The Curse Reversed of Genesis 3:16

by Rev. Dr. D. M. Hoffmann, B.Th., M.Th., Ph.D., Ord./IAOGI, (CNC).

While listening to an audio-cassette course by a large Christian training association, on the subject of motivation and support of volunteers in the church, I came across the comment, "the male worker is fulfilled by things of significance, and the female worker by things of security."

In other words, leaders in the church are being taught to train women volunteers from the point of view that to women, significant things are not important!

This teaching is being promoted as truth, while in reality it is not. It only serves to add more innuendos to already existing confusions between men and women.

If the teacher of this theory speaks from his own limited or local experience, he should say that while some female workers are fulfilled by aspects of security, other women are fulfilled by the same drives that fulfill men.

The “security” idea comes from the social thought that woman is totally dependent on and submissive to man. Being in business and ministry myself, as a woman, I wonder how I could manage business or ministry activities if I didn’t consider things of “significance” to be important.

And I speak for many other women who are in ministry or in business as well. As an entrepreneur, I live on risks. Entrepreneurs -- male and female -- operate on risks. How many entrepreneurial women do we have in America and Canada? Are these female entrepreneurs motivated by things of “security” only?

What about the president of General Motors Canada (when that post was filled by a woman a few years back)? And many other women who are heads of large corporations? You mean their vice-presidents and board members feed them things of security and not of significance because she is a woman?

The verse from which all of this thinking stems is Genesis 3:16, “thy desire shall be to thy husband”. I have even been humiliated at Bible College by male professors seriously discoursing this verse to mean that the woman actually pants or yearns after the man in a sexual sense or egotism or psychological -- and/or all of the above -- as if woman has no identity or aspiration or direction without man. This was said with the silent accord of the other male students (of course).

What does the Word of God say?

The Fall of Adam and Eve brought a curse to the earth and all living creatures within it. Here’s what the Lord God said to them right after the fall took place.

To the serpent:“Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” (Gen. 3:14,15).

To the woman:“I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. (Gen. 3:16).

To the man:“Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life; thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field: in the sweat of thy face shall thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.”
(Gen. 3:17,18,19).

“Thy desire shall be to thy husband”

The subject matter of this study is the second part of the curse directed to the woman. The common preachers’ and interpreters’ idea of the “security need” of women hinges on the wording, “thy desire shall be to thy husband”. The other idea dealing with the “power” side of the masculine ego hinges on the last part of the same sentence “he shall rule over thee”.

Let’s look at the first part, “thy desire shall be to thy husband” which is to do with the reference of “significance” and “security” mentioned at the beginning and which is the subject matter of this response.

The key word to understand here is “desire”. Many male preachers and interpreters relish in this one, wanting to believe it to mean that the woman has a “desire” or “longing” or "lusting" after the man.

As a matter of fact, in these last days, Hollywood is working double time to splash this very lie upon the screens of movies and televisions -- so we know this is not of God. In other words, the lie says that woman has no fulfillment, no satisfaction, no identity, no ego of her own except as toward the man. We don't hear much about this but it is alive and well in the minds of men.

First of all, God in this scripture was speaking to a husband and wife. These two, as a man and a woman, were representatives of all married men and women to come. The curse did not mean that all women should have a “desire” toward or a dependence upon men. It spoke to a married couple.

A single woman looking for a marriage partner does not have a "desire" toward a man any more or any less than a single man looking for a marriage partner has a "desire" toward a woman (everything being the way it should be, not the way it is today in this post-Christian, promiscuous and adulterous society).

A single woman does not “long” after a man in order to pursue an interest or a carreer — she does not go to her male neighbour for permission, or support. She can choose any career on her own. The word "teshookaw", translated into “desire” is used only three times in the Bible...

Once in this verse (Gen.3:16), once in Gen. 4:7 and once in Song of Solomon 7:10. A sexual, gender or ego sense would certainly not apply in verse 4:7 when God is speaking to Cain. In Song of Solomon 7:10, the role is reversed, the woman applies it to the man.

The word “desire” also translates from several different words used in the Old Testament original language.

Here are just a few examples.

In Ex. 10:11, (“...go now ye that are men, and serve the Lord; for that ye did desire...”); the word “desire” here is "bawkash" which means to search out in worship and prayer, to strive after, ask, beg.

