Monday, August 23, 2010

Eve's desire to RULE over her husband

Posted by Hannah at 8:02 AM

Barbara Roberts and her husband James Synot wrote a Critique on CBMW's Statement on Abuse, and you can find it on their website  Read the whole critique on their site - its very good, but I wanted to talk about one of their first points today.

One of the first items they mentioned truly caught my attention!  I learned from their paper HOW people come up with this thought of women wanting to 'rule over' their husbands, instead of what the bible actually states.

One of CBMW's points was:

We believe that the biblical teaching on relationships between men and women does not
support, but condemns abuse (Prov. 12:18; Eph. 5:25-29; Col. 3:18; 1 Tim. 3:3; Titus 1:7-8; 1
Pet. 3:7; 5:3).
Barbara Roberts and James Synot partial response was:

Ephesians 5:25-29 tells husbands to love their wives, a command which clearly implies that it's wrong to abuse their wives. Abuse and love are polar opposites; no-one would argue with that. But citing Colossians 3:18 (Wives submit to your husbands as is fitting in the Lord) is below the belt. It implies that in the case of wives, being abusive and being submissive are polar opposites. Only CBMW, with their distorted understanding of the woman's desire in Genesis 3:16, think that way. They claim that the woman's desire for her husband is a desire to usurp authority over him, and they base this claim solely on one author, ironically a female author, Susan Foh, who in 1975 advanced a totally novel interpretation of Genesis 3:16.
 Can you imagine?  A FEMALE opinion!

Foh noted syntactic and semantic parallels between Gen. 4:7 and Gen. 3:16 and concluded that
the meaning of the two passages must be the same. Just as sin crouched on the threshold,
desiring to destroy Cain, and Cain was told he must overrule this temptation, so the wife desires to control her husband (by usurping his divinely appointed authority) and the husband must master her if he can. This interpretation dovetails perfectly into the lying claim of the abusive husband (and his pastor-ally) that the husband was harsh towards his wife because the wife wasn't submissive.  The perfect theological excuse for abuse!

Only if you accept this aberrant interpretation, one that no commentator had conceived of for the
first 1900 years of the Christian era, do you swallow the notion that wifely in-submission is, by
definition, abusive to husbands. There has been surprisingly little debate about Foh's interpretation within complementarian circles; they have gladly accepted and promoted it, and we count this as reprehensible on their part.
I posted her Foh's paper above, and all I have to say WOW!   Seriously?  If we look at the story of Cain and Abel we see two brothers with opposite mindsets if you will. 

Cain’s sacrifice was the result of his own works, while Abel’s was the result of his love for his flock. “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect. And Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell.” (Genesis 4:3-5) Cain sought reconciliation by his works, demonstrating pride, while Abel sought reconciliation by presenting a lamb (a metaphor of Christ perhaps?) that he loved.

Remember when they gave these offerings to the Lord it was a means to wash away sin, and be restored with God if you will.  Cain and Abel gave to the Lord out of opposite prospectives.  One was of sincerity and love towards God, and one was given out of pride.  Cain got his pride hurt when the Lord rejected his offering, and he became ANGRY!

God tries to warn Cain about the power of pride, of all sin, really. “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” (Genesis 4:7)

Now if you look at the last sentence YES it is similar, but what this is speaking about his SIN of pride.  God asks him to not let the sin of pride rule over him.  Compare this to what was said about Eve:

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

When we surrender to temptation, in Cain’s case the temptation of inflated self-worth, we give that sin a foothold. Once established, sin can grow deep roots and eventually conquer us if we let it.   God said that Eve shall have this desire for her husband, and her husband will rule over her.  In the case of Cain?  Cain was asked to place his pride away, so that his pride didn't not conquer him.  If he would have placed it away, and gave proper offering to God as Abel did?  Would not God be pleased with him also?  God told him YES!

Cain ignored God’s warning about sin and seethed with anger and resentment, and allowed this to rule over him. These feelings put down deep roots in him and he finally was pushed to action against his brother. “And Cain talked with Abel his brother: and it came to pass, when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against Abel his brother, and slew him.” (Genesis 4:8)

What about the case of Eve?  Sin had already happened, and God spoke of consequences.   Cain ignored God's counsel, and allowed his pride and anger to rule over him instead.  Cain was given a choice.  He choose sin.  Cain allowed sin to rule over him, and Eve was told man was going to rule over her.  COMPLETELY OPPOSITE! Abel had the proper mindset towards God, and Adam had sinned in God's eyes!  COMPLETELY OPPOSITE!  How can God's words on how the man will rule over her, and Cain's choice of which way he will go can equal 'same type of desire'?

We are talking apples and oranges here!  Foh is trying to say the type of 'desire' was the same.  I notice that CBMW doesn't point that part out to often, but now I know where they got the idea from.  Thank you Barbara and James!

Cain's pride reminds me of the story in the NT in Luke 21:1-4 ASV  And he looked up, and saw the rich men that were casting their gifts into the treasury.  (2)  And he saw a certain poor widow casting in thither two mites.  (3)  And he said, Of a truth I say unto you, This poor widow cast in more than they all:  (4)  for all these did of their superfluity cast in unto the gifts; but she of her want did cast in all the living that she had.

Cain did the same as the rich men in the story.  If we look closely the bible does have repeating themes.  The woman in the story gave out of the correct attitude, and the rich men did not.  Cain did the same.  God called him on it, and told him basically if you also give with the right attitude I will also bless your offering.  Cain instead allowed his angry and pride to rule him, and ended up killing his brother.

