The Battle between the Sexes!

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. 

 

Divine Anguish

When English translations all agree, is there reason to look at the Hebrew text? Genesis 3:9 reads:

And the LORD God called unto Adam, and said unto him, “Where art thou?” (KJV)
And Jehovah God called unto the man, and said unto him, “Where art thou?” (RSV)
Then the LORD God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” NASB)
But the LORD God called to the man, “Where are you?” (NIV)

The story is familiar. Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating from the forbidden tree. Upon hearing the sound of Yahweh in the garden, they hid among the trees out of fear knowing that they had disobeyed. Yahweh called out to them asking where they were, and they responded with the excuse that they hid because they were naked.

Although a number of theological questions could be asked about this event, the present question is whether or not anything can be gained by looking at the Hebrew text which reads:

וַיִּקְרָא יְהוָה אֱלהִים אֶל־הָאָדָם וַיאמֶר לו אַיֶּכָּה׃

On an initial reading there is little to get excited about. But a closer examination of the final word opens up a profound truth. When seen this passage can never again be read unemotionally.

The original writing was without vowel points and the last word in the unpointed text of this verse contains a clear double reference. The word in the pointed text stands for the interrogative particle "where?" (אי) plus a somewhat rare form of the 2nd masculine singular pronoun "you" (כה). However, another word consists of the same consonants איכה and that word has various meanings: the interrogative adverb of manner, "in what manner?"; the interrogative adverb of place, "where?"; and the exclamation, "how!". As an exclamation איכה is the title and theme of the book of Lamentations!

Not only did God confront Adam and Eve in the garden making them face the consequences of their sin—alienation from Him. He also experienced the pain of separation. The word translated “where?” is also an exclamatory cry of anguish, “how!”, a cry reflected in the incomplete sentence of Genesis 3:22 “And now lest he sends forth his hand and takes also from the tree of life and eats and lives forever. . . .” It is as if God is unable to verbalize the judgment implied. This divine anguish continues to Calvary and only finds relief in Revelation 22 when the people of God enjoy God’s presence forever as they partake of the tree of life in the midst of the garden.

The story of original sin is as much a story of God’s pain as it is of mankind’s disobedience. Maybe when we reflect upon this aspect of Genesis 3 we will be able to appreciate the heinous nature of our own sins. And, yes, there is reason to consult the Hebrew text even when the English versions agree.