In the mean time, here is a quick post on Genesis 3:16 and its role in the Biblical gender roles controversy, something for readers to chew on.
This passage is, according to egalitarians, a direct proof that gender inquality, complementarianism, patriarchy, whatever you want to call it, was not built into creation, but a result of the fall. The argument is as follows:
In Genesis 3, God confronts Adam and Eve after they ate of the Tree of Knowledge, which He forbade. Both of them are given a set of curses, new realities not present in the ideal world of Eden. One of these curses, presented in verse 16, is as follows:
אֶל-הָאִשָּׁה אָמַר, הַרְבָּה אַרְבֶּה עִצְּבוֹנֵךְ וְהֵרֹנֵךְ--בְּעֶצֶב, תֵּלְדִי בָנִים; וְאֶל-אִישֵׁךְ, תְּשׁוּקָתֵךְ, וְהוּא, יִמְשָׁל-בָּךְ
To the woman He said "I will greatly multiply your pain and your conception. In pain you will beget children. And your desire will be toward your husband, and he will rule over you.The last part, "and he will rule over you", clearly refers to the patriarchal norms of human society. And since this was listed among the curses of the fall, patriarchy itself is a curse of the fall. Therefore, as believers in the New Covenant, through which sin is washed away and we are sanctified, we ought to work against patriarchy in our world and towards total gender equality.
This is the argument in sum as made by egalitarian writers and scholars. The best of them in my mind is Philip Payne, arguably the most prolific egalitarian scholar to date. In "Man and Woman, One in Christ", he makes the argument as follows:
Since the text identifies this as a consequence of the fall, it must describe something new and not preexisting, just like all the other results of the fall in 3:14 - 19. Furthermore, all the other results of the fall are future; none are obligatory ("should"). ...
Virtually all versions of the Bible translate this as future, just like the other effects of the fall. Everything in 3:14 - 19 is disastrous news for the party addressed, and every other result of the fall for humankind is something people should try to overcome, such as pain in childbearing (through medical techniques) and removal of thorns and thistles (through weeding and farming). People should not foster, but rather alleviate, the consequences of the fall, including the husband's rule over his wife.
...
The fall transformed the relationship of Adam and Eve from equality into a power struggle. "Far from being a reign of coequals over the remainder of God's creation, the relationship now becomes a fierce dispute, with each party trying to rule the other. The two who once reigned as one attempt to rule each other". [1] [2]This seems like quite a powerful argument. Unlike how they treat the countless pro-patriarchy passages of the Bible [3], egalitarians don't have to dive through logical loops to demonstrate their interpretation. In both the English and the Hebrew, the passage can be quite easily interpreted as they argue; Patriarchy is a post fall curse.
I'll admit, upon first finding this verse a long time ago, I was worried. It seemed decisively egalitarian, but pro-patriarchy passages were decisive too, some of which even pointing to pre-fall patriarchal principles, like 1 Corinthians 11:3 and 1 Timothy 2:13. And all this after I had thoroughly researched egalitarian analyses. Could there really be a fundamental contradiction in the scriptures? Could Paul have been wrong?
By God's grace, and a dash of linguistics, this isn't the case, and the passage can be very easily interpreted otherwise, no flaming circus hoops required.
First, the central debate of the passage; the meaning of teshuqah (תְּשׁוּקׇה).
I - Teshuqah
When I say the "meaning" of teshuqah is a point of debate, I more-so refer to the word's specific connotation in Genesis 3:16, whether it be a positive or negative one. William Holladay's A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament defines it as 'urge'. 'craving', 'impulse' [4]. Somewhat loosely following this definition, most major translations render the word "desire" in Genesis 3:16 and 4:7, and thus "Your desire will be for your husband".
One side, typically complementarians but also some egalitarians [5], believe the word denotes a negative form of "desire", be it an attempt to dominate him or to turn him into an idol [6], but typically domination, which I will argue for. The other side, typically egalitarians, believe "desire" here is positive. That is, the woman will have a positive devotion towards her husband, yet he will still rule over her (hence, a curse).
Matt Lynch argues for the latter view in his own article [7]. The main obstacle that view's proponents face is the extreme syntactical and compositional closeness Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 share. That is, they are both extremely similar if not identical in structure, share the same key words - teshuqah (desire) and mashal (rule) - and are written very close to each other. As a result, Genesis 4:7 serves as a critical clue towards how we understand 3:16, and leans us towards a negative connotation of teshuqah in the latter passage.
