After the fall of man, God is very clear in Genesis 3 about the consequences for women.
16To the woman He said,
"I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you."
Conservative, complementarian evangelicals (of which I am one) regularly interpret the next to last line to mean that her desire will be to rule over her husband. But that simply is not what Scripture says. And before you label me liberal (and it’s amazing these days what can get you labeled that way), hear me out. If we can think about this topic anew, I think those who minister to women will be better equipped to apply the gospel to the core places in women’s hearts affected by depravity. So let’s consider the particular consequence of the fall of man that a woman’s desire will be for her husband.
Similar phrases are used in Genesis 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:10.
Gen. 4:7 "… And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door ; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."Song of Solomon 7:10 "I am my beloved's, And his desire is for me.
The argument used by some for interpreting Gen. 3:16 to mean foremost a desire to dominate the husband is that Gen. 4:7 could be read that sin’s desire is against us, to dominate over us. But that argument is undermined by Song of Solomon 7:10. There the phrase means exactly what a straightforward reading of it indicates. His desire is for her. I believe Genesis 3:16 should be read exactly as it says—her desire will be for her husband. Plain and simple. No contortions needed to accurately discern what God is saying here.
Though some argue that the word “for” could be translated “against,” no Bible translation (that I could find) says her desire is “against” her husband. They all say her desire is “for” her husband. Apparently, no translation team thought “against” was the best meaning of that term. It doesn’t make sense to say “desire against.” The problem with our desires is always that they are either FOR the wrong thing or FOR the right thing but out of proportion to what is appropriate.
The word for “desire” in Genesis 3:16 can mean craving or longing. The issue is best understood if we make the simple substitution of God for her husband. Her desire SHOULD BE for her God. Instead, her desire/craving/longing is misplaced. The curse is not that women want to dominate the men in their lives. Women’s problem is that they worship the men in their lives and look to them for affirmation and provision emotionally and spiritually for things that God alone is supposed to provide. Their problem is IDOLATRY.
If you think that the foundational result of the fall of man in the average woman’s life is a desire to dominate, your ministry is going to miss … well … the vast majority of problems in a woman’s life. Certainly, I know my fair share of dominating, manipulative, control freakish women (of which I am often chief), but our problem goes much deeper than the symptomatic issue of control. We are idolaters! We looked to men to meet a need they couldn’t meet—emotionally, spiritually, physically. And instead of recognizing our sovereign, compassionate, and wise Father in heaven as the place to which we should have looked, we started looking within ourselves once the men in our lives disappointed us. Control tactics aren’t the manifestation of an innate desire to dominate the men in our lives. Instead, we resort to manipulation and control because we longed too hard to rest in the men in our lives. We grasp and clamor, “Lead me spiritually. Provide for me physically. Affirm me emotionally.” And when they can’t or don’t, then we attempt to lead ourselves spiritually, provide for ourselves physically, and seek outside affirmation for ourselves emotionally. Instead, we don’t need to change our desire or craving. We simply need to change the object of it.
God, I need you to meet the spiritual void in my life! “Certainly, child. I will not leave you as an orphan. I have sent my Spirit to bring to your remembrance all I have taught you, for apart from me, you can do nothing.” John 15
God, provide for me physically! “You can trust me, child. Do not worry for your physical needs. As I provide for the birds and flowers, I will provide for you.” Matthew 5-7
God, I need help emotionally! “Yes, child. Meditate on all I have declared over you through Christ. You have received the full rights of a child of the King (Gal. 4:5). I will receive you one day into my arms with the affirmation, ‘Well done good and faithful servant.’ Find joy and rest in Me.”
We are not going to really understand how the gospel equips us reclaim God’s image in us as His daughters until we understand clearly what our problem is. I can’t emphasize strongly enough that the problem in women created by the fall is deeper than control and domination. It may play out that way in some women, but it doesn’t play out that way in all women. There certainly is a battle between the sexes as a result of the fall, but it is often one-sided. For every controlling, manipulative, take-charge woman (who tends to be out there in front of us all), there are 5 pathetic doormats (hidden in the shadowy corners of life) waiting desperately for crumbs from porno guy’s table. They’ll do whatever it takes—perform demeaning sexual acts, sacrifice the hearts of their children to an abuser, and other unimaginable acts of desperation—like a prisoner chained in a cell lapping water that spills out the toilet because he’s dying of thirst. This insatiable craving is an issue of worship and idolatry. Apart from Christ, our tendency after the fall is to set up men as being able to meet needs in us that only God can meet, and there is no limit to how desperate we can become.
