Genesis 3:16 He will rule over you.

"To the woman He said: “I will sharply increase your pain in childbirth; in pain you will bring forth children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

We are told that: "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law" (Galations 3:13) Does this mean that the Husband and wife are to be equal partners in a marriage and that in a Christian marriage the husband does not "rule" over the wife? Or does the women still have to submit herself to her husband in the same way that we are to submit ourself to Christ.

I believe that Jesus went to Calvery to sacrifice Himself for His Bride. In the same way the Husband should die to self and sacrifice himself for his wife in the way that Jesus set an example for us to follow.

Should the women go through natural childbirth and not try to avoid the pain?

Is "and he will rule over you" a command (what must happen)? Or is it a statement of consequence (what will happen)?

If the former, it's the only case in Scripture where a command given to the object of the command, rather than to its subject.

(In Hebrew it’s an adversative conjunction)

“Your desire will be for your husband,
But he will rule over you”

There are coordinating and subordinating conjunctions, but adversitive is something new to me.

Although I have been blessed to read the Word in Hebrew, I confess my knowledge of the grammar specifics is not complete...…….....thank you.

Being adversitive has no bearing on the conjunction, it describes the function of either or.

If a conjunction is neutral, it ought to be translated "and" or "so" etc. If a conjunction is adversative, then it ought to be translated "but" or "yet" etc.
It denotes a contrast (of a word or phrase), expressing opposition or antithesis. ....hence the term "adversative, similar to the word "adversary". The Hebrew word (but) there in Genesis 3:16 has the same morphology as Genesis 1:2, "But the earth became formless and void".
The English translation I prefer is NASB, it translates that word as "yet".....an acceptable translation.

The reason I brought it up in the first place is to show that there is opposition between 2 things God said to Eve. When people quote it using the word "and", it loses an intended mood to the narrative. Eve's desire was set in opposition to Adam's leadership.

On another note, any and all study of the original language is a blessing, friend. You will be rewarded my friend.

Well to rule over means to have complete domain so in that matter the women wouldn't really have any say in anything. But things also were different back then where women were a second class citizen not like today. But the issue then comes since it is written in the bible it is the word of God but Personally I don't think God is sexist however lets say we take it at face value.
If indeed a man has rule then then by his own choice if he believes in equal partnership then doesn't he have that right? and in doing so is he also not breaking the scriptures text?

Check out the forum: Are Women Not Allowed to Preach in Every Case?
We have already covered every inch of that doctrine. Don't skip any posts

I will check it out but I am hoping it is not another war thread as I know the topic of women preaching is a touchy subject

It is. But if you'd like to study the topic in depth without us getting in your way, I posted 2 very helpful documents in post #13.
Here are the links if you're interested:
https://document.desiringgod.org/50...ut-manhood-and-womanhood-en.pdf?ts=1471551126
http://cdn.desiringgod.org/pdf/books_bbf/books_bbf.pdf

These literally cover every detail, angle and aspect related to this doctrine. I spent months reading it before I taught on the subject. I almost gave up because of its complexity but the more I read it, the more my questions were being answered, and all my confusion about seemingly contradictory verses were satisfied and reconciled in my understanding.

The "Biblical foundations for manhood and Womanhood" is the first one to read, if you get that far, then read "50 crucial questions".

Actually I can't read 22 pages of posts my eyes are still healing and it is to much strain on them, is there a specific post in it that answers my question?

Yes, what is your question?
Feel free to direct message me if you'd like

Sounds ok to me. The "adversitive was never taught in my English courses, whether liturature or grammar, but my last course was over 50 years ago. This may be politically new, or perhaps delineated in Hebrew grammar. Thank you.

Well I grew up with the english language but as you can see Grammar is not my strong suite I could never get the paragraphs punctions and stuff down. Granted I have a learning disablity but I fear it makes my writing difficult to read

Well I view things via precepts (what I call factors)...it was only until the last few years that I realized that was also scriptural so that was cool.

... the additional factor of what the NT says about the place of a wife would "factor" in.

As well as the factor that dominion and rule is different than subjugation and tyranny. I don't think it's semantics...depending on how you read the word "rule" you could apply a negative connotation to it when I don't see that as the Lord's heart.

To be ruled over would imply one is a subject...and subject to their ruler but in all practicality it could be so narrow in power schema to be blurred at times. In a blurred instance, vague veto power and ultimate assertion of authority could be exercised in a marriage situation but that would then be subject to Christ and so many other factors would be considered if there were some serious matter of contention/impasse

Unless you take out what Paul said about this in Ephesians (factor it out) I can't see why even the question...if you have questions about that then perhaps I could go further.


My mode of operation is usually to point out the differences between each position (husband and wife) but to talk about the glory of a woman predominantly. Not this chattel/possession idea that so many seem to latch onto as a first line of defense/offense.

In general though, I think being one flesh, distinctions in ultimate authority should rarely be seen. It does depend on the type of woman how relevant it would be.

Well with grammar not your strong point and a learning difficulty and eye issues I think your posts are excellent and I enjoy reading them. Please feel free to post more.

Agreed
Gen 2:24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.

Agreed, in addition:

1Pet 3:7 Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.

God Bless....

Well if you would go 150 years back, you would not must ask this questions.
The medicine makes it possible for an painless giving birth.
And feminism makes it possible that woman at least are equal in a marriage. I believe ephesians 5 is a good information giver for Gods will and also 1.Cor. 11,3

I want add. We should recognize that this was a consequenze / punishement for/ of Evas sin. And we can see it realized in almost all the world. Throug Jesus we can acknowledge that he want have it in another way as the world is doing it.
He wants it like it was before the sin in paradise.
I believe that in a christian marriage the man will be in responsibility in front of God for the decisions he makes.