Marital hierarchy was introduced at creation, where the husband was to lovingly exercise authority over his wife and the wife was to respectfully submit to her husband. God designed men to provide for and protect their wives (Genesis 2:15), and He designed women to be helpers to their husbands (Genesis 2:18).
Three Views of Genesis 3:16
However, the fall corrupted this relationship and introduced strife between husband and wife. Sin has corrupted everything, including marriage. But is this marital strife specifically foretold by God in Genesis 3:16? When God pronounced judgment against Eve, He said to her:
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you (Genesis 3:16, ESV).
The difficulty of this verse has led to several interpretations. There are Christians today who argue that there was no hierarchy between man and woman prior to the fall (part of the view known as egalitarianism). However, assuming hierarchy and male headship were part of creation, there are three possible views. God’s pronouncement in Genesis 3:16 could:
reaffirm the creation marital hierarchy as a continued blessing;
describe the perversion of marital roles; or
predict that the wife will desire to escape the husband’s authority but prescribe that the husband must exercise godly rule to restrain his wife.[1]
View 1, which sees Genesis 3:16 as a reaffirmation of creational hierarchy, takes the actions of both the husband and wife as positive (the wife is devoted to her husband, and the husband leads her). This fits the context of children in the preceding clause of 3:16 (“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children”) and thus pairs childbirth with the woman’s desire/devotion to her husband rather than introducing a second judgment upon the woman. Together this would mean that in spite of woman enduring pain in childbearing, she will still be devoted her husband and have children with him. The challenge for this view is that the context of Genesis 3:16 deals with God’s judgment upon Eve, and thus it is hard to understand why the man’s “rule” is mentioned here if it is positive. One possibility is that since the woman broke from the authority of her husband in her transgression (3:1-6), God “redirected” her “to the place that suits her in creation.” In this case, Genesis 3:16 is “a summons to return to the creation subordination to the man” (Werner Neuer, Man and Woman in Christian Perspective, p. 80).
View 2, which sees this as a perversion of creational hierarchy, has two possibilities. One option takes the actions of both the husband and the wife as negative (the wife is devoted to usurping her husband’s authority, and the husband exercises an abusive authority over her), while the second option takes the wife’s “devotion” as positive but the husband’s “rule” as negative (even when the wife is devoted to her husband, he may still abuse authority over her). View 2 is a common historical view, seen in Calvin’s words that Eve had “previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude.”[2] The ESV adopts the first option of view 2—“Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” The NET Bible uses stronger words—“You will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.”
View 3 takes the wife’s actions as negative and the husband’s actions as positive (the wife is devoted to usurping her husband’s authority, and the husband “must” exercise godly rule in order to overcome her attempted usurpation). This view relies heavily on the parallel construction of Genesis 4:7. It appears to be a modern view, first advocated by Susan Foh in the 1970s.[3]
Which interpretation of Genesis 3:16 we adopt will not have a significant impact on our understanding of marital hierarchy and gender roles. This is because the creation account teaches hierarchy prior to the fall—Adam was created first (1 Timothy 2:13), Adam had a protective role (Genesis 2:15), Adam had a teaching role (Genesis 2:16-17; 3:2-3), Adam represented the human race in the garden, not Eve (Romans 5:12-21), etc. (See chapter 6 of my book Masculine Christianity for the full argument and interaction with egalitarian responses.)
Regardless of which of the three views is correct, it is still the case that God put the husband in authority over his wife and that sin has introduced corruption into this relationship. This is not the case for egalitarians since they deny creational hierarchy and want to ground later biblical male headship in the fall. Egalitarians thus have a strong motivation for adopting a form of view 2, with the particular emphasis that man’s “rule” is introduced here as God’s judgment upon Eve.
Interpretive Challenges of Genesis 3:16
While we should not root our understanding of male and female roles in Genesis 3:16, it is still worth attempting to properly understand. Let us make mention of the interpretive challenges of this verse, as well as likely conclusions.
