Somewhere below the rim of the Grand Canyon, at some time during the week I spent rafting there last summer, I heard an interpretation of Genesis 3:16 that didn’t sound right. Sitting down each evening to discuss the age of the earth, the creation of all things, and the text Genesis, Bill Barrick (professor emeritus at Master’s Seminary) made the off-hand comment at some point that “The curse upon the woman in Genesis 3:16 was good, actually.”

What?!?

If you are like me, the idea of calling a curse ‘good’ is on par with calling the blessing of marriage ‘evil.’ In our modern world, defining marriage as being between one man and woman has been called evil, because it is hateful to the LGBT+ community and anyone else who doesn’t feel committed to a Christian view of sexuality. For years now, we who live in America have been in a struggle to define good and evil. Proclaiming themselves to be wise, the world has become enslaved to one folly after another. And so, as Christians, we are on guard for any interpretation that might confuse the categories of good and evil. And rightly so!

Hearing this new interpretation of a familiar passage (Genesis 3:16), therefore, was confusing and not a little shocking! And yet, the more that I have looked at this verse, the more I am convinced that Dr. Barrick is correct: Genesis 3:16b is a gracious consolation granted to the woman. Instead of reading this verse as one that enjoins opposition, competition, or even enmity at the heart of marriage, it seems better to see God’s word to the woman as a genuine kindness. Marriage is not a common curse, but a common grace.

This is what I argued in my sermon on Sunday, and in what follows, I want to show from Scripture why Genesis 3:16b is best rendered positively, not negatively. That is to say, while most interpreters offer a negative reading of the verse—either stating that God subordinated the woman to the man at this point (egalitarianism) or that he exacerbated the fallen condition of men and women (complementarianism)—I will be arguing from a generally complementarian position that this verse should be read positively as God granting protection to the woman, even after she rejected and ignored the protection of the man when she encountered the serpent (Gen. 3:1–6).[1]

My position does not deny the way that men can abuse their authority and use their strength to harm those under their charge; nor will it deny that women can refuse to submit to their husbands or embrace the all-wise autonomy offered by the serpent. Both of those realities threaten marriage today. Nevertheless, as I will attempt to show, the nature of marriage after the fall is a place of consolation, protection, and natural goodness. Instead of being a place of natural conflict, should be seen as a place of natural comfort. Yes, sin still destroys the world and every marriage it ensnares, but importantly the nature of marriage is one of common grace. And that is what is at stake in this question of interpretation.

To maintain the goodness of marriage as an institution requires seeing the woman’s desire for her husband as an intrinsic good, as well as the man’s responsibility to rule over her. Today, such a reading is difficult to accept—not only because it flies in the face of a century of feminist ideology, but also because translations like the ESV suggest a negative reading of Genesis 3:16. Put differently, if we are going to rightly understand the consolation of God’s word to the woman in this verse, we must go back to the passage and to see what is there. And in particular, we need to see how a proper reading of Genesis 3:16 depends upon a proper interpretation of Genesis 4:7.

In what follows, then, my aim is to demonstrate why a positive reading of Genesis 3:16 is the best option, based on a comparison of Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7. As multiple authors have attested, how one reads Genesis 4:7 will be determinative for our reading of Genesis 3:16. Knowing that, I will spend a great deal of time addressing the latter text, showing why “desire” (tesuqah) and “rule” (mashal), the two overlapping words, are best seen positively in Genesis 4:7, not negatively. From there, we can see how the dominoes fall. If Genesis 4:7 is positive not negative, then it follows that Genesis 3:16b is also positive, which best corresponds to the literary structure of Genesis 3:14–19 and the emerging theology of marriage as an institution of common grace.

So, that’s my argument, and it will proceed in four parts.

1. I will show three common positions related to Genesis 3:16b.[2]
2. I will consider how Genesis 4:7 should be read as a “sin offering” provided by God not some personification of “sin” crouching at the door waiting. From this, I will show how the words “desire” and “rule” are good in Genesis 4:7.
3. I will introduce two authors who provide a positive reading.
4. I will outline the text itself and attempt to provide a better reading.
5. I will explain the cash value of this reading.

Three Different Positions of Genesis 3:16

To begin, it is wise to consider the exegetical options for Genesis 3:16. As Stephen Clark lays it out, there are three prominent “views of how the ‘curse’ on the woman affects the relationship of subordination between men and women resulting.” Here is the way that he introduces them:

1. Subordination comes as a direct consequence of the transgression and the curse. According to this view subordination of woman to man is a punishment for sin and not at all desirable. Some of the conclusions that have been drawn from this view are that (a) subordination was lifted in Jesus (Gal 3:28) and is no longer binding on Christians; (b) that subordination is a result of an original transgression which has not been completely eradicated by the redemption in Jesus but should be worked against by Christians; or (c) that subordination is something Christians have to live with, but will be lifted when Jesus comes again. This first view has recently become very popular because it supports any approach that holds that manwoman subordination is evil.
2. Domination (subordination based on force) or oppressive subordination between man and woman stems from the transgression and curse, marring the original form of subordination present in creation. According to this view, man should be the head of woman, at least in marriage, and was her head from the first moment of woman’s creation. However, because of the transgression and curse, man dominates woman and causes her pain through something that should have been a blessing to her. Those who hold this view usually say that this form of oppressive subordination should be overcome in Jesus and that the original form of subordination was restored. This has been the most common view among scripture scholars and among Christians writing about man-woman subordination without a polemical position.
3. The husband’s role and the wife’s subordination to him is not a curse, but is rather a blessing intended as a consolation to the woman in her role as mother. According to this view, subordination was an original element in creation, and it is reaffirmed in Genesis 3:16 as a help to woman in the difficulties she will experience as mother. This view is not a common one, but it is worth noting.[3]

