17 Two Ways of Translating and Interpreting Genesis 3:16a, One Older and One Newer: Does It Matter?
Joy Elasky Fleming 22 “ To rule” or “To be like”? Genesis 3:16 in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context
Elizabeth Ann R. Willett
Parenting in Exile: The Pain-Love of Eve
Karen Strand Winslow
God’s Wisdom for Cultivating a Marriage
Sermon by Janet Galante Priscilla and Aquila instructed Apollos more perfectly in the way of the Lord. (Acts 18:26)
Genesis 3:16 is the main theme of this issue of Priscilla Papers. In the pages that follow, five authors lend their expertise to understanding this verse of Scripture and its ramifications. The issue also includes a sermon from Proverbs on marriage. Here in the editorial, I (Jeff Miller, a former editor, standing in for the editor, Havilah Dharamraj) will also contribute to an egalitarian understanding of the early chapters of Genesis, though not 3:16 specifically.
I recommend, “The Genesis of Confusion: How ‘Complementarians’ Have Corrupted Communication,” an article by Dr. Kevin Giles published in the winter 2015 issue of Priscilla Papers. Kevin states his point boldly:
Carefully choosing words to conceal what is actually being taught and to surreptitiously further one’s own agenda, I believe, is morally wrong. One important responsibility of theologians is to bring clarity to the issues they address, in part by carefully defining and consistently using key terms. To write theology in order to conceal seems to me perverse. Should not Christians communicate with each other openly and honestly? (p. 22)
The article then focuses on the terms “role,” “equality,” “difference,” and “complementarian.” In a similar vein, I will comment on the use of “order” in phrases such as, “order of creation” and “created order.” Complementarian teaching sometimes subtly switches meanings of “order.”
First Timothy 2:13 says, “Adam was formed first, and then Eve” (CEB). The author, Paul, is clearly speaking of the sequence of
Priscilla Papers is indexed in the ATLA Religion Database® (ATLA RDB®), http://www.atla.com, in the Christian Periodical Index (CPI), in New Testament Abstracts (NTA), and in Religious and Theological Abstracts (R&TA), as well as by CBE itself. Priscilla Papers is licensed with EBSCO’s full-text informational library products. Full-text collections of Priscilla Papers are available through EBSCO Host’s Religion and Philosophy Collection, Galaxie Software’s Theological Journals collection, and Logos Bible Software. Priscilla Papers can also be found on Academia, Faithlife, and JSTOR. Priscilla Papers is a member publication of the American Association of Publishers.
Advertising in Priscilla Papers does not imply organizational endorsement. Please note that neither CBE International, nor the editor, nor the editorial team is responsible or legally liable for any content or any statements made by any author, but the legal responsibility is solely that author’s once an article appears in Priscilla Papers
CBE grants permission for any original article (not a reprint) to be photocopied for local use provided no more than 1,000 copies are made, they are distributed for free, the author is acknowledged, and CBE is recognized as the source.
Priscilla Papers is the academic voice of CBE International, providing peer-reviewed, interdisciplinary scholarship on topics related to a biblical view of women and men in the home, church, and world.
creation as recorded in Gen 2. Moreover, Paul refers to only two of God’s creations, man in Gen 2:7 and woman in Gen 2:22, and not to light, land, animals, or anything else in God’s grand creation.
However, when using 1 Tim 2 in support of complementarian doctrine, the meaning of “order” shifts from “sequence” to “design,” in the sense of “schema, purpose, intention.” The 1988 “Danvers Statement,” a foundational complementarian document, provides a ready example. Its second Affirmation states, “Distinctions in masculine and feminine roles are ordained by God as part of the created order, and should find an echo in every human heart (Gen 2:18, 21–24; 1 Cor 11:7–9; 1 Tim 2:12–14).” This Affirmation invokes the sequence of creation mentioned in 1 Tim 2 but describes it as “the created order.”
Egalitarian authors frequently demonstrate that the sequence of creation does not point to a hierarchical design. Kevin Giles, for example, plainly states, “Chronological order does not imply subordination” (“The Genesis of Equality,” P riscilla Papers 28/4 [Autumn 2014] 6). But such statements fall on deaf complementarian ears, for their use of “order” does not mean “chronological order.”
May Priscilla Papers continue to bring clarity, rather than confusion, to the translation, interpretation, and application of Scripture.
Jeff Miller Interim Editor
Editor: Havilah Dharamraj
Interim Editor: Jeff Miller
Graphic Designer: Margaret Lawrence
President / Publisher: Mimi Haddad
Peer Review Team: Andrew Bartlett, Joshua Barron, Stephanie Black, Lynn H. Cohick, Seblewengel (Seble) Daniel, Mary Evans, Laura J. Hunt, Chongpongmeren (Meren) Jamir, Jung-Sook Lee, Jill McGilvray, Ian Payne, Finny Philip, Charles Pitts, Terran Williams
On the Cover: Genesis 3:16 in Codex Alexandrinus, source Internet Archive
Priscilla Papers (issn 0898–753x) is published quarterly by CBE International, 122 W Franklin Avenue, Suite 610, Minneapolis, MN 55404–2426 | cbeinternational.org | 612–872–6898
DISCLAIMER: Final selection of all material published by CBE International in Priscilla Papers is entirely up to the discretion of the publisher, editor, and peer reviewers. Please note that each author is solely legally responsible for the content and the accuracy of facts, citations, references, and quotations rendered and properly attributed in the article appearing under her or his name. Neither CBE, nor the editor, nor the editorial team is responsible or legally liable for any content or any statements made by any author, but the legal responsibility is solely that author’s once an article appears in print in Priscilla Papers
Priscilla Papers | 39/4 | Autumn 2025
Selections from God’s Word to Women
Katharine C. Bushnell
Editor’s Note: Katharine Bushnell died in 1946 at the age of ninety, having lived a life of exemplary commitment to Christ. She was a medical doctor, missionary, social reformer, and scholar. She composed scholarly biblical lessons from 1908 to 1916. The lessons were gathered and published as the book God’s Word to Women in 1921. CBE reprinted the book in 2003. Bushnell’s writings are in the public domain, and certain selections pertaining to Gen 3:16 are excerpted below, without any modernization of grammar or style.
You are invited to read more about Katharine Bushnell in Priscilla Papers:
Mimi Haddad, review of A New Gospel for Women: Katharine Bushnell and the Challenge of Christian Feminism, by Kristin Kobes Du Mez (Oxford University Press, 2015), Priscilla Papers 30/4 (Autumn 2016) 27–28.
Ruth Hoppin, “The Legacy of Katharine Bushnell,” Priscilla Papers 9/1 (Winter 1995) 8–10.
Catherine Clark Kroeger, “The Legacy of Katharine Bushnell: A Hermeneutic for Women of Faith,” Priscilla Papers 9/4 (Autumn 1995) 1–5.
Julie Walsh, “What Katharine Bushnell Still Has to Teach Us Today,” Priscilla Papers 34/1 (Winter 2020) 26–30.
LESSON 12. BIBLE INSTRUCTION AS TO ADAM’S AND EVE’S CONDUCT.
[Paragraphs 90–92 are not reproduced here.]
93. But remember, we are now discussing the conduct of Adam and Eve at one point—in one incident only—of their lives. But that incident is the sin which has been held to have produced the Fall of the entire world of human beings. We again assert: The Bible nowhere holds Eve accountable for this particular deed; and it does, in the plain, definite language we have just quoted from the N. T., hold Adam accountable for that deed.
94. It is not by one single verse, such as Gen. 3:16 (the correct translation and interpretation of which is doubtful—see future lessons), that Eve’s greater culpability can be established, in spite of clear statements to the contrary, and many other incidental Scriptural proofs. For instance, God asked Adam, “Hast thou eaten of the tree whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldst not eat?” and He lays no such charge of express disobedience at the door of Eve. And also note that whereas the Almighty told the Serpent that his creeping gait, dust for his food, and his final mortal injury were to be “Because thou hast done this;” and whereas the Almighty told Adam that his drudgery, his fight with thorns and thistles, and his final return to the dust out of which he was made, were to be “because” Adam has done thus and so, God nowhere says that Eve’s sorrowful and oppressed part is “because” she has done
anything. Rather, from the highly honoring words regarding Eve the Almighty has just addressed to the Serpent we have sufficient reasons for concluding that all this might result to Eve because God has elevated her to the honorable position of an enemy of Satan and progenitor of the coming Messiah. William Law says that Adam’s sin, which brought ruin to the world, “is not to be considered as that single act of eating,” but “his express open, voluntary act and deed” of “refusing to be that which God created him to be.” On Rom. 5:14, where “Adam's transgression” is spoken of as causing death to the entire human race, that high authority, Bengel’s Gnomen says, “Chrysostom on this passage shows exceedingly well, what Paul intended to prove by his argument, ‘that it was not the very sin of the transgression of the law [Eve transgressed it, under deception], but that of the disobedience of ADAM, this was what brought universal destruction.’”
[Paragraphs 95–97 are not reproduced here.]
LESSON 13. DID GOD CURSE WOMAN?
98. Can anything be accomplished by clearing the reputation of one so remote in history as Eve? Much, in many ways. The false teaching that God is in some way punishing women for the sin of Eve, at certain times of anguish, has robbed women of much sympathy, and also furnished a cloak for sensuality, and for much unnecessary cruelty to women, throughout past ages, and up to the present hour. The teaching that God punishes Christian women for the sin of Eve is a wicked and cruel superstition, and unworthy the intelligence of Christians. But in addition to this, the doctrine has laid a blighting hand upon woman’s self-respect, self-confidence and spiritual activity, from which causes the entire Church of Jesus Christ suffers moral and spiritual loss, and therefore we offer no apology for expending much time and thought in a thorough examination of Genesis, third chapter.
99. Woman had been constituted by God, in words addressed to Satan: (1) The progenitor of the coming destroyer of Satan and his power; (2) and in her own person also an enemy of Satan. This latter is a point of much importance to women, and generally passed over very lightly. With such an appointment as this to fulfill in life (and none could be nobler), what would Satan, who knew it, wish done to woman, his enemy? It is not difficult to conjecture; he would have her so crippled she could not contend with him successfully. How better could he cripple her than to incite her husband,—the one living closest to her who has strength to do it—to hamper her activities as much as possible? And then, knowing of a Seed whose coming would be his doom, Satan would aim his sorest blows at her function of motherhood, and torture her by every means that could be devised, in her child-bearing. How he would hate her every time she was about to become a mother!
100. Now all this, which common sense tells us Satan would most certainly wish to do, most Bible expositors (as we are about to show), tell us GOD DID. For once then, if God did so, God and Satan would be found working on the same side, for the same result. Can we imagine such a thing as this? God and Satan working harmoniously together in the treatment of women, after the same fashion, from the Fall in Eden as long as this world lasts?
101. Although Eve had given the evidences we have mentioned of having become one of the Household of Faith; although God had exalted her to a relation with believers equal to Abraham’s; although God had put enmity between her and Satan, so that she was no longer associated with God’s great enemy, yet the Bible commentary represents that God now turned and pronounced a curse, or several curses upon her. We are sure that if anyone would curse her under such conditions, it would not be God, but Satan, her enemy. Surely God and Satan would not unite to curse.
102. It is not necessary to translate the language addressed to Eve by the Almighty on this occasion, as our English Bible translates it. Let us hold Savonarola’s banners high today: “Nothing has been learnt from any man;” “We accept no authority save our own experience and reason.” . . . Scripture nowhere says Eve was cursed, or women either. . . . As Christian women, we refuse to address ourselves to the task of working out Eve’s “curse” for sin, if indeed she ever had one. We will not deny the faith; we will not discount the sufficiency of the atonement. Since theology points no other way for women through this chapter in Genesis but into a “curse”, we must do some sappers’ and miners’ work, and hew a hermeneutical and exegetical road for ourselves.
103. But first, as to what theology teaches: The comments of Dean Alford—not the harshest by any means—quite fairly represent the line of theological teaching here, “I will greatly multiply the pain of thy pregnancy,” is his translation and he adds: “And yet, though this shall be so, the woman, as a second curse, shall desire again the occasion of this pain; and thirdly, [that is, note his words, in accordance with a third curse], “though the subject of all the suffering which accompanies the propagation of the race, she shall be subordinate, and ruled over by man.”
104. But what does all this mean if not that Adam, or man, is to be wonderfully rewarded for his part in that Garden fruit-eating? He is to be elevated to government over women; and to be allowed to dictate, by his own whims, how much or how little physical suffering she is to endure, as the price of his fleshly indulgence! And has God so honored man for all time as to give him this, which often amounts to the power of life and death over a fellow creature, forsooth because Adam accused God of unwisdom and sheltered Satan from blame? We know very well who, if anyone, will reward man thus, if only we will exercise common sense,—the one whom Adam favored, Satan. If God and Satan both award man thus, here again we find for a third time these, two working together for the same result. We said a moment ago if anyone caused Eve to suffer, or cursed Eve it was her enemy, Satan; if anyone rewarded Adam for shielding Satan, it was Satan again.
[Paragraphs 105–106 are not reproduced here.]
LESSON 14. THE FALSE INTERPRETATION.
107. But the need of a different translation and interpretation of Genesis 3:16 will scarcely be realised by those not familiar with the usual teachings to be found in our Bible commentaries, which defy principles of morality and justice, as well as outrage the sense of the original words, as can be proved by the ancient versions. This latter statement we will make good.
Excepting that it seems necessary to the proof of our point, and to secure revision, we could not bring ourselves to reproduce samples of what is being taught along this line by scholars highly esteemed as Biblical expositors by the Church. Dean Alford’s teaching, in par. 103 should be re-read: Browne says, “Desire here expresses that reverential longing with which the weaker [woman] looks up, to the stronger.” Addis says “Woman is to desire man’s society, notwithstanding the pain and subjection which are the result.”
108. The assumption is more or less general that morbidly intense sensuality, when it displays itself in the female character, is of Divine manufacture. Knobel interprets God as saying, “Thou shalt be possessed by passionate desire for him.” Keil and Delitzsch, “She was punished with a desire bordering upon disease.” Dillmann comments on the passage: “The special punishment of the woman consists in the evils by which she is oppressed in her sexual vocation, in the position she occupies in her relation to man,” and yet, doubtless he would scarcely hesitate to pronounce such a relation “Holy Matrimony!” Driver declares “She shall desire his cohabitation, thereby at the same time increasing her liability to the pain of childbearing.” If this sensuality were the state of woman’s mind in general it would not be necessary to starve women out of industrial lines, and put a check upon their mental development, lest they be disinclined to marry if capable of self support; yet these are the methods which have been used in order to maintain the “domestic” desires of women. Calvin says, “This form of speech is . . . as if He [God] said, ‘Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes’. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude.” In other words, Calvin would have us believe God first ordained marriage, but afterwards substituted “servitude.” Patrick, Lowth, etc., in their commentary declare of the husband that he shall have the power “to control thy desires,” but we have never known of a husband who could do more than control the outward acts of his wife. Poole elaborates this decree into, “Thy desires shall be referred to thy husband’s will and pleasure, to grant or deny them as he sees fit.” Dr. Adam Clarke says: “It is a part of her punishment, and a part from which even God’s mercy will not exempt her . . . Thou shalt not be able to shun the great pain and peril of child-bearing, ‘thy desire shall be to thy husband.’ . . . Subjection to the will of her husband is one part of her curse; and so very capricious is this will often, that a sorer punishment no human being can well have.”
109. But the astounding part of this teaching is, that these men fail to see that, if a wife must be under a “curse” because she is under a husband who exercises the cruelties that constitute that curse, this is equivalent to saying that God has ordained that man and marriage shall be a curse to woman. Such teaching relieves a husband of the duty to observe nearly the entire decalogue, if only the person he practices his transgressions upon happens to be the one he has vowed, before the marriage altar, that he will “love and cherish.”
110. But does this teaching accord with the general tenor of Scriptural morals? Not at all. Abraham, once upon a time, desired to maintain a polygamous household, and Sarah objected. Did God speak to her about the matter, and say: “Remember Eve, and the penalty: Thy desire shall be thy husband?” He spoke to Abraham, saying: “In all that Sarah saith unto thee, obey her voice” (Gen. 21:12). The word rendered, in English, “hearken unto,” in this passage means obey, and it is translated “obey” in very many other passages,— such as Gen. 22:18. When Hannah centered all her “desire” upon a hoped-for son, her husband exhorted her to center it, rather, upon himself, saying, “Am I not better to thee than ten sons?” Hannah did not obey the expositor’s teaching as to Gen. 3:16, and God blessed her in this sort of “disobedience” to her husband, by sending the son. So we might go on illustrating the fact that God has shown no zeal in enforcing this supposed “law” of His. But one quotation is sufficient to entirely destroy the fallacious interpretation of Gen. 3:16, and that is the well-known Golden Rule, uttered by Jesus Christ: “Whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even so unto them.” We have never yet found the man who longed to be ruled by the will of his wife. All men led by the Spirit of Christ obey this Golden Rule, which sets at defiance the so-called “law” of Gen. 3:16, as interpreted by these expositors.
111. But three passages speak to us against the specific sense that has been put upon that word “desire,” by most of the commentators. Lev. 20:18 is a law which punishes the wife, with the husband, if she should yield her will to his under improper conditions. This law necessitates the view that God holds woman as a free agent in the marriage relation. Further, the Apostle Paul, 1 Cor. 7:4, makes the authority of the wife precisely equal to the husband’s in the marriage relation, saying, “The husband hath not authority over his own body, but the wife.” We are quite aware that this verse has been reduced to a mere sophism by Bible commentaries. But “authority” does not mean “authority” at all, unless it comprehends the idea of being able to act with perfect independence either one way or in the precisely opposite way. Later, we have a lesson on this passage in Corinthians. The third passage is found in three of the Gospels (Matt. 24:19, Mark 13:17, Luke 21:23). It is the “Woe” of the Lord pronounced upon mothers (not fathers), found “with child,” or with sucklings at the time of the Great Tribulation, yet to come,—for, as Fronmüller has said (referring to these with other passages), woe is “an utterance . . . of frequent occurrence in the speeches of our Lord, expressive of pain and indignation, and conveying the threat of punishment.” It can by no means be given an exceptional meaning here.
