Scripture reflections and musings

[bekkilyn]

her desire is the only desire thats mentioned....not his

why?

I believe that God's original design was that their desire would be for each other, in the way that Jesus commands for us to love others before ourselves.

But in a fallen world, God is indicating that though when a woman's desire would be for her husband, the man's desire is often for his own selfish interests and ultimately would set up social systems, marriage, politics, etc. that would dominate and oppress her.

As Christians, we should not desire to live into this sort of sinfulness and instead should do what we can to be ambassadors of God's kingdom on this earth until Christ comes to implement his kingdom in full and wipe out all of the sin. Therefore, Christians should not be dominating over each other, whether male or female, but should be working mutually together for the glory of God. When we received Christ, we started the transformation to become new persons, made righteous by the righteousness of Christ, and we should thus put aside our sinful, selfish, dominating ways.

 

[Dave-W]

what?

did god ordain a woman to be dominated or abused by her husband in this passage??

No, a thousand times NO.

 

[hedrick]

(I don’t take the creation stories as historical.)

Gen 1 is symmetrical between man and woman. The is also a clear mandate to reproduce.

Gen 2 is more complex. Initially God is looking for a companion for the man. He’s not looking for a reproductive partner, or he wouldn’t have started with animals. There’s a tradition that before the fall humans were androgynous. The commentaries I’ve checked don’t think that was the original intent, but they do think the intent was for companionship. The emphasis is on the likeness between Adam and Eve. Only another human can be a completely fulfilling companion.

The sexual differentiation shows up in the punishment. The woman submitting to the husband is part of that. At least I guess it’s punishment. It could also simply be a recognition that problems will show up between the genders due to sin.

We do not in general consider it wrong to mitigate the consequences of the fall. We relieve the suffering of childbirth, and invent machines to reduce the sweat of the brow. I think it’s appropriate to try to fix the problems between the genders.

I think it hard, however, to consider the interpretation in 1 Tim 2 as consistent with this. My tradition doesn’t think Paul is responsible for the wording in 1 Tim, but that understanding would not be available to people who accept inerrancy. Rom 5:14 and 1 Cor 15:22, of course, seem to attribute the fall to Adam.

 

[Paidiske]

One thing that often puzzles me - I was reminded of this in some reading I was doing this morning - is the idea that some people have, that Adam and Eve were neither sexually aware nor active before the fall; as if sexual attraction and activity were itself somehow so sinful that it could not happen in a sinless world.

It makes no sense to me; I see sexual differentiation as part of God's good creation, and no reason to deny its place in Eden; but any comments from others?

 

[Dave-W]

One thing that often puzzles me - I was reminded of this in some reading I was doing this morning - is the idea that some people have, that Adam and Eve were neither sexually aware nor active before the fall; as if sexual attraction and activity were itself somehow so sinful that it could not happen in a sinless world.

When you start with the assumption that sexuality is inherently sinful, it is easy to read the text in Genesis 1-3 as supporting that idea. Sex is not mentioned until after the fall.

The Wesleyan Holiness tradition I grew up in held that Adam and Eve had this ball of light that covered them from knees to shoulders. (so they were not as naked as the text says) The "glory departed" at the fall so then they could actually see each other's nakedness.

The early church fathers had a VERY negative view of even married sex. That tradition has been carried down thru the ages.

 

[Dave-W]

I see sexual differentiation as part of God's good creation, and no reason to deny its place in Eden;

Messianic Rabbi Dan Juster makes a very good biblical case for his claim that in all places where God created differentiation, it was for mutual blessing. He even wrote a book on it.

 

[Zoii]

What is it about sex that makes it so bad in the eyes of Christianity, even if it occurs outside of marriage. The thing is - most people have sex prior to marriage and will again if they lose their spouse. I cannot accept that the person is evil for having had sex.... why should it be so regarded.

 

[Paidiske]

I don't think it's bad. I think it has a very high potential for ending up with emotional damage to one or both partners, though, and the whole point of keeping it within marriage is (I think) meant to be about being personally and emotionally safe. And of course, before reliable birth control, the question of what was best for any children was more pressing, too.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would have said humans are created for relationships; we are created in the image of a Triune God; a God in which profound and intimate relationships are part of God's very nature.

Being "alone" then is a distortion or detraction from our full humanity, don't you think?

I've heard that as an Orthodox Christian at times and sometimes I think it is a notion that marginalizes the experience of many people who are not particularly cut out for socialization. Sometimes I think its just a way to enforce a holy groupthink, coming from what Lutherans might call a "Theology of Glory".

I prefer my Lutheran perspective and would say that that our ability to find ourselves alone images Christ's passion and shows our likeness to the crucified God.

 

[Dave-W]

What is it about sex that makes it so bad in the eyes of Christianity, even if it occurs outside of marriage.

Evil ONLY if it occurs outside of marriage. Unless you believe the ECFs that taught God hated sex even within marriage. (I don’t)

The reason it is evil outside of marriage is the spiritual and emotional connections it forges between 2 people that should ONLY occur within the bounds of a covenant (marriage). In Genesis it says husband and wife are to become “one flesh.” The Hebrew view of man did not subdivide spirit soul and body the way the Greek mindset early Christians did. “Flesh” included the whole man, not just the body.

 

[FireDragon76]

What is it about sex that makes it so bad in the eyes of Christianity, even if it occurs outside of marriage. The thing is - most people have sex prior to marriage and will again if they lose their spouse. I cannot accept that the person is evil for having had sex.... why should it be so regarded.

Christianity as such does not necessarily teach this.

My church is not legalistic about marriage or cohabitation . We encourage people to seek the legal protection of marriage whenever possible, without making it an absolute requirement. People always come before rules. The main thing we teach in our ethics is for people to act in responsible ways with the freedom they are given. A lifestyle of casual sex does not really fit with that, but that does not necessarily make us "anti-sex".