The CBE Scroll

Comment by Michelle

January 15, 2012 @ 4:40 pm

Yes.

I would say plain ol’ relational intimacy, rather than sexual intimacy, would make a lot of sense. NOT to deny that women have a sex drive, but the turning away from God and moving toward her husband, replacing God with her husband, in a misguided attempt to gain/increase intimacy with her husband, jives with what I’ve observed in hierarchical complementarian marriages.

Of course, both individuals are also trying to please God, as they understand God.

Yet true intimacy is difficult to achieve, with the hierarchy that is placed between them. The woman (unknowingly) places the man in place of God, wanting to please her husband, hoping that maybe he’ll be more *relational* with her as a result.

Trevor, do you happen to recall around what year you were approached with this new teaching?

Comment by Cheryl

January 15, 2012 @ 8:56 pm

Hi Trevor, My understanding of the word ‘teshuqa” (and I am no Greek scholar) is that it implies a ‘turning’, as in a turning away from one thing to another. It’s interesting to note that the word is also used in Song of Solomon7:10 “I am my beloved’s and his desire is toward me”. Given most would agree this is an allegory of Christ and the church, I can’t help wondering how your friend would interpret that one!

Dee Alei in her book “From Bondage to Blessing” provides some good historical background on ‘teshuqa” as going back to the Septuagint and the Greek word ‘apostrophe”, meaning to reverse direction. She also states that the idea of sensual desire came from the Babylonian Talmud which “portrays Eve as a temptress to be eternally punished by God, enslaved now to lust for her husband…” (From Bondage to Blessing, Dee Alei, page 51, published by Sovereign World Ltd, England).

It seems the two main traditional interpretations surrounding Genesis 3:16 have been a)women wish to seduce men, and/or b) women wish to rule over men. Personally I don’t believe either concept is an accurate understanding of this verse.

My own take is that in turning to her husband first Eve turned away from God as the first source of all her needs (which is idolatry). God prophesied the natural consequence, not a curse, not a punishment, but a consequence: that her turning to the man for her needs would give her husband undue power to rule over her, emotionally, physically and even spiritually if possible.

As someone who has spent many years working with Christian women who have suffered marital abuse I find one of the most difficult areas for women to overcome is in the need for male approval. I do not mean to generalise here, I am speaking specifically of women who have experienced some form of domination by a male partner, whether it be emotional, physical, sexual or all of the above. Damaged women, until healed, often still look for a male partner who will in some way provide assurance of their value.

I cannot agree that the meaning of ‘desire’ in Genesis 3:16 is related to a woman’s desire for sexual intimacy. From what I have observed a woman’s concept of intimacy is more often based on her emotional needs than physical needs.

I’d be interested to hear other comments especially in relation to how Song of Solomon 7:10 might shed further light on ‘teshuqa”.

Comment by Trevor

January 15, 2012 @ 10:00 pm

Michelle, we just checked our records and a more precise date would be 12 years ago now as it surfaced in a conversation in the year 2000. My friend sourced this from the internet and I understood, at the time, that it came from a noted American preacher. As mentioned in my post I have heard it repeated frequently since.

Cheryl, thank you for your comments. After I had written that post, several weeks ago, I did some further reading and came across the interpretations that you have mentioned. Mostly in the early writings of Catherine Bushnell where she takes up the Greek word used in the Septuagint to make her case, ‘apostrophe.’

I was going to update the post but then thought that we would see where the discussion went and comment further at that point. Bushnell is very strong on the thought that Eve ‘turned’ towards her husband, as opposed to trusting God.

Her thoughts on God’s words to Cain (Genesis 4:6,7) are very interesting but bear out the reading of the text as it appears in the AV. She suggests that God was saying that Abel would turn towards Cain (possibly as an older sibling) and that God was warning him not to take advantage of that. Which of course he did.

Bushnell also makes the comparison with Song of Solomon 7:10 and the ‘turning’ aspect of the sense given there. I was going to modify my simplistic rendering and do take your point of the abuses perpetrated on women by their having been cast as ‘temptresses’ as portrayed in the Babylonian Talmud.

Let’s see where the discussion takes us.

Comment by Michelle

January 16, 2012 @ 7:20 am

Cheryl, yes, I felt as though I’d been lied to for years when I found out about the same word for “desire” being used in the Song of Solomon. The teaching in the denomination to which my church belonged ONLY ever mentioned the word appearing elsewhere in terms of Cain and Abel. (in my experience, at least.)

Thank you, Trevor! That was not long before I started hearing the same interpretation. And it was the only one I ever heard in the circles in which I was at the time (thank goodness for CBE!).