Women often perceive weakness or strength among each other by how they react when men fail them. The perceived strong feminist woman is the one who doesn’t need men. She can do it on her own. The perceived weak woman is the one who continues to follow loser men around like a whipped puppy. In contrast, in Christ, we have a new and different way altogether. The woman bought by Christ who is set up as God’s honored daughter with full access to the King of kings has her needs met in Him. God pours into her. God equips her. God satisfies her emotional, spiritual, and physical needs. Then and only then can she let go of her perceived rights and be the helper to her male counterpart that God created her to be.
In Sacred Influence which I reviewed here, Gary Thomas begins his encouragement to wives by thoroughly fleshing out all we have in Christ as His daughters. Thomas makes a point that it isn’t until we get our identity in Him that we can deal with what God requires of us in marriage. The good news of the gospel is that Christ has paved the way for us to boldly come to our Father’s throne room in heaven to find spiritual empowerment, physical help, and emotional affirmation. God’s help and affirmation are real and effective. He will meet the void in your heart that years of looking to men have never filled. Come boldly to Him in confidence and find grace and mercy at the points of your deepest longings today, for apart from Him, you can do nothing.
43 comments:
Excellent! This has played out very personally in my own life as we've gone through various trials in the past year with a job loss, etc. It opened my eyes to my reliance of my husband and not on God. Thank you for sharing!
Amen! I couldn't agree more. I actually had never heard the interpretation that it means women want to rule over their husbands until recent years. Before then, I had always personally interpreted it just as you are now.
And in my own life, I KNOW this is true. I have never really understood the word "submission" being so touchy and things like that. That is not my problem (that doesn't mean I'm always the perfect submitting wife!) but I have definitely been convicted of idolizing my husband our whole marriage. I would say that is my biggest struggle. And this, it being the curse, would explain why.
Wow. I'm amazed at the timing of this post. Thank you for being used by God. I am blessed.
Hi Wendy
Thanks for sharing these thoughts.
I wonder if you could explain the exegesis a bit further? I'm intrigued by the 'plain reading' of the text and like what you've picked up from SoS. But I was wondering what you think 'And he will rule over you' is doing in Gen 3?
What I mean is, how does it relate to 'your desire will be for your husband'? If the latter has to do with control, the link is clear. If it's about actual desire, is the point of him ruling over her that she desires that which is not good for her? Or does that read too much in? (After all, his rule may not be bad.) Or perhaps the phrases are not that closely connected?
T
I have been puzzled by the complementarian "desire for" interpretation. I always thought the passage meant that despite the increased pain of childbirth the woman would nevertheless have desire for her husband. The man whose seed leads to the childbirth with increased pain is nevertheless the focal point for the woman's life. It is almost as though in placing herself and her husband above God she is disciplined by getting exactly the god she wanted and discovering that he has been given the judgment of death. The discipline of Adam is parallel, because he listened to his wife and not the words of Yahweh the ground is cursed beneath him. By taking the fruit he was not to eat the ground itself rebels against him as he chose to rebel against God (it was Bonhoeffer who I first read making this observation). It seems that to make the case that Eve's "desire" was to rule over her husband overextends this kind of observation beyond what the language of the text actually says. True, there are women who seek to rule over the men in their lives but the desire doesn't play out in the same way.
Men, broadly speaking, can often define themselves by their work so the curse of the ground may speak to that. Certainly while I'm job hunting I have come to realize that I looked to my job in far more ways than I imagined as a way to anchor my day to day life.
Tamie, the linkage is interesting. The NAS, KJV, and NIV have links between all 3 things. This seems to indicate that all three -- sorrow in childbirth, inappropriate desire for her husband, and his rule over her -- are linked. And I do think that each overlaps and interplays with the others.
