gengwall

Tiffany – “I think you and I have very different views about the lordship of Christ over the Church.”

I will return to an earlier discussion. The head/body metaphor is in use here. Does the anatomical head exercise lordship over the anatomical body, or are they instead in a symbiotic relationship? Is a husband really to exercise “lordship” over his wife? Are you really going there? Can he establish commandments? Can he force her obedience? Can he bring about her salvation? These are all aspects of Jesus’ lordship. Do you really believe husbands are even remotely qualified, let alone ordained, toperform such actions within the marriage?

Just because Jesus is Lord in some contexts doesn’t mean His lordship is being addressed by Paul in this passage. Such a universal approach to Jesus puts Jesus in a box. It says “Jesus always and only acts in this mode” or “Jesus is only capable of one relational paradigm”. Jesus, in fact, in the bible, when being spoken of in a marital context, and especially when head/body metaphors are in use, never exercises authority over the church. He does as High Priest and as brother, and God certainly does also as father, but never as husband. The marital paradigm in Jesus’ relationship with believers has a unique dynamic which does not mirror His relationship to believers (or the world) in other paradigms.

I am curious why there is such an emphasis on eros when the word never occurs in the New Testament.

“Both our proper love toward God and His love toward us is described by the word “agape” – yet He is in authority over us. Whether you think it paradoxical or not it clearly is possible.”

So now we are capable of loving like God???? Especially in marriage? I think you give us (or at least husbands) a lot of credit. Never-the-less, the separate instructions to husbands and wives do not establish a hierarchy.

Cheryl – breath…….

It is the same old circular reasoning that we always deal with.

The husband has authority over the wife
Why
Because God gave it to him
How do you know
Because the husband has authority over the wife

NN – I agree with you that each gender receives distinct instructions when it comes to the context of marriage (TL is also right, that those instructions apply to all of us in the context of Christian fellowship – sheez, I’m starting to sound like Tevye). What I would not agree with is that those separate instructions create a hierarchy. In fact, although they are separate, I believe the content of the instructions, especially to men, speak explicitely against hierarchy (love unconditionally, serve, honor, live in an understanding way, etc.) Authoritarian agape love is utterly paradoxical.

Tiffany – would you also agree that the bible is very clear that all Christians are to mutually submit to one another (Eph 5:21)? Moreover, would you agree that Eph 5:22 is very clear that the submission of the wife to her husband is of the same kind and in the same manner as that of all Christians to one another? If so, then what does that say about a wife’s submission – is it obedience or something else? And what does that say about authority – is it present in the relationship?

NN- be careful what you wish for. Are you really suggesting that husbands should think for their wives and control every one of their actions (not that the brain does this but you seem to think it does)? Is that really where you want to go?

The point is that the brain does not exercise “authority” over the body, nor is there any authoritarian hierarchy within the human body. Paul makes it perfectly clear that this equal, mutually dependent anatomical is mirrored in the Body of Christ, of which Christ is a part, in another anatomical metaphor in 1 Corinthians 12:11-27. Not only does Paul never say that the head commands the body, he explicitely states that the head cannot command the body.

NN – How is Matt 28:18 related to the marriage relationship of Christ and the church? Conversely, where is authority in view in the Christ/Church marriage relationship outlined in Ephesians 5, 2 Cor 11, or Rev 19:7? You are superimposing relationships – Christ to the world in one case, Christ to the church in another – and assuming the dynamic is the same in both. Furthermore, you completely miss, or conveniently ignore, Paul’s use of metaphor when he speaks of the head and the body. The fact that we have a meaning of authority in the English word “head” is irrelevant. The fact that we have authority structures in human relationships is irrelevant. What must be demonstrated is that there is authority of the literal anatomical head over the anatomical body. Without that, it can not be proven that Christ as the metaphorical head over the body has any authority over that body.

In a metaphor, the characteristics of the vehicle (literal anatomical head and body) are assumed by the tenor (Christ/husband, church/wife). If hierarchy and authority are not attributes of the vehicle, then they can not be assumed to be attributes of the tenor. It doesn’t matter at all that those attributes are spoken of in other contexts; they are foreign to this context. Authority is never even in view when marriage, whether Christ to His church or generic husband to wife, are spoken of in scripture (1 Cor 7 excepted, where authority is reciprocal), in the context of the head/body metaphor.

