“To the woman he said,
‘I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing;
in pain you will bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.’
Genesis 3:16b has often proven difficult to interpret, and the wide variety of opinions offered in scholarly literature is testimony to this. There are areas of linguistic and theological ambiguity that help to prevent a decisive exegesis of the verse. There also social and ecclesiological concerns that can be shaped by verses such as these, as Gen 3:16 can be seen to legitimise male dominance and the subjugation of women. There are difficulties to overcome, and whilst it is easy to agree with Augustine that “there is a great mystery in this sentence,”[1] this should not prevent us from attempting to arrive at exegetically sound conclusions as to precisely what is intended when God pronounces this judgment on the woman.
The judgement in Genesis 3:16b is one that primarily affects the relationship between the man and the woman and so it will be necessary to first examine the nature of the relationship between man and woman prior to the judgement to untie some of the complex exegetical knots in which the sin of the man and the woman has tied their relationship.
In Genesis 1:27, God creates both the male and female parts of humankind in his image. That both male and female are in the image of God shows that there is no qualitative difference between male and female,[2] there is not a hierarchy based on gender. The male-female relationship is one of mutuality and reciprocation, which prepares the way for humankind to ‘be fruitful and multiply’ in Gen 1:28.
In the Genesis 2 account, there seems to be a slightly different order. The man is created prior to the woman. The woman is created as an ezer, or helper for the man. This term need not imply that the hierarchy established in 3:16b is already in evidence here, as ezer is used of God in the Psalms (e.g. Ps 118:7), and so it is better to think of the woman as being a partner with the man in helping with the ruling of the earth, rather than a subordinate. Ellen van Wolde notes that in 2:18 and 2:20, the word ezer appears together with the term kenegdo, a “composite word in which neged means ‘over against’, ‘appropriate’, or ‘corresponding to’ and ke ‘as’, so that as a whole it means ‘an appropriate, corresponding help.’[3] Additionally, the woman is created from the rib of Adam, which van Wolde suggests is done to indicate equality and a pairing ‘on the same level’.[4] The woman is a ‘helper-counterpart’[5] for the man, and this partnership is enshrined in the covenant of marriage described in 2:24. This verse expresses the heart of Israelite ideas about relationship and some of the fundamental convictions about the nature and purpose of marriage[6], and thus becomes the benchmark by which we can judge the effects of the fall on the male-female relationship, resulting in the pronouncement in 3:16b.
There is then mutuality in male-female relationships prior to the fall, yet there is also differentiation between the man and the woman. Both are in the image of God, and yet there are distinctions between them. The man is created and given the task of gardening (2:5, 2:15), whereas the woman was created to be man’s helper and the mother of children[7] (2:18, 2:23-24). There is an element of continuity before and after the fall in that the man and the woman both continue in these roles, and the judgements in Gen 3 directly affect these roles. The man will have difficulty in working the ground (3:17-19) and the woman’s task of childbearing will be frustrated by an increase in pain in labour (3:16).
If the function remains the same, what then are the elements of continuity and discontinuity in the form of the relationship between the man and the woman? I have already suggested that the pattern of male-female relationships in Genesis 1 and 2 suggested a relationship of mutuality and equality, but is this necessarily the case? Is the hierarchy in Genesis 3:16b a corrupted version of a pre-fall hierarchy, or is it an element of discontinuity in radical opposition to the equality of the earlier chapters?
Lanser argues that “the hā’ādām of Genesis 1 and 2 is not ‘the first man’, but an ‘it’. Gender comes into being only with the creation of woman in 2:22, which entails the sexual differentiation expressed in 2:23.”[8] The human being is genderless until God constructs a woman out of part of the human being, so that the human being is distinct and plural.[9] Hā’ādām is no longer bound to the earth, but as ish, is bound to the woman, ishshah[10]. Their identities are found in one another and are mutually dependent on each other, there can be no male if there is no female to distinguish the man as male. As the man exclaims in 2:23:
“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
this one shall be called Woman,
For out of Man this one was taken.”
The woman is seen as the one with whom the man desired to establish a bonding relationship,[11] and she is created from his side and is made from the same substance as the man and so will remain distinct from the other creatures over whom the man has dominion.