112. It must, then, impress reasoning minds that the interpretation of Gen. 3:16 has had a history something like this: Men of old found a phrase here that seemed to have to do with woman’s relation to her husband, but it was beyond their comprehension. Unconsciously these men of olden time have consulted their own ideas of what a wife should be, in her relation to her husband, and inserted those ideas into their interpretation. The interpretation has been accepted by other men, without challenge, because it conformed to their unsanctified wishes, and handed on from generation to generation, until it became weighty through “tradition.” No effort, scarcely, has been put forth to reconcile such teachings with the spirit of Jesus Christ. A letter, relating to the passage, has come to me, during the preparation of these Lessons, from an eminent Bible scholar, to whom I suggested the need of a better interpretation. He replies: “I
should hardly have thought a correction of the text was either called for or probable.” Of course, our proposal had never been to amend the text, as he well knew, but the interpretation and translation. Prejudice blinds men, even in their treatment of the Word of God, if a faulty rendering coincides with their preconceptions.
The Bible nowhere uses such an expression as “the curse” regarding women. We get the teaching about the woman’s “curse” wholly through tradition.
113. The Bible nowhere uses such an expression as “the curse” regarding women. We get the teaching about the woman’s “curse” wholly through tradition. Pain is invariably an outcry of God’s natural law against abuse; and pain must be contrary to God’s will. This is as true regarding the pain of childbirth as it is regarding any other sort of pain. If this were a lesson in Physiology, we could abundantly account for such suffering as some women endure periodically and in childbirth, quite apart from the fiction that God Himself inflicts such pain upon women. Woman suffers in childbirth more than any other female animal, because other female animals protect themselves (by the only proper means, of course), from all possibility of becoming mothers excepting at suitable seasons; they will not brook tyranny in such a matter.
LESSON 15. SATAN’S LYING IN WAIT.
114. A clock needs a most careful fitting of all its parts. It is quite conceivable that a typewriter wheel might be used for other purposes, but it could never be fitted into a clock, to take the place of a broken clock wheel. It would be too heavy or too light; the rim too thick or too thin; the hub too big or too little, and the cogs too many or too few. It would prove to be a misfit all around; the clock would not keep proper time. So it is with Scripture: “Every word of God is tried,” and if we attempt to insinuate a false interpretation into it, it proves, on close inspection, a misfit all around. We shall demonstrate, by the misfit all around, that the usual interpretation of Gen. 3:16 is not correct. It bears a resemblance to the correct interpretation as a typewriter wheel may resemble a clock wheel, but it does not fit accurately anywhere.
115. As introductory, we go back to verse 15, “It shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” “Bruise” is an obscure word; to quote Dr. Tayler Lewis, “The general sense of this passage is plain, but there is great difficulty in fixing the precise action intended by the Hebrew word shuph, in consequence of its occurrence but three times in the Bible.” The two other places are Job 9:17, “breaking,” and Psa. 139:11, “cover.” Now what word could imply, according to its context, either bite, crush, break, or cover? That is the question,—for our verse certainly means that the serpent will bite the heel, and the “seed” of woman crush its head.
116. The sense “bruise,” so unsuitable for the figure of a biting serpent, has been fixed upon on account of St. Paul’s words, Rom. 16:20, “The God of peace shall bruise Satan under your feet shortly.” But we have no proof that Paul meant to translate the word shuph; he may have meant merely to give the general sense of the phrase, as it relates to man’s part, which is clear to us all, whatever shuph means.
Some of the ancient versions translate, here, “lying in wait,” or a kindred idea; and on the strength of this the R. V. gives us this as an alternative meaning in the margin. But this leaves the thought incomplete—to say merely that the “seed” will “lie in wait for his head.” In that case, the seed of woman might in the end be defeated, while the real force of the prophecy is one of victory. No, shuph means something else, but we must leave the matter unsettled.
117. But why was the thought of “lying in wait” ever brought in here? This is an interesting point to raise. We hold that verse 16 should have been rendered, “Unto the woman He said, A snare hath increased thy sorrow,”—the word “snare” being, literally rendered, “a lying-inwait.” Instead, it is rendered, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow.” The difference between the two in Hebrew lies wholly in the interlinear vowel-signs (see par. 6), of comparatively recent invention.* [*The difference is, between HaRBeh AaRBeh, “multiplying I will multiply,” and HiRBah AoReB, “hath-caused-to-multiply,” (or “made great”), a lying-in-wait.—the verb, as usual preceding its nominative. The capital letters, alike in both phrases, alone constitute the original text. This participial form, ARB, occurs fourteen times in Joshua and Judges. It is translated “ambush,” and “liers-in-wait,” or “in ambush.” It is possible that we should read, here, “a lyer-in-wait (the subtil serpent) hath increased thy sorrow.”] This would explain why the idea of “lying in wait” still clings to the passage, though it can scarcely be the meaning of the word shuph. The thought was obliterated from the opening expression of verse 16, by the words being construed as “multiplying I will multiply” (literal for “I will greatly multiply”), and then it was reflected backwards as a possible sense for the obscure word shuph. In this connection we must recall that originally Hebrew had no divisions into verses, or even words.
118. We have said, and shown, that the idea of God’s passing a punitive sentence upon Eve, after the wonderful prophecy regarding her in verse 15, is inconsistent. But the rendering which we give is perfectly consistent with the context. We know that the Serpent was pronounced “subtil,” and Eve was said to have been “beguiled,” or deceived. Here, then, is a perfect fit in place of a misfit. This, as we believe, the correct rendering, became lost to us in the “days of mingling” (see par. 86), when the first version—the Greek—was made; when, as we have shown, the natural tendency would be, and was, to conform the story of Eve to the story of Pandora. A philologist of high repute, while doubting the general acceptance of my rendering, writes me, “I agree to the possibility of your translation.”
119. I have written to another gentleman, a high authority in the Hebrew language, and enquired if he could find fault, grammatical or rhetorical, with my translation. His reply simply states: “The translation proposed in your letter would seem to me quite unnatural, or, at any rate, unduly forced, where the usual rendering is natural, and to my mind perfectly correct.” On this point we differ. What could be more unnatural than for God to first repose that greatest promise of all the Bible in a person, and then in the next breath pronounce a terrible punishment upon her? But to first give a great and wonderful promise, but at the same time reveal that with that high and holy calling the enemy of souls would be at war, and much suffering must attend and eventuate from it, as was the case with the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:28 and 2:35) and St. Paul (Acts 8:15, 16),—this view is both logically and theologically sound, and we imagine that many thoughtful
people will think our reading more natural and less forced than the traditional translation and interpretation.
120. We must now consider another portion of Eve’s so-called sentence,—“and thy conception;” especially that last word. When our Lord was on earth He promised us that, “Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” Some have supposed this promise to cover all the scope that it would if spoken concerning such a language as the English. But those who have studied our Lessons 1 and 2 will be prepared to see the case in its true light. The consonants of such a language as Hebrew must remain unchangeable or else we can have no hope of preserving the original sense of its words. But even as to English, our law courts every day present cases where the most tremendous decisions turn upon the exact reading of human laws. Our laws must be drafted by experts, with utmost care. We can easily imagine a case in which the fate of life or death might be determined by the precise reading of the law, or even upon its punctuation. Imagine, then, what would be the outcome if we, in the end, at the great Judgment seat, were to be tried by carelessly inscribed or imperfectly preserved laws. Imagine such a state of things even in the days of Israel’s kings. Supposing, in the days when the law was written in consonants only, Rehoboam, who was an especially harsh king (1 Kings 12:10), had chosen to read, as a penalty for an offense, G L S instead of G L, claiming that the law was probably mutilated at the particular point where he had chosen to add that S to its consonants. This would have made all the difference between GaoL (jail) and GaLLowS; we take an English word for illustration. Now it is just such perversions as these against which God has undertaken, on the assurance of Jesus Christ, to protect us. That is not unreasonable, is it?
121. We have before us such a case as this, in this supposed law of retribution upon all womanhood, because Eve sinned. The “sentence,” I will multiply . . . thy conception,” has wrought terrible havoc with the health and happiness of wives; because, so read it has been understood to rob woman of the right to determine when she should become a mother, and to place that right outside her will, and in abeyance to the will of her husband,—at least, the law has been read thus, because of its connection with what follows in this passage. This word is spelled, in Hebrew HRN,—but that is not the correct Hebrew way to spell “conception.” The latter occurs, and correctly spelled, in Ruth 4:13 and Hosea 9:11, and nowhere else. The real word, “conception,” as it occurs in the above passages, is spelled HRJWN. This word in Genesis comes two letters short of spelling the word. All Hebrew scholars know this. For instance, Spurrell says: “It is an abnormal formation which occurs nowhere else in the Old Testament.” Our highest lexical authorities (Brown, Briggs and Driver) call it a “contraction, or erroneous.” Indeed! and is one half the human family to be placed at the mercy of the other half, on such a flimsy claim as this! So could Rehoboam have sent a man to the gallows, instead of sending him to gaol, by such a method of manipulating the law. We stand for our rights, as women, on the assurance of our Lord, that no word in Divine law has lost any of its consonants, or angles of a consonant; and on our Lord’s promise we can demand a very different rendering of the word. While it is possible that the W of this word might be omitted in this particular formation, the J is a consonant of the root, and cannot be lost or omitted, particularly at the end of a phrase where the voice pauses or rests for awhile upon it; such is the Hebrew rule in an instance like this. The Septuagint gives the correct reading here,
which is, “thy sighing,”—the whole sentence meaning, then, “A snare hath increased thy sorrow and thy sighing.” Many ancient authorities agree with the Septuagint.
LESSON 16. GOD’S WARNING TO EVE.
122. The N. T. teaches us that “He that committeth sin is of the devil . . . Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin . . . In this the children of God are manifest and the children of the devil” (1 John 3:8–10). Eve repented; but there is no inference that Adam repented at this time, for he was expelled from the garden. What must have happened, after this? Before Cain could have been born (Gen. 4:1) either Adam must have repented and become again the child of God, or Eve must have turned from God and followed Adam out of Eden. The fact that Cain was a murderer certainly argues that Eve followed Adam.
123. Eve was, then, the first woman to forsake her (heavenly) kindred for her husband. She reversed God’s marriage law,—“Therefore shall a man forsake his father and his mother, and cleave to his wife.” Had Eve remained steadfast with God, Adam might, through the double influence of God and Eve, have returned to God. Marriage might have been consummated by Adam, the husband, forsaking the devil, his father, and cleaving to his wife, thus returning, like the prodigal he was, to the heavenly Father’s home.
124. God spoke warningly to Eve at this time, telling her that she was inclining to turn away from Himself to her husband, and telling her that if she did so her husband would rule over her. The correct rendering of the next phrase of Gen. 3:16 is this: “Thou art turning away to thy husband, and he will rule over thee,”—not as it has been rendered, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband.” This assertion, as to the correct meaning of the phrase we shall now prove. As we have said before, a misinterpretation of a passage of Scripture can be proved by the misfit. The usual construction put upon the language of this verse fits accurately nowhere; the correct interpretation fits all around.
125. The original word used here is teshuqa, and as it only occurs three times in the Hebrew language, its sense must be fixed (1) by studying its relation to other words in the sentences where it occurs: (2) by studying its derivation and structure: (3) and by studying the way it is rendered in the ancient versions of Scripture.
126. To study its relations to other words, we will leave it untranslated, but, write it in its proper sentences, inserting the noun equivalents for the pronouns used.
Gen. 3:16, “-and-to-Adam,Eve’s teshuqa.” Gen. 4:7, “-and-to-Cain, Abel’s teshuqa” (or perhaps sin’s teshuqa) Sol. Song 7:10,“-and-to-the-ChurchChrist’s teshuqa” (as usually interpreted)
Now compare. No verbs are expressed. The conjunction is one for all and also the preposition. This is true of the Hebrew original also. In fact there is no variety in the three sentences, excepting in the proper nouns implied in the pronouns used. The sense of the three passages must be similar.
127. All the stress of teaching woman’s supposed obligations to man is in the “shall be,” which is supplied by the translators. The force of the mandatory teaching, then, rests upon a hiatus in the sentence. If it be contended that the context proves that this is an imperative, then the previous sentences must be imperative, or the following. Must woman bear children in sorrow, whether she wishes to rejoice or no? Must the serpent bruise the heel of the woman’s seed, whether he will or no? As to the following clause: Must man rule woman, whether he will or no? We think women have more liberty in Christian countries than heathen because man loses the disposition to rule his wife when a Christian.
If this be a commandment of God, and man must rule woman, the more carnally-minded a man is the better he keeps that sort of “law!” But the Apostle Paul says: “The carnal mind . . . is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be” (Rom. 8:7). Thus we see that the context does not prove that this “shall be” of the sentence translated, “thy desire shall be to thy husband” is imperative. We can assert positively that this sentence is a simple future or present, warning woman of the consequences of her action. So it is rendered in all the ancient versions; never as an imperative. As a prophecy it has been abundantly fulfilled in the manner in which man rules over woman, especially in heathen lands. But Jesus Christ said, as much of women as of men: “NO ONE can serve two masters.”
128. Compare again: The word teshuqa does not necessarily refer to the appetite between male and female, for it would then be out of place in the second sentence. And it does not necessarily imply the subordination of Eve to Adam, as the marginal reading of the A. V. puts it; for then, in the third sentence, Christ is subordinated to the Church, or according to the other interpretations of the Song of Solomon, the man is, at any rate, subordinated to the woman.
Nicholas Fuller, an eminent Oriental scholar, wrote an interesting chapter on this subject in a Latin work entitled Theological Miscellany, published in 1612. In reply to those who hold that the sense of the passage is, “the appetite of the wife is about to be in the power of the husband and subdued by him,” he says: “Just as if nothing would be longed for by the wife excepting what would be pleasing to the husband. Absurd notion! Others again wish the appetite to be understood as that by which a woman seeks marital dominion. And yet it is not very probable that this yoke is sustained by spontaneous longing for it . . . This is not effected by longing, then, but it is suffered because not declined. Besides, Scripture saith not, ‘The appetite of the wife shall be inclined to the dominion of the husband,’ but ‘to the husband’ himself. Wherefore, if teshuqa is allowed to be translated ‘appetite’ certainly this appetite is common and by nature reciprocal, and bending each in like manner to the other. Therefore, it displays a more equitable condition of life than dominion. Nay, moreover, if this form of speech declares the appetite for a ruler, Christ would adopt the Church as His ruler, for in the same manner the Church speaks, when, of Christ as a Spouse, in Canticles 7:10 it says, ‘I am my beloved’s, towards me is His appetite,’ as indeed they would there translate.”
Lewis’ note in Lange’s Commentary declares: “The sense of this word [teshuqa] is not libido, or sensual desire.”
129. As to the structure, and derivation of teshuqa, apparently it is derived from the verb shuq, meaning in its simplest form “to run.”
The prefix, te, gives the word an abstract sense, and it corresponds to our termination,—“ness,” in such words as “goodness,” “kindness,” etc. The ending a, is added to give the word the feminine form usual to Hebrew abstract nouns. If this word is taken from the intensive form of the verb, it would bear the sense “to run repeatedly,” that is “to run back and forth.” But to keep running back and forth would necessitate frequent turning, and hence the word might easily have the derived sense of “turning;” and an abstract noun be derived therefrom, not meaning a literal “turning,” but a quality of the character, a “turning.” The sense “desire” has come to us from the Talmud, in the “Ten Curses of Eve.” All the most ancient versions, this we will show in our next, give the idea of “turning,” and that alone, for this Hebrew word “teshuqa.”
If teshuqa is allowed to be translated ‘appetite’ certainly this appetite is common and by nature reciprocal, and bending each in like manner to the other. Therefore, it displays a more equitable condition of life than dominion.
LESSON 17. THE ANCIENT RENDERINGS OF TESHUQA.
130. The SEPTUAGINT GREEK version of the Old Testament is the most important of all the versions. It is also the most ancient. Tradition says it was the work of seventy-two Jewish scholars, and its name means “seventy.” Made at Alexandria, about 285 B. C., certainly more was known about Hebrew then than at any time since. The version was much in favor among the Jews until the Christians used its translation of the prophecies to prove that Jesus was the Messiah, when it fell under Jewish displeasure. Nearly every quotation from the Old Testament to be found in the New, is an exact reproduction of the Septuagint reading. This accounts for N. T. quotations not seeming always accurate. Dean Stanley says: “If there ever was a translation which, by means of its importance, rose to a level with the original, it was this. It is not the original Hebrew, but the Septuagint, which is the Bible of the evangelists and the apostles of the first century, and of the Christian Church for the first age of its existence . . . Whatever may be the value of the Hebrew text itself, or its value in the present Jewish Church, or the present Church of Western Europe, the Septuagint was the text sanctioned probably by our Lord Himself, certainly by the apostles.” The Pentateuch of the Septuagint is especially esteemed for its accuracy. This version renders teshuqa into the Greek word apostrophe in both passages in Genesis: and epistrophe in Canticles. The former word, apostrophe, is familiar to us all: it means “turning away,” and the latter, “turning to.” The teaching is, that Eve is turning away from God to her husband, and, as a consequence of that deflection, Adam will rule over her.
