There has been quite the rumbling of late about the announcement of a new translation of the ESV in Genesis 3:16. Here is the old translation:
Genesis 3:16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.”
And here is the new translation:
To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to[a] your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”Footnotes:
aGenesis 3:16 Or shall be toward (see 4:7)
I have put the relevant change in underlined bold.
There have been many reactions to this. The Aquila Report published an article by Sam Powell [full text found here] against the translation, and Scot McKnight has written and article against it [with support from Carl Trueman], but Denny Burk has chimed in as being in favor of the translation. There is no shortage of opinions on whether the ESV did the right thing in changing this translation.
The issue involves things that linguists deal with all of the time such as intertextuality, disambiguation, translation theory, etc. Yet, in my view, there is considerable sloppiness in terms of how the text is being handled by both sides of this discussion. For example, to quote Powell:
It seems to me that using Genesis 4:7 to interpret Genesis 3:16 is rather sketchy exegesis. It would be similar to saying that God spoke against Baasha (1 Kings 16:12 – the preposition is ‘el) and God spoke unto Moses (Ex. 3:14 – the preposition is the same) therefore, God was against Moses just as he was against Baasha. It’s really bad exegesis. It seems to me that the meaning of the phrases must be determined in the context.
The fact is “sin” and women are not the same thing, and their desires are not the same thing. I wonder why we make the assumption that women’s desires are always for domination and manipulation even when the text doesn’t say so. Simply saying “Sin desires to manipulate and dominate and since the same preposition is used this applies to the woman as well” simply will not cut it. That’s not how language works.
I would say this is a misrepresentation of the facts. It is not just that the preposition is the same, but that the entire vocabulary and syntax is the same:
וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ וְה֖וּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ׃
וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ׃
Note the bold and underlined elements of the Hebrew text indicating how many words these two passages share. In other words, it is not just the preposition אל, but it is a whole range of vocabulary. Not only that, but the surface structure of the syntax of each verse is almost completely identical to the point where the exact same phrase structure tree can be drawn for each verse [with the exception of the one determiner in 3:16 that is not in 4:7]:
So, you have almost identical vocabulary, and almost identical syntax. Hence, the similarity is hardly limited to one preposition! Seeing as many examples of intertextuality as I have in my Discourse Analysis of the Hebrew Bible and other texts, I think it is utterly futile to argue that this is not an example of intertextuality. When the vocabulary and syntax line up like this, it is almost certain.
However, it is the *interpretation* of the intertextuality that bothers me. Now, Denny Burk has chimed in on the issue of interpretation. He writes:
All translation is interpretation. No matter what translation philosophy one pursues (essentially literal/formal equivalence or dynamic equivalence), one is dealing with an interpretation philosophy. What distinguishes these approaches is not that one translates and the other interprets. The difference (in part) is that one exhibits a tendency toward more narrow interpretation (dynamic equivalence) while the other tends to leave more interpretive options open (essentially literal/formal equivalence).
As James Barr has pointed out, it really depends upon what is meant by “all translation is interpretation.” If we mean that we must interpret the words in the source language in order to represent them in the target language, then, indeed that is the case. However, translation is not writing a commentary, and I think such statements miss the point. Again, James Barr puts it quite eloquently in his article on the topic of translation, the task of translation is to accurately represent the semantics and pragmatics of the source language in the target language. That means that the issue of formal vs dynamic equivalence is really unimportant. The goal of the translator should be to use *both* as tools to most accurately represent the semantics and pragmatics of the source language in the target language.
However, the question is how to interpret this intertextuality. I think what is clouding the discussion is what my former professor, Dr. Willem VanGemeren used to say is the evangelical tendency toward an A=B approach to interpretation. When I taught a chapter on semantics in a hermeneutics class at my church, I brought a chair up to the front of the class, and said, “What is this?” The reply was, “A chair.” You can see the formula A=B in that response as “this is this.” Then I said, “What is a chair.” And like a knee jerk reaction, the class said, “Something you sit in.” Again, you can see the A=B approach. I then said, “Well, then, what is a bench?” The problem is that A=B doesn’t work in terms of meaning, because meaning often involves multiple semantic elements. Eventually, it will break down as it did there.
