“. . . and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Genesis 3:16)

[Dawn Davidson]

What does it mean that the husband “shall rule over thee” (the wife) within the context of the garden story?

Yet, even God cannot command “desire.” If He could or was willing to do so, surely as Christians we know he would command full acceptance by all of Christ as Lord and Savior. Yet even in the face of eternal damnation He does not. Further, to desire is an emotion. The word “desire” is defined in the Hebrew as “longing” or even “stretching out” after a thing or person. It is based upon a root word meaning to “overflow” as in water. It is a place of mind which is not (within its inception) achievable based upon command.

In fact to rightly interpret this area of scripture one must first hearken back to Genesis 2:24. It is here where we learn what the God-desired actions of a husband should be toward his wife; that he is to “cleave unto his wife” so that the two may be of one flesh. The word “cleave” is defined in the Hebrew as to “cling,” to “adhere,” to “follow close (hard after), be joined (together).”

Please note, this is expressed as an action word, a verb and is totally and completely obtainable based upon command and obedience. That is, it is God’s desire in marriage that a man should cling to and follow close and even hard after (underline mine) his wife. Of course within the context of the garden story, it was Eve who alone had regard for making right confession before God so it is totally appropriate that Adam was to cleave and to follow hard after her. However, that is an aside to the point I am seeking to make at this time.

So we know right now that “desire” is an emotion not capable of achieving upon command and yet to “cleave” is an action totally capable of achieving upon command. That a husband shall “rule over” a female must be defined within the right context of the garden story. That is, given the unrighteous state of the man Adam, that he denied Eve her God-given name and therefore also identity (as the two are related) and that he lied about his own name to her, and that he saw fit to allow her to even die by not interfering and correcting her knowledge regarding the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, Eve understandably no longer desired to be with Adam. So when God says that the man shall nevertheless “rule over” her it is a prophetic statement by God completely rooted in affairs of the heart within the confines of a marriage. God was in fact telling Eve that she would one day heal and desire to have this man again. Period, nothing more nothing less.

Specifically, as a now punished but changing Adam began to obediently “cleave” to his wife as a “husband” (and please note, according the Hebrew, Adam is never defined in name as acting as a husband to Eve, he is only defined as a “man” in the name of “Adam.”) the very heart of Eve would itself begin to change and instead of now hating or at least not desiring this man, she would begin to forgive and open her heart to receive him once more. Adam had to be obedient unto God first as a husband (that is “cleave”) before the female Eve could allow her emotions (hence “desire”) for this now cleaving man to “rule over” her earlier desire to simply hate or not forgive him. It was a twin deliverance rooted in the heart for both of them.

Therefore it is once again proven that God did not establish and elevate the place of a man even as a husband to “rule over” the place and position of a female even as a wife.

Please respond about how you discern this directly based upon scripture and not tradition and unsupported rhetorical statements. I realize what I have is not familiar but we can still be civil. If you don’t agree then credibly tell me why and what you specifically don’t agree with. I, like Eve, am personally also “longing” to hear your answers. <:

My scripture references to the Hebrew are from the Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible.

[newview]

Sister Dawn you said:

..Clearly from my own writings I believe he was mistaken, he was in fact highly mistaken regarding his own understanding of the garden word...

Why would YOUR writings trump the holy apostles words?

When you came to that conclusion - did you not surprise your ownself?
Does it not frighten you that your revelation has USURPED God's holy apostle?

What are his words in the canon of scripture for if they are not to be honored and followed and used for encouragment and rebuke and teaching and admonishment?

What has told you that your writings are superior to the Apostle's?

[Minister Robbin Swinger Otey]

Genesis 3:16 (King James Version)
16Unto 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

Genesis 3:16 (New King James Version)
16 To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

Genesis 3:16 (Amplified Bible)
16To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
…………………..
1. The “shall be” was added later so you are right, a woman’s desire toward her husband is NOT a COMMAND from GOD
2. However the “desire” and “shall rule over you” is pretty direct and exact.

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tools/getVerses.cfm?b=Gen&c=3&am...