When I use the phrase "straightforward reading of the text," I just am pointing out that all the translations say "desire for" and to interpret that "desire against" or "desire to dominate" doesn't fit with what translation teams have deemed the best English rendition of the Hebrew.
Tamie, I didn't answer sufficiently in my last attempt. What I meant to conclude was that there seems to be as much link to consequence 1 and 2 as there is to 2 and 3. I don't think 2 and 3 are as intertwined as presented in some complementarian arguments. They can be understood apart and are not necessarily qualifying phrases on each other.
Thanks Wendy!
With the linking between the consequences, I suspect you're right about the three not being as related as some have thought. So if I'm reading you correctly, consequence 1 is pretty straightforward (childbirth is painful); consequence 2 is about idolatry. What do we do with consequence 3 (the husband ruling) if it's not linked as strongly to consequence 2? If we take consequence 3 as standing apart, how is Adam's 'rule' over Eve a curse? It doesn't say that Adam's rule will be a bad one, and don't complementarians argue that Adam had 'rule' over Eve prior to the fall anyway? So how is his rule a new thing (or a curse) when taken on its own?
I hope this makes sense. I guess it's a bit of a technical question. I know your post is about consequence 2. I'm just wondering what the implications are for the application of consequence 3.
Amazing, and beautifully said!
That's a good question. I have a preliminary answer but will think on this some more and look through some Scriptures to make sure I'm being consistent.
Scripture doesn't say Adam ruled over Eve prior to the fall of man that I can find. Genesis 1-3 don't use that terminology. And when Paul refers to the creation account in I Cor. 11 and 1 Tim. 2, he refers to the order in which Adam and Eve were created but does not mention a ruler/ruled paradigm. So I think there is a distinct difference between the oppressive rule of man over woman after the fall and the God-designed order of creation in perfection and its implications for relationships between men and women in the church and home. In God's perfect design, men don't oppressively rule over women. That's an effect of the fall. In perfection, the man leads, the woman helps, and all reflect different aspects of the character of triune God. I think you can draw a distinct difference in the type of "rule over the woman" after the fall and the submission/headship paradigm that reflect God's good plan for man and wife.
I hope that does not sound like simple semantics.
It doesn't seem semantic to me (though some people could argue my observations don't necessarily count). It may be akin to what my friend J.S. Bangs mentioned long ago with respect to Adam's task given in the garden. The man and woman were not suddenly not supposed to cultivate the earth even after the earth produced thorns. Arguably the responsibilities had not changed but the work had been made more fruitless. Just as Adam was not to stop tilling the earth just because it produced thorns he was not supposed to drastically change how he treated Eve just because they had turned from the Lord. The inability to complete the mission did not change the nature of the mission.
Your observations count, WtH. :-)
Thanks for your initial thoughts Wendy. It doesn't sound like semantics and I'd be keen to pursue this further. Happy for you to not reply now though! :)
My first question is whether the mention of rule in Gen 3 is necessarily oppressive. In Gen 1:26, rule isn't negative, though that relates to humans and creation. It's a different word in the Hebrew too - I'm not sure what the implications of that are, whether the different words express different types of 'rules'?
I think the pre-fall order vs. post-fall rule thing is an interesting one to explore as well. A pretty standard complementarian line seems to be to suggest that order implies rule, but that that rule is a good one. If order doesn't imply rule (which, of course, is caring, loving, etc), I wonder what it does imply? Is there a difference between leading and lovingly ruling?
another great post, wendy. thank you.
Tamie, I was about to go to bed and put this off for another day (per your suggestion), but then the answer suddenly seemed clear. Each of these 3 aspects of the curse (and I believe the context of the phrase "rule over you" means that this is a definite part of the curse in contrast to what God created the relationship to be in perfection) are all corruptions of the very good things God created her to enjoy. She was charged in perfection with being fruitful. But now childbirth will be sorrowful and burdensome. She was created to help the man empowered by her perfect union with the Father. But now instead of helping and giving to him, she wants from him with an insatiable desire. Adam was created first and the order implied God's plan for leadership in their relationship. But now instead of loving leadership, there is oppressive rule. Instead of protection, he must be protected against. Instead of loving, he uses. And so forth.
