-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
** If you’re married to a playground bully, seek counsel. A bully is limited to the control he has on you. If you are aware of his schemes and his ‘ways he is likely to stop his disgusting behaviour. If he is dangerous get out of that relationship. A dangerous man is not acting in love. You are important; if you have children they are priority. Dangerous means when your life or is sanity is threatened. **
To all ladies who have either experienced abuse in Christian or other relationships, this is to support what my friend Two Feet has already contributed. It is time to come out of mental slavery; it’s the year 2013…not the biblical times of the 2000-6000 year span. It’s time to become the women God predestined you to be, not something to be tread on. Your brain has been fashioned by God to reason with regard to what is right or wrong, not what others say is right or wrong; without this balance it would permit others to control you. It really is this simple. There is a monumental difference between being submissive to a husband and, of course honouring Christ, and what is clearly abuse.
Specifically, I would like to consider religion in terms of how Christian women are treated in their ‘marital’ home and their outright abusive treatment encountered there, by apparently Christian men, comparing abuse or the abusers with school bullies preying on vulnerable children.
{PS Note how I equate women experience abusive relationships to school yard bullies? The reason being, in my view child bullies are selfish and do not care if their actions have the effect of hurting others unless they are either strongly disciplined or either educated that it is wrong to do so with the result that the bullying stops. How debasing it is for a gentleman such as self to compare abusive men to children?}
Abuse is likely defined as some form of treatment against said women which makes them feel so oppressed or depressed that she loses her once held self-esteem, or thinks of herself far less that she ought to. Abuse comes in various guises from sexual to physical, to verbal abuse, more so emotional abuse. It is essentially control using many types of manipulation. Manipulation means to get the desired result by twisting things or situations to the manipulator’s benefit. The so-called Christian man’s justification is ‘my dear, the bible says, and you wouldn’t want to ‘Go against God, now would you?’ The woman who finds her self in such a situation should think about what is going on and decide if it is abuse or about the need to be humble (ie submission to the male partner). Alternatively, a Godly man is full of love and has praise for his partner, which yields a strong foundation for any relationship. This is also likely fruit of the spirit. Is your relationship like this? If you have problems which are concerning, do you feel like your partner will be encouraging? You see submission in itself to the husband can only be based on two related conditions. The first has already been said, and the second is ‘as Christ loves the church.’ Well would Christ ill treat you or cause you to fear? On the contrary, the bible says Jesus loves us and that we can share a relationship with Him, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
Let us assume that religion is defined as ‘following biblical principals which in modern times has the effect of oppression for free women in free countries.’ In contrast, let us define ‘love’ to mean ‘I shall always show love, in terms of taking care of my female parter, in my relationship no matter what.’ Reasoning and agape love recognise that it would be intellectually corrupt to follow biblical principals blindly which have the effect of going against Christ’s love for the wife or female partner. You will often hear ‘but that’s the world and their women of the world in the world…you’re my wife and must do as I say, as the bible says.' Ladies learn to reason making use of those brains God gave you. Christians often say the world…when they get stuck into a corner. What it shows is this is the limit of their education so validate by next referring to ‘the world.’ Jesus loves you my sisters in Christ, do not subject yourselves to abuse.
** If you’re married to a playground bully, seek counsel. A bully is limited to the control he has on you. If you are aware of his schemes and his ‘ways he is likely to stop his disgusting behaviour. If he is dangerous call get out of that relationship. A dangerous man is not acting in love. You are important; if you have children they are priority. Get out of a dangerous relationship. Dangerous means when your life is sanity is threatened. **
To all ladies who have either experienced abuse in Christian or other relationships, this is to support what my friend Two Feet has already contributed. It is time to come out of mental slavery; it’s the year 2013…not the biblical times of the 2000-6000 year span. It’s time to become the women God predestined you to be, not something to be tread on. Your brain has been fashioned by God to reason with regard to what is right or wrong, not what others say is right or wrong; without this balance it would permit others to control you. It really is this simple. There is a monumental difference between being submissive to a husband and, of course honouring Christ, and what is clearly abuse.