131. Next in order of excellence is the SYRIAC PESHITTO of the second, or perhaps first, century after Christ. This version gives the same sense, rendering, “thou wilt turn,” (Gen. 3:16); “will turn” (Gen. 4:7), and “turning” for the third passage. We have only the Pentateuch in the SAMARITAN version. It translates both the passages in Genesis, “turning.” The OLD LATIN version gives “turning” in all three places. We have a COPTIC (Sahidic), of not
great value, which gives the same rendering for the first and third passage; and the more valued BOHAIRIC COPTIC which so renders the passage in the first two. These two copies are not complete Bibles, but fragments. The AETHIOPIC version of about 500 A. D. renders all three passages by words signifying “turning.” In fact, as regards the third passage, all the ancient versions without any exceptions whatever, give no other sense but “turning” for teshuqa
132. Now as to some variations in the rendering of the passages in Genesis: The Talmud, as we have shown, sets forth the teaching that God pronounced “Ten Curses” upon Eve; but the Talmud is not a translation of the Scriptures, but a compilation of the traditions of the Jews. The fifth, sixth and the ninth of these “curses” supply the sense “lust” for the Hebrew word teshuqa, together with the teaching that woman must center her “desire” upon her husband alone; his “desire” could wander away to other women. From this immoral teaching the English rendering has its sole original authority, so far as we have been able to trace, after very much research. After the Septuagint came into disfavor with the Jews, AQUILA, a proselyte to Judaism, in close touch with Jewish scholars of the second century after Christ, made a Greek translation of the Hebrew, to offset the errors, as was claimed, of the Septuagint. His translation does not exist, so far as known. But Origen compiled a work called the Hexapla, in which he gave the variations between the Septuagint and Aquila’s renderings. According to the Hexapla, Aquila has rendered this word “coalition,” or “alliance”—a not unnatural sense, since Eve is represented as turning from God to form an alliance with her husband. Origen gives information also in his Hexapla of two other Greek versions made shortly after Aquila’s, both of them, likewise, under the influence of Judaism. Of these, SYMMACHUS follows Aquila in Gen. 3:16, according to some authorities, but other manuscripts use another Greek word here, namely, horme, “impulse,” and there is strong testimony that this latter word was employed by Symmachus in Gen. 4:7. But as to the passage in Canticles, we have no light beyond the inference that since Origen called attention to no variations at this point, these Greek translations agreed with the Septuagint. We have not yet mentioned the third Greek translation: All we know of THEODOTION’S renderings is, that he used “turning” in Gen. 4:7.
133. Jerome’s LATIN VULGATE was made about 382 A. D. He went to Palestine and studied Hebrew under Jewish rabbis. He renders the first passage, “Thou shalt be under the power of a husband, and he will rule over thee.” The first phrase is mere guess-work; it is no translation of the original words. The second passage reads, “his appetite,”—whatever that may mean in a relation between brothers. The third passage reads, “his turning.” The ARABIC is of most uncertain date; probably not earlier than the tenth century. It renders the word teshuqa in the three places, respectively, “direction,” “moderation” and “turning.”
134. A TARGUM is not a translation, but a paraphrase,—the Synagogue explanation of the sense of Scripture. The TARGUM of ONKELOS, or Chaldee Paraphrase, was published at Babylon, and therefore would conform quite closely to the traditions embodied in the Babylonian Talmud which teaches the “ten curses of Eve.” This Targum—the most reliable one—relates only to the Pentateuch. It renders, “lust” in the first passage, and “turning” in the second. A very unreliable Targum, accredited wrongly to “Joseph the Blind,” of about the eleventh century, renders “lust” in the third passage.
135. Wiener says: “The coincidences of truth are infinite. In other words, the true hypothesis explains all difficulties.” Let us apply this scientific test to our claim that teshuqa means “turning:”
Aquila and Symmachus assume that Eve “turns” to make an alliance with her husband, hence they translate “alliance.” Or, according to other readings, Symmachus assumes that the “turning” is rather, as yet, an impulse, than an act,—he translates “impulse.” (This Greek word for “impulse” does not necessarily imply a sensual impulse. It is used in Acts 14:5, and translated “assault,” and in James 3:4,— not rendered in the A. V., but the R. V. reads: “whither the impulse of the steersman willeth.”) The Arabic reasons, “If Eve is about to turn away from God, it must be in some direction;” so it renders, “direction.” Jerome plainly shows he does not know what teshuqa means, but since the latter part of the phrase refers to the man’s part,—“he will rule over thee,”—he concludes that the beginning of the passage must refer to woman’s position, and renders, “Thou shalt be under the power of a husband.
136. Likewise, the sense “turning” reconciles the three passages one with another, whereas the sense “desire” puts them in utter conflict. Eve is “turning” from God, and He warns her that if she does this, she will fall under the dominion of Adam. Abel is “turning” toward Cain, in all the confidence of a younger and unsuspecting brother. God warns Cain prophetically that this confiding approach of his brother will be a temptation to slay him in his defenselessness. The third passage is a joyful boast of the bridegroom’s favor and attention, “He is turning to me.”
137. Prof. H. G. Mitchell of Boston University, in his book, The World Before Abraham , has well represented the general sense of the phrase translated, “ thy desire shall be to thy husband. ” He says, “This interpretation, however, is not altogether satisfactory. The word here used is found only in two other places in the O. T., Gen. 4:7 and Cant. 7:10. In the former of these two passages, if it means anything, it must mean mere inclination, or something equally removed from sensuality: and in the latter, where a man is the subject, it has the force of affection, devotion. There is therefore ground for the opinion that the author in this passage intended to make Jehovah say that the very tenderness of the woman for the husband would [eventually] enable him to make and keep her his inferior.”
LESSON
18. HISTORY OF THE TRANSLATION OF TESHUQA.
138. Were the teaching true that all women must suffer pain and servitude for the sin of Eve, then it were pertinent to ask, Why must they suffer thus,—because they are Eve’s offspring? Are not men equally the offspring of Eve? The only answer is, “Because they are female offspring.” But who made them female offspring,— women or God? GOD. Then are we taught that God is punishing women, not for their own fault, not because they are sinners, not even because Eve sinned; God is punishing women for what He Himself made them,—because they are women, not men. Away with such an attack upon God’s reputation for justice! And further, the idea that “sorrow,” in this verse means labour pains, or periodical suffering in women, is far-fetched; the same word is used of Adam in the very next verse. This word is not used for such suffering anywhere in all the Scriptures.
139. Since this passage in Genesis, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband,” has been the cause of much immorality among men, in the cruelty and oppression they have inflicted upon their wives; since this false translation has been the cause of much degradation, unhappiness and suffering to women; and since this translation has been made the very keystone of an arch of doctrine subordinating woman to man, without which keystone the arch itself falls to pieces; and since the Apostle Paul’s utterances on the “woman question” are always interpreted as though this perversion of the sense of Gen. 3:16 was his accepted foundation upon which he builds his super-structure, it behooves us to review again the history of the ancient translation of the word teshuqa, and this we will do with the aid of the appended table:
[The table is not reproduced here.]
From this Table we readily see that of the twelve ancient versions, 10 furnish us with the rendering “turning,” in at least one passage.
Of the 28 known rendering of teshuqa, in the above Table, the word is rendered “turning” 21 times.
In the 7 remaining renderings, only 2 seem to agree; all the others disagree.
140. With such testimony as this before us (and we have quoted every ancient version we have been able to find, and none of importance, as likely to shed the least light on the meaning of this word are omitted from the list),—we can see no justification for rendering this word “desire.” Even the Babylonian Targum renders it “turning” in the second passage (Gen. 4:7), and thus lends its authority to this sense. Nothing but that rabbinic perversion and addition to the Scriptures, teaching that God pronounced ten curses on Eve (something that Scripture nowhere teaches) seems to be at the bottom of this extraordinary reading. A hint of such a meaning for teshuqa as “lust” seems to have crept into the Bible through Jerome’s Latin Vulgate. But even he did not give the sense “appetite” for the word as relates to Eve, but as to Abel; and further, even Jerome adds his authority, in his translation of the third passage, to the sense “turning,” and for 3:16, in his writings,—see Additional Note.
[ADDITIONAL NOTE. It is to be noted that the Church Fathers seem to be ignorant of any other sense but “turning” for this word. We have noted that the following employ “turning,” in one, two, or all three passages: Philo (a Jew,—not a Ch. Father died 50 A. D.), Clement of Rome (d. 100), Irenaeus (d. 202), Tertullian (born 160), Origen (b. 186), Epiphanius (b. 310 in Palestine), Jerome (b. 335,— in both Genesis verses, in spite of his own different renderings), Ambrose (b. 340), Augustine (b. 354) and Theodoret (b. 386).
In spite of the plain sense of the Greek words apostrophe and epistrophe, and the Latin rendering of teshuqa, conversio (all conveying, in their root, the sense of “turning”), the well known translation of the Church Fathers, published by T. and T. Clark of Edinburgh, renders the word “desire,” in these passages. But these words cannot be lawfully rendered thus.]
141. But let us now trace the adoption of “desire” into the English versions. In 1380 appeared the first English version by Wycliffe. It
was not made from the Hebrew original, but from the Latin Vulgate, and it follows its readings in all three places. The Douay Bible, of 1609, of the Roman Catholic Church, is also a reproduction of the Latin Vulgate. Putting these two on one side as mere translations of the Vulgate, we turn to the others.
142. After Wycliffe’s version, and before any other English Bible appeared, an Italian Dominican monk, named Pagnino, translated the Hebrew Bible. The Biographie Universelle, quotes the following criticism of his work, in the language of Richard Simon: “Pagnino has too much neglected the ancient versions of Scripture to attach himself to the teachings of the rabbis.” What would we naturally expect, therefore? That he would render this word “lust,”—and that is precisely what he does in the first and the third place; in the second, he translates, “appetite.”
143. Pagnino’s version was published at Lyons in 1528. Seven years later, in 1535, Coverdale’s English Bible appeared, published at Zurich, probably. Tyndale’s version, in sections, had appeared in the time between Pagnino’s and Coverdale’s, published at Cologne and at Worms. It is to be noted that these were days of persecution, when no English Bible could have been published in England, and this may in part account for these versions being influenced by Pagnino. At any rate, from the time Pagnino’s version appeared, every English version, excepting the two Vulgate translations we put on one side, has followed Pagnino’s rendering for the first
passage, up to the present day. As to the second passage, Cranmer’s Bible (1539) first introduced “lust” into this place, which was later followed by the Geneva Bible, and the Authorised and Revised versions. But Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew (John Rogers) and Cranmer all retained “turning” in the third passage. But the three latest Protestant Bibles, Geneva, Authorised and Revised, have obliterated all trace of any other sense but “desire.” The reading of the older English Bibles which follow Pagnino is, “Thy lust (or lusts) shall pertayne to thy husband.”
144. Now will you please turn to the Title Page of your Bible. If you have an Authorised Version, you will read the assurance given to the reader, that the Book has been “Translated out of the original tongues; and with the former translations diligently compared and revised.” If you have a Revised Version of 1884, it will claim to be “the version set forth A. D. 1611 compared with the most ancient authorities and revised.” These assurances do not hold good, in this case where the status and welfare of one-half the human race is directly and vitally concerned; and the highest good of the other half just as vitally concerned, if even more remotely and less visibly. Pagnino’s word has been retained against the overwhelming authority of the ancient versions.
Amber Burgess
Sarah Ago
Taffi Dollar
Jennifer Powell McNutt
Kathy Myatt Beth Felker Jones
Tara Korpi Todd Korpi
Patrick J. Knapp
Heidi I. Knapp
Genesis 3:16 and the Character of God
Jane L. Crane
Loren Cunningham, cofounder of one of the world’s largest missions organizations, said Scripture never contradicts God’s character. God’s Word is “infallible,” he says, “but our interpretation is not.”1 The highly-regarded theologian I. Howard Marshall agrees with the infallibility of Scripture and also “the need for right interpretation.”2 Bruce Metzger, chair of the translation committee for the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible, said no translation of the Scriptures is perfect, “as anyone who has tried to make one will readily agree.”3 The New International Version says the work of translation is never finished. “This applies to all great literature and uniquely so to the Bible.”4
The current leading translations of Gen 3:16 do not agree with either the earliest known Scripture versions—considered the most accurate—or with the character of God.
meanings. He credits the pioneering research of Katharine Bushnell in the early 1900s for identifying two different possibilities for Gen 3:16. Bushnell, a brilliant M.D. missionary who learned Hebrew and Greek to study the Bible in its original languages, published a now-classic work of 100 lessons on the Scripture passages about women, including Gen 3:16.8
Bushnell points out that the early Hebrew in Gen 3:16a contains the two consonantal words, HRB ARB 9 She showed there were two different options for the adding of interlinear vowels. These are shown below in lower case. The resulting meanings are also shown and are quite different:10
As some highly esteemed scholars have argued, and as this article will explain, the current leading translations of Gen 3:16 do not agree with either the earliest known Scripture versions—considered the most accurate—or with the character of God. Such translations have sometimes led to the degrading and abuse of women, as well as the misrepresentation of God, and need revision.
Examined in light of translation issues, quirks of history, and gender bias, Gen 3:16 (and the other key verses in Genesis about women) present a different picture of women and men, and of a compassionate God, than is often taught today.
Pain from God or Snare from the Enemy?
Some translations say in the first part of Gen 3:16 that God will increase the woman’s pain in childbirth. Such translations, however, could have been affected by the later addition of written vowels to the original, all-consonant Hebrew text.
In the early centuries after Christ, the Jews had dispersed, and different understandings arose of many Hebrew words, since their words were written all in consonants and with minimal spaces between words. To standardize the biblical text, a group of scribes called the Masoretes added interlinear vowel signs and thus fixed the meaning of words that were formerly written only with consonants.5 The resulting Hebrew text shaped by the Masoretes is still used today; however, it is generally recognized that it needs correction in some places.6
Peter Flint explains in his highly respected work on the Dead Sea Scrolls that prior to the addition of vowels, many Hebrew words could be read in more than one way, leading to different meanings. For example, dg (using an English example) could be dig, dog, or dug, depending on which vowels are used.7 OT scholar Walter Kaiser also points out that different vowel choices can result in different
OPTION 1: HaRBah AaRBeh, “I will greatly multiply”
OPTION 2: HiRBah AoReB, “has caused to multiply (or made great) a lying-in-wait”
Option 1 has led to the oft-used translation where God increases the woman’s pain in childbirth. Option 2, however, leads to a translation where the serpent, not God, initiated the problem—and the problem is sorrow and sighing, not pain in childbirth. Bushnell and Kaiser believe that the interspersed vowels in Option 2 lead to a more accurate translation of the verse:11
“A snare [from the enemy] has increased your sorrow and sighing.”
They point to the following facts:
1. The Hebrew word sometimes translated “conception” or “childbearing” is two letters short for such a translation (HRN instead of HRJWN).
2. The Septuagint—considered the most important of the ancient versions of the OT—translates HGN as “sighing,” not pain in childbirth.
3. ARB appears fourteen times in Joshua and Judges as “ambush” or “a lying-in-wait.”
4. A snare from the enemy would refer to the serpent in the prior verses.
In addition, “sighing and sorrow” fit the context. The consequences of deception and sin will be grievous, including leaving the garden. Increasing pain in childbirth, however, does not fit the context. Childbirth has not occurred in Genesis prior to the sin of Adam and Eve to explain an “increase” in pain in childbirth.
Kaiser and Bushnell also include the character of God in their assessments. They point out that God would not declare children
a blessing in Gen 1:28 and then turn that into a curse with painful childbirth. As Kaiser says, “God is never the source of evil and pain.” Satan is. God “would rather bless women.”12 That compassionate God provides a magnificent plan for atonement, whereby the offspring of Eve—prophesying Jesus—will crush the head of the scheming serpent.
Desiring Man or Turning toward Him?
Some current translations then say in Gen 3:16 that the woman will “desire” (teshuqah) the man. However, the twelve known ancient translations, as Bushnell points out, almost universally use the meaning of “turning toward” the man.13 These translations include the Septuagint, the most important of all the ancient versions and the one that is cited throughout the NT.14 In addition, various church Fathers used teshuqah with a meaning of “turning,” including Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius, and Jerome.15
The meaning “to turn” can also fit well with the other two OT uses of teshuqah. Genesis 4:7 could read, “sin is turning to you,” and Song of Songs 7:10, “my lover is turning to me.”16
The first known instance of the concept of “desire” for this word instead of “turning” was from an Italian Dominican monk, Pagnino, in his 1528 translation of the Hebrew Bible into Latin.17 He used the words for “lust” and “appetite,” with a sense of libido or sensual desire. Such a concept had appeared in the “Ten Curses of Eve” in the Jewish Talmud, which has roots reaching back to when Jewish thought was influenced by Greek writings in blaming woman for man’s ills, as in the Greek myth of Pandora.18 An influential biblical critic in the 1600s criticized Pagnino for “too much neglecting the ancient versions of Scripture and attaching himself to the teachings of the rabbis.”19
Nevertheless, Pagnino’s concept of “desire” has continued to be carried forward into many of today’s English translations. Various attempts at interpretations for such a meaning have been made, including physical desire and a desire for the husband’s power, both of which are speculations. Because Jesus rebuked men for lust even in their hearts, it is difficult to believe that a holy God would intentionally inflict sexual desire or lust on women, or on men.
God says the man will rule over the woman— the first statement of male dominance.
Scholars have pointed out, however, that the Hebrew verb here for “rule” is in a tense indicating what will happen. The verb is not presented in a command form.
Biblical scholars Gordon Fee and Douglas Stuart have called for “enlightened common sense” in interpreting Scripture. They say this requires the Holy Spirit’s help and that correct interpretation brings “relief to the mind, as well as a prick or prod to the heart.”20 Similarly, long-time seminary professor Howard Hendricks says we need “sanctified common sense.”21 He points out, speaking of the Bible in general, that our English text leaves us a long way from a
complete understanding, and we have to use our minds to interpret it accurately and perceptively. Our faith, he says, is not “taking a deep breath, shutting our eyes, and believing what we know deep down inside is absolutely incredible.”22
I would add that “sanctified common sense” is especially needed when a Scripture translation appears to violate the character of God.
God Prescribes Male Rule or Predicts It?
Next in Gen 3:16, God says the man will rule over the woman— the first statement of male dominance. Scholars have pointed out, however, that the Hebrew verb here for “rule” is in a tense indicating what will happen. The verb is not presented in a command form. Roger Nicole, an eminent Bible scholar, wrote that God’s words here are “a divine description of what would occur, not a mandate which obedient servants of God should attempt to carry out.”23
Kaiser says the Hebrew grammar for Gen 3:16b will not allow the translation, “he shall rule over you.” That would make the statement mandatory with the force of a command. Rather, the verb contains a simple statement of future reality, with “not one hint of obligation or normativity.” To argue differently, he says, would be as logical as demanding that a verb in 3:18 be rendered, “It shall produce thorns and thistles” (using “shall” in the sense of “must”). If so, Kaiser says, then all farmers who use weed killer would be disobedient to God, that God is demanding that the ground have thorns and thistles.24
Kaiser says the Hebrew reads: “You are turning away [from God!] to your husband, and [as a result] he will rule over you [take advantage of you].” The sense of Gen 3:16b, he says, is that because of sin, the woman would turn away from her sole dependence on God and turn now to the man. The results would not be pleasant, warned God.25 But in mercy, God also gives a redemptive plan.