In Ex. 34:24 (“... neither shall any man desire thy land, when thou shalt go up to appear before the Lord thy God...”), here it is from "khawmad" which means to delight in, covet a delectable thing; this same word is used also in Deut.5:21 and 7:25.

In Deut. 18:6 (“And if a Levite come from any of thy gates.... with all the desire of his mind unto the place which the Lord shall choose...”), here the word is from "awvaw" which is to wish for, covet, be desirous of, long, lust.

Deut. 21:11 (“And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife...”) the word here is "khawshak" meaning to cling, join, love, delight as in a desire to marry the person.

Interestingly, the word “cling” is also used in Gen.2:24 which is the marriage institution statement, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”

In Judges 8:24 (“And Gideon said unto them, I would desire a request of you....”), the word here is "shawal" and means as it says, to inquire, request, demand.

In our verse in question, Gen.3:16, (“... and thy desire shall be to thy husband...), the word "teshookaw" means to stretch out, to overflow as in a river that overflows its banks.

In other words now Eve has to extend beyond her own authority, to her husband as a partner in life's decisions. She is co-dependent, no longer independent as before -- not dependent on, but co-dependent with her husband. She now must stretch life's decisions to join with her husband’s.

No longer does she have the independent and direct access to God as she did before the fall. She now has to operate together with her husband and in some cases, even through him. The wife has now lost her independent authority and the husband has now been given the additional responsibility to be accountable directly to God for both of them — quite a responsibility. His sin also had a consequence.

Adam's sin is that he did not intervene when he needed to do so as a partner to Eve. He had been told directly by God about the forbidden tree. Eve had been told by Adam. His instructions came from a much higher, much stronger, much more influential source than hers.

But he just went ahead and took of the fruit without defending what he knew to be wrong, ("...And of some have compassion, making a difference: and others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh" -- Jude v. 23).

The worst translation of Gen. 3:16 I have seen is in The Living Bible: “You shall bear children in intense pain and suffering; yet even so, you shall welcome your husband’s affections, and he shall be your master”.

Wow, that is pretty sad. What an abomination to the Word of God! The writer obviously did not even research his concordance; "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh" says the Bible --giving their own interpretation of what they want to hear and propagate, their own opinion.

The meaning of “desire” is not anywhere near “affection”, neither is the word “rule” anywhere near “master”. Even the word “sorrow” is wrongly translated into the far-fetched personal interpretation “intense pain and suffering”.

The word “sorrow” in this scripture is "ehtseb" which means "an earthen vessel, usually painful toil, pang" as in physical pain, physical exhaustion. The word "sorrow" in the previous sentence is "itstsawbone" which means worrysomeness. The same word is used in v.17 for the man. "In painful toil" is quite different from "intense pain and suffering".

That's enough to scare any woman from having children. Sure childbearing is painful, but this misinterpretation exaggerates its meaning and makes a sweeping statement. To bear children in any degree of pain is still more painful then to bear them in total bliss as it was at the beginning.

To some women it is not as difficult as others.

There are degrees of pain. I know several women who have easy childbirths. One friend I visited after she gave birth to her first child said, “It wasn’t as bad as I expected”. Another friend did’nt even know she was giving birth when she was rushed to the hospital to complete the delivery. Still to some, it is an excruciating pain.

The writer of the Living Bible translation has actually added to the Word of God which is clearly forbidden by God. There is a long way from his translation — which is really a commentary and a discourse of personal opinion — and the original scripture: “in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband.”

Substituting the proper words in each case, we would have: “in painful toil (ehtseb) thou shalt bring forth children; and thy stretching-out (teshookaw) shall be to thy husband”. Obviously the second part of the sentence would present a difficult challenge to the original translators of the King James Version.

How would you word "stretching-out"? The feelings of women were not exactly a priority on their minds when they translated it into the English language into the word "desire". Even then, it was probably already misinterpreted from ancient times.

Let’s take a look at the same statement spoken to Cain.

In Gen. 4:7, God is speaking to Cain, after Cain was angered that the Lord did not accept his attitude toward his second-rate offerings to the Lord, but was pleased with Abel’s first-class offering. God says to Cain, “Why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen? If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” The same words but in reverse!

God is saying if you do well are you not going to be accepted? Of course you are accepted when you do well. But if you don’t do well, then sin is just about to enter your heart. Now, the next verse is quite perplexing. God just told Cain that if he does not well, then sin lies at the door.