Specifically, I would like to consider religion in terms of how Christian women are treated in their ‘marital’ home and their outright abusive treatment encountered there, by apparently Christian men, comparing abuse or the abusers with school bullies preying on vulnerable children.
{PS Note how I equate women experience abusive relationships to school yard bullies? The reason being, in my view child bullies are selfish and do not care if their actions have the effect of hurting others unless they are either strongly disciplined or either educated that it is wrong to do so with the result that the bullying stops. How debasing it is for a gentleman such as self to compare abusive men to children?}
Abuse is likely defined as some form of treatment against said women which makes them feel so oppressed or depressed that she loses her once held self-esteem, or thinks of herself far less that she ought to. Abuse comes in various guises from sexual to physical, to verbal abuse, more so emotional abuse. It is essentially control using many types of manipulation. Manipulation means to get the desired result by twisting things or situations to the manipulator’s benefit. The so-called Christian man’s justification is ‘my dear, the bible says, and you wouldn’t want to ‘Go against God, now would you?’ The woman who finds her self in such a situation should think about what is going on and decide if it is abuse or about the need to be humble (ie submission to the male partner). Alternatively, a Godly man is full of love and has praise for his partner, which yields a strong foundation for any relationship. This is also likely fruit of the spirit. Is your relationship like this? If you have problems which are concerning, do you feel like your partner will be encouraging? You see submission in itself to the husband can only be based on two related conditions. The first has already been said, and the second is ‘as Christ loves the church.’ Well would Christ ill treat you or cause you to fear? On the contrary, the bible says Jesus loves us and that we can share a relationship with Him, the Father, and the Holy Spirit.
Let us assume that religion is defined as ‘following biblical principals which in modern times has the effect of oppression for free women in free countries.’ In contrast, let us define ‘love’ to mean ‘I shall always show love, in terms of taking care of my female parter, in my relationship no matter what.’ Reasoning and agape love recognise that it would be intellectually corrupt to follow biblical principals blindly which have the effect of going against Christ’s love for the wife or female partner. You will often hear ‘but that’s the world and their women of the world in the world…you’re my wife and must do as I say, as the bible says.' Ladies learn to reason making use of those brains God gave you. Christians often say the world…when they get stuck into a corner. What it shows is this is the limit of their education so validate by next referring to ‘the world.’ Jesus loves you my sisters in Christ, do not subject yourselves to abuse.
** If you’re married to a playground bully, seek counsel. A bully is limited to the control he has on you. If you are aware of his schemes and his ‘ways he is likely to stop his disgusting behaviour. If he is dangerous call get out of that relationship. A dangerous man is not acting in love. You are important; if you have children they are priority. Get out of a dangerous relationship. Dangerous means when your life is sanity is threatened. **
M
I hesitate to call it a curse upon Eve or upon Adam (although obviously, the consequences of sin were unpleasant for both), because I don't think the bible says this (perhaps because we are made in God's image). If you notice, the serpent is cursed (for Eve), and the ground cursed (for Adam), but I don't think either Adam or Eve were cursed directly (i.e. God doesn't say to either "you are cursed").
[SUP]
Malachi 3
6 [/SUP]For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
Malachi 3
6 [/SUP]For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
[SUP]7 [/SUP]Even from the days of your fathers ye are gone away from mine ordinances, and have not kept them. Return unto me, and I will return unto you, saith the Lord of hosts. But ye said, Wherein shall we return?
[SUP]8 [/SUP]Will a man rob God? Yet ye have robbed me. But ye say, Wherein have we robbed thee? In tithes and offerings.
[SUP]9 [/SUP]Ye are cursed with a curse: for ye have robbed me, even this whole nation.
[SUP]
Husband love your wives and treat them with honour they are not door mats
[/SUP]
[SUP]Malachi 3
14 [/SUP]Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
Husband love your wives and treat them with honour they are not door mats
[/SUP]
[SUP]Malachi 3
14 [/SUP]Yet ye say, Wherefore? Because the Lord hath been witness between thee and the wife of thy youth, against whom thou hast dealt treacherously: yet is she thy companion, and the wife of thy covenant.
[SUP]15 [/SUP]And did not he make one? Yet had he the residue of the spirit. And wherefore one? That he might seek a godly seed. Therefore take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously against the wife of his youth.