Biblical theologian Manfred Brauch explains that the statement regarding male rule over woman is not to be understood as prescriptive (what should be) but as descriptive, as revealing the human condition when separated from relationship with God. Brauch says it is the fall that precipitates the man’s rule over the woman, and this “power-over relationship” is to be understood as a distortion of God’s creative design and intention. In contrast, he says, God’s redemptive work points followers of Jesus beyond this power-over relationship and “toward the reaffirmation and reactualization of God’s created intention.”26
The God described in numerous passages of Scripture is compassionate, gracious, longsuffering, plentiful in mercy and truth,27 yet also warns the woman of the consequences of her choice. It would not be consistent with God’s character, as revealed in Scripture, to curse her with pain and subjugation. This God also devises a redemptive plan through Jesus to draw men and women back to their original creation plan, where both are given dominion together over the earth, not power one over the other.
When Jesus reveals God’s character on earth, he never preaches a doctrine of male superiority or leadership over women. Rather, he contends for an attitude of servanthood and preferring one another and treats women with culture-defying respect, including
in spiritual matters. Kenneth Bailey, a biblical scholar who lived in the Middle East and wrote an extensive cultural study of Jesus, says the “radical nature of the changes in the attitudes toward women that Jesus introduced are beyond description.”28 NT scholar Ben Witherington III says the actions of both Jesus and Paul (which need to be understood in light of their first-century culture and translation issues) affirmed a “transformed vision” of the patriarchy of their day.29
Kaiser says that sometime around 1500 BC, two similar Hebrew roots merged to form ezer. One meant “to rescue, to save,” and the other “to be strong.” The result was “almost certainly” a wrong translation, “helper.”
Some use Gen 2:18 as another verse to justify the rule of man. In it, the woman is described, in the context of her creation, with a twoword Hebrew phrase (ezer kenegdo) sometimes translated “helper,” a “helper suitable,” or a “help meet.” “Help meet” came from the King James Version of the Bible in the seventeenth century, when “meet” meant “fit to” or “corresponding,” morphing into the English “helpmate.” When the King James Version was written, however, Hebrew had been largely out of use for centuries, and the understanding of its vocabulary was inadequate.30
Kaiser says that sometime around 1500 BC, two similar Hebrew roots merged to form ezer. One meant “to rescue, to save,” and the other “to be strong.” The result was “almost certainly” a wrong translation, “helper.” He explains that the ancient Hebrew of the first word of the phrase, sometimes translated “help,” should be “strength” or “power.”31 In fact, scholars have stated, this word is used more than a dozen times in the OT to describe the kind of help God gives. It is not one of the four Hebrew words that describe a subordinate help. Kaiser says a more accurate translation of the original two-word phrase for the creation of woman would be “a power [or strength] corresponding to the man.”32
Biblical scholar Aída Besançon Spencer points out that when the original Hebrew text of Gen 2:18 was translated into Greek in the Septuagint, around 250 BC, the translators used the Greek preposition kata followed by the pronoun “him” as its object, signifying a horizontal rather than hierarchical relationship.33 Millard Erickson writes in his textbook on Christian theology that the expression “help meet” translates two Hebrew words, with the second word meaning “corresponding to” or “equal to” him and the first word, rendered “help,” is used of God in several places in the OT.34 The 1907 Lexicon of Hebrew and English in the Old Testament by Brown, Driver, and Briggs provides the meaning “corresponding” for part of this phrase.35 A respected Dead Sea Scrolls translation has “partner.”36
Paul dramatizes such a corresponding relationship in 1 Cor 7:2–34 when he presents the same rights and responsibilities for husbands and wives in twelve key areas and never implies leadership by the husband or different roles for husband and wife.37 Apparently, such a relationship is what God created and such interaction is reflective of God’s desire for husbands and wives.
It should be noted that “roles” for husbands and wives are not defined as such in Scripture. This is a theory that was developed in the 1970s as a reaction to societal changes.38 Nevertheless, it is still taught in some places as if it were a tenet of Scripture.
Is Man Superior Because Created First?
Some have concluded that man is superior to woman, or at least is the leader in male/female relationships, because he was created first. Only one verse in Scripture may seem to imply this, 1 Tim 2:13, but Paul may well have been correcting myths in Ephesus that woman was created before man.39 Similarly, if the firstborn is the given leader, then why would God have chosen David, Joseph, and Solomon to be leaders over their older siblings?
Some point to 1 Cor 11:9, that woman was created “for” man, as some translations have noted. Bailey, studying twenty-two translations of 1 Corinthians in various ancient languages, says a better translation is that woman was created because of man, not for him. For Bailey, the phrase that she is the “glory of man” can mean “the glory of humankind . . . created as the final climax of the creation story.”40 Fee, author of a much-used commentary on 1 Corinthians, writes, “there is no usage of ‘glory’ anywhere in Scripture that would suggest that Paul is here advocating a subordinate relationship by means of this word.”41
Before the woman was formed, God gave instructions to the human being about the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. From what the woman says, the man, not God, told her about it after she was formed. But she is deceived by the serpent into eating from that tree. The man, whom the Bible says is present with her, eats of the tree too. Spencer explains that certain English translations may leave out the phrase “with her” in Gen 3:6 because it can be difficult to translate; however, the King James Version and various other translations do include it.42
When God confronts the man and woman, she tells God that the serpent deceived her. The man blames God for creating the woman who gave him the fruit. Whose sin was greater? Some verses in the NT seem to point to greater responsibility by the man, for whatever reason (it is not stated), but unquestionably both sinned.43 Regardless of who bears greater responsibility for that sin, a compassionate God announces the grand plan of the one to come who will crush the head of the enemy. Jesus, God’s own Son, will offer opportunity for salvation for both men and women.
Unabandoned
God does not want humans to eat of the tree of life and live forever in a sinful state, so God banishes them from the Garden. (The Bible presents this reason instead of a punitive one.) Adam and Eve then leave the Garden, Adam lays with Eve, and she becomes pregnant. Then Eve, unabandoned by her compassionate God, says God helps her to bring forth a son.44
It makes no sense that God would curse woman with pain in childbirth (and this is not reportedly what the earliest translations say, as explained previously). Rather, God helps her bring forth a son. Would not a God who supposedly has cursed the woman with
pain simply stand back and let her suffer? But that is not what God does. Rather, God helps her, and Eve speaks well of her God. Both God’s actions, and hers, reflect the love of God.
Multiple Bible passages describe God as full of compassion, gracious, longsuffering, and plentiful in mercy and truth. How has God’s character become so besmirched in Gen 3:16, prompting many to view him as a punitive God?
Kaiser says, “seldom has so much mischief been caused by the history of a translation error which became institutionalized.”45 This “mischief” apparently developed from translators who, consciously or unconsciously, were unduly influenced by other teachings (such as the monk in the 1500s), or wanted to please people in authority, or were afraid of standing up to power and enduring the cost. Or they were simply misled by years of mistranslation or quirks of history such as added Hebrew vowels.
It is hard to believe that the ancient versions, especially the Septuagint, in their use of “turning” rather than “desire,” have been abandoned by so many of today’s translations. The Septuagint is considered the most important of all the ancient versions; nearly every OT passage cited in the NT shows evidence of using the Septuagint as its source; and this was the Bible used by the apostles and by the church in its early centuries.
Further, the idea of God intentionally inflicting pain on woman could result, consciously or subconsciously, in justification for men to abuse women. And some believe that this concept has been the keystone of a doctrine subordinating women to men.
Bushnell says the idea that God is punishing all women for the sin of Eve is an attack upon God’s reputation for justice. She says that God punishing Christian women for the sin of Eve is “a wicked and cruel superstition, and unworthy [of] the intelligence of Christians,” or, I would add, the character of God.46
I call on translators to revisit Gen 3:16 so that it reflects the true character of God and the earliest translations, not the quirks and “mischief” in translation that bring abuse to women and men in various forms, and tarnish the reputation of God. Surely, God has not abandoned man or woman, subjugated one to the other, or established eternal punishment for all women. Rather, God is still willing, as Jesus showed, to walk with men and women as their God and leader through this sinful world and will even send Jesus once again, Scripture says, to restore God’s glorious kingdom to earth.
God has not abandoned man or woman, subjugated one to the other, or established eternal punishment for all women.
Notes
1. Loren Cunningham and David Hamilton, with Janice Rogers, Why Not Women: A Fresh Look at Scripture on Women in Missions, Ministry, and Leadership (YWAM, 2000) 40. Cunningham is cofounder of Youth With A Mission with his
wife, Darlene Cunningham. He earned three bachelor’s degrees and a Master of Science in Administration of Education and was granted three Honorary DDs. In addition to cofounding Youth With A Mission, he cofounded the University of the Nations, with Dr. Howard Malmstadt, with campuses at this writing in 160 nations.
2. I. Howard Marshall (PhD, Aberdeen), “The Gospel Does Not Change but Our Perception of It May Need Revision,” in How I Changed My Mind About Women in Leadership , ed. Alan F. Johnson (Zondervan, 2010) 146.
3. Bruce Metzger (PhD, Princeton), The Bible in Translation, Ancient and English Versions (Baker Academic, 2001) 189.
4. Holy Bible , New International Version (Zondervan, 1986) viii.
5. The Masoretes did their scribal work mainly in Tiberius by the Sea of Galilee from about AD 500 to 900.
6. Philip W. Comfort, “Afterword: Recent Developments,” in The Origin of the Bible (Tyndale House, 1992, 2003, 2012) 334, 341. Comfort refers in particular to Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia , an edition of the Masoretic Text of the Hebrew Bible as presented in the Leningrad Codex.
7. Peter W. Flint (PhD, Notre Dame), The Dead Sea Scrolls (Abingdon, 2013) 37.
8. Katharine C. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women, One Hundred Bible Studies on Women’s Place in the Church and Home Originally published 1921. Republished by Christians for Biblical Equality, 2003.
9. Bushnell addresses the difference between original consonants, vowel-letters added by scribes, and interlinear vowel-signs. Katharine C. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women , Lesson 1, paragraph 6. 3.
10. See Bushnell, God’s Word to Women , Lesson 15, 50–54; also Walter C. Kaiser Jr. (PhD, Brandeis), Hard Sayings of the Old Testament (InterVarsity, 1988) 30–32. Kaiser repeated the material from Hard Sayings of the Old Testament in a later book, Hard Sayings of the Bible. Because the material on Genesis 3:16 in the two books is nearly identical, only the first is cited in these notes. (Walter C. Kaiser Jr., Peter H. Davids, F. F. Bruce, and Manfred T. Brauch, Hard Sayings of the Bible (InterVarsity, 1996.)
11. See Bushnell, God’s Word to Women , Lesson 15, 50–54; also Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament , 30–32.
12. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament , 32.
13. Citing Bushnell’s research, Kaiser writes that in the twelve known ancient versions (the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Old Latin, the Sahidic, the Bohairic, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, Aquila’s Greek, Symmachus’s Greek, Theodotion’s Greek, and the Latin Vulgate), 21 of 28 instances of teshuqah in Gen 3:16, 4:7; Song 7:10) are rendered “turning,” not “desire.” Further, the Latin rendering is conversio and the Greek is apostrophē or epistrophē , words all meaning a “turning.” Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament , 34; Bushnell, God’s Word to Women , Lessons 16–19, 54–66.
14. For a study of the Septuagint, see Karen H. Jobes and Moises Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint , 2nd ed. (Baker Academic, 2015).
15. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament , 34. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women , Lessons 16–19, 54–66.
16. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women , Lessons 16–19, 54–66. See especially 55, 58, 60–61.
17. Again, Kaiser credits Bushnell for her research identifying this first instance. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women , Lesson 18, 61–64. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament , 34.
18. In the 400 years between the OT and NT, called the
Intertestamental Period, or “Days of Mingling,” Jews lived as a minority and conquered people, and Greek thought was so pervasive that most Jews even lost knowledge of Hebrew and spoke Greek. For the first time, some scholars point out, some Jewish writings follow Greek thought for blaming women for sin’s entering humanity. Ecclesiasticus , written about 250 BC, written by a famous Jewish scribe, Ben Sirach of Jerusalem, is part of the Apocryphal books still used by the Roman Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches, and certain others, and speaks about the wickedness of women. Kenneth Bailey (ThD, Concordia), as well as other scholars, confirms that a deterioration in the place of women “seems to have taken place in the intertestamental period as seen in the writings of Ben Sirach,” an “aristocratic scholar.” Bailey, Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes (InterVarsity, 2003) 189–90. For references to other scholars, see Jane L. Crane, Who Leads?: A Concise Look at Top Scholars on the Male/Female Question (Wipf & Stock, 2004) 9–13, 93 #13.
19. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women , Lesson 18, 63–64.
20. Gordon D. Fee (PhD, Southern California) and Douglas Stuart (PhD, Harvard), How to Read the Bible for All Its Worth (Zondervan, 1981, 2003) 18, 30.
21. Howard G. Hendricks (DD, Wheaton) and William D. Hendricks, Living by the Book: The Art and Science of Reading the Bible (Moody, 1991, 2007) 266.
22. Howard G. Hendricks and William D. Hendricks, Living by the Book , 202, 209.
23. Roger Nicole (PhD, Harvard), “Biblical Concept of Women,” in Evangelical Dictionary of Theology (Baker, 1984) 1177.
24. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament , 35–36.
25. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament , 35.
26. Manfred T. Brauch (PhD, McMaster), Abusing Scripture: The Consequences of Misreading the Bible (InterVarsity, 2009) 64, 80.
27. Exod 34:6–7; Ps 86:5, 15; 103:8–13; 145:8–9; Mic 7:18–20; Rom 2:4; 2 Pet 3:9; 1 John 4:7–10.
28. Bailey, Jesus Through Middle Eastern Eyes (InterVarsity, 2008) 203.
29. Ben Witherington III, Women in the Earliest Churches (Cambridge University Press, 1988) 212.
30. Comfort, “History of the English Bible,” in F. F. Bruce et al. The
Origin of the Bible , 282.
31. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament , 23–26.
32. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament , 23–26.
33. Aída Besançon Spencer (PhD, Southern Baptist), Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry (Thomas Nelson, 1985) 25.
34. Millard J. Erickson (PhD, Northwestern), Christian Theology, 3rd ed. (Baker Academic, 2013) 499.
35. Spencer, Beyond the Curse , 25.
36. Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible: The Oldest Known Bible Translated for the First Time into English (HarperCollins, 1999) 7.
37. Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul’s Letters (Zondervan 2009) ch. 5.
38. Kevin Giles, What the Bible Actually Teaches About Women (Cascade, 2018) 45–50.
39. For scholars’ explanations of this theory, see Crane, Who Leads?, A Concise Look at Top Scholars on the Male/Female Question , 55–62.
40. Kenneth Bailey, Paul Through Mediterranean Eyes: Cultural Studies in 1 Corinthians (InterVarsity, 2011) 307–10.
41. Gordon D. Fee, “Praying and Prophesying in the Assemblies, I Corinthians 11:2–16,” in Discovering Biblical Equality: Complementarity Without Hierarchy , ed. Ronald W. Pierce, Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, and Fee (InterVarsity, 2005) 152.
42. Spencer, Beyond the Curse , 31.
43. Rom 5:12–14, 1 Cor 15:21–22. Bushnell discusses this debate in Lesson 12, 39–43.
44. Gen 4:1.
45. Kaiser, Hard Sayings of the Old Testament, 33.
46. Bushnell, God’s Word to Women , Lesson 13, 43.
Jane L. Crane is the author of Who Leads?: A Concise Look at Top Bible Scholars on the Male/Female Question (Wipf & Stock, 2024). She was the Lausanne Movement’s first Senior Associate for the Partnership of Men and Women for the Gospel, holds a Master's in Peace and Justice, and conducted two years of doctoral-level research in Oxford, England.
Easiest and Most Tax-Advantageous Way to Give
A donor advised fund (DAF) is like a charitable investment account for the purpose of supporting charitable organizations.
• Easier to manage because you donate cash, stocks, real estate, or appreciated assets into a single account as often as you like.
• Immediate tax deductions are received at the time you donate to your DAF.
• Avoid capital gain tax on contributions of long-term appreciated assets.
If you have a DAF, please consider including CBE in your distributions so we can spread the message that God calls women and men to share authority equally.
Through CBE’s partnership with the Barnabas Foundation, you have access to free estate planning services and their DAF fund. Contact them directly at 888-448-3040 or email them at planning@BarnabasFoundation.com
Call Julene at 612-872-6898 or email jholt@cbeinternational.org. Or feel free to call the Barnabas Foundation directly at 888-448-3040 or email them at planning@BarnabasFoundation.com.
Two Ways of Translating and Interpreting Genesis 3:16a, One Older and One Newer: Does It Matter?
Joy Elasky Fleming
English versions of Gen 3:16 present two starkly different translations of God’s first words to the woman in the Garden of Eden. In 1611, the Authorized Version (AV or KJV) was released under King James in England. The translation of Gen 3:16a showed that God promised to take action in two ways, one negative and one positive. The result would be “sorrow and conception.” In 1952, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) was published by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. Its translation presented God as taking action not in these two ways but in just one very negative way by inflicting the woman in Eden with “pain in childbearing.”
The KJV rendered Gen 3:16a as follows: “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception . . . .”
The RSV replaced the two nouns with a single idea as follows: “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing . . . .”
