Re reason 2: I have been in three churches recently that have a long history but a dying founding congregation and a growing GenZ, Millennial, and GenX one, not that they are the reason for the following observation but stated as a matter of fact that may have bearing, Oddly, or tragically so, neither had a symbolic crucifix displayed in their sanctuaries, not as an icon, image or even video projected though that technology was in use. I didn’t ask, but did wonder why they were comfortable with not having the symbol of the sacrifice that was their reason for gathering. Is it a lack of submission to authority that seems so prevalent now? IDK Not looking for you to address it, just wondering if this is a trend others have witnessed?

“I simply don’t believe you can get enough grounding in the Bible with one sermon a week, especially when that sermon likely isn’t a deep dive into a passage but rather a topic or encouragement.”

I couldn’t agree more with this statement. There are too many so called churches that do not stand on scripture but instead preach feel good messages. My pastor recently stated that if you always leave church feeling encouraged and pumped up, it is not likely preaching the full scripture. Some parts are simply really hard and will be very convicting.

J—To your point I don’t see that God ever cursed either the man or the woman. He cursed the earth, and he cursed the serpent. As for Adam and Eve, they got strong medicine.

“The punishments inflicted by God are the remedies and the restraints of our vitiated nature.”

~Peter Martyr Vermigli

The change of environment for Adam was conducive to making him a good man. On the contrary, men in general are destroyed through ease. Think Sodom.🙂

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but you say, “Nevertheless, when taught the implications are clear.” And Steve and I are both saying we weren’t taught what you laid out.

I’m not suggesting it isn’t taught. (I listened part of the sermon you sent me, and it was there.) But it may not be as widespread as some believe.

As for the debate about how the curse impacts us, it seems to me that we need to contend with that. What I would appreciate is a respectful discussion about how these verses apply first to Adam and Eve and then to men and women going forth. I can imagine several reasonable interpretations, though obviously blaming women for all sin ain’t one of them. I’m opposed to blaming either gender for all the bad stuff in the world—be it women or men.

“I have never heard this taught as something prescriptive.”

Steve — Nor will you ever, due to fear of retribution in our current social environment. Nevertheless, when taught the implications are clear. All men and women are posited as represented in the persons of Adam and Eve, and cursed. All women suffer labor pains, no?

Even if there was warranted to assume the word “desire” should have similar application in the two places, they are only selectively compared. In the first instance the LORD speaks to the woman. In the second He speaks to Cain. If the usages were identical the LORD should be speaking to “sin” in the second case, or if in the first, to Adam. Yet the LORD did not tell Adam that Eve’s desire would be for him, and that he should rule over her. He spoke to Eve. A more consistent interpretation is that the LORD was instructing Eve to look to her husband going forward like elsewhere taught, and prescribing for her — and instilling in her — legitimate desire. Contrast this with Romans 1 where women are said to have re-directed desire. All said, these are not curses on man and woman, but medicines. The LORD is acting as Great Physician.

“Before I was afflicted, I went astray; but now I keep Your word…” Psalm 119:67

All said, the “curse perspective” has had disastrous effects on relationships and continues to encourage toxic masculinity.

Thanks, Dan! A couple of responses:

1. I probably won’t write an article about how politics shape some Christians’ perspectives more than Scripture because it’s just not on mission. I still want my primary focus to be on helping people discover and embrace God’s design for sex.

2. So, so true about no-to-poor teaching! Despite us living in a time that permits access to more knowledge than ever, I’ve witnessed many churches moving away from Bible classes and other educational efforts. I simply don’t believe you can get enough grounding in the Bible with one sermon a week, especially when that sermon likely isn’t a deep dive into a passage but rather a topic or encouragement. Moreover, a lot of subjects won’t be covered at all, because we’re not comfortable talking about them publicly in a worship setting. For instance…sex. But you can address sex biblically in a marriage class.

P.S. If anyone wants me to come talk to their marriage class about sex, I’m game. Shoot me an email (j@hotholyhumorous.com), and let’s see what we can do!

Good summary.

There does seem to be some weight in the choice of language in 3:16 and 4:7. The exact Hebrew word for “desire” is only used on those two occasions. The connection would not be to Eve but to her desire. I’d surmise that she, at that moment, had a negative desire to take control of him. (And who can blame her for the desire as he threw her under the bus when God showed up) The “rule over or master” her is just the next negative fruit of the fall. One hit and one hits back . . . and unfortunately, he normally hits stronger than she.

Of interest, though, on the “who brought the sin into the world part,” Paul in Romans 5 clarifies that sin entered the world through the man, not the woman. Point – if we’re going to point responsibility – it should go to Adam, not Eve.

Maybe for connecting back to the book, while Pearcey seems to lean toward “soft” complementarian or “soft” egalitarianism, she seems to imply that the husband still takes the spiritual lead in the family to serve, not rule.

I’m not sure why you “could write (but probably won’t)” but I hope it’s not a sad commentary on publicly publishing controversial topics under the current social milieu. I now find myself giving second thoughts to how I reply in comments or what I publish of my own content. I don’t fear spirited push back as much as my presence being banned or my blog or some other being taken down by the platform or web hosting service over a questioned word or remark. You can’t solve a problem if you can’t honestly and forthrightly address the issues enabling it and open a discussion in whatever forum best suits same.

I look forward to reading the suggested book. I think a lot of the problem with poor or misinterpretation of scripture is no-to-poor teaching. It is becoming increasingly difficult to properly staff Sunday school classes and administer ministries within a church with truly scholarly teachers. Studying the Bible in depth is hard work and teaching it requires heart and dedication. It seems the more you learn about scripture, you find the less you know of it.