Thus, Matt Lynch attempts to show why Genesis 4:7 is not a good interpretive lens for 3:16, and from that why the domination view is incorrect. His argument is as follows:
First, he (unintentionally) misrepresents how the passage is used in the domination view. We don't assert a 1 to 1, exact correlation of every element of the passage. We don't say teshuqah "must" be bad in 3:16 because of 4:7. We instead say that it more likely does mean something bad given the similar syntax and words used, not to mention their proximity, which I believe was deliberate authorial intent to drive a correlation between the passages, and (more controversially) between sin and the woman. The argument is evidential and probabilistic, not deductive.
Second, he asserts that by the logic of 'equating' 3:16 with 4:7, mashal (מָשַׁל) (to rule) would therefore imply the woman's destruction and obliteration, because Cain "ruling" sin entails such. Surely, he says, this couldn't be the case. But this is a problem of his own making, assuming an unbiblical understanding of 'mastering' sin. Cain, nor anyone else in the scripture, is ever empowered to "obliterate" sin; it is ever present, always ready to attack. The best we could do, at least before Christ, is "master" it, repress our sinful inclinations. The only one who could obliterate sin is Christ, through whom we are sanctified. But even then, sanctification is a process that takes our entire lives, and sin is always ready to attack a saint until he dies. So, when Cain is told to master sin, he is told to keep it under control, not destroy it. Likewise, the man of Genesis 3:16 will (and under Biblical patriarchy, ought to) regain control of a rebellious wife. Obviously there are differences in purpose here; sin can't be redeemed, but a woman can be. But all the same, Lynch's proposed logical problem for the argument from Genesis 4:7 falls flat, and the argument itself still stands.
Third, he says one cannot claim 3:16 and 4:7 resonate unless they also accept the view "the woman is the one in whom sin resides". Now, in saying this, he implies that it is some unacceptable view well outside the evangelical Overton Window. But if by "the woman is the one in whom sin resides", he means "sin and women are loosely correlated between the passages, because sin especially targets Eve/women for deception", then I agree with that view, and his point fails. But his claim doesn't logically follow anyway, because, again, the passage is not glued onto Gen. 3:16 1 to 1, but used as a general interpretive lens.
Finally, that Genesis 4:7 says Cain ought to master sin, while 3:16 doesn't say man ought to master his wife, is irrelevant. If that were the argument at stake, maybe he would have a point. But it isn't, and teshuqah's meaning is unaffected by the lack of an 'ought'.
So, I find Lynch's argument lacking, and the domination view of teshuqah more likely. HOWEVER, there is some debate over the intrinsic meaning of teshuqah. Andrew Macintosh published a major study of the word in 2016 [8]. He argues that "desire" is not an appropriate definition of teshuqah, but rather "concern, preoccupation, (single-minded) devotion." [9]. More importantly, he argues for a positive connotation of teshuqah in Genesis 3:16.
Matt Lynch himself cites this paper for his argument, which in turn was shared by Marg Mowczko here. I mention the latter because my own criticisms of Macintosh's argument are echoed in a comment on her post by a certain Martin Shields. His main argument is as follows:
So, to rap up this already lengthy section, teshuqah - desire/urge - most likely has a negative meaning, in that the woman/women will desire to dominate and manipulate their husbands.Matt Lynch argues for the latter view in his own article [7]. The main obstacle that view's proponents face is the extreme syntactical and compositional closeness Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 share. That is, they are both extremely similar if not identical in structure, share the same key words - teshuqah (desire) and mashal (rule) - and are written very close to each other. As a result, Genesis 4:7 serves as a critical clue towards how we understand 3:16, and leans us towards a negative connotation of teshuqah in the latter passage.
Thus, Matt Lynch attempts to show why Genesis 4:7 is not a good interpretive lens for 3:16, and from that why the domination view is incorrect. His argument is as follows:
However, this interpretation runs into serious problems. It assumes that the literary resonance between the text implies equivalence (desire = bad in both texts). Yet surely the man is not to 'rule' (Heb. mašal) the woman like Cain is supposed to 'rule' (Heb. mašal) sin? That would imply her destruction, removal, and obliteration.
Thus, one cannot say that because Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 resonate, desire must be bad in each text, unless one is also willing to argue for another equivalency wherein (a.) the woman is the one in whom sin resides, and therefore (b.) the man's response ought to be uncompromising rule or domination.
Instead, there are important similarities and differences between the context of 3:16 and 4:7. Notice that only 4:7 includes a divine word that one ought to 'master'; 'if you do well, will you not be accepted?' By contrast, Gen 3:16 simply states what will happen in the future, not what should happen. What if the point of 4:7 is that humans were supposed to master sin, and not women? ...His point appears solid, similarity does not automatically mean equivalence with respect to Bible passages. But his arguments ultimately fail, and for very simple reasons.
