Satan
found in her an ally; and so pleased was he with the results of the partnership
he has never dissolved the firm.
Justin
D. Fulton
The True Woman, 1869
Most complementarian leaders interpret
Genesis 3:16, "Thy desire shall be
to thy husband," to mean that all women, since the fall of creation,
are born with innate desires to dominate their husbands.
This idea was introduced in 1975 by Susan T. Foh.
Prior to that date, even traditional role religionists interpreted Genesis 3:16
to mean that a woman’s desire for her husband could refer to either a physical
desire strong enough to compensate for the pain of childbirth, or a desire to
submit to her husband’s leadership.
Both interpretations obviously come from male
perspectives involving either sexual relations or submission to male authority.
A more logical perspective would be that the woman would continue to long for a
loving relationship with her spouse in spite of his tyranny over her. Either way, no one argued that a woman’s
desire would be for her husband. There
was so much agreement among Christians concerning that portion of the verse
that the 1909 edition of Schofield’s Reference Bible contained no commentary at
all on it.
However, since Foh set forth her theory in
1975, discussion has accelerated with complementarians adopting her position,
and in 1988, the editors of a new study Bible set forth the traditional interpretations
that a woman’s desire would be for
her husband, but also added Foh’s theory that a woman’s desire might also be against her husband.
Foh’s theory cannot be substantiated by
scripture and introduces further theological complications as complementarian
males seem quite willing to be taught by this female in opposition of their own
policy which forbids women to authoritatively teach men.
Bruce Ware, Senior Associate Dean and
professor of Christian Theology of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (and
past President and current board member of the Council on Biblical Manhood and
Womanhood) is in agreement with Foh. The official website of the CBMW contains
a statement which reads: “Sin introduced into God's created design many
manifestations of disruption, among them a disruption in the proper
role-relations between man and woman…Genesis 3:15-16, informs us that the
male/female relationship would now, because of sin, be affected by mutual enmity. In particular, the woman would have a desire to usurp the authority
given to man in creation, leading to man, for his part, ruling over woman in what
can be either rightfully-corrective or wrongfully-abusive ways (emphasis
added).”
There are numerous problems with this
statement, not the least of which is a non-biblical blame-shift to the woman
for any abuse she may “bring on herself” through non-submission to so-called male
authority. There is also no mention in Genesis or anywhere else in the Bible
concerning a “mutual enmity” between males and females—only between the seed of
the serpent and the seed of the woman. Men who are of the serpent’s seed will
be at enmity with women and women are certainly justified in viewing such as
enemies, husbands or no. Nowhere in
scripture is woman identified as being the “particular” enemy of man; but man
is clearly identified in Genesis 3:16 as being the particular enemy of woman. .
. and he shall rule over thee.
The scriptures are clear that we are each
accountable for our own sin. No matter what the provocation, if we sin, it is
our choice and ours alone, so for the council to
absolve husbands of personal responsibility for abusive behavior, for whatever
reason, is reprehensible. And we would also ask for examples of actions one
autonomous adult might take against another autonomous adult (specifically
husbands against wives) that the council would deem rightfully corrective.
Is there ever a situation where a man can
rule over a woman, just because he is a man and she is a woman, in a rightfully-corrective manner? At one
time, the law permitted a husband to beat his wife or “correct” her in other
ways, but the scriptures are clear that even those who are legitimately over us
in the Lord, our shepherds, pastors, bishops, etc., are commanded not to rule over the flock of God.
They are to prefer their flocks before themselves even as their flocks are
commanded to do the same for them.
How dare the council teach that “In particular” the woman would have a
desire to usurp the authority given to man; this statement is in direct
contradiction to the words spoken by the Lord God Himself who said that it
would not only be a particular desire
of husbands to rule over wives, but a physical reality. Where, in the Genesis account, is a clear witness to the
alleged “authority” of males? Genesis 3:16 was not a command, blessing, or
promotion in status for the man. This was a prediction of cursed behavior directly
resulting from sin. But men who would
be God embrace cursed behavior as divine.
Proponents of the “mutual enmity” error also
read into the text the non-existent idea of the passive man. And then, of course, blame the woman for his passivity.