“Think I had read somewhere quite a while ago someone giving the meaning of “source of unity”, er something like that…”

Ephesians 4:16 may come closest to this idea:

“we are to grow up in all {aspects} into Him who is the head, {even} Christ, from whom the whole body, being fitted and held together by what every joint supplies, according to the proper working of each individual part, causes the growth of the body for the building up of itself in love.”

“gengwall, it is so good to see your name pop up again! You were missed!”

I have been focusing all my energies as of late on my daughter’s upcoming wedding. That and politics, but that’s another blog.

I agree TL. When Paul uses head/body metaphors, the picture is always of symbiosis and equality. The important point is that head and body do not form a hierarchy, they form a unity.

Elastigirl said: “I would hazard a guess that your approach would work just fine in your marriage, my marriage, or anyone’s marriage. The fact of the matter is our lives are full of relationships without any “additional constraints on proper conduct” beyond mutual respect and mutual submission. Tough disagreements can be worked through (surely not without compromise, sacrifice, some pain), but just as surely without any need to “pull rank” or play the authority card to reach the resolution.”

You are exactly right. In my marriage, if my wife and I can not agree on an issue where we hold equal standing (which is the vast majority), then we mutually decide not to decide until we have prayed about and explored the issue further. Nowhere is this more important than on major issues like how to spend large amounts of money. I made the mistake once of ignoring my wife’s resistance, apprehensions, and intuition, and exercised “authority” regarding an investment strategy. It cost us $35k. No more. Fool me once….

If my wife and I have a strong disagreement about something, it is a red flag that maybe we need to give the matter further consideration. Until we can either come to concensus or work out a compromise, neither of us moves forward. Ours is a no-trump marriage..

Ah. This is the post I have long been waiting for. I find it excellent. You and I quibble over the reason for a wife’s likely reluctance to submitting but I see no need to belabor that here.

One thing I might add. There always seems to be this need to make “head”=”source” in Egalitarian circles. We should not forget that the head/body metaphor is in use here. In this context, “head” means the anatomical head in its relationship to the anatomical body. Metaphorically, it could have the sense of “source”, but I am not so sure there aren’t better interpretations.

Cheryl – we clearly aren’t understanding each other. You keep taking examples from human history but, it seems to me, are trying to read them back into our universal sin nature to say that sin itself is apportioned unequally between men and women. I do not question that in certain times and certain places men have acted worse than women. But I refuse to believe that the general effect of sin on human nature, specifically as it applies to marriage, is biased toward men. Therefore I feel that Gen 3:16 is making a universal statement about sin and humanity, not about what particular cultures may or may not do.

But maybe we are saying the same thing in different ways. My objection is to any interpretation that elevates women over men morally, just as you would strenuously object to the comp interpretation of the verse which elevates men over women.

Now – you asked: ” What do you find unreasonable about my view or about other possibilities?” If your view holds a bias against men or for women, it would be that bias that I find unreasonable. It would not only be unprecedented in scripture when God speaks and teaches about marriage, but it would not accurately reflect the equal impact of a sin nature on Adam’s sons as well as his daughters. I still see such a bias in your thought process. But I may be reading you wrong. A statement that woudl put my mind at ease would be something like “Gen 3:16 teaches that men and women have an equal propensity to engage in sinful actions that are directly harmful to their spouse”.

You further asked:

“So the question is still in the end, did Eve become a rebellious sinner after she left the garden of Eden?” – I don’t know, and at this point I don’t much care. As I said, I am open to a virtuous Eve as long as she doesn’t predict women as a more virtuous gender.

“If she did, what proof does the Scriptures give for this rebellion?” – If she did, my response would be “no more than it gives for Adam’s future rebellion.” We disagree sharply on addtional witnesses. Again, I don’t know if we are at the point in the discussion to resume that particular conversation.

“And if she did not become rebellious because she had the ability to remain without sin (unlike us), then for what reason would it be important that she remained without sin?” – I’m not following.

Cheryl – “This is a false dilemma which is a logical fallacy. It doesn’t have to be a or b.”

You misunderstand. I am not saying that a and b are the only possibilities, I am saying they are the only possibilities I will accept as reasonable.

