An egalitarian interpretation of the woman's curse

The first 3 chapters of Genesis profoundly impact on the rest of Scripture. Many discussions of other passages of Scripture hinge on what Genesis means. Previously I have written on the curse placed on the woman in Eden. The conclusion was that the curse could mean

1. Your desire is against your husband [curse] but he is to lead you [right action]; or
2. Your desire will be against your husband [curse] and he will dominate you [curse].

With the first seeming more likely.

This is based on the parallel between the phraseology in Genesis 3 and 4.

To the woman he said,

“I will greatly increase your pain in conception;
in pain you shall bear children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3)

And Yahweh said to Cain,

“Why are you angry, and why is your face fallen?
If you do well will I not accept you?
But if you do not do well,
sin is crouching at the door.
And its desire is for you,
but you must rule over it.” (Genesis 4)

Others have pointed to the use of "desire" in Canticles.

I belong to my beloved,
and he desires me!

This is a positive use of the term desire, though desire need not be intrinsically positive. The context can show whether a term is positive or negative, as seen by the use in Genesis 4. But if "desire" is being used in a positive sense in Genesis 3, how can we make sense of it?

If the passage should be translated, "Your desire will be toward your husband", then the curse is in him ruling over her in a way that was not intended. Taking a cue from Canticles: the man desires his wife. It may be prior to the Fall that man desired his wife much in the way that Solomon desires the Shullamite. Canticles is an example of the pre-Fall situation. God created man to desire his wife and a wife to desire her husband. The curse is then the change in attitude of the man from desiring his wife to dominating his wife, all while she maintains her desire.

“I will greatly increase your pain in conception;
in pain you shall bear children.
Your desire will [continue to] be for your husband,
and he [will no longer desire you but instead he] shall rule over you.

This interpretation is more egalitarian.

Although this interpretation is worth contemplating, there are a couple of potential difficulties.

1. The curse on the woman is God forming a sinful attitude in the man.
2. Men seem to desire women generally, and sexual desire in a man for his wife may be greater than her sexual desire.

The first is of some concern as it could suggest that sin in more of a male problem. It is not uncommon in the modern West to blame men for their failings as being intrinsic to them, and to excuse women for their failings as being reactions to sinful situations extrinsic to them. While external factors do come into play, externalising our failures and not acknowledging them as our sin is unbiblical. Also, by making the problem one of a husband's domineering attitude it may imply that difficulties within marriage are predominantly due to husbands.

The second is not so much concerning but rather it does not seem to match reality. Men often (though not always) sexually desire their wives more than the other way around. To resolve this one could argue for a desire of women to be cared and protected. This may be true but it removes the connection to Canticles which has a strong romantic and sexual overlay.

The Fall: Man

God cursed the man last

Because you have listened to the voice of your wife
and have eaten of the tree
of which I commanded you,
‘You shall not eat of it,’
cursed is the ground because of you;
in pain you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
and you shall eat the plants of the field.
By the sweat of your face
you shall eat bread,
till you return to the ground,
for out of it you were taken;
for you are dust,
and to dust you shall return.

God rebukes the man for listening to his wife. It may be suggested that this interpretation is a problem in itself; rebuking listening would seem to conflict with other Scripture where women give wise advice, consider Abigail and Deborah. A possibility is that this a rebuke for listening and doing as she suggested, that is obeying his wife. There may be some credence to this view as it seems that Adam knew his action was rebellious. The curse hints at this and Paul distinguishes the behaviour of the man and woman in his letter to Timothy.

Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived (1 Timothy 2)

Though perhaps the rebuke is because he listened to his wife over God's explicit command. Paraphrased

You listened to your wife and did as she said,
but I said not to do this.

Therefore the possibilities for the rebuke to the man are

1. Listening to his wife (heeding her opinion rather than just listening to God)
2. Obeying his wife
3. Obeying his wife over a direct command from God otherwise

The first is unlikely, the third is true regardless, and the second is a possibility as to the meaning here.

Understanding this preamble to the curse may give us insight into how the state of affairs were between husband and wife before the Fall. Although pre-Fall relationship can be garnered from other passages which then aids us in interpreting this verse.

The curse God gave to the man affected his work and his life. Work is not a result of the Fall, rather toil is.

