toward her husband and AWAY from God.

“Basically my point is- tell Cheryl you disagree with her if that is what you believe. When everyone stays silent the assuption is you all agree with Cheryl.”

Mark, this is not about trashing Cheryl. Cheryl is great about disagreements in egal circles. She believes we learn truth from the Word. She is open to being corrected but I cannot correct because I simply do not know. My point has been that it does not matter to me one way or the other because Gen 3 tells me that Eve will turn toward Adam and away from God. My view is she followed him out because she was turning toward Adam.

Eve’s consequence of the fall is that she will turn away from God and toward her husband instead. That is simple basic truth of why comp teaching is sinful. Because you teach a wife turning toward her husband instead of God as virtue. It simply is not true.

Personally, I do not see Banishment as an issue at all when it comes to hierarchy. Why? Because the seed of Messiah had been promised by God through “her” which would crush the serpent. Eve was contemplating this promise when she bore Cain. Note she does not give Adam any credit for or even interest in her first born son:
“I have acquired a man from the LORD.”

The Hebrew is better translated:
The “I have purchased a man with YHWH” or “I have purchased the man YHWH.”

The whole concept of “purchase” has been wiped out of translations. It has been translated as “get” or “aquired” which does not fully communicate what Eve was saying.

Who cares about Banishment when one is looking for Messiah to crush Satan? The damage was done. Eve was hoping Cain was the promised seed.

“1.we only have I recorded instance of God’s command not to touch the tree of knowledge. This was given to Adam only (Eve was not created). Therefore the question is raised, how did Eve know. Either Adam told her or God told her. ”

Much is made of this to prove hierarchy. But many times information is given to a partner to tell another partner. This proves nothing about hierarchy. It does prove that the one who has less knowledge or personal experience could be easily decieved. This would apply to Eve who did not see the creating going on in the Garden that Adam saw. But it does not prove hierarchy in the One Flesh Union that God intended.

I am not sure how you view Gen 1, whether you see it as a Macro view and Gen 2 as a micro view. It would be interesting to know.

How can we know who told Eve except from what we read in the Word:

“He said to the woman, “Did God actually say, ‘You[a] shall not eat of any tree in the garden’?” 2And the woman said to the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, 3but God said,(B) ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.'” 4(C) ”

It is adding to the Word for anyone to say that only Adam told her. Speculating on this is senseless.

I have to agree that I do not see Eve’s desire as positive. I also do not see teshuqa as sexual in nature even though many translated it that way according to Bushnell’s translation chart on this word and the subsequent translations throughout history.

http://godswordtowomen.org/teshuqa_chart.pdf

I see it as turning away from God and toward her husband, instead. Something that comps teach as virtue which is really a consequence of sin.

“Why is it that so many in evangelical protestantism swallow this stuff hook line & sinker?

With the exception of a smattering of mainline denominations who embrace egalitarianism, the vast majority of parishoners in Bible believing sects will not dare to question this teaching.”

Greg, Great question! One I have asked myself and answered after many years of being around comps. It would be enlightening to do a post on this and discuss it. For the reasons are many and are different among groups.

I will answer you partly. One reason is that over the last 20 years it has been increasingly but subtly tied to salvation by quite a few well known leaders.

““Women are less prone than men to see the importance of doctrinal formulations, especially when it comes to the issue of identifying heresy and making a stand for the truth.”

This is not even biblically correct because we have an example of just the opposite in the Word. One woman got it when most of the men did not:

1Six days before the Passover, Jesus arrived at Bethany, where Lazarus lived, whom Jesus had raised from the dead. 2Here a dinner was given in Jesus’ honor. Martha served, while Lazarus was among those reclining at the table with him. 3Then Mary took about a pint[a] of pure nard, an expensive perfume; she poured it on Jesus’ feet and wiped his feet with her hair. And the house was filled with the fragrance of the perfume.
4But one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, who was later to betray him, objected, 5″Why wasn’t this perfume sold and the money given to the poor? It was worth a year’s wages.[b]” 6He did not say this because he cared about the poor but because he was a thief; as keeper of the money bag, he used to help himself to what was put into it.

7″Leave her alone,” Jesus replied. ” It was intended that she should save this perfume for the day of my burial. 8You will always have the poor among you, but you will not always have me.”

“I think CBMW might be reading Plato:”

Excellent point! I have thought this for a while now. They just do not realize they are interpreting the Word through that lens as men have been doing for centuries on this topic.

The doctrine for their pre-eminance is a huge sin trap for these men.

“Seriously?? So, God’s perfect original design makeup of the female is to make her subject to a constant unchangeable state of deception? ”

I know. Incredible, isn’t it. What on earth do they teach women the purpose for the indwelling Holy Spirit is for.

I seriously fear that many comp women may not be saved. I say that with fear and trembling. But they have a tendancy not see Theology as important for them and rely on the men to tell them what to believe. If they believe this drivel then how can they have the assurance of guidance from the Holy Spirit? Will they have to ask a human male if it is really the Holy Spirit?