A couple of thoughts: I forgot to mention that wanting control over another person seems to be a very *human* condition, not a specifically female or wife thing. Not in the sense of complete control, but the kind where we wish our spouse/sibling/parent/friend would *agree* with us/our plans…that kind of thing. If you follow. We don’t really want control over that human being, not actually (I don’t think, generally, not at a conscious level, anyway). I’m thinking here mainly about during arguments or disagreements.

Of course, why else are wars fought, for that matter?

And as far as seeking male approval goes, yes, I can see that condition may apply more in cases in which there has been abuse. I do see it all over the popular culture, though, in the way society has set up gender roles, including teaching women that marriage/good marriage is a way to gain status.

Yet I also see that seeking of male approval as a natural reaction in (and to) a power structure in which males as a class have more power–What other way is there to climb the ladder but to have approval of those higher up the ladder than you? (and I do not, btw, mean or mean to imply anything sexual involved. But I did think it good to include a disclaimer. See how messed up our society is?)

Comment by RED

January 16, 2012 @ 8:24 am

I like this discussion!

I also would like to weigh in on the side of those who say that the word most likely implies a relational turning. Otherwise, it seems like the scriptures are putting a negative connotation on a women wanting sexual intimacy with her husband….and I just have trouble buying that, considering that God created sex to be a special bond between spouses. Why would either partner’s desire for that be a bad thing? (It would also imply that Eve had no sexual desire for Adam before the fall. Think about it. Everything else in that pronouncement–painful childbirth, having to work and sweat for survival, husband ruling over–was a condition that did NOT exist pre-fall).

The most interesting part of this conversation by FAR is the pronouncement that the husband shall rule over the wife. That verse seems to state, pretty clearly, that husbands having authority over wives is a negative consequence of the fall, which shall NOW begin (i.e. didn’t exist before). Yet complementarians look that verse right in the face and somehow use it to SUPPORT that notion as being God’s perfect plan. It boggles the mind!

I have even heard people boldly assert that Adam and Eve practiced hierarchy in the garden before the fall. What? Really?? Where is that in the text???? Why did God even have to bring it up after the fall if it was already happening? I have also heard people assert that this hierarchy will be properly restored in the New Kingdom. Uggh! As Charlie Brown always says, I can’t stand it!

Sadly, I have heard a lot of desperate and unhappy women point to these verses in Genesis as a reason for why they have given up hope about their life getting better. One women said that the ability to have children must be part of the fall, because once you have children, you are enslaved to your husband in a miserable life.

Comment by Matthew

January 16, 2012 @ 4:46 pm

It would be surprising if the woman’s desire for her husband in the curse pointed to a special moral defect, since (as I recall) nothing else in the curse is a moral fault. The phrase does seem to belong to the phrase after, “he will rule over you”, not to the former, so I don’t buy your reading that it is about sex and childbirth. Why shouldn’t we just say that Eve is cursed to want to rule her husband but will (due to patriarchal systems) be prevented? Wanting to be in charge is a fairly universal phenomenon.

Comment by Liz

January 16, 2012 @ 6:10 pm

Matthew..would like to draw your attention to the fact that it was the ground which was ‘cursed’ and also the ‘serpent’. The word was not used toward the people.

Also, I don’t see the woman’s desire toward her husband as being a ‘moral defect’ but a natural inclination which would now have unhappy consequences.

Just as we now can partly control weeds and thorns, we can now learn how to have relationship with one another without the ruling.

In so many parts of the world, in so many religions and cultures, women still desire marriage even though they know they will endure beatings, shame, being treated like a slave and not given any respect. This is the worst end of the continuum but the mindset still prevails in what is called the ‘western world’

Comment by Temperance

January 16, 2012 @ 6:18 pm

“My own take is that in turning to her husband first Eve turned away from God as the first source of all her needs (which is idolatry). God prophesied the natural consequence, not a curse, not a punishment, but a consequence: that her turning to the man for her needs would give her husband undue power to rule over her, emotionally, physically and even spiritually if possible. ”

This is also what I see from the word “desire” – a longing for emotional intimacy and approval. To have so much dependence on another person, in my opinion, is to set oneself up to be controlled, manipulated, or the very least, disappointed.

Years ago, I took a class called Marriage Without Regrets, which taught that the woman’s “desire” meant the wish to control. That was damaging to my self image at the time. It also taught what Red mentioned about hierarchy existing before the fall and the “proof” that it was part of God’s plan. The harm done to me emotionally by this class lasted a long time. I am thankful for ministries like CBE that have helped me find the truth.