First, he (unintentionally) misrepresents how the passage is used in the domination view. We don't assert a 1 to 1, exact correlation of every element of the passage. We don't say teshuqah "must" be bad in 3:16 because of 4:7. We instead say that it more likely does mean something bad given the similar syntax and words used, not to mention their proximity, which I believe was deliberate authorial intent to drive a correlation between the passages, and (more controversially) between sin and the woman. The argument is evidential and probabilistic, not deductive.
Second, he asserts that by the logic of 'equating' 3:16 with 4:7, mashal (מָשַׁל) (to rule) would therefore imply the woman's destruction and obliteration, because Cain "ruling" sin entails such. Surely, he says, this couldn't be the case. But this is a problem of his own making, assuming an unbiblical understanding of 'mastering' sin. Cain, nor anyone else in the scripture, is ever empowered to "obliterate" sin; it is ever present, always ready to attack. The best we could do, at least before Christ, is "master" it, repress our sinful inclinations. The only one who could obliterate sin is Christ, through whom we are sanctified. But even then, sanctification is a process that takes our entire lives, and sin is always ready to attack a saint until he dies. So, when Cain is told to master sin, he is told to keep it under control, not destroy it. Likewise, the man of Genesis 3:16 will (and under Biblical patriarchy, ought to) regain control of a rebellious wife. Obviously there are differences in purpose here; sin can't be redeemed, but a woman can be. But all the same, Lynch's proposed logical problem for the argument from Genesis 4:7 falls flat, and the argument itself still stands.
Third, he says one cannot claim 3:16 and 4:7 resonate unless they also accept the view "the woman is the one in whom sin resides". Now, in saying this, he implies that it is some unacceptable view well outside the evangelical Overton Window. But if by "the woman is the one in whom sin resides", he means "sin and women are loosely correlated between the passages, because sin especially targets Eve/women for deception", then I agree with that view, and his point fails. But his claim doesn't logically follow anyway, because, again, the passage is not glued onto Gen. 3:16 1 to 1, but used as a general interpretive lens.
Finally, that Genesis 4:7 says Cain ought to master sin, while 3:16 doesn't say man ought to master his wife, is irrelevant. If that were the argument at stake, maybe he would have a point. But it isn't, and teshuqah's meaning is unaffected by the lack of an 'ought'.
So, I find Lynch's argument lacking, and the domination view of teshuqah more likely. HOWEVER, there is some debate over the intrinsic meaning of teshuqah. Andrew Macintosh published a major study of the word in 2016 [8]. He argues that "desire" is not an appropriate definition of teshuqah, but rather "concern, preoccupation, (single-minded) devotion." [9]. More importantly, he argues for a positive connotation of teshuqah in Genesis 3:16.
Matt Lynch himself cites this paper for his argument, which in turn was shared by Marg Mowczko here. I mention the latter because my own criticisms of Macintosh's argument are echoed in a comment on her post by a certain Martin Shields. His main argument is as follows:
Having finally read Macintosh's article, I'm not convinced he's right. He begins with Son 7:11, I think that's a mistake given the genre of that text. Just think about English songs about love and you'll hear lyrics telling us that we're a "slave to love," "addicted to love," and equally harsh things about love. Well Song of Songs is a Hebrew love song, and it says some harsh things too, using language about being held captive and so on. Macintosh makes some assumptions about what Son 7:11 says based on a failure to adequately account for the nature of the genre. It just isn't the right place to start. At the end of his article he uses Song as the decisive factor in favouring his interpretation over that of Joüon (p. 384-385). On p. 385 he writes "The case [Joüon] makes has some force in respect of the two verses from Genesis and their respective contexts, but it seems somewhat contrived in the case of Cant., where radical equality, rather than domination, is celebrated." I think the reverse is true: Macintosh places too much weight on his understanding of Song 7:11.
This word is a central key of the debate in this passage, but I would like to address another key word in the passage that, I believe, becomes the death-knell of the egalitarian argument from this text, but which is not debated anywhere near as often. This word was briefly mentioned before, but now I will make it the pinnacle of my argument; mashal (מָשַׁל).
II - Mashal
It is almost universally assumed that mashal in Genesis 3:16 refers to the simple act of ruling. The Concise Lexicon defines it as 'rule', 'govern', 'gain/exercise dominion over' [10]. Brown-Driver-Briggs says 'rule', 'have dominion', 'reign' [11].