Nevertheless, it is the man who names the woman, as he has named the other creatures over which he has dominion. So the pre-fall narrative is not completely devoid of a male-headed relational structure. Additionally, the theory proposed by Lanser and van Wolde that Hā’ādām is a genderless proto-human is not fully supported by the entire creation narrative. Whilst God clearly creates a mutually bonded pair in 2:18-25, the Genesis 1 account shows God creating a humanity that is both male and female, and commands them to be fruitful and multiply – scarcely a possibility for a genderless human being.
It is also important to note that it is the woman who is created out of man, and not vice-versa. The man has priority, but is this necessarily the same thing as primacy and thus a god-ordained dominance? Some interpreters have even argued that the creation of the female after the male suggests she is therefore the best, though this perhaps reflects more on the preconceptions of the interpreters rather than the text.[12]
If God has already ordained for the man to rule over the woman before the fall, then the judgement in 3:16b is scarcely necessary. If the husband already rules over the wife, then God is only restating what must have been an original intention, but this does not fit within the context of judgement and punishment. Genesis 3:16b then finds itself in the tension of continuity and discontinuity of pre-fall and post-fall conditions: just as the man and the woman continue with the same tasks, yet with more difficulty, so there remains a bond in the relationship, but one that is now afflicted by a battle for power and not mutual love. This is of course assuming that the ‘desire’ of the woman is to dominate her husband, rather than sexual desire, but both of these possibilities will be discussed below.
The male-female relationship is a divinely created one. It is one of mutuality and reciprocation. They are bone of each others’ bones and flesh of each others’ flesh, yet in Gen 3:16b sin has tainted and altered the relationship. It will then be necessary to analyse the areas of breakdown in the fall narrative to understand the arrival at the judgment in 3:16b.
2. The Fall and its effect on male-female relationships
Much theology has been built on this part of the Genesis account and evil, the fall, death, sin and sex have been objectified and seen as things in themselves,[13] and there is a great danger in reading centuries of theology into an ancient text. The narrative flow between Genesis 2 and 3 focuses not on dogmatics but on the relationship between the man and the woman. In the background are the ordinances that God has instigated at the start of creation, and calamity comes as the humans and one of the creatures conspire to unravel the threads that have bound creation together in harmony with its Creator.
The wise and crafty serpent talks to the woman and tempts her to eat some of the forbidden fruit, she listens to the serpent and eats some of the fruit, before enticing her husband to do the same. But why approach the woman first? Turner suggests that the Serpent is aware of the command given to humanity to subdue creation in 1:28, and of the command not to eat from the tree in 2:17, and by challenging both of these directives, he is trying to subvert human destiny.[14] The first breakdown in the created order occurs here where the serpent manages to dominate the woman, against the command of 1:28. The second breakdown between man and woman follows from this. After the woman has persuaded the man to eat, their eyes are opened and they realise they are naked.
The conflict between the man and the woman becomes apparent when God enters the garden. The man and the woman hide from God, and when confronted by him it becomes clear that they are no longer revelling in their oneness as they were in 2:23-24. Van Wolde points out that “formerly there was constant talk of ‘we’, now they speak only of ‘I’ […] All solidarity has disappeared.”[15]. The man does not speak of ‘bone of my bone’ but his companion is now ‘the woman whom [God] gave to be with me.’ The rebellion against God has fractured the unity of the man and woman, and the oneness and mutuality has disappeared. This is the place from which we arrive at 3:16b, and so 3:16b must be understood as a divine response to alienation and disharmony that sin has brought into creation.
God pronounces two curses, one on the serpent and one on the ground that the man must now work. It is important to note here that curses are only pronounced on the serpent and on the ground, not on the man or the woman. An interesting question arises at this point: God does not pronounce a divine curse on the man or woman, so is he merely announcing what the consequences of sin will now be, or is he more active in bringing forth the judgements on the male-female relationship? If God ordains the order in 3:16b, then he can be seen to give legitimacy to a male hierarchy, and it is from here that feminist scholars derive their concern that the Genesis narrative is creating a “misogynist’s playground”.[16] I believe that God is active, and not a passive observer in these verses, not least because it is difficult to conceive of an ancient Israelite who did not attribute all phenomena in life to God,[17] and this includes the ordering of social and relational structures. So I maintain that God purposes the order in 3:16b, but that it does not necessarily legitimise male dominance and the subjugation of women.