Comment by RED

January 16, 2012 @ 6:52 pm

Temperance,

I’m upset (but not surprised) to hear that this teaching damaged you. :( I’m so glad you moved past it. Please let us know, are you (and your relationship/marriage) doing alright now??

Red

Comment by Cheryl

January 16, 2012 @ 7:18 pm

“One women said that the ability to have children must be part of the fall, because once you have children, you are enslaved to your husband in a miserable life.”

Red, how very, very sad this woman you mention felt/feels this way. I hope someone can show her that the ability to have children was part of God’s plan before the Fall, and not part of the Fall. This is clear from Genesis 1:28 where God blessed the man and woman and said “be fruitful and multiply….” If this lady has been taught that reproducing children is part of a “curse”, surely that would make children a curse (?)in her mind, when in fact, as Genesis 1:28 implies, they are part of God’s blessing on the man and woman. I feel so sad that any woman should feel this way, but sadly I am sure she is not alone.

Comment by Don

January 16, 2012 @ 8:04 pm

In the Adam and Eve stories, there are a few hurdles to overcome:

1) These stories are suitably edited when commonly taught to kids. However, since they are edited, they often do not accurately teach the story. Yet we learn them when we are sponges and it can be hard to see that what we learned was not accurate.

2) From our perspective, these stories can have gaps in them, not telling us what we want to know. We need to learn to accept the stories as they have been given to us and not try to fill in the gaps that might appear to need filling.

In the Hebrew, there are 5 things told to the woman in Gen 3:16 and the very first clue that something different is going on is that the literary format is different from what is told to the serpent and to the man. There is no “Because you have … (done something)…” and no mention of any curse. So an astute reader will ask how are the serpent and the man similar and how are they different and then how is the woman different from both of them.

1. The serpent is a deceiving sinner.
2. The man is a deliberate sinner.
3. The woman is a deceived sinner.

They are all sinners, but the serpent is the worst type of the 3 while the women is the least worst type. Furthermore, she is no longer deceived, she has identified the serpent as having deceived her.

If you check a Hebrew interlinear, you can see that 1 of the 5 things told her are an increase in conception. This is a good thing, since God has told them to fill the earth. The idea that God could inform the woman of a good thing in the 5 things needs to inform our reading of the other 4 things, they do not need to all be negative, like the statements by God to the serpent and the man are.

Desire for one’s spouse is not a bad thing, it is a good thing. There is no need to try to interpret it as a bad thing.

Comment by Matthew

January 17, 2012 @ 8:28 am

Liz, I think we agree. By “curse” I meant all of the bad things God says will happen as a result of the fall. It seems like the “desire for your husband” is listed as part of an overall bad state of affairs-that of having a desire but being frustrated in it (in this case, due to be ruled over). But this doesn’t mean that the desire is some special proclivity to sinful desire for mastery on the part of women (which seemed to be the “new reading” originally discussed), and that’s all I was trying to get across.

Comment by Temperance

January 17, 2012 @ 9:23 am

@Red
I am blessed with a very selfless and giving husband. He doesn’t say he’s egalitarian but his actions and outlook on life definitely are. He is supportive of anything that builds me up. Thanks for asking :)

Comment by Temperance

January 17, 2012 @ 11:21 am

Some great points have been made here. I believe that the desire to control is a human tendency and not gender specific. However, I don’t believe that was the type of desire God was referring to about the woman in Gen 3:16. I first heard this teaching myself 12 years ago, as was mentioned. I have to wonder, could there be some projecting going on? And was it designed to make women feel inherently more evil than men, therefore feel ashamed and guilty and easier to control?

Comment by Charis

January 17, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

As far as I have been able to determine, this popular interpretation of “desire” as a wife’s enmity (“against” him) and desire to rule/control her husband originated with Susan Foh in 1974.

http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Foh-WomansDesire-WTJ.pdf

Lately, it has made its way into Bible translations:
“you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you” Gen. 3:16 NLT
“your desire shall be against your husband, and he shall rule over you” Gen. 3:16 ESV footnote

Comment by Liz

January 17, 2012 @ 6:21 pm

That’s scary when things get into translations. Shows how vulnerable translators are to what is being taught around them.

Matthew, thanks for the explanation.

Temperance, I don’t know about intentional ‘projecting’, but certainly there was and continues to be, a concerted effort on the part of complementarians to publish books and papers which seek to correct what they consider wrong teaching. The CBMW movement was formed in direct response to the formation of CBE and the resultant Danvers Statement was distributed widely. This sort of writing can encourage people to take ‘sides’, particularly when it is couched in terms of ‘plain reading of scripture’ or ‘a new liberalism’. We noticed a distinct shift and emphasis on the subject of equality and headship when CBMW published their first book (we call it the blue book) Everyone seemed to be excited about it and it became the last word.

