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. That the male default response in marriage is one of “rule” BUT the female default response in marriage is this “desire” which equates to long-suffering kindness toward their husbands. That the result, for marriage, of Adam’s bringing of sin to ALL the world is this general orientation: menare bad, women are good. Moreover, any change from the “status quo” of patriarchy happens only males depart from their default badness or females depart from their natural goodness. If equality happens, it is only in the rare case that men overcome their overwhelming, default evilness. If female dominance happens, it is only in the rare case when women deny their overwhelming, default goodness.

I think you are victim of a form of the “correlation=causation” falacy Lin. Just because patriarchy has been the predominant social institution in the world does not prove that men are the predominantly sinful gender. I see no evidence in biblical teaching that shows men to be more naturally sinful than women in any social context, let alone marriage. Men may act out their sin in more demonstrative ways. And they may “get their way” more because of their physical superiority (although getting one’s way is a rather subjective thing). But that doesn’t mean that men are more sinful than women. If Gen 3:16 is all about the men, that is fine, but where is the balancing scripture that is all about the women. Where do we find the fundimental female causation for strife in marriage, if it is not in Gen 3:16?

“I think you guys are talking about two different things. A husband’s rule was institutionalized sin within the culture and society.”

So let me get this straight. Your position is that God is saying in Genesis 3:16 that although “all have sinned”, men and women alike, Men specifically will be the ones who will predominantly sin when it comes to marriage. That patriarchy is not a result of the male’s ability through greater physical strength to impose rule, but that instead that men are simply MORE sinful when it comes to the marital relationship. That patriarchy is the predominant result in the world because, at least where gender relations are concerned, most men are bad and most women are good.

“I don’t think that Genesis 3:16 is all about everyone’s marriage.”

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 do believe that it shows Adam’s rebellion and the tendency for the majority of men to struggle with wanting to control shows that somehow this tendency has come through Adam’s sons. Some women also have a sin problem with control, but typically it is far less in women then in men.”

Not so! Men tend to enforce control through physical means, making it much more visible to the outside world. But that is no proof that men are more controlling, just that they go about it in a different way than women.

“But in the Christian community I do believe that if men followed God’s command to love their wives, and they truly sacrificed for them, most marriages would not only survive but flourish.”

I trust then that you believe that if women followed God’s command to reverence their husbands, and they truly sacrificed for them in a way that is meaningful for men, that marriages would flourish as well.

Cheryl – do you believe Eve was sinless after she left the garden?

“This is exactly right! In the issue of marriage I don’t think that we can use Eve as an example of all women since Eve is not one of Adam’s daughters. It is when we treat her as if she is one of us (a woman with Adam’s sin nature) that we can misunderstand what was written about her.”

Oh my!!! This is stark double speak and I must protest. Everyone talks about how Eve’s “desire” represents something that all wives will gravitate towards just as Adam’s “rule” is applied to husbands. Eve has always been discussed as representative of wives. But now, suddenly, when the issue is raised that maybe this “desire” is negative, wives are no longer in view? Now only Adam is representative of male spouses but Eve is not representative of female spouses? I guess that means then, since both husbands and wives are children of Adam, that they will ALL tend to “rule” and the “desire” from Gen 3:16 ONLY applies to Eve herself and nobody else! I’m sorry but you can’t have it both ways. Is Gen 3:16b about marriage and both husbands and wives, or only about Adam and Eve?

I don’t agree either that females are universally the doormat victims of their abusive husbands. But I do think that women “put up” with bad behavior far more than men do. After all in Muslim countries where the women are mistreated and held back, they survive in that abusive environment with an incredible amount of patience yet having a desire to be free from the control. Women seem to be the strong ones who are able to carry on in almost any circumstance.

Culture has certainly been lopsided through history – there is no doubt about that. But I don’t think that Gen 3:16 is trying to tells how culture is going to tilt over the centuries. I believe it is telling us something fundamental about men and women and their equal potential for actions that are detrimental to marriage. After all, although most cultures have been patriarchal not all have, and although many men are the primary modeler of Gen 3:16 in individual marriages it is not always so. For every anecdotal patient, accommodating, doormat wife we can find a patient, accommodating hen-pecked husband. So, although I agree with your assessment of history in its practical application of Gen 3:16, I don’t believe that tips the balance in what the verse is saying about wives and husbands generically. In other words, I don’t think the verse is presenting a case of “bad spouse; worse spouse”, and it certainly is not presenting a “good spouse; bad spouse” scenario.

