This is just a quick post about the term "Mashal" used in Genesis 3:16. I will also discuss other things in Genesis that relate to some Complementarian arguments about women's place before the fall.
"Mashal" is the Hebrew word for "rule". Some Complementarians try to argue that the rule of Adam over Eve that came as a result of the fall (when God prophesied to Eve that Adam would rule over her, after she "turned" to him.) was a dominating, "lord it over" kind of rule, not the righteous ruling they have in mind when they say a husband should have authority over his wife.
Mashal: To rule, to have dominion, to have authority.
This word is the generic term for "rule", it is not negative. It is used of God's rule over people, even Israel, many times. It is also used of the rule of Israel over the nations, if they remained obedient to God (Deut 15:6) In 1 Kings 4:21, it is used of Solomon's reign. In 2 Samuel 23:3, God says that when men "mashal" over others righteously, in the fear of God, it is likened to good and refreshing things. So obviously, "mashal" does not denote negative rule primarily or only. This is merely a small sample of the positive uses of "mashal".
Therefore, it is pretty clear that Adam ruling over Eve at all is the "ruling" God predicts will happen because of the fall, not only a negative, domineering rule. This is very convincing evidence that there was no such "ruling" over each other before the fall between man and woman, and that the "ruling" that comes after the fall is similar to the curse on Eve's reproductive endeavors, and the curse on the ground for Adam's sake, with his need to toil in order to grow food. They were all God's predictions of what would happen because of sin, or what God would make happen (pain in childbirth) because of the first couple's sin.
Many men work in offices, far away from the toil of the field today, and farmers use technology to rid themselves of troublesome plants. We use medicine to lessen the pain of childbirth, and to lessen the pain and severity of the injuries we get from working and toiling away at our jobs. We use life support technologies to avoid returning to the ground, and turning back to dust.
We try to avoid the negative repercussions of the fall all the time; yet, when it comes to Adam's "rule" over his wife, some want that repercussion to stay in full force. Despite what the NT really says about rule and authority within the body (check my last post for an in-depth look), some men and women today prefer to keep Adam's prophetic ruling over Eve as a sacred pre-fall ordination. One wonders why they object to embracing the other curses?
In the second part of this post, we will look at the "naming of woman", the central "act of authority" (or so some say) that Adam exercised over Eve before the fall, when he officially named her "woman".
The verse is Genesis 2:23
It states that Adam said "she shall be called woman", because she was taken from man. The word "name" is not in this text, unlike Gen 3:20 where Adam calls woman's name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. God (or Moses who wrote this at least) had already called Eve "woman" before she was given to man to "call" woman in Genesis 2:22. Of course, God already knew what Adam was going to call her, or rather, what she would be called. Eve named Seth (Gen 4:25), but that did not mean she had authority over him for his entire life simply because she named him.
Hagar did not only call God something, but like what Adam did when he called his wife's name "Eve" (same words used for both instances in Hebrew), she called His name "El-Roi" (You are God who sees) in Gen 16:13. Hagar did not have authority over God, yet she named Him. She did this out of intimate appreciation and love for God's help... just like Adam did with Eve.
Why calling someone something means you have authority over them, I do not know. Maybe it's because we associate naming with authority in our culture. However, two friends or lovers can make up names for each other, and it is a special act done out of fondness. In the Garden of Eden, there was nothing but love and friendship, so why not have your husband and lover name you? It is a pleasant thing for both parties, especially because Adam loved her and gladly proclaimed that she is right for him, and that she is of him. People in the Bible named their children,
God named people, Jesus named some of His disciples, and Hagar named God, but that doesn't necessitate that naming something means you have authority over that which you name. People also "helped" other people under them in authority, Jesus "helped" us, and God was "a helper" to many, but that doesn't mean that Eve, although called a "helper" with the same Hebrew word that was used of God, therefore had authority over Adam (since he was the one who needed help).
Adam did name the animals (Eve did not exist yet), but it seems the purpose of this was for Adam to realize his need for the woman, his true corresponding helper (the animals were all inadequate for this role). Adam and Eve both were called to rule over the animals and the Earth as God's representations however, it was not only Adam's job just because he alone named them. Adam and Eve would have had authority over the animals whether either of them named the animals or not.