Of course the question is….why are people so ready to accept this kind of teaching ? Mainly it seems to be because any other teaching is said to be liberal, worldly and affected by feminism.

Comment by Michelle

January 17, 2012 @ 7:22 pm

@Liz–”Of course the question is…why are people so ready to accept this kind of teaching ? Mainly it seems to be because any other teaching is said to be liberal, worldly and affected by feminism.”

That is what blows my mind. To me, complementarian teaching looks worldly and cultural. Everywhere one looks, one can see sexism or the lags caused by sexism.

Science/medicine: Women were thought not to have heart attacks, since their symptoms were different from men’s and so not recognized. Why not? Male subjects, typically white male subjects, were thought to be able to stand in for the entire population in scientific studies, while women (and presumably non-white people) skewed the data . Same held true for psychological studies.

The lack of work/life balance, particularly in terms of child rearing. The main childcare provider was considered unqualified for most work (except for secretarial or nursing work, back before children, when she was also unmarried), so balancing competing interests of family and paid work were not a priority in the workplace.

Especially since the fathers’ contribution was considered/expected to be mainly if not solely financial. Everyone–fathers, mothers, and children–lost out in this one. In all the examples, really. They’re called “women’s issues”, but they don’t affect solely women.

Which reminds me: I’m glad more men are entering the field of nursing, now. I’m glad that more women are becoming physicians, as well, yet it seems only recently that men have been able to shake off the stigma associated with holding a traditionally female job.

In any case…complementarianism looks to me like the same old sexism of US culture, only plus the claim, “…because this is the way God *wants* it.” I am baffled by the idea the the US is primarily a feminist (in the sense of women and men having the same worth and opportunities) country. Baffled. MUCH less the idea that complementarianism battles some feminist world…

Comment by sdd

January 17, 2012 @ 8:10 pm

I have to admit that I wonder about the idea that there is projection going on in relation to the idea that desire means that women will want to control their husbands. I am doing extensive research on women and leadership and have read multiple studies which conclude that, in general, men in leadership are more concerned about power and control in comparison to women in leadership who are concerned with interpersonal relations. While male leaders are more prone to build hierarchies (top-down), female leaders are more prone to build centrarchies (center-out).

At times it seems hard for some men to understand that every woman doesn’t go around wishing she could control the man in her life. It’s like some men can’t fathom that women are not as concerned with power and control as they are.

Many women honestly wish they could have a relationship with their husband, and are disappointed that the relationship can’t exist without the man being concerned about controlling her. This seems to be in line with what the scripture is saying about a woman desiring her husband.

Comment by Michelle

January 17, 2012 @ 8:16 pm

SDD, I’ve not done the studying, but certainly I’ve wondered about the same things as you, what with the people who try to control others claiming that the people they’re controlling are concerned about controlling them. Thank you for sharing what you’ve been reading.

Projection isn’t usually a conscious thing, at least not the way I’ve heard it talked about in the US. I think when it’s conscious, it’s typically called something else ;-).

Comment by Amanda Beattie

January 18, 2012 @ 3:43 am

I am inclined to also believe that “desire” is in terms of a longing, a yearning–a desire for affection, attention, love, protection, etc., etc., etc.

But if push comes to shove, I could accept the idea that “desire” meant “desire to rule…” because we see that it cuts both ways. The proclamation is not that Eve would suddenly become a nagging shrew and Adam would have to fend her off; it’s that both he and she are now against each other, rather than alongside each other, and that Adam comes out on top in the conflict.

If “desire” means “control”, then the verse just means that the man succeeds in controlling while the woman doesn’t. But the fact remains that both are exhibiting an unhealthy and ungodly inclination to rule the other. It is not an indictment of women
alone.

As I said, I think the case for “desire” meaning “desires to control” is a really weak one, but even if we go along with it for the sake of argument, Eve is clearly not the only one who has control issues.

Comment by Charis

January 18, 2012 @ 8:12 am

The whole “desire as control” idea led me OUT of complementarianism.

I used to read CBMW uncritically but I recall the watershed moment about 6-7 years ago when I read Ken Sande’s assumption that my Genesis 3:16 DESIRE was to “control my husband”. This was so far removed from my personal experience in a woman’s skin that I began a journey of asking hard questions about the theology of womanhood which I had uncritically embraced and practiced- to the extreme- in my Quiver Full lifestyle.