In Gen 3:16a in Hebrew, God tells the woman that action will be taken in two ways. Two nouns are joined by a conjunction. These Hebrew nouns, and the word patterns of which they are part, do not refer to the act of childbearing. God did not punish Eve and her daughters with physical pain related to the last moments of pregnancy. The theological implications of realizing this are important. They affect our understanding of God, woman, man, the world, and relationships. The ways related NT passages are translated and interpreted are profoundly affected as well.
God’s opening Hebrew words in Gen 3:16 can be translated in English as follows: “I will greatly multiply your sorrowful-toil and your conception.”
Here is a transliteration and translation of God’s first four Hebrew words (Gen 3:16a):
Words 1 and 2 harbah ’arbeh multiplying, I-will-multiply
Word 3 istabonek your-sorrowfultoil
Word 4 weheronek and-yourconception
Which translation is more accurate—the KJV or the RSV? What interpretation is correct? Did God take action in two ways, or one? Did God treat the woman in Eden and her daughters in only a negative way that had an impact similar to the serpent and the ground—both cursed by God—or in a measured and very different way?1
The KJV and NKJV present the two Hebrew nouns in Gen 3:16a as two English words depicting two different results, one negative and
one positive. The RSV and translations such as the NASB, NLT,2 and ESV present the two Hebrew words as only one very negative result.
The KJV and NKJV present the two Hebrew nouns in Gen 3:16a as two English words depicting two different results, one negative and one positive.
The RSV and similar translations present the two Hebrew words as only one very negative result.
One of the problems in translation and interpretation is that translators have rendered the first four Hebrew words as if they constituted a Hebrew grammatical construction called a hendiadys.
The KJV rendering of Gen 3:16a takes the Hebrew syntax in a straightforward manner. God promised the woman that as a result of his taking action she would experience sorrowful-toil and God promised her that as a result of his taking action that she would certainly experience conception.3
The RSV rendering of Gen 3:16a treats these words as if God acted with only one result occurring. According to this translation, God promised to change her body in such a way that the act of childbearing would henceforth be different.
Many versions (such as NLT and ESV) have misconstrued Gen 3:16a to be talking about childbirth. But such looseness in translation takes unwarranted liberties with the Hebrew text. They have mistakenly presented the first two lines of Gen 3:16 as if God both times was talking about childbirth when actually he did so neither time.
One of the problems in translation and interpretation is that translators have rendered the first four Hebrew words as if they constituted a Hebrew grammatical construction called a hendiadys.4 Such a construction is possible when the grammar and syntax indicate that two words that would normally stand on their own should be read, instead, as one idea. In such an arrangement, the first noun would function as an adjective modifying the second noun (which might yield the dubious rendering, “sorrowful conception”).
However, the first four words in Gen 3:16 are not arranged to indicate a hendiadys. A hendiadys is not required by the syntax or grammar, nor is imposing one necessary to make the meaning clear.5 Furthermore, there are a number of difficulties with translating these words as a hendiadys, including the problem of
conflating two distinct and important ideas, one positive idea and one negative, into a single very negative statement. There is also the problem created by changing the meaning of one of the four words, heron (“conception, pregnancy”).
There are significant word patterns in play here that must not be overlooked. These include (1) the pattern of six common elements in God’s first and third speeches, (2) the linchpin constructions in Sections A and A' of Gen 2–3, and (3) the good news/bad news alternance in God’s words to the woman and God’s words to the man (Gen 3:16, 17–19).
The Parallel Pattern in God’s Speeches to the Serpent and to the Man
Word patterns carry meaning in Hebrew Scripture. In fact, the form conveys content . Six terms are used in the same order in both God’s speeches—the speech to the serpent (vv. 14–15) and the speech to the man (vv. 17–19). These six points stand out like mountain peaks on the skyline of God’s speeches in Eden. Notably, all six are completely missing in God’s words to the woman (v. 16). Yet, remarkably, the presence, and absence, of these peaks and their meaning have been missing in the interpretation of Gen 3.
In the speech to the serpent (3:14–15) the six points are as follows:
1. “Because (ki) you . . .”
2. “cursed (’arur) is/are”
3. Object of the curse (serpent)
4. Curse involves “eating”
5. Curse duration: “all the days of your life”
6. Repeating alliterative verb: shuph . . . shuph
In the speech to the man (3:17–19) the six points are as follows:
1. “Because (ki) you . . .”
2. “cursed (’arur) is/are”
3. Object of the curse (ground)
4. Curse involves “eating”
5. Curse duration: “all the days of your life”
6. Repeated alliterative verb: shub . . . shub
None of these six points used by God in the first and third speeches are present in God’s words to the woman in the second speech. God does not say to her, “Because you . . . .” The word “curse” is not used. No mention is made of “eating” or “all the days of your life,” and there are no repeated alliterative verbs. What is the meaning of their presence in Speeches 1 and 3? What is the meaning of their absence from Speech 2?
Jesus called the one who attacked the man and woman in Eden a liar and a murderer, in John 8:44. In his words at the tree, the serpent enemy both dismissed God’s words and twisted their meaning.6 This enemy in Eden was in full rebellion against the Creator God.
When the man speaks as recorded in Gen 3:12 he dismisses the actions and words of their attacker. He then accuses the woman and God himself of causing him to disobey God’s very words to him in Gen 2:16–17! The man too was in full rebellion against his Lord and Creator.
God noticed the active rebellion of the serpent and the man. He imposed a curse because of each one, “Because you . . . cursed is/ are . . . .”
God had lovingly created what was very good for the man and the woman. Each was created in God’s image. Each was created from the same material and, as partners, they were to enjoy and rule the Garden of Eden and the whole earth together.
The six mountain peaks are missing in God’s second speech. The rebellion prompting these peaks was not present in the woman’s intent and actions. She did not dissimulate. She pointed out her attacker and confessed in Gen 3:13 that she had been deceived and eaten the fruit of the forbidden tree.7 God immediately confirmed the accuracy of her identification of the serpent enemy as a deceiver in God’s first words of speech number one (v. 14); God refers to what she had just said when he addresses the serpent with the words “Because you have done this.”
More Word Patterns: Chiasm, Linchpin, Mixed News
The account of the Garden of Eden in Gen 2–3 is structured using a literary pattern called a chiasm. A chiasm can be expressed in a convex series of parallel sections, culminating in a high point in the center section.8 The episodes in Gen 2:5–3:24 follow a chiastic structure of seven episodes:
A 2:5–15 God’s creation of the man and placement in Eden
B 2:16–17 God’s command
C 2:18–24 God’s creation of the woman
D 2:25 Harmony in Eden
C' 3:1–5 The evil serpent-tempter
B' 3:6–7 Transgression of God’s command
A' 3:8–24 The results of disobedience and expulsion from Eden
Part I
3:8–13, Interrogation
Part II 3:14–19, God as judge and prophet
Part III 3:20–24, Aftermath and expulsion from Eden
The positive tone of the Garden of Eden passage is communicated in the high point of the chiasm at Gen 2:25, harmony in Eden. God had lovingly created what was very good for the man and the woman. Each was created in God’s image. Each was created from the same material and, as partners, they were to enjoy and rule the Garden of Eden and the whole earth together. The man and the woman each knew God personally and enjoyed fellowship with God and one another (Gen 2:7–8, 22).9
The woman and the man disobeyed God when they ate the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and God’s work of creation that was “good” in Gen 2 became tainted with “evil” in Gen 3. This is highlighted by the structure of God’s words to the woman and the man. There is an alternating pattern of good and bad side by side in God’s words to the woman in v. 16 and God’s words to the man in vv. 17–19 (diagrammed later in this article).
God’s very first words to the woman, “multiplying I-will-multiply” (harbah ’arbeh), are used in only two other places in the OT—both of them in Genesis—and are associated with exceptionally good news. God told Hagar he would multiply her offspring in Gen 16:10 (harbah ’arbeh zera‘, “multiplying, I will multiply your seed”). The other occurrence is when God blessed Abraham and told him he would multiply his offspring in Gen 22:16–18 (harbah ’arbeh zera‘, “multiplying, I will multiply your seed”) and bless all nations of the earth through Abraham’s seed. In Gen 3:16a, God gives the woman the good news that he will multiply her conception or offspring which (she had just learned in Gen 3:15) included one who would crush the head of her enemy. But the news for the woman in Eden is mixed. This mixed news is communicated in Gen 3:16a by the Hebrew nouns ‘itsabon and heron. She will experience sorrowfultoil (‘itsabon), the bad news. And she will experience conception (heron), the good news.
The Linchpin
A linchpin construction is a linking device. It was described by Isaac Kikawada as the “interlocking crossover point of an introversion or chiasm.” Kikawada noted that this is used in Gen 11:5 at the center of the Tower of Babel account (which is arranged as a chiasm). Kikawada also noted this construction in Gen 2:7–9.10
There are two linchpins in the larger passage of Gen 2–3; these are found in Gen 2:7–9 (in the middle of Episode A of the chiasm of the passage) and in Gen 3:15–17 (in the middle of Episode A' in the passage).11
The linchpin in Gen 3:15–17 links words in a similar manner to the linchpin in Gen 2:7–9. A key word links to an upcoming word and another key word links back to a previous word. The first keyword in Gen 3:16a is ‘itsabon (“sorrowful-toil”) and it links to the exact same word, ‘itsabon , when it occurs again in Gen 3:17. The second key word in Gen 3:16a is heron (“conception” or “pregnancy”). It links back to a similar word, zera‘ (“offspring”), in Gen 3:15.
The bad news of Gen 3:16a is a proleptic prophecy, where the results are announced before the cause is given. She learns she will have sorrowful-toil, anticipating that she will soon learn more about the what and the why of this. When God speaks to the man, she learns more. She and the man will both experience “sorrowful toil” (‘itsabon) in working the soil due to God’s cursing the ground because of the man. God elaborates in detail what this will involve in Gen 3:17–19 where God mentions such elements as thorns and thistles and the sweat of his brow.
This bad news was not about the act of delivering a baby. It is not reserved for a woman at all. According to Gen 5:29, where the only other occurrence of ‘itsabon is found in the OT and the meaning is clearly and explicitly explained, the parents of Noah knew about ‘itsabon, which was the sorrowful toil they experienced from working the ground God had cursed. Genesis 5:29 says: “And he called his name Noah, saying, ‘This [one] shall comfort us concerning our work and toil ( ‘itsabon ) of our
hands, because of the ground which the LORD has cursed’” (author’s translation).
Additionally, note that the author of Gen 2–3 makes a pun on the word ‘ets (“tree”). The woman and man, who had both eaten of the ‘ets, will now experience ‘itsabon (“sorrowful toil”) in working the ground which God will curse.
The second keyword in Gen 3:16a is a positive one. Following the opening words, harbah ’arbeh, the word zera‘, “offspring,” would be expected next (as in its other occurrences, Gen 16:10; 22:16–18, noted above). The related Hebrew word heron takes its place. In the linchpin, heron links back to zera‘ in Gen 3:15. The good news of Gen 3:16a, as mentioned, points back to the coming Savior who would crush the serpent enemy (Gen 3:15). This first announcement of the Good News is begun in God’s words to the serpent enemy in Gen 3:15 and is completed with God’s confirmation to the woman of her offspring in Gen 3:16a.
The full linchpin of Gen 3:15–17 can be diagrammed as follows, with the two linking words: sorrowful-toil and conception.
3:15 I will put enmity . . . between your offspring and her offspring (zera‘)
3:16 I will greatly multiply your sorrowful-toil and your conception (heron)
3:17 Cursed is the ground . . . in sorrowful-toil (‘itsabon) you shall eat of it . . .
Genesis 3:16b
While God took action in two ways in Gen 3:16a, in the remaining lines of the verse, God took no further action. God did not say “I will [verb] . . .” in lines b, c, or d of Gen 3:16. Rather, in lines b, c, and d, God goes on to describe to the woman what life will be like in the world that now contains sin. Sadly, the world now is a mixture of good and evil.
God had mixed news for the woman in Gen 3:16b, c, and d. In line b of Gen 3:16, God explained to the woman what life would now be like. It was an announcement of bad news and good news. The bad news was that she would experience psychological sorrow or grief. The good news was that she would have multiple children.
In 3:16b, God explains to the woman that it would be with psychological sorrow (‘etseb) that she would be the mother (teldi) of children (banim). Her children would grow up in a world of good and evil. Sorrow was experienced all too soon in regard to her children when her first child Cain uttered rebellious and defiant words to God and murdered her second child Abel. Her heartache continued as the unrighteous line of Cain committed yet more evil acts.12 There is no mention of pain in childbirth in the words of Gen 3:16b, although modern translations regularly mention pain, rather than sorrow, in 3:16b.
The second Hebrew word in Gen 3:16b, “you-will-bring-forth” or teldi, is a form of the infinitive verb yalad. The third Hebrew
word is “children,” banim. This is good news. It is about being a parent and raising children. It is noteworthy that this verb yalad is used elsewhere in regard to men. The same word is used in Gen 4:18 where it is translated in the KJV as “begat.” In that verse, four generations of men begat sons.13 It is clear that men can father (yalad) children, just as the woman could mother children. This word need not refer to the act of childbirth.
Good News / Bad News
There is a “good news/bad news” pattern in the Hebrew text of Gen 3:16a–b: The two who ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil now will experience a mix of both good and evil in their lives. God’s opening words in Gen 3:16, harbah ’arbeh (“Multiplying, I will multiply . . .”), are a positive message. (It was noted that in the two other occurrences of harbah ’arbeh in the OT, Gen 16:10; 22:16–18, this expression is clearly positive, is completed by the word zera‘ , “seed, offspring,” and to Abraham is associated with blessing.) But because of the woman’s sin she receives mixed news. The bad news is that she will experience multiplied ‘itsabon , “sorrowful toil,” from working the ground which God will curse. The good news she then receives is that she will experience multiplied heron , “pregnancy, conception.” To experience ‘etseb , “sorrow,” will be bad; teldi banim , “to bring forth children,” will be good.
This good and bad news pattern can be written in the form of a chiasm of Gen 3:16a–b, as shown in the following lines:
Genesis 3:16 to the Woman
A harbah ’arbeh, multiplying, I-will-multiply [good]
B ‘istəbonek, your-sorrowful-toil [bad]
C wəheronek, and-your-conception [good]
B' bə‘etseb, with-sorrow [bad]
A' teldi banim, you-will-bring-forth children [good]
In God’s words to the man (Gen 3:17–19), there is also a “bad news/good news” pattern in the Hebrew text, as shown in the following lines. God announces and explains bad and good news, juxtaposed in a chiasm, that uses more bad and good words side by side than in the previous speech. God doubles down in his words to the man.
Genesis 3:17–19 to the Man
A ’arurah ha’adamah, cursed [is] the-ground [bad/good]
B bə‘istəbon to’kalnah, in-sorrowful-toil you-will-eat-of-it [bad/ good]
In Gen 3:16c and d, God gave the woman additional mixed news. Translators of the ESV, NLT, and other versions, however, translate these lines as if God only provided bad news for the woman.
The good news for the woman in Gen 3:16c was that God looked into her heart and saw she still had affection or “desire” for her husband. The Hebrew word for “desire,” teshuqah, occurs two other times in the OT. Solomon was described as desiring his lover in Song of Solomon 7:10. The other time, it was used was in a nonsexual way in the story of Cain and Abel in Gen 4. There is no reason to assume there are any negative connotations to the word “desire” itself.14
The bad news in Gen 3:16d is God’s warning to the woman about the rebellious man. God knows the man’s heart. The man had rejected God and had chosen to take things into his own hands. He chose to reject God’s rulership in his life and furthermore to usurp God’s place by attempting to rule over the woman. Instead of a co-rulership (the verb radah in Gen 1:28) with the woman over God’s creation, which God decreed in Gen 1:26–28, the man would sinfully re-order things after his own design by ruling over (the verb mashal) her.15
God had lovingly created what was very good for the man and the woman. Each was created in God’s image. Each was created from the same material and, as partners, they were to enjoy and rule the Garden of Eden and the whole earth together.
Several versions mistranslate lines c and d, infusing their own interpretation (ESV, NLT, etc.). They make the woman out as the rebellious one. They make it appear that God is placing the man as ruler over the woman, when in fact, God is not speaking to the man in this verse and says nothing like this in the verses that follow.
Conclusion
For Gen 3:16a, the KJV and related versions, and the RSV and similar versions, present two very different translations of God’s first words to the woman in the Garden of Eden. Which is more faithful to the Hebrew word meanings and the word patterns of Gen 3:16 in context?
Of the two renderings of Gen 3:16a, the KJV is the more accurate rendering of the Hebrew. The RSV and others like it mistranslate the verse, misrepresenting the meaning. God does not promise, as the RSV suggests, a single negative action for the woman, the imposition of multiplied pain in childbirth. Instead, God promises to take action on two fronts; one is positive and related to the good news God promised of a coming Deliverer when God spoke to the enemy serpent; one is negative and related to the curse on the ground that God is about to impose because of the man. God’s two actions in Gen 3:16a—one positive and one negative—are not to be mixed, confused, or conflated.
The KJV delivers this double message more faithfully. Other translations are encouraged to “true” the verse—that is, to update their versions to correspond to the meaning and intent of the passage. In a faithful translation, the bad news needs to be made clear—that ‘itsabon, sorrowful-toil, will occur while working to wrest food from the ground which God will curse due to the man’s rebellion. This is not about childbirth. The same English word (or words) for the Hebrew ‘itsabon needs to be used in both Gen 3:16a and Gen 3:17 to help the reader understand that in both places the same thing is meant. The good news also needs to stand out and be made clear—that she would have multiplied offspring (Gen 3:16a) including the coming Deliverer (zera‘, “seed”) who would crush the serpent’s head (Gen 3:15).
Regarding Gen 3:16b, again, God is not talking about childbirth. God is explaining that although the woman will bring forth multiple offspring, she would experience sorrow and grief in a world mixed with both sin and righteousness (which is seen soon after in the graphic example of the evil actions of Cain and the righteousness of Abel).
As for Gen 3:16c–d, God alerted the woman to a topsy turvy disruption in her relationship with the man. She still had affection for her husband but his intentions had changed. Whereas God’s intention was for the woman and man to be co-regents of God’s beautiful world, she needed to beware that the man, who rebelliously rejected God, would attempt to take the place of God in her life (as he had done in his own life) and further subject her to himself, ruling over her. God warned the woman that the rebellious man had sided with the serpent and had rejected both God and the woman in their rightful places.
