Paper Writing Service http://StudyHub.vip/An-Exegesis-Of-Genesis-3-16 👈

1. MIDWESTERN BAPTIST THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY
GENESIS 3:16
AN EXEGETICAL PAPER
SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE COURSE
DR 30060-02 INTEGRATING CHRISTIAN FAITH AND PRACTICE
BY
MATTHEW ROBERT PERRY, D.MIN.
KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI
FEBRUARY 25, 2019

2. 2
Introduction
This paper analyzes and demonstrates that, for the woman, childbearing is not a
consequence of the Fall; rather, the pain that comes not only in childbearing but also in the entire
gestational period will increase. Also, this paper seeks to analyze the post-Fall relationship that
now exists between Eve and Adam and its implications for the relationship from the wife to the
husband. The desire that the woman will have is, first, that of a sexual desire for the man that
will produce pregnancy and childbirth, a process that will bring sorrow but also produce an
offspring who will bring joy. Second, the man and woman will have a desire to master and rule
the other, but the woman will now remain subordinate due to her disobedience.
The passage under examination is Genesis 3:16:
To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you” (ESV).
This passage occurs in the wake of the Fall of Man (Gen 3:1-13), when both Adam and
Eve committed distinct but connected sins against God’s command to refrain from eating of the
tree of knowledge of good and evil (Genesis 2:16-17). The three players in this scene that
brought about the Fall (the serpent, Adam, and Eve) each received a respective consequence for
disobedience.
For the serpent (3:14-15), God levied a curse on him to crawl on his belly and to
represent the animal “cursed above all the livestock and above all the beasts of the field.” Yet, in
verse 15, God speaks to this serpent as he is, Satan Himself, with an adversarial relationship
between their respective “seeds.” Satan’s ultimate task is to “bruise” the heel of this offspring,

3. 3
Jesus, while God promises that His Son will eventually “bruise” (ESV) or “crush” (NIV) Satan’s
head. This is known as the protoevangelium, the first “gospel,” planting the seed for how Christ
will eventually rescue His redeemed from the clutches of the Adversary.
Adam received his consequences because he chose to sin when he “listening to the voice
of your wife and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it’”
(3:17a). On the surface, listening to the voice of his wife seems innocuous; but Adam did so
rather than to listen to the voice of God who made the command he violated--and who also made
him! While the serpent was cursed when receiving his sentence, Adam was not, but rather,
“cursed is the ground because of you” (17b, emphasis mine). God permitted the man to enjoy the
fruit of his labor except one tree, the tree of knowledge of good and evil: “You shall not eat [of
it], for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die” (2:17). As Atkinson noted, “Instead of
the freedom of man’s authority over the natural order and animals, the estate manager now finds
that the blessing of work becomes a toil. . . . Mankind’s relationship with the natural world now
takes on the features of a struggle.”1
This struggle to which Atkinson refers is one found in the dynamics of the two most
important relationships in Eve’s life: marriage and parenthood. The majority of this paper
speaks to Eve’s consequences, but before this area is addressed, this paper explores how the Fall
happened.
How Did This Fall Happen?
In Genesis 3, the serpent entered the scene described as “more crafty ( ָ‫ﬠ‬
‫ר‬
‫וּ‬
‫ם‬ ) than any
other beast of the field that the LORD God had made” (Genesis 3:1a). He displayed this subtle
1
David Atkinson, The Message of Genesis 1-11: The Bible Speaks Today (Downers Grove: InterVarsity
Press, 1990), 95.

4. 4
shrewdness through one simple but deadly question: “Did God actually say, ‘You shall not eat of
any tree in the garden’” (1b)? This question is the basis for all sin—questioning the commands of
God. John D. Currid shows where Eve made her mistake: “She exaggerates the prohibition
(“neither shall you touch it”), she minimizes the privileges (“we may eat” rather than “you may
eat freely”), and she minimizes the penalty (“lest you die” rather than “you will certainly die”).2
Eve (with Adam conspicuously absent) adds her own interpretation to God’s command: “God
said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you
touch it, lest you die’” (3:3, italics added)! The serpent continued to question Eve about the
goodness of God’s motives, presenting a different narrative of what would happen should she
choose to eat, and (most temptingly) she would “be like God, knowing good and evil” (3:5).
Thus, with the threefold enticement of the temptation (the tree was good for food, a delight to the
eyes, and would make her wise), she ate the fruit, then gave Adam the fruit, and he also ate (3:6).
The eyes, which were informed by Satan’s narrative and found delight in the fruit, were
opened to their naked condition which moved them to sew coverings consisting of a loincloth
made of fig leaves (3:7). However, the most tragic consequence of this action was the fractured
relationship they now possessed with their Creator. Rather than rejoicing in hearing His voice
and knowing that fellowship with Him would take place, they hid out of fear and shame, no
longer “naked and not ashamed” (Gen 2:25). God asked the man, “Where are you” (Genesis
3:8)? Why the man and not both of them? God had placed man in the Garden as the head with
the woman as the helper. God did not inquire about man’s geographical location (since God is
omniscient and omnipresent). God knew from their reaction that they had eaten from the tree of
knowledge of good and evil.
2
John D. Currid, “Genesis,” The Gospel Promised: A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the Old
Testament, Miles V. Van Pelt, Ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016), 53.

