Tragic Curse, or Messianic Hope? Reading Genesis 3:16 in Light of Genesis 3:15

Abstract

In this paper, it will be shown that Genesis 3:16 parallels the Messianic prophecy of Genesis 3:15 with which it also shares significant linguistic links and literary features. From this literary observation, it will be established that the two key words “desire” and “rule” have a positive significance which is further supported by the literary and syntactical construction of the sentences. The positive understanding of Genesis 3:16 in the light of Genesis 3:15 will also be reinforced and illuminated by the comparative analysis with the parallel text of Genesis 4:7. Rather than proclaiming the tragic “curse” of the subordinated woman in her relationship with man, the connection of Genesis 3:16 with Genesis 3:15 brings a message of blessing in the perspective of redemption.

1. Introduction

Gen. 3:16 is one of the most difficult passages of Genesis, and certainly one of the most misused. Unfortunately, Genesis 3:16 has too often been used as a proof-text to justify “harsh exploitive subjugation, which so often characterizes women’s lot in all sorts of societies”.1 These hermeneutical and ethical considerations and warnings invite us to work closely with the Hebrew verse and listen to it from within its textual dynamics. In this paper, I will show that Genesis 3:16 parallels the Messianic prophecy of Genesis 3:15 and should therefore be read and interpreted in its light, thereby casting Gen. 3:16 in a redemptive/messianic light rather than in a punitive one. It will be shown that the two verses indeed share significant linguistic links and literary features. Then, in light of this parallel, I will infer lessons in regard to the meaning of Genesis 3:16, and notably of the key words “desire” and “rule”. In that process, I will also assess the other parallel text, Genesis 4:7, to further confirm those lessons. My interpretation of Genesis 3:16 will then move to the next step as I tentatively suggest its application to the woman as such, and subsequently, to the relationship between man and woman as a couple.

I. 

The Messianic Intent of Genesis 3:15

This paper will endorse the Messianic understanding of Genesis 3:15 as an a priori and a fundamental presupposition. In this paper, a thorough demonstration of the Messianic intent of Genesis 3:15 will not take place, as that would take us beyond the scope of this paper, which focuses on Genesis 3:16.2 I will, however, lay down briefly the main arguments suggesting the Messianic intent of this verse, and thus, support its Messianic interpretation:

• The Messianic intention of the text is already present in the text itself, which reports God’s promise of the Messianic redemption of humanity: the serpent symbol of evil will be crushed by the Messianic seed of the woman.
• The Messianic interpretation of Genesis 3:15 is attested in the Hebrew Scriptures. It appears in Psalm 110, which identifies the Lord Himself as the One who crushes the “head” (ro’sh) of the enemy (Ps 110:6), while using the same language as Gen. 3:15. There, the same verb in the same form, ’ashit, “I will put”, with the same subject, God, appears in connection with “enmity”. The words of the Psalm ’ashit ’oybeykha, “I make your enemies” (Ps. 110:1), are indeed a verbal repetition of the Genesis promise ’eyba ’ashit, “I will put enmity” (Gen. 3:15). This echo is particularly significant, as it suggests that the author of the Psalm believed this first phrase of Genesis 3:15 referred to the Davidic Messiah. It is also found in 2 Samuel 7:11–13, which echoes linguistically Genesis 3:15 and where the “He” (hu’) of Genesis 3:15 is identified as the Davidic Messiah and/or the Lord (2 Sam 17:13).
• The Messianic understanding is attested in Jewish and Christian traditions: In the Jewish tradition, the Palestinian Targum (1st century AD), the Aramaic translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, identifies the serpent of Genesis 3:15 as the Devil who will be overcome at the end of time by the Messiah. Bereshit Rabbah, an old commentary of the book of Genesis (AD 425), concludes from the reading of this passage that the struggle against the serpent “will last until the days of the Messiah” (Gen. Rab. 20:9). In the Christian tradition, the Messianic application of Genesis 3:15 appears in the New Testament, which alludes and refers to Genesis 3:15 and applies the text to Jesus Christ (Rom 16:20; Heb 2:14; Rev 12:1–6, 11). It is also attested in the writings of the Church Fathers as early as the second century, with Justin Martyr (ca. AD 160)3 and Irenaeus of Lyons (ca. AD 180)4 who called Genesis 3:15 the protoevangelium, “the first Gospel” of the Bible.

Having mentioned briefly the Messianic character of Gen. 3:15, we can now proceed to an exploration of the parallels between Gen. 3:15 and Gen. 3:16.

II. 

Parallels Between Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 3:15

A close reading of the serpent’s curse (Gen. 3:14–15) and of the woman’s “curse” (Gen. 3:16) reveals a number of interesting parallels, notably between Gen. 3:15 and Gen. 3:16. Thus, not only does the woman’s “curse” immediately follow the serpent’s curse, but it also shares with it a number of common words, grammatical forms, literary parallels, and particular motifs:

• First, the opening statement in the serpent’s curse (Gen. 3:14) and the opening statement of the divine judgment of the woman (Gen. 3:16) are in chiastic connection with each other (AB // B₁ A₁):
  So the Lord God said (A) to the serpent (B) (Gen 3:14)

