In this post I propose a new reading of Genesis 3:16.
Post substantially revised August 2026.
The main idea of this post in less than 150 words:
Since the Fall, women’s focused attention has been to love and be loved by a man, but men have a tendency to rule over and mistreat women. Woman’s turning to man for loving companionship and protection, along with her reproductive capacity, means she is vulnerable to man’s sinful tendency to mistreat her. My reading describes the sorrowful significance of Gen 3:16 in this present age where Patriarchy rules.
Your desire will be for your husband and he will rule over you is not conveying what the Hebrew means. The word ‘desire’ is a mistranslation or an inadequate representation of the Hebrew word teshûqâ.
For the nerds, my reading is informed by Andrew Macintosh’s study of the meaning of teshûqâ, evidence from the Syriac Peshitta and Coptic translations, and a cognate from an ancient North Arabian language.
Let us consider the context of Genesis 3:16
When Adam and Eve fell, God announced certain tragic consequences that would thenceforward make life difficult for them.
The condemnations fall, but not like the blades of a guillotine. They retain a very personal tone and are shaped to fit the personal situation of each of the three guilty parties.
— Henri Blocher, In The Beginning: The Opening Chapters of Genesis, 1984, p. 179.
The announcements God made in Genesis 3 are often referred to as the curse, but that’s an inaccurate shorthand. God cursed the serpent and the ground, but he didn’t use the word ‘curse’ in his pronouncements to Adam and Eve. God’s words to Adam and Eve have the character of judicial sentences tempered with compassion, empathy and merciful grace.
In interpreting God’s pronouncement to Eve, we need to take care that our interpretation doesn’t clash with the rest of scripture. Is our interpretation consistent with the immediate context in Genesis 3? Does it harmonise with what the Bible teaches elsewhere about relationships between men and women? Does it harmonise with God’s plan for redemption?
Furthermore, if our interpretation isn’t in accord with the big patterns in human history and culture, we need to pencil a question mark on it. Scripture interprets scripture, but it’s foolish to ignore general knowledge, common sense, and broad patterns in human experience. The book of Proverbs repeatedly points us to common sense and to patterns in interpersonal relationships.
Susan Foh’s interpretation asked us to imagine that “Your desire will be for your husband and he shall rule over you” means “woman will desire to usurp man’s authority”. That interpretation has had diabolical consequences (see Part 1 of this series).
The word ‘desire’ in Genesis 3:16 has probably been mistranslated.
Here is the 2025 ESV translation: To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
When translating this verse, the vast majority of English versions use the word ‘desire’ for the Hebrew word teshûqâ. The NLT and NET explicitly characterise it as desire to control. The 2016 ESV had Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but in 2025 they changed it to the one I’ve given above. Some lesser known versions don’t use the word desire, I’ve listed them in this PDF.
The Hebrew word is teshûqâ תְּשׁוּקָה. It occurs three times in scripture: Genesis 3:16; 4:7 and Song 7:10.
[Katherine] Bushnell points out that the typical Christian translation (“desire”) stems from Targum Onkelos and the Babylonia Talmud, influenced by the Talmudic “Ten Curses Against Eve.” Through a series of Latin translations, the idea of “desire” (originally “lust”) was pasted to several early English translations of Scripture and has become a common understanding of this word.
But there is another translation stream arising through the LXX, the Syraic Peshitta and Coptic translations. This stream views the rare Hebrew word teshuqah as “turning,” not “lust.” If this stream is correct, then the word in Genesis 3:16 is about Havvah’s [Eve’s] mistake of “turning” her principle devotion toward Adam rather than God. Havvah makes Adam her priority with her decision to take from the Tree. The result is catastrophic but the motivation is understandable. She chooses based on what she believes will enhance her abilities to serve her charge. She chooses in spite of God’s warning.
— Skip Moen, A History of Confusion, 2011.
Here is Katherine Bushnell’s timeline of the translations of teshuqa: godswordtowomen.org/teshuqa_chart.pdf
William Tyndale rendered teshuqa in Genesis 4 as let it be subdued. Sometimes Tyndale sometimes followed the LXX rather than the Hebrew; he did this circumspectly, for good reasons. It appears Tyndale followed the LXX when translating Gen 4:6-7. Here it is, gently updated into modern English:
Why are you angry and why do you glower? Do you not know if you do not do well, you shall receive it. But if you do evil, straightaway your sin lies open in the door. Notwithstanding, let it be subdued to you, and see that you rule it. (Gen 4:6-7 The Five Books of Moses, NMB. See Tyndale’s early modern English here.)
Andrew A. Macintosh did a study of teshuqa in the Hebrew Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls. His study was published in 2016 in a theological journal that most people can’t easily access.1 Here is his conclusion:
I conclude that ‘desire’ is not a proper rendering of the Hebrew word תְּשׁוּקָה in the Hebrew Bible or in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Rather, on the evidence of comparative philology and of the ancient versions, ‘concern, preoccupation, (single-minded) devotion, focus’, appears to be more likely.
A close cognate of the word teshuqa is very common in ancient graffiti from North Arabia and it means unrequited yearning. (Tyndale House Podcast S10E4 ‘Did God really say?’ Navigating the First Doubts in Genesis 3 June 12, 2026. The ancient language is Hismaic.)
So teshûqâ in Genesis 3:16 seems to contain these ideas:
- turning
- concern, preoccupation, (single-minded) devotion, focus
- unrequited yearning.
Using these clues, I will now propose my interpretation of Genesis 3:16.
My interpretation of Genesis 3:16
3:16b: I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth and raise children.
3:16c: Your concern, preoccupation, single-minded devotion and focused attention shall be towards your husband, and he shall rule over you.
A woman yearns for a loving caring husband, a husband who will cherish her. She wants closeness and companionship with one special man, a bond that has a sexual element but isn’t grounded only in sexual attraction.2 More broadly, women want men to respect them and protect them from adversity.
But rather than cherishing and respecting woman, man will be inclined to rule over her. Because he will have a sinful tendency to dishonour her, her life will be marred by unrequited yearning for genuine intimacy and respect. Her longing for intimacy will not often be respected. She will be concerned about him with single-minded devotion. She will be preoccupied with what he is doing, what he is feeling, and how he might behave for good or for ill. To protect her dignity and safety (and the safety of her children), she will be focusing her attention on man/men in an ever-vigilant way. How can she keep herself and her children safe in this world where men are inclined to demean women?
How my interpretation fits with the context in Genesis 3
Adam and Eve felt shame after they’d sinned, and they both wanted to hide from God. Most translations of Genesis 3:8 say “they hid” or “they hid themselves”, which suggests that both Adam and Eve were equally keen to hide from God. But William Tyndale rendered it “And Adam hid himself, and his wife also, from the face of the Lord God, among the trees of the garden.” I’m not a Greek scholar but perhaps “hid himself, and his wife also” is the best way of rendering the verb cha,va which in Genesis 3:8 is consecutive imperfect 3rd person masculine singular. Tyndale’s translation could be read as Adam exerting some kind of coercion over Eve, urging her to hide with him, possibly even grabbing her, pulling her, dragging her into hiding. I wouldn’t bet my house on it, but it’s a possibility. If Adam did pressure Eve to hide from God, that would be the first instance of man ruling over woman.
Eve would surely have wanted Adam to forgive her for having offered him the fruit. She would have wanted his comfort in their shared state of shame and mortification for having sinned against God.
But when Adam confessed, he cast indirect aspersions on both God and Eve — “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Adam didn’t show empathy, compassion or loving-kindness towards Eve, despite their shared newly-fallen nature and their shared mortification as fallen creatures. Rather, he indulged in subtle blame-shifting, sliding some blame onto Eve and some onto God before rounding off with his own confession, “I ate.”
Sidebar: To a female victim of domestic abuse, the type of confession Adam gave (confession-while-blame-shifting) is very familiar. It’s like the ‘admissions’ she has heard from her husband. The Fall seems to have instantly given man a deft hand in responsibility avoidance and plausible deniability.
When Eve heard Adam’s disparagement of her, I imagine she would have felt despised and rejected. Yet she didn’t cast aspersions back on her mate when making her confession. If she’d wanted to cast aspersions she could have said, “The rule you gave Adam — which he passed on to me3 — the serpent told me that it would be good for us if I ate the fruit, and I ate.” But she simply said, “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.”
Eve took responsibility for allowing herself to be deceived. She spoke truly when she said “the serpent deceived me”. She wasn’t avoiding responsibility, sliding out to save face. The serpent had indeed deceived her. 1 Timothy 2:14 says Adam was not deceived, but the woman, because she was fully deceived, fell into transgression (NET). In other words, Adam ate fully aware that he was doing wrong, whereas Eve was beguiled and deceived into transgressing God’s command.
Was Eve thrown off balance when she heard Adam casting aspersions on her for giving him the fruit? Was she confused, taken aback? Did she endlessly ruminate on how bad she’d been for giving him the fruit? Did that put her onto on a mouse-wheel of self-doubt and self-blame? (The kind of rumination which is characteristic of abused wives until they come out of the fog.) Did she later come to realise how much Adam’s words had stung her? The Bible doesn’t tell us, so we can’t be sure. But it’s interesting to think about.
But Eve’s desire for Adam’s compassion, forgiveness, and loving-kindness would often be sorely unrequited. Adam would tend to rule over her, not love her.
I read Adam and Eve’s contrasting responses to God’s probing questions in the garden as archetypal for what would follow. Man would tend to resist taking full responsibility for his sins. He would tend to blame his wife or other people. Woman would tend to take more responsibility for her sins than man has taken for his. This pattern has persisted down the centuries, and it’s been particularly evident in religious cultures that insist on male hierarchy. When a woman exposes a man’s sin, rare is the man who publicly admits “she is more righteous than I.” Many men resist, deny, or evade, to save face. And many men remain silent when they see another man doing wrong.
Man would henceforth tend to treat woman unkindly, by coercively controlling and subjugating her. Men would be inclined to disregard woman’s emotions, insights, perspectives, needs, and preferences. Men would tend to treat women distantly, harshly, as objects to be used sensually. rather than fellow-creatures and companions to be cared for.
Woman would try to help man overcome his callous tendencies — for his sake, and for hers!
I’m not suggesting that Adam wholly dishonoured Eve, for Genesis 3:20 says the man named his wife Eve (life spring, life giver), because she was the mother of all the living. (AMP)
Woman’s longing for a loving, caring bond with man as husband, man as partner, has contributed to her being longsuffering under mistreatment.
Why does an abused woman go back to her abuser? Could it be partly because abusive men have exploited women by putting on a facade of being the kind of man the woman longs for, the man of her dreams who will —
- have compassion on her weaknesses and failures,
- honestly share his vulnerabilities with her, so she can help and support him,
- help her in her reasonable needs,
- respect, and if need be, guide or moderate her yearnings,
- honor and help her fulfil her good aspirations,
- and if they have children together, she wants his help in raising their children in safety and dignity.
