Does this have Biblical basis?

[DonnaDi31Proverbi]

My brother was listening to Bishop Eddie Long on the computer earlier. Normally, I like to hear Bishop Long, but I don't regularly listen to him. So anyway, he was addressing men and the nature of men, Adam and Eve, etc., and he makes the statement that women are born with the desire to control men.

????

Is this true, and does this have Biblical basis? I'm not sure why, but I was immediately offended. I don't understand what that statement means.

 

[Nefertiti0906]

Umm, that sounds like his own made-up theory erplexed

This is why pastors have to be careful not to mislead their congregation

 

[HeChangedMyName]

I think maybe he just looked at some characteristics of the wives of some of the important figures.
Eve--convinced her husband Adam to eat the fruit
Sarai--convinced her husband Abram to have a child with her own handmaiden because she didn't have the faith to wait on the promise of God.
Rebekah--helped her son Jacob to trick her own husband Isaac into giving him Esau's blessing
Rachel--convinced her husband Jacob into having a child with her handmaiden because she too didn't have the faith to wait on the promise of God.
Lot's daughters--got him drunk and tricked him in to having sex with them so that they could conceive.
Potiphar's wife--tried to tconvince Joseph io sleep with her

I am sure the list goes on but this is probably a starting point to show that there may be some truth to what the nature of women is.

 

[tmichelle]

I don't see any Biblical basis for that statement at all. In fact when God told Adam and Eve of the consequences of their sin in Gen. 3:16 He said "I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you." This seems contradictory to the statement that women were born with the desire to control men. I'd go with God on this one.

 

[discobiscuits]

this is a good question. i'm going to have to look into it.

in the meantime. i think his statement is based on his experience here in the us. american black women seem to run their men (in general, i KNOW this does not include everyone, just in general). but if u look at (again, in general) white, asian, latino, pretty much every non-european woman "serves" their man.

essence did an article a while back about why men go to brazil and how the respondents said that they are served by the women there like they never would be in the us. white women are stereotyped as willing to do anything for their man - ANYTHING esp when compared to blk women.

i don't know, i'm just supposing stuff. i like SuperNova's post, it does seem like women are at least manipulative.

*going off to contemplate*.......

 

[PaperClip]

On the spiritual tip: I'll say this: just as the birth, death, burial, and resurrection of LORD Jesus Christ is OUR REDEEMER, we WOMEN are NOW under GRACE....

...and that INCLUDES being under grace regarding pain in childbearing. Get the book "Supernatural Childbirth" for more on this principle.

On the natural level: I'll say this: CULTURE (or CULTURAL INFILTRATION into spiritual matters) plays a role with this. Women in/of the church see the so-called LIBERATION of women of the world and try to bring those things into the CHRISTIAN home and it simply doesn't (or shouldn't) FLY. The Bible says the man is the head of the woman, and the head of the man is CHRIST (1 Corinthians 11:3). So when a woman tries to change that order, chaos exists.

Feminism is "helluva" drug... (yeah, I had to put it like that). And to go deeper, feminism has racist tendencies. Read up on that. (White) feminists were not, how shall I say, were not very welcoming to the plight and issues of women of color, esp. Black women.

Notice that my remarks do not speak directly to Bishop Long's comments because that isn't necessary. I can go with what SuperNova said in terms of how Bishop Long came up with his statement. I also wish that the (Black) church was more open to having real Bible classes where there is an EXCHANGE of questions and answers versus a "talking head".

 

[Sweet C]

I see where his logic is coming from (see SuperNova's post)

One thing I have heard Bishop Long say that I do agree with is that women are born on equal footing with men and the capability and natural inclination to be a conqueror b/c according to the scripture, God commanded both Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, subdue it, and have dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:27-28). However in terms of rlps, woman (Eve) was created with the attention of being a helper to man (Adam, see Gen 2:18) and due to the fall, the woman was told to essentially submit to her husband (gen 3:16), so therefore in a marital rlp, women will have the dichotomy of allowing her husband to be head over her even though her natural inclination is to lead as well.

 

[Farida]

I had a prof of old testament literature who says that in Genesis when God punishes woman, he says her husband will 'rule over her' in the English translation, but the Hebrew word used actually means there will be conflict, head-butting between man and woman as their inclination is to gain control. They are opposites trying to get and stay together. Trying, one to rule over the other.

I wish I could remember the exact way he explained iterplexed.

 

[DonnaDi31Proverbi]

I see where his logic is coming from (see SuperNova's post)

One thing I have heard Bishop Long say that I do agree with is that women are born on equal footing with men and the capability and natural inclination to be a conqueror b/c according to the scripture, God commanded both Adam and Eve to be fruitful, multiply, replenish the earth, subdue it, and have dominion over the animals (Genesis 1:27-28). However in terms of rlps, woman (Eve) was created with the attention of being a helper to man (Adam, see Gen 2:18) and due to the fall, the woman was told to essentially submit to her husband (gen 3:16), so therefore in a marital rlp, women will have the dichotomy of allowing her husband to be head over her even though her natural inclination is to lead as well.

So are you saying that God would have purposefully created this dichotomy as a result of the fall? God's giving both man and woman dominion over the earth wouldn't have necessarily meant that this nature would conflict with God's making a husband the head of his wife. I'm just throwing this out there. I think the responses so far on both sides are compelling and thought provoking.

As per SuperNova's repsonse, I kind of understand what she is meaning, but then for some reason, it still misses the mark for me. I guess because in my mind I'm seeing a difference between manipulation and control??? Was God using these examples of women to show that a woman's natural inclination is to control her man or was it just testament to personal character flaws. Of course I suppose it could be both.

 

[DonnaDi31Proverbi]

I had a prof of old testament literature who says that in Genesis when God punishes woman, he says her husband will 'rule over her' in the English translation, but the Hebrew word used actually means there will be conflict, head-butting between man and woman as their inclination is to gain control. They are opposites trying to get and stay together. Trying, one to rule over the other.

I wish I could remember the exact way he explained iterplexed.

Now that is an interesting concept...

 

[gone_fishing]

OP, the Bible doesn't explicitly say that anywhere but I believe you can ascertain something of that nature from what SN wrote.

I think maybe he just looked at some characteristics of the wives of some of the important figures.
Eve--convinced her husband Adam to eat the fruit
Sarai--convinced her husband Abram to have a child with her own handmaiden because she didn't have the faith to wait on the promise of God.
Rebekah--helped her son Jacob to trick her own husband Isaac into giving him Esau's blessing
Rachel--convinced her husband Jacob into having a child with her handmaiden because she too didn't have the faith to wait on the promise of God.
Lot's daughters--got him drunk and tricked him in to having sex with them so that they could conceive.
Potiphar's wife--tried to tconvince Joseph io sleep with her

I am sure the list goes on but this is probably a starting point to show that there may be some truth to what the nature of women is.

I know in Genesis after they got in trouble for eating the fruit:

16 To the woman he said,
"I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing;
with pain you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you."

I think this implies that in the beginning our husbands were not meant to rule over us but that we were helpmates - we were there as a companion for him but equal. For God to say this here implies that from that point forward our husbands would rule over us. I think innately we were not orignally created for it to be this way, so perhaps, our sinful nature fights that position of power that's been placed over us by God as a punishment for our sin.

But men have their own punishment.

To Adam he said, "Because you ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
gratiae: 18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."