• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.

Different Interpretations Of "The Woman's Desire For Her Husband" Genesis 3:16

Discussion in 'Christian Scriptures' started by unfinishedclay, Dec 6, 2017.

  1. unfinishedclay

    unfinishedclay Member

    412
    +256
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Can anyone who seriously studies the Word please explain to me the correct interpretation of Genesis 3:16 in which God tells the woman her consequence of (her desire being for her husband yet him ruling over her)? I understand the first part of God saying there will be travail in conception.

    To this day, I've always believed that passage is to be taken at face value - that a woman will long for her husband (her husband's very presence, his love, his attention) and that primarily her experience with him - despite her longing for him to value her by giving himself for her - is to instead be ruled over by him.

    In fact, in the 90's, I remember I used to hear Bible teachers teach it to mean that - certainly by my pastor at the time.

    Now, it's very common to hear and read that the interpretation is actually to mean the woman's desire is to assume the husband's authority as her own or that she wants to rule over him as her punishment - only for him to rule over her instead. Of course, I believe there can be such a tendency in a woman and an incredible temptation for various women. But how can that be the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of Genesis 3:16?
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. Endeavourer

    Endeavourer Well-Known Member

    +1,180
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I understand that phrase as proscriptive, not prescriptive.

    In other words, it describes this tension in the relationship that may be in a relationship as a result of the fall, and is not a curse place on women by God for the husband to enforce.

    It is widely misused by pastors and people who do not understand the nature of evil to browbeat abused wives into accepting their abuse as part of a curse God has placed on them.

    The very common interpretation you are referencing was put together by a hyper-patriarchal crowd for the purpose of pushing that viewpoint (incredulously, authored by a woman), and has deceived many women into accepting lives of misery and abuse.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  3. Endeavourer

    Endeavourer Well-Known Member

    +1,180
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    This site, which is managed by believers of a complimentarian persuasion, has a lot of great information on this topic.

    It ministers to women who have been in abusive relationships and then further spiritually abused by pastors and/or churches who do not understand evil so they turn the tables on the abused.

    gen 3:16 | Search Results | A Cry For Justice

    Type in "gen 3:16" in the search bar, upper left, and you'll see a lot of articles written about it.

    The ESV translation was chaired by a man who is a *v*i*r*u*l*e*n*t* heretic on gender role issues and has spent much of his life authoring multiple abhorrent hyper-patriarchal books on marital gender roles. He endorsed a book by John Piper where Piper does not allow divorce for any reason at all, but then authored the study notes in the ESV about divorce being allowed of adultery or irreconcilable desertion by an unbeliever IF the unbeliever geographically leaves the relationship. If a wife is having the tar beat out of her but her husband will not physically leave and file a divorce, then according to the ESV, sucks to be her and she's stuck with that lot in life.

    Edited to add:
    In a video interview, John Piper was asked about physical abuse and he felt the role of the woman being abused was to gently ask the husband to stop in a submissive and entreating way. Honestly, it caused me to doubt if Piper understands who God is at all. There are more very troubling doctrinal viewpoints these two men have, and when I study the subtle differences in the ESV translation you will see interpretations made in favor of their viewpoints.

    This heretic neglected to tie in the FULL counsel of Scripture as to how an abused person is advised to respond to an angry person as well as flee persecution; he instead limited Scripture's counsel on the matter to isolated "proof" text. Proof texts without context are usually pretexts to justify pre-existing agendas.

    When comparing subtle differences between the ESV and KJV, it is apparent that gender was an agenda in the ESV translation.

    Edited to add: The referenced heretic believes in the eternal subordination of the Son within the roles of the Trinity, which is a perversion of doctrine to support his hyper-patriarchal "headship" doctrine. Fun fact: the word "headship" is not in the Bible. In fact, it is highly doubtful the word "head" in ancient Greek was associated at all with the concept of authority or "headship".
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2017
    • Prayers Prayers x 1
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  4. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +10,361
    Anabaptist
    QUOTE="unfinishedclay, post: 72065920, member: 304148"]Can anyone who seriously studies the Word please explain to me the correct interpretation of Genesis 3:16 in which God tells the woman her consequence of (her desire being for her husband yet him ruling over her)? I understand the first part of God saying there will be travail in conception.

    To this day, I've always believed that passage is to be taken at face value - that a woman will long for her husband (her husband's very presence, his love, his attention) and that primarily her experience with him - despite her longing for him to value her by giving himself for her - is to instead be ruled over by him.

    In fact, in the 90's, I remember I used to hear Bible teachers teach it to mean that - certainly by my pastor at the time.

