The Effect of Eve's Sin on Women

[ValleyAnt]

After Adam and Eve sinned and God handed out His sentence to the serpent and its seed, and before He sentenced Adam and males, He told Eve that the sentence for her and females was that their desire would be for their husband who would rule over them. Here is the verse:

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16).

A woman's desire being for her husband (for men) doesn't sound like a bad thing unless you acknowledge that that was said in the context of sentencing one to a curse. There are translations that do a better job of showing why that desire is actually a curse, but I still don't understand the whole verse (I mean, God said He would multiply woman's sorrow and conception; we know what pain in childbirth means, but what does pain in conception mean?).

As far as the original KJV, God told Eve at least five different things there in the context of a curse:

1. Her sorrow would be greatly multiplied (what sorrow).

2. Her conception would also be greatly multiplied.

3. Her childbearing (possibly before, during, and after) would be painful.

4. Her life would revolve around and be lived for [a man/men].

5. Her life and reality would be subject to [a man/men].

I was one of the few high schoolers who enjoyed history class. I like to know what happened in the past especially as it affects the present. So, I tend to follow things back to their past so I can make sense of them in the present. And so I wonder what the curse on Eve means because it is the origin of many of the things about women today that most men don't understand or can't make peace with. Actually, if there is anything right now that makes me feel a genuine need to truly pursue and lay hold of God to make sense of a lot of things, it is the effects the Fall has had on women. ('Lay hold of God' doesn't mean 'spending time with God' or Bible reading and prayer but an actual 'face to face' or continuing type of conversation.)

Anyone with more of an explanation of Gen. 3:16 feel free to share. When I read that verse, just like when I read the first three chapters of Genesis and as with much of the Bible, I know there is a lot more going on there than is written on the surface. Besides, the things or aftershocks I can clearly see in the present require that there is a lot more being said in Gen. 3:16 than what is written on the surface.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

The Septuagint has this

And to the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy pains and thy groanings; in pain thou shalt bring forth children, and thy submission shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. Genesis 3:16​

 

[keepingthingsreal]

1. Her sorrow would be greatly multiplied (what sorrow).

Jhn 16:21
A woman when she is in travail hath sorrow, because her hour is come: but as soon as she is delivered of the child, she remembereth no more the anguish, for joy that a man is born into the world.

 

[Magenta]

Genesis 2:18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (ezer kenegdo explanation)

 

[Dino246]

After Adam and Eve sinned and God handed out His sentence to the serpent and its seed, and before He sentenced Adam and males, He told Eve that the sentence for her and females was that their desire would be for their husband who would rule over them. Here is the verse:

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16).

A woman's desire being for her husband (for men) doesn't sound like a bad thing unless you acknowledge that that was said in the context of sentencing one to a curse. There are translations that do a better job of showing why that desire is actually a curse, but I still don't understand the whole verse (I mean, God said He would multiply woman's sorrow and conception; we know what pain in childbirth means, but what does pain in conception mean?).

As far as the original KJV, God told Eve at least five different things there in the context of a curse:

God cursed the ground and the serpent. He did not curse the man and the woman; rather, He told them the consequences of their action.

There are many different translations of this passage in English. In light of this, it doesn't make sense to assign doctrinal basis to a single translation without demonstrating that the chosen translation is likely the best one.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

He did not curse the man and the woman; rather, He told them the consequences of their action.

The consequences sound like a curse to me

 

[Dino246]

The consequences sound like a curse to me

God said specifically to the serpent, "Cursed are you..." (v, 14) and to Adam, "Cursed is the ground...". He did not say either to the man or to the woman that they were cursed. Though they are related, negative consequences are not actually curses. I can tell my daughter the consequences of foolish actions without me cursing her.

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

God said specifically to the serpent, "Cursed are you..." (v, 14) and to Adam, "Cursed is the ground...". He did not say either to the man or to the woman that they were cursed. Though they are related, negative consequences are not actually curses. I can tell my daughter the consequences of foolish actions without me cursing her.

Yeah but we aren't responsible for his foolish action, so we are not experiencing the consequences of our actions, we are experiencing the curse, so experientially it is a curse

 

[Dino246]

Yeah but we aren't responsible for his foolish action, so we are not experiencing the consequences of our actions, we are experiencing the curse, so experientially it is a curse

I understand what you're saying. I make the distinction on the wording used.

 

[Mem]

Contrast this with Song of Solomon 7:10 "I am my beloved's, And his desire is for me."