However, in intertextuality, it is even more complicated than that. For example, the overlaying of structures can be indicated by intertextuality. Similarity in topic can be indicated by things like texts having the same register or the same genre. So complicated is intertextuality that entire books have been written on the topic.
One of the main functions of intertextuality is to cast a statement in a new or ironic light. I don’t think that has been considered in regard to this text. Thus, I think there is a grain of truth in what Powell has said above about there being differences between these two texts, even though I also think there are similarities. For example, I think the concept of hostility is to be found in both texts. I think the mechanical translation of “rule” for משל does not bring this out. As much as I have disagreed with Denny Burk in the last two posts to this point, I find considerable agreement with him when he writes:
Likewise, the man’s domination of the woman is a curse but it is not commanded of him. The interpretive issues at stake here are complex, so let me cut to the chase. I agree with Ray Ortlund’s interpretation which views the man’s “rule” not as the benevolent, self-sacrificial headship of Genesis 2 but as “ungodly domination” on the part of the man (RBMW, p. 109 ). In short, the man’s rule is sinfully motivated. God doesn’t prescribe or command anyone to sin. So the husband’s rule in this sense is anything but prescriptive. It describes the sad state of affairs that afflicts the relationship of husband and wife because of the man’s sin. This isn’t the nullification of the headship principle; it’s the sinful distortion of it. McKnight suggests that the complementarian view turns men and women into “contrarians by divine design.” Nothing could be further from the truth. That is not what this text is teaching, and it is not the complementarian view.
I don’t know that I would agree with Burk that this is a sinful distortion of the headship principle. I would say it is completely and totally unrelated to the headship principle. Too often concepts such as “headship” are read into terms like “rule” due to current controversies within the church when the context doesn’t support it. However, I agree with everything else Burk has said here. There is a clear context of domination provided by the intertextual connections to Genesis 4:7, and that should frame how we look at the ruling in Genesis 3:16.
But, if that is all we see, then we miss the point, and don’t take Powell’s observation that there are differences between these texts seriously. Just as there is a relationship battle in Genesis 3:16, there is a relationship battle in Genesis 4:7 between Cain and Abel. However, one of the questions you must ask yourself in doing Discourse Analysis is “Who are the participants involved?” In Genesis 3:16, it is framed in terms of a conflict between the woman and her husband. In Genesis 4:7, instead of Abel being put in opposition to Cain, *sin* is put in opposition to Cain. It is an ironic twist that takes this principle out of the context of interpersonal relationships, and into the realm of a battle with sin. Ultimately, the battle against the domination of fellow human beings is the a battle against sin, not against the other human being. I think what the text is saying is that the domineering battle to the death must be against sin, not against the other person.
Also, this re-framing of the discussion also moves the text beyond a discussion of marriage, and to human relationships more generally. Thus, although marriage is certainly affected by the fall [and thus, you will have sinful attempts to dominate the other person in marriage in a fallen world], nevertheless, such sinful attempts to dominate others are not limited to marriage, but can involve all other human relationships. Sin, therefore, threatens one of the very foundational elements of civilization – the ability of man to relate to his fellow man. Indeed, the rest of the story of Genesis bears this out, from the violence mentioned before the flood [Genesis 6:11] to the whole of humanity seeking to undermine God himself at the tower of Babel. The problem is that man has to learn to have that tyrannical attitude toward his sin, and learn to destroy it – not to be a tyrant to his fellow man so as to destroy him.
Having been through all of this, I want to go back now, and assess the ESV’s revised translation:
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you.