Woman’s turning to man for loving companionship and protection, along with her reproductive capacity, means she is vulnerable to man’s sinful tendency to mistreat her. No man has to endure menstruation. Most women can bear and breastfeed children, and they need social safety and help when doing so. These biological differences didn’t start at the Fall. But men’s tendency to oppress women started at the Fall. And ever since then women have been turning to men hoping for kindness, dignity, respect and safety in mutual companionship.
What might Eve have thought when she heard what God had said to Cain?
What God said to Cain, and Cain’s response, must at some point have become common knowledge. The likelihood is that Eve would heard about what happened, perhaps even the exact words that God spoke to Cain.
I suggest that when Eve heard how God had warned Cain, she would have thought to herself:
“I’m focusing my attention on Adam not to entice him to fall into sin — we’ve already done that and it’s brought hardship and sorrow! My focus is on helping Adam cope with the hard toil of getting us food, and keeping my safety and dignity when he loses his temper at me. In the garden God didn’t tell me that Adam is my divinely appointed leader in our partnership, nor did he say that I would try to contend with Adam for leadership. I heard the exact words God spoke to Adam. God definitely didn’t warn Adam that he must subjugate me lest I try to control him.”
My interpretation accords with what’s happening all round the world.
Male violence against women is an intractable problem. All around the world we see men abusing and exploiting women. Predatory men charm women into their net so they can abuse them. Men join with other men in the denigration and oppression of women — some men do this deliberately, some do it unconsciously, some men know it’s wrong but don’t intervene because they don’t want to be socially shamed by other men. In the broad arc of history we have only recently begun to acknowledge the extent of this problem.
Not all men mistreat women. Sometimes women abuse men. Sometimes women abuse other women. Sometimes mothers abuse their children. But you only have to look at the news to see how frequently males are the perpetrators and / or the beneficiaries of the oppression of women.
Yes, I know this stuff is hard to think about; but if you avoid thinking and talking about it, you leave victims feeling ignored and alone.
The trope ‘women are as bad as men’ is deft evasion of the facts. Think not only of coercive control by men over their female partners, but also fathers molesting their daughters, sex trafficking, men taking slave wives and child brides, men casting off women when they become ‘inconveniences’, family court orders that compel abused women to let abusive dads have contact with or custody of their children. Now think of men trolling women on the internet, men offering seminars to teach other men how to con women into giving them sex, men keeping control of decision-making, dowry-related violence, ‘honor’ killings, foot-binding, stoning and dishonouring of rape victims, female genital mutilation, and women and girls being denied education, liberty and human rights.
Fathers have deprived daughters and daughters-in-law of the opportunity to marry (e.g., Judah). Or married them off for political alliances without regard to the moral character of the groom. Men have casually sown their wild oats, while shaming women who become pregnant out of wedlock. For most of human history, women have been made to bear the blame for infertility. Women have been shamed for bearing daughters not sons.
Perhaps the bottom line is that men can rape women more easily than women can rape men. Kings have raped commoners. Many soldiers have felt entitled to rape women who are on the opposing side. Brothers have raped sisters. Fathers have raped their daughters. Many men consume porn that idolises male violence against women. The laws in Leviticus forbidding sexual sin are addressed to men.
If you are a man, let me ask you this: What are you doing to prevent male violence against women? By remaining silent or turning away you contribute to the tacit acceptance of male violence against women. Victims are longing for social justice. They want to be vindicated. They want to be recompensed for the harms done to them. But above all they want to use their experience to build communities where it’s harder for predators to continue predating — so that others do not have to suffer what they have suffered. (See Truth and Repair: How Trauma Survivors Envision Justice, by Judith Lewis Herman.)
New Testament precepts confirm my interpretation.
If Genesis 3:16 implied that men must master their wives because wives would perennially desire to usurp their husbands’ authority, why didn’t the apostles exhort husbands to take care lest their wives usurp their authority?
Paul tells Christian husbands not be harsh with their wives, but to self-sacrificially love them. He also tells men that they do not have unilateral authority over what happens in the marital bedroom (see here).
Paul and Peter both situate marriage within the larger drama of redemption, not within the social conventions of empire. The household codes of the pagan Aristotelian Greco-Roman society are not baptized into Christian ethics but transfigured by the apostles into expressions of cruciform communion. In Christ the ordered household is no longer a miniature kingdom of male empire but a sign of the new humanity in which head and body, husband and wife, are joined by the same Spirit who unites the church to her Lord.
— In Defense of Union, Not Patriarchy, by Aaron Mize.5
Peter says husbands are to dwell with their wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel (1 Peter 3:7). Common experience shows that women are generally not as muscularly strong as men, and are emotionally more tender than men. And it’s easy to wound someone who is emotionally tender.
In Romans 16:2, Paul urges the Christians in Rome to honour Phoebe’s authority (her capacity for meaningful action) and to help her with warm hospitality because she is in her vulnerable position. Nick O’Brien argues that both egalitarian and complementarian churches have failed to show Christlike hospitality to women.
Why would the apostles repeatedly remind men of these things if men did not have a tendency to selfishly ignore the needs and feelings of women?
There is only one place in the New Testament where we’re warned not to let a woman teach or exercise authority over (authentein) a man (1 Tim 2:12). It’s illegitimate to use that verse as a slam dunk to prove male hierarchy. The meaning of authentein is still being debated. The context is not about husband-wife relationships, it’s addressing a church in a town where there was a long history of Artemis worship. Artemis was a Greek goddess to whom pagan Greek women would pray because they believed she could prevent them dying in childbirth. Women held leadership positions in the Artemis cult.4 Maybe some prominent women from the Artemis cult had converted to Christ and were pridefully teaching other Christians before they had cleared their heads of pagan teachings and been solidly grounded into Christian doctrine.
The other difficult passage, women should keep silent in the churches (1 Corinthians 14:34-35), is probably a scribal interpolation and not inspired scripture. (See Philip Payne’s arguments for the scribal interpolation hypothesis). Or it might be a secular cliché that some Corinthian Christians believed, which Paul is quoting in order to refute it.
Testosterone is a status seeking hormone, but Christian men cannot use this as an excuse to justify their mistreatment of women. Jesus used his testosterone to expose and denounce the male-privileged power system of this world. Jesus as a man was perceived as having lowly status while he was on earth. He didn’t mind. With his perceived lowly status, Jesus was able to relate compassionately and non-exploitatively to oppressed women, which irritated and unnerved misogynist men. Jesus actually had the highest status a human can possibly have in this world because he was the Son of God, but he never pulled rank by bombastically proclaiming this. Let this be the model for all men who claim to be Christians. If they determinedly resist being like Jesus in the way they relate to women, they are probably pseudo-Christians.
So can we glean anything from the resemblance between Gen 3:16 and Gen 4:7?
I suggest there’s a thematic resemblance between Cain’s words and Adam’s.
When God confronted them, both men chose to retaliate rather than respond with humility. After Cain killed his brother, God asked him Where is Abel your brother? and Cain replied, Am I my brother’s keeper? After Adam and Eve sinned and were hiding the garden, feeling naked and ashamed, God questioned Adam. I think Adam’s response was thematically very similar to Cain’s response. Adam didn’t think he was his sister’s keeper. In his shame, he shamed Eve. The woman that you gave to keep me company, she gave me from the tree, and I ate. (Gen 3:12 The Five Books of Moses, NMB)
Aaron Mize’s reading
Aaron Mize has proposed that the woman’s teshuqah is oriented not to Adam but to the promised Man, the Redeemer whose bruised heel will crush the serpent’s head in Genesis 3:15. I discuss his reading in Part 4 of this series.
In my earlier study, “The Church’s Desire toward Christ Her Sin Offering in Genesis 3:16,” I argued that the text should be read in light of the promise of Genesis 3:15, the parallel verse in 4:7, and the vision of Revelation 12. The woman’s pain and desire are not domestic emotions at all but redemptive travail.
Revelation 12 describes a woman crying out in birth pangs while the dragon seeks to devour her child—the Seed promised in Eden. This woman symbolizes the covenant community laboring toward the birth of the Messiah. Her agony is the persecution of the faithful, not the discomforts of motherhood. When Genesis 3:16 says, “Your desire shall be for your man (אִישׁ, ish),” the term points forward not to Adam but to the promised Man, the Redeemer whose bruised heel will crush the serpent’s head.
Patriarchy appears nowhere in the pre-fall order. And to import it into Genesis 3:16 misses the redemptive promise found there. Genesis 3:16 must be read in immediate continuity with 3:15. The verse is not instituting marital hierarchy or even describing domestic disorder; it carries forward the protoevangelium, unfolding as it were the covenantal dimension: The woman’s desire and the man’s rule signify not subjection but the coming union between the Redeemer and his people. The woman’s ְּתׁשּוָקה (teshuqah, “desire”) is oriented toward her ִאיׁש (ish, “Man”)—not Adam as husband, but the promised Redeemer of 3:15. This reflects the mutual desire on display in Song of Songs 7:10, “I am my beloved’s, and his desire ( ְּתׁשּוָקה , teshuqah) is for me.”
The canonical parallel in Genesis 4:7 confirms this redemptive frame: There the חָּטאת (chattaʾt), “sin-offering,” “lies” at the door; its “desire” is toward the sinner, and he must “rule with” it (the Hebrew particle ב can be translated “in, at, with”)—language of sacrificial union, not interpersonal subjugation. Read this way, Genesis 3:16 announces the church’s longing for her sin-offering Man and anticipates his shared, life-giving rule with his bride. It is a promise of union amidst enmity, not a charter for patriarchy.
Thus Genesis 3:16 is not a charter for male authority but the first announcement of the church’s hope in Christ. It reveals the woman’s desire for union with her sin-offering, not her subjection to her spouse.
— Aaron Mize, In Defense of Union, Not Patriarchy.5
Here is a quote from Aaron Mize’s earlier article The Church’s Desire toward Christ Her Sin Offering in Genesis 3:16 —
In Hebrew, the word for sin and sin offering חַטָּאת (chattā’t) are identical. The meaning is determined once again by context, which is the offering of sacrifice at the door of Eden. Moreover the Hebrew word translated as crouching (rābatz, רֹבֵץ) is used of animals lying down in green pastures. …
So if one reads “sin offering” in place of sin, which is a viable translation, what we have before us is God graciously revealing to Cain the means by which he himself might be restored. What is offered to Cain is the righteous, sacrificial offering of another at the door of Eden before the flaming sword of judgment. … It is the sin offering of righteous Abel that lies at the door. Its desire is toward Cain, or for Cain, and Cain must rule “with” or “in” it in the way that the saints reign with the Lamb that was slain for their sins (Rev. 5:9–10). The righteous offering of another could restore Cain to divine fellowship and lift his gaze from the cursed earth to the heaven of heavens. Abel and his sacrifice typifies Christ and his high priestly office, Christ the unblemished Lamb of God whose blood “speaks a better word than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:24) because it says, “it is finished.” (John 19:30)
Seeing how the same language is used in Genesis 4:7 and applying what we have discovered to Genesis 3:16, what we have is this, “Your desire will be toward your man (the Messianic-Redeemer-Offspring who will deliver her from her sins as a sin offering and by the bruising of his heel in crushing the serpents head), and he shall rule with you.”
