One consequence of the Fall in Genesis is found in male-female relationships (and particularly in the context of marriage). According to Genesis 3:16 (NIV84), "To the woman he said..., 'Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you'."
One way of understanding that verse, and a popular one, is that the woman's brokenness is seen in her inordinate attachment to her husband, and the man's brokenness is seen in his will to dominate his wife.
You can immediately see who the sympathetic character and who the ogre is in this interpretation, right? And the idea of brokenness-as-inordinate-attachment fits nicely with our culture, where the worst thing imaginable is whatever interferes with one's autonomy.
But there's a better way to understand the verse. A way that helps us understand the fundamental clash between men and women (or, more particularly, between husbands and wives). The rare Hebrew word we translate "desire" in Genesis 3:16 shows up again in the very next chapter, 4:7, where Cain is warned, "Sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must rule over it."
So, sin "desires" Cain as the woman "desires" her husband after the fall. It's not a romantic word, and it's not a word depicting weak, inordinate dependency. Rather, it has to do with possessing, dictating, and controlling.
So, our brokenness shows up in marriage in this way: each seeks to control, possess, and dictate to the other. That's why Ephesians 5:33 speaks directly to the very impulses unique to men and to women. The man is to sacrificially love his wife (rather than "rule" her), and the wife is to "respect" her husband (rather than take over him).
The Gospel Coalition recently published a defense of these 2 views of Genesis 3:16. Based on what I've just written, its no surprise that I find Claire Smith's view more defensible.
Posted with Blogsy
No comments:
Post a Comment