Monday, April 20, 2009

Sin and Consequences (Gen 3:14-16) part 2

"...Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." Gen 3:16

Much has been written about this verse. Many and varied have been the interpretations. And women have been subjected to much suffering with this verse playing no small role in that subjugation. Especially the latter part, "and he will rule over you."


The subjection of women has got to stop. We can no longer say that because God said a husband is to rule over his wife that he has the right to beat her, or to embarass her in public or to otherwise mistreat her. A husband is to love his wife more than himself. Monetary, physical and spiritual efforts should be made to secure her happiness. "He who finds a wife, finds what is good and receives favor from the Lord." A newly married man is to be exempt from military service. Why? To bring happiness to his wife. I find no support in the rest of the Torah or the Prophets or the Writings that say a man is to rule over his wife in the way that millions of men have ruled over their wives for centuries-with beatings and shaming and silencing and dictating what they should eat, wear, read, watch and who their friends will be and when they can visit and a whole host of other restrictions.

Now, I have been known to (and still do) make light of this verse by saying to my wife that I "command" her to do something. I will say, "woman, I command you." Or "you will obey me." Since she knows I'm just kidding, she'll respond "Psssshhhh, whatever." Unfortunately, I have seen the case where a husband will tell his wife to do something and expect to be obeyed without argument and she'll comply. It saddens me greatly that husbands and wives are so often opposing (in a negative sense) rather than supporting.

What then are we to make of this verse? And again, how is this a consequence for Eve's actions?

Your desire... Some say this means sexually. A woman will desire to sexually dominate her husband but he is the one who gets the final say. Are we to interpret this to mean that a husband can demand sex from his wife whenever he wants it? Are we to take this verse to mean that a husband and wife will have sex only when the husband decrees? Unfortunately, some have interpreted the verse that way. Some men have gotten it into their heads that their wives are to pleasure them whenever the mood strikes them regardless of how their wives are feeling. And compliance is assured by force. Oy. I could not disagree more strongly.

Physical intimacy between a husband and wife is meant to be enjoyed. It is a great gift that the Almighty gave to humanity. Sex is not just for procreation but for pleasure. For this union of husband and wife to become an act where one party just takes to satisfy his own urges and gives nothing in return is to make the holy profane. Two do not become one. Two remain two and any feelings of closeness or love are swept away. This is not love but lust. The word for love in Hebrew is ahavah. The middle letters spell the word hav, meaning 'give.' To love another is to give of yourself for the other. Love is about giving. Lust is taking. When two become one, they give of themselves to each other and are united by mutual feelings of closeness and trust. When one takes from the other, with no concern for the other's welfare, there is only gratification of lust.

your desire... Maybe this refers to the desire to dominate intellecutally. The fruit was desirable as a source of wisdom. And the same word "desire" is used here. So, what? Wives are not permitted to teach Torah? They are not permitted to lead services? That cannot teach men Torah and mishnah and midrash? They must remain silent and only ask their husbands at home and submit to what their husbands tell them? Again, some say yes. Orthodox Jews do not have women rabbis or women cantors or women sitting with men in shul or women teaching Torah or Talmud to men. Paul said that he did not permit women to speak in church or have authority over men. He even said for them to keep silent. 1 Cor. 14:34

And again, I part ways with my Orthodox brethren and with Paul. For I see no shame or unseemlyness or anything untoward in women preaching or teaching or asking questions in church or shul. Are men's minds so weak that they cannot control lustful thoughts if they see a woman sitting next to them or standing in front of them giving a sermon or teaching from the Scriptures? Are we men so insecure that we cannot entertain the thought of being corrected by a woman? Are we so naive as to think that we know all the answers and could not learn anything from a woman? Why then is wisdom personified as a woman? Why is justice a woman? Why is the esheh chayil (woman of valor) of Provebs 31 said to speak wisdom? The Bible has several stories where women played a vital role in teaching, in prophecying, in leading men and in doing heroic deeds. Women are no less God fearing than men. Women are no less capable of learning and teaching the Scriptures. If we are to advocate for equality in terms of treatment for men and women, let there be women rabbis and cantors and pastors and teachers. Let them bring their perspectives as women to the text and share what the text says to them. Let them teach and share their wisdom. To silence women is to silence half our population. We do well to listen to the voices of our wives, even as God told Abraham to hearken unto Sara's voice. (Gen 21:12).

Well, if men are not to rule over their wives sexually or intellectually, in what way is a woman's desire for her husband to be subjected to his will? In what way is a woman to submit to the will of her husband?

Stay tuned... :)

2 comments:

Anna said...

Zinthos. Very zinthos. I've always taken it to mean that the woman will want to rule over the husband when it comes to making decisions. Like, if it comes down to something the wife and husband strongly disagree, but a decision has to be made, it's the husband's place to have the final say, but the woman will want the final say (and, being female, I admit, we like to talk too much :P). Just what I've heard.

leo509 said...

Excellent! I like that interpretation muchly. Thanks for sharing. :)