5. 5
A blame game then ensued, with Adam blaming not only Eve but also God for putting
Eve in his life, more evidence that their actions fractured their relationship previously marked by
unity of care and purpose. As Brueggeman notes, “In God’s garden, as God wills it, there is
mutuality and equity. In God’s garden now, permeated by distrust, there is control and distortion.
But that distortion is not for one moment accepted as the will of the Gardener.”3
Moving
forward, this next section addresses and examines the first line of Genesis 3:16: “I will surely
multiply your pain in childbearing.”
Multiplying Pain… When?
Genesis 3:16 begins, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing” (Genesis 3:16a,
ESV), which depicts an aspect of how the Fall affected Eve’s role in the creation order. Adam
encapsulated her role in the giving of her name: “The man called his wife's name Eve, because
she was the mother of all living” (Gen 3:20). While the woman was certainly able to experience
the joy of childbearing as “the mother of all living,” the rigors of the gestation period would mar
her and all mothers until the end of time. This section contends that the pain includes not only
physical pain but also an anxious toil not just during the act of childbearing, but throughout the
pregnancy.
David Shapiro brings to light a conversation that occurs among those of the Jewish faith
in answering the question as to whom the duty of procreation was given—only to women or
primarily to men? One more ancient side holds that the males were given the primary duty of
procreation because of their role of dominion and subduing the earth.4
Yet, Rabbi Yochanan ben
3
Walter Brueggemann, Genesis (Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1982), 50.
4
David Shapiro, “Be Fruitful and Multiply,” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought 13 no 4 -14 no 1
Spr - Sum 1973, 48. “[T]he Sages hold that the duty of procreation applies to the male sex since the Biblical text is
speaking of activities that require boldness and aggressiveness. Mastering the earth properly belongs to men, since it

6. 6
Berokah contended that, since both Adam and Eve were made “in our image, after our likeness”
(Genesis 1:26-27), God blessed both, giving both strength for the task, as outlined in Genesis
1:28.5
This conversation comes to an important conclusion: after examining Genesis 1:26-28,
one sees equality among both male and female, where God blessed them and told them to be
fruitful and multiply, not just Adam and not just Eve. Raymond C. Van Leeuwen notes, “Genesis
1:28 is not a commandment, but a blessing. It does not refer to what humans must do to please
God, but what God does for and through humankind. . . . The filling of the Earth is a gift of
God’s wisdom and shows forth his glory as Creator (Ps. 104:24, 31, Isaiah 6:3).”6
Because Adam could not perform this task alone, God formed Eve to provide that help,
that companionship, that one who is suitable. Scripture states that Eve was created because of
Adam’s solitary situation (Gen 2:18). While Eve’s arrival from Adam’s rib achieves numerous
solutions to complete Adam, biologically God provided Eve to make possible their ability to
fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply.” Eve continued this role after the Fall, with
grace extended in that she was allowed to live.7
Anxious Toil and Pain in Childbearing
While equality existed between Adam and Eve, Eve clearly bore the brunt of the pain and
toil regarding childbearing, from the conception of the child until birth. To recognize the gravity
of the consequences of the Fall, one must recognize the nature and roles of Adam and Eve before
involves prowess and relentless expenditure of physical energy. All activities included in the text, since they are
associated with mastery of the earth, thus become functions of masculinity.”
5
Ibid, 48.
6
Raymond C. Van Leeuwen, “Be fruitful and multiply: Is this a command or a blessing?”, Christianity
Today, November 12, 2001, 59-60.
7
Kenneth A. Mathews, Genesis 1-11:26, Vol. 1A: The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman
& Holman, 1996), 249.

7. 7
the Fall where God placed Adam in the garden to subdue and have dominion over the earth. As
equal imagebearers created by God, Adam would provide the seed and Eve would serve as the
vessel for bringing more imagebearers into the world, thereby fulfilling the mutual role of having
dominion and subduing the earth (cf. Genesis 1:28). In this role, “God blessed them.” The word
“blessed” comes from V ַ
‫ר‬ָ‫בּ‬ (barak), which serves as an antithesis for the curses that resulted from
the Fall (Genesis 3). God set Adam and Eve apart for the purpose of bringing other imagebearers
in to continue fulfilling the Creation mandate. This blessing applied to only Adam and Eve and
none other in the created order.
Why was there no blessing extended [to the vegetation]? Obviously a blessing directed
toward the inanimate world would be meaningless since it has no raison d’etre for
independent existence. Once animate life emerged, the Divine blessing could become
operative and meaningful. Vegetation was to serve as food for both man and beast. The
blessings bestowed upon the latter would ultimately redound to plant life which was to
function as the means of sustenance for all living creatures.8
Thus, God intended for Adam and Eve to receive this blessing as imagebearers of God. All of
creation from day one to day five sought to provide our First Parents with all they needed to
fulfill God’s dual role for them—a role assigned to humanity after the worldwide flood of
Genesis 6-8 (Gen 9:1, 7). Eve, and all women who would follow, would serve as the vessel for
bringing more imagebearers into the world to fulfill the mutual role of having dominion and
subduing the earth.
One sees a parallel between the consequences given to Adam and Eve. God commanded
Adam to work and keep the garden, while Eve was provided the privilege and honor of bearing
children. What would now accompany this joy? Pain. Pain in working and keeping the garden
for Adam, pain multiplied in childbirth for Eve,. While the sentencing of Adam lies beyond the
8
Shapiro, 43.

8. 8
scope of this paper, turning the attention toward the episode of the Fall will inform the reason
behind the particular sentencing of Eve.
Genesis 3:16a says, “I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing” (ESV), which
indicates an intensifying of toil and pain that comes not just at the birthing of a child, as the
modern English translations indicate, but throughout the gestational period. Yet, even with the
accompanying toil of the pregnancy, the joy of Eve and all women bringing children into the
world to continue fulfilling the Creation mandate still exists through the graciousness of God.
Jacques van Ruiten takes umbrage with most translations of Genesis 3:16, beginning with
the multiplication of intensity in the act of what many modern translations interpret
“childbearing.” Yet, van Ruiten contends the word ‘ ‫יוֹן‬ ָ
‫ר‬ֵ‫‘ה‬ should be translated as “conception,”
believing that translating this as “childbearing” misses the point because it does not address the
end of pregnancy, but from conception through the entire gestation period as well. He’s not
alone. Carol Meyers concludes, “It would hardly be appropriate to use a word for the pain or
anguish of childbirth in the first part of verse 16b . . . since the second object of this clause is
‘pregnancy’ or ‘conception,’ not ‘birth.’ That is, even if pain were an appropriate description of
the birth process, it is not an accurate or suitable description of pregnancy.”9
When this word
‫רוֹן‬ֵ‫ה‬ (a hapax when alone) is connected with ‫יוֹן‬ ָ
‫ר‬ֵ‫ה‬ (see Hosea 9:11; Ruth 4:13), the term means
“to conceive” or “to become pregnant”—which, van Ruiten believes, gives credence to how this
is more about the beginning than the end of the pregnancy.10
Thus, the modern translation from
the KJV, “Thy sorrow in thy conception,” comes closer to the original Hebrew translation.
9
Carol L. Meyers, “Gender Roles and Genesis 3:16 Revisited,” in Carol L. Meyers and M. O’Connor, eds.,
The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth
Birthday (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983), 345.
10
Jacques Van Ruiten, “Eve’s Pain in Childbearing? Interpretations of Gen 3:16a in Biblical and Early