My first concern with the ESV’s translation is that it uses the term “contrary to” to translate the preposition אל. While it is true that אל has an adversative meaning, this translation makes it look like what is going on here is that the man wants pizza for lunch, and the woman wants a bean burrito, and this is somehow sinful. In other words, her desire is “contrary to” his because he wants one thing for lunch, and she wants something else. The meaning of the passage is much more sinister than that. Not only that, but using the bear term “rule” here does make it sound like headship is involved, when I don’t think it is. The use of the term “but” does the same thing, making it seem like there is a contrast between a mere disagreement and male headship. Thus, in order to remove these difficulties, I would translate it this way:
Your desire will be against your husband
and he will be a tyrant to you.
In the same way, one might also translate משל in Genesis 4:7 as “tyrannically rule.” so that we would have:
Sin is crouching at your door. Its desire is against you, but you must tyrannically rule over it.
This would highlight the intertextual connections between these two texts, but also show their differences as well. As Barbara Johnstone has rightly argued in concluding her textbook on Discourse Analysis, people make use of old forms and structures in language, but the put their own twists and nuances on them. I think that is clearly what is going on here in Genesis 3:16 and 4:7. The goal of the discourse analyst is to see both the similarities as well as the differences.
In this case, ironically, those supporting the complementarian side are prone to see the similarities while those on the egalitarian side are prone to see the differences. What this says to me is that both sides are grossly imbalanced. The complementarians, in an effort to fight feminism, have forgotten or at least underemphasized the fact that women are alike men in many ways. The egalitarians, in an effort to fight abuse, have so emphasized women’s equality with men that they have ignored or underemphasized the differences between them. Saying men and women have many things in common is not egalitarianism. Saying men and women are different is not complimentarianism. In my view, more balance is needed from both sides, as it has affected what they are able to see in the text of scripture. That is exceedingly dangerous.
Addendum: Sam Powell has kindly taken the time to comment down in the comments below, and has added a clarification to what he said in his post. He is right to say that we both have the same concerns, and don’t seem to be that far off.
Neuroscience Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew 
Thank you for the article. It is balanced and fair. We are not that far apart. I somewhat regret the paragraph on the similarities between Gen. 3:16 and Gen. 4:7; I was using hyperbole to make a point, and my point wasn’t made – which was my fault entirely. If what is communicated is not what is heard, perhaps the communicator is to blame.
At any rate, of course the two verses are extremely similar, as you correctly pointed out. But the differences in subject and the differences in context, as you pointed out, must be taken into account.
It simply says “to him your desire”, and in 4:7 “to you it’s desire”. The only point that i was trying to make was that the similarities in the texts do NOT warrant a definition of ‘el that is nowhere else attested to.
Anyway, I will try to clarify more in an upcoming blog. I wish that we could dispense with egalitarian and complementarian labels, though. Both are problematic to me. I am not egalitarian. I believe and celebrate the differences in the sexes, but I find complementarianism, as currently defined, odious for its degradation of women, and it’s denial of Nicene Trinitarianism.
And, so you can understand where I am coming from, I subscribe without scruple to the three forms of unity.
Thanks for the comment, Sam. Duly noted, and I will put an addendum telling folks to read down in the comments for your clarifying remarks.
As far as the labels go, Calvinistic and Reformed communities value intellectuals. That is all well and good, but, as Thomas Sowell has rightly argued, there are pitfalls intellectuals can fall into, and, due to these pitfalls, intellectuals have done a number on complementarianism. There are many pitfalls that one could mention in regard to this, but getting out of your area of expertise, and saying things about which you know nothing is one thing worth noting. If I were thinking of making some unusual argument on the basis of the doctrine of the Trinity publicly, the first people who would get an e-mail from me would be church historians who have studied the fourth century Nicene Trinitarian controversies, and the second people would be theologians who specialize in dealing with the doctrine of the Trinity such as Robert Bowman or James White. Those kinds of people have been the harshest critics of EFS, and the intellectuals could have avoided this mess by actually doing the work to see what the issues were with such a view before actively promoting it. I think you alluded to it in your post, but intellectuals also seem to often be oblivious to the practical consequences of their teaching. I had a friend in college who moved down south, and she encountered and became involved in the Christian Patriarchy Movement. While I didn’t see it at the time, many of the arguments for that group’s strange and sometimes abusive teachings hinged upon a view of the world based in hierarchy – one that seems to flow directly from EFS [which the CPM holds to].