3. Conclusion: the meaning of 3:16b
The judgement on the woman is not an isolated decree; it continues the theme of relationship that has been there throughout the Genesis account. To understand precisely what is meant by the man’s appointment to ‘rule’, it is first necessary to understand what is meant by the woman’s desire. There are two chief ideas as to what ‘desire’ may mean in this context. The word for desire here is tesuqā, and its rare usage in the Old Testament makes it difficult to define. It occurs in Genesis 4:7, where sin has ‘desire’ for Cain, but he is told to master it. If this meaning of the word is used in 3:16b, then the desire of the woman is to break the relationship of equality and turn it into a relationship of servitude and domination,[18] where she attempts to dominate and control her husband. The woman had of course already been tricked by the serpent and led her husband into sin earlier in the story, and so by decreeing that the man will rule over the woman, God avoids a repeat of a similar event.
If the desire of the woman is to dominate the man with her “urge for independence” [19] in the same way that sin wanted to dominate Cain, then the rule exercised by the man is to counter that independence. Wenham argues that ‘rule’ represents the “harsh, exploitative” subjugation[20] to which the man will now subject the woman in their fallen relationship. It has been altered from a reciprocal relationship to one in which a man exercises authority over a woman,[21] and those who had previously been one flesh now find themselves tearing each other apart.[22]
However, my contention is that the woman’s tesuqā is sexual, and not to do with dominance. The first part of 3:16 refers to the original mandate of being fruitful and multiplying. The process of reproduction will be a painful affair, but the woman’s continued sexual craving for her husband will negate this seeming disincentive to human reproduction.[23] The original mandate of 1:28 must be borne in mind here. God’s command was to ‘be fruitful and multiply’, but after the conflict introduced by the fall, the reciprocal relationship was thrown into turmoil. The Serpent had managed to subvert man’s dominion over the living creatures by tricking the woman, which in turn had led to sin and the fragmentation of their oneness. They hide from God and from each other and their unity is replaced by blame and conflict. Gen 3:16b is then not a statement that perpetuates this conflict between man and woman, but it is restorative and that partnership will prevail over disunity and isolation as in 2:18 and 2:21-25. It ensures that the pair will remain together. The judgement relates precisely to these original plans in creation, and is not punitive so much as it is restorative.
In a male-female relationship that has been afflicted by sin and alienation, God is opening up a horizon of hope where currently there is none. Additionally, we should not overlook the relationship between the promise of 3:15 and the words to the woman in 3:16.[24] The serpent has led the human beings into sin, but God promises that in the battle between their offspring, it will be the seed of the woman that ultimately prevails. In the same vein of hope and restoration, God does not meet the sin of the naked human beings with immediate death, but rather clothes them with garments of skins (3:21), and despite being faced with death and painful childbirth, the woman is named Eve, ‘the mother of all who live’ – a statement of faith and hope in the face of pain and death the part of the man.[25] When the facts warrant death, God insists on life for his creatures.[26] The judgement of 3:16b is not then an imposition of a male hierarchy on an insolent woman by way of punishing both humans. It is a redemptive act on God’s part as he seeks to steer humanity back to his original purposes of 1:28 and 2:18-25, and is set in a context of promise, not pessimistic resignation.