If we added titles to this taxonomy, we might identify the first as the Egalitarian reading, where subordination is a result of the fall. The second view is the Complementarian reading, which understands (rightly) that the fall does not subordinate women to men but sinfully exaggerates the roles, so that women become usurpers while men become domineering.[4] In contrast to each, the third view is a minority reading, or better a positive reading of Genesis 3:16. As Clark notes, this view is “plausible,” but has received the least support. The only name Clark mentions is Ambrose of Milan, who we will consider below. But more recently, this view has been supported by Bill Barrick and considered by James Jordan.

Theologically, this position does not pose a threat to complementarianism (or biblical patriarchy), because it affirms the goodness of hierarchy (biblically defined) in the marriage relationship. Equally, it reinforces the goodness of creation, where man was made to be the spiritual head and the woman was made to be his helper. And, as I will show at the end, this position actually retains the goodness of marriage as an institution of common grace, even as it reinforces all the concerns listed about women usurping authority and men ruling harshly.

Still, the reason why I want to argue for a positive approach to Genesis 3:16 is not so much based upon my theology of manhood and womanhood. If that was the reason, I would be content to simply adopt the second view listed above. Therefore, my reason for pursuing this has to do with a better reading of the text, especially a new reading of Genesis 3:16b in light of a better interpretation of Genesis 4:7.

When the Analogy of Scripture Breaks Bad

If Genesis 3:16 is going to be read in a positive direction, it is because Genesis 4:7 is read positively. Conversely, Genesis 3:16 has been read negatively because Genesis 4:7 has been consistently read negatively. But that reading needs reconsideration. Here are the two passages side-by-side.

Genesis 3:16. To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

Genesis 4:7. 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.”

As you can see these two passages are rightly read together and typically Genesis 4:7 is determinative for Genesis 3:16. One example of this paired reading is that of Jason Derouchie’s otherwise excellent article on Genesis 3:16. Here’s how he brings them together. Writing on Genesis 4:7, he notes,

Sin’s “desire” toward Cain was evil. Like a thief, sin sought “to steal and kill and destroy” (John 10:10) — to overpower, humble, and subvert. In response, however, Cain needed to “rule over it,” countering its attempt to reign in his mortal body by living for righteousness (Romans 6:12–14). The parallels between Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 are clear.

	Gen 3:16 (to Eve)	Gen 4:7 (to Cain)
A’	And against	And against
	your husband	you
	will be your desire,	is [sin’s] desire,
C	but he	but you
	should rule	should rule
	over you.	over it.

Just as Genesis 4:7 identifies sin’s destructive work, 3:16 details God’s judgment against sin manifest in the wife’s destructive work (A’). Just as sin sought to overpower and subvert Cain, the woman’s “desire against” her husband means that, in the cursed world, the wife will seek to overpower and subvert her husband’s God-given authority. Thus, the ESV’s “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband” in 3:16 captures the sense by rightly identifying what will happen but not what should happen in a cursed world.

As Derouchie notes, the ESV translates the preposition el as “contrary to.” This was a change made in 2016, and one that reinforced a negative reading on the passage. Previously, the passage read “your desire shall be toward your husband,” which Denny Burk recognized as a more-openhanded translation.[5] Still, the point I am making is less about the range of meaning in the word, and more about the way that Genesis 4:7 has become determinative for reading Genesis 3:16.

Because sin desiring Cain in Genesis 4:7 is understandably defined as being bad (even Satanic), it is reasoned that the desire in Genesis 3:16 is also bad.[6] That makes sense, as far as it goes, but if the word “sin” (hatta’t) is wrongly perceived in Genesis 4:7; if sin is not crouching like a lion looking for someone to devour; if we have misread Genesis 4:7, then the first domino has fallen and it will begin to change the way we compare Genesis 3:16 and 4:7.

In this way, we find the proper principle of Scripture interpreting Scripture leading us astray, as it blinds us to three positive statements in the judgment speech of Genesis 3:14–19. Indeed, we all know that the protoevangelium, the first promise of the gospel, is found in Genesis 3:15 and this statement is undeniably good. Canonically-speaking, it is the source of all good news.