So the 3 facets of the curse are just perversions of what God planned for good when He created the woman. Redemption is taking these warped things to God and reclaiming what He intended in perfection through gospel grace and conformity to Christ.
Now I really will go to bed! :-) And save the differences in leading and ruling for another day (because I don't know the answer).
Thanks Wendy!
Here it's the middle of your tomorrow so I'll go back to essay writing but you sleep well! Ah, moments of clarity before bed!
I was looking at this very verse yesterday ... and you have answered the questions I was pondering! Thank you!
Before I went to bed, it occurred to me to simply look up "lead" and "rule" in the dictionary. The difference was clear. You have to qualify lead to make it bad (like oppressive leadership), and you have to qualify rule (like loving rule) to make it good. Inherent in their definition, a leader is distinctly different than a ruler.
Lead -- to go before or show the way
Rule -- to control or direct; exercise dominating power, authority, or influence over; govern.
I think God's good plan has the husband as the leader. The fall of man results in the man exercising dominating authority instead of going before and showing the way, hand in hand.
I'm in agreement with your interpretation. I often see (and have experienced) that women first look to a man to meet their different needs, and then to themselves. I also think it is why many women get so dissatisfied in their marriages, and why we struggle with not comparing our husbands to other men. It's wrong, but I think it coincides with your thoughts that our desire for our husbands can be idolatrous.
This is a great post. I forwarded it to K and he thought so too. I loved your 9:02pm post too--so helpful and right on.
On another note, I cannot begin to tell you how much God is speaking to me through your new book, "By His Wounds You are Healed". It is a gem and I am enjoying it even more than your first.
What a beautiful, factual post. Even as a single woman this speaks to my heart, preparing me to continue to strive for Jesus and not for what a husband could give me.
Greg, the only clarification I would offer is that I think the desire is a perversion of her created role as Helper. She was created to be a strong helper as God is for His children -- defending, supporting, and so forth. In perversion, she becomes needy of the man to the point of perversion instead of the strong helper to the man.
Hi Wendy
Thanks for getting us thinking about this.
I had a quick chat with my husband who suggested a few thoughts in defence of the interpretation that the 'desire for' in Gen 3:16 is a desire to possess and master and rule over.
- The preposition translated as "for" in Song of Songs 7:10 is not the same as the one translated as "for" in Gen 3:16. That doesn't prove a lot in itself (Hebrew prepositions are pretty slippery!) but it does suggest that the idiom in Gen 4:7 is closer to Gen 3:16 than the idiom in Song of Songs 7:10.
- As well as that Gen 4:7 is also a much closer text than Song of Songs 7:10 (same author, same book, same part of the book, same speaker, similar context...). So interpreting Gen 3:16 in the light of Gen 4:7 makes better sense than interpreting it in the light of Song of Songs 7:10.
- I don't think that the Gen 4:7-style interpretation of Gen 3:16 requires turning the "for" into an "against". It just requires understanding the "desire" word as something possessive or controlling.
Of course, I completely agree with you that there can also be a kind of idolatrous desire/love for our husbands. But I'm not really convinced that Gen 3:16 is speaking about it!
btw. have you read Susan Foh's original article about this, from WTJ back in 1975?
This is something I need to hear again and again. For some reason, I try to do things all myself and forget that God is there for "spiritual empowerment, physical help, and emotional affirmation", as you wrote. Thank you for posting this - much needed.
Thanks Wendy for your extra explanations and thoughts in response to my earlier comment.
I certainly agree that there are some differences between what is going on in Gen 4:7 (between sin-personified and Cain) and what is going on Gen 3:16 (between the woman and her husband). But I don't think that makes them apples and oranges! The two texts are so close together in the Genesis narrative, the verbal parallels are so exact ("desire ... for ... master/rule", with exactly the same Hebrew words in every case) and the contexts have so much in common (ugly power-struggles after the entry of sin into the world) that I think it would be a strange interpretive approach to leap right across the Genesis 4 text all the way to Song of Songs to find a parallel to guide our translating and interpreting.