Cheryl – “Eve’s desire is not exclusive to Eve as men are to have this same desire and they are encouraged to “leave and cleave”.”

If you are saying that the good “desire” in Eve exists equally in men and women I am happy. Of course, it still means the bad “rule” in Adam exists equally in both as well.

Cheryl – “While it is relatively uncommon for women to be the abusers of men it is not unheard of.”

It depends on your definition of abuse. Physically, this is certainly true. But physical abuse is only one kind.

Cheryl – “But as our world shows, it is far more common for men to have this sin that manifests a stronghold in their lives because men are more apt to be aggressive and to want to control every situation.”

Absolutely untrue. Women are easily as controlling as men. Again, the difference is how each gender goes about accomplishing control. Just because men’s controlling actions are more visible due to the fact that they are outwardly physical does not mean they are more numerous.

Cheryl – “So while Genesis 3:16 is specifically about the first humans and their life outside the garden, in this verse there is a pattern that we can identify in a good portion of men and women.”

But you have managed to still see this “pattern” as biased in favor of wives. To you the pattern is that wives are generally virtuous and husbands are generally villianous. That is what I can not accept as valid.

I am open to the idea that Eve is virtuous after leaving the garden but only if one of two interpretations of Gen 3:16 are followed:

Either Gen 3:16 is exclusively about Adam and Eve and is inapplicable to any other marriages;
or Eve’s “desire” is exclusive to Eve and Adam’s “rule” is a condition of both his sons and daughters.

What I can not accept is a situation where the virtue of Eve is passed on to all wives but the villiany of Adam is passed on to all husbands. If no woman is like Eve because of all women’s (other than Eve) inheritance of a sin nature from Adam, then no woman can replicate Eve’s sinless desire and it can not be applicable to any marriage.

Of course, both acceptable situations raise serious concerns for egalitarians. If Gen 3:16 is only about Adam and Eve, then no one can claim that males necessarily inherit a trait of ruling from Adam or that females inherit from Eve some desire to be benevolent toward their husbands even when those husbands behave badly. Any anecdotal evidence in support of such a conclusion is purley coincidental.

On the other hand, if everyone inherits Adam’s “rule”, men and women alike, then that lends weight to the comp claim that women want to rule men just as much as men want to rule women. They just go about it in different ways.

*sigh* Moving to the new post seems to be starting all over. But I will do it.

I submitted too soon. One thing that also should be considered. The Eve good, Adam bad scenario is exactly opposite of the hard patriarchal comp position, where Eve is the villianess with some unquenchable “desire” to usurp and control and Adam’s heroic “rule” is the godly rememdy. I find it ironic that we can rail long and hard against the impossibility of that scenario considering the garden drama that has unfolded and the very character of God, yet some feel perfectly comfortable and convinced that the exact opposite, equally unbalanced and biased reality is being proclaimed by God.

So, we are left here then with the portrayal of the virtuous Eve/wives and the villianous Adam/husbands undenied. How unfortunate. I wonder, Cheryl, if you realize how much you play into radical feminist hands with this conclusion. The idea that males are inherently, morally flawed and that women are inherently, morally superior is one prominent feminist manifesto, especially amongst Christians. It is borderline misandrous. I suppose I will have to turn my attention now to the second post because we now have to first identify not just a sin capability in Eve but a sin propensity before we can come back and address Eve’s desire. This grows tiresome.

Cheryl – “The point that I was making was that Eve did not have a sin nature and so a claim that Eve’s actions are sinful would need a second witness to establish her sin nature.”

I see. Well, I guess that is what the other post is for.

pl – “Yes, gengwall I agree with Cheryl but Adam’s nature didn’t “develope” like it was a progression. It was instant.”

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

CHeryl – “Adam and Eve did not have a different nature pre-fall. However the choice to sin with one’s eyes wide open to the full knowledge of what you are doing in rebellion against God has a tragic consequence and that is a change in nature. When Adam sinned his nature changed from one capable of sin to one bent on sin with a full enslavement to sin.”

I agree. But that leaves Eve with a nature still capable outside the garden of rebellious sin. Do you agree?

