Wife DESIRE and Husband RULE in Genesis 3:16

[Psalm63]

Unto the woman he [God] said,
I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception;
in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children;
and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.
Genesis 3:16

The simplicity of the following appeals to me
​

from Beyond Reasonable Doubt-page 153

 

[chaz345]

Both negative because the context of the verse is describing the consequenses of their sin.

 

[JRSut1000]

It's neither, it's just the way it is. Man has to work, its just the way it is. It can be a good thing or a bad thing.

 

[lisah]

Psalm 63, I don't see how any of it can be of a positive nature, intent, or meaning. The whole thing, as I read it, is about punishment.

To me it is stating " because of this, this will be the result."

The chapter reads to me as the result of reverse engineering the "wherefore's" and is probably based upon certain preexisting beliefs.

That's just a guess, of course. It is the only thing that makes sense to me.

The other items you mention are set within very different circumstances, and thus can not really be used to define the meaning behind this set of circumstances, can they? Doesn't that have to be taken into account first?

 

[JRSut1000]

So is work a punishment or can a career be rewarding?

 

[lisah]

So is work a punishment or can a career be rewarding?

In Genesis, it appears to be a punishment to "toil." In other writings work might be expressed as a blessing though.

 

[mkgal1]

There was work before the fall (Genesis 2:15).

As far as the wife's desire for her husband, I do believe in this context it is a negative. I think it's a way for God to give them over to their sin of uniting AGAINST God.....kind of how Moses had the Israelites drink the powder from the ground up golden calf after they had turned against God. Once we experience worshipping our idols, allowing them to control us and lead us and realize how empty that is (like Solomon realized) then we normally turn back towards God.

There is so much to think about in just the first few chapters of Genesis. It says that the ground was cursed "for your sake" in chapter 3, verse 17. That's probably a separate topic, though.

 

[Autumnleaf]

Negative and positive are value judgments that are subjective.

 

[lisah]

There was work before the fall (Genesis 2:15).

Right.

When I think of this I find myself wondering about the changes in peoples as they move from a hunter-gatherer type lifestyle to an agricultural type lifestyle. I wonder if there were stories passed down about "the good old days" of not working so hard. (One who scavenges might not labor as intensively as one who toils the earth, or at least might not be seen that way?)

It would be kind of the reverse of the stories told by my parents of walking five miles just to catch a ride to school and comparing that with how "soft" the younger generation is today.

Or akin to stories about Atlantis?

(And then there were/are the Shakers whose philosophy was/is "Hands to work, hearts to God." A very "pro work, pro (god-focused) desire" group of people.)

 

[mkgal1]

The "good ol' days" were in the Garden of Eden, where all the food was right there for them. They were "kicked out" of the garden after this (I will have to look that up, but the Garden was then guarded by cherubim--from what I recall). There was no death until the fall....Eve wasn't even afraid of the serpent (and she understood him--was able to communicate with him). Animals then became our food....not just plants. That means animals had to then having killling instinct, for their protection. That's part of the "toil" I see. First, everything was there for their taking.....then, they had to go out and get their food, under dangerous circumstances.

 

[mkgal1]

So He drove the man out; and at the east of the garden of Eden He stationed the cherubim and the flaming sword which turned every direction to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 3:24

That's Adam and Eve as "man".

 

[pdudgeon]

and thy desire shall be to thy husband,
and he shall rule over thee.

i see both parts as a positive.
The first part because Eve listened to satan and was tempted. But if she had been guided by Adam and by God she would have known to leave the tree of good and evil alone. So that her desire should be towards her husband would tend to keep her eyes and thoughts from wandering into satan's ways.

The second part is positive because it re-establishes Adam's position in the family.

Both parts serve in marriage as a model of the relationship between God, Christ, and the Church, as established by God. thus they are both positive.

However when that triune marriage relationship is either distorted into a tyrany of the husband over the wife and children, or is downplayed into a role reversal where the woman is the dominant partner, or a tug-of-war where both partners are dominant in a marriage, chaos ensues; the family dynamic is destroyed, and everyone in the marriage suffers as a result.

 

[Johnnz]

This topic has another thread going at present. Some interesting material there from several people.

John
NZ

 

[mkgal1]

i see both parts as a positive.
The first part because Eve listened to satan and was tempted. But if she had been guided by Adam and by God she would have known to leave the tree of good and evil alone. So that her desire should be towards her husband would tend to keep her eyes and thoughts from wandering into satan's ways.

The second part is positive because it re-establishes Adam's position in the family.

Both parts serve in marriage as a model of the relationship between God, Christ, and the Church, as established by God. thus they are both positive.

However when that triune marriage relationship is either distorted into a tyrany of the husband over the wife and children, or is downplayed into a role reversal where the woman is the dominant partner, or a tug-of-war where both partners are dominant in a marriage, chaos ensues; the family dynamic is destroyed, and everyone in the marriage suffers as a result.

One thing we do know is that Eve was decieved....Adam was not. Doesn't that make it willful disobedience? Adam heard first-hand what the "rules" of the Garden were.....Eve heard it through Adam (but, had direct access to ask God what His exact rules were).

Where are you getting it from that Adam was originally in any other position than equal with Eve? Because when I read Genesis 1, I see all the instruction being given to Adam and Eve as one ("let them rule over the fish in the sea and birds in the air..."; "Let us make them in Our image"...etc).

You said it's a role reversal when a woman is the dominant partner....so, you believe the husband IS (or should be) the "dominant partner"?