God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth." And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed that is on the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit. You shall have them for food. And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." (Genesis 1)

Dominion over the earth was given to the man and the woman. While such dominion involved more than the provision of food, it would take work. Provision of food perhaps could be seen as merely sustenance in the face of the command to fill the earth and subdue it.

Though working the earth was still a significant component of the subduing,

The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. (Genesis 2)

In the same way that filling the earth with people became difficult thru the curse on the woman, subduing it became difficult because just the provision of food was now toilsome.

The curse of the ground is seen as the fault of the man. God says, "Because of you..." Is there a hint of a necessity here? The only appropriate response from God was to curse the land. Not cursing was not a possibility, there were no other options.

The word pain (`itstsabown) is repeated here. The woman has pain in childraising, the man has pain in provision of food. Eating being a metonymy; it is not the eating that is painful, it is the growing of food to eat. The sweat on the brow shows that these are not just nuisances, they are a very burdensome toil.

The curse has a passive and active component. The soil would not produce food easily, and the soil would produce harmful vegetation.

And the end of it all? Death. The poetical irony, man was made from dust, yet animated by God's Spirit. But at the end of his days he will become mere dust again. God's warning came to pass,

but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for when you eat of it you shall surely die.

Significant passages on suffering

To come to a right perspective on suffering one needs to understand 3 significant passages of Scripture. There may be more but at minimum there are 3 aspects it would do well to fully comprehend. The 3 passages are found in Genesis, Job, and the Gospels.

1. Genesis 1-3 gives us the nature of the created world and the Fall of man.
2. Job discusses the suffering of the righteous.
3. The Gospels, especially the latter aspects of them, teaches us about redemption of suffering.

So the passages cover the:

1. Reason suffering exists;
2. Righteous suffering; and
3. Redemption of suffering.

The 3 passages primarily address each of these, though they also give us insight into the other 2.

Genesis
The world was broken by man when he choose disobedience over life. The world created perfect is now flawed as a result of Adam's sin. The choice to eat what they were forbidden to brought sin, suffering and death into this world. The entire universe suffered as a result of man's disobedience. All suffering came after this event and is caused by it. It is unlikely people can overestimate how great was our fall from grace. It is imperative to grasp that no sadness, pain or death existed in the world before the Fall; and that all suffering resulted from it.

Job
While the suffering of the wicked may appear consistent with justice, the suffering of the righteous seems unfair. And while all men are sinners, including Job, suffering is frequently not the result of personal sin. The innocent frequently suffer because of others. This strikes us as extremely unjust. The story of Job addresses this and teaches us that, contrary Job's friend's advice, the righteous do suffer. There is much to learn from Job including that suffering can do good. Not that suffering is good, rather it can produce good; God brings good out of evil, sometimes greater good than would have been had the evil not occurred, but woe to him who brings about evil (Mar 9:42; Rom 6:1-2).

Gospels
Jesus is the quintessential example of the righteous sufferer. The 3 aspects mentioned above occur in these and other passages. However we also learn about God's redemption of suffering. The death and resurrection of Jesus an enormous good out of such a horrendous evil. And God used it to redeem us. The death and resurrection work against the very core of suffering and removes it. It allows for God to completely do away with suffering. Sin, suffering, evil, sadness, pain and death itself are on their way out and will be no more.

A bent in our hearts

It has been said that the Fall of Man is the one doctrine of Christianity which is evidently true. It is certainly important and foundational to Christian theology. Yet I think it is misused by some believers to imply that all actions are intrinsically evil.

Jeremiah tells us the heart is deceitful

The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it? (Jeremiah 17:9)

And Jesus called his interlocutors evil (Luk 11:13). Yet I have seen this used to argue that people do not seek the best for others, or look for the best in others.

I once said to an unbelieving friend that I think people are intrinsically evil, yet I look for the best in them; and that she thought people were intrinsically good, yet looks for the worse in them. She affirmed this assessment. This illustrates an important distinction that is often missed.

This distinction may be described as the difference between ontic-evil and praxic-evil. The Fall established a bent in our hearts. We desire wrong things, our motives are mixed, we reason incorrectly at times, we rationalise, we justify ourselves. The essence of being is broken and evil dwells there. Ontic-evil.

