Back in late 2016, Nell started a thread introducing a book by Jane Anderson that basically takes on the alleged favor of the Bible for subjugation of women. The thread lasted for just over 225 posts. Fairly quickly, the discussion began to center around the results of the curse as described in Genesis 3. (I do not link that thread here because it does no good to resurrect some of the acrimony that went on there.)
(I confess that I found problems with the arguments made on both sides, noting that the language being put forward by both the underlying sources and of Jane’s book were sometimes more inflammatory than instructive, and at the same time seeing that what came from those who supported the status quo was as bad or worse. While I support the direction of the book (both then and now), there just seemed to be something missing.
I still disagree with the idea that there is any real problem in the translations of the verses discussed. Translation is not the problem. It is interpretation. The “big lemon” in Genesis 3 is not the translation, but the interpretation. And the act of labelling it rather than just discussing it suggests a weak position that needs rhetorical maneuvering to gain a following.
I will not respond to renewed complaints about my statements above. Suffice it to say that what I saw (and still see) as flaws did not actually diminish the importance of the overall positions being taken. The positions were sound then and remains sound now. They were just overshadowed by the rhetoric and the insistence by the source writings that there was some way to retranslate the verses to fix the problem.
In saying the above, I do not cast any aspersion upon Jane or Nell. They undertake a righteous cause. And I am sure that someone can point to where and how I have fallen prey to some of the same errors in rhetoric in making some of my points over the many years I have posted here. I know that I have allowed my anger to rule at times and have at least occasionally repented of it.)
During the past couple of weeks I read something that gave (to me) a better perspective.
It suggests that the whole account from Genesis 3, verses 14 through 19, is not a prescription for how to be godly or how God wanted things to be. It is a description of all that would be
wrong as a result of the disobedience that had just occurred. It was not a statement that it should be this way, but that it was just going to be this way. Paraphrasing the essence of two of the curses included could go something like the following: “Man, expect that putting food on the table will be difficult.” “Woman, you are going to want a man and since he’s got you, he is going to be a problem for you.”
Further, those short statements were not the details, but were very summary and were relevant to life as it was at the time it was written. It was written when virtually everything was agriculture and the agricultural work was performed primarily by the men while the household was handled primarily by the woman. It makes no reference to earning a paycheck from unrighteous bosses, but such bosses are surely a result of the fall. Some think that it stands opposed to today’s “me too” movement. But the fact that there is such a movement is proof that the curse of the fall is very pervasive. It might be argued that such a movement among “heathen” is irrelevant since they have no claim upon which to rise above the curse. But to say that is to make a lie of any claim to loving neighbor as you love yourself.
And that is the important thing here. God was not establishing a way for things to be. He merely described the result of the fall. And if it is a result of the fall, then it is not “God’s ordained way.” To the extent that there is any such “ordained way,” it is found in the previous chapter when man and woman were united and became “one flesh.” And it is found in the words of Ephesians when it says that we are all to be in subjection to each other, including both wife to husband
and husband to wife. And when it says that we are all of one status in Christ — not rich or poor, barbarian or cultured, slave or free, male of female . . . .
The curse is not what was ordained in the making of mankind. And if the birth, life, death (sacrifice), and resurrection of Christ is to free us from the curse, then those of us who claim faith in Christ should at least find ourselves on a journey (in this life) back to our original calling. One that had no curse. To demand the continuance of any part of the curse is to deny the fullness of the work of Christ. To fail at achieving that ultimate freedom should only be evidence that we remain imperfect — in this life. It is not because it is God’s ordained way.
Note: Comments should be either brief or undertaken in the open forum, not within my private blog.