In summary, Genesis 3:16, immediately following Genesis 3:15, … is concerned with the church and the Last Adam. It is speaking of the hope of the gospel for the covenant community typified in Eve, a community in a wilderness world persecuted by the dragon and the curse.
— Aaron Mize, The Church’s Desire toward Christ Her Sin Offering in Genesis 3:16
Aaron Mize’s reading accords with the indisputable truth that God would have all people saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. (1 Timothy 2:4)
Connecting Genesis 3 and 4 through the most obscure verse by Martin Shields
My reading of Genesis 3:16 is different from, but harmonious with, Aaron Mize’s reading.
Aaron Mize reads the verse as woman’s yearning for the promised Seed and the church’s yearning for intimate communion with the second Adam, the Redeemer promised in Genesis 3:15. I suggest we can hold my interpretation of Genesis 3:16 alongside Aaron Mize’s interpretation of that verse. In accepting one reading, we don’t have to reject the other; both readings can be true.
My reading describes the sorrowful significance of Gen 3:16 in this present age where Patriarchy rules. Pastor Mize’s reading describes the woman’s yearning for the promised Seed and the church’s yearning for intimate communion with the second Adam who is bringing us to our joyful telos — the heavenly city where there will be no more pain.
Our two readings are like “a dance of two camps” (Song 6:13; 7:1 in the Hebrew Bible). The KJV has “Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look upon thee. What will ye see in the Shulamite? As it were the company of two armies.” The NET tentatively suggests “dance of the two camps/armies”. I like Robert Alter’s translation of this verse:
Turn back, turn back, O Shulamite,
turn back, that we may behold you.
—Why should you behold the Shulamite
in the dance of the double rows?
— Robert Alter, Translation and Commentary on the Hebrew Bible [affiliate link]
Towards a Representational Theology of Gender
Anna Anderson has proposed a new gender paradigm, one which maps gender onto the grand chiasm of the Bible. She’s calling it a Representational Theology of Gender. Her work harmonises with Aaron Mize’s two articles which I featured above.
In my view, Anna’s work on gender is beyond compare. Here’s a small sample:
Adam, created first, represents first things. Eve, created second, represents last things, things still veiled from our eyes. Eve is the eschatological creature, and the full substance of her representation awaits a future unveiling in the age to come.
Man and woman represent distinct spheres or realms. Adam, taken from the dust of the ground (adamah) represents the earth, the realm of mankind (adam). Eve, taken from the sacred side (zelah) of Adam, represents the city of God, Zion, the home of angels. Earth and heaven are two complementary realms or “registers” destined to come together on the last day in an enduring embrace which will shake both realms (Heb 12:26).
— Anna Anderson, A New Gender Paradigm
Endnotes
1. Andrew A. Macintosh’s article: “The Meaning of Hebrew תשׁוקה,” Journal of Semitic Studies 61 (2016):365-387.
2. The sexual element of the woman’s feelings for her husband would be conducive to the ongoing procreation of the human race. It would help counteract the post-fall potential for women to avoid sexual intercourse in order to avoid the pains of childbirth and the difficult and painful work of rearing child in this fallen world.
3. When God is instructing the earth creature adam not to eat the fruit of that tree, he uses ‘you’ (the singular pronoun) four times (Gen 2:16-17). Some argue that Eve would have been aware of the rule without Adam having to teach it to her, because she heard God giving the rule when she was ‘within’ the earth creature (not yet formed from his side). If that were so, don’t think it would wholly counteract my suggestion that Adam passed on the rule to Eve. Furthermore, after Eve was formed from Adam’s side, Adam and Eve probably discussed the rule and reinforced it to each other by saying, “Let’s not even touch that tree.” That would explain why Eve said to the serpent “we must not even touch that tree”.
5. Aaron Mize’s article “In Defense of Union, Not Patriarchy” was originally published by Ordained Servant. They got strong pushback and soon took it down, but there’s an Internet Archive version here.
4. Have They All Missed Wonder Woman? Paul, Artemis, and the Passage Everyone Argues About, by Sandra Glahn.
5. Aaron Mize’s article “In Defense of Union, Not Patriarchy” was originally published by Ordained Servant. They got strong pushback and soon took it down, but there’s an Internet Archive version here.
6. In Mize’s article The Church’s Desire toward Christ Her Sin Offering in Genesis 3:16, he unfortunately quoted from the 2016 ESV: Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” In 2025 the ESV reverted to what they had in 2001: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
Further reading on this site
What is the woman’s desire? How Susan Foh’s interpretation of Genesis 3:16 fed steroids to abusers.
The lifeboats around the sinking titanic which is the institutional church
The change of Genesis 3:16, ESS, the colonial code of relationship, and a call to bystanders
Contrary Women: Genesis 3:16b in the (now non-)Permanent ESV — by Matthew Lynch (a partial reblog)
Father-daughter incest: is it prohibited in the Bible? This is not a stupid question.
Further reading elsewhere, listed by publication date.
Womans’s desire for man: Genesis 3:16 reconsidered — by Irvin A Busenitz, 1986.
Genesis 3:16 The Pronouncement on Eve — by Les Galicinski (April 2008). This article includes a helpful chart which sets out different theologians’ interpretations of Gen 3:16.
Things that undermine the complementarian position — by Wendy Alsup (Feb 18, 2012).
A quote from this article:
It says she has a desire (the word indicates a strong craving or longing) for her husband. It’s straightforward, and women know exactly what I’m talking about. Apart from Christ, we are predisposed to looking to men to fulfill in us things that only God Himself can fill. We look to men for affirmation emotionally, spiritually, and physically, and for the most part, it’s only when they disappoint us that we push them aside and try to do it for ourselves independent of them.
A (Somewhat) Scholarly Analysis of Genesis 3:16 — by Wendy Alsup (April 13, 2012). A husband’s comment on the above article:
Chris April 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM I want you to know that your explanation of the temptation to look to your husband as the ultimate “need-meeter,” seconded by so many of the commenters all across your blog, has really helped me understand the women in my life much better, including my own wife. You cleared up something that has baffled me throughout my 30-year marriage and my 30-year ministry. It came home to me when I read a comment that referred to it as “the gravitational pull of my husband.” I’ve seen that gravitational pull in action, and wondered what it was. I don’t know if it truly is a result of the Curse, but it sure sounds as if it’s a near-universal phenomenon.
Because you all have courageously exposed this to me, I have immediately and spontaneously felt a greater sympathy and gentleness for my wife. I have found myself re-interpreted women’s “control issues” (I didn’t blame it on Gen 3.16, but I “saw” it often nevertheless) as not being a desire for control at all — it’s opened my mind to other explanations and motivations. Bottom line, it has been liberating to me, as is always the case with the truth. It’s been edifying to my marriage and other friendships.
Problems with a New Reading of an Old Verse — by Wendy Alsup (Sept 17, 2012).
A New Wave of Complementarianism — by Wendy Alsup (April 16, 2013). In the comments on this article there’s discussion of whether Foh was the first to articulate her view, or whether others before her had articulated it, or shades of it.
Genesis 3:16 – Desiring and Ruling — by David T Lamb (Oct 8, 2013).
Teshuqah: The Woman’s “Desire” in Genesis 3:16 — by Margaret Mowczko (Nov 7, 2015).
Toward a Better Reading: Reflections on the Permanent Changes to the Text of Genesis 3:16 in the ESV — by Wendy Alsup and Hannah Anderson (Sept 26, 2016).
Genesis 3:16 and the ESV — by Dr Claude Mariottini (Oct 4 2016).
[April 17, 2022: Editors’ notes:
—For some comments made prior to April 17, 2022 that quoted from the post, the text in the comment that was quoted from the post might no longer be an exact match.
—For some comments made prior to April 17, 2022 that quoted from the post, the text in the comment that was quoted from the post might no longer be found in the post.
If you would like to compare the text in the comments made prior to April 17, 2022 that quoted from the post to the post as it was on April 17, 2022, click here [Internet Archive link].
Share this:
Discover more from Crying Out For Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thank you Thank you Thank you!!!
Light bulbs went off here. I finally understand why I was treated so harshly by the former “church” I was in. Every time I went to the “church” and told them of the instances of repeated abuse, I was told to stop trying to control my husband. I said that I was not trying to control my husband but that I wanted my husband to love and cherish me. Well, they said, if you were more submissive to him then he wouldn’t be abusive. ????? By wanting him to love me I was trying to control him?! I maintain that all I ever wanted was his heart and love that I had when we first met and married many years ago. If i am to have a desire for a husband, only for him to turn around and treat me harshly…..then that makes me a fine target to be abused again in a future relationship or marriage. I’d rather be alone for the rest of my life then.
Agree here!
This really is an amazing article. I do believe you have truly seen the true interpretation and meaning of this. Truly we can see this play out throughout history and even now that women do desire the love and care of a husband / man, willing to do anything for it, only to be mistreated time and again. May God continue to give us more revelation of these truths and show us how to share this truth to the entire world, but starting with the Church! Thank you. <3
I really appreciate the raising of this subject for review since this scripture is very triggering in light of how it’s been interpreted by my former church.
Looking at the etymology has been affirming and deeply resonated with my own experiences as a woman whose sole goal was to be a godly wife and mother, pleasing the Lord and serving her family. As is often the case, the more submissive and accommodating I was, the worse the abuse became. I feel completely and totally betrayed by the advice of my pastor – essentially, “try harder” which translates to the message, “it must be you” or even more dangerous, “if you were more perfect, he wouldn’t be this way.” I’m sure a whole other article could be done on the profound effect that these harmful messages have when they come from those we believed loved us and have authority in our lives… but the message of this article seems to be so threatening that even bringing it up with my parents, has caused my Dad to attack the credibility of the author, bringing up charges that aren’t even true to discredit the validity of the argument before he can even look into etymology of the scripture discussed. Leaves me feeling victimized all over again.
So sad that tradition is more important than the truth by the very person who taught me to seek Truth. It breaks my heart.
You see the same theme in Eph 5 and 6 where husbands, fathers, and slave masters are exhorted by Paul to love, to give up threatening, to cease provoking. In other words, we must all live now as the new creations in Christ that we are, not like people still dead in sin. Thank you very much for these articles, Barbara. Well done.
