Desire of the Woman

The second half of Genesis 3:16 is a verse that is often controversial, especially in the post-modern western worldview.  The traditional rendering of the half-verse is usually worded similarly to the King James which reads, “and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”  Many of the more popular versions read in this fashion, as well as many of the not so popular.[1]  There are, however, many alternate renderings in the English.

“And you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.” – NLT

“Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” – ESV

“Since your trust is turning toward your husband, and he will dominate you.” – ISV

“You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.” – NET

“Thou shalt be under thy husband’s power, and he shall have dominion over thee.” – Douay-Rheims[2]

As we can see from that list there are several possibilities we need to consider in the translating of the Hebrew word for “desire.”  In the common English vernacular “desire” doesn’t seem to fit with the translations listed above.  It insinuates strong wants, wishes, or passionate feelings.  Webster’s 1828 Dictionary links it to attainment or possession of an object, which gets us closer to the meaning of the original King James translation, but to obtain the best understanding we should look at the original language.[3]  The Hebrew wording is: we’el isek tesuqatek wehu yimsal bak – וְאֶל אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ וְה֖וּא יִמְשָׁל בָּֽךְ – literally: [and towards] [your man] [your desire] [and he] [he will rule] [over].[4]  The primary word in question for this discussion is “desire,” teshuqah.  This word is actually only used a total of three times in the Bible – once each in Genesis 3:16; 4:7; and Song of Solomon 7:10.

In Song of Solomon, the verse has to do with a sense of belonging to her beloved – “I am my lover’s, and he claims me as his own.” (NLT) “I belong to my beloved, and his desire is for me.” (NIV).  In this verse we can interpret the beloved (man) as a type of headship over the lover (woman).[5]  This type of interpretation (headship) would go well with the context of the words in Genesis 4:7 – “…sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (NASB) Other versions of 4:7 have many different wordings, but they all have virtually the same message: we must control sin rather than it control us.  A number of commentators have made the comparison between Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 because of the very similar wording in the Hebrew.  The last part of 4:7 reads – w’eleka tesuqatow w’etah timsal bow – וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל בּֽוֹ – [and towards you] [its desire] [and/but you] [must rule] [over].[6]  As one can see, the wording in both verses is almost exactly the same with the only difference being the pronouns used.  The NET Bible translation takes a similar approach to the 4:7 interpretation in translating 3:16, explaining that it better fits the context of sin and judgement.[7]

When attempting to interpret the “desire of the woman” in 3:16, most commentators and preachers take the same route as Davis in Paradise to Prison.  He says the woman “would have a deep natural attraction to her husband,” noting that the root of tesuqah is suq which “connotes a desire so strong for something that one would run after, or violently crave it.” [8]  However, Strong’s concordance defines the root word as “to overflow”[9] and the NAS Exhaustive Concordance says it means “to be abundant.”[10]  Perhaps Davis is correct in his assessment, but there are also others who attest that teshuqah is better rendered in English as “a turning toward.”  Walter Kaiser cites, in favor of this definition, that three-fourths of the manuscripts of the ancient versions (LXX, Peshitta, Samaritan Pentateuch, Vulgate, et al.) render it as “turning” and many of the early church fathers also held this understanding.[11]  If indeed a more literal translation should be “towards your husband you will turn,” then we would interpret the woman as being more submissive to her husband.  Besides the linguistics, there is also good theological support for this.  Barnes translates the verse thus: “The determination of thy will shall be yielded to thy husband, and, accordingly, he shall rule over thee.”[12]

Conclusion

In the search to understand this passage, there have been three major, though extremely different, interpretations given.  The first most accepted interpretation is that the woman has a “longing” for her husband.  In this view she seeks an intimate relationship, and most commentators who hold this view paint a picture of a dreamy eyed girl longing for her husband, sometimes sexually, but her husband is uncaring and domineering.  While those words may not be used exactly, that is the point of view they relate.  The primary merit in this interpretation is that of history – for the most part of the history of mankind women have been dominated by men and have been often portrayed (and not unjustly) as weaker both physically and emotionally, but also more caring, loving and nurturing.