Then in the next sentence, God says: “And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.” Who does he mean? If he is speaking to Cain, it would mean: And unto you (Cain) shall be his (whose?) desire, and you (Cain) shalt rule over him (who?). Who, Abel?

That would not make sense; the one who does well does not "stretch out" after the one who does not well. The one who does well is not ruled by the one who does not well. It is the other way around.

In checking other Bible translations, one of them translates the last part of the verse as: “And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it.” Another translation changes the verse even more: “Sin is waiting to attack you, longing to destroy you. But you can conquer it.” Both versions change the meaning of the personal pronoun “his” and “him” to a pronoun referring to sin. However, there is a problem with that. Why would the Bible write “his” and “him” if it means sin?

I looked through the bible where sin is referred to, and found that the Bible uses “it” and not “he” when speaking about sin (example: Lev.4:26). So we know that this last part of verse 7 does not refer to sin, because if it did it would read, “And unto thee shall be its desire, and thou shalt rule over it.” And that doesn't make sense either.

Also, there is a full stop after "sin lieth at the door." The next sentence is separate from the subject in the previous sentence.

The only logical deduction is that both Cain and Abel are present at the time and God addresses Cain. Then God turns to Abel and says, “And unto you shall be his (Cain’s) desire, and you shall rule over him (Cain)”. We are told that Cain brought his offering to the Lord and also did Abel. So here are the two brothers, side by side on the Lord’s day making their offerings, and God is pleased with Abel but is not with Cain.

Cain gets angry at that and God says, “What are you angry about? and why did your expression change to anger? If you do well, shall you not be accepted and if you do not well, sin lies at the door.” Then he turns to Abel and tells them what happens as a result -- Cain lost his elderly position.

God got tired of the second-rate offerings of Cain and finally told him, and at the same time took away his independent, direct access to God. Cain no longer operated on his own, he was now co-dependent upon his brother Abel.

Co-dependent here is not meant in the sense of our current psychological assessment where the term has come to represent a negative dependency upon another. It is a necessary organizational line of management. It is giving leadership to another because one has failed in his responsibility.

In the same sense, before the fall, Adam and Eve were independently reporting to God. But when Eve gave in to sin, she forfeited her capability to be trusted, and God now placed her under the leadership of Adam -- not because of his obedience, for he had also failed -- but because he was created first and Eve was made out of him. In this case Eve is the one who lost her direct position with God. Now Adam was accountable for both of them.

“And he shall rule over thee” Let’s take a look at the second part of the verse Gen. 3:16. Male preachers and interpreters repose in this one too, believing it to be a matter of powerless and sub-servient submission on the part of the woman.

Again in the original Old Testament language many words were used which translate into our word “rule” in English. Here are examples of one of these words "mawshal" which is the one used throughout various verses including Gen. 3:16.

Gen. 1:18, speaking of the heavenly bodies, “And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night...”. Now, the heavenly bodies do not have authority over the day and the night; they do not “lord over them” or have dominion or rulership over them, they are simply set in a particular line of management by God to perform their purpose at a given time.

Judges 8:22, “Rule thou over us, both thou, and thy son, and thy son’s son also for thou hast delivered us from the hand of Midian”.

Here, the people give the presidential responsibility to the one who saved them from the enemy’s destruction and slavery. It would be like the people of British Columbia being attacked by some enemies and a brave Lone Ranger comes to the rescue and overthrows the enemy’s leader and destroys the rest of the attackers; then the people of British Columbia hand over the premiership to this saviour whose capable leadership is well proven and deserved; with this comes an expectation from the people which must be fullfilled henceforth or else the Lone Ranger will find himself quickly voted out of office. (Or at least that's what democracy used to be.)

The people do not want to be dominated or "ruled", they want the appointee to do a job for them, to manage or supervise the governing of their social lives. And we know very well in business today that autocracy does not work. The greater is to be the servant.

Prov. 12:24 “The hand of the diligent shall bear rule”. To rule requires devoted, righteous, application — not power or authority over others.

Prov 29:2 “when the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn”. Ruling is done in righteousness. To get a feel of this proverb as applied to our subject matter, change the wording to: "When the righteous husbands are in authority, the wives rejoice: but when the wicked husbands beareth rule, the wives mourn" or "When the righteous men are in authority, the women rejoice: but when the wicked men beareth rule, the women mourn".