Equally, when the Lord God speaks to the man, he curses the ground and promises the man increased pain in his labors. Yet, mercifully, he also declares that this painful toil is not eternal. At some point, he will return to the dust. In context, this means the dust-eater (v. 14), the serpent, will not devour forever. Indeed, Because God has promised a redeemer in Genesis 3:15, this judgment of death is not final. Rather, when the man is returned to the dust, there is reason to believe that from the dust, he will be raised by the Spirit. As it happened in Genesis 2:7, so it will happen again. And wonderfully, this promise of resurrection can be gleaned from this word of consolation to the man, as Job seems to do when he says in Job 19:25–26

²⁵ For I know that my Redeemer lives, and at the last he will stand upon the earth.
²⁶ And after my skin has been thus destroyed, yet in my flesh I shall see God,

So, in the two statements to the serpent and the man, there is both a curse and word of consolation. And thus, it would be fitting that there is a “curse” and word of consolation to the woman too. Most of us have been so trained to read Genesis 3:16 with Genesis 4:7, however, that we don’t even consider such a possibility. Yet, if we have misread Genesis 4:7, then it follows that we might need to read Genesis 3:16b with new eyes.

The Sin Offering at the Door: A Better Reading of Genesis 4:7

Years ago, I came across the brilliant work of William Symington (1795–1862). In his book, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ, Symington gives a detailed interpretation of Genesis 4, as being an ancient type of Christ’s sacrifice. And in his treatment of Genesis 4:7, he argues that the word most often translated sin is better understood to be “sin offering.” Pointing to a half dozen other commentators before him, he argues for reading hattat as referring to a sin offering.[7] And he makes the case, that Genesis 4 is the place where sacrifice was first divinely inspired.

More recently, Michael Morales in his work on Leviticus has made the same point—that the best rendering of hattat in Genesis 4:7 is a sin offering that would be offered by Cain at the door of the Lord (i.e., the gate that the cherubim stood guard over). Indeed, in a context of sacrifice (Gen. 4:1–6), such a rendering is not only plausible, but likely. Even more, when we read Genesis 4:7 in conjunction with the tabernacle system of sacrifice, we are left with a strong case for seeing God offering Cain a sacrificial animal to atone for his sins.

Here’s how Morales puts it in his book Who Shall Ascend the Hill of the Lord?

Conceivably, then, it was to the original sanctuary door, the gate of Eden guarded by cherubim, that Cain and Abel would have brought their offerings. Indeed, an alternative translation of Genesis 4:7, once common, makes this door the probable referent in YHWH’s address to Cain, reading ‘a sin offering lies at the door/entrance [petah] (rather than ‘sin crouches at the door’, as in the door of Cain’s heart or tent).

In Hebrew both ‘sin’ and ‘sin offering’ are rendered by the same word (hatta’t), the meaning of which must be determined by context, and the participle rendered ‘crouching’ or ‘lurking’ (robes) by some translations is, in fact, more commonly used in the Hebrew Bible with reference to an animal lying down tranquilly. Psalm 23, for example, expresses the psalmist’s reflection upon YHWH as shepherd with this same word: “he makes me lie down [rbs] in green pastures’. It could be, then, that YHWH had revealed to Cain the means by which he might be restored to divine fellowship, precisely the same means he would later reveal to Israel through Moses in the book of Leviticus: a sin offering at the sanctuary doorway. (Morales, Who Shall Ascend, 56–57)

These comments from Morales are extended in an earlier article on the same subject, where he concludes,

To summarize the logic of our translation so far, “If you do not do well, at the door a sin offering is lying down” refers to YHWH’s revelation to Cain of a remedy for his failure—the same remedy later revealed to Israel. In the book of Leviticus, we read regularly that for all offerings, the animal—whether bull or goat, lamb or pigeon—is “to be offered at the door of the tabernacle of meeting before YHWH” (see Lev 1.3; 3.2), and this holds for sin offerings as well (4.4, 14). Such a biblical and ancient Near Eastern cultic context must weigh heavily when we read of a hattat lying down at the door—especially when the doorway of an archetypal temple has recently been alluded to. (188)[8]

If these reading stands, then it sets up the next part of Genesis 4:7: “Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.” Suffice it to say, everything changes if hattat means “sin offering.” If the personification of sin is lost, then it is no longer sin (or Satan) that desires Cain, nor must Cain rule over that sin. Instead, it is something else entirely. On this point, Morales is again helpful. He suggests, that the only other person in the narrative, namely Abel, is the one who desires. And actually, this fits, as both pronouns in the English (“its” and “it”) are masculine.[9] In other words, it is could be rendered: “His desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over “him.”

Now admittedly, this reading makes little sense, until you realize what is at stake. But let’s begin with a question: Who is Cain? Answer: He is the firstborn son of Adam and Eve. And in a book that keys in on the “seed,” at a time when primogeniture (the law of the firstborn) is critical for receiving blessings, then his standing as firstborn matters greatly. Moreover, knowing that Abel is a son of faith, it would be appropriate to say that Abel desired for Cain to retain his firstborn position. Likewise, if he desired Cain to take up the offering that lay at the gate, the offering provided by the Lord, then Abel is righteously desirous for Cain to continue to be his elder brother, who would also rule over him.