Carolyn Mahaney, author and wife of C. J.
Mahaney,
writes that women will have a, “sinful tendency to resist their husband’s
authority, women will have an urge to manipulate, control or have the mastery
over men.”
DeMoss,
joins with Mahaney in chanting the “evil woman” mantra in her book, Lies Women
Believe. In this book, she instructs women in how to be free from their
evil drive to control men. She accuses women of de-motivating and emasculating
the men in their lives.
There is neither historical nor scriptural ground for such vicious accusations
on the part of Mahaney, DeMoss, the council, and a host of other
complementarian authors.
No complementarian can produce even one
verse of scripture that validates the “Evil Woman” theory. Yet they keep
chanting the mantra. Virtually every author endorsed by the CBMW chants the
same “mantra” concerning the usurping, dominating, emasculating wife.
Are those who promote this view aware that
in interpreting Genesis 3:16 as they do, they are actually teaching that wives
have an evil desire dedicated to, not just ruling
over husbands, but to the utter
destruction of them? In spite of this devastating interpretation, Susan
Foh’s construal of the word desire in
Genesis 3:16, has come to be almost universally accepted among complementarians.
Those who hold to Foh’s explanation, base
their entire case on just one verse
located in Genesis 4:7 where we read of sin lying at the door with its desire being for Cain. The phrase “sin
lieth at the door…,” in Hebrew, has a connotation of a lion, a carnivorous
predator, crouching at the door. The lion’s “desire” is for its prey. And what
does a lion want to do with its prey? Why does a lion crouch? Doesn’t a lion
crouch in preparation to pounce? And doesn’t a lion pounce in order to kill and eat its prey?
A lion’s desire
for its prey is to utterly destroy and consume it—not to dominate and control
it, or to usurp authority from it. The
hermeneutical bungee jumping required to reference Genesis 4:7 in defining a
woman’s desire for her husband is
astonishing.
The word desire, translated from the Hebrew
word, tshuwqah, has
been a matter of controversy for centuries among Bible scholars. The Hebrew translators
of the Greek Septuagint (LXX) translated tshuwqah
as “turning,” and not as desire. In the Hebrew, similarities to, tshuwqah, are found in a primary Hebrew
word “shuwb”
translated “bring again” (or return) in 2 Chronicles 11:1. Upon inquiry concerning
the Greek LXX translation and whether or not the Hebrew word tshuwqah may have descended through the
primary root shuwb, the answer was
negative, but that both Greek words in the LXX did carry the connotation of “turning.” Our question then, is why
isn’t it a consideration that both Hebrew
words might carry similar connotations (even if one did not descend from the
other) especially as no one claims to know for sure what tshuwqah actually means?
Nineteenth and early twentieth
century Hebrew and Greek scholar, Katharine Bushnell, rejected the current
translation of tshuwqah as desire and
gives compelling evidence for why the word should be translated “turning” as it
is translated in the LXX .
In the 1535 Coverdale Bible, tshuwqah
is translated as “turn” in Song
of Solomon 7:10, “There wil I turne me vnto my loue, and he shal turne him vnto
me.”
The Douay Rheims Bible also translates the word as turning, “I to my beloved,
and his turning is towards me.”
Prior to either of these translations,
ancient evidence abounds that turning is the correct translation of tshuwqah. Not only the Greek Septuagint attests to
this, but the Syriac Peshitto and the Old Latin Bible (among many other ancient
sources) render tshuwqah as turning
in both Genesis and The Song of Solomon.
Even if tshuwqah is correctly
translated desire, which, in view of
the ancient evidence is unlikely, it is important to understand that on this
single portion of scripture the entire evil-woman doctrine rests. If we are to
accept tshuwqah defined as “desire,” we can find no other
definition that fits beyond simple “longing.” Anything else is pure conjecture.
The context in which this word is found must
determine whether the tshuwqah is good or bad. Just
because, in Genesis Chapter Four, sin’s tshuwqah for Cain is
destructive, does not mean that in Genesis Chapter Three, the woman’s tshuwqah
for her husband does not parallel the tshuwqah found in the Song of
Solomon.