All in all, Calvinistic and Reformed communities would do well to take Thomas Sowell’s advice and recognize that intellectuals, left unchecked, can often do great damage to a society. He gives illustrations as to how that has happened in the political realm, but I think one could easily write a book as to how that has happened in the theological realm as well, and EFS would be one of the major things that could be included. Sowell said he asked someone at Harvard one time why it is that there always seems to be a Harvard grad behind every national catastrophe. I would ask the Calvinistic community why all our catastrophes seem to have some strange, eccentric, but “countercultural” teaching behind it.
This is a VERY helpful contribution to the debate. And thanks Sam Powell for your comment.
I agree there is obvious intertextuality between Genesis 3:16 and 4:7. And I agree with you that what is important is how to interpret that intertextuality. It seems very likely that the ESV translators have interpreted it in the way Susan Foh interpreted it in her 1975 paper ‘What Is The Woman’s Desire?’.
I am surmising this is highly likely because so many people connected with CBMW have taught for decades that the Genesis 3:16 means the woman’s desire is to “usurp the authority of her husband” — which were the exact words Foh used in her paper. Foh based her interpretation on the semantic and syntactic parallels between 3:16 and 4:7. And in changing the ESV to ‘your desire shall be contrary to your husband’ the ESV translators seem to have chiselled Foh’s interpretation into the stone of ‘holy writ’.
But the question you raise is this — IS that the right way to interpret the intertextuality between those two passages?
I believe that is the right question. That’s what we need to be thinking about. That is where we can probe the lesion and diagnose whether and to what extent the translators of the ESV have gone off track.
Taking the lesion analogy one step further: I believe it is a wound that has become pretty infected and a lot of pus is below the surface, poisoning the tissues of the body of Christ. I’m an ex-nurse…. I hope you don’t mind the graphics in what is to follow.
Wounds can become infected. The infection can be going on below the skin and making sinuses through the flesh, without there being necessarily much more than a bit of redness and swelling visible on the surface. The sinuses of such an infected wound fill up with pus. The only remedy is to cut carefully the surface of the wound and clean out the pus slowly, with a comination of antibacterial agents and silver dressings and good overall nutrition and manual removal of the pus and dead material. The wound has to be allowed to heal slowly, from the bottom up, from the inside to the outside.
I support hundreds of women who are victims of domestic abuse. These women mostly come from conservative evangelical backgrounds. Most of them have been taught the doctrines of complementarianism. And most of them have been directly or indirectly harmed by the teaching that “woman’s desire is to usurp the authority of her husband”. How has that teaching harmed them? Because that teaching leads people to assume that if a woman is unhappy in her marriage, she needs to be told to (a) stop trying to usurp the authority of her husband, and (b) submit to him more… and that will fix the problem.
… But that advice doesn’t fix the problem, because in abuse, the problem is solely caused by the abuser. It is the abuser who CHOOSES to act abusively, and no matter how the victim behaves or does not behave, the abuser still continues to abuse. In the case of an abusive husband, he is the one who is choosing to hold fixedly to his inner belief that he is entitled to maintain power and control over his wife. And when people say that the woman’s sinful is the desire to usurp her husband’s authority, that plays right into the hand of abusive men! It is like feeding them steroids. It gives them a ”scriptural excuse” to continue to tear strips off and denigrate their wives.
Let’s bring this wound to the table. Let’s assess it. Let’s diagnose how deep the sinuses have grown. Let’s consider how best to interpret the intertextuality between Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7.