Strong's H8669 - tĕshuwqah
תשוקה
Transliteration
tĕshuwqah Pronunciation
tesh•ü•kä' (Key)

Part of Speech
feminine noun Root Word (Etymology)
from H7783 in the original sense of stretching out after
TWOT Reference
2352a

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) desire, longing, craving
a) of man for woman
b) of woman for man
c) of beast to devour

.....................
H4910 - mashal
משל
Transliteration
mashal Pronunciation
mä•shal' (Key)

Part of Speech
verb Root Word (Etymology)
a primitive root
TWOT Reference
1259

Outline of Biblical Usage
1) to rule, have dominion, reign
a) (Qal) to rule, have dominion
b) (Hiphil)
1) to cause to rule
2) to exercise dominion

[Dawn Davidson]

Reply to: yURIELa @A-K-A @ t.e.y.a. bey

You wrote:

Genesis 3:16 (King James Version)
16Unto 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

Genesis 3:16 (New King James Version)
16 To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

Genesis 3:16 (Amplified Bible)
16To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.
…………………..
1. The “shall be” was added later so you are right, a woman’s desire toward her husband is NOT a COMMAND from GOD

Regarding the various bible translations of Genesis 3:16 I am not sure what time line you are actually referring to in saying that the “shall be” was added later. I working from the King James (yes I reference other versions when and if necessary but prefer KJV). From the information I have the KJV was itself first published in 1611 and revised in 1769. Of course the Revised KJV follows after that and the Amplified was not first published until 1965.

My point is, the words “shall be” are in the KJV so to suggest that this particular language actually came later on your part is what I am not understanding. Are you speaking about prior to the KJV? (because you did not include or specify an actual reference to such information).

You wrote:

2. However the “desire” and “shall rule over you” is pretty direct and exact.

It is certainly exact in the way it is actually written in scripture, what is not “exact” (so to speak) however, is the inaccurate teaching of this word based upon the traditional interpretation. As you have even agreed (although I am still not sure of the origin of what you are saying in this regard), “desire” from a woman cannot and is not based upon a command issued by God, it is but only based upon an internally driven emotion. This is supported in interpretation by the Hebrew.

Putting this in proper context within the actual word based events of the garden story, it is an emotion no longer experienced by the female post-fall due to the illegal, un-confessed garden actions of Adam and his extreme disregard for her very life. We know this because God otherwise would have no need to speak regarding “desire” with Eve, yet he does as it was most certainly an issue. It was an over-bearing mind-set of a still un-confessed (and therefore still bent upon evil) Adam which even Adam had to first change himself in order to once again secure the affections of Eve. (Adam could only accomplish this of course by repenting and then rightly submitting himself to God). The severe punishment of Adam was purposed by God to achieve just that, his repentance.

A previously dark and rebellious Adam would see a future change even as indirectly stated by God to Eve in Genesis 3:16. And in this way only, that is in response to a now rightly “cleaving” and obedient Adam would the very heart of a before distraught and befuddled Eve itself begin to see a change, not still against but now in favor of this man Adam, hence the return of her “desire.”

You see, so it is not so “pretty direct,” yet I do agree in right interpretation it is exact and most importantly does not leave us with a God seeking to command that (in terms of “desire” from a female) which is not even command-able. Hello, but we are talking about God and within this verse this is our first clue to take a second look. After all, if we realize it, it certainly wouldn’t be like Him to miss it, right?

Additionally, regarding this:

Genesis 3:16 (New King James Version)
16 To the woman He said:
“I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception;
In pain you shall bring forth children;
Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”

Genesis 3:16 (Amplified Bible)
16To the woman He said, I will greatly multiply your grief and your suffering in pregnancy and the pangs of childbearing; with spasms of distress you will bring forth children. Yet your desire and craving will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.

First understand, Eve was a fallen but confessed and rewarded by God female (she was rewarded by God through the mouth of a now compelled Adam in both name and title in Genesis 3:20), she was not punished as was an un-confessed Adam.