Notes
1. Scholarly theological positions and popular opinion are both affected. Some believe that pain in childbirth is God’s curse on woman, equal in import to God’s curse on the serpent. Woman, therefore, is considered suspect as the temptress and is restricted in the home, in the church, and in society. https:// tru316.com/the-bitter-fruit-of-false-teaching-on-eden/.
2. NLT here refers to the 1996, 2004, and 2015 editions; a revision is currently underway.
3. Joy Fleming, A Rhetorical Analysis of Genesis 2–3 with Implications for a Theology of Man and Woman (PhD diss., Université de Strasbourg, France, 1987) 261–62.
4. “This is a method whereby two formally co-ordinate terms— verbs, nouns, or adjectives—joined by ‘and’ express a single concept in which one of the components defines the other.” E. A. Speiser, Genesis , AB (Doubleday, 1964) lxx.
5. Robert R. Wilson, personal interview at Yale Divinity School, New Haven, CT (Dec 1983). See Umberto Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis (Magnes, 1978) 165; Carol L. Meyers, “Gender Roles and Genesis 3:16 Revisited,” in The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth (Eisenbrauns, 1988) 344.
6. In Gen 2:16–17, “God’s first line had been positive, stating that they could eat from any of the trees of the Garden. His second line had been a prohibition, identifying one tree only from which they could not eat. The third line had explained the consequence of death. The serpent smoothly slides the negation (‘not’) from line 2 to line 1, thereby standing God’s command on its head.” Joy Fleming, Man and Woman in Biblical Unity: Theology from Genesis 2–3 (WestBow, 2013) 18.
7. Two times in the NT it is confirmed that she was deceived: 2 Cor 11:3; 1 Tim 2:14.
8. Chiasms are found throughout the Bible in varying lengths. For example, commentators have noted the detailed chiastic arrangement of the Flood Narrative in Gen 6:10–9:19. The center section of the chiasm is the turning point of the story: Gen 8:1, “And God remembered Noah . . . .” Bernhard W. Anderson, “From Analysis to Synthesis: The Interpretation of Genesis 1–11,” JBL 97/1 (1978) 38. Gordon J. Wenham, “The Coherence of the Flood Narrative,” VT 18 (1978) 336–48. Isaac Kikawada and Arthur Quinn, Before Abraham Was (Abingdon, 1985) 104.
9. Some who center on later verses in Gen 2–3 focus on the wrongs of those who were involved at the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Jerome Walsh, for example, places the center of the passage at 3:7; Walsh, Style and Structure in Biblical Hebrew Narrative (Liturgical, 2001).
10. Isaac Kikawada, “The Shape of Genesis 11:1–9” in Rhetorical Criticism: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg , ed. Jared J. Jackson and Martin Kessler (Pickwick, 1974) 24.
11. In the linchpin of Episode A of Gen 2–3, Kikawada pointed out that in Gen 2:8, “the initial word of the verse points down to the following verse, especially to the first word [“planted” and “caused-to-grow”], while the last word points back to the preceding verse, especially to the first word” [“formed and “formed”]. Hyphenated words indicate one word in Hebrew. Kikawada, “Shape of Genesis 11:1–9,” 24.
12. Gen 4:3–24.
13. In Gen 4:18, the NKJV translates yalad as “begot”: “To Enoch was born (yalad ) Irad, and Irad begot (yalad) Mehujael, and Mehujael begot (yalad ) Methushael, and Methushael begot (yalad ) Lamach.” It is clear that men can father (yalad ) children.
14. A proponent of the view that “desire” was negative was Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1975) 381–82. Foh’s view has been sharply criticized for promoting abuse within the home and within the church.
15. See the author’s description of the two parties in Gen 3:16c–d, whose relationship is not reciprocal. Fleming, Man and Woman , 31–33.
Joy Fleming is cofounder of the Tru316 Foundation (Tru316.com) which is the home of The Eden Podcast. She is a former Old Testament Professor at the Faculté de Théologie Évangélique de Bangui in the Central African Republic and is a licensed psychologist practicing in Minnesota. She holds a PhD in Old Testament Theology from the University of Strasbourg, France, and a PsyD in Counseling Psychology from the University of St. Thomas in Minneapolis, Minnesota. She is married and has two children and four grandchildren.
“To rule” or “To be like”? Genesis 3:16 in Its Ancient Near Eastern Context
Elizabeth Ann R. Willett
This article explains the author’s translation of Gen 3:16b, “In spite of this, you will still want to be with your husband, just as he likewise will want to be with you.” It also clarifies that the typical translation, “childbearing,” in Gen 3:16a, should instead be “pregnancies.”
Mashal, “to be like”
The first meaning of the Hebrew term mashal in the standard Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew-English Lexicon is “represent, be like.”1 The verb occurs seven times in the OT (Job 30:19; Ps 28:1; 49:12, 20; 143:7; Isa 14:10; 46:5),2 and there are many OT occurrences of the similar derived nouns meaning “proverb,” “parable,” or “likeness.” This lexicon gives the verb’s secondary meaning as “use a proverb or speak in parables or sentences of poetry.” The word mashal has common cognates in most Semitic languages, including Arabic, Ethiopic, and Aramaic, that translate as “mirror” or “to be like.” The third lexical entry for mashal, “rule, have dominion,” does not occur in any Semitic language except Hebrew.3
Early twentieth-century scholars hypothesized the development of the meaning “to rule” from “to be like” and “to mirror, reflect.” For example, citing Semitic cognates, Paul Haupt (1858–1926) writes that two Hebrew derivatives of mashal, “to liken” and “to cause to rule,” share the primary connotation of “to shine.” For example, the similar word mamshala in Gen 1:16 may mean the sun and moon are “to shine, illuminate,” not “to rule.” And the related Hebrew noun moshel, “ruler,” is a person who shines; that is, an eminent and distinguished person.4
Allen H. Godbey (1864–1948) argues that the Hebrew translation “to rule” evolved from the mentality involved in the idea of sympathetic magic; that is, that symbolic action (here, ruling action) resembles the effects it hopes to reproduce. He suggests three places where mashal should be translated “be like” rather than “rule.” In Gen 37:5 and following, Joseph tells a dream of the grain-sheaves of his brothers bowing to his own. The brothers’ response, “Shalt thou indeed be king over us?” should rather be, “Shalt thou be anything like that to us?” (mashol timshol).5 Upon hearing of Joseph’s next dream, in which the sun, moon, and eleven stars bow to him, the brothers again understand it the same way. The narrative establishes that such sheaf-action or star-action is a mashal or parable that shows that its “likeness” or “resemblance” is sure to occur in real life.
For Gen 4:7, after Cain and Abel appeal to the judgment of God, and the defeated one is angry, Godbey suggests the translation, “Were there no wrong on your part, would you not be accepted? and would not your brother’s longing be toward you? and you would feel likewise toward him.” Similarly, he prefers the common-sense translation of Gen 3:16, “Thy longing shall be toward thy husband; and he shall be likewise (A.V. ‘rule’) toward thee” (and not toward another).6
The authors of the United Bible Societies’ Handbook on Genesis, published as a guide for global Bible translators, explain that, although modern translations understand mashal as the man dominating or controlling the woman, some scholars argue that such an interpretation is not suitable in Gen 3, nor does the OT generally support it. The Hebrew word mashal can also mean “to be like.” Accordingly, some interpreters understand that the man will “be like” the woman in wanting to be with her just as she desires to be with him. The Handbook suggests that, with this in mind, we translate the last two lines as “you will want to be with your husband just as he likewise will want to be with you” or “your desire will be for your husband, just as his desire will be for you.”7
Teshuqah, “want (to be with)”
“Desire” translates the noun teshuqah, meaning “urge, want, yearning, longing.” The sense is that of “attraction” and is used in Song of Songs 7:10 of the man’s desire for the woman. The French Common Language Version translates, “you will feel yourself drawn to your husband”; the Spanish Common Language Version has, “but your desire will take you to your husband.” Since “desire” is a general term, it may be too vague in translation, suggesting more than the Hebrew text intends. Several modern translations extend its meaning to specify “desire to control,” which is not indicated either in the text or in the context. The UBS Handbook recommends as better, “you will still want to be with your husband,” “you will still want to remain close to your husband.” “Still” emphasizes the continuing of the desire. In some translations this is expressed as “you will keep on wanting your husband.”8 The last line of Gen 3:16 begins with the general Hebrew connector, which can be translated “and,” “but,” “yet,” etc., and the context here indicates a contrast. Thus, “yet your desire shall be for your husband” (RSV), “in spite of this” (TEV). Why would the woman not want to be with her husband? The contrast is with the first half of the verse that predicts that the woman will have increased “toil” and “pregnancies.”
Haron, “pregnancy”
Inferring the notion of general male domination from the second half of the verse is a distortion. Even if mashal were understood as “dominate,” it would refer narrowly to the sense of the man’s sexual desire predominating over any reluctance of the woman to have increased pregnancies and increased work. We should read the verse against its social background of agrarian life. Instead of the familiar, “I will greatly increase your pangs in childbearing,” the verse should begin, “I will greatly increase your work and your pregnancies.” The Hebrew word for “work,” itsabon, is the same word God used in his statement to the man in the following verse. The usual translations “pangs” or “pain” are much less accurate and reflect a modern Western urban experience. In addition, the woman will experience more pregnancies. The Hebrew word haron is “pregnancy,” not
“childbearing” (ESV, NIV, NRSV, etc.) or “childbirth” (NASB, NRSVue, etc.) as most versions have it. Women, in other words, will bear multiple children and must work hard alongside their husbands in field work to support their large families.9 The verse is a mandate for intense productive and reproductive roles for women; it described and approved of what life meant for Israelite women. Women might resist repeated pregnancies because of the dangers of death in childbirth, but for the survival of the community, women needed to bear many children. Between a high infant death rate and low average life span, the issue was not overpopulation but maintaining the population. Not having sexual relations and not bearing children would result in the death of the community.10
As for the men, they wanted children, especially sons, to carry on the family name and lineage, and in the long term, the sons would grow up and work with them in the fields. But, in the short term, more children would mean more mouths to feed and harder work. The agrarian culture with high infant mortality and short life span would make good sense of the rendering, “In spite of this, you will still want to be with your husband, just as he likewise will want to be with you.”
Notes
1. The New Brown-Driver-Briggs-Gesenius Hebrew and English Lexicon (Hendrickson, 1979) 605.
2. Ps 49:12, 20 are Ps 49:13, 21 in the versification of the Hebrew text.
The Isa 14:10 occurrence of mashal is Niphal, Isa 46:5 is Hiphil, and Job 30:19 is Hithpael.
3. V. P. Hamilton, s.v. māšal 1258, in Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament , ed. R. L. Harris, G. L. Archer Jr., and B. K. Waltke (Moody, electronic edition, 1999) 533.
4. Paul Haupt, “Hebrew Māšal ,” JBL 36/1–2 (1917) 140.
5. Allen H. Godbey, “The Hebrew Māsāl, ” AJSL 39/2 (Jan 1923) 89–90.
6. Godbey, “The Hebrew Māsāl, ” 105.
7. W. D. Reyburn and E. M. Fry, A Handbook on Genesis (United Bible Societies, 1998) 92–93.
8. Reyburn and Fry, A Handbook on Genesis , 92–93.
9. Carol Meyers, “Eve,” in Women in Scripture: A Dictionary of Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament , gen. ed. Carol Meyers, assoc. eds. Toni Craven and Ross S. Kraemer (Eerdmans, 2000) 81.
10. Catherine Clark Kroeger and Mary J. Evans, eds., The IVP Women’s Commentary (InterVarsity, 2002) 8.
Libby Willett serves as a Senior Translation Consultant for SIL Global. She trains mother-tongue Bible translators in Latin America, then checks their translations. She coordinated the Huichol Old Testament Project for The Seed Co., a Wycliffe Bible Translators affiliate. Earlier, she and her husband Tom facilitated translation in the Southeastern Tepehuan language of Mexico. Libby has an MA in Linguistics from the University of North Dakota and a PhD in Middle Eastern Studies from the University of Arizona. She and Tom have been associated with CBE since 1999.
GIFTS THAT REDUCE TAXES
Stocks, Real Estate, Life Insurance, Retirement Accounts, and Personal Property
By giving non-cash assets to CBE, you can multiply the impact of your generosity AND eliminate unwanted costs and stress. Examples
BENEFITS
1. Reduce your taxes! Receive a fair market value deduction at the time of your gift and avoid tax liability on the sale of appreciated assets.
2. Eliminate hassles! Give assets you no longer need or want to manage (such as rental properties or vacation homes).
3. Increase your giving capacity! Give from your excess resources without restricting cash flow.
4. Simplify your estate planning! Eliminate potential taxes or complications for your heirs by giving complex or burdensome assets to CBE now.
5. Receive steady payments for life! There are ways you can give non-cash assets that provide lifetime income payments for you and your loved ones. It’s a great way to support the mission of CBE while securing the steady income you need.
LET’S TALK!
Is giving non-cash assets the right giving option for you? Give us a call today at 612-872-6898 or email jholt@cbeinternational.org.
Parenting in Exile: The Pain-Love of Eve
Karen Strand Winslow
My interpretation of Gen 3:16 is based upon its context in the Garden story (Gen 2:4b–4:24), the Hebrew terms that comprise it, and the parallelism of 3:16b with Gen 4:7. Because context is so important for understanding, we must look closely at what precedes and follows, even and especially when the story into which Yahweh’s (YHWH’s) address to the woman is embedded is well known.1
The Story
The Garden drama is the second, more earthy, creation story; it begins with the molding of the first farmer (adam) out of mud (adamah) and concludes with Cain’s struggle with sin and eastward wandering (Gen 4:1–24). With someone in place to till and keep the ground (adamah), YHWH planted the first orchard (Gen 2:7–9) but then realized that its keeper should not be alone (Gen 2:18). After YHWH shaped from the ground animals of wild variety and the man then analyzed and named them, they saw none was a match for him (Gen 2:18–20). This problem was resolved when YHWH drew from man material to shape a wife (Isshah). This made him not only a farmer, but also a husband (Ish). The first marriage was accompanied by exclamations of relief (“this at last”), equality (“bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh”), and intimacy (“they were naked and not ashamed”). Indeed, they were of the same substance and a perfect match (ezer kenegdo, Gen 2:21–24).
Before the molding and naming of animals that ultimately resulted in the first marriage, two from one, Isshah and Ish, tension was foreshadowed when YHWH forbad the single farmer from eating from one of the trees (2:16). Anyone would wonder how that would play out—YHWH pointing out and naming a tree in the middle of the Garden and saying, “do not eat.” We know human nature too well, as did the writer of this drama, to think nothing would come of a focus on a tree and a command against eating from it, with the threat of immediate death should they disobey (“in the day that you eat of it, you will surely die,” 2:17b).
We do not have to wait long. A crafty creature that YHWH made approached the wife, while she was with her husband (Gen 3:6b), and suggested eating from that same tree would make her Godlike, “knowing good and evil.” So, sure enough, Isshah accepted this, found other reasons to eat, and shared with her husband the beautiful fruit from the forbidden tree.
So far, the audience has been provided explanations for farming, marriage, and unashamed intimacy and a representation of the process of temptation (calling attention to the tree by forbidding its fruit, and a tempter, the serpent, who also focused on the tree to contradict YHWH). We also have a depiction of free will—the availability of the tree and the negative command that sets up the choice of whether to obey. An order could be followed or ignored. If they were puppets, no command would have been necessary. We see that even though the wife and husband were utterly dependent upon their creator for their lives, relationship, and continued sustenance, they chose to disobey. We see their free will was real and not an illusion. Although no term for sin is used in the story, we
can extrapolate the definition of sinning from this ancient drama: it means to disobey.
Their freely chosen move to disobey the command of their benefactor led to consequences, but not the immediate execution threatened by YHWH (“for in the day that you eat of it you shall die”). Instead, the immediate result was shame, and, as YHWH announces when he encounters them later, hard toil and suffering in raising crops and children. These will be unpacked below. Here also we find the first depiction of YHWH’s mercy. They did not die that day, they lived on to give life to “all the living.” Neither, as the story continues to show, were they or their descendants separated from their creator. God followed up with them—YHWH continued to happen to them, encounter and speak to them and their descendants regularly and consistently. That’s the biblical story!
No, instead of death, the husband gave his wife a new name, “Life” (Hebrew Havah, Eve), “because she was the mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20). Furthermore, YHWH made them clothing from animal skins (requiring bloodshed of innocent animals). And yet, they were out, exiled from the Garden! This foreshadows Israel’s exile from their land of milk and honey. It does not mean that all people everywhere are born in sin, are tainted with sin, or are compelled to sin. Although Christian interpreters have tried to apply the story broadly to posit “a universal fall,” this story is more focused on Israel’s ancestors and the parallel between the couple that started life in the Garden and Israel gaining, then losing, their land. When we do apply it broadly, it is clear that the man and woman chose to sin though they did not have to. And so it is with us.
All this happened to the new people before any children were born to them. YHWH’s address to the not-yet mother in the middle of the story—Gen 3:16—foreshadows Eve’s losses outside of the Garden of Delight (Eden means delight). Once her two sons were grown, she suffered the loss of both of them. Keep this in mind as we focus on this verse.
Genesis 3:16 has usually been viewed as the explanation for mothers’ pain in childbirth, for husbands’ dominating their wives, and for patriarchy’s prevalence (male rule) in most cultures throughout time. Simply put, this is what all women get for the first woman’s disobedience. Translations and interpretations that limit the meaning of 3:16a to labor and delivery miss the significance of YHWH’s address, describing the sad consequences of disobedience. But Gen 3:16 represents much more, a longer view of family life and mothers’ pain-love for their children. Although conception, pregnancy, and childbirth are certainly early aspects of producing progeny and parenting them, Gen 3:16a describes the ongoing pain involved in raising children throughout their lives.
