Was Paul Referring to Genesis 3?
To recap,
We have seen that throughout the Old Testament, God chose to use prophetesses to help lead His congregation, and also women to sing in the Temple courts, right alongside the men.
Obviously, it was no shame for a woman's voice to be heard in the Lord's assembly.
But Paul said, "as also saith the Law!"
What Law?
Every commentary I have read on this subject points back to Genesis 3:16.
In fact, why don't we examine this passage, since we're there? We'll read the passage, but first,
...there are a few basic, very important rules to follow when interpreting Scripture.
I would like to quote from a well-trusted apologetics site here
(and this is a well-known concept, taught in every conservative seminary.)
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph must be derived from the context.
The context of a passage is absolutely critical to properly interpreting the Bible. Why? Well…
• Every word in the Bible is part of a verse.
• Every verse is part of a paragraph.
• Every paragraph is part of a book.
• Every book is part of the whole of Scripture. [Source]
Because that is the case, no verse of Scripture should be divorced from the verses around it.
Ron Rhodes points out that interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze:
– the President's speech by listening to a short sound bite
– a painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting
– Handel’s “Messiah” by listening to a few short notes [Source]
Every word you interpret must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Jehovah's Witnesses are well-known for taking verses out of context. But so are some well-meaning Christians...
from https://www.alwaysbeready.com/hermeneutics?id=269
_________________________________________________________________________________
Now, let's read the last clause of Genesis 3:16 that way.
..................
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he 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.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
"Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".
This is the only clause that is thought to be a prescription in the entire passage.
Let the immensity of that sink in.
If the church would apply the same rule of interpretation equally to the entire passage, then there would be rules about making sure every man would have a garden overrun by thistles and briars. (Preferably out by the road, for the "public witness" factor.) No Christian male should hold a desk job.
And it would be a godly wife's responsibility to "help" her husband eat a vegan diet... with a sweaty face, in sorrow... every day of his life.
There would even be conservative Christian movements dedicated to helping men realize the importance of fulfilling these obligations, as their primary calling in life, so as to keep them in line with God.
If what God said to Eve - "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee," is a prescription to help her remain godly - then all that is said to Adam must be interpreted the same way.
But if what was said to Adam was not prescriptive, but only predictive, then what was spoken to Eve was in the same tone.
...
And truly, when you look at the grammar of that last clause of Genesis 3:16, it was spoken to Eve, not Adam. The "thou shalt" language (so prominent when speaking to Adam) is simply not in that part... nor is there any commandment at all to her, in this clause!
In fact, IF God was trying to tell Adam to rule over Eve, then why didn't He say it to Adam?
Can't He say what He means?
And IF God was trying to tell Eve to submit to Adam, why didn't He say THAT to her?
He simply didn't.
What He DID say was very different.
...
To fully understand what this particular phrase was saying, we need to look at another verse:
Genesis 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 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.
This is the same expression!
God is warning Cain of very bad consequences. He was about to "rule over" Abel.
This was a power struggle, born out of a fallen sin nature.
This was a consequence of the Fall.
An evil strong person was rising up to do a weaker person hurt.
The weaker person had no such evil intention. Abel was a just, righteous person. He loved his older brother Cain. Abel wanted no conflict. But Cain, the stronger one, forced Abel into a contentious situation... and he hurt... even killed... the very one who loved him.
And isn't this exactly what has happened to all of humankind?
Struggles and conflict, birthed out of envy and pride.
The evil is kept at bay as long as the righteous are in power. There are many Scriptures that say this!
But when evil people hold power, the righteous suffer. (There's a lot of Bible for this, too!)
And since sin has entered every human nature, the strong, egotistical, domineering one will hurt the very one who loves him.
Just like Cain did to Abel.
All over the world, ever since sin came, women have suffered at the hands of fallen men.
It's a strange thing, how women will continue to love abusive men.
And how evil men can continue to ramp up abuse against their loving wives.
It's what God predicted.
This is precisely what God was warning Eve about.
"Your desire will be toward him... but he will rule over you."
Just like the thorns and thistles... the hard, backbreaking labor... the sadness of the grind of life.
And the sorrow of death.
.........................................
Now, was this the passage Paul would have referred to, to explain how God intended women to "be in submission"?
Be honest.
Even if it's uncomfortable. Even if it's not your traditional way of thinking.
Because the TRUTH will make you FREE.
So... what in the world was the "Law" that Paul was referring to, in 1 Corinthians 14:34?
Stay tuned!
We have seen that throughout the Old Testament, God chose to use prophetesses to help lead His congregation, and also women to sing in the Temple courts, right alongside the men.