As such, in discerning the Hebrew regarding the two forms of “sorrow” (or pain) of Eve one must also do so within the actual context of the story and not merely in blatant attempt to justify male exaltation over the female. The first use of the word “sorrow” in the Hebrew means “to worry, labor, toil and to be in pain and even angry” and this is what represented the true sorry of Eve regarding the man Adam. The last thing she wanted was to continue in relationship with him yet in fulfillment of her created purpose it was God’s desire for her to do so. That of course conception was to be multiplied is according to the original will of God in the first place, a will by the way which a rebellious garden Adam did not even attempt to accomplish. The second use of the word “sorrow” in the KJV speaks to that occurring within or affecting an “earthen vessel” and once again speaks of “painful toiling, grief and labor, either of the body or the mind.” The significance of this speaks to the fact that now every child, even as an “earthen vessel” born to Eve would, due to a now fallen, grief-stricken human race, eventually face a mortal death. This was the reason for her sorrow as it now directly relates not only to the death-bound lives of her children, but to what would always remain unfulfilled purpose as well. This was a woman rightly positioned to be “mother of all living” according to her purpose, yet it was a purpose denied by the continued actions of a still rebellious and stubbornly un-confessed man Adam. That Adam failed to rightly make the garden confession of sin cost us greatly.

I am continuing to refer to the KJV because both of what is listed above is written in obvious unjustified determent to the female not even rightly supported by the Hebrew and the right context of the garden story. There is therefore no reason in my opinion to entertain it except to ask a few questions to hopefully bring even further clarification. Why would the God of life, then yet curse the very process of delivering that life into the world? His desire was for multiplied conception and deliverance of children. Why are children to be considered a blessing, if in fact only delivered by way of a curse?

And finally, why would God curse a female that he himself honored post-fall in both name and title (Genesis 3:20)? How fickle would He be, to put it kindly.

Peace and love,

Dawn

[Rev. Eric Culberson Jr.]

Here is the thing, you say that a womans dersire to her husband is not a command and really it isnt. But what it is, and I have found this out from speaking with many married men and women is that it is something that is internally built in women that have husbands. What wives do and they really cant explain is have a natural desire to want there husbands. They want to recieve love, affection, attention, communication, etc. from there husbands. So they constanly do the things to seek this from there mates hence "desireing" them. It is not a curse as in something negative, but it is something that comes from the woman. That is why I am having difficulty following the point of this post and the other one. It appears like you are attempting "to set women free" from something that is a natural result from what happened in the garden.

I really dont know where your getting she did not want anything to do with Adam from, could you please break it down to me like i'm 5 yrs old?

[Dawn Davidson]

Bro. Culberson,

Thank you for coming back to the post. I am out right now and just happened to access this site. I will answer more fully later but really must say, what you believe to be true regarding a female internally being built to just naturally desire her husband is simply not true. I am certainly not saying that men and women in marriage can't simply naturally desire each other, but not everyone does. Also, there are many people, both men and women, who have been so very damaged and abused within marriages that desire on this level is no longer even possible. I represent one of your test subjects (speaking to counseling grounded and purposed based upon the traditional interpretation of this garden word as put upon the female). Yes, I was told, "God will put the desire for your husband back into your heart." The pastor's words verbatim. The only problem was, even after years of suffering it simply never happened. I could not have been a more committed Christian woman and wife. I could not have worked harder to compensate for the all of the areas neglected (and hence reason for my marital issues in the first place) and yet it all blew up in my face. I could not have become more suicidal. And what did God say to me? He reminded me of what he gave me before I allowed myself to receive this teaching from the church. He told me at the onset to leave the situation altogether. Me and my trying to be so spiritual and obedient self did not listen because after all who knew more than my pastor, how could I alone trust that I was walking in alignment with God's will? And I mean that my life fell apart. God has since picked me up, cradled me, nursed and renourished me back to good spiritual health. But the traditional church is what almost killed me. I was told "God does not break convenant, you need to submit and stop operating as the head." And what was I doing to operate as the head? I was the only person working in the house to pay the rent with two small baby girls at home. You are talking about my life now and as a man, I can assure you that you have no idea what it takes from a female to physically submit to a situation which is at the same time detrimental emotionally, spiritually, and mentally in her life yet all in the Name of Precious Jesus because the church says so. Well, when you are left feeling like even God is screwing you over (I apologize for the language but that is the reality), where else does one have to go? I am the other side of this that no one wants to talk about. But it is real and this is specifically why God opened this word up to me. It was the very word Satan used through the church in an attempt to kill me.