Consider: if the verse is saying that males and females both have equal potential to bring strife into marriage, and if the male version of strife is brought about through “rule”, what do we have left to identify the source of female induced strife? The only parallel term we have is “desire”, is it not? The idea that “desire” is “good in the husband’s eyes” and is merely an expression of patience and perseverance, or that it is an perfectly understandable “desire to be free from the control” of male rule, leaves nothing in the verse detrimental to the marriage related to wives. In this view, Gen 3:16 clearly labels men as tyrants because their “rule” is tyrannical (demonstrably so). But women get the opposite treatment. They are clearly labeled as martyrs because their “desire” is either a justifiable revulsion to the tyranny or a dutiful submission to the tyranny. If “desire” is the antithesis of “rule” instead of a parallel detrimental action, the verse is horribly unbalanced against men.

I’m sure you will understand that I, as a man, have a very difficult time accepting such a conclusion. I don’t believe men are more capable or inclined than women of bringing strife into marriage even though they have more often been guilty of it throughout history. And I certainly don’t believe that men are the only gender that brings strife, with women being the only gender that suffers from it. I also don’t believe that God, in the quintessential verse on division in marriage, would be so lopsided. So, I can’t come to your conclusion about what “desire” entails, even though I can not myself put my finger on it. I just know that whatever it is, its character contains no noble elements like patience, perseverance, and a desire for liberty. In my opinion, it is just plain bad, as bad as “rule”, and its manifestation is injurious to husbands just as the manifestation of “rule” is injurious to wives.

LOL – I feel my contribution at this point is equivalent to adding 30 seconds to “Lawrence of Arabia”. Never the less, here goes.

This refers to Cheryl’s post 89 above.

I agree whole heartedly with these statements…:

There is no judgment at all. For a judgment God has to say “I will…(do this)” or “cursed is…” but no judgment can be brought by the phrase “you will…”

The passage says nothing about the woman “dominating” the man. That is an addition to the text for sure.

…and I have already stated my disagreement with Mark’s contention that “She will try to usurp his authority”, since he has no inherent authority to usurp.

But, I do not accept the one-sided notion that Eve (i.e. a wife) is somehow a victim and any and all marital discord stems from Adam’s (her husband’s) bad behavior. Therefore, I disagree with this:

Secondly the woman’s desire can be looked on as good and bad depending on whose eyes the actions are viewed through. For the man her desire is a good thing.

Is Adam’s “rule” a good thing in Eve’s eyes? Certainly not. I don’t believe her “desire” is any less favorable in his eyes. Cheryl, your stance seems to be that Adam’s “rule” is simply taking advantage of the prostrate Eve, who now, dutifully, with narry a harsh word or action, follows almost trancelike after her abusive husband. In this view, his “rule” has nothing to do with anything negative she has done, but is just a senseless, cruel, response to her “good in his eyes” “desire”. That makes wives universally the martyrs and completely exonerates them of any negative behavior toward their husbands which would lead to marital discord. Moreover, it makes husbands universally tyrants. I don’t buy that for one minute, nor is it born out in real life. Women are just as responsible for marital strife as men are, and I am convinced that thier contribution to that strife begins with this “desire” or “turning”, what ever it might be.

As for el, you asked:

In the Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew-English Lexicon, the main 3 meanings of this word have to do with a direction towards anything. The only negative meaning has to have a context to be of a hostile character. What words would “el” link to in the context that would provide the evidence of a “hostile character”? You cannot just use the word alone. There has to be evidence of hostility.

Is Adam not a hostile enough character for you? Even if the antagonism were only one way – like it is with Cain and Able in Gen 4:8 where el is translated “against” – that is enough to consider that Eve’s “turning” was against Adam. I think a translation of “against” is at least on the table.

“(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?)”

Certainly, a culture can make the tango lopsided.

“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”

Of course, as Mark surely knows, this is half what I believe. I would not say that her desire is to usurp her husband’s authority because I do not believe any authority has been granted to the husband. I am not certain what her desire is for. I only believe that it is negative to the marriage. But her husband has no authority over her to usurp, so that can;t be it.