What makes me most annoyed at all this is the same folks who embraced Susan Foh’s translation will often refuse to listen to anything said by a woman—married or not, aged or young—and yet accept those very words if a man says them…and they’re particularly suspect of any words if it’s a “new” idea, presented by someone who hasn’t been dead for decades or centuries.
They’re even outright snobbish about how they follow historic tenets from great men of the faith. And yet their justification for why they refuse to listen to women was, in fact, popularized by a woman in the past fifty years?
Just when I think the hypocrisy can’t get any worse, it does. :-/
So true! This has been my Dad and pastor too!
Exactly, Misti! It’s mind-numbing!
Barbara, this is pure gold. It’s all very obvious isn’t it… women all over the world desire connection and love, often (really mostly) to their detriment. We have a world full of nations and cultures, ruled by men, that treat women with extreme harshness and degradation. But the Christian church continues to be force-fed the harmful teaching that men ruling over women is a good thing.
Barbara wrote: “But you only have to look at the news to see how frequently males are the perpetrators and / or the beneficiaries of the oppression of women.”
To add to your extensive list of abuses inflicted on women throughout history: Polygamy / harems, sacrificial killing of wives for husband’s funeral, chastity belts and coverings, massive female infanticide.
Yes — thanks Song of Joy. :)
Not only in my own personal experiences, but also with many women I know, the relational conflict has always been the women striving to NOT be controlled by the men in her life – not be the controller of them! But because of heretical indoctrination, women, including ‘previous’ self, conclude that we are the core problem and thus settle ourselves down to become that ethereally submissive wife, only to find of course an ever growing depression type tsunami growing within that is hard to identify or put a finger on. But we feel it’s un-peace and dis-ease.
Good articles like this not only turn the lights on, but I’ve found a beginning of healing for my soul personally the more that Truth dispels the darkness. “The truth shall set you free”.
Hi Everyone,
It is unclear where to post a new comment or introduction so I am responding under this reply, sorry.
I just really needed to share that in the past couple days I have confirmed with my own research that my dad has high functioning autism. I am middle aged, so glad I am figuring this out! He has classic symptoms and was very abusive to his daughters and my mom due to his tantrums when he got frustrated and anxious – often screaming, breaking things, repeating his favorite motto “___[redacted by Eds, to protect commenter’s ID]____” and his attachment to our vicious dog who bit me, my sister, neighbours, and friends, (all requiring stitches) but not doing anything about it because he connected with this animal way better than he could with people.
He has a genius ability in a certain area [details redacted by Eds] for which he has been very successful- just so classic it blows my mind. Just needed to post this. Not sure who to share this with face to face so thank you for reading. Good luck to you all in taking good care of yourselves. Happy to read your stories and know so many people here on this sight are becoming aware and able to move towards a more loving life for themselves and their families.
Hi Lighter and wiser
I edited your comment slightly in order to protect your identity. Welcome to the blog!
We always like to encourage new readers to check out our New Users Info page as it gives tips for how to guard your safety while commenting on the blog.
You might like to know that autism does not (typo, sorry: I missed the NOT when I first published this comment and have now corrected it!) — autism does not cause a person to be abusive. If an abusive person has autism, they have two problems: abuse, and autism; and each problem needs its own treatment. If an abuser has another problem as well as abuse (e.g. autism, mental illness, alcoholism or drug addiction) then the other problem will tend to exacerbate the abuse and make the abuser more dangerous, but that other problem does not cause the abuse. I hope this makes sense.
You can read more about that in Lundy Bancroft’s book Why Does He DO That? [Affiliate link] which we list under our Resources tab. And we have a couple posts about autism and Asperger’s — here is the tag:
Autism / Asperger’s
Readers, please check my corrected comment above.
Autism does not cause abuse.
This is sort of how it was explained to me just recently: When a man turns from getting his meaning, value, fulfillment, etc. from God alone, he turns to the earth from which he was made, the works of his own hands, his job, to get all that, yet he gets thwarted all the time (thorns and thistles). That is why we have wars, too, men fighting for more ‘earth’, more ‘stuff’, more power and authority, etc. When a woman turns from getting her meaning, value, fulfillment, etc. from God, she turns to the man from whose side she was fashioned, for all that. In that, she gives the man her most precious possession, the freedom God gave her, and he then either runs or dominates. In a twisted sort of way, to a man of pride, it probably feels like he is being controlled.
I have found in this second marriage, that when I turned my full attention to God and found my value and fulfillment in Him, things slowly started to change. For the worse at first, but when that didn’t seem to bother me (much), eventually it got better. I don’t think his whole heart is in it, but that is no longer a problem to me. I don’t “need” him anymore, so now he seems to feel free to appreciate me and move toward me.
God doesn’t make us ‘obey’, why ever does the ‘church’ believe that any of us should dominate each other. If a woman preaches or teaches, she’s not ‘holding authority’, she’s just sharing what God put on her heart.
Thank you for this. Funny how for so many years I tried to believe the stuff I was taught, and felt guilty that it never quite felt right, but now, it’s like a huge sigh of relief. This is what has been so missing for so long. I pray that we can communicate this to our children before it’s too late.
Thank you, Sunflower, for the first paragraph that you wrote in your comment. Early in my marriage, I sought out a relationship with our Lord Jesus. My husband did not until a little later. We both turned to each other and to the Lord in sweet fellowship together, attending church and Bible studies together and raising our babies. Then stuff happened and my husband fell away from the church and any relationship with Jesus. He chose a relationship with alcohol over Jesus and his family. I clung on tightly to what we had before, and my husband resented me for doing so. I was angry that my husband didn’t want a relationship with Jesus, but I still wanted the same type of sweet marriage that we had early on, when we were together honoring the Lord in our walks. I begged and pleaded with him but he refused to be a part of it.
He then became horribly abusive in any way, claimed he hated me for ruining his life and that I was trying to control him. During the day and into the evening he would go off to work and then down to the neighborhood bar, and in the evening he would come home and terrorize my life in a drunken rage. I finally divorced him last year. Now that I am not in his life daily, nor do I contact him….he now decides that he wants to reach out and have me be a part of his life? My life centers around the value and relationship that I have with my sweet Lord Jesus, and with my children. I don’t need nor want that man in my life anymore.
I’ve observed that in many Christian book catalogs (such as Christian Book Distributors) books written by men are grouped together in categories such as “Prayer,” “Spirituality,” “Christian Living,” “Theology,” and so on. Only books written about manhood are labeled “For Men.” However, generally all books written by women are grouped under the “For Women” pages, no matter what their topic is. Why not group book topics together, whether written no matter what the gender of their author is? Although this might seem like a very minor issue, I see it as another way the church minimizes women, as if their books are less serious and more fluffy than books written by men, and appropriate only for women readers. I mean, what man is ever going to go to the “For Women” page to choose a book?
This is why I do not buy women’s study Bibles. It seems the focus is how the woman’s focus should be on hospitality or submission or other strictly “feminine” type things, instead of learning the meat of God’s Word and being Bible scholars themselves.
Good point, IAMB.
Readers, if any of you have a women’s study Bible on your shelves, please let us know whether its study notes talk about the woman’s desire being the desire to usurp her husband’s authority.
This is very interesting and good. I have heard a lot of teachings on this, most of them concerning the lordship of the man over the woman.
After studying them myself, I have thought these passages meant that the woman’s desire would be to love her husband more than God and then place her husband in God’s position unwittingly. Because that is the curse, after we are saved and no longer under the curse, we would recognize this error over time and flee from it. It never gives the husband the right to rule over her, but because her temptation would be to love him more than God, he would certainly take advantage of that and rule over her.
Thoughts, Barb or Jeff?
IAMB, my interpretation in this post would imply that woman could veer so far as to idolize her relationship with her husband and put that relationship before her relationship with God. I don’t think I’d go so far as to say that the most typical outcome is that women will idolize their male partners, but idolizing the husband is certainly one of the possible outcomes.
As for the man ruling over her, because Gen 3:16 says explicitly that “he will rule over you” I think God is telling Eve / woman that fallen man’s sinful tendency will be to rule over her, not so much because she turns to him or goes so far as to idolize him, but just because fallen man will now have that rule-over-woman thing in his sin nature.
I’m reluctant to say that man’s sinful ruling over woman is simply and only because woman tends to sinfully idolize him. That puts too much blame on the woman.
Woman’s turning to the man, that gravitational pull she feels towards her man, can certainly make her more vulnerable to his harsh rule, but it doesn’t cause his harsh rule.
Make sense? I’m tired right now, so I can try to rephrase this if it’s not clear.
I heard something along these lines when I was at that “church.” I was told that my wanting my husband to love me was considered idolatry. I was told that I loved my husband more than God. I did not. I just wanted him to love me as before and stop being abusive.
I’ve heard that line MANY times. It’s another catch 22.
If a single woman says she wants to be married, she is often told that she is making an idol of marriage and she should be finding all her satisfaction in her relationship with God. The same kind of thing might be said to a single man, but I’ve not heard it so much.
If a married woman who is suffering abuse from her husband says she wants her husband to love her, she is told that the purpose of marriage is not happiness but holiness — character growth, learning to trust in God more, etc. And she may be told that she’s making an idol out of her husband’s love. But she simply wants his abuse to stop!
She’s damned every which way.
Yep, I agree. Makes perfect sense!
Man’s desire for power and to rule has been since Gen 3. When they are given more power through wrongful teaching about headship / submission, it reinforces the curse-lived-lifestyle. Also because we are taught we are all still a bunch of sinners, they remain under the curse instead of becoming a new creation in Christ. Makes one wonder if you still are living under the curse, how can you be really saved? Paul says that the only thing that matters is that you are a new creation in Christ.
Thank you Barb!
And if a single woman says she doesn’t want to be married, she’s considered selfish and willful and childish.
Yes, there are catch 22 traps whichever which way…
This message needs to be shouted from the rooftop!
A “funny” thing to note as to how far false teaching on this subject goes in some churches: When I was the administrative assistant at my former church, I did the weekly bulletin. One Friday, I noticed the pastor had forgotten to choose a verse for the benediction. I asked him what verse he’d like and he told me to pick one, but then almost immediately seemed reluctant. The assistant pastor had overheard and came into the office to correct the situation – a woman could not pick out the benediction! …Wow, when I look back now I find this incredible.
Yes, Please tweet it, FB it and share it as much as you can, readers. I tweeted it yesterday but am not all that clever at using Twitter. I need a Twitter expert to sit by my side for half an hour and coach me.
Reading this makes you wonder if Susan Foh is aware of what the Bible describes as our desire in Philippians 2:13 (NLT)
How’s that for the Christian woman’s true desire?