9. 9
The construction of “I will greatly increase” ( ַ‫ה‬
ְ
‫ר‬
ֵ‫בּ‬
‫ה‬ ) is an infinitive absolute that
emphasizes the gravity of the consequences of Eve’s disobedience. Yet, finding a consensus of
this translation provides a challenge for scholars, as is demonstrated in various English
translations. The traditional interpretation, as found in the New Jewish Publication Society
(NJPS) translation (in accordance with the commonly held opinion in academia), is “I will make
most severe your pangs in childbirth.” 11
Yet, Novick notes that scholars have challenged to this
interpretation. The word ַ‫ה‬
ְ
‫ר‬
ָ֤
‫בּ‬
‫ה‬ is translated “will surely multiply” (ESV, KJV, NASB),
“intensify” (CSB), or “very severe” (NIV). While Genesis 1:28 called for the First Parents to “be
fruitful and multiply” imagebearers, this same word is used in a multiplication and intensity of
pain in the process of the fruitful multiplication in the Creation mandate.
The word translated “pain” in Genesis 3:16 ( ִ‫ﬠ‬
ְ
‫צּ‬
‫ב‬
‫וֹ‬
‫נ‬ ֵ֣) has no other known forms in other
Semitic languages from which translators may draw, yet in the OT this word occurs twice: once
in Genesis 3:17 and then in Genesis 5:29, both dealing with the aspect of toil, specifically “hard
unpleasant work, physically exhausting.”12
God made a seemingly parallel pronouncement
regarding Adam’s sentencing in Genesis 3:17 as Adam is told he will eat from the ground he
cursed “in pain” (ESV; ִ‫ﬠ‬
ָ‫צּ‬
‫ב‬
‫וֹ‬
‫ן‬ ), which deals with anxious toil or hardship—also paralleling the
pain Eve will experience. In Genesis 5:29, when Lamech bore Noah, one sees the Genesis 3
language of cursing in this passage, with a twist: “Out of the ground that the LORD has cursed,
this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands” [emphasis
added]. Noah, the instrument of deliverance of the human race in the midst of God’s judgment,
Jewish Texts,” Eve’s Children: The Biblical Stories Retold and Interpreted in Jewish and Christian Traditions,
Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. (Ed.), http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/mbts-ebooks/detail.action?docID=253620, 4.
11
Tzvi Novick, “Pain and Production in Eden: Some Philological Reflections in Genesis iii 16,” Vetus
Testamentum 58 (2008), 235.
12
Van Ruiten, 5.

10. 10
would provide relief from the “painful toil,” which is the same word used in Genesis 3:16 and
17.
Therefore, the sense of this word is that of ִ‫ﬠ‬
ָ‫צּ‬
‫ב‬
‫וֹ‬
‫ן‬ which comes from toil and hardship. Van
Ruiten notes that, outside Genesis 3:16a, this term is “never related to pregnancy or childbearing,
except in 1 Chron 4:9-10, but this text seems to be an echo of Gen 3:16.”13
In this case, with hard
work and toil, the woman will “bring forth” ( ‫י‬
‫ל‬
‫ד‬ ) children, not simply pain that one would sense
comes from injury, that is, physical pain—though Meyers holds that the root of the above
passage refers to mental or emotional pain rather than physical,14
which is an untenable
conclusion, for both physical and emotional aspects are obviously at play. Curley and Peterson
contend that of the 16 times the word above appears, “all but three depict emotional
pain/grief.”15
These scholars echo others who are working diligently to overturn the centuries-old belief
of largely translating this as physical pain but emphasizing the notion of emotional pain. But
Curley and Peterson note that “both physical and emotional aspects of the curse on humanity
resulting from the fall seem to be implied,” even as they agree with the influential Meyers who
rules out the notion of physical pain altogether.16
If physical pain is not an option here, why did
Jesus Himself speak about the pain regarding childbirth? “When a woman is giving birth, she has
13
Ibid., 5.
14
Carol Meyers, Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context (New York: Oxford Press, 1988),
103-105. Meyers’ translation of Genesis 3:16 demonstrates her leanings: “I will make great your toil and many your
pregnancies; with hardship shall you have children. Your turning tis to your man/husband, and he shall rule/control
you [sexually].” Meyers’ work presented itself prominently in numerous articles on this topic.
15
Christine Curley and Brian Peterson, “Eve’s Curse Revisited: An Increase of ‘Sorrowful Conceptions,’”
Bulletin for Biblical Research 26.2 (2016), 161.
16
Ibid., 160.