“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.”

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.

Mark – “can you expand for me why you favour Cheryl’s exegesis of 3:22ff. Do you agree with her that ‘ha’adam’ can only refer to one person?”

Yes

“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?”

I have stated on this blog that I do not see exactly eye to eye with many here regarding “desire”, (or, for that matter, submission in Eph 5), but there has seldom been an occassion where a detailed debate of that specific topic has been appropriate. Cheryl focuses mainly on women in ministry and not marriage, so I try to remain as topic appropriate as possible. This may be that thread, but ironically, your dissertation has taken the discussion away from a scrutinizing look at vs. 16b. That’s fine with me if it’s fine with Cheryl. In reality, I have said about as much as I would have otherwise said simply by agreeing with your singular point on vs. 16b. I know I am in the minority, and welcome a dialog about both “desire” and “rule”, but am just as comfortable letting the conversation go where it may. Sooner or later, it will become a specific point of discussion on my blog, which is when and where I intend to exert the majority of my energy.

“But i guess my question to you is, why do you therefore still believe that Eve was not banished. If the one verse seemingly supporting the non-banishment view is wrong (which it is), what else is there to assume she wasn’t banished.”

A couple of thoughts. First, I am not certain that Eve was not banished, I just favor Cheryl’s exegesis of vss. 22-24. But as I said, my interest in that section of the text is minimal. Second, the verse I am very interested in – vs. 16 – while being a brick in your case also stands alone related marriage. I simply don’t think I have to believe x about a in order to believe y about b.

I will happily let others slug it out over “banishment” issues as I really don’t have a dog in that fight (I side with Cheryl, but my interest is luke warm at best). I will say this, though, to Mark. Not only do I agree with the below statement by you (which puts me somewhat at odds with many here), but your translational views on el may provide the missing link to showing the “why” of something I have long felt true but have struggled to find any good argument for: that the “desire” of Genesis 3:16 negatively impacts marriage as much as the “rule”. So, at least in this one rare instance, you and I are sympatico.

1. First of all, we need to remember that this verse is within the corpus of punishment and curse. Therefore to assume that anything in these verses is ‘positive’ neglects the context. I say this to comps as well, since some believe that this verse is a remedy to the fall (that the husband shall rule over wives). This is wrong. This is a judgment on Eve and Adam therefore nothing here should be considered positive. Eve’s desire is not positive, nor is the husbands rule.

Mark claims that Adam had the “priority” in authority over the animals and that his expression of that authority was naming the animals. As a converse, he denies that Eve had “equal authority” to Adam as it relates to naming the animals. But, he concedes that Eve and all women have equal authority with men in naming children (BTW – the only Hebraic cultural naming practice from which we can draw). Moreover, he has not gone to the absurd length of claiming that naming animals is a unilaterally male task. Still, he shows no evidence (nor is there any) that the naming of animals is “mostly” a male task or that Adam’s presumed unilateral naming authority in the garden had some future expiration date. The contradictions in this line of thinking should be obvious. The rational, logical conclusion if that Eve was equal with Adam in regards to naming animals. If such naming was an act of authority (I do not believe it was), then Eve’s authority was equal to Adam’s in this context. If Eve was equal to Adam in authority, it would have been a great ussurpation of that balanced authority for Adam to exercise an authority over Eve that she possesed with him in equal measure. It also would have been terribly degrading for Adam to put Eve at the level of the animals who she had equal authority over. Therefore, Adam’s act of calling Eve “woman” was either not at all related to any authoritarian hierarchy, or a very sinful precursor to “he will rule over you”. Since the latter, I hope all would agree, is impossible, we must conclude exactly what the text tells us, that “she shall be called woman…” is nothing more than his joyful recognition that his ezer neged had finally arrived.

10. Adam’s classification of Eve differs from that of the animals in that Eve was first classified by God. With the animals, Adam’s classification was the first utterance of the word which Adam called each animal. But with Eve, “woman” had already been designated by God. Adam simply reiterated, in his expression of joy, what God had already declared. So Adam didn’t really engage in the act of classifying Eve at all.

And that is number 10 Pinklight

5 above got messed up:

5.” Even if Adam had authority over the animals prior to Eve, Eve aquired that authority in equal measure upon her creation. Eve can’t be subject to an authority she herself possess.”

