Genesis 3:16

[Scrawly]

Well, what do you suggest? Should we kill them perhaps? Seriously, I've learned over the years that most people will believe whatever they want to about God and the bible and religion. Doesn't matter if they don't know Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, they still are not inclined to listen to anyone that does, unless they are assured that they will just be giving them reasons to support what they already believe. Some people genuinely want to learn and explore the possible meanings of texts, learn the languages, the evolving history of interpretation, and the merits of opposing viewpoints, but they seem to be in the minority. My advice is to always seek the truth, learn from those who, know more, and generously offer help to others along the way. Live in communion with those who are like minded or of good will and respect all. Some will defer to pastoral leaders or pursue academic questions, but largely people will choose their own authorities. Ultimately, if people can't grasp the idea of a loving and merciful God, who doesn't curse us to the eternal slavery of sin, probably the best thing to do is pray for them and be kind to them.

LOL, I love this guy.

[Violet]

Haven't we (ie we as Christians) sufficiently hashed out the difference between desire and sin with regards to same-sex attractions, for example?

Do you believe God gave same sex attractions to certain people to punish them?

That I desire to do X does not necessarily mean I will do X; that is where self-control or the lack of it comes into play.

How very embarrassing it is to be a woman under the view that I'm always and forever desiring to usurp my husbands authority (I thank God my husband knows me well enough to know this isn't true). Always looked at suspiciously as if I'm crouching behind some corner ready to pounce on my husband at any moment.

I am ready to accept that mankind in general are handed over to sinful minds and depraved lusts (as per Romans 1); even redeemed people still face temptations to sin because the flesh wars against the Spirit; hence there is no difficulty to accept that some people - ie women - are still tempted by particular sins.

They are handed over to do what they naturally chose in their desire. Mankind freely chooses sin, they are still accountable. Women are supposedly given a sinful desire by God. How can she overcome what she has been punished to desire? You may not believe this about women but can a woman's voice even be trusted knowing her desires are always sinful against her husband? How can a husband trust his wife if she, BY GOD's DESIGN is always crouching to pounce and THIS is to describe the ongoing relationship between men and women!!

[Paprika]

Do you believe God gave same sex attractions to certain people to punish them?

It is certainly possible, as per Romans 1. However, this is hardly relevant to the contended issue: that desires are not necessarily sinful.

How very embarrassing it is to be a woman under the view that I'm always and forever desiring to usurp my husbands authority (I thank God my husband knows me well enough to know this isn't true). Always looked at suspiciously as if I'm crouching behind some corner ready to pounce on my husband at any moment.

Would it be accurate to say that you intend to reject the view because it is 'embarrassing' and not because of its truth status?

You may not believe this about women but can a woman's voice even be trusted knowing her desires are always sinful against her husband? How can a husband trust his wife if she, BY GOD's DESIGN is always crouching to pounce and THIS is to describe the ongoing relationship between men and women!!

There is nothing in the text about "always". You are forcing an interpretation into the text - an unwarranted exaggeration.

[robrecht]

Violet: I offer a reading of Genesis in which the punishment is logical in a narrative sense:

The authority structure is pretty clear: God, the Creator over his image, both male and female, who areover the beasts of the field, whom the man named, and creation in general.

But the serpent, one of the beasts, tries to gain power over the female: by displacing God's rightful authority as manifested through the command not to eat and tempting the woman. Similarly, the woman tried to dominate the man by overthrowing God's authority upon him.

As a consequence, the woman's domination is punished with a desire to continue dominating, but it will not be fulfilled. The snake who tried to gain ascendancy over the woman is brought low, and the woman's offspring shall crush his head.

Very logical, but is this the end of the story or just the beginning? Are all the characters truly cursed by God for all time? Is the woman herself even cursed by God? Or is it merely the serpent, the ground, and Cain that are actually cursed? And did not God himself repent of cursing the ground? Did he not reverse the curse through Abraham?

[Violet]

It is certainly possible, as per Romans 1. However, this is hardly relevant to the contended issue: that desires are not necessarily sinful.

The issue is that God punished women with a totally sinful desire that will characterize her relationship with her marriage.