I think I need to rephrase a question of mine to Cheryl from an earlier time but in light of the discussion. Do you believe Eve was incapable of sin outside of an circumstance of deception? In other words, do you believe that it was impossible for Eve to deliberately sin in the manner that Adam did? If so, I must conclude that you believe she had a different “nature” than Adam even pre-fall, since it is clear that it was not impossible for him to deliberately sin.

“And it’s not that Adam ‘developed’ a sin nature. His choices just made for who he was.”

But that is not what has been claimed here by Cheryl. The claim is that Adam’s sin nature is something that came into existence at the point he sinned, i.e. it did not exist prefall. Do you disagree with Cheryl here pinklight? Are you claiming that Adam had a different, additional sin “nature” before either Adam or Eve had committed any sin?

I will add that I don’t think God’s image contains some sin component. That is not what I mean to imply. What I am getting at is that God gave Adam and Eve free will to make choices. That free will was equal and the choices available also equal. That includes the choice to rebel. It seems to me that the difference choices between Adam and Eve at the fall had only to do with knowledge, not nature. Adam chose to rebel because he had the knowledge to avoid being deceived. Eve was just as capable of a choice to rebel, but her lack of knowledge led to her being deceived. Adam may have had his nature transformed at the fall to now contain a propensity to make rebelious choices – that will be argued in the other post – but nothing about Eve’s experience changed her capability of making rebellious choices. It only changed her susceptibility to deceit.

I know Cheryl is going to start a new post on Adam’s sin nature and I think that is good. But I want to add a pre-fall question here, because it applies to Eve and her potential for post garden sin.

We know that Adam sinned out of rebellion and Eve sinned out of deception. Cheryl has, I believe rightly, pointed out on many occassions that Eve’s deception came about because of a lack of knowledge. But that raises further problems with a sinless Eve after the fall.

If Adam’s sin nature is a result of the fall, and he didn’t have it before the fall, then we would have to say that both he and Eve were alike in “nature” as it relates to sin. Indeed, they are both equally endowed with God’s image, so whatever propensity or capability to sin existed in one must have existed identically in the other. So, doesn’t that make Eve just as likely to sin out of rebellion as Adam? Isn’t the rebellios “nature” in both of them? Eve was deceived, so didn’t get to the point of rebellion when she ate the fruit. But that doesn’t mean she was incapable or immune from rebellion. It just didn’t happen to her at the fall. And although her susceptability to deception may have changed as a result of the fall, her core capability to rebel was unaffected. Isn’t it possible that she, maybe even more than Adam, had potential for rebellious sin after they left the garden?

pinklight – “This is THE key. That Eve’s desire was sinful CANNOT be established from the scriptures.”

Unless her turning was against Adam, or unless her turning was away from God. What is most important to note is that scripture doesn’t tell us directly whether Eve’s desire is either good or bad. You have no more direct proof than I. So we must look at the surrounding circumstances.

What we can establish from scripture is that the word being used can be used to indocate bad turning (Gen 4:7) or good turning (Song of Solomon). The context needs to be examined. So, which of the only other two situations in scripture is Eve’s desire more similar to? It is clearly Gen 4:7, because not only the similarity in sentence structure but the existence of conflict in both. Add to that the general theme of the Gen 3 narrative from God which contains nothing good, and we can determine from the only clues available that Eve’s desire was not good. It is debatable what was bad about it, but it was bad.

So, is God a God of confusion? Does he leave us hanging about what he means in Gen 3:16? I know wyou would agree with me the answer is “no”. The evidence that God provides for us clearly indicates that her desire was bad.

Wow! What a discussion. I love it.

I will now post my view as requested by Cheryl in #316 above. Before I do that, and since I have been reading a bunch of legal complaints in the last 24 hours related to Obamacare, let me first say that my statement incorporates all the testimony in the preceding posts numbered 1-394. LOL. *shakes head to remove legalese cobwebs*. Most of what I will post has been represented and debated by the many participants and so should not be a great surprise. A little of what I post may cause me to lose some allies from the debate. But so be it. I will try to do this in a systematic way, and I will try to be brief (but will fail miserably).

I must again start with what I believe is Cheryl’s view. Here is a slightly 😉 hyperbolic paraphrase of what I “hear” in Cheryl’s (and pinklight’s) argument.