This is false argument- A+B do not equal C. It shows that authority is not the same. Both are told in Gen 1 to rule the earth, but Gen 2 shows that Adam had the primary role for that. Also Gen 3 shows his punishment is associated with his primary role- the earth. Both have rule over it but differently. Authority is not equal. Women have the primary role of bearing children, which was also given to both as ‘rule’ in Gen 1. But i don’t hear any egals arguing that this is unfair or predjudice. Your argument is simply false.

I believe yours is the false argument. You claim a=b (Adam and Eve were given equal authority in Genesis 1) but then a!=b (Adam had the primary authoritarian role.) And the Genesis 1 “be fruitful” is not related to the act of bearing children, which women do exclusively (not primarily which you claim). “Be fruitful and multiply” is also equally shared between men and women.

“If Moses said that Adam named Eve, what would that mean to a hebrew? It would mean something to them.
Does this make sense?”

Certainly. But the Hebrew word has a variety of meaning. It can mean to give a name, it can mean to call to someone or cry out, it can mean to classify or identify something based on its characteristics. Our job is to determine in what way Adam “called” Eve. It is true that in Genesis 3 he named her. But in Genesis 2 he classified her. As someone put it earlier, her name wasn’t “woman”. So, any reference to the giving of proper names in Hebrew (or any other) culture is irrelevant to Genesis 2 because that is not what Adam did with either Eve or the animals.

Mark – “I am not saying that only Adam or men named their children. Naming to a hebrew indicates authority”

So how come, outside of Genesis, there is not one occurance of a husband naming his wife in all of scripture. If this was cultural practice, how come we see no evidence of it in the culture?

1. So God didn’t name things in Gen 1, he just classified them aswell? God therefore should not be understood as having authority over his creation in your opinion?

God didn’t name things “John” and “Jane”, so yes, he was classifying. Do you dispute that Adam gave taxanomical names to the animals?

2. “There is no cultural naming convention between husbands and wives, so such an appeal to culture is an appeal to something that is non-existent”

Why are you appealing to culture gengwell to support your argument, i thought it was irrelevant? You are contradicting yourself.

LOL – I am refuting your appeal to culture, which certainly is evident. Now please put the goal posts back where they belong.

3. “3. Adam’s classification of the animals was not an act of authority, it was an act of scientific discovery.”

Saids who? This is not in the scripture. But we do know that naming is authoritative in the hebrew culture. You are ignoring relevant information and supplementing it with speculation.

Culture is irrelevant as I have already stated. Classification of animals is not an authoritative action, it is a scientific action. The bible does tell me this by the nature of Adam’s activity. If Adam named the animals “John” and “Jane”, then I would agree that Adam was engaging in a naming activity and we could discuss whether or not that activity had an authoritative element. But Adam did not engage in such an activity.

4.” There is no evidence that Adam even had authority over the animals before Eve’s creation.”

Gen 2 is not supposed to be read in isolation of Gen 1, it is supposed to expand and help us understand Gen 1. And since the hebrew culture understands it authoritatively this is the best way to undestand it.

I agree with you that Genesis 2 expands Genesis 1. Genesis 1 is clear that the man and woman were given authority over creation at the same time. God didn’t first have a talk with Adam about dominion and then rehash the conversation with Eve. The first instance of authority granting to humans that we have any evidence of was when Adam and Eve were together. So culture again is irrelevant. The text is plain. Prior to Eve’s creation, at least according to all the evidence we have, there was no discussion of human dominion over creation.

<blockquote)5.” Even if Adam had authority over the animals prior to Eve, Eve aquired that authority in equal measure upon her creation. Eve can’t be subject to an authority she herself possess.”

This is false argument- A+B do not equal C. It shows that authority is not the same. Both are told in Gen 1 to rule the earth, but Gen 2 shows that Adam had the primary role for that. Also Gen 3 shows his punishment is associated with his primary role- the earth. Both have rule over it but differently. Authority is not equal. Women have the primary role of bearing children, which was also given to both as ‘rule’ in Gen 1. But i don’t hear any egals arguing that this is unfair or predjudice. Your argument is simply false.I believe yours is the false argument. You claim a=b (Adam and Eve were given equal authority in Genesis 1) but then ab (Adam had the primary authoritarian role.) And the Genesis 1 “be fruitful” is not related to the act of bearing children, which women do exclusively (not primarily which you claim). “Be fruitful and multiply” is also equally shared between men and women.

