What do the terms “desire” and “rule” mean in these words of the LORD to Eve?

Interpretation 1: They reaffirm the marital hierarchy

Summary:

These words reaffirm the marital hierarchy that was created between man and woman as a continued blessing.

Arguments in favour of this view:

1. The Hebrew term that is translated as desire means: continuing to feel attracted to the man, also physically. This word, which appears only three times in the Bible, is also used in Genesis 4:7 for Abel who is drawn or attracted to his older brother Cain. It is also found in the Song of Solomon 7:10 where the man is said to feel attracted to the woman or girl.

2. In spite of women enduring pain in childbearing (Genesis 3:16), she will still be devoted to her husband and have children with him.

3. The Hebrew term that we translate as rule has the positive meaning of a husband’s caring concern for his wife’s well-being.

Arguments against this view:

1. It is obvious to first compare the meaning of the word desire in Genesis 3:16 with the use of the same word already used in the next chapter of Genesis, instead of with Song of Songs which was written much later. The explanation (given by John Calvin as well as the Annotations with the Dort Bible of 1619) that the desire in Genesis 4:7 refers to Abel (Cain would have had no reason to be jealous of Abel, for Abel’s heart would continue to go out to him in love if Cain had behaved properly) is a strange explanation in the context of Genesis 4:7. Instead, God warns Cain of sin that is lurking like a predator (like the serpent: Genesis 3:1, or like a lion: 1 Peter 5:8) and desires to overpower Cain. It seems that this explanation of Genesis 4:7 has arisen from a positive understanding of the word desire in Genesis 3:16. Whereas the reverse has not been considered, i.e., that the meaning of this word in Genesis 3:16 can be derived from Genesis 4:7.

2. In Genesis 3:16–19 the Lord is announcing the punishment for the man and woman now that they have turned away from him by listening to the serpent. In this context it is not likely to understand Genesis 3:16 as a positive pledge of God’s restoration of the harmony between the woman and her husband.

3. The Hebrew word we translate as rule has a broader meaning than to have a caring concern. In any case, it certainly cannot have that meaning in Genesis 4:5. A translation using the word dominate would fit better. When we choose this meaning of dominate in Genesis 3:16, it also fits within the punishment being announced to the woman.

Interpretation 2: This was a temporary punishment for the woman

Summary:

With these words God describes the punishment, the curse that is going to come upon the woman in her relationship to her husband. God created man and woman equal, in an egalitarian relationship, but now that the woman has also seduced the man into sin, she will still be attracted to the man, and will also try to seduce him in a sinful way, but will be treated as inferior by him. The translation of rule is therefore not strong enough and should be replaced by dominate, as in Genesis 4:7.

The coming and the work of Jesus Christ have lifted this curse, so that a woman who has been born again in Christ can now hold all offices in the church just like the man.

Arguments in favour of this view:

1. Man and woman are both created in God’s image and together they received a commission in Genesis 1:28. Both were made almost divine and were crowned with splendour and glory as God’s viceroy and vice queen (Genesis 1:28). The fact that God created the man first and woman second, from the man, as his help, does not imply a certain rank of precedence. In theory, a given order may indicate or imply a ranking, but in paradise this was not the case because the order was indicated from the beginning. Man and woman, created one after the other, were nevertheless given equal dominion over creation to bear God’s image together. And a helper is not necessarily subordinate to the one who receives the help; the reverse can also be the case.

2. When the woman tempted the man to sin, she did serious damage to the collaborative relationship. The apostle Paul reminds us of this in 1 Timothy 2:14.

3. Therefore, God would now allow the woman’s wrongdoing toward the man to be punished, and vice versa to make her experience the subordination, contempt, and oppression by her husband. This is to be regarded as a punishment, a curse upon her life, and not as a new ethical guideline for the relationship between man and woman, as desired by him, much less as a sanctioning of the exploitation and abuse of the woman by the man.

4. Because Christ took upon himself the curse that had been upon men and women since the fall, and thus removed it, men and women can once again live together in an egalitarian relationship and be active in Christ’s church in all the offices.

