I will go back and find the verse in Genesis, BUT has this ever been mentioned: When the Bible describes the punishment for Eve…for eating from the Tree of Knowledge, it says not only will Eve have painful childbirth, but Adam will serve over her. Now, I don’t want to start a sex war, nor am I a chauvinist, but has anyone (or any Judeo-Christian group) ever used this as a reason why the women should be satisfied keeping a happy, functional homelife for her husband and children?
Have you read this, too? (Maybe someone has the verse handy?) Please don’t throw tomatoes at me for unearthing this verse! If more people knew about this, it’d probably open a hornet’s nest pushing the sexes even futher apart nowadays.
The Jewish people believe we have been punished as stated in Genesis, and the Catholics, et al(?) believe we are always full of guilt for the oiriginal sin. Yet, I’ve never heard this one point EVER mentioned before. Of course, I was too young for when the women’s movement really got hopping (1960s, I’d say.) So, maybe I missed this argument? Very intersting, though, isn’t it??? - Jinx dubious:
Yes, I’ve seen this reinforced with a couple of other similar passages from elsewhere in the Bible to support the notion of female subservience quite commonly in Christian circles. I don’t think I’d better say any more, since we’re in GQ.
Yes, I heard it a lot when attending a Baptist church with some friends. It, along with the “spare the rod” bit was a large portion of the preacher’s preachin’. I also heard it a lot from Jehovah Witness friends, but never attended a Kingdom Hall meeting, so I can’t say for sure that it was a sanctioned view.
I can’t promise that this verse in particular has been used, but surely most of us are familiar with the strict Protestant theology of patriarchal societies, no? Check http://www.patriarchy.org/ if you want more in depth promotion of the idea.
Genesis 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
The husband is to lead the wife, not to be a slave driver.
At least from the Jewish perspective, the reason you don’t see this is that it is meant as a curse that affects her nature, not a commandment (which she could, with free will, choose to obey or disobey). It’s the kind of psychology that keeps too many women with men who are abusive rather than be alone, which makes too many of them feel worthless without a man, something you don’t see NEARLY as much of in male psychology.
A point in contrast: In the last part of Esther Chapter 1, a minister of the king named Memuchan manipulates the king into issuing an edict which declares " that every man should be ruler over his own household." The Midrashim…a collection of Rabbinic statements that long, long predate any women’s lib movement…says that Memuchan is none other than Haman, one of the worst villains in Jewish history.
Clearly, traditional Judaism has never seen male domestic domination as even a good thing at all, let alone a Biblical imperative.
I went to a wedding at a fundamentalist Presbyterian church where the wife’s subjugation was indeed brought up as a good and holy thing. I don’t think the passage from Genesis was mentioned, but I believe the one from the NT was.
This was particularly amusing since the minister and his non-ordained wife were on the stage as a peaching couple, and it was obvious to those in the Jewish side of the groom’s family that the woman was pulling the minister’s strings. Beyond that I won’t go in GQ.