Thank you VERY much for helping us do that, hebrewsdnt. 🙂 I really like you suggestion for how to interpret the intertextuality. 🙂
By the way, it would be nice to know your real name, if you want to share it. 🙂 If find calling you “hebrewsdnt” is not as friendly as calling you by a real name. But it’s up to you 🙂
Quoting from your post:
“In Genesis 3:16, [the battle] is framed in terms of a conflict between the woman and her husband. In Genesis 4:7, instead of Abel being put in opposition to Cain, *sin* is put in opposition to Cain. It is an ironic twist that takes this principle out of the context of interpersonal relationships, and into the realm of a battle with sin. Ultimately, the battle against the domination of fellow human beings is the a battle against sin, not against the other human being. I think what the text is saying is that the domineering battle to the death must be against sin, not against the other person. Also, this re-framing of the discussion also moves the text beyond a discussion of marriage, and to human relationships more generally.”
I agree that the battle must be against sin, not against the other person. I also agree that that ethical precept can be applied to human relationships generally, not only marriage (Gen 3:16) or sibling to sibling (Gen 4:7). I believe you have drawn a good moral from the story there. And while that moral is important, I don’t think it’s all we need to think about.
I believe we need to carefully consider what the intertextuality between 4:7 and 3:16 might or might not be telling us about how husband/wife relations will tend to be problematic after the Fall.
Genesis 3 relates God stating to Eve one of the consequences of the Fall, and in the scene Adam is listening but not being directly addressed by God at that point (God will address Adam later). Neither Eve nor Adam had at that point any inkling that God would later say what He said to Cain in 4:7. Don’t we need to consider this fact as well? Isn’t that’s part of the unravelling this gordian knot?
After God had cautioned Cain, and whenever the words of 3:16 and 4:7 were written down by the inspired author, readers of the text (or hearers of the oral trasnmission of the story) are able to perceive the intertextuality between the two passages. But Adam and Eve, prior to the events in Genesis 4, had no idea that what God was saying to Eve in 3:16 would be echoed later in on what He would say to one of their sons.
On the other hand, when God was cautioning Cain in 4:7 it is reasonable to assume that Cain KNEW and REMEMBERED what God had said to his mother in 3:16. So it’s reasonable to think that God was inviting Cain to see some relationship between His announcement to Eve and his cautionary admonishment to Cain.
But God couldn’t have been inviting Eve to see some relationship with an event that had not yet happened. I think we need to think what the announcement might have meant to Eve when she first heard it.
Hi hebrewsdnt, you said that one of your concerns about the ESV’s revised translation of Gen 3:16 is that
*BEGIN quote from your post*
it uses the term “contrary to” to translate the preposition אל. While it is true that אל has an adversative meaning, this translation makes it look like what is going on here is that the man wants pizza for lunch, and the woman wants a bean burrito, and this is somehow sinful. In other words, her desire is “contrary to” his because he wants one thing for lunch, and she wants something else. The meaning of the passage is much more sinister than that. Not only that, but using the bear term “rule” here does make it sound like headship is involved, when I don’t think it is. The use of the term “but” does the same thing, making it seem like there is a contrast between a mere disagreement and male headship. Thus, in order to remove these difficulties, I would translate it this way:
Your desire will be against your husband
and he will be a tyrant to you.
In the same way, one might also translate משל in Genesis 4:7 as “tyrannically rule.” so that we would have:
Sin is crouching at your door. Its desire is against you, but you must tyrannically rule over it.
This would highlight the intertextual connections between these two texts, but also show their differences as well.”
*END quote from your post*
I agree with you that the meaning of the passage is sinister.
I’m not a Hebrew scholar and am not qualified to offer my own opinion on the appropriate translation of the preposition אל , but since most scholars and translators over the centuries have rendered it ‘for’ in that verse (rather than ‘against’), may I offer you another proposed translation of the passage? Couldn’t it be translated as:
Your desire will be for your husband
and he will be a tyrant to you.
or alternatively—
Your desire will be to (or towards) your husband
and he will be a tyrant to you.