However, in order to harmonize the passage with pre-fall gender hierarchy, some complementarians argue that it too refers to something negative, a sort of oppressive kind of rule. The aforementioned Philip Payne quite easily refutes this view by the simple fact that mashal is never presented in the scriptures with a negative connotation [12]. Nothing in Genesis 3:16 hints at a negative connotation either.
So it appears like a sealed case; man "will" rule over woman, but that wasn't the case at creation. He only gained authority over her as a curse against her. Complementarians and patriarchalists are in a tough spot. What on earth can we do? The Apostle didn't read his Bible!
Before we throw out the infallibility of scripture, let me show you the word in action through another passage.
Then the men of Israel said to Gideon, "Rule over us, both you and your son, and also your son's son. For you saved us from the hand of Midian."
Then Gideon said to them, "I will not rule over you, nor will my son rule over you. Yahweh will rule over you."
~ Judges 8:22 - 23
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the aforementioned death-knell to the egalitarian argument from Genesis 3:16. Mashal does not necessarily refer to abstract authority, but the physical state of rule. It denotes de-facto rule, not de-jure authority. One may have legitimate, rightful authority, but not mashal, or rule. In the case of Judges 6, Yahweh did indeed "rule", or have authority over Israel, but he did not "rule", or control Israel, because they were chasing lesser gods. Israel's rebellion is why Gideon had to declare that Yahweh will rule over them in Judges 8, after having delivered them from the Midianites.
Likewise, we can very easily see the same occurring in Genesis 3:16. Though Adam/man was made to rule Eve/woman, she rebels and attempts to usurp him. But God forwarns her, that in the end, he will rule over her. That is, he will re-establish his rightful authority over her.
III - Conclusion
My argument doesn't "decisively" refute the egalitarian interpretation, but it doesn't have to. Egalitarians claim that Genesis 3:16 contradicts the complementarian/patriachal assertion of pre-fall masculine authority. All one needs to do is assert a plausible interpretation to the contrary to diffuse this argument. I believe I not only showed a plausible interpretation, but an infinitely more likely one, given the patriarchal assumptions and exhortations of countless scriptures.
Thank you for reading. Agree or disagree, I encourage you to leave a comment. And especially if you agree, please do share this around; my service is for the Church.
~~~
[1] - Philip B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ - An Exegetical and Theological Study of Paul's Letters, ePub edition, 2015. Pg. 33.
[2] - Quote from Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis 1 - 17, 1990; New International Commentary on the Old Testament Series. Pg. 202.
[3] - For the antinomians reading, I'll limit myself to the New Testament:
1 Corinthians 11:2 - 16, 1 Corinthians 14:34 - 35, Ephesians 5:22 - 33, Colossians 3:18 - 19, 1 Timothy 2:9 - 15, Titus 2:5, 1 Peter 3:1 - 7.
But for those who don't chuck their Torah out the window, some particularly powerful OT examples include Deuteronomy 22:5 (see here for a deeper analysis), Proverbs 31:3, and Isaiah 3:12.
[4] - William L. Holladay, A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, 1972. Pg. 396, "תְּשׁוּקָה" entry.
NOTE: Fellow Hebrew nerds are probably screaming at my here; HALOT (Hebrew-Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament) is the standard, most comprehensive lexicon to use. Unfortunately, I am but a poor college student. The Concise Lexicon, which is based on HALOT, and Brown-Driver-Briggs are the best I have for now.
[5] - See Man and Woman, One in Christ, pg. 33 (ePub edition).
[6] - Wendy Alsup at The Gospel Coalition favours the idol view and critiques the 'domination' interpretation here: https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/problems-with-a-new-reading-of-an-old-verse/
Her article was published beside another by Claire Smith, who defends the domination view and indirectly critiques Alsup's arguments; you can read it here. Alsup's logic also somewhat overlaps with Matt Lynch's, so I don't feel the need to dedicate a tonne of space to her claims.
[7] - Matt Lynch, Contrary Women: Genesis 3:16b in the (now non-) Permanent ESV. http://theologicalmisc.net/2016/10/contrary-women-genesis-316b-now-non-permanent-esv/
[8] - Andrew Macintosh, The Meaning of תשׁוקה. Journal of Semitic Studies; Autumn 2016, Vol. 61, Issue 2. Pp. 365 - 387.
[9] - Ibid, pg. 365
[10] - A Concise Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, pg. 219, "מָשַׁל" entry.
[11] - F. Brown, S. Driver, C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon, Hendrickson Publishers edition (11th printing, 2007), 1906. Pg. 605, "מָשַׁל" entry.
[12] - Man and Woman, One in Christ, pg. 33
