A Prophecy or Command?

[hedrick]

He did say, "I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing."

Yup. God is responsible for the punishment. That's pretty obvious. He's the one that throws them out of the garden.

But notice that no one thinks we can't use painkillers to deal with the pain.

 

[A71]

https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real/god-natural-law/

 

[hedrick]

https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real/god-natural-law/

Those are the laws of nature (except biogenesis, which is probably false). That's not the same thing as "Women he made moody, menstrual, and needy." I can't believe anyone would actually post that.

 

[dreadnought]

The fool denies there is a God.
Any normal person can see the basic logic of nature, and thereby the hand of God. If we wish to subvert and deny nature, we also subvert and deny God. Bad move.

When someone makes nature his god, I think he goes astray.

 

[dreadnought]

Yup. God is responsible for the punishment. That's pretty obvious. He's the one that throws them out of the garden.

But notice that no one thinks we can't use painkillers to deal with the pain.

I'll take an Advil for a toothache.

 

[dreadnought]

https://answersingenesis.org/is-god-real/god-natural-law/

Anyone can create a web page.

 

[hedrick]

Anyone can create a web page.

Here's a reasonable discussion of what "natural law" means in the context of theology: http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/aquinas.

It is supposedly principles, including moral principles, which anyone can know from creation, without divine revelation. Paul seems to suggest this in parts of Rom 1 and 2, though the exegesis of Romans requires you to look at his whole argument.

I should note that natural law in this sense is controversial among Protestants, because it suggests knowledge of matters that are typically the subject of revelation, through purely human intellect. But since God created that intellect, some accept the idea.

In ethics, the natural law approach is sometimes used to argue that God obviously made things for certain purposes, so it's wrong to use them for other purposes. Most commonly, God created sex for procreation, so it's wrong to use it in any way that isn't "open to procreation." (By the way, I consider this argument almost totally bogus.)

 

[dreadnought]

Here's a reasonable discussion of what "natural law" means in the context of theology: http://www.nlnrac.org/classical/aquinas.

It is supposedly principles, including moral principles, which anyone can know from creation, without divine revelation. Paul seems to suggest this in parts of Rom 1 and 2, though the exegesis of Romans requires you to look at his whole argument.

I should note that natural law in this sense is controversial among Protestants, because it suggests knowledge of matters that are typically the subject of revelation, through purely human intellect. But since God created that intellect, some accept the idea.

The fact that the Jesus rose from the dead sort of refutes natural law, doesn't it?

 

[hedrick]

The fact that the Jesus rose from the dead sort of refutes natural law, doesn't it?

Not in the sense that Aquinas is using natural law. You're thinking of the laws of physics and biology, which is a different thing. (It doesn't actually refute the laws of biology. People don't just come back to life. That's why it's considered a miracle. If there weren't laws to be violated, the concept of miracles would make no sense. Imagine a world in which dead people regularly came back to life. Jesus' resurrection wouldn't mean anything.)

 

[dreadnought]

Not in the sense that Aquinas is using natural law. You're thinking of the laws of physics and biology, which is a different thing. (It doesn't actually refute the laws of biology. People don't just come back to life. That's why it's considered a miracle. If there weren't laws to be violated, the concept of miracles would make no sense.)

I can't think of any laws besides the Lord's law and the "laws" of physics and biology. Is someone making up laws and calling them "natural laws"?

 

[hedrick]

I can't think of any laws besides the Lord's law and the "laws" of physics and biology. Is someone making up laws and calling them "natural laws"?

Well, I'm going to avoid calling them "made up" since I'm not taking either side in the controversy. But yes, the concept of natural law in theology means something other than revealed law and the laws of nature.

 

[dreadnought]

Well, I'm going to avoid calling them "made up" since I'm not taking either side in the controversy. But yes, the concept of natural law in theology means something other than revealed law and the laws of nature.

Could someone have been advancing an agenda by creating these "laws"?

 

[Yarddog]

I would think prophecy would deal with anything after the moment it was spoken.

I would agree but it may have to do with the mosaic Jew. Adam and Eve refers to the fall of the Jewish people. They turn away from the righteousness through faith which Abraham brought. There was no need for the Law but they failed to believe in the God which brought them out of Egypt. Adam was condemned to work the soil, which refers to works of the Law. Eve's labor pains were increased and that man would rule over her. (I admit that God hasn't shown me what that means.)
The Tree of Knowledge is the Law, while the Tree of Life is Jesus. The Garden of Eden is righteousness or God's rest. Since Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they placed themselves under the Law and God kicked them out of righteousness through belief in Jesus.

 

[FloraPost]

This is a pronouncement.
After Eve sinned against God sin entered the world. It changed everything.
Why was "eating the fruit" connected with childbirth pain?
Because Satan usurped the rightful place of Adam by tempting Eve.
1 Peter 3:7 tells husbands to honor their wives as the weaker vessel.
A woman's desire for her husband serves the purpose of lineage, heritage and intact families.

 

[FireDragon76]

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.

The word help, in Hebrew, ezer, means something more like ally than implying subservience.

 

[timewerx]

But one would ask, "Is it then the Lord's will that men rule over women?" If so, then I would categorize it as a command.

God did not tell Adam to rule over Eve. So this is entirely up to the man.

One of the reasons Christ came was to break the curse of Adam and Eve's sin. Therefore, a woman's subservience to her husband is no longer in effect in the Christ-ian age.

A lot of the founding fathers misinterpreted these teachings including Paul's teachings. They were blinded by the culture in their day which included pagan, heathen unbelievers who treated their women like property.

 

[A71]

I can't think of any laws besides the Lord's law and the "laws" of physics and biology. Is someone making up laws and calling them "natural laws"?

It is right under your nose. The fact that women menstruate and experience pain in childbirth are natural laws. The consequence of this is that woman has a certain attitude towards procreation and therefore the procreative partner, man.
So whatever desire means, and I am not sure myself, but it is clearly a consequence of the laws, and so becomes a third law. I would say they engender fear and bad moods, and perhaps as someone else has suggested, this causes a tendency to resent men and therefore a desire to control them.

Dismissing something because you don't understand it is one thing, but then I provided you a link to help you understand, and you dismissed that, so I don't know if you really want an answer. But here goes. Paul talks about natural law.

14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:

This is very simple. He means that when the nations observe the natural order, i.e. The Laws of Nature, they therefore become obedient to Mosaic Law, ( e.g Leviticus 18), and become a Law unto themselves. The natural law was given in Genesis. Woman is made for man, and in one sense vice versa. That is the law. So simple. God spoke it. Has it ever changed? Lol, I think not. There is more to the Law, but that is easy to fathom.

Once you understand natural law, you can then understand what Paul is referencing at times, for instance when he refers to the roles of the sexes. As someone else said, 'God Ordained'.There, I've tried to help you, can't do more.

 

[S.O.J.I.A.]

I don't really see it as curse. A woman can repent of her sin and refuse to obey men who make unreasonable demands.

she can't repent of her sin and no longer have birth pains.

 

[dreadnought]

she can't repent of her sin and no longer have birth pains.

Do you have evidence of that?

 

[oldrunner]

Do you have evidence of that?

I don't know Dread, maybe go to a maternity ward and give it a listen. Birth pains are pretty much the norm of all women unless they get the spinal, then they have them up to that time-some more than others. But I'm no expert.