“Wouldn’t the best ones for women to teach be men who would easily recognize deception and thus be able to correct them? Yet men are the only ones who are forbidden to have women teach them if we believe the complementarian understanding. It just doesn’t make sense”

Ok, you are making way too much sense! You know, exactly what are they afraid of, when you think about it. Are they afraid of being influenced? Does this play into their belief that Eve enticed Adam to sin? So, then just interpret it to mean that they can deceive little kids and other women! Makes perfect sense. (rolls eyes)

“So is Paul really saying that Eve was created with a “tendency” to be easily deceived? No, that would be reading into the text something that is not there. Rather than describing a flaw in God’s design of the woman that provided for a deceived Eve, the emphasis is on the cunning, craftiness and trickery of the one who deceived her. She was not created as one who was easily deceived. She was deceived through the cunning, manipulative trickery that was a masterful job in deceiving the very first woman.”

Excellent point!

“I’m with you Kay, except – is this really a big problem? I know of no teenage girls being railroaded into marriage by their fathers unless that father’s name is Tevye or they live in a compound in Eldorado Texas.”

It is a big problem in patriarchal circles. And we are just now coming into the first generation this is happening to on a large scale. Voddie Baucham teaches this! As does Doug Phillips of Vision Forum and many other ministry types big into hard comp/patriarchy.

These girls are to stay home (all are homeschooled), not attend college and cannot date. They must serve their fathers until the father finds a proper mate for them. We are talking about 19-22 year olds!

Have you not heard of the Quiverfull movement or “No Longer Quivering” for those who are leaving the movement?

“Lin says that comps have a talmud? If this is the case why are there so many varying egal interpretations of passages. I am yet to see a consistent interpretation.”

We “discuss” interpretations. However, we do not have masses of articles defining roles, rules, etc for the genders FROM those interpretations.

Each one just brings more questions. Some comps/pats think women cannot teach men at all. Some think they can but not if they are standing on a stage or behind a pulpit. Some think women on a video is ok but not in person. But no one has yet, to my knowledge, said at what age a boy becomes a man so some poor women will not accidently sin by teaching him.

Those Talmudic rules.

Piper even says that women should be careful about giving men directions. he says it would be ok for her to design traffic patterns because she is not directing men. But it is NOT ok for her directly to instruct men on driving, etc.

There is even an article over at CBMW that suggests men will have authority over women in HEAVEN! I kid you not. This is about as Mormonistic as one can get. (And wishful thinking :o)

Those Talmudic rules are the ones I am speaking of and like the REAL Talmud have NOTHING to do with scripture. I can remember being exhausted trying to keep up with all of it. So glad to have found freedom from their oral law in Christ!

Frank, Thanks for sharing that! Excellent

My daughter named our dog, but I can promise you I am the one who has authority over him. :o)

“Male and female were created by God as equal in dignity, value, essence and human nature, but also distinct in role whereby the male was given the responsibility of loving authority over the female, and the female was to offer willing, glad-hearted and submissive assistance to the man. ”

The Mormons have their own saying about this with Mormon women. They call it “keeping sweet”.

“However whether or not God gives us seperate roles is another matter, which does not detract from the spritual equality.”

That is not true. And it makes no sense. It is exactly the same argument made for seperate but equal. How can we have spiritual equality when I am told by patriarchs that to teach/preach scripture to a man is sinful for a woman. (Some say it is a sin if done in a pulpit only…others say it is a sin if done anytime/anywhere. So at what age does a boy become a man so a women will not accidently sin. And why can’t you guys get on the same page with your Talmud concerning exactly when women teaching/preaching with men in the room is a sin?)

” For example God does not gift or use everybody in the same way but does that mean some are more spiritual than others? After all a good example from the Old Covenant is the restriction of priesthood for the Levites. Distinction of roles does not = spiritual hierarchy. Until this is understood egals and comps will never dialogue properly.”

Cheryl got it right. This was a physical function. No where in the Old Covenant can you find a prohibition against women teaching men. Yet you want me to believe there is one AFTER the Cross in the New Covenant. And besides that, one could not be a Levite priest if one had sores or was deformed, etc.

What do the Levite Priests have to do with teaching/preaching in the New Covenant? I am very confused how that maps over. Do you consider pastors like Levite Priests?

“Comp theology therefore does not make men more spiritual than women just because we believe that men and women have different roles.”

No, the truth is, your SPIRITUAL roles are unequal. It really is silly to continue to insist otherwise. We all know it. There is are lists over at CBMW on what women can and cannot do. I see few lists for men over there.

“Cheryl it is a shame you dont have time to look into the ommission of YHWH in gen 3. It would most definately help you in your understanding of that passage.
”

For others reading here…I remember a very long comment thread
about this very subject that went round and round with Mark. I do not remember which thread but it has been addressed. Cheryl recognizes a rabbit trail when she sees one. :o)

“If the “designed to lead” and “designed to follow” paradigm were true, then one has to wonder why ALL men aren’t leading by nature (without being told it’s their ‘role’) and why all women aren’t following naturally by design? Why is it we have to told which ‘role’ we are assigned. If it’s in each gender’s DNA, then it should be as natural as breathing”

The comps would tell you it is a result of the fall and sin. They interpret Gen 3 to mean that she desires HIS “role” as authority.

They teach the sinful consequences of the fall as virtue.