11. 11
sorrow because her hour has come, but when she has delivered the baby, she no longer
remembers the anguish, for joy that a human being has been born into the world” (John 16:21).
Physical and emotional pain both play a part in the post-Fall experience of childbearing.
Is this a hendiadys, as E.A. Speiser believes, when he renders this literally as “your pains
and your childbearing” but idiomatically as “your pangs that result from your pregnancy?”17
Novick believes so, arguing for a hendiadys as he translates this, “the shaping of your
conception”18
as does Skinner, who at first acknowledges a strict translation of “I will cause thee
to have much suffering and pregnancy,” only to concede that a hendiadys is in effect, thus
translating this, “the pain of thy conception,” with the latter prepositional phrase serving as an
“explanatory clause which follows.”19
Curley and Peterson address the angle of the sorrow in
conception when women are faced with barrenness.20
Thus, the case is made for this phrase to
serve as a hendiadys.
Speiser and Novick bring to our attention an important distinction: Is the description here
childbirth, pregnancy, or, as a case is made for the term “conception”? This word ‫ה‬
‫ר‬
‫ה‬ is used
previously as translated in Genesis 4:1 as, “Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived
and bore Cain” (cf. 4:7; 16:4, 5, 11; 21:2, among many others). Rather than the typical
renderings found in modern translations dealing with “pain” and “childbearing,” Novick
translates this as “‘the shaping of your conception,’ i.e., the shaping following on your
conception, or, in other words, your gestational period. God is telling Eve that he will lengthen
17
E.A. Speiser, Genesis, Anchor Bible Commentary (Garden City, NY: Yale University Press, 1964), 24.
18
Novick, 238-40.
19
John Skinner, Genesis: International Critical Commentary (Edinburg: T & T. Clark, 1930), 82.
20
Curley and Peterson, 164.

12. 12
the gestational period, so that she will have to endure prolonged pregnancy (an onerous if not
quite painful condition) in addition to birth pangs.”21
One must not miss that, as with the
protoevangelium mentioned in Genesis 3:15 during the curse, the pattern of more joy and grace
is shown in Genesis 3:16a with the blessing of bringing another imagebearer into the world will
still bring joy to the mother.
What Shall the Woman Desire from Her Husband?
Eve’s role was to serve; what the Hebrew notes in Genesis 2:18 as ֵ֫‫ﬠ‬
ֶ‫ז‬
‫ר‬ , (ezer). How does
one understand this role? Translations have interpreted this as “that which is opposite, that which
corresponds; in front of, before; opposite to; contrary, against; on the other side.” These
possibilities have challenged and even confused translators. Yet, modern translations have opted
for “help meet” (KJV), or “helper.” This “helper” is one who ֶ֫‫נ‬‫ֶד‬‫ג‬ ְ
‫כּ‬. The NASB translates this in
the main portion as “suitable to him,” while the ESV translates this “fits to.” Of interest, the
footnotes in both NASB and ESV reference this as “Lit. corresponding to.” Rosenzweig
contends that this translation’s trajectory is that of being “equal to.”22
Does this indicate an equal
complement or a role in which the man was superior in regard to hierarchy? In this regard, this
word on its own does not indicate an inequality between the sexes, but a distinction of roles in
fulfillment of God’s mandate for creation. While Adam exclaimed how the woman was “bone of
my bones and flesh of my flesh” (Genesis 2:23), this speaks of equality given they share the
same race (bone and flesh), but since Eve came from Adam’s bone and flesh (and not vice
versa), the headship role is in play. The apostle Paul brings clarity to the order which God gave:
21
Novick, 241. Later, p. 243, “On the proposed interpretation of Gen. iii 16, the verse alludes to three stages
in the formation of the child: conception, gestation, and birth.”
22
Michael L. Rosenzweig, “A Helper Equal to Him,” Judaism, 35:3 (Sum 1986), 280.

13. 13
For a man . . . is the image and glory of God, but woman is the glory of man. For man
was not made from woman, but woman from man. Neither was man created for woman,
but woman for man. . . . Nevertheless, in the Lord woman is not independent of man nor
man of woman; for as woman was made from man, so man is now born of woman.
And all things are from God (1 Corinthians 11:7-9, 11-12).
Why did Adam need help? Klassen contends: “God's statement ‘it is not good’ is more
likely task-oriented, directed at socioeconomic concerns. It is not good to be alone because the
divinely given task of tilling and keeping the garden (Gen. 2:15) is too big for one person alone.
And if we enlarge the horizons of the divine mandate to include Genesis 1, we see that the task is
quite impossible for one alone.”23
This helps the reader interact with and analyze an often
overlooked aspect—Adam struggled in fulfilling the Creation mandate in solitude. However,
God’s mandate was to “be fruitful and multiply,” bringing more imagebearers into the world to
continue the work. Adam did not find a partner among the animal kingdom with which he could
be “one flesh” intimately, as well as reproduce more imagebearers.
In moving forward with the exegesis of this passage, God told Eve, “Your desire shall be
for your husband” (Genesis 3:16d). The word under scrutiny is ְ
‫תּ‬
֣
‫שׁ‬
‫וּ‬
ָ‫ק‬
‫ת‬ (teshuqah). Susan Foh
notes that three interpretations exist: (1) sexual desire, (2) a willingness to submit and be
enslaved to a man,24
and (3) her desire and her husband’s desire will be the same, with no
command over her own will.25
This section shows the author’s belief that this desire is a sexual
desire for her husband (even though she knows this will bring on the hardship of pregnancy)
even though she will desire to rule over him, thereby bringing conflict on a union originally
intended by God to be one of peace and unity.
23
Randy Klassen, “'Ezer and Exodus,” Direction, 35:1 (2006), 21.
24
Such as that for which Skinner contends. Skinner, 82.
25
Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?”, Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974/75), 376-77.