If the woman’s desire is sexual and so ensures the continuity of life, what then is meant by the statement that the husband shall rule over the wife? The word used for rule here is mashal. Its first use in the Genesis narrative comes in 1:16 and describes the way the sun and moon relate to the day and night respectively,[27] yet no one supposes that the earth exists to serve the sun, and so neither does woman exist to serve man.[28] However, the use of an identical word in 1:16 and 3:16b does not automatically mean that the author is comparing the man and the woman to the sun and the earth, so there is perhaps a weakness in Van Wolde’s argument. As outlined above, a commonly held view is that the rule of the man will involve the subjugation of the woman. However, Wenham notes that the man has authority over the woman before and after the fall, as he twice names her[29] (2:23; 3:20), but if this is the case then God is simply restating something that was already apparent and there is no discontinuity before and after the fall. The context of judgement and the announcement of a different future for creation after the fall negate this as being a probable reason for the announcement. I would propose then that the man is given place to rule over the woman, not to punish her and subjugate her (although this has often been the case), but to sustain her and protect her. For the man this is a recovery of the headship that was toppled by the serpent and a guard against future reoccurrences of a similar event. The woman will give birth to children, but the man will sustain her by labouring to provide food. Understanding ‘rule’ as sustaining and watching over not only sits more comfortably with the concept of mashal in 1:16, but also with the mashal concept in God’s control over the natural world and humanity[30] (e.g. Psalm 22:28, 89:9). It is not abusive, but rather an authoritative rule that protects and provides and allows God’s plan for a fractured humanity to prevail. There are of course elements of tension in this assertion, and it is impossible to escape the fact that a male hierarchy is implied, yet at the same time the story is full of equality: the woman is made to correspond to the man, both eat the forbidden fruit, and both face increases in pain and labour.[31] There are also differences: the man works the ground (2:15, 3:17-19, 3:23), and the woman complements him by bearing children.[32] These differences do not elevate one gender over the other, but rather they enable each gender to make a true contribution to the other.[33]
It is still in mutuality that humanness is to be found and life is to come forth as God had planned in 1:28 and 2:18-25, and despite the disruption to the creation introduced by the serpent and the subsequent alienation in the male-female relationship. In 3:16b God judges in a context of hope and promise to ensure that sin will not dominate and that its effects are addressed. The continued desire of the woman for her husband and her husband’s rule over her will ensure that the relational breakdown brought in by the fall will not ultimately be allowed to prevail over and against God’s plan for life, unity and fruitfulness, just as the wicked act of the serpent will not finally prevail over humankind.
[1] Augustine, Two Books Against The Manicheans 2.19.29 in Louth, A (Ed) Ancient Christian Commentary Series: Genesis 1-11 (Downers’ Grove: IVP, 2001) p93
[2] Hartley, J E New International Biblical Commentary: Genesis (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2000) p48
[3] Van Wolde, E Stories of the Beginning (London: SCM, 1996) p53
[4] Ibid. p54
[5] Cassuto, U A Commentary On Genesis 1-11 ET I Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1961, 1964) p134
[6] Wenham, G J Word Biblical Commentary Genesis 1-15 (Waco: Word Books, 1987) p69
[7] Ibid. p81
[8] Lanser, S Feminist Criticism in the Garden: Inferring Genesis 2-3 Semaia 41 (Decatur: Society of Biblical Literature, 1988) p69
[9] Van Wolde, p54
[10] Ibid. p55
[11] Hartley, p62
[12] Van Wolde, p54
[13] Brueggemann, W Genesis: An Interpretation Bible Commentary For Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1982) p43
[14] Turner, L Genesis Readings: A New Biblical Commentary (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000) p30
[15] Van Wolde, p56
[16] Bechtel, L M Re-thinking the Interpretation of Genesis 2:4b-3:24 in Athalya, B A Feminist Companion to Genesis (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993) p77
[17] Hamilton. V P NICOT: The Book of Genesis 1-17 (Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1990) p201
[18] Ibid. p202
[19] See Foh, S What is the Woman’s desire? WTJ 37 [1974/75] pp376-83, cited in Wenham, p88
[20] Wenham, p81
[21] Hartley, p69
[22] Wenham, p89
[23] Turner, p33
[24] Sailhamer, J H The Pentateuch As Narrative (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1992) p 108
[25] Wenham (p84) notes that Keil, Delitzsch, von Rad and Steck all agree with this hypothesis, though he himself is ‘more doubtful’ about this assertion.
[26] Brueggemann, p50
[27] NRSV and NKJV ‘rule’, NIV ‘govern’.
[28] Van Wolde, p56
[29] Wenham, p81
[30] Bechtel, p104
[31] Hartley, p76
[32] Ibid.
[33] Ibid.