First, there is the question of the meaning of the rare Hebrew word תְּשׁוּקָה (teshuqa), which is usually translated “desire.” It is only used two other times in the Old Testament—a chapter later in Genesis 4:7 to describe sin’s “desire” for Cain and then in Song of Songs 7:10 [7:11 in the MT] for apparent sexual desire (“I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me”). However, philologist Andrew Macintosh has recently argued that תְּשׁוּקָה does not mean “desire” but rather “concern, preoccupation, (single-minded) devotion, focus.” His argument is based on the word’s use in the Hebrew Bible (especially Genesis 4:7), the Dead Sea Scrolls, and comparative philology of Arabic.[4] Macintosh’s proposal of “devotion” for תְּשׁוּקָה fits all three passages using the word in the Hebrew Bible—woman’s “devotion” will be to her husband (Genesis 3:16), sin’s “devotion” was to Cain (Genesis 4:7), and the beloved’s “devotion” was to the woman (Song of Songs 7:10).
Second, there is debate over the construction of the Hebrew preposition אֶל (el), whether the woman’s “devotion” is “to/for” her husband or “against” him. The above 2016 edition of the ESV recognizes this issue and thus footnotes “contrary to” with “Or shall be toward (see 4:7).” Interestingly, the above 2016 edition was a change from the 2011 edition that preferred a form of the footnote reading—“Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). The adversative of the preposition אֶל (el) is rare but possible, and examples include Cain rising up “against” Abel [אֶל־הֶ֥בֶל] (Genesis 4:8) and Yahweh’s anger burning “against” Israel [אֶל־יִשְׂרָאֵֽל] (Numbers 32:14) (see Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, p. 193).
The action in these examples is still “to/toward” the person, but the context shows the action is hostile and thus “against/contrary to” the person. However, if Macintosh is correct that תְּשׁוּקָה means “(single-minded) devotion,” it is hard to understand how the curse brought woman such a devotion to undermining her husband’s authority. This does not seem true in life, nor does it fit the typical use of devotion. Therefore, it is more likely that תְּשׁוּקָה is used positively of a woman’s “devotion” to her husband and that the typical meaning of “to” or “toward” for the preposition אֶל (el) is being used.
Third, there is the question whether the word משׁל (mashal), usually translated “rule,” is used positively or negatively in this context. The word emphasizes dominion, defined as “rule, govern, have dominance over” in the New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology & Exegesis (vol 2, ed. VanGemeren, p. 1136). It is often used in a positive sense (Judges 8:23; 2 Samuel 23:3; Isaiah 40:10; 63:19; Micah 5:2; Zechariah 6:13; 9:10; Proverbs 17:2). However, it could be understood negatively here if the emphasis is on control or domination, especially in the context of God’s judgment on Eve.
Fourth, there is the issue of how to translate the imperfect form of the verb משׁל (“rule”) in the second clause of Genesis 3:16, whether to indicate future certainty (“he will rule”), prescription (“he must rule”),[5] or potential (“he can/may rule”).[6] All are possible, as English can express the nature of the imperfect Hebrew verb using a modal (e.g. must, can, may, should). The best meaning must be determined by the context.
The Parallel Between Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7
Many commentators appeal to the parallel construction of Genesis 4:7 to shed light on 3:16. After Cain became angry because God did not have regard for his offering, God said to Cain:
If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it (Genesis 4:7).
As with Genesis 3:16, the ESV footnotes “contrary to” with “Or is toward.” Also like 3:16, the above 2016 edition was a change from the 2011 edition that preferred a form of the footnote reading—“Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it” (Genesis 4:7). This verse uses the same words for “devotion” [תְּשׁוּקָה] and “rule” [משׁל] as in Genesis 3:16.
Literally, this says, “And to you [is] its devotion, and you shall/must/can/may rule over it.” Presumably, the “it” is “sin,” the closest antecedent. However, the word “sin” [חַטָּ֣את, chattat] here is feminine and “it” is masculine, which is why the King James translated this as “unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” In this case, “his” and “him” could refer to Abel,[7] who was last mentioned in Genesis 4:4 but is part of the context of God’s address to Cain. However, the immediate context of “devotion” is sin crouching at the door, and it makes little sense that Abel’s devotion is to or against Cain.