Would it be accurate to say that you intend to reject the view because it iss 'embarrassing' and not because of its truth status?

It is embarrassing but it's more than that. It potentially tells me something about God and myself that I never knew. That He would punish me to desire something sinful.

[John Reece]

Do you believe they are punishments for all mankind or only for Adam and Eve alone?

Is this just a matter of words? Gen 3:16-19 seems to me to be curses. If not curses, then punishments. These punishments were handed down to the rest of mankind, right? Like the punishment of having to work cursed ground and the punishment of childbirth pain.

If these punishments are for mankind, and one of the punishments is that women will desire to control her husband (which is sinful) then this SIN in womankind is a direct punishment because of the fall just as pain in childbirth is a direct punishment because of the fall. So while every other punishment is physical, God singled women out to be inherently sinful in her marriage. Women were punished not only to suffer physically, but to suffer to always sin perpetually. Not as a choice, but as a perpetual defect IN HER CHARACTER--by God, as her punishment.

To say that women were punished by God to desire to control her husband is to say that God Himself punished woman in giving her moral deficiency along with the pain of childbirth and along with Adam's sweat on his brow...

In response to your OP, I started with exegesis of Genesis 3:16 ff.; then, I went to the middle part of Genesis 3 for more context; now I have gone back to the beginning of Genesis 3 for the full context of the story of the Fall and its consequence (3:1-24). I am indebted to Waltke (op. cit.) for the following outline.

The story is of a contest between God and Satan, who is a real entity represented in the story as a snake.

Satan is characterized as "crafty"; cunningly, he distorts God's words and thus deceives Eve whom he uses to bring both Adam and Eve under his control. Satan subverts obedience to God and distorts the prospect of Adam and Eve by emphasizing God's prohibition (2:9), not his provision, reducing God's command to a question, doubting his sincerity, defaming his motives, and denying the truthfulness of his threat. The snake makes God appear to be restricting Adam and Eve from full humanity.

Eve's decision to disobey God and eat the forbidden fruit 'gives priority to pragmatic values, aesthetic appearance, and sensual desires over God's word. Armstrong states, "What Adam and Eve sought from the tree of knowledge was not philosophical or scientific knowledge desired by the Greeks, but practical knowledge that would give them blessing and fulfillment." They were not seeking information but power that comes from knowledge―knowledge that has the potential for evil ends as well as good.' The man chose to obey his wife, not God. (see 3:17)).

Sin's consequences (3:7): "the eyes of both of them were opened. Ironically, their opened eyes bring them shame. This knowledge of good and evil is not a neutral state, desired maturity, or an advancement of humanity, as is commonly argued. God desires to save humans from their inclination for ethical autonomy. Because Adam and Eve have attained this sinful state, they must not eat of the tree of life and are consigned forever to the forbidden state of being inclined to choose their own code of ethics (Gen. 3:22). By contrast, in God's kingdom one chooses to know God and live upon his word (Deut. 8:3).

.... 3:12-13. The woman you put here . . . the serpent . . . I ate. The couple shows their allegiance to Satan by distorting the truth and accusing one another and ultimately God (see James 1:13). They are preoccupied with "I."

.... all the days. The serpent's final defeat under Messiah's heel (3:15) is delayed to effect God's program of redemption through the promised offspring. In the interim, God leaves Satan to test the fidelity of each succeeding generation of the covenant people (Judg. 2:22) and to teach them to "fight" against untruth (Judg. 3:2).

15. I will put enmity. In sovereign grace God converts the depraved woman's affections for Satan to righteous desire for himself.

your offspring and hers. .... Humanity is now divided into two communities: the elect, who love God, and the reprobate, who love self (John 8:31-32, 44). Each of the characters of Genesis will be either of the seed of the woman that reproduces her spiritual propensity, or of the seed of the Serpent that reproduces his unbelief. The unspoken question is, "Whose seed are you?"

I am inclined to be more a Wesleyan than a Calvinist; however, I see in the interpretation presented by Waltke a solution to the problem of the curses presented in 3:16 ff. ― that is, the solution provided by God in Christ (Genesis 3:15): in Christ, you are set free from all curses, as you submit to Him and obey Him.