In modern Bibles, tshuwqah is translated “desire”
in the Song of Solomon, Chapter Seven, where Coverdale translated, “There will
I turn me unto my love, and he shall turn him unto me.” The Song of Solomon is
both a prophecy and a tender love story. No one would dare say the desire, in
this passage, is a desire to pounce on and destroy. Yet it is the same Hebrew
word, tshuwqah that is used in Genesis 3:16 where the woman was
told that, in spite of the fact that her husband would rule over her instead of
loving and cherishing her as he was created to do, her tshuwqah would be
towards him.
Those who have attached a destructive
connotation to the use of the word “desire” as used in Genesis 3:16 ignore the other
two contexts in which tshuwqah has been used.
Wives are predators whose desire is for the
utter destruction of their husbands? The idea is preposterous. The Bible
doesn’t teach it and neither do history, statistics, psychological studies, nor
surveys prove it. There is not one shred of evidence, anywhere, that can back up
such a claim.
The illustration of a wife crouching at the
door, like a lioness, in readiness to pounce upon her husband paints an ugly
picture that ascends straight out of the abyss. If this interpretation is true,
then stakes in the gender war are high indeed, with the very survival of the
male gender at stake. If that is the case, then the writers of the Pastoral Letter of the General Association
of Massachusetts, 1837, had every right to claim they were forced by woman
to array themselves in “self-defense against her.”
But the survival of the male sex is not at
stake, and woman is not the natural and most powerful enemy of man. Aside from
God, if man would only accept it, woman—not dog—is his best friend and
strongest ally. And she functions best in this capacity when her practical equality
is acknowledged and implemented.
Despite the difficulties involved with
engaging in intimate relationships with those who consider themselves Divinely
mandated to be rulers and betters, woman has shown dogged persistence in
efforts at taking a difficult—and sometimes deadly—concept and trying to make
it work. The well-known tendency of
wives in longing for and turning towards disinterested and even abusive
husbands is beyond dispute—and that has been prophesied in the word tshuwqah, whichever meaning one assigns to it.
It is difficult, if not impossible, to
maintain true intimacy and affection with a subordinate. Military experts know
this, and that is why all branches of the U.S. military have non-fraternization
policies between officers and subordinates. Historically, as the Pastoral
Letter so clearly illustrates, anytime woman has attempted to voice an opinion
or receive respect on equal terms with man, her efforts have been interpreted
as insubordinate and hostile and been met with instant corrective action.
This is still the case today as illustrated
in Bruce Ware’s address to the Denton Bible Church in 2008—apparently in
response to Christian women’s attempts to gain equality with men in their homes
and churches. In spite of his piteous argument about how he felt forced to
leave more important things in order
to deal with the tedious issue of gender roles, Ware clearly felt that keeping
women in line was the most important issue or he would have exerted his time
and energy in dealing with all those other more
important things.
In practical application, Ware addressed the
subordination of women with utmost urgency while at the same time attempted to
minimize his actions by referring to more
important things. What’s caught is more important than what’s taught, and actions
speak louder than words. There is little doubt that the subjugation of women is
the most important thing on Ware’s agenda.
As with Ware’s message at Denton Bible
Church, there are times the “corrective” action, taken to maintain male
authority, resembles a declaration of war. The Christian leadership of their
time considered the public lecturing of Angelina & Sarah Grimkè to be an
imminent threat to male authority. Bishops in Massachusetts wrote that when a
woman declares no need for the care and protection of men, she is actually
making a declaration of war against men, thereby causing them to place
themselves in a position of self-defense
against her.
That declaration was essentially in
agreement with the attitudes and beliefs of the majority of Christian males of
the period regardless of denomination. Not surprisingly, in reading the
policies of evangelical organizations such as the CBMW, we see that many of the
same attitudes that prompted the Pastoral Letter still prevail today.
The gender war has produced many casualties
over the centuries—literally—with most of the dead and wounded being female.
So, if Genesis 3:16 is indeed a prediction that women would be like lions
crouching at the door desiring men as their primary victims, it has turned out
to be a false prophecy altogether, with women proving to be very poor
predators.