I have a fair amount of knowledge and experience about the dynamics of male-on-female domestic abuse. This comes not only from my personal experience of being a survivor of domestic abuse, but also from my work as a supporter of hundreds of other victim of domestic abuse at the blog A Cry For Justice, and my wide reading of both the Christian literature and the secular literature on domestic abuse. I believe that my proposals for the translation of Gen 3:16 are consistent with the lived experience of women who suffer abuse from their husbands, and also consistent with the empirical truth that for milllennia many men have grievously mistreated women in multitudes of ways.
Please note that I’m not saying all men are abusers. Nor am I implying that women are never abusers. At A Cry For Justice we recognise that some men suffer domestic abuse from their wives, but it is far less common than the cases where the woman is the victim. And all the empirical evidence bears that out. Domestic abuse is a gendered crime where the vast majority of perpetrators are men and the vast majority of victims are women and their children.
Barbara Roberts,
“I am surmising this is highly likely because so many people connected with CBMW have taught for decades that the Genesis 3:16 means the woman’s desire is to “usurp the authority of her husband” — which were the exact words Foh used in her paper. Foh based her interpretation on the semantic and syntactic parallels between 3:16 and 4:7. And in changing the ESV to ‘your desire shall be contrary to your husband’ the ESV translators seem to have chiselled Foh’s interpretation into the stone of ‘holy writ’”
Wow, that’s bizarre. However, I think I can understand what is going on here. Susan Foh was writing at a time when the rock hard and downright vulgar feminists like Betty Friedan were getting tons of press and publicity. Some of that mess even made its way into the church, and Foh was challenging it directly. She rightly saw the intertextuality between the two texts, but interpreted it in the framework of anti-second wave feminism. As I said in another post, intellectuals have a tendency to frame texts of scripture in terms of the current social issues of the time. For example, no serious exegesis of any text of scripture would ever give you the idea that there is a sin of delay of marriage, and yet, Albert Mohler seems to think that there are plenty of texts teaching this because of the fertility crisis in the United States. That is why you have to be as careful as possible to read the Hebrew text in its own culture and in its own context before you make application. It is a very easy mistake to make, and I have even made it many times. However, it becomes even more deadly when you are specifically addressing a specific cultural problem. That is why I like to deal with many different issues, study many different languages, and read many different linguists. It helps me to broaden my horizons in terms of how to look at the text.
Also, yes, I have also heard of women who have come from evangelical backgrounds who have been victims of abuse because their church followed some intellectual who taught things similar to this. The main problem I have with it is that it ignores the fact that men and women are alike under sin. If men and women are both sinners, then giving man [or woman for that matter] authority that can never be usurped is a very dangerous thing indeed. God and his word are the ultimate authority, and, no matter what authority structure God has set up, scripture is ultimate above it. As Francis Schaeffer used to say, the strength of Christianity is that anyone can stand up with a Bible and say, “You’re wrong, because scripture says…” To take that away from women as a check on male sin is a very dangerous thing indeed. Then again, intellectuals often don’t see the practical consequences of their views. Often times, they are more concerned with taking down liberal ideology that they don’t really care if they end up putting an even even bigger monster in its place. When scripture is being accurately handled, whether it is being accurately handled by a woman or a man, it is God speaking, and for a man or a woman to not obey what God is saying means they are usurping the authority of God himself.
As far as Genesis 4:7 not happening yet when 3:16 was uttered, it is difficult to say, because it is entirely possible that the original hearers would have understood “desire” and “rule” used together like this in a way that we may not be able to recover today except through intertextuality to other passages like Genesis 4:7. For example, we use the phrase “raining cats and dogs” all of the time, but what if a narrative text containing two instances of this phrase from our time was all that survived for 3000 years, and someone was reading that text in the year 5016. In one text, it is unclear what the phrase “raining cats and dogs” means, but, in the other text, it is quite clear that it means a heavy downpour, and it fits in the context of the other text which is ambiguous. In such a situation, he would be right, given the intertextual connections [interpreted properly, of course], to say that it means “a heavy downpour” in the first text, even though the second text has not been written yet.
