Genesis 3:16: “Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire [shall be] to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”
Over the years of listening to preachers preach on this passage they always said God was cursing the woman. Part of that curse is that she will desire her husband. I mean like some curse, might I be afflicted and never recover. Over the years there was a popular radio preacher who said that in the original Hebrew what this meant was that the woman would desire to rule over her husband but he would rule over her and thus from the very beginning God built in conflict in the marriage relationship. The Living Bible, a paraphrase, took off with that and rendered this passage as you will desire to control your husband but he will rule over you.
This comes from the idea that the word for desire is teshuqathek which comes from the root word shuq which means a desire or longing but also has the idea of a river overflowing its banks. Hence as the river bank overflows and rules the land that it overflows onto so too the woman will seek to overflow her desires to rule over her husband. Apparently people were able to relate to this concept and thus it became almost dogma that from the beginning God cursed the woman to want to control her husband but her husband was created to establish control over the woman and thus we have the origin of the war between the sexes.
It is a nifty idea and I can see how they arrived at their conclusion. In a way I am glad that respected leaders arrived at this conclusion, it makes many of my conclusions sound not very far out there.
I have a couple problems with this interpretation. One is that only the serpent was cursed, not the woman. God was merely stating a fact with regards to the woman. Literally the word for desire, shuq means just a desire or longing but in the Hebrew the word is used for a desire for intimacy. Like I said, if that is a curse, I would love to be the first in line to be the beneficiary of that curse. However, there needs to be more to this word shuq to make sense out of this passage because right after that it says that her husband will dominate or rule over her. I mean using pure Platonic logic if A is a woman desiring her husband then B will be the result of that logic which is her husband ruling over her. The only conclusion I can reach for C is that because the woman will desire her husband her husband will use that against her to maintain control over her. I don’t know, the whole thing doesn’t add up.
Perhaps if we look at this word shuq a little closer. In the Old Persian language this word has the idea of a leg or thigh. The word is actually a loan word from the Akkadian where it is used for a street. In extra Biblical literature we find the word shuq used to express the idea of abundance, hence the idea of a river overflowing its banks. What is the common element here between a leg, road, abundance or overflowing and desire or longing?
I think we need to look at the context of this whole thing. The woman had just been created to be a help meet for Adam. That is that she was created to help Adam meet God. God is a spirit and man is flesh. How could the two related to each other? So God gave Adam a woman that he could love, cherish, nurture and desire to protect. In his love for her he could begin to understand God’s love for him. Why do you think the enemy wants to pervert the marriage relationship? Why do you think he attacks the home? He is hitting at the very core of God’s creation to help us understand His love. Understanding that his wife as a gateway to the presence of God Adam naturally followed her lead and ate the fruit. When God asked why, Adam merely replied that the woman He gave to him told him to do it. He wasn’t blaming his wife he was merely saying, “God, isn’t that why you gave her to me to lead me and direct me, I was just following her lead.” God is now setting things in the right order. First he says that because of this sin the woman will experience pain in childbirth. Now this is just pure speculation on my part. If you tell me I am wrong I will respond by saying, “That’s cool, I’m wrong.” But I believe this is the first indication of God’s planned redemption which means that he would come to earth in human form and suffer actual pain, something God cannot experience as a spirit, and will suffer and die for our redemption. The pain of childbirth is a reminder of the pain that God suffered for our sins.
The next thing God did was explain the role of a woman and man. Man would rule over his wife. That word rule or dominate in the Hebrew cannot be explained with one English word. It is the word mashal which sounds almost like our English word marshal. I doubt that this is where our English word derived, but it still gives a good explanation of the Hebrew word mashal. A marshal is usually an elected official who serves the people by protecting them from those who break the law. He enforces the law and explains the law, but he would not have that power if it were not given him by the very people who he is sworn to protect.
What is very interesting is that the text does not say he will mashal over his wife, but the preposition Beth is used which means in or on. How can a husband rule in or on his wife? The two shall become one flesh Genesis 2:24. To become one flesh also means that they will share each other’s heart. He will rule in his wife’s heart. He will seek to understand her heart and will seek to make decisions based upon her heart.
It is commonly said that a woman acts upon her emotion and a man acts upon his reasoning. Feminist will probably beat me over the head for this, but I think there is some truth to that. God created a woman to be more emotional than men. A woman is able to sense the presence of God quicker than a man. It is the man who must study Torah and understand Torah and then he brings it home to his wife who puts it into practical use creating a comfortable home for her family. I believe what this verse is saying is that a woman will respond to her husband emotionally, she will say to her husband you must stop working long hours and be home with me I need you here. The husband will respond in his practical sense, “if I don’t work we will have no home for me to come to, the bank will toss us out on our kester.” The wife will not see that practical side, she will only see her emotional side and say, “Don’t matter, I want you home.” I know that is an extreme example but I am just making the point that this verse is not saying that a woman will want to rule over her husband but her husband is really in charge and hence you will have conflict. I believe what it is saying is that the husband is going to recognize his wife’s heart and he will make practical decisions within the laws of God to protect her heart. Rather than Adam blindly following Eve’s suggestion that it was ok to eat the fruit, Adam knew full well it was wrong and what he should have done was to search his wife’s heart to discover why she wanted to eat the fruit and rather than act on emotion, try to meet the need of his wife in a way that was within the laws of God.
If you don’t like that interpretation let me add a possible third interpretation built on the first that this did create a conflict in the marriage. It could be saying that the woman will be looking to her husband and expecting her husband to meet a need that only God can fulfill and when the husband attempts to meet that need that only God can fulfill, the woman will be unfulfilled and blame her husband and hence you have conflict.
So take your choice. Frankly I like the idea of a woman being cursed such that she will desire her husband, but unfortunately I am a student of the Hebrew language and I just can’t make that one fit. I tried, I really did.
Recent Comments