[SUP]16 [/SUP]For the Lord, the God of Israel, saith that he hateth putting away: for one covereth violence with his garment, saith the Lord of hosts: therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.
I would like to bring to your attention to the fact that the “women desire to dominate and control men” is NOT the traditional interpretation of Genesis 3:16. Susan Foh introduced that interpretation in the 1970s in an effort to fight 2nd wave feminism. However, prior to that time, that was NOT the interpretation used or accepted by Biblical scholars and/or translators for centuries. That's probably why you have never seen that viewpoint because it's new. It was only introduced in the 1970s. Please do further research and study on the subject before taking that at face value.
Author Luma Simms explains that here.
http://www.gospelgrace.net/2013/04/25/a-plea-for-the-church-to-return-to-a-historic-understanding-of-genesis-316/#comments
Complimentarian author, Wendy Aslup, explains it extremely well on her site too.
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2013/04/a-new-wave-of-complementarianism.html
Author Luma Simms explains that here.
http://www.gospelgrace.net/2013/04/25/a-plea-for-the-church-to-return-to-a-historic-understanding-of-genesis-316/#comments
Complimentarian author, Wendy Aslup, explains it extremely well on her site too.
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2013/04/a-new-wave-of-complementarianism.html
M
I suppose to me, it fits with experience, and the rest of scripture. As we read for Cain (NIV) that "sin is crouching at the door, and desires to have him", we can understand that this desire is an evil desire to control and dominate. I believe the same word is used in Genesis 3, for Eve's desire for her husband.
I'm not aware of the doctrine's origins; it was just one of the teachings I was brought up with. That said, I wouldn't have thought it would be as recent as you say.
I'm not aware of the doctrine's origins; it was just one of the teachings I was brought up with. That said, I wouldn't have thought it would be as recent as you say.
The links to my first response to this don't work properly. I hate in when that happens. Just cut and paste and these should work.
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2013/04/a-new-wave-of-complementarianism.html
http://www.lumasimms.com/2013/04/25/a-plea-for-the-church-to-return-to-a-historic-understanding-of-genesis-316/
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2013/04/a-new-wave-of-complementarianism.html
http://www.lumasimms.com/2013/04/25/a-plea-for-the-church-to-return-to-a-historic-understanding-of-genesis-316/
Please don't take my word for it. Please do the research. We all have a duty to study to show ourselves approved. While I do understand how Susan Foh arrived at the conclusion, that's not the point. I think it really sheds light on the way in which complementarians and [FONT=Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif]egalitarians (both camps) are willing to manipulate scripture to support their own agendas. As Christians, we should never be willing or eager to do such a thing. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif]While I understand how Susan Foh arrived at that interpretation given some things going on in the culture, that interpretation is in not way traditional (it's relatively new). Therefore, it's somewhat manipulative to try and pass it off as traditional when it's not. And I'm not taking sides because in some instances [/FONT]egalitarians are doing the same thing. Neither side is right when it involves twisting and/or manipulating scripture.
My earlier links didn't work. You should be able to cut and paste these.
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2013/04/a-new-wave-of-complementarianism.html
http://www.lumasimms.com/2013/04/25/a-plea-for-the-church-to-return-to-a-historic-understanding-of-genesis-316/
[FONT=Arial, Tahoma, Helvetica, FreeSans, sans-serif]While I understand how Susan Foh arrived at that interpretation given some things going on in the culture, that interpretation is in not way traditional (it's relatively new). Therefore, it's somewhat manipulative to try and pass it off as traditional when it's not. And I'm not taking sides because in some instances [/FONT]egalitarians are doing the same thing. Neither side is right when it involves twisting and/or manipulating scripture.
My earlier links didn't work. You should be able to cut and paste these.
http://www.theologyforwomen.org/2013/04/a-new-wave-of-complementarianism.html
http://www.lumasimms.com/2013/04/25/a-plea-for-the-church-to-return-to-a-historic-understanding-of-genesis-316/
I read the articles, and they make so much sense! I have always been unable to fully embrace the common interpretation of Genesis 3:16 because it didn't seem to logically fit with a Savior who consistently treated women with more respect than the cultures around them. My brain and my soul fought against the idea that women are supposed to be oppressed. Thank you for helping me reconcile a controversial verse with the rest of scripture.