    Now, it's very common to hear and read that the interpretation is actually to mean the woman's desire is to assume the husband's authority as her own or that she wants to rule over him as her punishment - only for him to rule over her instead. Of course, I believe there can be such a tendency in a woman and an incredible temptation for various women. But how can that be the interpretation (or misinterpretation) of Genesis 3:16?
    [/QUOTE

    There are a few proper descriptions of what you are seeking, and on the internet somewhere you might find them. But not likely on this site, since this site is open to many many many different persuasions and as you said "But how can that be the interpretation (or misinterpretation) " , just as you have already run into in your life recently.

    The proper understanding rests in and with Yahweh, just as Joseph and Daniel said of dreams,
    or better yet,
    as all Scripture clearly shows, and as Jesus says.
    Yahweh made all things simple;
    Man came up with many deviations.
     
  5. unfinishedclay

    unfinishedclay Member

    412
    +256
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Hey there sis. So, then the second interpretation is the correct one? The one that teachers are saying means a woman wants to rule over her husband? That Scripture using that particular interpretation is very commonly used when teaching on the "Jezebel spirit", a common accusation women in church have to endure.
     
  6. unfinishedclay

    unfinishedclay Member

    412
    +256
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Unsettling
     
  7. Sarah G

    Sarah G Human bean. Supporter

    810
    +1,050
    Netherlands
    Christian
    Married
    This is shocking and disappointing. Thank God there are informed women like yourself, speaking up and sharing this information. Thank you.

    Edit: Some bits I read:

    ''
    The most controversial change is to words of curse in Genesis 3:16. ESV editors changed their earlier translation from “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you,” to “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

    Others are weighing in on the serious implications of this translation change and the thinking behind it. Scot McKnight calls it “not only mistaken but potentially dangerously wrong.” But now, in the ESV, it is set in stone. For helpful and insightful analyses of this change, read Sam Powell’s blog, “Genesis 3:16” and Scot McKnight’s “The New Stealth Translation: ESV.”

    http://www.missioalliance.org/three...f-gender-politics-in-the-new-esv-translation/
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  8. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +10,361
    Anabaptist
    Perhaps also a common truth.
    Remember no one is as they seem. (taught widely 10 to 20 years ago; even by pastors and lawyers and teachers across the country; )
     
  9. yeshuaslavejeff

    yeshuaslavejeff simple truth, martyr, disciple of Yahshua

    +10,361
    Anabaptist
    Jesus unsettled Simon barjona (Peter),
    towards life.

    But no, not encouraging that previously mentioned preacher - he is exposed on many sites as teaching in error.
     
  10. unfinishedclay

    unfinishedclay Member

    412
    +256
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I actually read only King James Version and select theres on occasion. ESV isn't one of them tho. Seldomly, only NKJV and NIV. Rarely, NASB and God's Word Translation.

    When I checked them, they all basically said the same thing. Haven't checked ESV.

    I never took Gen. 3:16 to be a ticket to abuse. If I ever heard it preached/taught that way, it flew over my head. Abuse just never came to mind when reading this passage anymore than murder of her as a form of ruling over her. I always believed exactly as Endeavorer said when she stated that it's not up to the man to execute this over the woman to make sure God's assumed will is carried out.
    [Edited: I inserted "assumed" to read "assumed will" because I do not believe a man "ruling over" his wife is His will.]

    I literally have been taking it to mean that this is part of tension between husband and wife that is a consequence to the woman because of her value for his affection/attention/for him.

    (But I view domestic violence under the light of David and Goliath - not to the point of a slaying...but...I'm truly thankful for that story for anybody going through it.)
     
  11. Endeavourer

    Endeavourer Well-Known Member

    +1,180
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Hi back at ya, sis!

    To my conviction and study, the proper interpretation is that the verse describes that there will be tension in the relationship, that she will long and desire after the unity with her husband, but her husband will try to rule over her. It is a descriptive statement to Eve; it is not a proscriptive command to Adam.

    The KJV says: And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Gen 3:16 KJV)

    The ESV says: Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.

    Here is a very detailed analysis of someone who previously held that the the curse was prescriptive and then after more study realized it was descriptive instead.

    Genesis 3:16

    As for the "spirit of Jezebel" tangent => this idea has morphed, enlarged and transpired into a doctrine that simply doesn't exist in the Bible. I'm not sure what scope of this heresy has been applied in what you've heard, but it ranges from a milder form of gender shaming to a full fledged "soul tie" application that creates devilish doctrines entirely out of thin air.