Hebrew Terminology
Here is Gen 3:16 in my word-for-word translation of the Hebrew, following the order of the Hebrew words. After the initial statement,
“To the woman (ha-isshah) he said,” the lines are numbered for ease of reference:
Line 1
Increasing I will increase
Line 2 your suffering and your conceptions.
Line 3 In suffering you will produce/parent (yalad) children
Line 4 and to your husband [is] your desire
Line 5 but he may rule you.
In the first line, “Increasing I will increase,” both Hebrew words, harbah arbeh, are based on the verb rabah, “to make large numerically or great in prestige, riches, influence, knowledge, or years of life.” Repeating rabah in different forms intensifies the action of increasing or making great. The English translation could say, “I will indeed make very great your pain (and toil)” or “I will greatly increase . . . your toil/suffering (esev) and your conceptions (heron).” Imagine the character of YHWH shouting, “I will really, really, really, really intensify your suffering (or toil) and the numbers of your conceptions!” Rabah can also be used as an adverb and adjective to mean, “very much, great, large, learned, honorable.”
In line two, God first mentions the increase of the woman’s ‘issabon (the reverse apostrophe represents a Hebrew letter with no English equivalent), a noun (esev) formed from a verbal root meaning “to distress, upset, grieve.” Carol Meyers points out that the verb is used in fifteen places, and, in fourteen, it refers “to psychological or emotional discomfort, not to physical pain” (104–5).2 Meyers prefers the translation “travail” because of the near association of the description of the man’s hard physical labor immediately following. The hardness of their future lot in life will be physical, emotional, and mental (107–9). “Travail” or “hard toil” are also good translations of esev
The announcement that YHWH would increase the woman’s suffering/toil and number of conceptions assumes these would have been part of her life, but to a lesser degree, had she not disobeyed. She was meant to be her husband’s partner in caring for the orchard—the Garden of Eden—but now, along with farm work with him outside of the Garden, the suffering and toil of her pregnancies and child-raising would also increase.
Furthermore, the English translations of Gen 3:16a that say that YHWH planned to increase her “pangs in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children” (NRSV), must be revised because of the meaning of heron (“conception”) and yalad (“beget, parent, raise children”). Although it may seem natural to many interpreters that the passage intended to explain the origins of the pain of labor and delivery, the increased toil/ suffering is not about the hours of labor and delivery only. A survey of the use of heron throughout the Hebrew Bible demonstrates that it does not mean “childbirth, childbearing” but “conception, pregnancy” (e.g., Jer 20:17); that is, the initiation of pregnancy, not its end stage. Thus, as noted above, “conceptions” or “pregnancies” is the correct translation of heron, the number of which YHWH will greatly increase along with her suffering. Here heron is a possessive plural noun, “your” (the woman’s) conceptions or pregnancies. Their number will be increased greatly over what they would have been.
The suffering involved in raising the children who result from these numerous conceptions will also be increased—line three. Yalad, used here of the woman, is also used for fathers begetting sons in all biblical
genealogies. The term cannot be confined to women’s experience of childbirth; fathers also yalad children. This future mother will bring up many children with hard work and suffering and will raise them to adulthood and know and love them as long as they live.3
Now we will examine the second part of the consequences to the woman clause, YHWH’s words to the wife before she was named Eve and before she became a mother, Gen 3:16b. Throughout history, husbands have “ruled” wives, and patriarchy has subjected women and children, realities well-known to the producers of Genesis and to the rest of us. Nonetheless, God’s description here is of the possibility—the potentiality of this woman’s husband ruling her, even though she desires to do the same. Genesis 3:16b refers to a power struggle, as exemplified not only by the Hebrew text of this verse, but also through its parallel in Gen 4:7 where YHWH warns Cain that sin’s desire is for him—to rule him: “And for your husband [is] your desire, but he may be able to rule you.”
In the first clause, there is no verb meaning “is” or “will be.” Hebrew works like this; when there is no verb, a being verb must be supplied and usually it is the present tense “is.” The verb in the second clause, “rule, dominate,” is in a grammatical form called “imperfect,” sometimes translated into English as a future-tense verb because it is not confined to the past or present. It describes an unfixed, potential situation: may or will be able to, possible but not determined. (It is certainly not an imperative for which the English would use “must, shall, will.”) In some contexts, “will” works for the imperfect, but not for this one, because “will” in English suggests this is a prediction or even a prescription: “This is the fate for both of you!” But the Hebrew imperfect does not indicate a fixed, prescribed situation. It is not commanded, imperative, required, nor destined for the husband to rule the wife. It is an unfortunate possibility. Their disobedience led to a shift from harmony to struggle.4
Genesis 4:7 as a Parallel
We have only to look a bit further in the story to another address by YHWH to a human that provides insight to the meaning of this one. The structure (order of words, tenses of verbs) of Gen 4:7, YHWH’s intervention with Cain, is exactly the same as Gen 3:16b—a parallel. This happened not after Cain sinned, but before. Abel had followed his older brother in sacrificing to YHWH by offering the best parts of his flocks, while Cain had offered the produce he had cultivated from the ground. YHWH regarded Abel’s offering, but not Cain’s. Cain was very angry and his face fell (Gen 4:3–6). YHWH noticed this and confronted Cain, giving him the chance to consider his options and reminding him that he could rule over the sin that sought to rule him.
Genesis 4:7 reads as follows, with its second half given in Hebrew word order and with numbered lines: “If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door. . . .”
Line 1 And for you [is] its (sin’s) desire Line 2 but you may rule it (sin).
Again, this is exactly the same construction and word order as Gen 3:16b. The subjects and objects (here they are all pronouns) are different. YHWH was informing Cain that he could rule over sin, in spite of its desire to rule over him. Recall Gen 3:16b.
And for your husband [is] your desire but he may rule you. (the husband could rule the wife)
As we know, Cain did not rule sin. Sin ruled him; it desired him and overcame him. Cain could have ruled over sin and suppressed his anger, but instead he killed his brother in spite of YHWH’s direct intervention to inform and warn him. Cain met God but ignored God’s advice, so “in spite” can be the more serious way, “spiting YHWH (by ignoring divine intervention), Cain killed his brother.”
Thus, “rule” must be considered potential in both cases—a negative option for the husband in Gen 3:16 and for Cain in Gen 4:7. Although many commentators assume the wife’s desire for her husband was sexual or her desire subjugated her to him in general and to his sexual advances in particular, given the context it is likely that her desire was to rule him, just as sin’s desire was to rule Cain. Sin’s desire for Cain was hardly sexual nor did sin seek to please or serve him—sin personified wanted to control him. Although I recognize the different context allows for differences in meaning (Gen 3:16a was about children), at the very least, a struggle for domination must be considered a strong possibility for interpreting Gen 3:16b. Their oneness and harmony had been affected by their mutual choice to disobey YHWH.
Genesis 3 is a picture of loss, and 3:16b, as further illuminated by Gen 4:7, indicates the loss of the intimacy and harmony the first married couple had enjoyed before they ate. After eating, they first felt shame, an entirely new concept (Gen 2:25, 3:7). Then, when questioned by YHWH, they practiced blame (Gen 3:12–13). Then, as YHWH turned from the serpent to the woman in announcing the results of their failures, he said the husband and wife would seek to control one another, with the husband typically being able to do this. Both scenes, one in and one out of the Garden, are part of the same story and have the same speaker, YHWH, who shaped the man, then the woman, and later opened her womb so that she would say, “I have acquired (kayin, hence “Cain”) a man with the help of YHWH” (Gen 4:1).
Thus, in my view, just as God’s words of warning perceived a struggle for dominance between Cain and sin in Gen 4:7, in Gen 3:16b God’s address to the woman pronounced the same between herself and her husband. While still in the Garden, the couple (and the serpent) heard God’s judgments regarding what awaited them in the future. The once harmonious partnership between husband and wife would now include struggle for rule. These few words, even fewer in Hebrew, announce the beginning of an adversarial relationship between the wife and the husband, along with the difficulties, hard work, and suffering they will experience in tilling the ground, and in producing and raising a family.
Consider the other stories and metaphors about mothers’ desperate pain-love in Scripture: Hagar (Gen 16, 21), Sarah (Gen 21), Rizpah (2 Sam 1:1–14), Bathsheba (2 Sam 12:16–25 and 1 Kgs 1), “Rachel weeping for her children” (Jer 31:15, Matt 2:8), and Mary at the crucifixion of her son (John 19:25–27).
Conclusion
Receivers of Scripture have always attempted to apply its stories to themselves and their own conditions, relationships, and observations about individuals, families, communities, and historical trajectories. And well we should. We recognize that throughout time both mothers
and fathers endure the hard work and suffering involved in survival, gaining sustenance from the ground and its crops, feeding their families, and negotiating relationships with each other and with their children.
Mothers and fathers both know the pain-love of raising children that lasts throughout their lives. Parents are vulnerable to pain because of their love. Mothers, whose babies’ cells remain in their inner organs for decades, whose bodies are forever changed by carrying their children, feel this uniquely. But fathers, of course, also experience great love for their children. Nonetheless, Gen 3:16 represents YHWH speaking to the first woman, who became the mother of all the living. Genesis 3:16–19 differentiates the consequences for the man and woman; they are not identical, but both involve suffering.
We also know well the struggles for control and influence between wives and husbands and the lack of equality in many male-female relationships. Unfortunately, this passage has often been used to promote that inequality, providing excuses for hierarchy and too often, abuse. Instead, it could and should be used to promote equality in relationships between wives and husbands, mothers and fathers, and females and males; equality, not identity.
Notes
1. God is always called YHWH Elohim (Eng. “the LORD God”) in Gen 2:4b–4:24.
2. Carol Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (Oxford University Press, 1988).
3. Paraphrasing Meyers (91, 101–2, 106): Hebrew contains a welldeveloped semantic field of birth language that includes words for different stages of reproduction: Conception (heron), pregnancy (also heron), and childbirth (yalad has a range of meanings related to reproduction and raising of offspring). Although heron is translated as “childbirth” here by many English translators, it is indicative of conception and the continued pregnancy, not labor and delivery leading to birth. Thus, heron means the initiation of pregnancy rather than with its duration or conclusion. Again, “in its verbal form, the word regularly means to become pregnant, that is, ‘to conceive,’ rather than ‘to be pregnant.’ Used in close association with words for intercourse, it does not refer to the sexual act itself but indicates the physiological condition that was the desired result of intercourse in Israelite society” (102). In the second line of 3:16a, yld is also a general term for having children, applied to either or both parents. The verb is used transitively, meaning that “it refers to the status of parenthood” (106).
4. An imperative would denote that it shall or must be so; but this is the imperfect—not past, not present, but tenseless, implying possibility: “But he will be able to or he may master you.”
Karen Strand Winslow holds a master’s degree from Asbury Theological Seminary and a PhD in Biblical and Jewish Studies from the University of Washington’s department of Near and Middle Eastern Studies. She has taught various courses on the Old Testament, early Judaism, Scripture formation and interpretation, and women in the Bible and the church in universities and seminaries, most recently at Azusa Pacific University in Southern California. She is an elder in the Free Methodist Church. Karen’s publications are numerous, including contributions to Priscilla Papers
God’s Wisdom for Cultivating a Marriage
A Sermon by Janet Galante
Wisdom for Life
We’re in a series on the book of Proverbs called “Wisdom for Life.”1 We’ve been talking about how God has wisdom for our lives. The world pulls us in all sorts of directions, offering various paths we could take. We can feel unsure of which way to go. So, we’re looking together to the book of Proverbs, and we’re learning that God has wisdom for how we can live. God has direction for us.
The book of Proverbs was written long ago, of course, and it speaks from the perspective of a godly Israelite father advising his son over and over again why wisdom is so important.2 Here are two examples:
2:6–8: “For the LORD gives wisdom; from his mouth come knowledge and understanding. He holds success in store for the upright, he is a shield to those whose walk is blameless, for he guards the course of the just and protects the way of his faithful ones.” (NIV)
3:21–22: “My son, do not let wisdom and understanding out of your sight, preserve sound judgment and discretion; they will be life for you, an ornament to grace your neck.” (NIV)
I love that reminder: don’t let wisdom out of your sight! And to do that, we need to be immersed in Scripture, to keep Scripture in front of us. The wisdom in Proverbs covers a lot of areas, and today we’ll be talking about God’s wisdom for marriage.
Now, I know that as soon you hear me say the word “marriage,” there are reactions throughout the room. Maybe it’s a good reaction; you’re married and would love to hear God's wisdom for marriage. But maybe it’s a negative one. It might bring up painful memories, a picture of inequality, or reminders of brokenness. Or maybe you’ve lost someone, and this stirs up your grief and pain. Maybe you’re happily unmarried. Some of you are single but wish you were married.
Before we go any further, I want to be clear about a couple preliminaries:
We need to let this image of sexual temptation also serve, for both men and women, as a metaphor for what it looks like to be pulled away from the path that God has for us.
First, Christians sometimes act like marriage is the goal of life, like it’s this pinnacle that we’re all supposed to be working toward. Yet I want to say clearly: that’s not true. In the Bible, the Apostle Paul speaks highly of being unmarried (1 Cor 7:7–8). And let’s not forget that Jesus himself wasn’t married. So, as we learn today about God’s good gift of marriage, let’s remember that it is neither necessary nor the purpose of life. May God meet each of us wherever we are,
bringing wisdom to each situation. I think we can all agree that healthy marriages matter, and that unhealthy marriages have a ripple effect that can harm people outside of those marriages. We are all affected by marriage, and it’s good for all of us to be aware of what Scripture teaches, even on topics that apply to us indirectly. As an example, in this series on Proverbs, we will hear a sermon about wisdom for raising children—but I don't have kids. So, that will apply to me in a different way; I do care about kids, and I want the children here to be raised well. I value that wisdom. And I trust the same applies to those in the church who are walking alongside married couples. Let’s hear God’s wisdom communally and for the good of the church, because following Jesus isn’t a solo journey.
Here’s a second preliminary, and it may be even more important: This sermon will focus on improving marriages. But I want to make sure you know that, if you are being abused in your marriage, I have a different message for you: Be safe. God is not calling you to stay in an abusive situation.3
Wisdom for Marriage
As we encounter Proverbs, especially as we look at marriage in Proverbs, we find teaching that employs an image of “the adulterous woman.” It’s a bold image. We see this in multiple chapters, including today’s key text in ch. 5. We’ll spend most of the rest of our time in ch. 5, and we begin in v. 3. It reads:
For the lips of the adulterous woman drip honey, and her speech is smoother than oil; but in the end she is bitter as gall, sharp as a double-edged sword. Her feet go down to death; her steps lead straight to the grave. She gives no thought to the way of life; her paths wander aimlessly, but she does not know it. (Prov 5:3–6 NIV)
Like I said, it’s a bold image—bitter as gall, sharp as a sword, steps leading to the grave. There’s a danger of dismissing this image because it sounds unrelatable, exaggerated, or offensive. We’d like to think that we would never fall for such an obvious temptation, so we might ignore this part of Scripture. But when we hear this striking metaphor, I want to make sure we’re fully understanding what it’s saying. The image of a seductive woman is used throughout Proverbs, and it paints a picture both of sexual temptation and of all the ways we are enticed away from God’s wisdom. So many things pull us away, telling us to go on a different path than the one God has for us. We need to let this image of sexual temptation also serve, for both men and women, as a metaphor for what it looks like to be pulled away from the path that God has for us. We can indeed be seduced by the ways of the world; we can go down the path of foolishness.
Now, of course, this bold metaphor does apply to sexual temptation, and we can’t afford to overlook that message. If you’re in a committed marriage, you might read Prov 5 and think, “I’m not perfect, but I’m definitely not going to fall for smooth speech from an adulterous person.” You may think you’re immune and gloss
over this biblical warning. If that sounds like you, if you’re thinking that warnings against sexual temptation don’t apply to you, then I have two reminders.
First, remember once again that this is a metaphor for all the ways we are enticed away from wisdom. There are certainly plenty of things other than sex that can lead us away from prioritizing our marriages. Some of them are obvious, such as addiction. But many of them may be innocent until they ascend to a higher priority than your marriage: work, money, friends, hobbies.
Second, if you think you’re immune to sexual temptation, then I want to point out that your stance may actually make you more vulnerable. Your guard is down! The Bible is instructive here, of course. Solomon, considered the wisest man in the world, encountered sexual temptation and lost. Samson, considered the strongest man, encountered sexual temptation and lost. David, the psalmist, unleashed his lust and lost. These three and many others fell prey to temptation, so don’t think you’re wise enough, strong enough, holy enough. Instead, take the wisdom of Proverbs to heart and be open to what God is teaching you.
Proverbs 5 doesn’t only tell us what to avoid, it also tells us what to pursue. For this, let’s go on to v. 15:
Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well. Should your springs overflow in the streets, your streams of water in the public squares? Let them be yours alone, never to be shared with strangers. May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer—may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be intoxicated with her love. Why, my son, be intoxicated with another man’s wife? Why embrace the bosom of a wayward woman? (Prov 5:15–20 NIV)
Once again, we see strong images here. The Bible does not shy away from discussing sex, so when we hear these verses we may blush a bit and want to move on.4 But we should instead read carefully and seek God’s wisdom.
Let’s read v. 15 again: “Drink water from your own cistern, running water from your own well” (NIV). Be with your spouse. Enjoy your spouse! Don’t neglect intimacy in your marriage.
And now to v. 18: “May your fountain be blessed, may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.” With the mention of “wife,” we’re reminded that Proverbs was written as advice from a wise father to a son. Some of us, me included, are not sons and need to adjust our hearing of the text a little. This is appropriate; Scripture is for all God’s people. To use an obvious example, women pray Ps 23, learn from it, and teach from it—even though it’s a psalm of David. And women, of course, learn from Proverbs.
So then, God’s wisdom is to rejoice in your wife or your husband. How? Go on a date. Compliment each other. Delight in one another the way you did at first. Remember what brought you together. Laugh at each other’s jokes. See the beauty in one another. Prioritize each other. Do things together. Perhaps even flirt with one another.