M
It's too hard to trace the doctrine's origins historically online. So I can't comment about it being a "new" doctrine, although I wouldn't have thought it was new. (Which part/s do you claim are new?)
This being the case, I think the doctrine fits soundly with scripture - the same word used in Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 for desire (control), the matching of the penalty in Genesis 3:16 (her desire to rule but being ruled over is clearly unpleasant, while a desire for intimacy and being ruled over isn't necessarily unpleasant). Finally, the other supporting scriptures in Timothy and Corinthians outlining the role of women in the church and the reasons why.
This being the case, I think the doctrine fits soundly with scripture - the same word used in Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 for desire (control), the matching of the penalty in Genesis 3:16 (her desire to rule but being ruled over is clearly unpleasant, while a desire for intimacy and being ruled over isn't necessarily unpleasant). Finally, the other supporting scriptures in Timothy and Corinthians outlining the role of women in the church and the reasons why.
The point I was trying to make is that GOD uttered a curse against Eve and all women through her. Eve usurped Adam's authority, but I don't think that she did so because of a desire to rule over men; nor do I believe Gen 3:16 suggests that. But she did usurp his authority, and as a result was placed under a harsher authority.
Several well known and credible Christian cites have discussed the issue including the http://thegospelcoalition.org
If you look study/research Bible translations and lexicons prior to 1970, NONE of them contain or address Susan Foh's interpretation of "women desire to control." Bible translations and the lexicon prior to the 1970s refer to desire as a "longing for." Ever since Susan Foh came out with this in the 1970s, modern (some of those published at the 1970s) Bible translations and commentaries have started to embrace Susan Foh's interpretation. However, I would challenge someone to find a Bible translation that embraces that interpretation "women desire to control" prior to the 1970s and Susan Foh's introduction of the idea. That's simply not the interpretation presented by Biblical scholars, translators and linguist prior to Susan Foh. I would also like to add that most of those historical Bible scholars, translators and linguist were male. So even the men of old who translated and interpreted the Bible prior to the 1970s never presented that interpretation.
New Bible translations are coming out more and more frequently, and some of what they contain has been changed or tweaked to promote their own agenda and respond to culture. However, many of the things we see and hear being presented today are not traditional or historical perspectives from the Bible.
Problems with a New Reading of an Old Verse – The Gospel Coalition Blog
If you look study/research Bible translations and lexicons prior to 1970, NONE of them contain or address Susan Foh's interpretation of "women desire to control." Bible translations and the lexicon prior to the 1970s refer to desire as a "longing for." Ever since Susan Foh came out with this in the 1970s, modern (some of those published at the 1970s) Bible translations and commentaries have started to embrace Susan Foh's interpretation. However, I would challenge someone to find a Bible translation that embraces that interpretation "women desire to control" prior to the 1970s and Susan Foh's introduction of the idea. That's simply not the interpretation presented by Biblical scholars, translators and linguist prior to Susan Foh. I would also like to add that most of those historical Bible scholars, translators and linguist were male. So even the men of old who translated and interpreted the Bible prior to the 1970s never presented that interpretation.
New Bible translations are coming out more and more frequently, and some of what they contain has been changed or tweaked to promote their own agenda and respond to culture. However, many of the things we see and hear being presented today are not traditional or historical perspectives from the Bible.
Problems with a New Reading of an Old Verse – The Gospel Coalition Blog
K
It's more important whether you pray with your wife, then who wears a hat.
So you really think that when Scriptures and experience match, and they produce fruit, that is twisting; but when a system that has alienated half the world from Jesus, reads a translation, and acts on what they think they are reading, they are doing the truth?
I repeat. Women and men are equal in ministry. The original languages equate women with wives, and the submission applies only in that role, not in ministry. When allowed to minister, women are equally as successful as men at ALL levels, including pastor, bishop, apostle, and any others. The fruit of the submissive church is that now in the formerly Christian US, only 16% are still in church, and in formerly Christian Europe less than 2% in many countries. God will not change His mind no matter what either of us thinks, but we can change our future and our fruit by getting it right.