I can testify from living in a woman’s skin that my desire was to please him. It was a form of idolatry, and because of it my husband CONTROLLED (Ruled Over) me in a way which was extremely unhealthy for both of us.

Unfortunately, some of CBE’s published articles embrace the desire=control idea (which bothers me enough that I took you off my feed and did not renew my membership…) eg. http://www.cbeinternational.org/files/u1/resources/14-hess-pdf.pdf

Comment by sdd

January 18, 2012 @ 8:24 am

“The proclamation is not that Eve would suddenly become a nagging shrew and Adam would have to fend her off; it’s that both he and she are now against each other, rather than alongside each other, and that Adam comes out on top in the conflict.”

Well, actually, Amanda (95439), complementarians DO believe that sin causes women to “desire” to take control of their husbands and that in response, husbands have to defensively reassert their God-given authority. The wives’ desire to control is sin; the husbands’ desire to control is in line with his God-given role of male headship. The desire to control on the part of the male only becomes sin when he is abusive or passive. This can be seen in Bruce Ware’s (of CBMW) summary of egalitarian and complementarian positions.

Comment by sdd

January 18, 2012 @ 2:56 pm

I just took a look at Charis’ link. It is from the Equality publication of Autumn 2008. The article does state that “desire” refers to wives having a desire to control their husbands.

Does that continue to be CBE’s official interpretation of that passage?

The blog post above does not seem to be saying that.

It would be good to have clarification on CBE’s position concerning this (about women’s “desire” to control men, as promoted by CBMW).

Comment by Don

January 18, 2012 @ 3:01 pm

Each paper CBE publishes represents the author and only the author. They choose to publish it as they think it contributes to the conversation, not that they necessarily agree with everything in it.

I respect Hess a lot, but disagree with him on his interpretation of Gen 3:16 in this area.

Comment by Laurie

January 18, 2012 @ 4:05 pm

My own take is that in turning to her husband first Eve turned away from God as the first source of all her needs (which is idolatry). God prophesied the natural consequence, not a curse, not a punishment, but a consequence: that her turning to the man for her needs would give her husband undue power to rule over her, emotionally, physically and even spiritually if possible.”

Cheryl, That is the way I take it also.
In addition Susan Foh’s idea of saying it is a desire “to” do something is hugely adding into the meaning of the word. Whether it be turning toward, or desire toward , there is no further description of the desiring and turning. That must come from the context. In Gen. 4 the type of desire or turning is found in the one who is doing it, which is sin. Sin is inherently negative, thus we that sin in turning toward one, means harm. A wife on the other hand, does not inherently mean harm by turning toward or desiring. This is where Susan Foh’s idea falls apart. However, those who want to see male hierarchy and legal dominion, will ignore that information.

Don, 95423
Good words and observations.

Comment by Laurie

January 18, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

Charis 95441

One person’s questionable interpretation, should not reflect on the numerous writers on CBE who take in my opinion a more Biblically correct approach. I’d recommend renewing your membership. And just ignore that particular writer.

Comment by Laurie

January 18, 2012 @ 4:10 pm

meant to say, in 95446
” Sin is inherently negative, thus we know that sin in turning toward one, means harm. “

Comment by Trevor

January 18, 2012 @ 5:04 pm

Charis (comment 95441).

What Don (95445) and Laurie (95447) have said in respect to CBE publications and position on this matter is exactly right. Occasionally some issues that we (meaning CBE, as I am a Scroll Administrator and part of the CBE Team) disagree with theologically slip through. We, my wife Liz and I, are pretty hot on pursuing such anomalies and try to cut them off at the pass in the review (before endorsement) process. However, some are older publications, when the full import of such interpretations wasn’t evident, and are from supportive writers on egalitarianism who may not have explored all of the nuances of some texts.

It was my discovery of this interpretation in an approved CBE publication that led me to initiate this post. I have also made contact with the author expressing my concern at the harm done by this accepted interpretation and requested that he explain how it is that he accepts this position given that he is profoundly egalitarian in every sense of the word. As Laurie has suggested I’d encourage you not to doubt the good work of CBE and that when you discover these kinds of things in a CBE publication you notify them of your concerns rather than withdraw your membership.

Comment by Wayne P.

January 18, 2012 @ 5:47 pm

My thoughts – Part One:

There are significant problems with this interpretation (correctly attributed to Susan Foh in the mid 1970’s, as far as I know). Start by changing the meaning of Song of Solomon 7:10 to “desire to dominate” and you can see the problem, as it totally distorts the meaning of this beautiful song. And in Genesis 4 sin is “crouching at the door seeking to devour” – i.e., the image of a wild beast, confirming that the meaning of the word “desire” is in the realm of appetite, not of authority or domination. Plus, according to this interpretation, this word spoken to Eve was really a judgment on Adam, not on her! And then, just how did God accomplish this judgment, since only the ground and the serpent are explicitly cursed? Perhaps one could point out that women are only imitating this desire that they see in men!