Whoa. Good Stuff Sven! I know for me – an uppity headstrong little woman who has struggled mightily with submission – I was shocked to find out how much I depend on my husband just as a stablizing force for my nuttiness. (don’t know what ya got til it deploys!) Two thoughts about the Fall.. 1. Did ya ever wonder what would have happened if only Eve had eaten the fruit? If Adam had said “No way -I’m not doing that and we’re going to go talk to God about this right now.” Hmmm. Also, interesting that childbirth is the only natural process that hurts when it’s functioning correctly. In every other bodily process – pain means something is wrong. Anecdotal Proof of creation and the fall in my book!
blestwithsons (email) (link) - 25 05 05 - 03:26
I’m not sure what would have happened if only Eve had eaten the fruit but in one sense I’m not sure it matters because the damage had already been done in the sense that a) Adam had failed to protect Eve and more seriously, by even listening to and obeying the serpent Eve had already disobeyed God because she was failing to rule over the creation as God had commanded humanity to do, and by overthrowing this order the serpent has in some ways already done the damage.
Another interesting issue: the serpent is already evil and wicked before the fall, so where does evil come from? I have my own ideas but the text itself doesn’t really give us an answer.
Sven (email) (link) - 25 05 05 - 11:19
Were did the snake come from, tell us please?
Richard
richard mcintosh - 25 05 05 - 12:03
It escaped from Babylon Zoo. (Remember them?)
Most of the ANE creation stories have serpents in them, usually as symbols of cunning or wisdom.
I think many people would stone me for this but I think the snake was already evil because chaos and nothingness (das Nicht) was already present in creation (raging waters in Jewish literature always represent chaos and destruction – hence in the new creation ‘there is no longer any sea’) so it’s less of problem to ask about where evil came from, evil is simply the annihilating chaotic nothingness out of which the world was formed. It’s partly why the resurrection is so important as the first act of new creation, but that’s for another discussion.
Sven (email) (link) - 25 05 05 - 12:42
I’m not familiar with any contemporary complementarian who treats the fall as the justification for distinctions in gender roles. Most base it in the creation order, as Paul does. The one place Paul brings in the fall is when he mentions Eve being deceived and sinning first, but that could go either way. It might be an emphasis that Adam knew full well what he was doing and thus bears more responsibility.
Jeremy Pierce (email) (link) - 30 05 05 - 12:59
Well when I researched the essay I didn’t come across any scholars who saw the order given in Gen 3:16b as a legitimisation of male dominance. The feminist literature is extremely aggressive in the face of such an interpretation, though from what I’ve observed the idea that the text legitimises the oppressive subjugation of women by men seems to have its root in folk-theology rather than serious scholarship. Maybe it’s feminist paranoia? (Though I suspect there may be some justification for this.)
The best reading of the text in my view is that it is an overwhelmingly positive statement in the face of the disaster that the serpent has contrived to bring on humanity. In the light of Gen 1:28 it seems to be a restorative act that will ensure the continuation of Adam’s line and thus the fulfillment of God’s plan for humanity (which will of course be finally fulfilled in the Messiah).
In 3:16 I think God is ensuring that his purpose in 1:28 will remain, and indeed the rest of the bok of Genesis repeatedly affirms this command, though astonishingly Cassuto was the only commentator who seemed to spot this theme.
Sven (email) (link) - 30 05 05 - 15:35
“For man was not made from woman but woman from man. Neither was man made for woman, but woman for man.” (I Cor 11:8, ESV)
“For Adam was formed first, then Eve” (I Tim 2:13, ESV)
It’s hard to deny that Paul found this at least somewhat significant. Most complementarians insist on this in response to the claim that gender roles are a result of the fall. They can’t be wholly a result of the fall if at least some of the reason is based in creation order. As far as I can tell, that’s the core argument for complementarianism. Maybe the issue is what you mean by male dominance. Complementarians don’t like to talk that way. They talk about authority in terms of servant leadership along with responsibility before God. They don’t talk of it in any way that could be confused with lording it over someone, as the KJV puts it. When I think of male dominance, I think of the latter. Complementarians don’t try to justify that with the creation order, but they do justify male authority in the church and the family by appealing to the creation order, as Paul certainly seems to do in those two passages.
Jeremy Pierce (email) (link) - 07 06 05 - 13:16
Christian Classics Library
Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Early Christian Writings
Early Jewish Writings
Orthodox Prayers
Ekklesia
Karl Barth
Jürgen Moltmann
Nazarene Holiness Archives
New Advent
N T Wright
The Paul Page
Tektonics
The Tertullian Project
Theological Society
Theology Library