The battle between men and women constitutes one of the
enduring conflicts of the ages. When did it begin? “With Adam and Eve,” say
some Bible interpreters focusing on Genesis 3:16, “To the woman [God]
said, ‘I will greatly increase your pains in childbearing; with pain you will
give birth to children. Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule
over you.’” (New International Version, NIV) The last two
clauses bear the brunt of this post, “Your desire will be for your
husband, and he will rule over you.”
The focal points for this “conflict” interpretation are the word desire (תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ), the phrase he will rule (וְהוּא ימְשָׁל־בָּךְ), and the English
future tenses. Ron and Beverly Allen (Liberated Traditionalism, page
124) state that “the desire spoken of here is a desire to usurp [the husband’s]
leadership. That is, in addition to pain in childbearing, the curse on the
woman produces conflict between herself and her husband.” The future tenses
suggest that the conflict will continue through time. In this view she wants to
rule but he has the leadership role.
This interpretation, however, is not a foregone conclusion in the context.
A conflict idea attached to the word “desire” (תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ)
from the broader context is, at best, an exegetical stretch. The word refers to
an urge, craving, impulse, longing (William L. Holladay, Editor, A
Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament; Francis Brown,
Samuel Rolles Driver and Charles Augustus Briggs, Enhanced Brown-Driver-Briggs
Hebrew and English Lexicon). The leadership role is imbedded in the phrase
“and he shall rule over you” (וְהוּא ימְשָׁל־בָּךְ).
The preceding clauses of the verse must establish a clear connection between
Eve’s judgment of pain in childbearing, and Adam's role as the dominant partner
in the sexual relationship. This appears to be ignored in the “conflict”
interpretation.
The other two uses in the OT of “desire” (תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ),
The Song of Solomon 7:10 in English and Genesis 4:7 contextually do not focus
on conflict. The crouching animal in the imagery of Genesis 4:7 has no innate
aspirations for leadership but for the biological need to satisfy hunger. To
read a leadership conflict into this verse distorts the imagery. Cain must rule
over sin. In Genesis 3:16, the immediate contextual issue from Eve's
point of view is the satisfying of her biological need for children and
enduring the promised pain. Also, the imperfect form of the Hebrew verb to
rule can but need not have simple future reference. The Imperfect
of Obligation (Ronald J. Williams, Hebrew Syntax: An Outline)
is contextually very probable here. If Eve wants to satisfy her innate
biological need for children she must submit to Adam who must take
control sexually. There is no other option.
Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 are remarkably similar syntactically (3:16,וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ וְהוּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּךְ׃ and 4:7, וְאֵלֶיךָ תְּשׁוּקָתו וְאַתָּה תִּמְשָׁל־בּו). Exegetically the first usage sets the interpretive pattern for the second unless some textual clue demands a differentiation. This is not the case in Genesis 4:7. The most natural idea that fits both passages equally well is that of obligation. The Genesis 3:16 clauses would then read, “Your desire will be for your husband, and he is obligated take control over you [sexually].” Eve, by biological nature, is the subordinate partner in the conception of children. Her innate need for children, the immediate context of the last two clauses of Genesis 3:16, moves her to sexually desire her husband, the God-ordained dominant partner in the childbearing process. This natural relationship reminds her of her subordinate role. (A forthcoming article will show the intimate connections between Genesis 3:16 and Paul's reference to it in 1 Timothy 2:11-15.)
A summary paraphrase of Genesis 3:16 may read like
this: The woman’s inborn biological need for children means that she must
desire her husband sexually who is the dominant partner and without whose
cooperation children cannot be conceived. A “battle between the sexes”
often exists, but Genesis 3:16 is not the initial source for such
conflicts.