A bigger issue is the way in which this view demonizes women. (As an example, one woman I know – with a PhD who teaches in a Christian university – said this view was presented by the pastor during her & her fiancé’s pre-marital counseling, after which she was very reluctant to exercise any initiative in their marriage.) A concern here would be just why this view is becoming so popular in comp circles (and even among a few egals, who I don’t think realize the logical conclusion that results from it).

An even bigger issue is just how do women achieve redemption? Susan Foh carries this interpretation to its logical conclusion: “Therefore the man must actively seek to rule his wife” (a concept that cannot be found in any understanding of “headship” in the NT). In short, why is man’s desire to control redeemable but woman’s not? Does Christ redeem women through their husbands? Is there no way to return to the mutual, joint dominion over creation found in Gen. 1?

Comment by Wayne P.

January 18, 2012 @ 5:48 pm

My thoughts – Part Two:

Comps & Egals seem to approach the judgments of God in Gen. 3 from the same assumption: That these are universal descriptions, rather than descriptions contextualized for the subsistence economies represented by the first audiences of Genesis, as well as most of human history and most of the world today. When we try to understand them from our vantage point of post-industrialized western culture, with its unparalleled wealth, we are bound to miss the point.

I encourage you to read “The Redemption of Love,” by Carrie Miles. In her chapter on the Fall she uses first-rate social science to trace the cause and effect directly from the curse on the ground to everything said by God to both Adam and Eve. In other words, these are all consequences of the shift from an economy of abundance (Eden) to an economy of subsistence (thorns & thistles), resulting from the curse on the ground.

It isn’t “pain in childbirth” (another horrible translation – the word translated “pain” is everywhere else in Genesis used for grief – emotional pain) but grief in (think of the high childhood mortality in the harsh living conditions after the Fall) and multiplied conceptions (the KJV, NKJV & YLT are more accurate here) – exactly what you find in subsistence farming economies: Children (especially sons) become not blessings (as envisaged in Gen. 1) but necessities for survival. And this isn’t positive; this ability to bear children, under these conditions, comes to define women’s value and her role, and results in their marginalization from the centers of social, political and economic power in this kind of world, and men having greater power in all public realms.

The woman’s desire for the man and the man’s rule over her need to be understood together as a polarization of male strength and female vulnerability in such a world: What is being described for the woman is a “double-bind” of sorts: The desire for her husband is comprehensive – financial, social, etc.; her very survival depends on have a strong man for provision and protection (see this explicitly in Ruth 2). The same conditions that give women this desire for a strong man also results in men having more power in the home and elsewhere, and women’s decision-making capacity outside the home being diminished, if not extinguished altogether. In subsistence economies this is enforced by double-standards that give the advantage to men. (Note that in the NT [e.g., Matt. 19) it is the men who are asking about divorcing their wives; a women would rarely risk being put out on the street with no means of survival.)

About the time Carrie Miles published “The Redemption of Love,” some African Christian leaders read some of her earlier published Bible studies, and invited her to come to Africa to teach. Long story short: This resulted in her founding “Empower International Ministries” as a means to send teams to Africa for this very purpose. I was privileged to join her on one such trip last March and what I describe above is pretty much exactly what one finds in Africa. (Google her website and you can download the Bible study guide we use in Africa, “New Man, New Woman, New Life.”)

Africa really is a better place from which to understand this verse: Wife beating is culturally expected as a manly thing to do. Explicit taboos restrict the best sources of protein for men. Women are expected to be chaste (so that her husband will know that the children she bears are his; otherwise he will not support them), but men are free to have multiple partners. A wife who does not bear children (especially sons) may be supplemented by another wife, or sent away altogether. A common expression of husbands to their wives is, “You speak once; I speak twice.” And the belief that women were cursed by God, brought by Christian missionaries to a culture that takes curses with all seriousness, has helped to reinforce the status quo. Yes – Christianity does sometimes makes things worse for women! Just be thankful they haven’t heard of Foh’s interpretation yet!

Comment by Trevor

January 18, 2012 @ 5:48 pm

There are some excellent comments and observations here both from a theological and personal journey perspective. Keep them coming.