Bingo, Avid Reader. :)
I want to say up front that I disagree with your stance on the Hebrew word teshuqah, and I am a Complementarian. As a result of the Fall, instead of serving one another as intended by God’s original design, each sex will engage in a power struggle. The husband will seek to rule over his wife in a dominating fashion, and she will try (in various ways) to control him. By nature the man will have the greater physical power, but the wife will not be without her own means to gain an advantage in this struggle.
It isn’t just the internal evidence of Gen. 4 where God addresses Cain, but there’s also the evidence from the verse in Gen. 3. A parallel is being given. Each sex will do something negative to the other as a result of the Fall.
The answer for both sexes is to return to God’s original design which is laid out in Ephesians 5. The husband is to engage in servant leadership, and his wife (as a full partner) is to follow that leadership in the help-meet position. For the wife this is not a position of inferiority or in any way infers blind following. I’ve heard the argument that if a wife puts herself in any position other than full equality then she is setting herself up for abuse, but there’s a lot of evidence to the contrary. Just because some have been abused under a faulty teaching of submission that does not mean that following the true Biblical position will lead to abuse. In fact if a husband is engaging in abuse then by the very act he is showing that he is NOT in compliance with Ephesians 5.
And while we no doubt will disagree on this point, let me say that I do agree with the points you make on this blog regarding abuse and divorce. Be careful not to paint all complementarians with a broad brush. I have counseled women to get a divorce on the grounds of abuse, and I’d do so again in a heartbeat. It is my belief that domestic abuse is a major failing in evangelical churches today. Pastors are not taking a strong enough stand, and too many men (and sometimes women) feel as if they can safely get away with their abuse because they know the church will not allow divorce, and the wife (or husband) will be guilted into staying.
Jason, let us leave aside Genesis 4, just for the moment. Can you please give evidence for your assertion that a parallel is being given in Genesis 3, and the parallel is that each sex will do something negative to the other as a result of the fall.
I do not see that idea inherent in Genesis 3. So I’d like to know how you arrive at that conclusion without any consideration of Genesis 4.
I’m also curious about the delineation of your argument. All arguments I’ve heard rely on assumptions that aren’t in the text or words that were added by the English translators and aren’t in the original text — text that makes perfect sense without the added words if you remove the also-added semicolon.
I examined this context on my blog some weeks ago, and even though I kept the translation of “desire” while looking at it, my examination and comparing Scripture with Scripture showed that the common interpretations I was familiar with from complementation circles required me to make too many assumptions for me to be comfortable with it, particularly since you can remove some of the assumptions and the text makes sense on its own.
I’ve also yet to hear an argument for the complementarian position that doesn’t require one to ignore Ephesians 5:21, and I’ve been looking.
Hi Misti, can you please email me a link to that article on your blog?
barbara@notunderbondage.com
Thanks. :)
Jason,
Thank you for standing up for women in advising them that abuse is Biblical grounds for divorce—-we need more men in the church with that kind of wisdom. Your heart towards protecting women is greatly appreciated.
We agree with you that there are many men of God who believe in Complementarianism without allowing it to be used to justify abuse. Please understand that this is not a Complementarian / Egalitarian debate but a historical understanding of how certain kinds of teaching in the church have opened the door to abuse towards women.
The problem with the theory that Genesis 3:16 is saying that women have an innate desire to control men—-is that even though you personally would never use that against women—-there’s WAY TOO MANY other people in the church that would. We are dealing with two thousand years of blatant misogyny towards women in the church that is still affecting us today. Before we examine specific examples, let’s look at how Jesus reacted towards this.
When Jesus walked the Earth, He dealt with this misogyny head on. Remember the story of Jesus healing the woman at the synagogue who had suffered for eighteen years? (Luke 13:10-17—ERV) The very fact that Jesus would even acknowledge someone sitting in the women only area of the synagogue spoke volumes to everyone in that culture. Jesus even broke cultural norms when He “laid His hands on her.” (That’s the heart of God, reaching out to us, not wanting any distance between us and God.) She was healed and instantly begins praising God. Think about that for a moment. Jesus allows her to speak in front of the Pharisees who believed from the Talmud that “it is a shame for woman to let her voice be heard among men.”
Are the Pharisees happy for her? Nope. “The synagogue leader was angry because Jesus healed on the Sabbath day.” The moment this woman breaks free from eighteen years of suffering, the spirit of the Pharisee rises up to complain that it didn’t happen the way they thought it should!
Jesus responds that shouldn’t this woman be healed because she is a “daughter of Abraham?” That’s a huge statement when everyone there knows that the Pharisees prided themselves on being sons of Abraham! Jesus is affirming the value of women.
When Jesus healed the woman with the issue of blood, He made the leader of the synagogue stand there and listen to the testimony of a woman (Luke 8:43-48). That was a huge validation of how much Jesus cared for women in a culture that refused to accept the women’s testimony in a court of law.
Then there’s the time that the Pharisees wanted to stone the woman caught in adultery. (John 8:1-11) Where was the man who had committed the sin with her? Why didn’t they want to stone the man who was just as guilty?
That story is such a powerful example of Christ’s love towards us even “while we were yet sinners.” (Romans 5:8) Here’s Jesus, the sinless Lamb of God, who has every right to cast the first stone, yet he chooses not to. When the Pharisees finally leave, Jesus turns to the woman and asks “Where are your accusers?”
When she notices that none of those accusers are left, Jesus tells her “Neither do I accuse you. Go and sin no more.” Instead of accusing her or putting her down, Jesus gives her the chance to repent and start over. That’s the heart of God towards you.
The problem is that for too many years the church has been more interested in ACCUSING WOMEN than following the example of Christ who “is touched with the feeling of our infirmity” and “ever lives to make intercession for us.” (Hebrews 4:15 & 7:25)
Jason, we appreciate your heart towards women in wanting to protect them from abuse. We understand that you are trying to think through what you’ve been taught, not trying to accuse women of anything.
But for this doctrine to say that women are born with an innate desire to control men is a HURTFUL ACCUSATION!
Does the Bible say that God put enmity between men and women? Of course not!
Genesis 3:15 clearly states that God put enmity between the woman and the serpent!
The Bible teaches us that there is a struggle for power that we face everyday—BOTH men and women struggle with our sinful, carnal nature. (Romans 7-8 & Galatians 5:16-24) “The carnal mind is ENMITY against God for it is not subject to the law of God.” (Romans 8:7) That’s where you find the true enmity and the true struggle that we face. Not women against men but us wrestling with our flesh. Thus following Christ requires us to “crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts.” (Galatians 5:24)
The Apostle Paul had been taught by the best rabbinical schools where they liked to pray this prayer: “Thank God for not making me a Gentile, a slave or a woman.” The Apostle Paul directly attacked misogyny head on by turning that saying upside down when he wrote “There is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither male or female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).
This idea that women naturally desire to control men comes from hundreds of years of major church leaders accusing women of having more of a sinful nature than men.
Tertullian (160-225) believed that women “are the devil’s gateway.”
St. Ambrose (339-397) believed that women were NOT made in the image of God.
Jerome (343-420) whose Bible translation influenced church fathers for a thousand years until the printing press was built — believed that “woman is the root of all evil.”
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) “Woman is defective and misbegotten….the image of God is found in man and not in woman.”
Martin Luther (1483-1546) “Take women from their housewifery and they are good for nothing…..Woman must neither begin nor complete anything without man. Where he is, there she must bend before him as before a master whom she shall fear and to whom she shall be subject and obedient.”
John Knox (1505-1572) “Woman in her greatest perfection was made to serve and obey man.”
Jesus Christ “No one can serve two masters.” (Matthew 6:24)
My point is that here at ACFJ, we seek to follow the example of Christ who respected women and confronted the church tradition that was hurting them.
Now Jason, if you’re still having second thoughts about the meaning of “Teshuqah” here’s something to consider.
I agree with Barbara that regardless of whether it means “desire” or “turning” or whatever—where is the evidence that it means women desiring control over men? That’s just not in the Bible.
Look at the history of how “Teshuqah” has been translated in the Bible
Septuagint…..(285 B.C.) “turning”
Syriac Peshitto…..(100 A.D.) “will turn”
Aquilla’s Greek…..(140 A.D.) “alliance”
Old Latin…..(200 A.D.) “turning”
Sahidic…..(300 A.D.) “turning”
Bohairic…..(350 A.D.) “turning
Aethiopic…..(500 A.D.) “turning”
Geneva Bible (1599)
KJV (1611) ”Desire”
Even the Geneva Bible seems to agree with Barbara’s point on this!
Yes there is a hateful culture and attitude and belief about women in this world. Women and children are sexualized and talked about negatively everywhere. You can’t miss it!
Also I can say without a doubt that I had NO desire to control or dominate or abuse my XH whatsoever. NONE.
And the women who confide in me about the abuse in their home NEVER show this desire for control or power either. NEVER. They pour themselves in books to be better moms and wives and they slowly and completely ignore their instincts about all things in life and home. Why? Because they MUST to survive living with an abuser. They live with a hateful husbands who treat them as objects / as non-persons in their marriage. This is wrong and this hate toward women is largely not fought against in our world. I’ve seen it with XH for the entire time I’ve known him – now that I am free, have heard the truth and the many testimonies that are exactly like mine and now that I can see clearly. I’ve seen it with my own eyes in the court room- Judges chumming up with abusers and their lawyers. It was like a college reunion in there. I’ve seen pastors down play women’s cries for help. I’ve heard a pastor call a victim “a child” because she cried out for help and told the truth. He called her testimony “ranting.”
Today submission is talked about often in the church – woman wear it as a badge- a reminder to do more and be less- men proudly wear their wives as a trophy in public and at home they make it known she is not to be treated as a person. Extended Families ignore abuse and pretend it never happened. They equalize the blame. The abusive man gets away with what he does. The woman is viscously shamed and blamed. The children grow up trained to do this. It’s happening. It’s real. It’s against God. It’s evil.
That’s the point, is it not?
Wow Free, in a nut shell you have described my experience in all of this, as I’m sure many others relate.
May God continue to shed truth against this evil in which we daily battle.
I appreciate the courteous responses even though we may disagree on some issues. I’ve read other forums which tend to be egalitarian, and they can be downright hostile to anyone with a complementarian position.
If it’s ok, I’ll do separate posts on the issues that have been raised. First I’ll address my assertion on Genesis 3:16. When I said that I see internal evidence in that section of Scripture what I meant was that the consequences of the Fall are being laid out by God, and each consequence is a negative. It’s something bad in place of what was good. I’m not saying that this alone is a compelling argument, but I believe that along with how teshuqah is used in Genesis 4 that this gives even more weight to translate the word in Genesis 3:16 in the same way as Genesis 4. There is no argument about what the word means in Genesis 4, and if you’re going to say that the word has a different meaning in the only other occurrence in that book and by that author, then I think there would have to be weighty contextual evidence to suggest that. There isn’t.