Again, this reading is foreign to our common sensibilities, but on balance, it is worth considering. In fact, its plausibility only increases when we look at the LXX. In the English translation of the Septuagint, this is what we find: “Have you not sinned if you offer rightly but do not divide rightly? Be still! His recourse will be to you, and you will rule him.”

Notice, as Morales does, “the Septuagint marks the first part of the verse as related to Cain’s (albeit previous) sacrifice, and the second half of the verse as related to his brother.” Such an interpretation reinforces our confidence that we are headed in the right direction. And there may be other places too. In Matthew 5:22–24, Jesus urges worshipers who remember at the altar that a brother has something against them, they are to leave their gifts and be reconciled. Could this be an echo of Cain and Abel? It is worth considering.

Remaining in Genesis 4:7, if we accept that sin is not crouching like an animal looking to devour Cain, but is a sin-offering provided to Cain by the Lord. And if we accept that that the desire and the ruling are actual goods, it means that dominoes are falling. The positive reading of Genesis 4:7, or at least the positive offer of the Lord to Cain, fundamentally changes our thinking about Genesis 3:16—maybe not in the final applications, but in what the Lord is offering. And this sets us up to read Genesis 3:16 with new eyes.

Arguments for a Positive Reading of Genesis 3:16

One question we should always ask when weighing the merits of a new interpretation is whether this new interpretation is truly new. If so, this should give us pause. A new reading does not categorically deny its validity, but it does raise doubts.

In this case, there is at least one older commentator who commends a positive reading of Genesis 3:16. His name is Ambrose (339–397), he was the bishop of Milan, and the pastor who most deeply influenced Augustine. In his work on the Garden of Eden (The Paradise), he has this to say. (I’ve bolded the key sections).

(72) Because Eve has admitted her crime, she is given a milder and more salutary sentence, which condemned her wrong-doing and did not refuse pardon [Gen. 3:16]. She was to serve under her husband’s power, first, that she might not be inclined to do wrong, and, secondly, that, being in a position subject to a stronger vessel, she might not dishonor her husband, but on the contrary, might be governed by his counsel [Cf. 1 Pet. 3:7]. I see clearly here the mystery of Christ and His Church. The Church’s turning toward Christ in times to come and a religious servitude submissive to the Word of God- these are conditions far better than the liberty of this world. Hence it is written: ‘Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God and shall serve him only.’ Servitude, therefore, of this sort is a gift of God. Wherefore, compliance with this servitude is to be reckoned among blessings. We have the example of Isaac granting it as a blessing to his son Esau that he should serve his brothers. Hence he asked for his father’s blessing. Although he knew that one blessing had been taken from him, he asked for another: Have you only one blessing, father [Gen. 27:38, 40]. By this servitude, therefore, Esau, who had before he sold birthright to satisfy his appetite and who in his zeal for hunting in the field had not the benefits derived from a blessing [Gen. 25:27], had now come to believe that he would fare better in the future if he would pay reverence to his brother as a type of Christ. By this kind of servitude Christian folk grow strong, as we have it expressed in the words of the Lord to His disciples: ‘Whoever wishes to be first among you, let him be the slave of all of you? Hence charity, which is greater than hope and faith, brings this servitude to pass, for it is written: ‘By charity serve one another.’ This, then, is the mystery mentioned by the Apostle in reference to Christ and the Church.? The servitude existed formerly, in fact, but in a condition of disobedience which was to be later made salutary by the generation of children in faith and love and holiness with modesty [1 Tim. 2:15]. What was certainly among the fathers a generation brought into existence in sin shall become salutary in the children, so that what was a stumbling block to the Jews shall in the society of Christians undergo improvement.

In his preface to Athanasius’s On the Incarnation, C. S. Lewis warns of chronicle snobbery and the need to correct contemporary errors with ancient truths. I can think of few examples better than this. In our post-colonial era, we revile words like servitude, submission, and subordination. Yet, in Scripture, the greatest in the kingdom are the lowest of the slaves. This was the posture of our Lord, and this is the point that Ambrose is making.

Instead of seeing the woman’s subordination to the husband as the creation of patriarchy (Egalitarianism) or the distortion of God’s good creation (Complementarianism), Ambrose sees the sentence of a man ruling over the woman as a positive good. Unlike Eve who had no (or chose to have no) source of protection when she stood before the serpent, now she would have a husband to protect her, the weaker vessel (1 Pet. 3:7). Of course, we need to define all of this rightly, and I will do that below. But first, let us consider that a rejection of reading Genesis 3:16 as a positive consolation may have more to do with the spirit of the age, than the Spirit of Truth.

Then, again, it may not have anything to do with the spirit of the age. As Bill Barrick’s point out, our reading of Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 may simply have to do with the assumption that everything in God’s curse is negative. Yet, echoing Dr. Barrick, I have noted above and will demonstrate below that is not exactly true. There is a positive word of consolation in each step of God’s judgment.

For now, let me encourage you to watch this video, where you will find the following points.