This word ‘desire’ keeps on surfacing because it is in so many of the English speaking translations. As some others of you here have noted well, it is the things added to the text to, presumably, give full meaning that create the problems. Catherine Bushnell (God’s Word to Women – first published 1923) did some exhaustive work on tracing the origin of the use of the word ‘desire’ in Genesis 3:16 as opposed to ‘turning toward.’ She suggests, with good reason, that early English texts were corrupted by one translator in particular, who was overly influenced by rabbinic (Judaistic) teachings. See GWTW pages 54-66.

Charis (comment 95432). Your observation that the NLT translated Genesis 3:16 that way set alarm bells ringing for me. It was meant to be a gender inclusive translation and I used to use it quite a lot, knowing that it still had some disappointments. I just looked up Gen.3:16 in my (1996) version and it reads, “…And though your desire will be for your husband, he will be your master.” But you are right, the footnote says, “or And though you may desire to control your husband…” Thanks Charis, hadn’t noticed that before. That’s real bad.

Comment by Liz

January 18, 2012 @ 6:44 pm

Charis….thanks for letting us know of your findings. We have passed this on to the CBE office and Mimi Haddad. It is so important to know how writings affect people.

Have recently had discussion re books which are in the CBE bookstore and books which are reviewed in the magazines. Sometimes hard to know all that an author believes on the subject of equality and we can all be affected adversely by current trends unless we are careful.

I’m amazed that anyone would see desire as wanting control and was horrified the first time I read it in a book entitled ‘The Other Side of the Garden. It was on a recommended reading list of some books I was proofreading and also courses we were running. Fortunately we were able to get it off the next printing. But again….why do people go for this interpretation is my question!

Comment by Liz

January 18, 2012 @ 6:51 pm

Wayne…thanks for excellent thoughts and the recommendation for Carrie Miles’ book. I find this the best book for explaining the full consequences of the original sin. Anyone buying this book from CBE will benefit greatly and see how things have developed into what we have now throughout most of the world.

Maybe many of those in the more ‘developed’ countries would do well to see how the patriarchal teaching goes when taken to its full extent. As has been said before, there is no bad extreme for true biblical equality….it’s all good!

Comment by Charis

January 18, 2012 @ 8:34 pm

Trevor (95453)

The NLT at Biblegateway reads like this (ie desire=”desire to control” is no longer “just” a footnote):

“Then he said to the woman,
“I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy,
and in pain you will give birth.
And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you.” Gen 3:16 (NLT)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=gen%203:16&version=NLT

Comment by Charis

January 18, 2012 @ 9:10 pm

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Gen%203:16&version=NLT;ESV

So, we have these modern day translators doing gymnastics with the translation to suggest that the consequence of the Fall is that wives have forever been control freaks, and enemies of their husbands (“against” him).

Should a wife have control, influence, and authority within marriage? You don’t have to look far to find the male propensity to control, rule, exercise authority baptized as good Christian husbandry. I got nearly 8 million hits when I google searched “Bible husband ‘head of the household‘” (even though its a myth that the Bible ever designates the husband as the exclusive head of the household! The husband is head of the WIFE but that is an intimacy metaphor, not an authority metaphor.) But a wife desiring authority/control in the relationship? Can you find any encouragement and support for that among evangelicals?

Dr. John Gottman, who studies marriages in the laboratory has found that a husband not being willing to receive his wife’s influence is a huge predictor of divorce! From Gottman (emphasis mine):

This observation led me to formulate the hypothesis that marriages work to the extent that men accept influence from, share power with women. Next I applied this to a longitudinal study of 130 nonviolent newlywed couples and found that, amazingly, those in which the men did not accept influence from their wives wound up divorced. The prediction rate was very good, 80% accuracy, and it did not work the other way around: Most wives accepted influence from their husbands, and the acceptance predicted nothing. Gottman “The Marriage Clinic” (pg. 52)

Gen 3:16 is widely taught in a way which robs wives of our voice and influence in our marriages. Not only that, but God gets blamed for the pernicious words. (((shakes head sadly)))

Comment by Wayne P.

January 18, 2012 @ 9:31 pm

Liz (95456): I think you hit the nail on the head. It is the influence of Christianity in our culture – often from other sources besides the church – that helps to offset some of these teachings from ever being carried to their logical conclusion.

Trevor & Charis (95453/95458): The “desire to control” translation was in a footnote in the first edition of the NLT, published in 1996, but was “elevated” to the text itself in the NLT Second Edition, published in 2004. (This just reinforces the concern I had mentioned earlier about just how quickly this interpretation has been catching on in some circles.)