God: Eve, there are some unfortunate consequences that are going to affect you personally because of the situation. You will have an increase in sorrow and in pregnancy and raising children will be generally not fun. This is all that jerk Adam’s fault, of course. Yet you will not succumb to what would be perfectly justified anger toward him. No indeed. Instead, you will continue to desire to connect deeply with him on the soul level in such a way that you are best friends; a level where you can share all your hopes and dreams with him. Yet, can you believe this, that dirty rotten no good so and so will not only not appreciate your efforts to be his soul mate, but he will take advantage of your goodness and purity and lack of ill will and instead dominate and oppress you all of your days. There is more, I’m sad to say. You, being female, will pass on your goodness to all your daughters. Oh sure, now and then one of them might go against her better nature and fall to her sin nature that she inherits from that misogynistic pig husband of yours, but by and large all women will naturally be kind hearted and model this pure desire you have for Adam. But since Adam is both evil and male, he will pass on only his abusive, ruling nature to men and they will subject their wives in the future just as Adam will subject you.

Now, that is quite dramatic, but it is in essence the argument that Cheryl puts forth as the correct interpretation of Gen 3:16.

I see Gen 3:16 as more balanced than that. But I still must postpone my interpretation and first look at the rest of scriptural teaching (not biblical history) when it deals with marriage.

When God instructs us about marriage in scripture, He always maintains a balance between husband and wife. Genesis 2:24 is the best example of this. Although He created them distinctly male and female, the two are equal and create, in godly marriage, a one flesh union. 1 Cor 7 is also a stark example, with Paul addressing husband and wife with instructions to be explicitly equal in relation to each other in sexual matters. We see the balance in Song of Solomon, where neither lover is dominant and both of their desires are unconditionally met. And we see it in Ephesians 5 and 1 Peter 3, where, although making gender distinctions, the instructions to each gender have equal weight and produce balanced results to the marriage. In all of these cases God’s teaching on marriage is gender balanced, with neither gender being better or worse, or getting more or less, than the other.

Why would God deviate from the pattern here? Why would God all of a sudden elevate one gender while denigrating the other? Moreover, why would God predict a pattern of behavior that is neither lived out in real life human experience or addressed in subsequent teaching? It just doesn’t make any sense unless Gen 3:16 has nothing to do with marriage; unless it is exclusively about Adam and Eve. But nobody suggests that that is the case. So I am left with the conclusion that such an interpretation is unreasonable and unscriptural. But do I have support for a more balanced view? I believe I do.

When I look at Gen 2:24, I see the model of godly marriage. I think all would agree. When I look at Ephesians 5, I see instructions on how to strive toward bringing our marriages back to that godly model in defiance of our sinful tendencies. I think others agree, although to varying degrees. But where in scripture are the specifics of sin addressed to which Ephesians 5 is applicable? I believe it is in our verse, Gen 3:16. To me, Gen 3:16 is the sin axis around which Gen 2:24 and Eph 5 rotate – the ideal of Gen 2:24 on one pole, the path to return to the ideal on the other pole of Eph 5. Of course, for this to be true, one would need to establish that Eve’s “desire” is sinful. I would even contend that it is sin of the same kind as Adam’s “rule”, i.e. sin that is directly harmful to Adam.

I am already going too long. Let me summarize my objections and opinions that lead to the above conclusion quickly.

On conjunctions – Cheryl is correct that the conjunctions could be translated “yet”, but that is only one possibility. If the verse says what she says it says, then her conjunctions are correct. But you can’t decide what the conjunction must be and then determine the meaning of the conjoined phrases. You have to determine the meaning of the phrases and then the conjunctions fall in line. It is just as likely that phrases 2 and 3 are not subsequent and antithetical to each preceding phrase, but are instead simply items 2 and 3 in a list of consequences and not so intimately related to the preceding phrases. So “and” is just as valid an interpretation.

On “desire” – we continue to use that word because it is in all the modern translations, but we all know that “desire” is somewhat inadequate. The correct term is more likely “turning”. Other synonyms may be “inclination”, or “attention”, or “interest”, or “focus”. The point is that whatever “desire” is, it can be positive or negative based on context.