Who really suffered in the story of Cain and Abel? I believe in the end the sufferer was Cain. Abel went on to the live with God, while Cain had to live with the scars that he created by his sin. God’s hope for us is that we will come to understand the suffering that sin brings into our lives and this is why He asks us to repent. Like any good father, He wants to spare His beloved children pain.   The same goes for the consequence of the fall.  When it comes to ruling over people?  If you look at human nature and history?  We see that present even to this day.

I have to wonder at times if certain men take that as a slam against their gender, instead of just HISTORY!  If you look at church history Eve has been blamed in the past more often than Adam.  I think part of that is just culture as well.  I have also heard if Eve would have 'consulted' Adam prior?  If she didn't usurp his leadership PRIOR to eating the apple?  WHO knows where we would be I guess.  That's another silly item though.  To repeat such dribble is blaming Eve again, but coming in the back door while doing it.  It's silly.


The logic isn't there to compare the two stories over 'ruling over', or 'desire'.

Cain:  Your desire will be the sin of pride, but it will rule over you. (man's choice)
Eve:  Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you. (God's words)

Cain 'allowed' the desire to rule over him, but God told Eve about her desire for her husband, and how he will rule over her.

Scripture doesn't say that Eve's desire is for her husband, she wants to RULE over him!  It just another excuse man makes to 'take control'.  Thank the Lord there are good men that don't do this!  I pray for the ones that seem to think that is right in God's eyes!

If you enjoyed this post and wish to be informed whenever a new post is published, then make sure you subscribe to my regular Email Updates. Subscribe Now!

Thanks For Making This Possible! Kindly Bookmark and Share it:

Technorati Digg This Stumble Facebook Twitter Delicious


JaneDoeThreads on 2:55 PM said...

'Cain’s sacrifice was the result of his own works, while Abel’s was the result of his love for his flock. “And in process of time it came to pass, that Cain brought of the fruit of the ground an offering unto the LORD. And Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof. And the LORD had respect unto Abel and to his offering: But unto Cain and to his offering he had not respect.'

Not only..., Cain's offering was rejected because his labor off the ground, which the ground was CURSED DUE TO ADAM, while Abel's was the animal which was NOT CURSED, the labor of Cain was his labor, after Adam, Adam tilled the ground, ground was cursed, which then yes would be his works--which were Iniquity, where as Abel, probably working with his mother Eve caring for the animals, remembered or was told about the animal skins/God covering of Adam and Eve, the promise of Grace--and that was His offering,

the rejection was Cains based on the Curse--not just his works.

So, any promoting the Curse would be rejected as Iniquity just as much as his works were rejected, THIS is what the patriarchal bunch needs to GET. Then it evolves, a Dialectic--the ground cursed, that curse is removed After the flood--Noah, the Last enemy to be put down, is Death,

prior to that, in NT, the hostility/enmity between male/female, Greek/Jew is Removed, etc.

then in Rev it says there will be no more curse...on new earth, I think that the curse is still applied here because Paul says, pray to be delivered from wicked men, not all accept God's grace, etc., so the earth is still cursed and will be until the new earth,

but WE, are supposed to live by Love, in Christ, without the enmity. As for Adam being head in Garden, WTH, really, where do they get this????? Sounds like the whole Babylonian Lilith religion because That is where they get this idea from--it is the belief of Lilith, that Adam wanted Lilith on bottom sexually [seriously, yea I know so like penile infantile here] and she refused, left garden, they chased her, she refuses, becomes some she demon that kills kids, early Hebrews also believed in Lilith though not sure if post-exile Babylon or not, but anyway--Eve was then created because 'she' was submissive [would take rape, etc] that kind of misogynist bunk...that is though Babylonian religion, worship of Tammuz, so forth, the Hebrews who believed this quote Isaiah about the owl in the desert as being Lilith--I do not buy that one though, nor the Lilith as first wife belief either--but it Is strong in some Jewish misogynist circles and I do say, misogynist...

but it's borrowed from Babylonian pantheon beliefs from what I have researched. The whole Creationalism ORDER beliefs that the Danver puts out, is the Thor beliefs of ancient Nordic Christianity, that took Christianity and mixed with Odinism,

look up those beliefs, they read Exactly like the the 't'. It makes sense, because the Nazi's believed the same but they took it an extra step, with the Aryan beliefs [occultist] and they both have a lot in common, especially with that whole Cain as serpent seed and Seth as God seed type of thing--and the whole dna genocide justification. [the Nazi churches]




Hannah on 10:47 AM said...

That's interesting Jane. Definitely something to look into.

Girlfriend you are certainly a wealth of information! lol now I need to get digging!

JaneDoeThreads on 4:29 PM said...

Well they aren't thus saith the Lords, these are opinions, though based on my research on another matter, I stumbled onto a lot of info--the ideologies and philosophies are very much identical so,

and then there was one book, on Terror, or use of that does mention the Creationalist order and Nordic Christianity, a.k.a. fundamentalism.

For your research--to give you an idea,

look through these carefully

on Lilith

[many Jewish feminists worship Lilith as the goddess, it's quite a large following among some feminists]

last but not least, found this one today, looks very informative

well, This will give you an idea--so to back some of what I believe with some empirical and/or analysis data.

Love, Jane

Hannah on 5:07 PM said...

Thank you! That sounds REALLY interesting! I love history, and also things along this order.

One of the most interesting classes I took in college was 'Religion - the sociological prospective'. You learn alot from all kinds of points of view, etc.

Post a Comment

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Blog Archive



Blog Of The Day Awards Winner

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Privacy Policy

| Emotional Abuse and Your Faith © 2009. All Rights Reserved | Template by My Blogger Tricks .com |