Proverbs 5 goes on with some clear imagery in v. 19 about enjoying one another’s bodies, being intoxicated and enthralled by each other’s love. We should appreciate that the Bible doesn’t shy away from this. The Bible makes clear that sex between a married couple is meant to be enjoyed. It was designed to be enjoyed within the security of a committed marriage, and it’s meant to be refreshing and lifegiving.
In vv. 15–18, we saw the image of refreshing water, water that sustains and gives life. Now, in vv. 19–20, we see the image of wine as Proverbs tells us to be intoxicated with one another. It cautions against being enticed by someone else, embracing them, being intoxicated by them. Married people must guard against desiring other people, against channeling any desires for sex, romance, or intimacy away from our spouse.
Cultivating Desire
A central feature of guarding against such sins is cultivating desire for your spouse, working hard at desiring your spouse. That might sound strange—cultivating a desire for your spouse. But we cultivate desires for a lot of things. One example is acquired tastes. Some of the things we like the most are acquired tastes, cultivated desires. Most of you enjoyed coffee this morning, and for many of you that is an acquired taste. Another example is your favorite sports team. You weren’t born loving that team. Your preference, your enthusiasm was cultivated. You watched their games. You wore their colors. You have ordered your life in ways that foster enjoyment of that particular team.
And God’s wisdom in Proverbs says that husbands and wives should order their lives to cultivate intimate desire for each other, and for no one else.
When’s the last time you cultivated that desire? How are you directing your thoughts, your time, your attention toward your spouse? Are you building up that relationship or letting it decay? We are surrounded by sexual temptation; our culture uses sex to draw us in. It’s in movies and TV shows, even in commercials, and it is readily available online. Our culture says to enjoy the bodies of other people, starting with a fleeting glance. All these things can turn our desires away from our spouses. Cultivating is hard work. What are you watching? How do you spend your time? What do you dwell on?
Married or unmarried, our culture says we can indulge ourselves, we can play with fire and not get burnt. Proverbs 6 puts it this way: “Can fire be carried in the bosom without burning one’s clothes? Or can one walk on hot coals without scorching the feet?” (Prov 6:27–28 NRSVue).
The world’s way of thinking puts us on the wrong path. Proverbs 7, again personifying temptation, says, “Do not let your heart turn to her ways or stray into her paths. . . . Her house is a highway to the grave, leading down to the chambers of death” (Prov 7:25, 27 NIV).
Notice the word “stray.” Do not let your heart stray. Very rarely does anyone choose to destroy their marriage. Instead, we wander. A few steps in the wrong way, uncertainty at a crossroads. And then . . . we’re on an entirely different path, sharing with strangers what belongs to our husband or wife alone. Straying can include lingering
looks, feeding false friendships, secret conversations. We’ve got to be careful about these kinds of actions.
Let me mention some practical specifics: Don’t keep secrets from one another. Be careful who you confide in, especially when confiding about your marriage. Don’t hide your computer or phone from your spouse—what you’re viewing and who you’re talking with. Don’t adjust or polish your appearance to please anyone.
I know these things may sound prudish. Don’t hear me wrong: Do have friends of the opposite sex. Do have friends who are unmarried. I don’t want to rob your joy or restrict your happiness, so remember that Proverbs is about two paths—wisdom and foolishness—and the wise path leads to peace and joy.
Proverbs 4:18 says, “The path of the righteous is like the morning sun, shining ever brighter till the full light of day” (NIV). That’s the path we want to pursue today. It can be a hard path to walk, for we see people cultivating desire outside of their marriage all the time.
Resist Upgrade Culture
Cultivating a marriage is at odds with what I call “upgrade culture.” Our world trains us to always want the new and better thing. We want a bigger TV. We want the next iPhone. We want the car that has the fanciest features. New trends come into style, so we upgrade our wardrobes. The world is changing faster and faster, and it’s training us to move on to new things constantly. We’re trained to upgrade.
This mentality bleeds into the way we view marriage. Your spouse isn’t cutting it anymore? You should probably move on. Time for a change. We focus on what we’re missing rather than what we have. We’re trained to upgrade.
But Proverbs says stop. Think. What path are we on? Upgrade culture cultivates dissatisfaction, not healthy desire. Upgrade culture reminds you that you didn’t marry a perfect person, but wisdom reminds you that your spouse didn’t marry a perfect person either.
Instead of upgrading your spouse, upgrade your marriage! How do we do that? Pour your energy into loving your spouse. Focus on that relationship, tend to it and let it grow. Make time for each other. Compliment and thank one another. Communicate. Apologize. Serve one another. Show interest in each other’s work. Make time for sex. Pray together. Read the Bible together.
God’s forgiveness and grace are big enough for you. You are loved by God. And God might be inviting you today to repent. To apologize.
To make amends.
Together in Scripture
I want now to make a specific recommendation. First, a reminder: During this sermon series, all of us are encouraged to read the
book of Proverbs. It has thirty-one chapters, so it’s sensible to read through it in a month. Reading it more quickly or more slowly also makes sense. Find a reading plan that works for you.
That’s a reminder; now here’s the new suggestion for those of you who are married: Read through Proverbs together. Find a daily time and spend the next thirty-one days reading Proverbs together. Wherever you are in your marriage, whether you’re doing great or struggling, whether you’re a newlywed or you’ve been married for decades, Proverbs has something for you.
One of the things it has for you is a vision for equality in marriage. The strong woman of Prov 31, for example, is well-known to many of you.5 Notice the mutuality in her marriage:
31:11–12: “Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life.” (NIV)
31:28–29: “Her children arise and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her: ‘Many women do noble things, but you surpass them all.’” (NIV)
Wisdom for Everyone
For some people, this message might sting. It might remind you of how you fell short in the past. If that’s you, I want you to hear this today: God has grace for you. This message isn’t meant to condemn you. It’s meant to shine the light on the way God invites us to live. God’s forgiveness and grace are big enough for you. You are loved by God. And God might be inviting you today to repent. To apologize. To make amends.
If you’re here today and someone has failed you, if you have been hurt in your marriage, or in a former marriage, or in another important relationship, know that you are not alone in this. We value you and love you. As I said earlier, if you’re experiencing abuse in a relationship, we’re here to help you get to safety and beyond.
All of us—including those who aren’t married—have relationships that we want to be wholesome and permanent. Don’t give up on your family, don’t give up on your friendships; invest in them. I encourage us to be people who cultivate relationships, who create strong communities.
All of these things apply to each of our relationships with God. God has made promises to us that God will keep. We need to recognize the investment God has made in the permanence of our relationship.
In fact, the Bible uses marriage as a metaphor for our relationship with God. Not because marriage is perfect, but as a symbol of God’s committed love.
[Editor’s Note: At this point, the sermon as originally preached moved into the Lord’s Supper, using the wedding feast of the Lamb mentioned in Rev 19:9 as a transition and focusing on the committed love that Christ has cultivated for us. Those who make use of this sermon may close it in a way appropriate to their setting.]
1. This sermon was preached in July 2024 at First Christian Church in Johnson City, Tennessee; a video is currently available at https://fcc-jc.org/page/461?Item=888. The series had eight sermons: “Introduction: Wisdom for Life,” “Wisdom for Eternity,” “Wisdom for Getting Wisdom,” “Wisdom for Marriage,” “Wisdom for Work,” “Wisdom for Words,” “Wisdom for Raising Kids,” “Wisdom for Friendships.”
2. CBE’s resources on Proverbs include Craig S. Keener, “The Role of Women in Proverbs,” Priscilla Papers 8/1 (Winter 1994) 1–3; Glenn Pemberton, “Daughter Divine: Proverbs’ Woman of Wisdom,” Priscilla Papers 32/2 (Spring 2018) 14–20.
3. Those who use this sermon are encouraged to expand this paragraph and the similar statement in the conclusion, including mention of local resources available to someone in an abusive marriage. CBE’s resources on abuse include Amy Smith Carman, “The Abusive Religious Leaders of John 8: How a Misnamed Story Can Help Religious Institutions Deal with Sexual Assault,” Priscilla Papers 33/3 (Summer 2019) 8–11; Sandra Dufield, “The Suffering Among Us: When Power Leads to Abuse, We Must Respond,” Priscilla Papers 15/2 (Spring 2001) 14–16; Catherine Clark Kroeger, “The Bible’s Nonabusive Intention for Family Relationships,” Priscilla Papers 25/3 (Summer 2011) 21–24; Catherine Clark Kroeger, “Witnessing Against Abuse,” Priscilla Papers 11/1 (Winter 1997) 32–33 (reprint 37/1 [Winter 2023] 3–4); Tim Krueger, ed., Eyes to See & Ears to Hear Women: Sexual Assault as a Crisis of Evangelical Theology (CBE, 2018); Scarlet Hai Yin Tsao, “Restoration of Adult Survivors of Child Sexual Abuse: How Can Caregivers Contribute to the Process?,” Priscilla Papers 20/1 (Winter 2006) 13–22 (reprint 37/1 [Winter 2023] 22–27).
4. CBE’s resources on sexuality include Sara Barton, “A Biblical Example of a Sexually Healthy Woman for a World where Unhealthy Sexuality Makes Headlines,” Priscilla Papers 32/1 (Winter 2018) 10–14; Havilah Dharamraj, “Green-Eyed
Lovers: A Study of Jealousy in Song of Songs 8:5–7,” Priscilla Papers 32/1 (Winter 2018) 3–8; Philip T. Duncan, “Nurturing Voyeurism, Vibrant Sexism, and Violence: Why We Can’t (Yet) Afford to Forget about Wild at Heart ,” Priscilla Papers 31/1 (Winter 2017) 3–8; Jason Eden, “Are Women Passive? What History Says about Gender, Sexuality, and Christian Ministry,” Priscilla Papers 29/3 (Summer 2015) 15–20; Timothy Paul Erdel, “Exploring the Garden of Feminine Motifs in Song of Songs,” Priscilla Papers 34/2 (Spring 2020) 3–9; Dawn Gentry, “Mutuality, Mystery, and Marriage: Love in the Song of Songs,” Priscilla Papers 32/1 (Winter 2018) 18–20; Elizabeth Gentry, “My Resounding ‘Yes’ to God and Embracing My Sexuality: Singleness and the Song of Songs,” Priscilla Papers 32/1 (Winter 2018) 15–17; April Kelly, “Early Christianity’s Concept of Sexuality,” Priscilla Papers 33/1 (Winter 2019) 14–18; Arthur H. Lewis, “Equality of Sexes in Marriage: Exposition of the Song of Songs,” Priscilla Papers 11/2 (Spring 1997) 45–46; Aída Besançon Spencer, “The Song of Songs Celebrates God’s Kind of Love,” Priscilla Papers 28/3 (Summer 2014) 7–13 (reprint 37/1 [Winter 2023] 14–20).
5. CBE’s resources on Proverbs 31 include Megan K. DeFranza, “The Proverbs 31 ‘Woman of Strength’: An Argument for a Primary-Sense Translation,” Priscilla Papers 25/1 (Winter 2011) 21–25; Hannah Rasmussen, “Finding the ‘Proverbs 31 Woman,’” Priscilla Papers 32/2 (Spring 2018) 21–26; William David Spencer, “Diamond or Diamond Mine? A Meditation on Proverbs 31,” Priscilla Papers 16/2 (Spring 2002) 16–20.
Janet Galante is Groups Minister and a member of the preaching team at First Christian Church in Johnson City, Tennessee. She holds an MDiv from nearby Emmanuel Christian Seminary.
CBE INTERNATIONAL (Christians for Biblical Equality)
CBE International (CBE) is a nonprofit organization of Christian men and women who believe that the Bible, properly interpreted, teaches the fundamental equality of men and women of all ethnic groups, all ecomomic classes, and all age groups, based on the teachings of Scriptures as Galatians 3:28.
Priscilla Papers is the academic voice of CBE International, providing peer reviewed, interdisciplinary, scholarship on topics related to a biblical view of women and men in the home, church, and world “… when Priscilla and Aquila heard Apollos, they took him aside and explained the Way of God to him more accurately,” (Acts 18:26b, NRSV).
MISSION STATEMENT
CBE exists to promote the biblical message that God calls women and men of all cultures, races, and classes to share authority equally in service and leadership in the home, church, and world. CBE’s mission is to eliminate the power imbalance between men and women resulting from theological patriarchy.
STATEMENT OF FAITH
• We believe in one God, creator and sustainer of the universe, eternally existing as three persons equal in power and glory.
• We believe in the full deity and the full humanity of Jesus Christ.
• We believe that eternal salvation and restored relationships are only possible through faith in Jesus Christ who died for us, rose from the dead, and is coming again. This salvation is offered to all people.
• We believe the Holy Spirit equips us for service and sanctifies us from sin.
• We believe the Bible is the inspired word of God, is reliable, and is the final authority for faith and practice.
• We believe that women and men are equally created in God’s image and given equal authority and stewardship of God’s creation.
• We believe that women and men are equally responsible for and distorted by sin, resulting in shattered relationships with God, self, and others.
• Therefore, we lament that the sins of sexism and racism have been used to historically oppress and silence women throughout the life of the church.
• We resolve to value and listen to the voices and lived experiences of women throughout the world who have been impacted by the sins of sexism and racism.
CORE VALUES
• Scripture is our authoritative guide for faith, life, and practice.
• Patriarchy (male dominance) is not a biblical ideal but a result of sin that manifests itself personally, relationally, and structurally.
• Patriarchy is an abuse of power, taking from women and girls what God has given them: their dignity, freedom, and leadership, and often their very lives.
• While the Bible reflects a patriarchal culture, the Bible does not teach patriarchy as God’s standard for human relationships
• Christ’s redemptive work frees all people from patriarchy, calling women and men to share authority equally in service and leadership.
• God’s design for relationships includes faithful marriage between a woman and a man, celibate singleness, and mutual submission in Christian community.
• The unrestricted use of women’s gifts is integral to the work of the Holy Spirit and essential for the advancement of the gospel worldwide
• Followers of Christ are to advance human flourishing by opposing injustice and patriarchal teachings and practices that demean, diminish, marginalize, dominate, abuse, enslave, or exploit women, or restrict women’s access to leadership in the home, church, and world.
ENVISIONED FUTURE
CBE envisions a futu re whe re all belie vers are freed to exercis e their gifts for God ’s glory and purposes, with the full support of their Christian communities.
CBE MEMBERSHIP
CBE is pleased to ma ke available, for free, every Pr iscill a Pap ers article ever published. In addition, f ind the full archi ve of CBE ’s ma gazine, Mutua l it y , and hund reds of book reviews an d reco rdings of lectu res gi ven by world- renowned scholars li ke Linda Belleville, Lynn Cohick, Nij ay Gupta, N.T. Wright, an d mo re! Find it a ll at ww w.cbei nter nat io n al.or g.
CBE BOARD OF REFERENCE
Miriam Adeney, Myron S. Augsburger, Raymond J. Bakke, Michael Bird, Esme Bowers, Paul Chilcote, Havilah Dharamraj, Lee Grady, Joel B. Green, David Joel Hamilton, Fatuma Hashi, Roberta Hestenes, Richard Howell, Craig S. Keener, Tara B. Leach, Gricel Medina, Joy Moore, LaDonna Osborn, Jane Overstreet, Philip B.Payne, John E. Phelan Jr., Ron Pierce, Kay F. Rader, Paul A. Rader, Ronald J. Sider, Aída Besançon Spencer, William David Spencer, John Stackhouse, Todd Still, Ruth A. Tucker, Cynthia Long Westfall, Cecilia Yau.
JOIN
If your church, seminary, school, or nonprofit agrees with CBE’s Statement of Faith and Core Values, join CBE as an organizational member to receive publications, discounted conference registrations, and more. Visit cbe.today/orgmembers for more info.
SUBSCRIBE
Receive a year of print copies of Priscilla Papers , CBE’s academic journal, and Mutuality , CBE’s popular magazine. Subscriptions are available for individuals, churches, and libraries. Learn more at cbe.today/subscriptions
CONNECT WITH CBE
Connect with CBE online to learn more about us, enjoy the resources we offer, and take part in our ministry
Visit our website, cbeinternational.org, to find thousands of free resources—articles, book reviews, and video and audio recordings.
Get news, updates, and free resources (cbe.today/news).
Follow our blog (cbe.today/mutuality).
Follow us on X @CBEInt (twitter.com/cbeint).
Find us on Facebook (facebook.com/cbeint).
Follow us on Instagram @cbeinternational (instagram.com/cbeinternational).
Follow us on LinkedIn (linkedin.com/company/christians-for-biblical-equality).
Find us on YouTube (youtube.com/@cbeinternational).
Listen to us on Soundcloud (soundcloud.com/cbe-international).
CBE International 122 W Franklin Ave, Suite 610 Minneapolis, MN 55404-2426 | (612) 872-6898
Scan to subscribe to Priscilla Papers
U.S. POSTAGE PAID (St. Paul, MN) #26907
cbeBookstore
providing quality resources on biblical gender equality
Featured in CBE Bookstore! Scan the QR code or visit cbe.today/bookstore and browse new resources.
The Quest for Biblical Servant Leadership: Insights from the Global Church
Keumju Jewel Hyun, Grace Y. May, Philomena Mwaura, and Julius Kithinji
While many claim to offer models of leadership suitable for contemporary society, this book goes a notch higher by doing so through the prism of Jesus's servant leadership. As the servant-leader par excellence, Jesus not only taught but demonstrated service. Reflective of the global church, all the authors speak of a servant leadership inspired by love, honoring of God, humble in approach, and seeking the welfare of others without neglecting a healthy self-regard. This book is a must-read for theologians, businesspeople, educators, students, and Christian practitioners seeking to make a difference in our times.
In the Image of Her: Recovering Motherhood in the Christian Tradition
Amy E. Marga
Marga seeks to broaden the Christian imagination about women and creativity, and to liberate actual biological mothers from myths of Christian motherhood. It may seem that mothers' perspectives and practices did not influence the Christian theological imagination. Marga, however, maps historical and theological developments around Christian perspectives on mothering to show that Christian mothers—along with and in spite of male-dominated institutions and ideas—have continued to shape their own motherhoods, creatively and boldly adapting the received traditions of the faith to their circumstances for their own survival and the survival of their children.