So you really think that when Scriptures and experience match, and they produce fruit, that is twisting; but when a system that has alienated half the world from Jesus, reads a translation, and acts on what they think they are reading, they are doing the truth?
I repeat. Women and men are equal in ministry. The original languages equate women with wives, and the submission applies only in that role, not in ministry. When allowed to minister, women are equally as successful as men at ALL levels, including pastor, bishop, apostle, and any others. The fruit of the submissive church is that now in the formerly Christian US, only 16% are still in church, and in formerly Christian Europe less than 2% in many countries. God will not change His mind no matter what either of us thinks, but we can change our future and our fruit by getting it right.
her desire to rule but being ruled over is clearly unpleasant, while a desire for intimacy and being ruled over isn't necessarily unpleasant
I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. In either case, being ruled over is always unpleasant whether it involves intimacy or not. That's like telling a victim of human trafficking that she should enjoy sexual slavery and being ruled over because intimacy is involved. Again, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
"Ruled over" being entirely different from being led. Two entirely different concepts.
I think one of the problems and/or barriers to you and I having a productive, healthy and truly meaningful discussion about the interpretation of Gen 3:16 is that you are only versed in Susan Foh's interpretation of it. Therefore, when or if I refer to the real traditional and historical interpretation of it, you have no idea what I'm talking about. Therefore, our conversation is limited because all we can really talk about is Susan Foh's interpretation.
I have provided links that will perhaps address some of the questions this may have raised. However, now, it just depends on whether or not you want to study up on what traditional and historical theologians (those men prior to Susan Foh) have to say about it - which is entirely up to you.
In conclusion, I'm not trying to sway your thinking on the subject. What you think or don't think is entirely up to you. It's your prerogative. However, I am merely raising awareness about the fact the "women desire to control" interpretation presented by Susan Foh is not the only interpretation nor is it the most historical. In a discussion about Gen 3:16, people ought know that.
I'm not sure what you mean by that statement. In either case, being ruled over is always unpleasant whether it involves intimacy or not. That's like telling a victim of human trafficking that she should enjoy sexual slavery and being ruled over because intimacy is involved. Again, I'm not sure what you mean by that.
"Ruled over" being entirely different from being led. Two entirely different concepts.
I think one of the problems and/or barriers to you and I having a productive, healthy and truly meaningful discussion about the interpretation of Gen 3:16 is that you are only versed in Susan Foh's interpretation of it. Therefore, when or if I refer to the real traditional and historical interpretation of it, you have no idea what I'm talking about. Therefore, our conversation is limited because all we can really talk about is Susan Foh's interpretation.
I have provided links that will perhaps address some of the questions this may have raised. However, now, it just depends on whether or not you want to study up on what traditional and historical theologians (those men prior to Susan Foh) have to say about it - which is entirely up to you.
In conclusion, I'm not trying to sway your thinking on the subject. What you think or don't think is entirely up to you. It's your prerogative. However, I am merely raising awareness about the fact the "women desire to control" interpretation presented by Susan Foh is not the only interpretation nor is it the most historical. In a discussion about Gen 3:16, people ought know that.
T
In that case I suggest you understand the context of submit to one another 
As for when God spoke to Eve, I repeat, it was for her with an understanding men would not get. They would not understand the depth of it. Maybe if men spent more time listening to God rather than being concerned about what women are saying you would not see as many attitudes as you have now?
As I said, if you are CONFIDENT that you are CORRECT in your attitude to women. And the original warning God gave Eve regarding men's behavior has not effected you in ANYWAY, then you do not need to be concerned about anything I have written here. Blessing to you
As for when God spoke to Eve, I repeat, it was for her with an understanding men would not get. They would not understand the depth of it. Maybe if men spent more time listening to God rather than being concerned about what women are saying you would not see as many attitudes as you have now?
As I said, if you are CONFIDENT that you are CORRECT in your attitude to women. And the original warning God gave Eve regarding men's behavior has not effected you in ANYWAY, then you do not need to be concerned about anything I have written here. Blessing to you