    I would completely disregard EVERYTHING you have learned about the spirit of Jezebel and start fresh with your own study. If it isn't in the Bible, don't accept it. Read the Bible in a very literal way to strip out all of the applications you have been taught. Then rebuild your own applications out of what's actually in the Bible.

    After an experience like you have had in your life, it is a good thing to question every doctrine that led (allowed?) you to this wrong place (it was not a wrong place of YOUR choosing since you had no say in the matter) and re-test those doctrines from scratch against the Bible. It's likely you will find a lot of text twisting that you assumed to be true but cannot be substantiated without a lot of personal biases interpreted into the texts.

    By your question, it seems you are starting this journey.
     
  12. Endeavourer

    Endeavourer Well-Known Member

    +1,180
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I don't have confidence in the Westcott and Hort manuscripts, which many of the newer translations are based on, including the ESV. Initially I dismissed what I heard about their anti-God sentiments and derision towards Christians as a KJV purist conspiracy theory until I finally researched it for myself.

    In my research about the ESV, I felt the deity of Christ was not as strongly presented as in the KJV. Then I learned that the chair on the ESV translation committee believes that Christ is not quite as God as the Father is (eternal subordination of the Son), so that made sense.

    I was raised reading the KJV and all of my memorizations are in the KJV, so sticking to it was easier for me than transitioning to other translations anyway.
     
  13. ~Cassia~

    ~Cassia~ Devoted to Truth Supporter

    +10,755
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    In agreement with the op. Pain from childbirth but still desiring sex from her husband while her being the weaker of the two accounts for dominion in a world where fallen Adam lives. But we have changed nature where our strength and desire is in the Lord.
     
  14. unfinishedclay

    unfinishedclay Member

    412
    +256
    Non-Denom
    Married
    yes, I completely agree.
     
  15. unfinishedclay

    unfinishedclay Member

    412
    +256
    Non-Denom
    Married
    Oh, I'm already on it, sis. In fact, never could swallow it. To my knowledge, I've never been accused of having this spirit but have been challenging this teaching for years and opposed as if I am just some illiterate person in an arena of esoteric revelations. I realized that I could no longer bear listening to the doctrine when a sermon used Sarah as an example of being influenced by such a spirit because she told her husband to bare a son with Hagar.

    I firmly believe in sticking to the text. I'm still learning just what the Word alone says. I can't deal with the extra Biblical and the twisted Biblical - and wouldn't want to even if I did know all the Bible.
     
  16. Endeavourer

    Endeavourer Well-Known Member

    +1,180
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Here is the John Piper interview.



    Notice:
    -the smirking "oh my" chuckle at the beginning of his response
    -his minimization of verbal abuse as "verbal unkindness"
    - his incredulous supposition that even if a husband wants a 3-some, a wife's agency is to her husband and she shouldn't rebuke the request as her own right,
    - his advice that if a woman is abused by her husband, she should rely on the church to tell her what to think or do (no suggestion given that she might have her own intelligence or convictions)
    - his dangerous minimization when suggesting she might need to endure being smacked once
    - no mention whatsoever of calling the police in that event but only to call the church the next day.
    - no caution whatsoever of how dangerous a physical abuser is when his object is about to upset his control
    - and the list would go on if I could stomach any more of this 4 minute clip.

    The result of decades of his woman-diminishing, hyper patriarchy beliefs and preaching was that he had to take a year long sabbatical to fix his own marriage. I pray that his wife was able to straighten him out and that she is still not accepting a JERK of a husband.
     
  17. ~Cassia~

    ~Cassia~ Devoted to Truth Supporter

    +10,755
    Canada
    Christian
    Private
    ;) that could get you banned on facebook ...
     
  18. Endeavourer

    Endeavourer Well-Known Member

    +1,180
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    Amen!!!

    When I completed an exhausting an terrible journey, the foundations of all of the spiritual applications to these gender texts fell apart. My experience proved them to be impossible, and even potentially deadly.

    I had to go through the same journey - how could the "obvious" be so wrong? I spent two years re-learning what I "knew" by stripping everything down to the literal words, removing previously unquestioned applications of men, and piecing together a fresh understanding.

    By the time I was done, I was able to see so clearly that many of my "beliefs" on the matters had no Scriptural root!
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • List
  19. unfinishedclay

    unfinishedclay Member

    412
    +256
    Non-Denom
    Married
    I have found myself in this place, too.