God told Adam that the ground is cursed "for thy sake" and "in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life" after telling Eve that 'in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children" so, these sound similar in regard toward the reception of fruit, whether from the land, from which Adam is created, or (Adam's) body from which Eve is created. The land gives Adam as much grief as Adam gives Eve. Naturally, even though she longs to be one with him, he works against her as much as the ground 'fights' with Adam give him its fruit.
That is, the land gives Adam grief, all the days of his life, and Adam is the source of Eve's grief.

 

[p_rehbein]

All this cursing going on and I can only think of what Jesus taught:

Ephesians, Chapter 5:

28So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.

29For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:

30For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.

31For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.

32This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.

33Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

As for all that cursing in Genesis, Adam and Eve's disobedience of God brought them to realize death. So, if there is any curse of them it is that they became "earthly," and their days were numbered from that first day of disobedience. As was/is all mankind forever.

 

[keepingthingsreal]

After Adam and Eve sinned and God handed out His sentence to the serpent and its seed, and before He sentenced Adam and males, He told Eve that the sentence for her and females was that their desire would be for their husband who would rule over them. Here is the verse:

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16).

A woman's desire being for her husband (for men) doesn't sound like a bad thing unless you acknowledge that that was said in the context of sentencing one to a curse.

You are terribly misinterpreting this as this has nothing to do with a curse.

When God told Eve thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, he was talking about Eve's ungodly desire to rule over her husband or to usurp his God-given authority. This same terminology appears in the next chapter of Genesis in regard to Satan's desire for Cain.

Gen 4:6
And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

Gen 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Paul alluded to what God said to Eve in his first epistle to the Corinthians.

1Co 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1Co 14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Your women are the wives of the Christian men he was addressing or those who were instructed to ask their husbands at home while keeping silence in the churches.

When Paul mentioned as also saith the law, he was alluding to Genesis 3:16 and to what God said to Eve there.

 

[homwardbound]

After Adam and Eve sinned and God handed out His sentence to the serpent and its seed, and before He sentenced Adam and males, He told Eve that the sentence for her and females was that their desire would be for their husband who would rule over them. Here is the verse:

"I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your desire will be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" (Gen. 3:16).

A woman's desire being for her husband (for men) doesn't sound like a bad thing unless you acknowledge that that was said in the context of sentencing one to a curse. There are translations that do a better job of showing why that desire is actually a curse, but I still don't understand the whole verse (I mean, God said He would multiply woman's sorrow and conception; we know what pain in childbirth means, but what does pain in conception mean?).

As far as the original KJV, God told Eve at least five different things there in the context of a curse:

1. Her sorrow would be greatly multiplied (what sorrow).

2. Her conception would also be greatly multiplied.

3. Her childbearing (possibly before, during, and after) would be painful.

4. Her life would revolve around and be lived for [a man/men].

5. Her life and reality would be subject to [a man/men].

I was one of the few high schoolers who enjoyed history class. I like to know what happened in the past especially as it affects the present. So, I tend to follow things back to their past so I can make sense of them in the present. And so I wonder what the curse on Eve means because it is the origin of many of the things about women today that most men don't understand or can't make peace with. Actually, if there is anything right now that makes me feel a genuine need to truly pursue and lay hold of God to make sense of a lot of things, it is the effects the Fall has had on women. ('Lay hold of God' doesn't mean 'spending time with God' or Bible reading and prayer but an actual 'face to face' or continuing type of conversation.)

Anyone with more of an explanation of Gen. 3:16 feel free to share. When I read that verse, just like when I read the first three chapters of Genesis and as with much of the Bible, I know there is a lot more going on there than is written on the surface. Besides, the things or aftershocks I can clearly see in the present require that there is a lot more being said in Gen. 3:16 than what is written on the surface.

yep, "Cliff notes" is what people get "Cliff notes" be careful straining out gnats, might swallow a camel. God is the one and only one that knows the whole truth and nothing but the truth
I see to trust God all in all, no matter what I might think out of the "Cliff Notes"
Seeing Genesis 3
Genesis 3:15
and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.

Jesus has now been here on earth as the only exact full representation of God his Father, has bruised, crushed satan's head. Satan evil still out and about in the first born flesh and blood people, all over this world seeking to devour as said in Job 1 to anyone. People now doing that ever since satan defeated.
The only Doctrine I see is The Lord Jesus took away all sin in his Father's sight on that cross that he went to willingly without a fight back in any flesh and blood anger. That is amazing to me, to pursue. May be you now too.
he is now risen and that was proven to the disciples back then, even Thomas, who had to see him alive physically. did and got told that he believed, because he saw, yet what is left is: for us to believe without seeing it physically
Will we and ask Father for the new life hidden in the risen Christ for us to be new in love and mercy to all too? Thank you

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Paul alluded to what God said to Eve in his first epistle to the Corinthians.
1Co 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.
1Co 14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
Your women are the wives of the Christian men he was addressing or those who were instructed to ask their husbands at home while keeping silence in the churches.
When Paul mentioned as also saith the law, he was alluding to Genesis 3:16 and to what God said to Eve there.