I am not merely simply operating as a rogue Christian, I have more than just a bit of "experience" in this as well and I think my experience in such a situation required and requires just a bit more of me as a female than you as an observer. I mean no disrespect. Also, even my husband will tell you today that as a man what he needed the most was to be held rightly accountable by the church. He did not need to be placated as the "head" and to have his ego fed and inflated. And that is not to say that the church did not preach a word to the men regarding responsibilities, but in no way does the church seek after the obedience of men as they do of women and their wifely duties and even that after stripping them of their individual identities based upon who God really created them to be as persons and believers. It's like you don't think we are real or something, like whatever you put upon us we will be ok. Well thank God the garden word is not in agreement.

I don't usually allow myself to become so personal. I have spoken to many on this site but you are the first I have felt moved to actually open up to, perhaps that says something. But I say this to say, whatever conversations you are having you should try to have a few more, especially with people (women) who have no interest in telling you what you want to hear. I am not questioning the honesty of the people you have counseled/spoken with, but the dynamics of this type of situation, particularly as a female with a male pastor can get quite complicated. Now let me put my hair back up and get back to the basics of this conversation.

Further, how do you deal with an un-confessed Adam? Also, to answer your question, If "desire' was not a post-fall issue for Eve, then God would have no issue to address it with her. He is the same God who also rewarded her post-fall in name and title through the mouth of a now compelled Adam. So it is clear, that the reason for Eve's lack of desire was understandable by God. This is why He spoke prophetically into her life with the words "and your desire shall be for your husband." He knew she did not desire him even then, we have clear evidence of this, yet He certainly did not judge her for it, did he?

Please answer how you deal with an un-confessed Adam? How is it that the Foreknowledge of God elevated this man?

Dawn

[Rev. Eric Culberson Jr.]

I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by an un confessed Adam, what is it that went unconfessed? I never said that the desire of the woman was not a post fall issue, or better yet I was not all the way clear. The desire to her husband is something God told her after the fall, but what I am saying is that it should not be looked at as a negative emotion. Because Adam did not do what he was called to do hence step up and be a covering when the serpent was tempting Eve. And the bible does not say that God named Eve Adam did, but what I dont understand is where was her lack of desire that you brought up?

Look you've said a whole lot and I actually find this conversation very interesting but I'm kind of playing catch up. Lets take it step by step and see what we can glean from eachother. What is it that you first want me to see through your eyes?

[Dawn Davidson]

I want you to start from the end to get to the beginning yet we must first decide one thing. Was Adam supposed to name according to the will of God in the garden?

If your answer is yes, and I anticipate that it is (if not that changes the conversation completely) then both the man and the female only should have received one name in the garden. And as evidenced in Genesis 2:19 God named the man "Adam" yet in 2:23 Adam not only calls the female "Woman" (and not "Eve") but himself now "Man" instead. However, upon His return into the garden in 3:9 it was God who yet still called the man "Adam" and in 3:20 compelled a now punished Adam to call the female "Eve."

Still more, the term "man" (376) chosen by Adam in the Hebrew speaks to one who is "mighty," a "champion" and a "husband." The problem is, this "man" (that is Adam) is first and only defined by the very name of "Adam" (120) a name which again God gave him. It is a name defined in the Hebrew as: "i.e. a human being (an individual or the species, mankind, etc.):-x another, + hypocrite, + common sort, x low, man (mean, low degree), person." This is also based upon another word (119) meaning to show blood in the face, or to be made red or ruddy, that is, to be made embarrassed or ashamed.

The meaning of "man" as defined in 376 (among many other positive attributes) is "champion," "great," "might," and a person of "high" degree. It is with only small wonder that Adam desired to be "Man" as in 376 instead of being a "man" as defined in the name of "Adam" from 120. I am using The New Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible for definitions.