Yet we are also made in God's image. This image remains—though marred. So while we struggle against base desires not everything we do is intrinsically evil. Men do righteous acts. Moreover, some men are called righteous by their constant choice to do good.

Even the passages in Jeremiah and Luke establish this. Jeremiah says,

“Blessed is the man who trusts in the Lord,
whose trust is the Lord.
He is like a tree planted by water,
that sends out its roots by the stream,
and does not fear when heat comes,
for its leaves remain green,
and is not anxious in the year of drought,
for it does not cease to bear fruit.”
The heart is deceitful above all things,
and desperately sick;
who can understand it?
“I the Lord search the heart
and test the mind [lit. arm],
to give every man according to his ways,
according to the fruit of his deeds.” (Jeremiah 17:7-10)

Despite having an evil heart a man can trust the Lord. God tests our mind to see if we act rightly; literally "arm" which may suggest God looks at what we do. Jesus specifically says that evil men can do good actions, indicating how much more will a good God do good things.

What father among you, if his son asks for a fish, will instead of a fish give him a serpent; or if he asks for an egg, will give him a scorpion? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him!” (Luke 11:11-13)

It is false to claim that all our actions are evil because we are intrinsically evil. We can wish for the best for others, we can act selflessly at times; and to assume that our friend or spouse wishes the best for us is not a denial of the fallen state of man.

Some may argue that we are saved by faith not works thus our acts are not truly righteous. And what are we to make of Isaiah's declaration?

We are all like one who is unclean,
all our righteous acts are like a menstrual rag. (Isaiah 64:6)

Taking Isaiah first, it is likely he is talking to the unrighteous, or those who are doing unrighteous things. Even this man's "righteous" acts are not righteous. Compare God's disposition to the righteous man earlier in this passage,

You meet him who joyfully works righteousness,
those who remember you in your ways. (Isaiah 64:5)

As to salvation by faith, this is true. Belief is righteousness

Abraham believed God, and it was counted to him as righteousness. (Romans 4:3)

A man who trusts God is indeed righteous. We have faith in God and God saves us. We still do works of righteousness, the issue is not that we don't work, it is that we don't earn (Eph 2:10; Tit 3:5). Remembering the distinction between ontic-evil and praxic-evil, we do good works but our nature remains fallen. As such, no amount of good works (praxic-good) are able to remove the sinful nature (ontic-evil). The core of our being needs to be made righteous.

People, believers and unbelievers alike, do all manner of righteous and unrighteous acts. It is false to claim that humans never do right things, even when viewed from God's perspective. But we are all sinful at the centre of of being, we all need a saviour.

The Fall: Woman

The curse on the woman is the shortest of the 3 curses containing 4 lines. God says to the woman,

I will greatly multiply your pain in conception;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you. (Genesis 3)

The words for "pain" here are not identical, though they derive from the same root. Pain (`itstsabown) in conception; pain (`etseb) in bearing. I am not certain anything can be made of this difference, rather they are synonyms used in a poetic parallelism. Conception is not generally painful so we have a synecdoche for pregnancy, childbirth, and child-rearing. Translators frequently replace conception with childbirth, though it may be preferable to consider the more expansive inclusion suggested here.

There is much debate over the meaning of the second half of this curse. Much of the meaning is dependant on the semantics of the word "for." Does it mean "toward" or "against"? The meanings are quite different in themselves and the implication of the last line of the curse is dependant on which meaning is chosen.

• Your desire shall be toward your husband
• Your desire shall be against your husband

Both meanings are apparently linguistically possible. Because of this it is best to leave the translation with the ambiguity, ie. use the word "for". The only slight problem with this is that in English "for" tends to favour the positive interpretation, ie. toward. A footnote is therefore helpful with the mention of both interpretations.

Advocates for the first interpretation note that "desire" in Song of Solomon is a positive noun.

I am my beloved's,
and his desire is for me. (Song of Solomon 7)

Thus it is viewed that the woman has a positive, probably sexual, desire toward her husband.

There are a couple of difficulties with this view.

Firstly, how is positive desire or sexual desire a curse?

Prior to the Fall the woman would have had both a positive desire toward her husband as well as a sexual desire. So these are neither new phenomena nor curses.

