A Prophecy or Command?

dreadnought

Lip service isn't really service.
Supporter
Aug 4, 2012
7,730
3,466
71
Reno, Nevada
✟313,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the Lord said this to Eve:

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 RSV

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?
 

“Paisios”

Sinner
Supporter
Aug 8, 2014
2,876
4,622
55
✟594,142.00
Country
United States
Faith
Eastern Orthodox
Marital Status
Married
After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the Lord said this to Eve:

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 RSV

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?
Given they were God’s words, I would think that in either case, they would be true...all that God speaks can be seen as true prophecy or a command or both, no?
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the Lord said this to Eve:

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 RSV

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?

Neither; it's a judgment.
 
Upvote 0

dreadnought

Lip service isn't really service.
Supporter
Aug 4, 2012
7,730
3,466
71
Reno, Nevada
✟313,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Given they were God’s words, I would think that in either case, they would be true...all that God speaks can be seen as true prophecy or a command or both, no?
As a prophecy it is true, because men claim women should obey them. I question whether or not it was a command, though.
 
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the Lord said this to Eve:

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 RSV

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?
Both (and a judgement/penalty for sin). But she will desire him (a command and yet prophetic) but the pain is a penalty for her actions.
 
Upvote 0

2PhiloVoid

Yes, you're right! I'm not Gandalf!
Supporter
Oct 28, 2006
21,125
9,946
The Void!
✟1,125,863.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
You're going to have to explain that to me. It would seem to me that if it's a judgment, it is also a command.

In a nutshell, the hebrew language construction is nearly identical to that which God told Cain to do after he murdered Able in Genesis 4:7. So, the desire is the object which is acting upon the subject, which in the case in parallel fashion is Eve's tendency to want to usurp Adam's position and Cain's latent sin that wants to turn him into a complete reprobate. Their respective sins are characterized as seeking dominance, BUT God tells Eve she will be overruled, and Cain is told to learn to rule his sin.

Does this help a little? So, God is telling Eve (and women generally) that man/the husband will 'overrule' their desires to usurp their husband's position.

The good news is that this 'judgment' is essentially removed in Christ for those women who believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JIMINZ
Upvote 0

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
A judgement, but in your sense probably prophecy. That is, we're not commanded to make childbirth painful (or to refuse pain relief to mothers). Calvin comments (and I agree) that the "rule" here is an unhealthy domination, so this is also a judgement and not a command. Rather, these were consequences of the fall. The fall was not a good thing, nor were its consequences.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

dreadnought

Lip service isn't really service.
Supporter
Aug 4, 2012
7,730
3,466
71
Reno, Nevada
✟313,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
Both (and a judgement/penalty for sin). But she will desire him (a command and yet prophetic) but the pain is a penalty for her actions.
But I am looking at the issue of whether or not the Lord is commanding that men should rule over women, or whether he is prophesying that men will rule over women. There's a big difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ken Rank
Upvote 0

dreadnought

Lip service isn't really service.
Supporter
Aug 4, 2012
7,730
3,466
71
Reno, Nevada
✟313,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
A judgement, but in your sense probably prophecy. That is, we're not commanded to make childbirth painful (or to refuse pain relief to mothers). Calvin comments (and I agree) that the "rule" here is an unhealthy domination, so this is also a judgement and not a command. Rather, these were consequences of the fall. The fall was not a good thing, nor were its consequences.
I am looking at whether or not the Lord is commanding men to rule over women, or prophesying that men will rule over women. I would suggest he is prophesying, not commanding.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
But I am looking at the issue of whether or not the Lord is commanding that men should rule over women, or whether he is prophesying that men will rule over women. There's a big difference.
The rest of the punishment was bad: sweat, pain, thorns. The "rule" here was an unhealthy domination.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the Lord said this to Eve:

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 RSV

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?

It's a curse. God frustrated the marriage relationship. In a fallen world, apart from God's gracious intervention, marriage will always be a power-struggle.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: royal priest
Upvote 0

Ken Rank

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Jan 12, 2014
7,218
5,560
Winchester, KENtucky
✟308,895.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
After Adam and Eve sinned in the garden, the Lord said this to Eve:

"I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you." Gen 3:16 RSV

Are the words “Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you,” a prophecy or command?
The Hebrew word is mashal, it means to rule... and to have dominion, even to reign. Now, in English, "rule" is probably harder than the intent of the Hebrew word. Instead, I like dominion in the sense that God has set forth an order so that there are not two captains trying to steer the same ship. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, man is the head of women.... said Paul. Not an in home dictator ship... but rather, a covering, coverture if you are familiar with that old legal term... authority, dominion. But the woman is not the slave to the man and the word "rule" tends to allow us to go there in our minds.
 
Upvote 0

dreadnought

Lip service isn't really service.
Supporter
Aug 4, 2012
7,730
3,466
71
Reno, Nevada
✟313,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
The rest of the punishment was bad: sweat, pain, thorns. The "rule" here was an unhealthy domination.
But I want to know if it was the Lord's desire that men should rule over women.
 