On prepositions – This “desire” or “turning” is almost unanimously viewed as “to” or “toward” Adam, and justifiably so because that is the general meaning of the preposition being used. But, that preposition can also mean “against” as it does in Gen 4:8 when Cain rises “against” Abel. In cases where the two actors in the phrase are antagonists, against is a proper and often more appropriate translation. It could work in Gen 4:7 as well, and maybe should be used: “Its (sin’s) desire (or turning) is against you (Cain) and you must rule over it”. Certainly, the element of antagonists is satisfied and the verse does not lose any meaning or power when “against” is substituted for “for” or “toward”.

Cheryl acknowledges this usage but insists that there is no antagonist in Gen 3:16 to justify it there. I am incredulous at the suggestion that Adam is not antagonistic to Eve. Not only has he brought humanity to this point through his rebellion, and caused significant and painful consequences to Eve, but the future, which the verse is explicitly addressing, will be one where he engages in an oppressive and abusive rule over her. In the future, Adam and Eve will absolutely be antagonists. So, Eve’s “turning” could absolutely be against Adam.

On sin nature – Cheryl’s trump card is that there is no second witness to Eve sinning outside the garden so whatever “desire” is, it can not be claimed with scriptural support to be sinful. I counter that Adam’s “rule” also has no second witness, and although Cheryl has suggested numerous scriptural solutions to that challenge, they are woefully unconvincing. I, on the other hand, contend that God is sufficient witness to Himself. God is not a false prophet, and so there needs be no second witness to a prophecy about Adam’s sinful rule that proceeds directly and audibly from God. The same is true for any sinful behavior on Eve’s part. We can quibble about rebellion and deception all we want, but if God is saying Eve sinned, we’d best believe it.

So, my view of Gen 3:16 is that it is God’s prophecy about the destruction, due to sin’s influence in the world, of godly marriage as testified to in Gen 2:24. Both Adam and Eve, (and subsequent husbands AND wives) are party to this destruction – Adam through unloving “rule” and Eve through a disrespectful “turning”. The good news is that we can fight for our marriages and work to return them to their rightful design. Some people throughout history were able to do that on their own. Never-the-less, God gives us the behavior patterns to implement through His instructions via Paul in Ephesians 5, and Peter in 1 Peter 3. We can return to a Gen 2 model of marriage, but only if we recognize that both Husband and Wife have Gen 3 described flaws that need correction.

gengwall, you didn’t answer these questions:

How was Eve the same as all women and how she was different? Did she operate with a sin nature? Has that sin nature (Eve’s) been transferred to all other women?

Same – she is a woman and has the same physiology as all women. Different – she is not a daughter of Adam.

So no, I do not believe that Eve “transferred” anything sin wise to the sons or daughters of Adam. Sin comes through Adam. But femaleness does not come through Adam. That comes through Eve. If there is a sin inclination that is uniquely male, and Gen 3:16 testifies to that, why would we not think that there is some corresponding sin inclination that is uniquely female also testified to in that passage?

I will give a more thorough outline of my view maybe tonight. I will start with what I find inconceivable in your view. That is that Gen 3:16 ONLY predicts a virtue in wives and that it ONLY predicts a vice in husbands. I find that not only groundless in scripture but devoid of reason. God is simply not that biased.

Cheryl – “Another good note is that when God says that “but now lest he reach out his hand…” the term “lest” is God’s way to prevent a predictable event.

conj.: — 1. w. impf. (106 ×), prevention of a theoretically possible event:”

A predictable event is not an assured event. As the definition so clearly states, the event is only “theoretically possible”. You can not claim that the cherubims and flaming sword prevented an actual sin, but only a theoretically possible one. I continue to contend that the Tree of Life can not be used as a witness to Adam’s future actual sin.

Moreover, as you state above, the reason to prevent Adam from accessing the Tree of Life was simply to ensure Adam’s death. It was not a sin for Adam to live forever, nor would it have been a sin for Adam to partake of the Tree of Life in an effort to live forever. Nowhere in the text does it say that the Tree of Life was now forbidden. God never repealed his permission to eat from the tree of life. The text only states that it was inaccesible for the reason you point out – that eating from it would prevent Adam’s death. I fail to see how a desire to continue to live and “reaching out” for the means to perpetuate one’s life is a sin.