Secondly, the comment that the man will rule over her does not seem to fit this reading.

To maintain this interpretation one must regard the 3rd line as merely descriptive in order to introduce the curse of the last line: the man ruling over the woman.

You will still desire your husband [status quo] but he will now rule over you [curse].

Advocates of the alternative interpretation—that "for" means "against"—point to the other use of "desire" in Genesis 4. In its favour is the fact that the 2 phrases share a similar construction. Cain is angry that God doesn't accept his offering. God says 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 for you,/
but you must rule over it.

Here the word "for" clearly has a negative connotation. Sin's desire is not positively toward Cain, rather it is negatively against Cain; sin desires to have or dominate Cain. The command to Cain is that he must rule over sin. This is not a negative command to Cain, it is stating the right response to the problem.

Thus some commentators would see the curse on the woman as a desire to control her husband. The comment that the man will rule over her is not necessarily part of the curse; rather paralleling Genesis 4 it would be the appropriate corrective.

Your desire is against your husband [curse] but he is to lead you [right action].

One may suggest that because the word for "rule" can mean "dominate", there may be a tendency for men to dominate as part of this curse.

Your desire will be against your husband [curse] and he will dominate you [curse]

A minor quibble with this last interpretation is that the curse is directed at the woman not the man. However one could argue that the curse on the man at the end (death) also applies to the woman, though this is perhaps indirectly thru his federal headship.

The Fall: The Snake

The true identity of the snake is beyond the animal world. While I think that a literal snake was involved in the deception, the narrative reads like another being is speaking thru the reptile. This is made clear in the fact that a snake is speaking. Language is not the domain of animals and utterances of animals must come from cognitional beings. This other identity is also seen in the curse which mentions enmity between the snake and the woman. The implication in Genesis is made explicit by John in Revelation where he identifies the snake as Satan.

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. (Revelation 12)

And he seized the dragon, that ancient serpent, who is the devil and Satan, (Revelation 20)

The snake was a tool in the hand of Satan; it was Satan who was deceiving the woman to entice her into sin.

Now when confronting the man about his sin, God gives him an opportunity to answer, as God does for the woman. But the snake gets no opportunity to speak further. It seems that judgment had already been decided in the angelic realm. Jesus informs us that hell was created for the devil and his angels, it was not initially intended for man.

Then [the King] will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. (Matthew 25)

God then pronounces curses in the order of the events: the snake, the woman, the man. God says to the snake

“Because you have done this,
cursed are you above all livestock
and above all beasts of the field;
on your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and her offspring;
he shall bruise your head,
and you shall bruise his heel.”

The first part of this curse seems to be directed at the animal itself. A comparison is made to livestock and beasts of the field, the latter being the group that snakes belonged to. And a description is given of the mode of locomotion for snakes. God possibly cursed the animal directly to stand as a memorial to the events in Eden. Though the question arises as to whether there is a dual meaning to this part of the curse. If this is the case then as the snake is cursed above all animals so Satan receives a curse greater than any man or angel. As the snake is humiliated—by moving on its belly and dwelling amongst the dust—so Satan will be humiliated beyond all others.

The second half of the curse more clearly targets the possessor of the snake. These words are well recognised as the defeat of Satan by a descendant of the woman, it is labelled the protoevangelium: the first pronouncement of the gospel.

The enmity is between the snake and the woman as well as between the seed (offspring) of the woman and the seed of the snake. Seed is singular here. Linguistically it could be a collective singular, though note Galatians 3:16. However the conflict is also shown to be between the snake and the woman's seed. The next line contrasts the earlier one by mentioning the seed bruising the snake directly, ie. not his seed.

Head is a metaphor for leader. The offspring of the woman shall defeat the snake's rulership. The metaphor of the heel suggesting complete defeat, the heel is above the head, the lowest part of the seed is above the highest part of the snake; the offspring will ultimately and completely rule (compare Psa 110:1). The bruising of the offspring's heel reveals that this conquest will come at some cost.

Although there is not an exhaustive explanation of the gospel here, there are clues in the text that the enticer of the Fall was to be defeated by a descendant of the woman.

The Fall: Introduction

It is difficult to understand the Christian worldview without an adequate understanding of the Fall of man. Christianity claims to be the true explanation of the universe. It is therefore difficult for anyone to understand the world without an a right knowledge of the Fall.

