Genesis 3 recounts the undoing of the intimate relationships established in the previous chapter between humans and God, between the man and the ground, between the woman and the man. In recent decades most of the discussion seems to have been over what God says to the woman, traditionally translated something like:<\/p>\n
[Yhwh Elohim] said to the woman:<\/p>\n
I will intensify your labor pains;
\nyou will bear children in anguish.
\nYour desire will be for your husband,
\nyet he will rule over you. (HCSB)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\nOf most interest is the syntax of the second half of the verse and the meaning of the word translated “desire.” While most studies have sought to clarify the nature of this desire, I want to suggest that perhaps the word “desire” is not the best way to render the Hebrew at all. Read on for more.
\n<\/p>\nGenesis 3:16 has prompted some quite horrendous interpretations. Delitzsch, for example, remarked:<\/p>\n
The God-offending independence with which the woman acts in her encounter with the tempter and then sinfully overcomes her husband is punished in what is next declared to her. Her reward for this is the almost morbid and continual desire she should experience towards the man in spite of the perils and pains of child-birth, that natural attraction which will not let her free herself from him, that weak dependence which impels her to lean upon the man, and to let herself be sheltered and completed by him. (Genesis<\/em>, pp. 165\u2013166)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I don’t think this sort of interpretation is warranted at all, and a good hard look at the word \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 t\u0115\u0161\u00fbq\u00e2h<\/em>, which is translated “desire,” makes this clear. So what can we say about this word?<\/p>\n
\n
- \n
The term \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 t\u0115\u0161\u00fbq\u00e2h<\/em> occurs only three times in the Hebrew Bible: Gen 3:16; 4:7; Song 7:11 [v. 10 in English].<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
There are a number of less obscure Hebrew terms which can be used to express ‘desire’ in the sense many attribute to this term here.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
Greek translations of these verses translate it with the words \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae (apostroph\u0113<\/em>, ‘return, turn back’, Gen 3:16; 4:7) and \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c6\u03ae (epistroph\u0113<\/em>, ‘return, turning’, Song 7:10). These Greek words are elsewhere used to render Hebrew words derived from the root \u05e9\u05d5\u05d1 (\u0161\u00fb\u1e07<\/em>) such as \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4 (t\u0115\u0161\u00fb\u1e07\u00e2h<\/em>). This suggests that either the Vorlage of the Greek had a different Hebrew word or, more likely, that the translators had difficulty understanding the term \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 and so treated it as if it were \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05d1\u05d4. Hence the Greek versions shed little light on the meaning of this term.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
It would appear that etymological considerations may have played some part in assigning the meaning ‘desire’ to this word. These discussions generally appeal to cognates in Arabic. BDB, for example, notes a proposed Arabic cognate \u0654\u0634\u064e\u0648\u0652\u0642 ‘desire’. It goes on to correctly note that the association for Arabic \u05e9\u05c1 = \u0634 is doubtful (and this is backed up by comparative semitic linguistics); and so proposes \u064e\u0633\u064e\u0627\u0642 ‘drive, impel’. This later connection is made more fully by Susan Foh and is doubtless the more correct etymology for the Hebrew.1<\/sup> In light of this a possible English gloss would be ‘control’.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
In spite of the etymology of the term, the overriding consideration is that it makes sense in the contexts in which it appears. To work out whether the gloss ‘control’ works we need to determine whether it fits in the various contexts in which this word appears. In brief:<\/p>\n
\n
- Gen 3:16<\/strong> The parallel line in the poetic couplet refers to the husband ruling (\u05de\u05e9\u05dc, m\u0101\u0161al<\/em>). This doesn’t prove that the term is close in meaning to “rule” but does indicate that such a meaning would fit the context.<\/li>\n
- Gen 4:7<\/strong> Here the \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 t\u0115\u0161\u00fbq\u00e2h<\/em> belongs to the ‘crouching sin’ at the doorway. Contextually it makes better sense if we understand this verse to say that this sin wishes to control Cain but that Cain must master it. Hence ‘control’ makes good sense in this context.<\/li>\n
- Song 7:11 [E 10]<\/strong> Initially it might appear that the traditional understanding of the noun \u05ea\u05e9\u05d5\u05e7\u05d4 t\u0115\u0161\u00fbq\u00e2h<\/em> might fit better in the context of love poetry. However, a closer inspection shows this isn’t necessarily true. The first clause here is an expression of possession or ownership: “I am my beloved’s.” This could easily be paralleled by something like “and his control is over me.” Furthermore, within the context of love poetry, harsh language is sometimes used to express intensity. Consider, for example, Song 7:6 [English v. 5] where the term \u05d0\u05e1\u05e8 \u02be\u0101sar<\/em> ‘tie, bind, imprison’ \u2014\u00a0a term used almost exclusively of harsh captivity \u2014\u00a0is used to refer to the king’s infatuation for a woman. Consequently, the idea of ‘control’ fits well in this context.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Thus the proposed meaning ‘control’ fits in all the contexts in which this term appears in biblical Hebrew.\n<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
- \n
The word appears as part of a verbless clause in Gen 3:16 (and 4:7). Generally, verbless clauses preserve the deictic centre of the preceding context (this assertion is based on observation and probably warrants formal study if such has not already been carried out). Since the preceding clauses have yiqtol<\/em> verbs and are modal\/future (depending on what you want to do with the verbs in Hebrew), it is natural to read this clause along similar lines, hence (to the wife): “your control will (try to?) be to your husband.”<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Consequently it is probably best to dispense with the notion of “desire” in Genesis 3:16 except as a means to express the modality of the expression. If that sense is considered appropriate for this clause, there seems little reason not to read the subsequent clause in the same way. Hence we might translate this portion of Gen 3:16 as follows:<\/p>\n
You will seek to control your husband,
\nand he will seek to rule over you.2<\/sup><\/p><\/blockquote>\nThe upshot of all of this is that the best understanding of these words to the woman in Genesis 3 is that they reflect a breakdown of the intimate relationship established between the man and woman in chapter 2 where both wife and husband vie for control within the marriage relationship.<\/p>\n
addendum i: the esv(2016) update<\/h2>\n
Just days after publishing the above it came to my attention that the ESV has updated its translation of the verse which now reads:<\/p>\n
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
\nbut he shall rule over you.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n