Comment by Liz

January 19, 2012 @ 1:37 am

Have mentioned this some time back, but years ago we got hold of bulk copies of the Living Bible (not the ‘new’ one) and sold them off happily to heaps of people because they were so easy to understand. Later we came across the Ephesians 5 passage which was translated ‘Wives, fit in with your husbands’ plans’ which horrified us but it was too late…we had endorsed this translation and put it in the hands of dozens of vulnerable new Christians.

Now we check every translation for the debatable passages and every book about relationships before we recommend it. I might say, there are very few marriage books we can recommend. Pat Gundry’s “Heirs Together” is a very good one.

Comment by Amanda Beattie

January 19, 2012 @ 1:57 am

@SDD (95442) Yeah, I’m aware of that interpretation by some (though not all) complementarians. It was one of the things that made me want to throw “Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” at the wall when I read it suggested there as a viable interpretation. I don’t understand how anyone can read “he will rule over you” in a positive light, especially if the ideal is supposedly loving male headship, not male dominance (which are supposedly two totally separate things).

I just like to look at things from the perspective of, “Let’s assume this is true–even then, the verse still doesn’t say what people claim it says”. That means that even within the “desire to control” framework, there is an easy and likely alternative to believing that all women are innate control freaks in a way that men are not.

Comment by Laurie

January 19, 2012 @ 6:14 am

“Now we check every translation for the debatable passages and every book about relationships before we recommend it. I might say, there are very few marriage books we can recommend. Pat Gundry’s “Heirs Together” is a very good one.”

I do the same now. It’s difficult to find a Bible reliable on all issues. Good books on marital issues are tough to find as well. I’ve been giving away Pat Gundry’s book to new couples for many years now. :^)

Comment by Charis

January 19, 2012 @ 5:38 pm

Liz (95461)

Why don’t you and Trevor write a book on egalitarian marriage? I’d do it myself but that would be like Grace Driscoll, Noel Piper, Mrs Bruce Ware, or Mrs Wayne Grudem writing a book on egalitarian marriage (since my husband of nearly 30 years is a firmly committed patriarch wannabe who loves to hate my “evil feminist” shift…)

Read this recently and I think it is apropos: http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us/2012/01/strategic-advice-for-egalitarians-or-on-showing-up/

Comment by Liz

January 19, 2012 @ 8:22 pm

Charis, you are not the first person to suggest this but…..we don’t have the funds to self-publish and are unknown to regular publishers. We get frustrated at the lack of marriage material, seminars etc. The best efforts still fall short in our opinion and still spend more time on the perceived differences between women and men and how to ‘cope’ with that.

Also, checking your link – there is a huge divide between the academia who are egalitarian and the person in the street (or church) I think this is because the lines are drawn in theological circles and if we reach teachers and professors, then they will influence many. We have offered to teach courses in bible colleges but they don’t seem to see the need.

In America the work of Cathy Kroeger and her associates has been marvellous addressing the issue of abuse and there are probably other groups we don’t know about since we’re in Australia. Here it is hard to show people the connection between headship teaching and abuse as there seem to be many examples of working marriages where everyone knows their place.

We have spent much of our ministry life dealing with broken marriages among Christians and most often the broken women who have been demeaned and worn down before they take the bold step to leave, often for the sake and safety of their children who they don’t want to see learning to relate in such a damaging way.

We have also believed that the home is the most important place to live equality and then that would influence the church but even in churches where women can ‘do’ many things, the headship belief is hard to shift.

Comment by Charis

January 20, 2012 @ 8:23 am

Liz,
You have inspired me to light a candle. If you and Trevor are willing to write about egalitarian marriage, why not blog?

http://2hold.wordpress.com/

I’d be happy to turn the keys right over to you and Trevor…

Comment by Liz

January 20, 2012 @ 5:25 pm

Wow! Something to seriously consider. Don’t know about the keys….have to pray about that, but would love to write. Will be in touch.

Comment by Trevor

January 21, 2012 @ 1:07 am

Wayne P (comment 95460). Thanks for your clarification of the NLT position. I’m going to have to jettison my much underlined and colour coded (by me) 1996 version of the NLT for something that doesn’t incorrectly interpret things for me.

Charis (comment 95464). I read the link article that you attached with considerable dismay. I also submitted a comment on that site (but only today, and it is awaiting moderation). If it is accepted you will be able to read it there. There is no point in repeating it here. Liz made a comment also.

Thank you for getting that blogsite up and running. Already it looks great. Liz and I were talking about this very thing during the day, saying that surely there is a place for an Egalitarian Marriage blogsite out there in the blogosphere. Well, now there is and it should be a great place to invite others to share and discover the possibilities of a mutual marriage partnership for themselves. Thank you.