General revelation reveals we live in a broken world. Physical decay and destruction are illustrative of this. Deterioration of human life and then death itself points to it. Our sense of morality shows us that we are aware their is a right way to live, even if we misunderstand the exact specifics of such morality. Our behaviour and our conscience show us that we are failing to live this morality correctly. While very instructive, this knowledge is extremely limited. We perceive the effects but cannot appreciate why the world is how we perceive it. For this we need special (ie. specific) revelation. We need an observer of the events that led to our current situation. Scripture gives us this revelation. Clues are found thru-out the Bible with a thorough account of the history in the early chapters of Genesis.

Summarising early Genesis: God created the universe and everything in it. Mankind was given dominion over the earth. Everything that existed was good and no sin had entered the world. God created an pleasant environment for people to live in, set up the cultural structure of the family and commanded the man and woman to be obedient to him. Sin entered the angelic domain. An evil creature tempted the woman to disobey God. She disobeyed God as did the man. In response to these actions God announced several curses to the snake and the people which affected the personal world, the physical world, and the spiritual world.

We are told that the man and woman are made in the image of God (Gen 1:26-27). Man directly (Gen 1:27) and woman indirectly (Gen 1:26-27, 2:21-23; 1Co 11:3-12). The imago Dei includes at least language: the ability to communicate and the ability to reason. The imago Dei also includes a sense of morality. God gave the man the command not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, warning it would result in death. Adam heard what God was saying to him, understood the nature of the prohibition, and knew the action was morally wrong. By implication from God's prohibition we surmise Adam had an intellectual understanding of death even though he had no experiential understanding of death.

Concerning the actual Fall Genesis 3 states,

Now the serpent was more crafty than any other beast of the field that the LORD God had made.

He said to the woman, "Did God actually say, 'You shall not eat of any tree in the garden'?" And the woman said to the serpent, "We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but 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.'" But the serpent said to the woman, "You will not surely die. For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil." So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband [who was] with her, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked. And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves loincloths.

There are several things in this passage worth noting though I will not comment on further.

1. The snake tempts the woman not the man.
2. The snake asks about any tree, not the specific tree.
3. The woman replies not only were they not to eat it (Gen 3:3), they were not even to touch it.
4. The temptation includes a lie, "You shall not surely die," and a truth, "You will be like God knowing good and evil." Compare verse 22

Then the LORD God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil."

5. It is unclear whether the man was with her during this conversation, though possibly not.
   

Of interest is the temptation is 3 fold

• the woman saw that the tree was good for food,
• and that it was a delight to the eyes,
• and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise,...

Some have suggested that all temptations common to man fall into these categories and have suggested that the temptations of Jesus were in the same 3 areas.

Tree was	Sin	Jesus tempted
good for food	lust of the flesh	turn stone into bread
a delight to the eyes	lust of the eyes	gain all the kingdoms of the world
desired to make one wise	pride of life	throw yourself down from the temple
Genesis 3	1 John 2	Luke 4

After eating the fruit their eyes were opened. It is uncertain what this fully means. They clearly knew about obedience prior to the Fall as they were commanded not to eat the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. There must have been a knowledge that to do so was wrong, thus there is an intellectual assent to morality. The knowledge of rightness and wrongness antedates the Fall.

What they gained from eating the fruit was firstly the experience of wrongness. What it felt like to be involved in sin. They were vulnerable in their physical nakedness. The awareness of nakedness is helpful in understanding the change that came about in their thinking at the Fall. Young children do not show an awareness of their nakedness until a certain age. Before such age they can know the difference between having clothes on and not having clothes on, but are unaware of any shameful significance associated with lack of clothing. Pre-Fall the man and woman had this childlike unawareness, though they did not otherwise have childlike intelligence. These facets of our minds are thus separable. The Fall brought a self-awareness that parallels a child's gain in self-awareness. However this self-awareness does not appear to be fully identical to moral knowledge. Adam and Eve both knew what obedience entailed, and children know right and wrong before they feel embarrassed being naked.

In response to their sin God speaks to Adam then pronounces a curse on the snake, the woman, and the man respectively. I would like to comment on this in future posts.