Remember that both Adam and Eve were to subdue the Earth and have dominion, not Adam alone. When Adam and Eve sinned, both were held accountable seperately, and each was spoken to by God about what they had done and what would happen as a result by themselves. Adam was not held accountable for Eve's sin as if he ruled her and was therefore accountable for her. Eve was questioned by God and punished accordingly herself.
Adam was called out first by God after both Adam and Eve sinned for some reason, perhaps because he sinned willingly (Eve was very deceived, but Adam was not deceived, according to St. Paul in 1 Tim 2:13-14) and had more experience with the garden and God than Eve (she was younger and did not get to see the animals being made and brought to her, nor God growing the garden and placing her in it, as Adam did.) Having more knowledge and privilege than Eve as the "older child", Adam was more culpable for his own willful action, and lack of action in protecting Eve as her partner while he watched her discuss the fruit with the serpent (and Eve was culpable for handing the forbidden fruit to Adam who was with her, which she should not have touched or handed out). I think this is a plausible reason why God went to Adam first and then Eve in order to discuss their sin, but whatever reason God did what He did, to make this action imply Eve's subjugation to Adam and his rulership over her is I think going WAY further than Scripture.
The serpent is cursed first and God prophesies that the woman's seed will crush him (he sinned first)
Then the woman is cursed and God prophesies that she will turn to the man and he will rule over her (she sinned second)
Then the man is cursed and God prophesies that he will eat from the ground through toil and hard labor until he returns to dust in death (he sinned third)
These curses that God pronounced on either sex are not exhaustive; just because God doesn't tell the woman that she will turn to dust like Adam doesn't mean that she won't, just like Adam's curse of thorns and thistles and hard labor aren't male-exclusive curses. If Eve died solely because of Adam's sin and not her own, then Eve would have died if Adam only had sinned. God would be putting to death someone who was not in Adam when he sinned, and remained innocent of any personal crime, for Adam's sin. Is that fair?
Honestly, I think using Scripture like some Complementarians do would lead me to associate Eve's "helpership" and Adam's "needing help" as Eve having authority over Adam, since he needed her first and she was his helper (rescuer), like God when He helped His people (who were under his authority). Or that Adam is himself not as "good" as Eve, because Creation was only called "very good" after Eve was made. Or that Eve had rulership over Adam before the fall, because she talked to the serpent while Adam was silent, and part of the fallen order was that Adam would rule over her at some point in the future (suggesting he didn't before).
Or I could read all sorts of things into the text that are unfounded and ridiculous, like that men shouldn't have authority over women because they are too susceptible to willful sin (Adam's sin was treachery, he was not deceived like Eve, Hosea 6:7, 1 Tim 2:13-14) and trying to "rule over" women, and Adam did not save Eve or do anything to help her when he was with her as she talked to the serpent (therefore he is prone to avoiding protecting his wife or aiding her).
Or I could use 1 Cor 11:10-12, Gen 21:12, and 1 Tim 5:14 to say that, since all men after Adam come through women (in birth), and since a woman should have authority over her head (man is her figurative "head"), along with God telling Abraham to listen to whatever Sarah told him, and young widows are told to "rule the home" (oikodespoteo), women should rule over men. In accordance with the curses given to Adam, men must only work the ground (no desk jobs) with sweat and toil (no easy stuff that doesn't cause sweat) until they die (no retirement).
I don't believe any of those improperly derived conclusions, I think they are unjustified speculation or simply inappropriate conclusions that don't fit the rest of the Bible, nor are most of those ideas explicit or even implied (unless you try really hard to make them implications, to justify your position.)
At this point, I lean Egalitarian, but even if I was totally and utterly convinced of a strongly "feministic" form of Egalitarianism in every respect, I would not strain passages to try to prove "female rule", but rather affirm the equality between men and women.
If you have read this and were unconvinced because you are under the impression that 1 Tim 2:12 says women shouldn't "exercise authority" over men (or that men are to exercise authority or rule over others in the Church), or that women never had Church offices, or that only women are instructed to "submit", please see my last two posts: authority and submission, 1 Tim 2:11-15.You may be very surprised at what you find in these verses that you may never have had adequately explained to you by Complementarian teachers (or Egalitarian ones).
My next post will be probably be on 1 Cor 11:1-16, so I can go through the text and hopefully help my readers understand what the verse really means, and what it almost certainly does not or cannot mean. (this verse has been poorly translated in many modern Bibles; it may shock you how some translators misrepresented God's words in that passage.)