• Of the 281 uses of hattat (sin or sin offering), 109 are best rendered “sin offering.” Of the 109 uses of “sin offerings,” 90 of them are used in the Pentateuch.
• The word for lying down (robes) only “occurs of flocks of sheep and goats lying down” (Gen. 29:2; 49:14; Ps. 23:2). It is the idea of lying down to rest, not the idea of hiding or crouching to ambush. “Only here has it been taken as lying down in ambush or “lurking.’” In fact, even when it speaks of lions, the word is used to speak of them resting (see Isaiah 11:6; Psalm 104:22).
• The provision of a sin offering in Genesis 4:7 is like that of the provision of the lamb in Genesis 22. The rejection of the sacrifice is on par with Abraham (theoretically) rejecting God’s provision.

Put all this together, and the best reading of Genesis 4:7 is that of a sin offering provided by the Lord, rather than sin crouching and desiring Cain. But if this is so, it opens to the door to a different reading of Genesis 3:16b, which is what we must do now.

The Good News of ‘Desire’ and ‘Rule’: Reading Genesis 3:16b in Context 

Finally, and most importantly, we must read the text on its own terms and consider what it means in context. Perhaps, this is where we should have started, but because a positive reading of the text is so unheard of, it seemed best to indicate how this novel reading is not purely idiosyncratic. Instead, it has textual warrant, based on at least five observations.

First, Genesis 3 has a clear organization that points to an important reconciliation.

After a short encounter between the serpent, the woman, and the man (Gen. 3:1–7), the Lord enters the scene to bring judgment on these creatures. The flow of the narrative is chiastic in structure, putting the Lord’s words in the center.

The Lord enters the Garden (v. 8)

The Lord speaks to the man (vv. 9–12)

The Lord speaks to the woman (v. 13)

Salvation through Judgment (vv. 14–19) [See below]

The man names the woman (v. 20)

The Lord makes the man and woman garments (vv. 21–22)

The Lord sends out the man from the Garden (vv. 23–24)

The importance of this point highlights the fact that when God enters the Garden, the man and woman are estranged. When he leaves, or makes them leave, they are united. What happens in between therefore changes the situation. While it is possible that God’s judgment could result in their reconciliation, it is unlikely. It is better to see God uniting the man and the woman, so that the rest of redemptive history can proceed. Indeed, the seed of the woman will only come if the first man knows his wife and the wife begins to bring children into the world (see Genesis 4).

On this reading then, which stands on the chiastic structure of the text, the reconciling work of God between the man and the woman stands at the center.

Second, Genesis 3:14–19 has a pattern of curse and consolation that follows the three creatures that God addresses.

In three speeches, the Lord renders judgment on the serpent (vv. 14–15), the woman (v. 16), and the man (vv. 17–19). Along the way, there are similarities in God’s speeches to the serpent and the man (“Because you . . .’) and the woman and the man (both will be pained). And there may even emphasis on what the Lord says to the woman about the coming of a seed who will defeat the serpent. If this is so, it reinforces the importance of husbands and wives joining in marriage and looking to the Lord for children.

Without teasing out all the implications, here is how the passage may be framed around the three speeches.

Salvation after Judgment: Bad News is Followed by Good
Curse	Consolation
1A A Curse Upon the Serpent  14 The Lord God said to the serpent, . . . “Because you have done this, cursed are you above all livestock and above all beasts of the field; on your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life. ·      The curse on the serpent is emphasized!! ·      The curse comes upon the beast – the serpent must slither – Vestigial Legs? ·      The serpent must eat dust – who is that ?	1B Promise of Redemption  15 I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.” ·      The conflict comes between children of God and children of mankind ·      The messiah is promised in the midst of a conflict
2A Pain on the Place of Woman’s Labor (The Womb)  16 To the woman he said,  . . . “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. ·      The command will continue, but with pain. ·      The pain will be found in the place of her labor—the womb.	2B Promise of Protection Your desire shall be [for] your husband, and he shall rule over you.” ·      Unlike the deception, where the woman desired the fruit and had no desire for her husband, this word reunites the estranged couple and gives her a needed head. ·      This desire for your husband [he is the object] is a willing interest in receiving his protection and being his helpmate. ·      This promise directly promises consolation to the woman who was just told that she will have children with pain. The husbands rule is meant to provide and protect for her, while she brings forth children.
3A Pain on the Place of Man’s Labor (The Field)  17 And to Adam he said, . . . “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it,’ cursed is the ground because of you; in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life; 18 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you; and you shall eat the plants of the field. ·      Like the Serpent, God begins with a reason (“because you . . .”) for man’s curse. Only in this case, the curse comes on the ground (adamah), not the man (adam). ·      Like the woman, the main will experience increased pain, and that pain will be found in the place of his labor—the field.	3B Promise of Rest  19 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread, till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; for you are dust, and to dust you shall return.” ·      Death is a consequence of sin (Rom. 6:23), but death also frees the man from the painful toil of this world. ·      In other words, rest only comes by way of death, and death for the godly is now a comfort (Ps. 116:15).

Third, these three speeches cohere with God’s regular pattern of judgment and salvation.