As far as your proposal for translation, yes, there have been may translators who have translated the preposition אל as “for.” That is a legitimate translation of the preposition. But I think the sinister context would suggest “against.” As I said above, you have to be careful about reading your own experience into the text. Yes, domestic abuse is a horrible thing. For example, I have a friend who is a member of a *huge* family, with a large number of sisters, but her father abused her mother, and her parents separated. That left her to raise all of her sisters all on her own. I see the affects of that brokenness quite a bit, and my heart breaks for her. However, I have to be very careful to not allow that to affect how I understand the language of the passage. As you said, just as a man can abuse a woman, a woman can be controlling and selfish toward a man. The real problem in all of these instances is sin – plain and simple. I think that translating this passage in that way is not only linguistically sound, but it highlights that both men and women are alike under sin, and points us to our need for a savior.
Our church is praying like mad for my friend’s father to come to faith in Christ, to repent of his sin, and to mend his marriage with his wife. However, at this point, he remains stubbornly unrepentant. God must break his heart so he will come to realize the damage he has done to his wife and the damage he has done to my friend. I think, if I were to apply this text to domestic abuse, that is what I would say. Sin has so damaged the relationship between husband and wife that only the grace, healing, and forgiveness that comes through Jesus Christ can truly heal such damage – even when it is so gross and sinister as domestic abuse. That is the beauty of the promise of this text that comes right before the word of punishment in Genesis 3:16:
Genesis 3:15 And I will put enmity Between you and the woman, And between your seed and her seed; He shall bruise you on the head, And you shall bruise him on the heel.”
The promise of the seed of the woman who would bruise the serpent in the heel [which Christians believe is ultimately fulfilled in Christ] is the only solution to all sin – including the ugly sin of domestic abuse. Sadly, though, I have heard of many instances where, even upon repentance, the woman struggles to trust the man again, even though she has forgiven him. Sin has very real consequences, and God does not always take away those consequences. Sin does very ugly things to human relationships, and domestic abuse is a horrid and gross example of this. Hence, I think what I have said both linguistically and practically makes sense out of the passage.
Can you provide any biblical rationalization to support your translation? I.e., any evidence that post-Fall Eve ever was against Adam, or that Adam ever tyrannized Eve?
Doug, I am not entirely sure what you are asking, but I think the simple reality of that tyranny from both sides of any marriage after the fall. Even Christian marriages have to be careful that they are about serving others and not demanding things for themselves. That is the nature of life in any relationship after the fall. In fact, I was thinking on the way home from work today that, if what I am saying is right, this verse would be very valuable in seeing the importance of Christ’s command for us to love one another and put one another first, and to avoid demanding things for ourselves. The Carmen Christi comes to mind:
Philippians 2:3-11 Do nothing from selfishness or empty conceit, but with humility of mind let each of you regard one another as more important than himself; 4 do not merely look out for your own personal interests, but also for the interests of others. 5 Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, 6 who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, 7 but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, He humbled Himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. 9 Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, 11 and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.
I think, if Christians behaved this way in all of our relationships, including marriage, we would be better able to be a light to the nations.
hebrewsdnt,
No doubt what you say applies to all relationships, but 3:16 was a message spoken explicitly to Eve, not both Adam and Eve. My point, is that just as the painful child labor spoken of is evident in all women since the Fall, we should also be able to see universal evidence of what God meant by the remainder of the verse. For example, Sarah is given as a role model for NT women. I’m sure she had pain in labor, but there is no indication she was “against” her husband. Neither is there evidence of opposition in the case of post-Fall Eve. Knowing no Hebrew, I rely on the translation ability of others like yourself. My position is evidenced in my latest post: http://christcommonwealth.blogspot.com/2016/09/that-wonderful-urge.html
This is not to deny the validity of your translation. Maybe the verse has a more complex meaning that signifies a wife may have a tendency to use her desire, beauty and charm — girl power — manipulatively, as in the case of Samson and Delilah? Therefore, the LORD instructs her to resist this and acquiesce in her husband’s lead. Likewise, NT instructions to “submit” are likewise spoken explicitly to wives, not to husbands.