14. 14
This paper treats this portion of the verse separately from the following phrase (“and he
shall rule over you”) not because of the lack of thematic connection but because this phrase
contains enough distinction to warrant treatment on its own.26
This phrase takes place in the
shadow of the previous one: “in pain you shall bring forth children.” Again, this could not
happen without the husband in the continuance of the Creation mandate. On the one hand, the
oddity of having the hardship of pregnancy and childbirth (or the hardship of the inability to have
children), yet, on the other hand, having this sexual desire for the husband and the joy that
attends that union, would bring about that hardship. The desire that Eve possessed for Adam has
been described as that of “bordering upon disease … to run, to have a violent craving for a
thing.”27
This “stretching out after”28
captures the earnestness with which the woman desires the
man. But in what sense?
Teshuqah is found two other times in the OT. First, in Genesis 4:6–7 where God warned
a furious Cain after God refused to accept his offering, “The LORD said to Cain, ‘Why are you
angry, and why has your face fallen? If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not
do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.’” In
this instance, the “desire” is that of mastery; specifically, that sin is ready to master those with
whom it has set its sights. While the use in Genesis 4:7 leans more toward a negative aspect, the
other use of teshuqah is found in Song of Solomon 7:10: “I am my beloved's, and his desire is
for me.” While some question whether the use in Genesis 3:16 is a positive or a negative
26
Joel N. Lohr, “Sexual Desire? Eve, Genesis 3:16 and ְ
‫תּ‬
֣
‫שׁ‬
‫וּ‬
ָ‫ק‬
‫ת‬ ,” Journal of Biblical Literature 130, no. 2
(2011), 228.”It is clear, however, that the two ideas are intricately related. In fact, all four lines of this verse are
important and should be understood together; it is also clear that this verse cannot be properly understood outside of
the larger context of the Eden story and especially the deity’s other pronouncements upon the man and the serpent.”
27
C.F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, "The Pentateuch: Commentary on the OT in Ten Volumes, Vol. 1," (Grand
Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1955), 103.
28
James Strong, A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and the Hebrew Bible, 8669.

15. 15
dynamic, the use in Song of Solomon possesses “the positive nuance [which] cannot be
challenged.” Longman does provide the commonality between each use: “All three occurrences
express a strong desire, urging, longing.”29
The construction of the phrases in Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 (a mere fifteen verses apart) are
identical in that both passages deal with the issue of mastery over something/someone else. As a
result of this, John MacArthur concludes that these two passages “express the same concept,”
that both are a desire to control.
Sin wants to dominate you. Sin wants to take over your life. ‘But you must master it, you
must rule over it.’ It’s the very same expression. The woman desires to control man and
he rules over her. Sin desires to have you, you must control it. The woman then has the
same desire for the man that sin has for Cain, a desire to control, a desire to have its way.
And the husband has the same need to control his wife that Cain had to control sin.30
Yet, MacArthur leaves out the possibility of how this word could mean sexual desire, as is
indicated in Song of Solomon. The lack of frequency in which this word is found in the OT led
scholars such as Busenitz to pursue the semantic range found during OT times, but only
determined that this range was “unclear.” He goes on to note that, even in the obscurity of the
word origin, “the word may be related historically to the Arabic saqa (which is often used in
context indicating sexual desire) or saqa (which is used in a more general sense of desire).”31
Unclear, indeed, yet even here, how telling it is that both definitions of this word are represented.
David Atkinson provides needed insight into the marital dynamic of what he calls “sexual
complementarity,” which “is very far from being the same thing as male dominance and female
29
Tremper Longman III, Song of Songs: The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand
Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001), 198-99.
30
John MacArthur, “The Curse on the Woman, Part 2,” Grace to You, 90-244,
https://www.gty.org/library/print/sermons-library/90-244.
31
Irvin A. Busenitz, “Woman’s Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered,” Grace Theological Journal
7.2 (1986), 204.

16. 16
subservience. The picture of Eden as we have illustrated repeatedly, is of equality, yet difference.
. . . Genesis 3 gives us a picture of the ruling male and the struggling female—but that is a
description of the distortions caused by sin.”32
Biologically and anatomically, God shows clearly
how the bodies of the man and the woman complement each other as they equally contribute to
the perpetuation of humanity which has now twisted the relationship. Skinner notes that “the
instincts of her nature she shall be bound to the hard conditions of her lot, both the ever-recurring
pains of child-bearing, and [mentioned later] the subjection to the man.”33
As the paper moves forward to an examination of the next phrase, revisiting Susan Foh’s
influential 1974 journal article previously cited will be helpful. Foh concluded that “the desire of
the woman in Genesis 3:16b does not make the wife (more) submissive to her husband so that he
may rule over her. Her desire is to contend with him for leadership in their relationship. This
desire is a result of and a just punishment for sin, but it is not God's decretive will for the
woman. Consequently, the man must actively seek to rule his wife.”34
According to Shapiro, the
Talmud agrees with Foh that the woman pursuing the man is “not in harmony with the essential
or ideal character of a woman.”35
The trait with which the woman will struggle is that of
32
Atkinson, 73.
33
Skinner, 83.
34
Foh, 383. “Sin has corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the
husband. The woman's desire is to control her husband (to usurp his divinely appointed headship), and he must
master her, if he can. So, the rule of love founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny and domination”
(382).
35
Talmud, Kiddushim 2b, interpreting Deuteronomy 22:13. Quoted by Shapiro, 49. “Why is it written:
“When a man will take a wife,” and not vice-versa “When a woman will be taken by a man?” Because normally a
man seeks after a wife and it is not normal for a woman to seek after a husband; whoever loses an article goes out in
search for it.