In other words, whenever the Lord comes to judge, as he does in the “Day of the Spirit” (Gen. 3:8), he brings justice and mercy, wrath and grace. Throughout the rest of the Bible, God’s judgments are always saving his people and judging his enemies. And that is exactly what we find here. When he curses the Serpent, he promises salvation for his people. Similarly, when he increases the pain of Eve, he also makes the provision of protection for her. And for the man, who will only face trials and troubles in earthly labors, he promises one day that pain will one day come to an end.

In other words, there is good news amidst the bad. There is the promise of life (Gen. 3:20) among the notes of death (Gen. 3:19). God will bring suffering to the world, but his suffering is not without purpose, and this includes God’s purposes to sustain marriage as a natural institution that brings comfort to husbands and wives.

Fourth, the words desire (tesuqah) and rule (mashal) are not intrinsically negative.

First, Genesis 3:16 says, “you shall desire your husband.” As noted above, the ESV makes this a negative desire. Yet, such a negative reading is determined entirely by a comparison with Genesis 4:7. For the only other time desire (tesuqah) is found in the Old Testament is its use in Song of Songs 7:10, where it is undeniably positive. The bride exults: “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is for me.”

Interestingly, this positive reading, which is even set in the context of marriage, is overturned by the proximate reading in Genesis 4:7. But as noted above, when we find a different reading of Genesis 4:7, then the marital context of Song of Songs 7 becomes more attractive. Or best, all three uses mutually support a positive reading. In Genesis 3:16b, God is blessing the woman (and the man) with the woman’s desire for her husband.

Next, Genesis 3:16 says, “and he shall rule (mashal) over you.” Understanding sin to have a negative impact on husbands and wives, many read this passage as a husband ruling in sin. The problem with that reading, however, is that the context of God’s speech does not demand such harshness. And actually, this rendering of mashal as a sinful type of rule opposes its use throughout the Old Testament.

For instance, the word is used of God himself in places like Psalm 103:19, “The Lord has established his throne in the heavens, and his kingdom rules over all.” And again, Isaiah 40:10, “Behold, the Lord God comes with might, and his arm rules for him; behold, his reward is with him, and his recompense before him.” Certainly, the Lord rules with righteousness, but he never rules with the sinful harshness that is often implied in Genesis 3:16.

Even more, when applied to human rulers, Judges 8:22 describes how the people ask Gideon to be their ruler. For them, it is a blessing not a curse to be ruled. Likewise, Zechariah 6:13 describes the messiah who will rule his people. Clearly, the messiah’s rule is a blessing. And most closely, Genesis 45:8, 22 describes Joseph as a ruler, who despite his brothers sins against him does not rule them harshly. So the word rule is not inherently harsh, and in the rhythm of Genesis 3:14–19, where curse is followed by consolation, the context does not warrant a harsh reading either.

Rather, rule is best understood by comparing it to the way Genesis 2:15 interprets or amplifies Genesis 1:28. When God put the man in the garden, he was to exercise dominion over creation by way of serving and guarding. In other words, Adam was not to be a king like the nations, he was to be a priestly king who wisely governed his home. So here in Genesis 3:16b, I take rule to be defined by the mission of leading and protecting his bride. In this way, the word for rule is undeniably good, and as we will see next, it is also desperately needed.

Fifth, the desire of the woman and the rule of the husband solve three problems. 

Reading Genesis 3:16b positively also solves three problems in the text. Not that problem-solving determines our interpretation, but a good interpretation should increase understanding of the passage and its application to the world. And here, by maintaining a positive reading of the woman’s desire and the husband’s rule, we find at least three problems that are resolved.

1. Unity in place of division. When God speaks to the woman and the man, they are estranged from one another. Not only has the woman attempted to engage the serpent by herself (Gen. 3:1–6), but when they hid himself (Gen. 3:10). Additionally, both the man and the woman blamed the other, and the future of humanity hung in the balance. Thus, when God says that the woman’s desire would be for the man, it reunited the estranged couple.
2. Desire instead of independence. When God grants the woman a desire for the man, it reinforces something that appears to be lacking in Genesis 3:1–6. Again, while the Adam was present with the woman, she did not turn to him when the serpent came. And the man did not intervene, either. Yet, now, the woman would desire the man, in a way not unlike Jeremiah 31:22, which in the context of the new covenant reads, “How long will you waver, O faithless daughter? For the Lord has created a new thing on the earth: a woman encircles a man.” In this consolation, the Lord has also created new thing, giving the woman a desire for her husband (cf. Song of Songs 7:10).
3. Protection in response to pain. When God directs the woman to the man and the man to his wife, it is in the context of increasing her labor pains. In other words, in the wake of telling the woman she will have children with great pain and sorrow, he is not doubling down and saying, and the man whose children you will carry will harshly rule over you too. Instead, he is granting her a man whose strength will rule the household and protect and provide for her when she is bringing his children into the world.

Today, we have lost this kind of patriarchal exchange, where the man takes a woman to be his wife (and not the other way around), and a woman desires to have a man to take care of her. In fact, we treat this kind of thinking as misguided or misogynistic. Ever since Gloria Steinem famously quipped that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle, the social imagery has all but eviscerated a woman’s dependence on a man, as well as the goodness of a man using his strength to rule his household. But I dare suggest, that men and women occupying different places in the marriage is actually a good part of God’s design. Such a union is not simply a well-ordered mutuality, rather it is an asymmetrical order based upon the differing natures of men and women.