[Paprika]

Very logical, but is this the end of the story or just the beginning? Are all the characters truly cursed by God for all time? Is the woman herself even cursed by God? Or is it merely the serpent, the ground, and Cain that are actually cursed?

I'm not certain enough to conclude that the woman's desire being for her husband etc. is a 'curse' especially when the word is not used explicitly used in the text as a descriptor. Now, naturally this is a reading of just one of the first episodes in the biblical narrative.

And did not God himself repent of cursing the ground? Did he not reverse the curse through Abraham?

Where did these events occur?

[Paprika]

The issue is that God punished women with a totally sinful desire that will characterize her relationship with her marriage.

That is the main issue under discussion, yes, but a related issue which quickly cropped up as a key disagreement is whether a desire to sin necessarily results in sin.

It is embarrassing but it's more than that. It potentially tells me something about God and myself that I never knew. That He would punish someone to desire something sinful.

If God can give humanity over to impurity, to dishonourable passions, to a debased mind, what is inconceivable about such a punishment - if it is indeed a punishment, and not just a statement of fact?

[robrecht]

I'm not certain enough to conclude that the woman's desire being for her husband etc. is a 'curse' especially when the word is not used explicitly used in the text as a descriptor. Now, naturally this is a reading of just one of the first episodes in the biblical narrative.

Where did these events occur?

Please do not make too much of my baseball language ('reverse the curse'), but I am referring to Lamech's naming of his son, Noah, the Lord's response to Noah's sacrifice, and the initiation of salvation for all families through Abraham, ultimately achieved in Christ:

• He named him Noah, saying, "Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands." (Gen 5,29 NRSV)
• And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor [of Noah's sacrifice], the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. (Gen 8,21 NRSV)
• I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen 12,3 NRSV)

Saint Paul will develop a christological interpretation of this story of Abraham and the Old Testament, which John has already alluded to.

[Paprika]

Please do not make too much of my baseball language ('reverse the curse'), but I am referring to Lamech's naming of his son, Noah, the Lord's response to Noah's sacrifice, and the initiation of salvation for all families through Abraham, ultimately achieved in Christ:

• He named him Noah, saying, "Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the toil of our hands." (Gen 5,29 NRSV)
• And when the LORD smelled the pleasing odor [of Noah's sacrifice], the LORD said in his heart, "I will never again curse the ground because of humankind, for the inclination of the human heart is evil from youth; nor will I ever again destroy every living creature as I have done. (Gen 8,21 NRSV)
• I will bless those who bless you, and the one who curses you I will curse; and in you all the families of the earth shall be blessed." (Gen 12,3 NRSV)

Saint Paul will develop a christological interpretation of this story of Abraham and the Old Testament, which John has already alluded to.

Ah yes, I had forgotten the naming of Noah. So to answer your earlier questions: I don't think the curse on the ground has yet been lifted; the only curse that Jesus has redeemed us from appears to be the curse of the Mosaic Law (as per Galatians).

[robrecht]

Ah yes, I had forgotten the naming of Noah. So to answer your earlier questions: I don't think the curse on the ground has yet been lifted; the only curse that Jesus has redeemed us from appears to be the curse of the Mosaic Law (as per Galatians).

We're going off on a tangent, which is my own fault because I could not resist the baseball language. My point is merely that the curses are not the last word, and Eve herself is never cursed by God.

[Paprika]

We're going off on a tangent, which is my own fault because I could not resist the baseball language. My point is merely that the curses are not the last word, and Eve herself is never cursed by God.

I agree that curses can be lifted, but as before I'm not certain whether a curse is implied by the text or not.

[John Reece]

My point is merely that the curses are not the last word, and Eve herself is never cursed by God.

[Cerebrum123]

I agree that curses can be lifted, but as before I'm not certain whether a curse is implied by the text or not.

Trust me, as someone who lives with great pain on a daily basis, increased pain is a curse.

[Paprika]

Trust me, as someone who lives with great pain on a daily basis, increased pain is a curse.

I'm not the one ruling it out