17. 17
modesty, and the trait with which man will struggle is that of timidity.36
Genesis 3:16 seems to combine both positive and negative aspects in the sentencing. In
one sense, Eve’s failure to bring Adam into the picture when questioned by the serpent brought
about the temptation to dominate and have mastery over her husband. Yet there is also an
understanding that, in the shadow of how Eve would have pain in childbirth, she would still
sexually desire her husband, which would bring about the sorrow that comes with pregnancy.
But He Shall Rule Over You
Approaching this portion of Genesis 3:16 (“… but he shall rule over you”), the question
arises as to whether this sentencing of the new dynamic between Adam and Eve indicates the
nature of the “rule” over her (‫משׁל‬ ‫ל‬ ָ‫שׁ‬ ְ
‫מ‬ִ‫)י‬. For instance, is the “rule” for her husband or her desire
for her husband; that is, the domination of the husband over the wife37
, or her sexual desire for
the husband even in the midst of this dominion dynamic? Along with this, is Genesis 3:16b
prescriptive of how every other couple must act or is it descriptive in an objective way of how
the relationships will transpire?
The word “rule” comes from the Hebrew root ‫משׁל‬ , which contains various translations
throughout the OT, but the word used in the context of the relationship described between Adam
and Eve is unique in all the OT.38
This adds to the challenge of determining whether the usual
translation and understanding of this passage (“he shall rule over you”) holds up under exegetical
36
Shapiro, 49. “The institution of Shadkhanut developed in Jewish life testifies to the extent of modesty
achieved by our people, that even young men were not possessed of the aggressiveness required to seek out a mate.
The right of the father to betroth his minor daughter (Ketubot 45b) may have similar grounds.”
37
K.H. Schelkle, The Spirit and the Bride: Woman in the Bible (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979),
16. Schkele minces no words in regards “The wife now is subject to her husband as to a master, and the woman even
submits to and desires this humiliating relationship.”
38
John J. Schmitt, “Like Eve, Like Adam: msl in Gen 3,16,” Biblica, 72 no 1 1991, 17.

18. 18
scrutiny. As mentioned previously, Adam and Eve serve a dual role in fulfilling the mandate of
being fruitful and multiplying by taking care of the earth and bearing more imagebearers to
continue that role. The Fall sullied each relationship, the relationship between the Creator and
creature, and the relationship between these two human beings equally created in His image to
fulfill different roles. Berel dov Lerner laments the consequences of the Fall in this regard: “The
proper order of things has been completely overturned. Nature, which was created to serve
mankind, rebels against man’s authority. Woman, who was to be man’s equal, becomes
subservient to man.”39
Schmitt echoes other scholars when he notes, “Because Adam is never depicted as ruler
over Eve in scenes subsequent to God’s speech to Eve, Gen [3:7-8] is not a proper parallel to the
problem text.”40
Ruler? No, yet God communicated to Adam (not both) when they hid from God
soon after eating the fruit (Gen 3:8-13). God made Eve out of Adam (Gen 2:18-25). God allowed
Adam to name Eve (Gen 3:20). God’s design for Adam as head of this relational unity continued,
with the dynamics of this relationship tinged post-Fall. As Atkinson rightly notes, “This is not a
divine prescription of what should be, but a description in the fallen world of what we will be.”41
At this point, the man will be tempted to pursue a tyrannical role in ruling harshly over his wife.
In turn, the woman will be tempted to pursue a headship over the man rather than that which
helps the man. Therefore, as a result of the man stepping outside God’s pre-Fall intention of his
role, the woman will reciprocate in working to rule over him.
As such, Vasholz offers insight into how the woman will persevere in this arena of
marriage and motherhood, in spite of the difficulties each brings, contending that what will rule
39
Berel Dov Lerner, “And He Shall Rule Over Thee,” Judaism (Fall 1998), 448.
40
Schmitt, 14.
41
Atkinson, 94.

19. 19
over the woman is not the man, but her internal desire and affection for the man. “Because of her
affection toward him, she will be willing to endure the suffering in childbearing in spite of the
pain childbearing brings. Her desire toward him will afford her the strength to prevail.”42
He
provides valid insight in how the woman (and the man) tinged by the Fall will seek to satisfy
their own selfish whims rather than pursue in selfless love the interests of their mates. Yet, this
seems a stretch, for does not desire have an object? One need not separate the connection
between the internal desire toward, in this case, an external person (particularly, her husband).
Wider Theological Implications
The implications of the exegesis of Genesis 3:16 have a ripple effect reaching to the far
corners of their respective spheres of influence. Lohr is correct that this verse is “a problem not
only for faith communities that hold the Bible as Scripture, but also for the larger world and its
social order. . . . The potential for this verse to be used for oppressive means should not be
underestimated.”43
While this interpretation is certainly a problem, the other problem lies in
taking issue with any interpretation in the NT or otherwise that hints at any distinction between
the genders.
For example, in the NT in Matthew 19:3-6, Jesus responded to a question by the
Pharisees regarding divorce in an attempt to snare Him. While the Pharisees’ view of divorce
stemmed from the rule of the husband who could divorce his wife for any reason (19:3), Jesus
quoted directly from Genesis 1:27 and Genesis 2:24. Here, Jesus affirmed the continuation in the
42
Robert I. Vasholz, “’He (?) Will Rule Over You’: A Thought on Genesis 3:16,” Presbyterion Covenant
Summary Review 20/1 (1994) 51-52. “In my view the clause usually translated ‘he will rule over you’ should be
translated ‘and that will rule you.’ The antecedent of ‘he’ is not the ‘husband’ as is so commonly understood, but
‘your desire.’ The ‘your desire’ is the woman's affection for her husband.
43
Lohr, 227.

20. 20
New Covenant era that the Creation mandate is still in effect. To the dismay of the Pharisees, he
did not feed the notion of men having every right and women having no rights.
Likewise, the apostle Paul took the themes from both pre- and post-Fall and interpreted
them by the Holy Spirit to understand the roles of home and church. Ephesians 5:21-33 outlines
not only the roles of the wife and husband, but also how the marriage is a picture of the church’s
relationship to Christ. Ephesians 5:21 tells everyone (both men and women) to submit “to one
another out of reverence for Christ.” From 5:22-33, Paul showed what this mutual submission
looked like in bringing Christian marriages under God’s leadership. While the wives are to
submit to their husbands because “the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head
of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior” (Eph 5:23), husbands, in turn, are commanded
to love their wives “as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her” (Eph 5:25). In Eph
5:31, the apostle quoted Genesis 2:24.
In another passage, 1 Corinthians 7:1-5, Paul answered a question from the Corinthian
church about whether men should or should not have sexual relations with a woman—the church
concluded that they should not! Paul answered that the sexual urges lead to temptation. Thus,
marriage will help in keeping those urges within God’s design. Paul then showed the equality
that exists in this area of a marriage: “The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights,
and likewise the wife to her husband. For the wife does not have authority over her own body,
but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the
wife does” (1 Cor 7:3-4). Even with the different roles of man and woman, Paul sought to bring
marriages back into the pre-Fall design where, through the gospel, one realizes that our bodies
are not our own, but belong to God ultimately (1 Cor 6:19-20).
Before moving to the church, the apostle Peter addresses the roles of the husband and