Arguments against this view:    

1. Man and woman were created equal by God to work together in harmonious cooperation toward the common goal of Genesis 1:28. However, by creating the husband first and only then the woman out of the man to help him, God did indicate an order of precedence. Even though he received the woman as a helper, he remained the first responsible, the leader. Paul appeals to this in Romans 5:12–14; 1 Corinthians 11:3; 1 Corinthians 15:45; and 1 Timothy 2:12–14. This ranking also became clear when God first called the man to account even though the woman had been the first to eat of the fruit of the forbidden tree (Genesis 3:9).

2. This interpretation hardly explains the meaning of desire from the woman in comparison with the use of this term in Genesis 4:7, but focuses primarily on the domination on the part of the husband.

3. Indeed, we cannot say that oppression, contempt, and abuse of women by men are sanctioned by God in Genesis 3:16. But we will have to take into account in the exegesis of Genesis 3:16, that since the fall, God has always assigned the primary role to men, not to women. He chose only men as priests and, with a few exceptions, as prophets (not a single woman’s book of prophecy appears in the Holy Scripture), and as kings. Jesus Christ continued this line, choosing men only as apostles. And after his return to heaven, the Christian church did not choose a woman to replace Judas (for instance Jesus’ mother Mary or one of his half-sisters) but once again a man (Acts 1:21–23). And the apostles did not choose some wise women, but seven men to mediate in the disagreement among the widows in the church in Jerusalem (Acts 6:1–15).

4. If Christ removed the curse on women through his atoning sacrifice, why would that apply only to the second part of Genesis 3:16 and not also to the first part of Genesis 3:16?

Interpretation 3: The woman envies the leadership position of the man

Summary:

The desire of the woman toward the man means more than being attracted to him, also physically. It is not an action toward the man, but an action against or contrary to the man. This translation is also mentioned in the ESV, both in Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7. The woman no longer accepts the division of tasks as given by God at creation but envies the leadership position of the man. On the other hand, the man must rule over her, i.e., he may not relinquish his position of primary responsibility, but push the woman back to the position God wills for her.

Arguments in favour of this view:

1. The striking similarity with the word usage in Genesis 4:7 makes this explanation to be the most plausible. Just as sin’s desire was against (a better translation than: for) Cain, just as sin wanted to have a say in Cain’s life, so it is with the woman’s desire after the fall. This desire goes contrary to the man’s position. She will try to take over his leadership role. But just as Cain needed to master his sin, so the husband can (or must) continue to rule over the woman and maintain his leadership role that he received from God.

2. In these words, God forces the woman back to the position he gave her before the fall. He maintains her role in his creation, as he does in the first part of Genesis 3:16 (pregnancy and bearing children). But as a result of sin, those tasks are now accompanied by hardships. John Calvin writes: The woman, who had perversely exceeded her proper bounds, is forced back to her own position. She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection. This thought is also found in the Commentary on Genesis 3:16 in the Annotations of the Dutch Dort Bible: the husband will have command over you, which shall now be hard for your flesh, whereas before the fall it was only lovely.

3. The apostle Paul reads Genesis 2 and Genesis 3 in a similar way in 1 Timothy 3:12–14 and he uses it as a decisive argument for not allowing—in line with God’s overall direction since the fall—women to assume authority in Christ’s church. Compare also 1 Corinthians 14:34 (where Paul’s appeal to the law does not refer to the Ten Commandments, but to the Torah—the first five books of the OT) and Ephesians 5:22, Ephesians 5:28. The apostle Peter likewise knows the position of man and woman from Genesis 2-3 (see 1 Peter 3:1 and 1 Peter 3:5–6).

4. Genesis 3:16 is not a curse that was removed by Christ, but a reinforcement of the relationship between man and woman willed by God from creation, that is now marked with pain and hardships. Apart from Christ, there is a lot of mutual abuse in this God-intended relationship between men and women. But men and women will again willingly conform to it, being led by Christ’s Spirit.