Doug,
In regards to the words being directed to Eve, I think that is the importance of the intertextuality to Genesis 4:7, placing the same words into the conflict between Cain and Abel. I certainly don’t mean to suggest that this conflict will always occur at all times. God does give grace to his elect, and they are able to fight sin. However, I do think that this text is saying that this is something that *will* occur in relationships between fallen people, and, were it not for the grace of God [and Christ’s command for us repent of our sins and seek forgiveness, and for us to forgive one another when we do so], no relationship would be possible. As far as there being no instance recorded of opposition of the post-fall Eve, the simple answer to that is that there does not have to be. The purpose of the text is not to chronicle every instance of all of Eve’s sins or anyone else’s sins, or even to tell us every kind of sin that each individual committed. The purpose of the text, as you read through the rest of the narrative, is to show how this sin then spreads to the rest of mankind so that, in Genesis 6:5, “every desire of the heart of man was only evil all of the time.” That would be perfectly consistent with a reframing of this infighting in Genesis 3:16 to the Cain/Abel conflict, and making sin the true enemy rather than Abel.
As far as Sarah, I am only finding three references to her in the NT: Romans 9:9, Hebrews 11:11, and 1 Peter 3:6. The only texts that would be relevant would be Hebrews 11:11 and 1 Peter 3:6. The first would simply be her as a role model in the sense of having faith in God. However, even people who have faith in God still fall [unless you believe in sinless perfectionism]. 1 Peter 3:6 would simply be in reference to Genesis 18:12, and how she treated her husband in that one instance. I think one difference between us is that I don’t think that the Bible has to discuss every instance of every person’s marital problems. If what I am saying is correct about Genesis 3:16, we can assume everyone has them, but the scripture will only address specific instances of these problems if they suit the purpose of the author. Indeed, every married person I have every talked to has said they have had problems like this. It is a daily battle to sacrifice your own desires, and consider the other person first. However, as the connection to Cain and Abel indicates, that goes for all relationships we as human beings are a part of.
Thanks hebrewsdnt,
Not yet convinced that we should be comparing 4:7 and 3:16 as implied. We should be able to provide comprehensive biblical support for whatever interpretation we land on, because this verse appears to be connected universally to women (3:16). Not sure either, that we find any support in this verse for men being abusers. Christ explicitly told us that “Lording it over” was a characteristic of the Gentiles. It is a tendency in men and women, even children. Whatever the meaning, Eve needed to hear what the Lord said to her. Not Adam.
Doug,
Yes, I think those are the two big issues that we would disagree on. As I said in my post, I think it is very hard to explain all of the same vocabulary and syntax of the two verses unless the author means to present an intertextual connection between the two. Also, yes, I believe the verse is connected universally to women [and men], but I think that the scriptures don’t have to say much more than that. They can give examples when it suits their purposes, but I don’t see the necessity of being comprehensive in cataloging every instance of this kind of sin.
While it is true that “Lording it over” is a tendency of the gentiles, and not so much within the people of God, it is only such because of the grace of God on his people. That is why 3:15 is so important. The only way the affects of this punishment are going to be mitigated is if the sin that causes it is weakened by the blood of Jesus Christ. Still, that doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen at times in Christian marriages [those that are truly Christian anyway]. It just means that the grace is there to be able to see it, and repent of it when it happens.
Also, I don’t quite understand why you think it is significant that this is addressed to Eve and not Adam. I mean, God said to Adam, “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife.” He certainly is implying that what Eve convinced Adam to do in eating of the fruit was wrong, and yet, he says it to Adam. While it is difficult to say why the statement in 3:16 is addressed to Eve and not to Adam because the text does not specifically tell us, I think the text does offer some clues. The text sets the woman up as heavily relational to the man. She is man’s “helper,” and, indeed, she is made for the man from his own rib. There is a strong relational element there, and that is why the breakup of this relationship would seem to be particularly punishing to her.