21. 21
wife in 1 Peter 3:1-7. The first six verses address the roles of the wives, which echoes Paul’s
words in being “subject to your own husbands,” but with an evangelistic tone, “so that even if
some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives,
when they see your respectful and pure conduct” (3:1-2). Peter echoes Paul in a passage for
upcoming discussion about their beauty being found in a “gentle and quiet spirit” rather than
outward adornment (3:3-4), as Sarah exemplified in her relationship to Abraham (3:5-6).
As for husbands (3:7), the call to understanding and honoring the woman as “the weaker
vessel” indicates a weakness physically even as she shares an inheritance of grace through the
gospel. Dan Doriani notes, “Physically, she is probably weaker, but spiritually she is a joint heir
of grace. At minimum, husbands must never bully, threaten, or strike their wives, nor should they
demean their wives for being weak or slow-footed. Marriage is a union of two weak and sinful
people, even if we are weak and sinful in different ways.”44
Thus, even with the distinction of
roles, the equality of their status as imagebearers of God and as ones who are co-heirs with Jesus,
the NT gospel restores the pre-Fall roles and relationships of the husband and wife.
Regarding the Church, the apostle Paul applied the lessons he saw, by the inspiration of
the Holy Spirit, to determine the order of authority in the church. In 1 Timothy 2:11-15, Paul
interacted with the Creation narrative in Genesis 2 (pre-Fall) and Genesis 3 (post-Fall). When
Paul commanded Timothy to make sure that women learned “quietly with all submissiveness”
(v. 11) but they were not allowed to “teach or to exercise authority over a man” (v. 12), the
rationale behind this is in verses 13-15: “For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was
not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved
through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” Paul, an
44
Daniel M. Doriani, 1 Peter: Reformed Expository Commentary (Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2014),
119.

22. 22
expert in the law (Philippians 3:2-6), exegeted this passage to show the heading of Adam (v. 13)
and how Eve was deceived (v. 14). Eve, in turn, owned her culpability by recognizing her
deception by the serpent. “The serpent deceived me, and I ate” (3:13). The word deceived comes
from the root ָ‫נ‬
ָ‫שׁ‬
‫א‬ , which can deal with “lend on interest, or usury” which connects with an act of
beguiling or deception. When the word ἐξαπατάω is used in the NT (cf. 1 Timothy 2:14), this
refers to “an element of ignorance on the part of the deceived.” Mbamalu contends that, given
that deception comes as a consequence of someone’s actions or as a result of the motive of the
deceiver, Eve succumbed as a result of the latter reason.45
Not everyone agrees with this interpretation. As noted in a previous paper, some even
accuse the apostle Paul of “not doing sober exegesis of the creation account,” but believe he is
reading from his own “culturally conservative position on the basis of texts that seem to him to
support the greater dignity and intelligence of the male and, therefore, the need for women to be
subordinate to men at public functions.”46
Rebecca Groothuis goes further:
We should not believe that the ancient Hebrew language was an expression of patriarchal
culture. We cannot conclude, simply because the Bible was written under divine
inspiration, that the languages in which the Bible was written were themselves created
under divine inspiration. These languages were as male centered as the cultures they
reflected and by which they were created. The fact that certain words in a language can
be used to refer either to a male human or to humans in general reflects cultural concepts
of gender; it says nothing about God’s view of gender. 47
45
Abiola I. Mbamalu, “’The woman was deceived and became a sinner’—a literary theological
investigation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70 (3), Art. #2062, 2.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v70i3.2062, 6
46
Luke Timothy Johnson, Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity
Press International, 1996), 141.
47
Rebecca Groothuis, Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality (Grand Rapids, MI:
Baker, 1997), 24.

23. 23
Groothuis’ argument is a case of special pleading. While a case could be made for male-
dominated languages in male-dominated societies, could not the Spirit who divinely inspired the
Scriptures use the languages at hand to communicate God’s mandates as He did at Pentecost
(Acts 2:1-13)? To use this argument to make the sweeping statement that the languages say
nothing about God’s view of gender, along with her view of the Bible being divinely inspired
even as the words are not, is startling!
In closing, the denomination of the writer is the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC). In
1997, the SBC made a motion to revise The Baptist Faith and Message (1963). The revision
included an article on the family, reflecting the views of most Southern Baptists regarding the
biblical dynamics between husband and wife, and between parents and children. The dynamics
of marriage are, according to the BF&M, “the framework for intimate companionship, the
channel of sexual expression according to biblical standards, and the means for procreation of
the human race.” Of note, this document affirms that “the husband and wife are of equal worth
before God, since both are created in God’s image,” all the while affirming the man’s leadership
and the woman’s submission and help to the leadership of the husband. The document connects
each responsibility to the union between Christ and His church (Ephesians 5:22-33).48
The curse of sin and death entered the world as a result of the actions of Adam and Eve.
Charles Spurgeon (1834-1892) encapsulated the problem: “The fall of man was most disastrous
48
“XVIII. The Family,” The Baptist Faith & Message: A Statement Adopted by the Southern Baptist
Convention June 14, 2000 (Nashville: LifeWay Church Resources, 2000), 21. The commentary of this article, found
at http://www.sbc.net/bfm2000/bfm2000.asp states, “The family was defined by God as the foundational institution
of human society. From the beginning, God has used the family as the primary classroom and as the foremost object
lesson for teaching His people about Himself and for challenging them to the holy lifestyle He demands. Before
there were civil governments or assemblies of worship, God established the home by creating the man and the
woman and bringing them together in the Garden of Eden to engage in spiritual ministry through companionship,
dominion, procreation, and worship.”