In the septuagint the word can be literally translated turn away from. The Greek word starts with the preposition apo which means away from. I think it would be helpful if we could find the Greek word in other classical Greek works to see how it is used. I don’t think that Greek word is used anywhere in the New Testament.
Misti mentioned Ephesians 5:21 which I thinks deserves a separate treatment. As a complementarian I don’t see any reason to ignore this verse. It is simply setting forth a principle that as Christians we should defer to one another. Jesus taught the apostles that leadership was about serving and not about dominating.
In 1 Peter 5:1-4 Peter is talking about Elders and how they should conduct themselves. Then here is what he says in the following verse:
1 Peter 5:5 NKJV
Because Peter inserts this verse following his instructions to elders should we assume that there should not be any kind of functioning authority within the Christian community? I don’t think so. The purpose of the verse is not to nullify the authority of elders, but it is a re-emphasis of the common principle of serving one another in love.
Paul says it like this:
Philippians 2:3 NKJV
Ephesians 5:21 is simply echoing this same sentiment. It is not there to cancel out what follows in Ephesians 5 with regards to roles in marriage.
And if you’ll indulge me for one more post, I’d like to respond to the larger issue of how this all fits in with the subject of abuse and divorce. It’s very unfortunate that Genesis 3:16 would be used to paint a picture that women are inferior or somehow responsible for the abuse they might receive in marriage. There’s nothing in the complementarian understanding of Genesis 3:16 that gives any weight to those positions. If my perspective on that verse is correct, then all it means is that men and women are equally engaged in a power struggle as a result of the fall. Men will tend to be more domineering and women will have a tendency toward control. This is a result of sin. I wish my only fault was that I was selfish and tried to get my way in relationships. If that was the only sins I struggled with then I’d be quite happy. A woman is no more sinful in this area (or any other) than a man. It is ridiculous to suggest that a woman deserves abuse or to be treated differently when she is simply manifesting a sin tendency that is ever bit as present within men.
It should also be pointed that whether you refer to control or domination, these are basically flip-sides of the same coin. They are both sinful tendencies to try and get our way at the expense of someone else. Men can be quite controlling, and women are capable of be domineering.
Throughout history men have always had more power, and they’ve used a variety of different arguments to justify the use of that power over women. Just because they latched on to certain arguments from the Bible, doesn’t mean we have to throw out those particular passages or seek to interpret them in a way that doesn’t fit the text. Slave owners twisted the verses dealing with servants and employers to justify slavery. They were wrong, and many Christians in the Abolitionist movement pointed out how they were misusing Scripture. The answer is to use Scripture correctly and understand it correctly.
Barbara asked me a question with regards to something I posted on this thread: R.C. Sproul on Biblical Grounds for Divorce – Another Aaaaargh! and I’ll reply there and give a few other thoughts on divorce in general.
Jason, with all that you are asserting you seem to be overlooking an important issue regarding the curse. The curse (whatever it is, or was) has been broken when one becomes a new creation in Christ. With someone who has a true conversion experience, the Holy Spirit resides within them, and is now working through them.
Now with someone who is bent on controlling their spouse through covert abuse, they can go through “the motions of appearing to receive Christ into their heart,” without ever doing it. This is an evil and selfish deliberate act on their part to maintain a “false converted appearance”, to garner influence and support from christianity and christian counselors in the event that their true converted spouce may seek help.
Do you see how this hidden evil is working against Gods people? This has nothing to do with the original curse, when someone is truly born again and becomes a new creation in Christ.
[In italics and square brackets are notes inserted by Barb Roberts, prior to publishing this comment. Jason, please don’t be offended; in my comment to follow, I will be explaining why I inserted these notes.]
Becoming a new creation does not eliminate the effects of the curse. [Trigger warning for the following sentence:] We still have a sinful nature after conversion. Becoming a new creation gives us a greater power to overcome our sinfulness when we surrender to the Spirit instead of the flesh.
One of the effects of abuse of any kind is that it tends to cause us to close off to any criticism of ourselves because our negatives have been used against us as excuses to do us harm. But being honest about our sinfulness [sins] is what drives us to the Throne of Grace where we can find help to overcome it.
Everyone in a relationship is going to exhibit some kind of negative tendencies. No one starts the Christian life being completely sanctified. It’s a life-long process that will still be very much incomplete up to the point when we die. Being able to be honest with ourselves about our sin is what promotes growth. But when someone has used our weaknesses and imperfections against us as an excuse for abuse then we think that if we admit anything at all about that particular weakness then we are agreeing with our abuser that we were indeed at fault. So we [might] vigorously deny any weakness in that area as a self-defense mechanism.
But I think we have to learn that we can admit sinful tendencies while still affirming that we were not responsible for the abuse. If a person wants to do someone harm they can always find an imperfection in another person to blame it on. Abuse is wrong no matter how imperfect you are.
Hi Jason, I inserted those notes in square brackets because I wanted to minimise the likelihood that our readers here might be triggered (hurt) by your wording. At this blog, we prioritise the voices and viewpoints of victim/survivors of abuse. I’m sure you can understand and appreciate that. :)
We believe that it is incorrect to say that a regenerate Christian ‘has a sin nature’. The Bible talks about how everyone is born with a sin nature, but if a person becomes born again / regenerate / in-dwelt by the Holy Spirit / made a new creation in Christ (there are many interchangeable terms), that person no longer has a sin nature. After regeneration, every Christian still has the flesh and the struggle against the flesh goes on until we die; and as we progress in sanctification we learn to resist the flesh, but we are never 100% successful. So you can see that quite a lot of what you said in your comment above, we agree with. But I hope to persuade you to see that there were nuances in your language which were neither accurate (scripturally speaking) nor helpful.
There is a difference between ‘the flesh’ (what the Christian still has), and ‘the sin nature’ (what the unregenerate has and is in bondage or slavery to).
Christians do sin — and they then feel contrition, confess and repent, with full resolve and effort after new obedience.
But while Christians do sin, we believe it is incorrect to talk about the Christian’s sinfulness (sinFULness) as that implies that the Christian has the sin nature.
We believe that because this difference has not been sufficiently explained in Christendom, Christian victims of abuse have often suffered mislabelling, denigration, and false blame.
I am confident that you didn’t mean to say anything that might hurt victims, so I’m not wanting you to take this as a harsh attack on what you said. I’m only saying this to you in the hope that you will consider what I’m saying — and hopefully become more aware of how to articulate these things in the future, so that what you say is less likely to hurt or trigger victims.
The vast majority of our readers here are victims / survivors of abuse. When we have reported our abuser’s conduct to other Christians, we have OFTEN been told, “You’re a sinner too!” … “You need to examine yourself; your sins are just as bad as his.” … “When you point a finger at someone, you have three fingers pointing back at yourself.” So you can see, Jason, how we are vigilant in how language is used on this blog, so that salt is not poured, even inadvertently, on the wounds of the victims.
We probably need to write a post which focuses precisely on the difference between the unbeliever’s sin nature, and regenerate person’s struggle with the flesh. — a post which uses the scalpel of scripture to show the differences between those two things.
But here are some of our already-published posts which might give you food for thought about the difference between the sin nature and the flesh. And I know I’m giving you a lot of links, and you’re probably a busy man, so don’t feel pressured – I’m just giving them in case you are interested. My enthusiasm in giving you more reading is because we have so few men who are willing to engage with us on this blog in theological discussion. :)
The Law wrongly used only promotes sin, including abuse.
What is a Christian? And why this question is vital in exposing abuse
Why an Abuser cannot be a Christian — the argument restated
Total Depravity of the Saints?
Are all sins equally bad? Are all transgressions of the law equally heinous?
Well said Barbara. Thank you.
Yes a post on the difference between sinners and born again believers is in order please.
You said-
Yes. I agree. This IS the difference. Yet somehow I was the “fake one” because this is how I needed and wanted so desperately to live. Yet XH and others in the church weren’t living that way so they’d (subtley / passively / manipulatively) call me on being ‘legalistic’ and ‘unrepentant’ and ‘not giving the grace of Jesus’ to the abusers because “no one is perfect.” I was the scapegoat for all of them because they needed one. The dynamic of evil abuse always needs one to continue. They’d use God’s Word to back themselves up. Oh how happy they were with themselves. I can see their faces in our meetings. So proud. Interestingly I never mentioned perfection. In my distress I cried out for help from wicked ABUSE and they literally laughed and shook their heads “no”. Evil snakes. Hissing “God is a God of miracles and restoration.” Hiss hiss. Shaking their head in contempt and the women glaring at me with disgust.
This is exactly what XH and others from his church (and a few other churches too in fact) tried to make me agree with / charge me with:
“Wait patiently on The Lord (for the abuser) to let go of wicked false teachings and to stop following his flesh, I don’t have to obey it’s my choice – Jesus died on the cross – I’m not a sinner anymore – it doesn’t matter what I do – I’m covered – He paid it all – He saves – not me, don’t be his Holy Spirit (don’t confront sin and stand firm about anything), yield to him. It’s the enemy’s fault, satan wants to destroy this godly family and take your children, we’re all abusers, God’s grace covers every sin, we’re all sinners, it’s not possible to not sin, I sin all the time, id sin in front of Jesus, forgive (forget it) and move on – Jesus forgave all your wicked sins – forgive the abusers little sins – it’s the least you could do – don’t “condemn” him, show some grace, don’t judge others, who are you to judge anyone, we’re filthy wretched sinners, but for the grace of God, etc.”
Oh please — these are the ones who ought to be silenced and one day they will be forever silenced from our ears that is. May The Lord continue to do that with the truth and His justice. For now as they speak their wicked words we MUST tend to the sheep, nurture and bring in close and protect them. The wolves scatter when the truth is spoken and upheld in everything. Like rats into hiding places when a beam of sunlight exposes them. They run and find someone else in secret to gnaw at.
I feel like we here are the voices crying in the wilderness. Crying- Stop the sin and turn around at once! The Lord is near and you liars and (abusers) are not even near His kingdom. There is Hell to pay and unless you TURN (repent) that is your punishment. I will NEVER have to see you in your self-glory and evil again. For eternity. I am protected now and I will be protected from all evil for eternity in heaven. What a Home! What a treasure! Now I see why the man sold all he had for the field and placed his treasure there. Is that how the parable went? Anyway, that’s me now that I have the truth! I’m free! I have the treasure! My safe forever Home! Protected forever. Yes! And I walk boldly now knowing this.
Praise God for His RIGHTeousness and justice. In Him is NO SIN. What pure relief. It is good to follow Him. And in doing what is right (not excusing what is wrong for any reason no matter how hurtful the result may be like losing family members and a church even) I live in full confidence and integrity and dignity now. I have healthy (respectful) people in my life. I AM NOT ASHAMED.