6. “If Adam’s classification of Eve is equivalent to his classification of the animals and it was an act of authority, then Eve does not possess the same level of authority over creation as Adam, negating Genesis 1 and lowering Eve to the status of an animal.”

Again false methodology. It shows that their authority is not given in the same way with the same roles. Gen 1 does not say you will rule (in the exact same way with the exact same authority). Again reading Gen 1 in isolation distorts what Gen 2 reveals about this ruling.

No differentiation of authority over creation is ever given in scripture. Your claim that women have less authority than men over creation is baseless. I know you want to believe that Genesis 2 is a division in authority, but the bible simply does not say that – it is supposition.

Mark – the Hebraic culture certainly might have had an impact on Moses’ writing as it dealt with the law and other contemporary matters, but it can’t be claimed that the culture of Moses influenced Adam’s actions. Yet that seems to be what you are claiming – that Adam’s actions were a reflection of hebraic culture. How can that be when there was no such thing as a hebraic culture when Adam engaged in his actions? If the culture of Moses’ time is the lens through which we interpret the actions of Adam’s time, isn’t that revisionist history?

I think we will repost a complete list further down. Trust me, I am keeping track. Now, was that one or two reasons. It seems like one:

9. God defines his own creation when it comes to those who are created in His image. To assume that the man would be needed to give identity to the woman assumes that the work of God in humanity must be given direction by one human. This has no basis in the text.

How does that sound?

8. God never states anywhere in scripture that naming something grants or is an expression of authority. The cultural argument is just that – a cultural argument based on the affairs of fallen humans. It has no basis in scriptural teaching or law.

Already remembered another one. This goes between 1 and 2.

1.5 No culture existed in the garden for Adam to look back on, therefore the argument that Adam is reflecting cultural patterns is erroneous.

I’m starting a list – please feel free to add to it. So far I find 6 solid reasons why Adam’s “naming” of Eve in Genesis 2 could not be considered a proof of any authority Adam had over Eve.

1. Adam doesn’t “name” Eve and the animals, he classifies them. Therefore, cultural naming conventions are irrelevant.
2. There is no cultural naming convention between husbands and wives, so such an appeal to culture is an appeal to something that is non-existent.
3. Adam’s classification of the animals was not an act of authority, it was an act of scientific discovery.
4. There is no evidence that Adam even had authority over the animals before Eve’s creation.
5. Even if Adam had authority over the animals prior to Eve, Eve aquired that authority in equal measure upon her creation. Eve can’t be subject to an authority she herself possess.
6. If Adam’s classification of Eve is equivalent to his classification of the animals and it was an act of authority, then Eve does not possess the same level of authority over creation as Adam, negating Genesis 1 and lowering Eve to the status of an animal.

…and, as pinklight has already pointed out several times, the purpose for Adam’s naming of the animals was not to either establish or demonstrate his authority over them. There is no evidence at all in scripture that any authority over creation existed for humans until both humans were present and then, that authority was equally granted to them.

In other words, if Adam had a naming authority that Eve did not have, and his naming of Eve was an expression of that authority, then Eve is of no greater status than an animal in relation to Adam and the directive from God in Genesis 1 is misleading.

Conversely, if Eve had equal authority over the animals with Adam as Genesis 1 states, then she would have equal naming authority as well and would have been just as qualified to name them as Adam was in Genesis 2. Eve can’t simultaneously be both possessing and subject to the very same authority. Adam’s naming of her could not possibly be equivalent to his naming of the animals because she shared that authority with him.

And of course, as many have pointed out, the “naming” of the animals was not at all equivalent to naming a child or a pet. It was a taxonomical classification and therefore has nothing to do with any Hebrew cultural naming activity.

The whole argument related to Hebrew culture is filled with contradictions and non sequiturs.

I will also reiterate my challenge to Mark related to Hebrew Cultural influences. There was no “Hebrew culture” when Adam and Eve were around, so it is quite silly to claim that Adam was following a Hebraic cultural practice.