A better understanding is that the masculine “his” and “him” refer to sin portrayed as the serpent who lies at Cain’s door and is “devoted” to him,[8] followed by God telling Cain that he has the ability to “rule” over sin. Though the serpent is not mentioned in 4:7, the prior chapter provides the background of the serpent and the language of “resting/crouching” is beastly imagery (Genesis 49:9). Thus, sin is resting at Cain’s door like the serpent in the garden (Genesis 3:1).
Seeing these two parallel verses together is helpful. The following are the different possible ways of reading the text, along with the Hebrew:
And to/against your husband [will be] your devotion,
and he will/must/may rule over you (Genesis 3:16).
וְאֶל־אִישֵׁךְ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָתֵ֔ךְ וְה֖וּא יִמְשָׁל־בָּֽךְ
And to/against you [is] its/his devotion,
and you shall/must/may rule over it/him (Genesis 4:7).
וְאֵלֶ֙יךָ֙ תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ וְאַתָּ֖ה תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ
Though not determinative, the proximity between Genesis 3:16 and 4:7, along with the parallel constructions, supports the case that they have a similar meaning. The ESV, NASB, and NET translations all adopt the future certainty of the verb משׁל (mashal) in 3:16 (“he shall/will rule”) but prescription in 4:7 (“you must rule”). Thus, they interpret the same grammatical constructions differently. View 3 of Genesis 3:16 argues that both passages should be understood consistently and that 3:16 should also be translated prescriptively (“must”), as in 4:7.
However, as seen above, Genesis 4:7 also has its difficulties, and its meaning may not parallel 3:16 as closely as it appears. Further, while the prescriptive understanding in 4:7 is possible, so is the potential “can/may.” In this case, God told Cain that sin’s devotion was to him, but Cain had the ability to rule over it. This potential translation also works in Genesis 3:16—even though the woman’s devotion would be to her husband, he had the ability to abuse authority over her. This would lead to the following translations:
And your devotion will be to your husband,
yet he may rule over you (Genesis 3:16).
And its devotion is to you,
yet you may rule over it (Genesis 4:7).
This translation adopts view 2 that Genesis 3:16 describes a perversion of the marital relationship, but it places the negative emphasis on the role of the man. It could also be translated as, “Even though you are devoted to your husband, he may abuse authority over you.” This translation of Genesis 3:16 has several advantages: (1) It adopts the better translation “devotion” for תְּשׁוּקָה (teshuqa) instead of “desire;” (2) It uses the typical meaning (“to/toward”) of the preposition אֶל (el) rather than the rare adversative (“against/contrary to”); (3) It fits the context of God pronouncing judgment on the woman in Genesis 3 (unlike view 1), though it is not judgment on the man (that comes in the following section in 3:17-19); and (4) It maintains the parallel construction of both 3:16 and 4:7 (though not the “must” of view 3).
The Corruption of Man’s Authority
Thus, Genesis 3:16 is not a prediction that husbands “will” abuse authority over their wives (as that is not always the case), nor is it a prescription that a husband “must” overcome some negative usurpation on the part of the wife (as the wife’s “devotion” is not negative). Rather, God pronounced the potential for a husband to abuse his authority over his wife as a result of the fall—even when she is devoted to her husband. Similarly, Genesis 4:7 is not a prediction that Cain would overcome sin (for he did not), nor is it a prescription that he “must” overcome it. Rather, God told Cain that he had the ability to overcome sin. Cain could have conquered sin, but he instead gave in and became a murderer (Genesis 4:8).
Regardless of how we understand Genesis 3:16, the point still stands that the fall introduced frustration into the marriage relationship. (This is true even if view 1 is adopted.) It was not that a husband’s authority and a wife’s submission were introduced as a result of the fall (as some egalitarians claim happened in Genesis 3:16), but rather that this hierarchical relationship was part of the created order and was now frustrated by the fall. Like all things, a husband’s authority and a wife’s submission are subject to corruption because of sin. Yet hierarchy between the sexes comes from the creation order, not the fall. It is not something to be overcome but something to be embraced as God’s good design.