[1] One of the consequences of the Fall for women…is that their “desire shall be for their husbands…because of the curse, we now have a sinful tendency to want our own way and to resist our husband’s authority. This evil desire poses the greatest opposition to our submission…when a wife is not submissive; she is only caving in to her natural inclination to usurp authority and demand her own way. Carolyn Mahaney, Feminine Appeal, 2003, 2004
[2] Susan Foh "What Is the Woman's Desire?", 1975, “Sin’s desire for Cain was one of possession or control. The desire was such that Cain should master it, wrestle with it and conquer it; it required an active struggle. . . . [In Gen. 3:16] there is a struggle . . . between the one who has the desire (wife) and the one who must / should rule or master (husband). . . . After the fall, the husband no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship. The woman’s desire is to control her husband . . . and he must master her, if he can. Sin has corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband. And so, the rule of love founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny, domination, and manipulation…” http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/Ted_Hildebrandt/OTeSources/01-Genesis/Text/Articles-Books/Foh-WomansDesire-WTJ.pdf
[3] The King James Study Bible, Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1988
[4] “In the church, redemption in Christ gives men and women an equal share in the blessings of salvation; nevertheless, some governing and teaching roles within the church are restricted to men…” 1 Timothy 11-15. The Danvers Statement http://www.cbmw.org/Danvers
[5] The Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW)
[6] 1 Peter 5:5 KJV
[7] C. J. Mahaney is President of the patriarchal Sovereign Grace Ministries as well as Board Member and Council Member of the CBMW
[8] Feminine Appeal, Crossway Books, 2003, 2004
[9] DeMoss is a member of CBMW’s Board of Reference
[10] “We end up emasculating the men around us…I find myself wondering how many wounded or strong men I have cast down…How many men have I discouraged or intimidated? ...We strip men of the motivation to fulfill their God-given calling to provide leadership.” Nancy Leigh DeMoss, Biblical Womanhood in the Home, Crossway Books, Wheaton, Illinois, 2002
[11] Strong’s Reference H 7725
[12] Dear Jocelyn, What an interesting question. As you know, the data on "teshuquah" is scarce. . . the word occurs only three times in the Hebrew bible: Genesis 3:16, 4:7 and Song of Songs 7:11. The LXX (Septuagint) renders it with "apostrophe" the first two times and "epistrophe" in the Canticle. . . and you are correct that these Greek words have to do with "turning." …What to say? I wish there were more data… Dr. Ting Wang, Biblical Hebrew Instructor, Stanford University (Ph.D. from Hebrew Union College--Jewish Institute of Religion).
[13] Katharine Bushnell, (1856-1946), God’s Word to Women, 100 studies began in 1908, lessons 17 & 18,
http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2017.htm, http://godswordtowomen.org/lesson%2018.htm [11/30/2009]
[14] Coverdale Bible, 1535, Miles Coverdale
[15] “…when she assumes the place and tone of a man as a public reformer, our care and protection of her seem unnecessary, we put ourselves in self-defense against her, she yields the power which God has given her for protection, and her character becomes unnatural.” Pastoral Letter of the General Association of Massachusetts, June 28, 1837
Woman this is WAR! Gender Slavery and the Evangelical Caste System Chronicles
the early history of the women's rights movements, as well as
the role of church leadership in aggressive suppression of both women's
rights
and the historical record of Christian initiatives within the movements.
Through the complementarian
movement, many of
the same arguments used to support the institution of slavery, are still
used
today in suppressing the rights of Christian women. This book documents
identical arguments used by Christian leaders against both movements and is an unparalleled resource for all who desire an in-depth
study of gender equality from a Christian perspective. The book also e
xamines Bible commentary and
translation practices which have
historically been androcentric (male centered) and even misogynistic
(anti-woman). These have adversely effected understanding of the
scriptures, relations between women and men, the happiness of men and women,
and hindered the work of the gospel. The history of women’s rights is traced back [much further than usual] to the very
first feminists…
who were Christians—godly women, who brought the issue of
women's rights to the forefront as they struggled to alleviate the suffering of
others, and found they were hindered in doing so for no other reason than the
fact of their sex. This work provides valuable historical insight into
Christian initiatives in the movements for women’s rights, that are rarely
included in Christian literature.