The second most prevalent interpretation (at least in current thought) is the conflict view.  In this view the woman is seeking to control her husband rather than be submissive to the man’s leadership as she was created to be. (cf., Gen. 2:18-23; 1 Cor. 11:3; Eph 5:23) The main argument for this is its grammatical similarity with Genesis 4:7.  The classical interpretation of 4:7 has God explaining to Cain that sin is trying to control him, but he must subdue it before it does.  If the classical interpretation of Genesis 4:7 is correct (and there is little argument against this) then this interpretation of Genesis 3:16 makes textual sense.  This interpretation also makes good sense regarding the fact that Eve did not turn to either Adam or God for guidance in such an important matter.  We do not have the details of Adam’s whereabouts earlier in the narrative, but we do know that she did not consult him before eating the fruit.  The NET notes say that “sin produces a conflict or power struggle.”[13]  This presents a mirror to the status of the Bride of Christ and His Lordship.  We often follow our own wills rather than submitting them to His.

The third interpretation has great historical significance that cannot be overlooked.  That is, rather than rendering teshuqah as “desire” or “control,” to render it according to the most ancient interpretations as “turning.”  While this view is not as popular as of late, the interpretation of a woman’s submission to her husband holds as much credence historically as the “desire” argument.  The only problem with this view lies in the realm of sin and judgement.  We must ask ourselves when the directive of a wife’s submission to her husband was instituted.  If it was when she was created, then this verse is no judgement for her sin, but rather a restating of God’s original design.

I propose that instead of trying to compartmentalize these few words into an exact English interpretation, why not admit that there are good elements to all three proposals and perhaps they can all be correct?  Is a wife to be submissive in her will to her husband’s governance?[14]  There is plenty of Biblical support for this, both in the New and Old Testaments.  Is there conflict when a wife seeks to control and dominate her husband?  I think most marriage counselors would agree wholeheartedly on this.  Do women naturally long for their husbands?  Ask a few.  I’m sure if they have a good relationship then both husband and wife will attest to this fact of life.

Often the Spirit speaks in many different ways to people using the same passage of the Bible.  I have heard more than one pastor attest to members of his congregation getting something entirely different out of his message than he thought he was relaying. That is the Spirit speaking to each on the level he or she is currently at, and speaking what each needs to hear at that given moment.  If we recognize that, then why do we argue so much about the “correct” interpretation of a single verse.  Instead, accept that all are good interpretations, and recognize the merit in each.

(And yes, I’m loving the lego versions!)

Bibliography

Barnes. “Section III. The Fall.” In Barnes’ Notes. Accessed February 9, 2017. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/genesis/3.htm.

Davis, John J. Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis. Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Company, 1975.

“Genesis 3:16 Notes.” In NET Bible. Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C., 1996. Accessed February 8, 2017. https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Genesis+3:16.

Kaiser, Walter, et al. “3:16 How was the Woman Punished?” In Hard Sayings of the Bible. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996.

Strong, James. Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Abingdon Press, 1890.

Thomas, Robert L. NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Including Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries. 1981.

Webster, Noah. American Dictionary of the English Language.  1828. Accessed February 8, 2017. http://webstersdictionary1828.com/.

---

 

[1] Among those with a very similar wording are: KJV, NIV, NASB, HCSB, ASV, GODS WORD, JPS Tanakh 1917, NAS 1977, Darby, Youngs, et al.

[2] Emphasis is added to the words that mark the major differences in translation

[3] Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language, (1828), accessed February 8, 2017, http://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/desire.

[4] See http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/3-16.htm.

[5] See https://www.merriam-webster.com/thesaurus/headship for an explanation of headship.

[6] See http://biblehub.com/interlinear/genesis/4-7.htm.

[7] “Genesis 3:16 Notes” in NET Bible. (Biblical Studies Press, L.L.C., 1996), accessed February 8, 2017, https://net.bible.org/#!bible/Genesis+3:16.

[8] Davis, John J. Paradise to Prison: Studies in Genesis (Salem, WI: Sheffield Publishing Company, 1975) 94.

[9] James Strong, Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, (Abingdon Press, 1890), http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7783.htm.

[10] Robert L. Thomas, NAS Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible: Including Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries, (1981), http://biblehub.com/hebrew/7783.htm.

[11] Walter Kaiser et al, “3:16 How was the Woman Punished?” in Hard Sayings of the Bible (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1996), 96.

[12] Barnes, “Section III. The Fall,” in Barnes’ Notes. Accessed February 9, 2017. http://biblehub.com/commentaries/barnes/genesis/3.htm.

[13] “Genesis 3:16 Notes.”

[14] “Governance” in this verse is quite possibly a better rendering than “rule;” for it has a different connotation to modern readers.