In Gen. 3:16 the same kind of responsibility is given to the husband. The word actually means “to make to have rule over”. This is a position of leadership given or commissioned by someone in authority to whom this leader reports and is accountable.

In business, a leader is one who imparts corporate visions, a leader is to lead by example and empower others (not him/herself) to achieve -- all for the betterment of the corporation and the personal fulfillment of each individual member of the staff. The staff does not desire or pant after the leader, nor does the leader rule over the staff.

This responsibility is given to Adam as an organizational matter, in the order of God’s kingdom. It has nothing to do with the wife or any woman being placed in submission or subserviance to the husband or a man, but rather, it has to do with the WIFE now having to depend on the HUSBAND (not women on men) to carry out the results of both their activities and responsibilities to the Authority.

But when the husband gives the wife the OK to take care of certain aspects and to carry the results directly to the Authority, she is totally sanctioned and free to do so. Just like the president of a company "empowers" his vice-presidents to carry out their decision-making functions and responsibilities.

I Corinthians 11:3 says that the head of the woman is the man, the head of the man is Christ and the head of Christ is God. The responsibility increases as the line of management increases. It is the husband taking righteous leadership to represent both himself and his wife to God and taking on the accountability of both. In other words, if the wife goes in the wrong direction and the husband goes along with it, he is accountable for both.

Just like the business leader is accountable to the president or the board of directors for his team. Adam’s sin also bore a consequence; on top of toiling the ground in pain, he also now had to carry a heavier burden then he did when both were independent agents reporting individually directly to God.

I have come across single people who have often had the idea that marrying will solve their problems. They think of marriage not as something natural that happens naturally — as in the old days — but as something that one maneuvers capriciously and with specific goals in mind which will, somehow boost them to 200%. No, not so, marriage is not two single people who are 100% each, becoming 200% together. It is two single people who are 100% each becoming 50% each, now becoming 100% together. "The two becoming one".

You give up something when you marry, you give part of yourself to the other. Marriage is not a “get” affair, it is a “give” affair. That’s why we have so many divorces today: we got it the other way around. We go into marriage thinking of what we’re going to get out of it, or out of the other person — how “our” needs will be met. We do not make the commitment that it really is. Who said we go into marriage to have our needs met? That's a new terminology of this wayward generation.

Society today justifies divorce by saying that the older generation stayed together "because of the children" and thus had miserable lives. They don't want to do that anymore -- they'd rather make the lives of poor innocent children miserable! It is the ultimate of selfishness. The Bible says that in the end times people would lose their natural affection, their hearts would become cold.

Before the Fall, the married state was 200%. Adam and Eve were still 100% -- each was responsible to God directly even in marriage. After the Fall when Eve was given to "stretch out" or expand her empowerment to her husband and he was given to be accountable for both, they each had to give up 50% in their married state.

Gen. 3:16 does not mean that women are dependent on men. It is obvious that an unmarried woman operates on her own and does not go to a male to obtain permission or direction. She is not co-dependent upon a man, except her father and mother until she reaches the age of adulthood.

And a godly, righteous, father or husband did not enforce unrighteous rules in his household. He treated his wife and daughters with dignity, offering them the full participation in family and personal decisions. There is a beautiful description of this in Charles Rollin’s book, "Ancient History" - under the origin and progress of the establishment of Kingdoms.

Unfortunately, somewhere along the ages of sin and degeneration, man imposed unnatural and evil traditions upon woman.

We also have to be logical about the fact that in a family, the woman, being the one who will carry and bear the children, will depend on her husband at times of obvious needs. His primary role will be to win the bread, and hers to nurture the children. At the same time, he will help with the raising of the children whenever and wherever needed. He is not to take over her role. Taking care of children is not a primary function of the man.

Trying to change these roles today is one of the reasons why families and kids are in trouble.

After the children have grown and gone on their own, the wife can help in the bread winning or creature comforts accumulating, if she and her husband so wish.

The curse was reversed

Even if we could not clarify the misinterpretations of these truths, the curse WAS reversed at Calvary. Like the song says: Oh, Calvary covers it all! “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.”

(Hebrews 8:13).

“Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster. For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:24-27).

“The first man Adam was made a living soul; the last Adam (Christ) was made a quickening spirit” (1 Corinthians.15:45).

“Being justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus. Whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in his blood, to declare his righteousness for the remission of sins that are past through the forbearance of God”. (Romans 3:24, 25).

“I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.”

