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 five 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.

Continue reading →