This is the beginning of Adam's deception before the female. However, such issues are of an even greater magnitude because not only did Adam reject the will of God in his own name and seek to take that in the garden which did not belong to him in a name, but he also elected to deny the female what was to be her name (as even desired and purposed by God in her creation) as "Eve."

Adam was also present in 3:1-6 yet did not to correct thoughts held by the female that the fruit could not be either touched or eaten. Both a silent Adam and the serpent knew the truth only Eve (or now still "Woman") did not. Adam desired the fruit for himself which is the only reason why he did not interfere during the fall of the female right before his eyes. Adam's problem was this, he did not fully believe God and doubted whether or not eating the fruit would surely bring out death. Therefore, why not allow the female to eat it first. If she died then he would at least be rid of one for whom he really did not care for. Yet if she lived then at least he also would know that it was safe for him to also eat of the fruit.

[Dawn Davidson]

This in fact is why God chastises Adam in 3:17. Yes it is taught that God rebukes Adam for obeying, (hearkening) unto to his wife, but from the reality of what we now know, we can recognize that God knew what we did not all along. And that is that Adam remained silent in an effort to ascertain whether or not God was a liar and whether or not he in fact was safe to eat of the fruit. Adam did this at what could have been the very expense of Eve's physical life as well. That is, Adam "hearkened unto the voice" of his still living wife, yet not in obedience but in blind self service only. At this moment in the mind of Adam, God was in fact a liar.

Please also consider that in 3:9 Eve has no idea who God is calling out to in the garden. But who is "Adam?" The female only knew "Man." And of course God couldn't call the female by name also as her name was purposed by Him as an "Eve" and yet a rebellious Adam, also thinking of himself as "Man" called her "Woman" instead. God does not further the work of evil.

My position is that after the fall, Eve came to fully understand all that was perpetrated against her by the enemy through Adam. The only thing they really had in the garden was identity and truth, the two very things that a disobedient Adam thought nothing of lying, suppressing and manipulating to benefit his own ends.

Yet in Genesis 3:12 what does Adam confess? He confesses nothing worth having. All he really does is lodge accusation in the face of God and says nothing about what was really true in that garden according to his actions. And this why Adam was punished and a fully confessed Eve was not.

By the way, God accepted the confession of Eve which means, she was but only deceived in the garden, the lie regarding whether or not the fruit could be both touched and eaten could not have come therefore from her. It originated with a selfish, power-hungry Adam.

[Scott R. Newman]

Okay, okay I surrender so what's the point of all of this? Am I missing something? So what are you trying to say to us MEN in particular? Or women or..........WHAT IS THE POINT OF THIS BLOG??? LOL Please can somebody tell me before I commit hari cari (sword to the tummy)... Ok, let me guess. Adam (man) is inherantly evil and Eve or Woman is inheritantly good and blessed and never was deceived by the devil, only Adam or Man was. Now what? What are you trying to justify? What is the answer? What is the purpose? WHAT IS IT!!!!!!! (can't take no mo') got me jonesing ova' here.....(why am I all of a sudden craving a blunt???) Please can somebody get me off of this roller coaster puhleeeeeze........For the love of God, so we can move from the garden....

[Dawn Davidson]

Hello Brother Newman,

Slow down over there, this is simply about getting to the truth of the garden. Prove your truth based upon the full interpretation or watch me prove mine. Review the writings already posted here and you should be able to join in. Review the specific text of the garden first however, this discussion is not to merely entertain what is simply the male tradition regarding the garden.

And until we do get the right interpretation will we be in this garden unless you are also willing to dismiss what is actually going on in the lives of many sisters pertaining to this word. I have been one and willing to dismiss this I am not.

I look forward to your posts! (And please, no blunts! <:)

Peace and love,

Dawn

[Rev. Eric Culberson Jr.]

WOW! Sis thats a lil deep please give me a minute to gather my thoughts.

[Dawn Davidson]

Brother Culberson,

Please take your time with it, there are still other points to discuss as well. Our Bro. Moreh on the bpn actually inadvertently pointed something out to me in his argument of opposition which really (for me) brought home the word I have. We can get to that later though.

Dawn