    I saw John Piper's interview. I think his intentions are really well-meaning. But I believe he's like a lot of believers (pastors and congregants). He's caught off guard by the question of physical abuse and really doesn't offer much - if any - discernment about the issue in that interview. Concerning marriage, neither Jesus nor the writers of the epistles addressed the issue directly. But that doesn't mean the issue wasn't addressed beyond marriage where Truth applied to all situations, including marriage.

    If we as a unit regard the full gospel (Matt/Luke 4:4), the church would undoubtedly be a safe place for an abused woman. But based on what he's saying in the interview, it's eerily easy to believe an abuser can watch it and feel completely comfortable with his abused spouse going to the church - if the church was to respond as pleasantly and mildly as Brother Piper is being. I don't think he's trying to be a jerk. He really does love the Lord. He needs wisdom on it. We all need to continue to go to the Lord for wisdom because each situation is different. And I believe abuse is one of those issues that can't be soft approach. I believe in pressing charges.

    What do you think of Paul Washer, who quotes Brother Piper a lot? I think if more leaders were dogmatic about right and wrong, offenders would focus more on what the speaker is pointing everybody to - the Bible. Right and wrong often becomes an issue of what fair and unfair. Promote more passionately/more frequently about the obedience to God's Word and warn more about disobedience, there would be less offenses and more urgency for self-correction if the church was presented as a place of retreat. My friend's former husband who was abusing her was a leader in church. I literally went back and forth with him about physically abusing her as both of us were throwing out verses - him throwing out passages in a twisted way to support his behavior, that he initially "confessed" to me he was doing to her. (I didn't handle it well after so much discussion. I'm sure he regretted ever telling me. She didn't tell many people about it at the time.)



    Any way. I didn't realize the passage Genesis 3:16 raises such issues. But I definitely see how it does now.
     
  20. Endeavourer

    Endeavourer Well-Known Member

    +1,180
    United States
    Christian
    Married
    I can't agree that he was caught off guard.

    Convincing women to endure abusive and adulterous marriages as God's will for them is one of John Piper's pet issues.

    He was part of a Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, has been a pastor for decades during which he advocated such victims come to him instead of the authorities (and therefore has likely seen many such cases) and has authored a number of books on the topic, one being "This Momentary Marriage" which advocates no divorce under any circumstance, not even for adultery, abandonment or abuse.

    This is a topic he has dedicated much thought on and had certainly seen much of as he has counseled many abused women.

    So you were able to almost immediately discern a key problem here, even though your writing seems sympathetic to Piper.

    There are many women who have been gravely abused by their churches when they followed Piper's writings and cues in this regard. Couple that with a deplorable misunderstanding of evil where the churches minister to the perpetrator at the expense of the victim and you have the recipe for the total destruction of the abused woman. Add to the pile some misused verses about submission being thrown at her.

    Piper has a lot to answer for. There are a lot of women who tried to subject themselves to his teachings in this regard and who nearly destroyed themselves doing it. I fright to think how many have been totally destroyed that we never hear from.


    He has a lot to answer for.

    I don't understand how someone can know the Lord and yet think the Lord's purpose is for a woman to endure subjugation to an abusive marriage for the rest of her life with no remedy other than this silly soft talk.

    I don't understand how someone can know the Lord AND be particularly aware of grotesque abuses within marriages and, having read the Bible's clear permission for divorce, work SO hard to twist women into perpetual submission to adulterers and abusers instead.

    He does come across as a soft and gentle spirit, but that reminds me of the verse warning of wolves in sheep's clothing. I can't think of him as a soft and gentle spirit because of my participation in communities of women who have endured horrible spiritual abuse at the hands of their churches, and continued horrific abuse at the hands of their husbands, when they followed teachings like John Pipers - and in many cases directly quoting him.

    These poor women's minds were SO twisted up with these depraved doctrines that they were nearly mentally and emotionally destroyed having given decades of their life to wicked, horrible abuse.

    I hope an accounting of every women who endured these situations while being quoted John Piper is required of John Piper on the day he faces judgement.


    I don't know anything about Paul Washer, other than he hangs with the hyper patriarchy crowd, and to further that, the ones that don't believe in divorce for any reason, such as Piper, Bauchman, etc.

    Because ministering to women suffering at the hands of Piper and Bauchman's teachings is more of my niche than what these fellows preach in general, I haven't studied their teachings at large.

    This is a very typical result of hyper patriarchal teachings, such as that of Piper, the (dis)Vision Forum, et. al. I pray that Doug Philips is dragged up right alongside of Piper to account for the consequences of his depraved gender doctrines which he proselytized in his home school curriculum, as well. And Bill Gothard, may you have the opportunity to join in as well.
     
Loading...