(John 10:10).

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Galatians 3:28).

Confusions

Where there might be confusions, is in the observation of behaviours in women who are insecure because of unfortunate Adamic upbringing. This gives the appearance of women “needing” security. It comes out in the way that many women behave, dress, talk and carry on.

But, you can’t make a sweeping conclusion to include all women. It is unfortunate that many women have been misdirected to frivolous or naive understandings of life and what's important in life. The “differences” between men and women are born out or accentuated by discrepencies of oppressive male members of families (man-made traditions), weak or domineering mothers, uncaring guardians or educators, or later in life by the mistreatment of peers, bosses or spouses, and even by society itself who have a distorted knowledge of how to raise people.

For example, in our culture women are brought up to use more tentative phrases such as, "I think, I guess, I wonder if", or to place qualifiers and questions in their speech, ascending tones, etc. While men will be more likely to say "Let's write up the order", women will say "I think we should write up the order" or "Should we write up the order?" or "Would you like to write up and order?" Men will say "Try our product before ordering from our competitor", women will say "Don't you think you should try our product...?"

When it comes to getting things done, this kind of talk on the part of women hinders credibility and ability to influence others. However, this does not mean that "significant" things are not important to women. They just don't know how to recognize them and how to handle them.

In "Journal of John Wesley", Oxford University Press, there is an interesting letter written in 1732 by Mrs Wesley to her son, concerning the upbringing of children. Speaking of certain by-laws to be observed, she writes: ".... That no girl be taught to work till she can read very well; ...This rule also is much to be observed; for the putting children to learn sewing before they can read perfectly, is the very reason why so few women can read fit to be heard, and never to be well understood."

The way many mothers pour on the frilly clothing and decorations and paraphernalia on their daughters as they grow up, teaches and trains them to put their security and ideologies into those outward appearances that are to be approved rather than into their own inner strengths. They put their entire life's trust into how often they hear "how pretty" and "how beautiful".

Men are taught to build inner strengths; women are taught to "look pretty". But the Bible says: "Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Prov.22:6). A child should go the way - he or she.

A friend of mine was telling me about his 3-year old daughter. He said concerning building self-esteem in her, "I always tell her how pretty she is when she has a new dress, etc." That's wrong, dead wrong. Do we tell our boys "how pretty they look?" No, and they don't have frillies placed upon them either.

We tell them to be strong and not to cry when they fall. When our girls fall we cuddle and fuss over them. See the different "training up"?

Boys and girls are inherently different, according to God's blueprint. We don't need to exaggerate it. It comes naturally.

Both parents are responsible to raise their children (male and female) in the same way they should go -- in a positive way, equipping them with strength and character which they will need to live through life productively and constructively.

Men and women are different and one cannot become the other. Equal opportunity can only be achieved within each their male and female primary differences. Men and women are more naturally alike than we might have been taught to believe. But men and women are also different in role fulfilling.

The Word of God never changes, in spite of the misinterpretations of humans throughout the ages. We know what this life is all about and where it is going, for the Bible tells us so. God is still in control while we keep on plowing our fields until His return, as we do what we can to make this place a better place.

In spite of it all, women have never been so free as in this era of Christianity. Jesus has come to free everyone. Women were given freedom and liberty at Christ’s death and resurrection like never before in the history of mankind. And men in their own needs as well. To God be the glory.

And to true Christian men be commendation for their exceptional wisdom and gentlemanly character in the cross! Christian men have something very special that secular men don't have. They are real men -- as close as possible to what God intended men to be in the beginning.

I can understand the feminist’s disappointment and anger, because if you don’t know God, what hope is there? "Oh, there may be weeping for a night, but joy cometh in the morning!" (Psalms 30:5).

I have a great hope that keeps me going and that's the soon return of Jesus Christ where everything will be in its proper order again. I also have another hope: Matthew 19:30 says “many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first."

There is a glorious eternity ahead for those who trust God now./dmh

Dr. Diane M. Hoffmann is president of the Link School of Ministries Inc., a Christian Bible Correspondence School and Internet Theological Reading Room that can be seen at http://www.linkschool21.com . She is the author of numerous Christian seminars and theological articles, tracts, e-books and books, including "The Horizontal Chronology of the Four Gospels". (Article copyright Diane M. Hoffmann. You may reprint this article without changes and including author's name and resource box).

Send your comments on this article using this link

For a personal invitation to know God click here