In this way, the goodness of Genesis 3:16b reinforces the original design of a marriage composed of a head and a body, a Lord and a lady. Today, this vision has become increasingly rare, but before the fall and after, the goodness of marriage is found in women who truly desire a husband and husbands who truly know how to rule their home.

Sixth, the nature of marriage, even after the fall, is good.

Importantly, after the fall, the institution of marriage does not rest on a fractured foundation (as it is typically expressed). Instead, marriage retains its intrinsic goodness. It is good when a man finds a wife (Prov. 18:22), and it is good when God joins a husband and wife together in marriage (Matt. 19:6). While insubordination and autonomy are temptation that come to women, and harsh leadership or even abuse are sins that men may succumb to, these things are not natural to marriage.

Critically, a negative view of Genesis 3:16b makes it natural for women to desire their husband’s position, and natural for the man to be harsh. But in fact, this is exactly what is not natural (i.e., it is contrary to nature). God designed women to help their husbands and submit to their head, and refusal to do that is sin, not simply a passive acceptance of the curse. Likewise, it is natural for husbands to rule their wives in love. In the context of Genesis 1–3, this rule is a priestly work of guarding them and leading them to know the Lord in worship. In other words, husbands serve their wives by serving them; they love them by ruling them well. This is natural and good. What is unnatural, not to mention sinful and harmful, is men who refuse to rule them well.

On this reading, all the warnings offered against the sins of men and women remain, but these are things that not only go against God’s Word, they also opposed nature too. The traditional negative view sees insubordination and abuse as violations of the law, but not necessary violations of nature. Why? Because nature cursed and when women desire their husband’s position (something the text doesn’t say, actually) they are only acting according to their fallen nature. Likewise, when men domineer and use their strength to hurt their wives, this is sin, but it also according to the nature of the curse.

At its root, the negative reading of Genesis 3:16 makes marriage intrinsically competitive and those who enter marriage with this reading will be predisposed to suspect the other person of falling into the conditions of the curse. After all, on this reading, women are naturally disposed to take the place of their husbands, and husbands are naturally disposed to stop them. Only by redemption, therefore, can a marriage be defined as good.

Admittedly, there is a certain kind of evangelistic impulse to this negative reading of Genesis 3:16b. And some might fear that removing the inherent conflict between men and women in marriage makes light of sin, the fall, or the curse. But I am not at all denying the inherent sinfulness of men and women, nor suggesting that sin does not plague every marriage today. Rather, I am attempting to be faithful to the text, with the theological implication that the institution of marriage, even among unbelievers will experience the blessings of marriage, and thus the world and its people will be sustained, because marriage is a common grace consolation in the midst of a cursed world, not the opposite—the zenith of conflict in a cursed world.

Seventh, it is impossible to deny the nature of manhood and womanhood.

Moving beyond the text to the world today, it is vital see how this reading applies and has potential to help struggling marriages and to rehabilitate a vision of marriage as an intrinsic good. Today, it only seems like marriage is the zenith of the curse, because so many men and women are joining themselves in marriage in ways that deny their natures. Feminism, egalitarianism, abusive misogyny, and expressive individualism are all ways that deny human nature.

In each case, or in combination with one another, women who refuse to submit to a husband will submit to someone or something. It may be a boss, a lover, or a career, but women cannot escape the way God made them. Because God made women from the man, they will always be predisposed to return to their source. Even today, in a cruel twist of irony, women are being displaced by men in sports because men are becoming like women. Men who have been ruled by women have found a new way to rule, and so by denying their natures they are exercising their natures desire to rule. And women, many of whom sought to rule, are now having to submit to these ogres in dresses.

In a word, nature always wins. And what God is doing in Genesis is to help plant humanity in ways that it can flourish.

Likewise, men because they are men, will also seek to rule someone or something. In sin, this results in all sorts of negative ways (see two paragraphs above). Importantly, though, when a man channels his strength to love one woman and to pour his life into her, their home, and their children, then nothing is more positive for that woman, that marriage, or the world. As George Gilder has noted, nothing is more destructive to a mankind then hoards of unattached young men. For whether they are married or not, it is the nature of men to rule, and thus if they will not give themselves to rule one woman with sacrificial love, they will give themselves to rule others with selfish pride and hedonistic pleasure.

Suffice it to say, it is impossible to deny one’s nature. And even those who do for a time, will only suffer the pain of denying their nature.

Positively, then, a biblical understanding of marriage, where a man takes a wife and she submits to his rule, and both carry out their natural designs and desires—to submit and to rule, respectively, will enjoy the greatest blessing. Even amidst the pain of their labors—bringing fruit from the womb and fruit from the ground—God created marriage to be refuge from the storm, a consolation in the midst of the cursed creation. Understandably, such home-making is not instant, and everything in our world fights against it (including sickness, death, and the devil), but when men and women order themselves by God’s natural design, it produces an order in their lives that brings blessing. And that blessing is not just for them, but for everyone who comes from and comes into their home.