And like I said in the earlier comment, I don't think we need to go with some sort of variant translation anyway. We just need a good English translation (like the ESV) that lets you see how close the wording of 4:7 is to the wording of 3:16, so that the picture of "desire for" versus "mastery" in one verse helps you to understand what is meant by the picture of "desire for" versus "mastery" in the other verse.
Whichever interpretation of "desire" you opt for (idolatrous desire or possessing/usurping/controlling desire) there is still some interpretation that has taken place! And I don't think there is any hint of idolatry in either sin's desire for Cain in 4:7 or the beloved's desire for the woman in Song of Songs 7:10.
I'm with you on the trustworthiness of Scripture, and I'm thankful for the way God has acted in his providence to preserve it and so that I can read it in English. But I don't think that means I'm relieved of the hard work of trying my best to understand it, or that I have nothing to learn from people who have worked hard at studying the text in the original languages. And I'm sure you'd say the same thing! So I think we should make a decision between the two possible interpretations without any anxiety that the doctrine of Scripture is being undermined if we go with one and not the other.
Thanks for adding, Nicole. I understand what you are saying.
I think I am particularly passionate about this because the interpretation plays out practically in how we address the core issues of women's hearts in our ministries. When I read at face value "your desire will be for your husband" and compared it to "her desire will be for her God", immediately I received clarity on tons of issues I've witnessed in myself and other friends. I sat for a while under a ministry that thought the greatest fallout from the curse was that women wanted to dominate men and watched it crush woman after woman out of that misplaced view. I guess you can have that view and apply gospel grace as the solution. But in my personal experience, those that have that view see it as justification to apply brute force (verbally if not physically) to bring women in line in their church.
Instead, the women needed to see their attempts at independence and control as coping mechanisms for dealing with the ways they perceived men let them down. They needed to stop looking to the men to hold them up, affirm them, or make them feel better about themselves. And they need to look to God and find their sufficiency in Him. Then they can let go of their rights and rest in what God has called them to be in marriage.
That's a longer than necessary post, but it's what I am thinking about this morning.
Nicole, I should also clarify that I've never seen that attitude from anything I've read of your ministry. I don't want it to sound like I'm projecting something onto you based on your view.
Thanks Wendy - that's a really helpful insight into the context you're operating in. Like you, I'm horrified when I see or hear about men using brute force (verbal and/or physical) to 'bring women into line'. That sounds more like Lamech than like Christ.
My main issue in the original comment I made was really about how to think about language and translation in interpreting the Bible.
And although, I still (for the time being!) have a different opinion on the meaning of that particular phrase in that particular verse, I agree with you on the big picture of the Bible, that the bigger and deeper issue behind the battle between the sexes is the idolatry of the human heart, and our misplaced worship of things other than God. And I agree too that attachment and devotion to husband and family can all too easily take an idolatrous form, and that our teaching and culture in church can sometimes reinforce that tendency.
Thanks once again for getting us thinking and talking about these really important theological and pastoral issues!
Thanks, Nicole, too for interacting and contributing to the discussion. Good discussion always forces me to think deeply and clarify.
Hi, Wendy, I just found your blog today and I want to say how much this post spoke to me. I too have heard the "dominate" interpretation and could fit it to myself, but only by bending over backwards intellectually to interpret my behaviors and emotions to force the fit. Your interpretation, however, fits perfectly with my experience. I know that isn't the guiding principle in deciding on an interpretation to follow, but I guess my bottom line is that, whichever interpretation of this Scripture is correct, your thoughts about it have opened my eyes to something I need to do some serious praying and pondering over. So thank you.
Wendy,
I haven't had a chance to comment before now, but I've come back to this post today for I think the fourth time in the last couple weeks. Ironically, the day you posted it was the day after my eleventh anniversary, and if there's one central problem I've had in my marriage, it's wrestling with the why behind my inability to give up wanting my husband to say/do/be certain things, and my refusal to stop subtly punishing him when he doesn't comply. I use the excuse that he's godly, that he should know better, that the things I want are really about him being faithful to his calling as a husband, but I know that's not my real motive.