Obviously, it was no shame for a woman's voice to be heard in the Lord's assembly.
But Paul said, "as also saith the Law!"
What Law?
Every commentary I have read on this subject points back to Genesis 3:16.
In fact, why don't we examine this passage, since we're there? We'll read the passage, but first,
...there are a few basic, very important rules to follow when interpreting Scripture.
I would like to quote from a well-trusted apologetics site here
(and this is a well-known concept, taught in every conservative seminary.)
_________________________________________________________________________________
2. The meaning of a word, phrase, sentence, or paragraph must be derived from the context.
The context of a passage is absolutely critical to properly interpreting the Bible. Why? Well…
• Every word in the Bible is part of a verse.
• Every verse is part of a paragraph.
• Every paragraph is part of a book.
• Every book is part of the whole of Scripture. [Source]
Because that is the case, no verse of Scripture should be divorced from the verses around it.
Ron Rhodes points out that interpreting a verse apart from its context is like trying to analyze:
– the President's speech by listening to a short sound bite
– a painting by looking at only a single square inch of the painting
– Handel’s “Messiah” by listening to a few short notes [Source]
Every word you interpret must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Jehovah's Witnesses are well-known for taking verses out of context. But so are some well-meaning Christians...
from https://www.alwaysbeready.com/hermeneutics?id=269
_________________________________________________________________________________
Now, let's read the last clause of Genesis 3:16 that way.
..................
Gen 3:16 Unto the woman he 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.
17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.
"Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee".
This is the only clause that is thought to be a prescription in the entire passage.
Let the immensity of that sink in.
If the church would apply the same rule of interpretation equally to the entire passage, then there would be rules about making sure every man would have a garden overrun by thistles and briars. (Preferably out by the road, for the "public witness" factor.) No Christian male should hold a desk job.
And it would be a godly wife's responsibility to "help" her husband eat a vegan diet... with a sweaty face, in sorrow... every day of his life.
There would even be conservative Christian movements dedicated to helping men realize the importance of fulfilling these obligations, as their primary calling in life, so as to keep them in line with God.
If what God said to Eve - "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee," is a prescription to help her remain godly - then all that is said to Adam must be interpreted the same way.
But if what was said to Adam was not prescriptive, but only predictive, then what was spoken to Eve was in the same tone.
...
And truly, when you look at the grammar of that last clause of Genesis 3:16, it was spoken to Eve, not Adam. The "thou shalt" language (so prominent when speaking to Adam) is simply not in that part... nor is there any commandment at all to her, in this clause!
In fact, IF God was trying to tell Adam to rule over Eve, then why didn't He say it to Adam?
Can't He say what He means?
And IF God was trying to tell Eve to submit to Adam, why didn't He say THAT to her?
He simply didn't.
What He DID say was very different.
...
To fully understand what this particular phrase was saying, we need to look at another verse:
Genesis 4:6 And the LORD said unto Cain, Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? 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.
This is the same expression!
God is warning Cain of very bad consequences. He was about to "rule over" Abel.
This was a power struggle, born out of a fallen sin nature.
This was a consequence of the Fall.
An evil strong person was rising up to do a weaker person hurt.
The weaker person had no such evil intention. Abel was a just, righteous person. He loved his older brother Cain. Abel wanted no conflict. But Cain, the stronger one, forced Abel into a contentious situation... and he hurt... even killed... the very one who loved him.
And isn't this exactly what has happened to all of humankind?
Struggles and conflict, birthed out of envy and pride.
The evil is kept at bay as long as the righteous are in power. There are many Scriptures that say this!
But when evil people hold power, the righteous suffer. (There's a lot of Bible for this, too!)
And since sin has entered every human nature, the strong, egotistical, domineering one will hurt the very one who loves him.
Just like Cain did to Abel.
All over the world, ever since sin came, women have suffered at the hands of fallen men.
It's a strange thing, how women will continue to love abusive men.
And how evil men can continue to ramp up abuse against their loving wives.
It's what God predicted.
This is precisely what God was warning Eve about.
"Your desire will be toward him... but he will rule over you."
Just like the thorns and thistles... the hard, backbreaking labor... the sadness of the grind of life.
And the sorrow of death.
.........................................
Now, was this the passage Paul would have referred to, to explain how God intended women to "be in submission"?
Be honest.
Even if it's uncomfortable. Even if it's not your traditional way of thinking.
Because the TRUTH will make you FREE.
So... what in the world was the "Law" that Paul was referring to, in 1 Corinthians 14:34?
Stay tuned!
Comments
Post a Comment