The Takeaway: A Woman Who ‘Desires’ Her Husband and a Husband Who ‘Rules’ His Wife is Good News

To end where we began, marriage, even marriage after curse, is a created good and common grace. Textually, I don’t believe we should read Genesis 3:16b negatively, as another feature of the curse. Instead, we should follow the cadence of curse and consolation that repeats three times in Genesis 3:14–19. The woman’s desire for her husband is a wonderful gift to her and to him and to the whole world. Likewise, a husband’s loving rule over his wife is not a dangerous type of domination, it is what Ruth sought when she alone went looking for Boaz. She desired a husband and so she went asking him to spread [his] wings over her, for he was a redeemer (Ruth 3:9). This is what Genesis 3:16b envisions, and it is what the gospel explains.

In this way, we should not fear a new reading of Genesis 3:16b. Instead, it should help us read the Bible with greater precision, and it should help us live lives in keeping with human nature. For wonderfully, marriage is not a common curse shared by a man and woman who are trying to expunge their disordered inclinations. Rather, it is a common grace given to men and women who are seeking to walk in the ways of God. In this way, Genesis 3:16b is a word of hope and consolation, not a further word of condemnation. And perhaps, by reading it this way, it might help us all fulfill our callings in marriage more faithfully and spread the good news of Jesus Christ more boldly.

For indeed, the gospel is a message of a bride desiring her husband, and a bridegroom ruling over his bride. Today, we shy away from both of those statements, and I dare say that part of it might be found in our negative reading of Genesis 3:16. And so, if the core of the message of the gospel is revealed in the metaphor of marriage, then we should have little reason to reject a positive reading of Genesis 3:16b. For who knows how the Lord may use that exegetical recovery to spark a revival in marriage?

Soli Deo Gloria, ds

Photo by Thu00e1i Huu1ef3nh on Pexels.com
___________________

[1] As I argued last year, the difference between men and women is most pronounced in the home and church, but it goes beyond those spheres too. Manhood and womanhood are ontological realities, complete with distinct masculine and feminine traits. In this way, I would follow Joe Rigney who argues for a natural complementarianism over an ideological complementarianism. Or, more simply, when rightly defined by Scripture, I would be comfortable affirming a biblical form of patriarchy—but that opens an entirely different can of worms. So, I’ll save that for another day.

[2] This will depend on the three-fold taxonomy of Stephen Clark, Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men and Women,  Loc. 951, 965. Old Testament scholar and noted egalitarian, Richard Davidson, has offered a five-fold taxonomy in his article, “The Theology of Sexuality in the Beginning: Genesis 3.”

[3] Stephen Clark, Man and Woman in Christ: An Examination of the Roles of Men and Women,  Loc. 951, 965.

[4] Or, at least, these are the temptations inherent to women and men affected by the fall.

[5] “For what it is worth, I favor more literal approaches to translation—the ones that leave more interpretive options open. I favor that approach especially in cases where inner-biblical resonances are lost because of dynamic translations and in texts where the precise meaning is a matter of significant dispute. So in this case, I prefer the translation “for” rather than “contrary to,” even though I agree with the ESV’s interpretation. So I view the ESV’s translation as an entirely reasonable rendering, even though it is not the one I would have chosen.”

[6] Technically, the ruling over sin in Genesis 4:7 would be a good thing, not a bad thing. Yet, the goodness of ruling over sin is rarely applied in parallel fashion to the goodness of ruling over the woman. If the sin is desiring Cain in Genesis 4:7, and the woman is desiring her husband in a similar way, this desire is negative (hence, “contrary to”) towards the man. And, his actions (ruling) must be responding in kind. This interpretation is not logically necessary, but it is so common as to be the complementarian consensus.

[7] William Symington, On the Atonement and Intercession of Jesus Christ (1864), 84–85.

[8] L. Michael Morales, “Crouching Demon, Hidden Lamb: Resurrecting an Exegetical Fossil in Genesis 4:7,” The Bible Translator, Vol. 63.4: 185–91.

[9] Admittedly, this reading is different than that of Symington, who refers the feminine use of hattat as referring to the male animal, who is offered for sin (84). This is how Symington, following Parkhurst, explains the difference. And taking the observation one step further, he suggests that the use of the masculine pronoun reinforces the point that a sin-offering, not sin, is in view. For he says, “it will be found that hattat, in other parts of scripture where it is used for a sin-offering, is, though feminine itself, connected with a masculine adjunct. See Exod. 29:14; Lev. 4:21, 24; v. 9, and other places of Leviticus, where the masculine pronoun hu is used instead of the feminine he. But in Gen. 18:20, 20:9, Exod. 32:21, 30, and other places, where the word occurs in its original signification of sin, it has constantly the adjective connected in the feminine.” (Magee, vol. i. P. 236, 237. See also Faber, p. 129.)

If this reading is right, it will result in a different sense of the verse. But it will retain the positive command of God for Cain to go and find the animal for sacrifice. In this way, the desire is not sin’s seeking to destroy Cain. It is the animals desire to be a sacrifice for him. All things being equal, I think Morales reading is better.