*This article is adapted from chapter 6 of my book, Masculine Christianity (Reformation Zion Publishing, 2020).
[1] See Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament, 60–65 for a helpful overview and chart of six views of Genesis 3:16, on which the three mentioned here are based. The first three views see hierarchy as part of the creation with the fall violating this hierarchy, while the latter three reject hierarchy at creation.
[2] John Calvin, Commentaries on the Book of Genesis, vol 1 (trans. John King; Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1948), 172: “The second punishment which he exacts is subjection. For this form of speech, ‘Thy desire shall be unto thy husband,’ is of the same force as if he had said that she should not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will; or as if he had said, ‘Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.’ As it is declared afterwards, ‘Unto thee shall be his desire,’ (Genesis 4:7). Thus the woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude.”
[3] See Susan T. Foh, Women and the Word of God (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing, 1979), 67–69; Susan T. Foh, “What Is the Woman’s Desire?” Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1975): 376–383.
[4] A.A. Macintosh, “The Meaning of Hebrew תשׁוקה,” Journal of Semitic Studies 51/2 (Autumn 2016): 365–387.
[5] The injunctive imperfect (or non-perfective of injunction) “requests or commands that the subject of the verb perform the action of the verb” and is typically translated “must,” “shall,” “are to,” or “will.” Ronald J. Williams, Williams’ Hebrew Syntax (3rd ed.; University of Toronto Press, 2007), 72.
[6] The potential imperfect (or non-perfective of capability) “expresses (or denies) the ability to do or be something.” Ibid., 70. Similarly, the non-perfective of possibility “denotes the possibility that the subject may perform an action,” usually translated “may.” Waltke and O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 508.
[7] L. Michael Morales, “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb: Resurrecting an Exegetical Fossil in Genesis 4.7,” Bible Translator 63:4 (2012): 185–191. Morales follows much of the argument of Joaquim Azevedo, “At the Door of Paradise: A Contextual Interpretation of Gen 4:7,” Biblische Notizen 100 (1999): 45–59. Morales proposes the following translation of Genesis 4:7, where “his desire” and “him” refer to Abel—“If you do well will not [your countenance] be lifted? If you do not do well, at the door a sin offering is lying down. Now to you will be his desire but you must rule over him.” Morales argues that חַטָּ֣את (chattat) should be translated as “sin offering” rather than the more common “sin.” While the verb רֹבֵ֑ץ (rovets, “lying down”) is masculine, it can refer to the feminine חַטָּ֣את (chattat) because this was actually a male animal used for a sin offering (cf. Exodus 29:14; Leviticus 4:21, 23-24). Morales also argues that the “door” [פֶּתַח, petach] refers to the entrance to the garden of Eden (Genesis 3:24), a connection also seen where the Israelites brought their offerings to the “door/entrance” [פֶּתַח, petach] of the temple (Leviticus 1:3; 3:2; 4:4, 14). Morales takes “his” [תְּשׁ֣וּקָת֔וֹ, “his desire”] and “him” [תִּמְשָׁל־בּֽוֹ, “rule over him”] to refer back to Abel in Genesis 4:4, while recognizing the difficulty in the antecedent being so far away. Yet Morales says this fits the context and is less problematic than the traditional translation where “his” and “him” refer to the feminine חַטָּ֣את (chattat).
[8] Macintosh, “The Meaning of Hebrew תשׁוקה,” Journal of Semitic Studies: 372. Macintosh cites R.P. Gordon in support that the serpent “rests” at the door rather than “crouches” before attack (Genesis 49:9). R.P. Gordon, “‘Couch’ or ‘Crouch’? Genesis 4:7 and the Temptation of Cain,” in On Stone and Scroll: Essays in Honour of G.I. Davies (eds. J.K. Aitken, K.J. Dell, and B.A. Mastin; Berlin/Boston: De Gruyter, 2011), 195–209.