Is it hurtful and discouraging to see such injustice here on earth — yes, VERY. It’s DISGUSTING AND PUTRID. The wicked people see my confidence and they see my strength and they HATE it – I know it IS FROM MY FATHER and I know HE KNOWS MY NAME. I obey Him because it is RIGHT to do so. This is how I KNOW I’m His! This is how I KNOW I’m born again. Thank you.
I read a few of those links, and it appears that we don’t have any real disagreement on substance. I have always heard “sin nature”, “flesh”, and “old man” used synonomously, but you do have a valid point that while “old man” (Romans 6) and “flesh” (Galatians 5 and other passages) are referred to in the Bible, “sin nature” is not. From my perspective, since “sin nature” has been used historically to refer to basically the same thing then I feel ok using it, but I do appreciate your informing me how that phrase can be taken by abuse victims.
I find it very troubling that Pastors, counselors, or anyone would basically use the “moral equivalency” argument between abusers and their victims. There’s most definitely a difference in the level of sin. A wife may exhibit any number of weaknesses or sins, but none of that is an excuse to be abused, and abuse is certainly much greater than anything the wife did that the abuser claims to have set them off.
My only caution to you and your readers would be to not allow the fact that your sins were used against you as a reason not to deal with those sins. I have taught on Romans 7, and it’s my belief that the Apostle Paul’s ability to be so open about his struggles with sin, is what enabled him to reach a level of sanctification that we can probably only dream about. Satan would love for us to close off certain areas and not deal with them because someone used those weaknesses and sins as an excuse to hurt us. All of our sins have been atoned for and forgiven, but we receive grace and healing from those sins when we’re able to bring them to the Throne of Grace.
I am fine with everything you said here, Jason, including your caution.
It will be interesting to see if any of our other readers have responses to what you’ve said.
Thank you for engaging in this discussion with such courtesy and sensitivity. :)
Like Jeff is always pointing out–we can’t miss the big picture. We get caught up in ripping apart scripture to prove how much we know / how smart we are, and we forget that it’s all about God and his love for us and all these forewarnings are to keep up from getting caught up in battles about genealogy or who is Jesus’s favorite etc. Don’t miss the heart of the Lord for his children and don’t forget that many will be lovers of self in the end times with great sounding arguments.
This website has a history of speaking the truth and you and Jeff have put your real names on it — you have not hidden. […] “Great arguments” don’t really matter without the love. Many of us have lived our entire lives with people like this and all we got was defeated and abused. […]
[It seems to me that] this person [appears to] want to keep our sins in front of us as a constant reminder — this is an abuser’s tactic. Guilt-inducing is a powerful tool used against those who are capable of feeling it and much of our PTSD comes from tactics like this. This person says that they are only pointing this out to us so that we can reach the highest level of intimacy with God — but it seems instead like a way to keep us burdened down with our old sins. This person is sideling up to you, APPEARING to agree with you on some points but then stating they have issues with others. This is a common tactic of the evil one too. [To me, this commenter seems to be] a person who comes across as one who wants to be “right,” one who acts like they are “logical” and yet is missing any of the true elements of one who truly belongs to the Lord — namely love and understanding of the true effects of abuse and evil on victims of abusers.
There is too much emphasis on legalism and not enough realization that we are dealing with rank wickedness against the righteous in relationships.
In that situation there is no place for second guessing the target’s motive for setting boundaries, or the target defending themself against abuse.
It is not helpful to mix “an appearance of concern” for the abused victim with an emphasis for the abused person to see themself as a sinner too during the agonizing ordeal. This is wrong timing of sin application.
The target is in self-defence mode, not sin mode.
The wicked against the righteous is NOT an appropriate setting for sin-leveling or trying to redirect focus on any minute splinters of sin on the abuse target. (Unless you are an abuser’s ally, of course.)
This is a ridiculous suggestion in the face of what the target is dealing with.
Let’s deal with the “LOG of ABUSE FIRST”, and help deliver the target safely from that holocaust, because the abused person cannot be judged on what no one else sees going on behind closed doors.
And if I had listened to this type of talk instead of following my convictions from God’s Holy Spirit, and plan of protection for myself, I would not be free today.
[comment text slightly altered by Barb Roberts and made gender neutral. Hope you don’t mind, SFT.]
Victims often have way too much emphasis on their “sins”. Which are not sins but may be resisting abuse, actual mistakes, poor choices, etc. The focus is often off of the abusers real sin and placed in the victim’s non sinful but deemed unacceptable behavior by the abuser yet it’s called sin and treated with contempt. I for one am sure that victims think way too much and too critically about their “sin” which is not sin and in that start to think everything they do is sinful. This IS the aim of the abuser. When you are born again the Holy Spirit convicts you and when sin is revealed it IS dealt with and hated and then right way is obeyed. I have no doubt about that. It like the sealed conscience you had while unsaved is now operating rightly again when your born again. And now because of the Holy Spirit in you – you now follow what is right.
Talking about a victim’s own sin should not be lumped in with a talk about the abuser’s sin. Separate issues entirely and to combine both thoughts puts equal blame on the victim. It should therefore not be spoken of together. Ever.
In a court of law you wouldn’t talk about what the victim did wrong her in life when convicting the criminal. You focus on the facts. A defense lawyer for the guilty party would focus on discrediting the victim. Likewise in God’s court every one is accountable alone. I imagine He won’t be addressing the abuser’s wicked ways and pointing to the victim’s personal sin at the same time. Separate issues. I believe this is the reason why the abusers chooses born again Christians to manipulate and blame and abuse. I believe they use this as a way to say “look at her she won’t take accountability for any of her sin!” When all he’s doing is NOT admitting his wicked sin and using her “sin” as a diversion.
Victims do NOT do this. They cry out for justice but they are NOT hiding their own sin. Born again survivors don’t live actively sinful lives. NOT possible if one is born again.
Free, AMEN to your two comments. They came straight from the heart, I can tell. :)
(((hugs))) to you
Yes, Paul talks about his sin. He HATES it. Likewise all his real sisters and brothers do the same. The abuser does not hate his sin. He continues IN it. Separate issues. And guess what? Now that I’m free from the abuser(s) I don’t have a problem knowing right fim wrong and gladly doing right. Not one bit. However, with them in my life I was tormented for even wanting to do so. See the difference here?
Also I believe you Cannot have a healthy and right conscience without the Holy Spirit. We are first born this way. I see it in young children. This is why we TRAIN them to know right from wrong and to do right. They have a conscience and so they know right from wrong but they are not born again so they excuse it, lie, and manipulate. They are slaves to sin until born again but no less accountable. How else do you train a child up in The Lord? They must know right from wrong to know who God is and rightly hear the Gospel, Right?
Abusers are the same however those who have heard the gospel and rejected an twisted are in danger of Hell. Furthermore all people will be held accountable because we all know God exists and that there is evil and good. Those not in Christ will be without excuse. Those safe in Christ (born again) are accountable for their words and deeds also. We are NOT slaves to sin and must be separate from those who are. And we are separate in stand for the truth.
But to speak of victims sin together with abuser’s sin against them is in appropriate. Intended or not by commenters here, this is what the abuser does.
You wouldn’t point at a child who was just hit by another and punish him for hitting back, would you? The right thing would be to first comfort the child who was hit, acknowledge the wrong done to him and validate his accurate as very appropriate feelings about the injustice that was done. Then you seek out the one who hit him and give the appropriate and effective punishment. Then you may help remind the child who hit back (defended himself) that hitting not healthy and help him to think of healthier ways to deal with abuse and wrongs being done by others to them. For example, not playing with friends that are rude and friends that won’t “be sorry” for there mean actions against you, choosing respectful friends and not compromising your own safety for the sake of having a playmate for the moment.
But for all purposes – if you’re being attacked- you scream for help, hit back in defense to leave and run. In an emergency you do whatever it takes to protect yourself and leave. You don’t focus on the child’s “sin” who was harmed. It will be further reinforced to him that hitting others is wrong because it happened to him and he knows justice was served. His own sin (be it greed, lying, stealing, selfishness, abuse of others, etc etc) will come out and will be addressed by a parent who loves him when it happens. A parent who loves him will hold him accountable for his sin. Isnt this right?
In short, no one deserves abuse no matter what. However, Retaliation and resistance to abuse are different subjects so we must be very clear about that here also.
Yes I believe this is a picture of what justice looks like when speaking of relationships. Thank you.
Hi Barbara,
As you know I submitted my responses earlier in the day, and it was several hours later that they posted. I’m not complaining because I understand that you as a moderator need to make sure that what gets published is in agreement with your policies here. But as you know, a couple of replies and criticisms came out in the time in-between, and it gave me more time to think about whether or not I actually wanted that much personal information out in public and especially after taking the hits I did here. If possible I’d like to request to have my last two posts (before this one) removed, and this post can serve as my answer to all the criticism.
Originally I posted some very personal information regarding my past as part of an answer to the criticism I received. The information was meant to let people know that I understand this subject much more than you can know. Never once have I said anything that would give someone an indication that I think an abuse victim should be pointed to their own sin in a way that gives license to an abuser. I also believe that when a person comes out of abuse what they need more than anything is strong messages of grace and love. As healing progresses and the Holy Spirit strengthens your understanding that none of your weaknesses or sins was the cause of your abuse, then it’s easier to deal with our own shortcomings and see them in the light of God’s grace rather than as an excuse for someone else to hurt us.
I feel like my posts were courteous and straight-forward, and I don’t understand some of the responses that I would term as down-right hostile. Apparently I’m either trying to build myself some kind of platform, or I’m “appearing” to agree with certain things as a part of a devious agenda to further some kind of other plan (maybe I’m actually after world-domination, and this blog is just the first step?), or I’m “evil”, or my talk of Paul’s example of being honest about his sinfulness is really just a backdoor way of siding with abusers and blaming the victim, or maybe it’s all of the above? Barbara said that a lot of men didn’t come around and engage in theological discussion. After enduring the accusations that I have, I certainly don’t have a desire to engage in further discussion.
I’ll keep calling things as I see them whether it’s here or some place else. I truly believe abuse is a Biblical ground for divorce, and I’ll keep fighting for evangelical churches and pastors to confront the issue of domestic violence head-on. I do believe it’s a mistake to blame CORRECT complementarian teaching as a culprit, and it’s important to recognize that a correct understanding of Ephesians 5 prevents abuse and doesn’t cause it.
I think it’s best that I bow out of the discussion and the blog and wish you well.
Okay Jason, I’ll remove those other two posts of yours now. And I may email you to debrief this, but of course you are free to read or not read an email from me. :)
Hi Jason,
What is your entire point in a nutshell? Please state this briefly and directly. Thank you.
Everyone, firstly, please forgive me if I have made any errors of judgement with moderating this thread.