Upvote 0

dreadnought

Lip service isn't really service.
Supporter
Aug 4, 2012
7,730
3,466
71
Reno, Nevada
✟313,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
It's a curse. God frustrated the marriage relationship. In a fallen world, apart from God's gracious intervention, marriage will always be a power-struggle.
I have to agree with this - I don't think the Lord was giving men the invitation to rule over women.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I am looking at whether or not the Lord is commanding men to rule over women, or prophesying that men will rule over women. I would suggest he is prophesying, not commanding.
I agree. But I also think the punishment is domination, nor a healthy sort of male leadership. That is, I don't think you can use this passage to say that all forms of male headship are punishment. There are other reasons to think women should be treated equally within the Church, but I wouldn't cite this passage. After all, Gen 2 says that woman was created as the helper for man. That does not portray equality as being the case before the fall. That depends upon NT insight: that we are all equal in Christ.
 
Upvote 0

dreadnought

Lip service isn't really service.
Supporter
Aug 4, 2012
7,730
3,466
71
Reno, Nevada
✟313,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
The Hebrew word is mashal, it means to rule... and to have dominion, even to reign. Now, in English, "rule" is probably harder than the intent of the Hebrew word. Instead, I like dominion in the sense that God has set forth an order so that there are not two captains trying to steer the same ship. God is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man, man is the head of women.... said Paul. Not an in home dictator ship... but rather, a covering, coverture if you are familiar with that old legal term... authority, dominion. But the woman is not the slave to the man and the word "rule" tends to allow us to go there in our minds.
Paul stated he was basing his statement about men ruling over women on the law (1 Cor 14:33-36). What law was he referring to? Was he referring to the scripture I quoted in my original post?
 
Upvote 0

dreadnought

Lip service isn't really service.
Supporter
Aug 4, 2012
7,730
3,466
71
Reno, Nevada
✟313,356.00
Country
United States
Faith
United Methodist
Marital Status
Celibate
I agree. But I also think the punishment is domination, nor a healthy sort of male leadership. That is, I don't think you can use this passage to say that all forms of male headship are punishment. There are other reasons to think women should be treated equally within the Church, but I wouldn't cite this passage. After all, Gen 2 says that woman was created as the helper for man. That does not portray equality as being the case before the fall. That depends upon NT insight: that we are all equal in Christ.
Certainly a just God doesn't not require one person to bow down to another.
 
Upvote 0

Tree of Life

Hide The Pain
Feb 15, 2013
8,824
6,243
✟48,077.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Married
I have to agree with this - I don't think the Lord was giving men the invitation to rule over women.

As was previously noticed, the same expression occurs in Genesis 4 in relation to Cain and Sin:

Genesis 4:7 - "...And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it."

More recently, ESV updated their translations of these two verses to yield this:

Genesis 3:16 - "...Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you."

Genesis 4:7 - "...And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it."

Either way, what seems to be being represented is a bad relationship. A power struggle. The marriage relationship becomes crooked because of sin. What was meant to be a unity and harmony becomes disunity and dissonance. Furthermore, our relationship with sin is frustrated. If we invite sin into our lives we will always have a power struggle with it. It wants to rule over us and abuse us and we want to rule over it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dreadnought
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

hedrick

Senior Veteran
Supporter
Feb 8, 2009
20,250
10,565
New Jersey
✟1,147,348.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
Surprisingly, the commentaries I checked don't think 1 Cor 14:33 cites Gen 3:16.
One quotes FF Bruce: “This is unlikely, since in MT and LXX Gen 3:16 speaks of a woman’s instinctive inclination … (Heb. תשׁוקה [teshuqah]; Gk [LXX] ἀποστροφή) towards her husband, of which he takes advantage so as to dominate her. The reference is more probably to the creation narratives.…” Even that seems pretty weak. Another possibility is traditional Jewish interpretation of the Law. This makes more sense if 33b-35 are an interpolation, since Paul wouldn't be likely to quote this kind of interpretation as Law.

There's a lot of discussion today about 1 Cor 14:34-35, for obvious reasons. A number of recent writers think it's an interpolation. Here are the arguments (from Senft and Schrage, summarized by from Thiselton's commentary on 1 Cor. Thiselton obviously doesn't think much of them):

(1) The verses allegedly differ from the main theme or themes of 12:1–14:40; (2) they supposedly interrupt the flow of instructions about the prophets, as the Western copyists perceive (and a few MSS place them after 14:40, e.g., D, F, G); (3) the verses contradict 11:5; (4) to appeal to “the law” to endorse or to validate church discipline is “non-Pauline”; (5) “the expression ‘the church of the saints’ [ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τῶν ἁγίων, translated above as the churches of God’s holy people] is foreign to Paul.”

I don't think this is a majority view, though it has a number of distinguished defenders, e.g. Gordon Fee. Fee is a textual expert, and most other commentators aren't, so one might want to weigh his expertise heavily.

Another view, which is pretty common, is that the objection is to women talking in church, i.e. interrupting the service. There's an implication that they are talking to their husbands, who might (in accordance with Jewish custom) be sitting in a separate section of the meeting. (I note, however, that we don't actually know what form these house churches took. It's not at all clear that they actually were like a Jewish synagogue.) That's the position I think is most likely. I don't believe Paul is opposed to women talking in an authorized fashion, or 1 Cor 11:5 would make no sense.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2PhiloVoid
Upvote 0