24. 24
in its results to our entire being. ‘In the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die,’ was no
idle threat; for Adam did die the moment that he transgressed the command—he died the great
spiritual death by which all his spiritual powers became then and evermore, until God should
restore them, absolutely dead.”49
The effects of the Fall would affect everyone, includin their
children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and so forth on to today. Only by one of their
children generations later would rescue from this great curse be procured.
For if, because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more
will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in
life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for
all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by
the one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience
the many will be made righteous (Romans 5:17-19).
Christ fulfilled the mandate that Adam could not. Christ reversed the curse that Adam
and Eve brought into His world. Even so, the world is still under a curse awaiting its redemption
(Romans 8:18-25). The consequences of the actions of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden that
day had repercussions on family life (specifically, that of parenting and the dynamics of the
marriage union itself).
49
Spurgeon, Charles H. “Eyes Opened,” MTP:12, 681.

25. 25
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The Baptist Faith & Message: A Statement Adopted by the Southern Baptist Convention June 14,
2000. Nashville: LifeWay Church Resources, 2000.
Atkinson, David. The Message of Genesis 1-11: The Bible Speaks Today. Downers Grove:
InterVarsity Press, 1990.
Brueggemann, Walter. Genesis. Louisville, KY: John Knox Press, 1982.
Busenitz, Irvin A. “Woman’s Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered.” Grace Theological
Journal 7.2 (1986), 203-12.
Curley, Christine and Brian Peterson, “Eve’s Curse Revisited: An Increase of ‘Sorrowful
Conceptions,’” Bulletin for Biblical Research 26.2 (2016), 157-72.
Currid, John D. “Genesis,” The Gospel Promised: A Biblical-Theological Introduction to the Old
Testament, Miles V. Van Pelt, Ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016.
Doriani, Daniel M. 1 Peter: Reformed Expository Commentary. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R
Publishing, 2014.
Foh, Susan T. “What is the Woman’s Desire?” Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974/75),
376-83.
Groothuis, Rebecca. Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality. Grand
Rapids, MI: Baker, 1997.
Johnson, Luke Timothy. Letters to Paul’s Delegates: 1 Timothy, 2 Timothy, Titus. Harrisburg,
PA: Trinity Press International, 1996.
Keil, C.F. and F. Delitzsch. "The Pentateuch: Commentary on the OT in Ten Volumes, Vol. 1."
Grand Rapids, MI: Wm B. Eerdmans, 1955.
Klassen, Randy. “'Ezer and Exodus,” Direction, 35:1 (2006), 18-32.
Lerner, Berel Dov. “And He Shall Rule Over Thee.” Judaism (Fall 1998), 446-49.
Lohr, John N. “Sexual Desire? Eve, Genesis 3:16 and ְ
‫תּ‬
֣
‫שׁ‬
‫וּ‬
ָ‫ק‬
‫ת‬ .” Journal of Biblical Literature 130,
no. 2 (2011), 227-46.
Longman III, Tremper. Song of Songs: The New International Commentary on the Old
Testament. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2001.
John MacArthur. “The Curse on the Woman, Part 2.” Grace to You, 90-244.
https://www.gty.org/library/print/sermons-library/90-244.

26. 26
Mathews, Kenneth A. Genesis 1-11:26, Vol. 1A: The New American Commentary. Nashville:
Broadman & Holman, 1996.
Mbamalu, Abiola I. “‘The woman was deceived and became a sinner’—a literary theological
investigation of 1 Timothy 2:11-15,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 70 (3),
Art. #2062, 2. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/hts.v70i3.2062, 1-7.
Meyers, Carol L. “Gender Roles and Genesis 3:16 Revisited,” in Carol L. Meyers and M.
O’Connor, eds. The Word of the Lord Shall Go Forth: Essays in Honor of David Noel
Freedman in Celebration of his Sixtieth Birthday. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1983.
________. Discovering Eve: Ancient Israelite Women in Context. New York: Oxford
Press, 1988.
Novick, Tzvi. “Pain and Production in Eden: Some Philological Reflections in Genesis iii 16,”
Vetus Testamentum 58 (2008), 235-44.
Rosenzweig, Michael L. “A Helper Equal to Him,” Judaism, 35:3 (Sum 1986), 277-280.
Schelkle, K.H. The Spirit and the Bride: Woman in the Bible. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press,
1979.
Schmitt, John J. “Like Eve, Like Adam: msl in Gen 3,16.” Biblica 72:1 (1991), 1-22.
Shapiro, David. “Be Fruitful and Multiply,” Tradition: A Journal of Orthodox Thought, 13:4
(1973), 42-67.
Skinner, John. Genesis: International Critical Commentary. Edinburg: T & T. Clark, 1930.
Speiser, E.A. Genesis, Anchor Bible Commentary. Garden City, NY: Yale University Press,
1964.
Spurgeon, Charles H. “Eyes Opened,” MTP:12, 681.
Strong, James. A Concise Dictionary of the Words in the Greek Testament and the Hebrew Bible,
8669.
Talmud, Kiddushim 2b, interpreting Deuteronomy 22:13. https://www.sefaria.org/
Deuteronomy.22.23?lang=bi&aliyot=0.
Van Leeuwen, Raymond C. “Be fruitful and multiply: Is this a command or a blessing?”
Christianity Today, November 12, 2001, 59-61.
Van Ruiten, Jacques. “Eve’s Pain in Childbearing? Interpretations of Gen 3:16a in Biblical and

27. 27
Early Jewish Texts,” Eve’s Children: The Biblical Stories Retold and Interpreted in
Jewish and Christian Traditions, Luttikhuizen, Gerard P. (Ed.), 3-26.
Vasholz, Robert I. “’He (?) Will Rule Over You’: A Thought on Genesis 3:16.” Presbyterion
Covenant Summary Review 20/1 (1994) 51-52.