Jason Jones has asked me to remove two of his comments, so I have done so.
In those two comments, which are now removed (they are in a holding place at the back of the blog) Jason gave an account of his own experiences of being a victim of domestic abuse from his (now ex) wife. His account rang true to both me and Jeff Crippen. That is why we published those two comments. As all our regular readers here will be aware, we support all victims of abuse, no matter what their gender.
It seems to me that this has all gone a bit pear shaped. I do not want to attribute blame or point a finger at anyone, other than myself for perhaps having published people’s comments without being mindful enough of all the possible outcomes.
I have gone back into the various comments that our readers have made in response to Jason’s comments, and have edited out some things in those comments and added a few things here or there in square brackets. I did this because, since I now understand that Jason has suffered domestic abuse, I wanted to take a bit of the sting out of some of what others had said to him.
I ask you all to be understanding of me, and not react too much to what I’ve done, if you can. I know that it can be triggering to feel your words edited out, but it is also triggering for a victim / survivor to be told they used the same tactics as abusers use. We — all of us survivors, of whatever gender — know how triggering it is to be told that WE are the abusers.
So, everyone, if you’re still reading this, let’s take a few deep breaths and see what we can learn from this.
In no particular order of priority, these are the things that come to my mind:
Jason did not write about his personal experience of suffering domestic abuse in his first few comments. So none of us knew he was a fellow survivor. In one of his (now hidden) comments, he wrote:
Since it was the first time he had ever ‘come out’ about the abuse he suffered, we cannot blame him for not telling us earlier….we all know how hard it is to say “I have been abused”. And that first time disclosure is really fraught with risk: if the responses others give to that first disclosure are negative or critical, then the survivor can shut down for many more months or years.
In regards to the comments that some of our readers made in response to Jason’s earlier comments, the ones where he had not disclosed that he is a survivor of abuse, I think that there may have been a range of things going on. Triggered responses, perhaps some assumptions, but not necessarily assumptions that were all that unreasonable given that Jason hadn’t disclosed his personal story and some of his language sounded so similar to the victim-blaming or advice-giving that has often been salt in the wound for us as abuse victims and survivors.
Jason, if you are willing to keep engaging with us, all I would suggest is that from now on you try to speak personally (using I, me) rather than for other victims. As you probably know, when someone has been abused, their abuser has frequently defined reality for them. By “defining reality” I mean that the abuser tells the victim what the victim feels, how the victim thinks, and how the victim should feel and think and behave. When any of us at this blog start using that kind of language, others will quite likely be hurt by it.
We encourage all readers here to speak about their own experiences, and if they want to make a generalised statement, to use qualifiers, like “maybe … some … most … sometimes … perhaps… often but not necessarily always .. possibly…” etc.
Here is a simple example:
Rather than saying:
“When you disclose the abuse to your pastor and he disbelieves you, you are lost for words”
it’s better to say:
“When you disclose the abuse to your pastor and he disbelieves you, you might feel lost for words.”
Or rephrase it so it only speaks about yourself, and does not infer anything about the experiences other survivors might have:
“When I disclosed the abuse to my pastor he disbelieved me, and I was lost for words.”
And rather than saying:
“You have to be willing to be transparent about your own sins”
it’s better to say:
“Sometimes, in some circumstances, you might need to be willing to be transparent about your own sins.” (And you might want to add: “And sometimes, when you are talking to abusers and their allies, it’s unwise to be transparent about your own sins, because they will only take your disclosures and shape them into grenades to throw back at you.”
Or alternatively, you might decide to personalise it by saying:
“In my own journey, after I had left the abuser and been in recovery for some years, I found myself becoming more aware of my own sins and becoming more transparent about them to God, and when that happened, my healing progressed even more.”
I hope this makes sense, and that if anyone has been wounded or triggered by this thread, we can let the balm of our Lord’s understanding and love heal the wounds.
and btw, I ran this comment past Jason first, to make sure he was okay with me publishing it.
I think from my perspective I really don’t want to be treated any differently because of my past. If someone has something to say that is direct and hard-hitting then I’m ok with that, just as long as it is addressing the issue and not jumping to conclusions about my motives. I don’t consider myself to be a victim. That was a long time ago. I’ve gone through a lot of healing, and I don’t want anyone to feel like they have to walk on eggshells around me.
I only have a small amount of free time so I wouldn’t be able to be a consistent contributor no matter what. I will give a few comments in response to Barbara’s post below, and maybe post here and there, but I would certainly be limited in my participation.
I wouldn’t have a problem reading a private email, but as far as public posting, I’d like to just leave without hearing any other nefarious motives being ascribed to me. Accusations from complete strangers really shouldn’t have an effect, but they do.
Thanks Jason.
I’ve emailed you already.
I’ve just added this to the end of the post:
Womans’s desire for man: Genesis 3:6 reconsidered [Internet Archive link], by Irvin A Busenitz, 1986. The synopsis of his article says:
Critique of CBMS’s Statement on Abuse — on this post (first published in 2010) I made some comments on Susan Foh’s interpretation of Gen. 3:16.
I just discovered this post: Connecting genesis 3 and 4 through the most obscure verse [Internet Archive link] by Martin Shields.
The post doesn’t address the woman’s desire in Genesis 3:6, but it has a very interesting suggestion about the meaning of Genesis 4:7. Here is a quote from the post:
Barbara, you nailed it!
Thanks Doug. :)
[…] Barbara Roberts, our Australian friend whom we met several years ago when she came to the states and who blogs over at A Cry for Justice along with Jeff Crippen, has written an outstanding article entitled — What is the woman's desire? How Susan Foh's interpretation of Genesis 3:16 fed steroids to abusers. It really is a must read! You can access it here — Part 1 Part 2 […]
On Thurs., April 28, 1757 John Wesley made the following entry in his diary:
John Wesley, vol. 2 of The Complete Works of John Wesley, 7 vols. (Albany, OR: AGES Software, 1997), 450.
JUST OUT: Genesis 3:16 and the ESV [Internet Archive link] by Dr Claude Mariottini, Oct 4 2016. This article is VERY IMPORTANT. Here is an excerpt:
(boldface added by Barb)
I’m wondering why everyone keeps trying to compare Genesis 3 and 4. Why not just compare the two ‘curses’. Does being cursed with thorns and thistles mean that that’s just the way it is? I believe that God was saying, “Because of sin, a man’s greatest battle will be against thorns and thistles.” And a woman’s greatest battle will be against being ruled by men. Men don’t say, “Oh well, I guess I’ll just have to harvest thorns and thistles.” Neither should women say, “Oh well, I guess I’m just always going to have to obey men.” These two things are the big attacks of the devil, that we need to resist by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Notice that every people group that follows the God of the Bible, starts making inventions to lighten the load of sweat work. In the same way we need to stop lording it over each other as the Gentiles do. (Someone said that, right? As well as ‘call no man master’? – funny I almost never hear those scriptures when the argument of ‘submission’ comes up.)
I hear, “Well someone has to be the boss.” Really? Traditionally the Mennonites had plural ministry because they knew that power in the hands of one (man) was dangerous. Same with the US government, with its checks and balances. Same with why God said, “You want a king? No you don’t. Trust me. He will take advantage of you.” Whatever is wrong with both spouses being partners, mutually respectful, and waiting for the Holy Spirit to bring them to agreement before making decisions? What better checks and balances can there be?
I absolutely love what you said in your first paragraph, Sunflower!
And you asked why everyone keeps trying to compare Genesis 3 and 4. There are two reasons: one is legitimate, and the other is, in my opinion, nefarious and wicked.
The legitimate reason to compare them is that there are similarities in the Hebrew words used in Gen 3:16b and Gen 4:7. The nefarious reason is that those who want to retain male privilege have jumped on that similarity and claimed that it means women have a sin bias to usurp men’s authority, just like satan was crouching in wait like an animal wanting to tempt Cain to murder his brother.
It would be interesting if those that believe this would provide Scriptural examples of women doing this. Surely God would provide these examples. On the other hand, there are many examples that demonstrate women’s romantic desire.
I believe you are completely accurate in your assessment that the desire spoken of in Gen 3:16 is neutral, turning towards, not attempting to control a man as misinterpreted by Susan Foh. Recently, the ESV changed from the standard translation to “your desire shall be contrary to your husband”. Sadly, these misinterpretations and mistranslations will only escalate attacks on equality from Patriarchal denominations.
Like you, I interpreted Gen 3:16 to be, not a curse, but warning of men’s inclination to rule over women. I was recently reviewing the Hebrew text to see if I could see anything new, and I noticed that the Hebrew word אִישֵׁךְ֙ translated as husband is not common. It is created from two words אֶל + אִישׁ, the first part meaning God / god, and the second part meaning adult male human being. Today, this word is also translated as ‘bully’. I wonder if God is warning women against desiring men who feel they are superior, whether due to physical or financial strength, who use this power to rule others. In practice, I do believe it is safer for a woman to marry a gentle-man, not a domineering one.
The Patriarchy movements refuse to recognize the inconsistencies between Paul’s teachings and the Pastoral Epistles and 1 Cor 14:34 & 35 and continue to subject their members to church structures that violate Jesus’s command for equality among His disciples in Matthew 23: 8 & 10. Perhaps the fact that I’m being told to “be quiet” more and more is evidence that these movements are growing. While this might make it easy for the male leadership in these churches to silence and rule over their female members, by breaking Christ’s command for equality, they are not abiding in Him or His commandments, thus deny themselves the gifts of the Holy Spirit and risk being thrown into the fire and burned at judgment (John 15:6).
Hi Kate, just to be on the safe side I changed your screen name to simply Kate.
Thanks for your comment. I will ask Ps Sam Powell if he would like to comment on what you said about that Hebrew word. Sam has taught Hebrew as seminary level.
And welcome to the blog. :) We like to encourage new readers to check out our New Users’ Info page as it gives tips for how to guard your safety while commenting on the blog.
And after reading the New Users’ Info page, I suggest you look at our FAQ page.
Just a couple of comments on el-ishka, it is a common error with Hebrew students to confuse the preposition ‘el with the noun ‘el. Both have similar spellings, but different uses. In Genesis 3:16, it is a preposition that means “to” or “towards”, not a noun that means “God”. The noun in the phrase is ‘ish, which means the male of the species. With the attached “ka” (your – feminine singular) it means “your man” or “your husband”.
So the whole phrase is “to your husband”. It is a fairly common phrase and standard usage.
There is a temptation to look for hidden secrets in the text, but here there aren’t any. It is pretty straightforward – which is why the new ESV bugs me. It changes a pretty simply preposition to something else.
In responding to it, we should be careful not to make the same error the other way.
Further comments on this verse can be found here:
Genesis 3:16 [Internet Archive link]
Hope this helps!