This post absolutely nails the answer to that question that I've been wrestling with God over. I want from my husband what I should want from God, and what God has already given me in Jesus.
Truly, thank you. Biggest "AHA" moment I've had in a long time. Now, to live it out... :)
Thanks, Wendy--this whole essay rings true with advice you gave me years ago, along the lines of seeking for [ultimate companionship / security / whatEVER] only in God, bc no matter your "relationship status" (married, widowed, single, ditched, etc.) only GOD can ever ultimately deliver on those desires that were ultimately built into us by Him, FOR Him. It's advice I have needed to keep recalling constantly.
Great thoughts. I think you are right on with this idea. Not that both aren't true which I think they are, but your take on it is really just as if not more true. Thanks for that new way of reading it. I'm going to teach it now.
I am so glad to have read this post today . . . I have been searching for some clarity on some things and this is what God has used to open my eyes to what He is doing in me . . . thank-you!
I have been thinking this way about Genesis 3 for some time - the argument for desiring to control her husband just did not ring true to me. I just hadn't found anyone else in conservative evangelical circles who was thinking the same way.
I work in student-ministry and I see idolatry regarding men being a much bigger problem in girls' lives (and my own) than desire to control them. Thanks, Wendy, for your helpful thoughts.
What a wonderful post. I've never heard anyone speak of the curse in this way before. I do know a woman who grovels at the feet of her husband, thinking that by doing this, she is obeying God.
Thank you for sticking your neck out to give the truth.
I definitely think men struggle with such idolatry as well. But it is so much rarer to see a man stay with an abusive woman than it is to see a woman with an abusive man. The core in men where depravity strikes them most often and most deeply is with work (as also predicted in the curse). But that too is not to say that women don't struggle with identity around work.
Wow what a good explanation! Ever since I read that verse, I've always wanted an explanation of it. Although the false interpretation of the verse you presented was very barely shown to me not too long ago, most of the greatest translators explain it very closely to what you did here. And what better person to do it than a person under the very curse:) lol jk
What powerful dialogue -- thank you -- I think there are many useful insights here and will take them to my Sunday School class this morning, as we make our way through these difficult passages. Wendy -- particularly appreciate your insight and approach. There is one request I'd make -- that you rethink your use of "beat a horse one more time...now he's really dead." This term comes from an abusive posture toward horses and I cringed and literally "saw" that beating when you said it. Off-topic, but since we're talking about the power of words and their meanings in our lives...I thought it might be useful to re-examine the use of that analogy. Again -- thank you for the dialogue and insights.
Hi Wendy, thank you for this post, and your responses, and I agree that Eve's (woman's) curse of desire for her husband does not only mean a desire to dominate, but is better described as a pervasive idolatrous desire...worship of him in place of God.
I have one question still; how can we understand desire in the other passages you mention?
Gen. 4:7 "… And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door ; and its desire is for you, but you must master it."
Song of Solomon 7:10 "I am my beloved's, And his desire is for me.
Sin's desire for Cain was not idolatry, but a desire to rule over Cain, the way all sin does. And then in the Song of Solomon passage it is an appropriate desire, between spouses (a picture of our love for God, his love for us). All this to say, I feel that there is some complexity to the meaning of "desire" in these all these passages.
I'm clearly way too late to join this discussion, but I just stumbled upon your blog today, and this post is brilliant. I have problems with the 'desire to dominate' interpretation too, and I've always tentatively understood it as 'childbirth will be painful but you will still desire your husband' - ie, not really part of the curse itself but just a clarification to the first part. But I like your ideas a lot and certainly in reality the principle is overwhelmingly true. And ironically exactly the lesson I'm trying to learn right now. :) Thanks for the food for thought!
Brilliant post, Wendy. Brilliant.
I found your blog by accident(yea right) while searching for material for a women's bible study I attend and all your words speak directly to my spirit often evoking some emotion. Thank you for helping me live a daily Christ centered life. Your blogs are a blessing!
Post a Comment