There is compelling evidence that these two verses are interpolations which were inadvertently added to the text by a scribe after Paul wrote the letter. Genesis is not the law, but the ideas and restrictions mentioned in those two verses were a part of Roman culture and law, which is probably from where the interpolation originated.

https://zondervanacademic.com/blog/why-would-1-cor-143435-be-an-interpolation

 

[keepingthingsreal]

Genesis is not the law,

According to Paul, whose words we are presently considering, Genesis is part of the law.

Gal 4:21
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?

Gal 4:22
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.

This was written in the book of Genesis, and Paul referred to it as the law.

 

[Aaron56]

There's several things that have always interested me about the record of the fall of man.

1. Adam was with Eve when she was being tempted by the serpent.

"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate."

2. Adam quickly throws Eve under the bus when called by God to give an account.

"And He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten from the tree of which I commanded you that you should not eat?”
Then the man said, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree, and I ate.”

3. Adam call "woman" Eve only after the fall. Before the fall, Adam said that she was issa (woman) because she was taken from is (man)

First:
“This is now bone of my bones
And flesh of my flesh;
She shall be called Woman,
Because she was taken out of Man.”

But then:

"And Adam called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living."

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

According to Paul, whose words we are presently considering, Genesis is part of the law.
Gal 4:21
Tell me, ye that desire to be under the law, do ye not hear the law?
Gal 4:22
For it is written, that Abraham had two sons, the one by a bondmaid, the other by a freewoman.
This was written in the book of Genesis, and Paul referred to it as the law.

Paul is using that story in Genesis as an allegory of the law, so I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion that anything in Genesis is the law

 

[ChristRoseFromTheDead]

Paul is using that story in Genesis as an allegory of the law, so I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion that anything in Genesis is the law

Paul may have been using the word law in the way torah is used today to refer to the first 5 books of Moses. But it's not the law (of Moses) that he normally refers to when using that term

 

[Dino246]

You are terribly misinterpreting this as this has nothing to do with a curse.

When God told Eve thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, he was talking about Eve's ungodly desire to rule over her husband or to usurp his God-given authority. This same terminology appears in the next chapter of Genesis in regard to Satan's desire for Cain.

Gen 4:6
And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen?

Gen 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Paul alluded to what God said to Eve in his first epistle to the Corinthians.

1Co 14:34
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

1Co 14:35
And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

Your women are the wives of the Christian men he was addressing or those who were instructed to ask their husbands at home while keeping silence in the churches.

When Paul mentioned as also saith the law, he was alluding to Genesis 3:16 and to what God said to Eve there.

I disagree strongly with your assessment and your reasons. In short, your argument is circular.

Nothing in the Law says that women are to be silent, so either Paul didn't write those words (he probably was responding to a quoted question) or he didn't know the Law. The second is completely incompatible with the wealth of knowledge he displays in his letters, so that leaves the first option. Nothing in Paul's words "alludes" to anything in Genesis 3. You're seeing a connection that you want to be there but isn't; that's called eisegesis.

A more coherent interpretation of Gen. 3:16 doesn't assume the presence of the words "to rule over". Adam was never given authority over Eve, so there was no authority for her to "usurp".

 

[keepingthingsreal]

Paul is using that story in Genesis as an allegory of the law, so I don't necessarily agree with your conclusion that anything in Genesis is the law

Allegory aside, Paul still referred to what was written in the book of Genesis as the law. This is indisputable.

What about what Jesus said here?

Mar 10:2
And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.

Mar 10:3
And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?

Mar 10:4
And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.

Mar 10:5
And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.

Mar 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

Mar 10:7
For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;

Mar 10:8
And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mar 10:9
What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Jesus was asked if it was lawful for a man to put away his wife. He initially responded by asking his questioners what Moses commanded them. They, in turn, quoted what Moses had written in the 24th chapter of the book of Deuteronomy, but this was not the answer that Jesus was looking for. He, while answering the question of whether or not it was lawful for a man to put away his wife, quoted what Moses had written in Genesis 2:24. In other words, he regarded what Moses had written there as being part of the law or as being a command in relation to whether or not it was lawful for a man to put away his wife.