“. . . 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.

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

I stand corrected on the statement I made about Adam giving the commandment to her.

Thanks Bro. Watson.

[Chaplain Pat Harris]

Sis. Davidson, you are "glutton for punishment."

You started a discussion on 10/16/09 on the same false doctrine - "the garden word." Everyone who replied on that discussion is saying pretty much the same thing as those who have replied on this discussion. Doesn't this tell you something? With all due respect Sis. Davidson, the replies you have been reading under both topics of discussion is your basic Bible Study 101.

I am not going to beat this horse to death by reiterating what has already been spoken/taught by the saints of God. Instead, I am going to pray for you. Any woman who is trying to exalt herself through one of the female characters in the Bible as a way of trying to justify her position, she is being heavily influenced by the spirit of Jezebel. It shows by your position on the so-called "garden word" that Satan has gotten to you just like he got to Eve.

I have never heard anyone nick pick at the story of Adam & Eve they way you have. This idea of "man vs. Man," woman vs. Woman," Woman vs. Adam," and this idea of Eve supposedly making a confession is really out there. At this rate, you are probably the only person on earth who is fictitiously trying to remain in the Garden of Eden, even though in reality you were never there in the first place. Or, maybe you are trying to keep Eve in the garden since she "confessed" to God (according to your doctrine) and kick Adam out because he was a "hypocrite," (again, according to your doctrine).

There are two things I am curious about, does your pastor teach the garden story as you have presented here? If you are married, are you and your husband on one accord with this garden story?

[Dawn Davidson]

Are you a Christian? I see many of the people around here have been training you well. I hope now, having said that, you feel better.