  X
  To the woman (B₁) He said (A₁) (Gen 3:16)
• Second, the Messianic moment of the serpent’s curse in Gen. 3:15 is marked by a powerful stylistic break with the rest of the curse in Gen. 3:14. Indeed, the thematic structure and the word rhythm of the serpent’s curse suggest two strophes. After an introductory statement (or “anacrusis”) of three Hebrew words, the first strophe (v. 14) progresses in six lines with an irregular word rhythm5 (2, 2, 3, 3, 2, 3):
  Anacrusis: “Because you have done this” (3 words)
  • “Cursed you are” (2 words)
  • “More than all cattle” (2 words)
  • “And more than every beast of the field” (3 words)
  • “On your belly you shall go” (3 words)
  • “And you shall eat dust” (2 words)
  • “All the days of your life” (3 words)

After an anacrusis of one word, the second strophe (v. 15) progresses in four lines with a regular word rhythm (4, 4, 3, 3):

Anacrusis: “Enmity” (1 word)

• “I will put between you and the woman” (4 words)
• “Between your seed and her seed” (4 words)
• “He shall bruise your head” (3 words)
• “And you shall bruise his heel” (3 words)

The contrast between the two strophes is not only indicated through the change of rhythm, but also through the change of thematic orientation. The first strophe is negative and contains a message of hopelessness, which concerns the serpent. The second strophe is positive and contains a message of victory and hope for humankind. In fact, this is the only positive word of the chapter—a window of light in the dark. Gen. 3:15 must then be read as a powerfully redemptive moment in the story, thereby shedding a powerful redemptive light on Gen. 3:16.

3.

The parallel between Gen. 3:15 and Gen. 3:16 is first alluded to by the use of the same stylistic form of anacrusis (emphasis on the first word: “enmity”//“greatly”), which sounds similar, to introduce the divine annunciation in the first person:

Enmity I will put (’ebah ’ashit) (3:15)

Greatly I will multiply (harbeh ’arbeh) (3:16)

4.

Moreover, both Gen. 3:15 and Gen. 3:16 refer to childbearing: in Gen. 3:15, the word ’ashit, “I will put”, (3:15) refers to childbearing, as it alludes to and anticipates the next use of the word ’ashit, “I will put”, (Gen. 4:25) which applies to the childbearing of Seth. In Gen. 3:16, the word ’arbeh, “I will multiply”, explicitly refers to childbearing.

5.

Both Gen. 3:15 and Gen. 3:16 use the same key word ha’ishah, “the woman”, and both associate this key word with the birth motif: in Gen 3:15 with the mention of “seed”, and in Gen 3:16 with the words “give birth”. Thus, the ha’ishah, “the woman” of Gen. 3:16, is here identified as Eve in Gen 3:15, who has just received the promise of victory in the fight that will oppose the serpent to her seed. The woman who will have the pangs of birth in Gen. 3:16 is therefore none other than Eve, the woman who received the promise of the Messianic “seed”.

6.

Both Gen. 3:15 and Gen. 3:16 use the same reciprocal relation between the third person and the second person, or more precisely, between the hu, “he” (third person), who crushes the serpent (second person) and the hu, “he” (third person), who rules the woman (second person):

He (hu’) shall bruise you, but you shall bruise him (Gen 3:15)

X

To your husband your desire, but he (hu’) will rule over you (Gen 3:16)

The many parallels and echoes between Genesis 3:15 and Genesis 3:16 thus invite us to read Genesis 3:16 in the positive perspective of the Messianic prophecy of Genesis 3:15 with its promise of salvation. This in turn will shed a powerfully new and redemptive light on Gen. 3:16, notably on the concepts of teshuqah and mashal, with profound implications on the understanding of the dynamics between man and woman.

III. 

Revisiting the Meaning of “Desire” and “Rule”

In light of the parallels that we have just established between Gen. 3:15 and Gen. 3:16, the word teshuqah, “desire”, takes on a whole new signification. Against the Messianic backdrop of Gen. 3:15, teshuqah can be understood as having a very different connotation than what has hereto been the case. Far from alluding to the perverse seductive nature of woman, teshuqah can now be given a positive, even redemptive sense. Our readers will note that the only other biblical passage that uses the Hebrew word teshuqah, “desire”, in connection to a man–woman relation, is in the Song of Songs, where it appears in the positive context of joy and salvation: “I am my beloved’s and his desire (teshuqah) is toward me” (Song 7:10 [7:11]). In light of this parallel Song of Songs passage, the Gen. 3:16 use of the word teshuqah can be inferred to also have a positive connotation towards Adam and is therefore not harmful. The woman is not supposed to represent evil against Adam, implying seduction and demonic temptation6, or the intention to dominate him.7 On the contrary, the preposition ’el, “to”, which implies physical motion “towards”, suggests that Eve is favorably turned towards her husband.

The Hebrew verb mashal, “rule”8, that belongs to the same immediate context of Gen. 3:15 should also be understood in a positive sense. In the Hebrew Bible, the verb mashal, “rule”9, means basically sovereignty, and royalty, a meaning that is especially present in the book of Genesis. It is instructive that in Genesis 37:8, the verb mashal, “rule”, ascribed prophetically to Joseph, is later interpreted by him as having a connotation of life and redemption, rather than of oppression and enslavement. In Gen. 37:8, Joseph has just finished sharing the contents of his dream of the sheaves when his brothers react with the following words: “Will you actually “rule” (mashal) us?” (Gen. 37:8). In our story, however, Joseph’s “rule” (mashal) does not have the connotation of oppression or of enslavement, as will be the case in later biblical passages. Rather, Joseph himself, in his response to his brothers’ fears, interprets this prophecy in the sense of life, provision, and protection, and not of oppression: “It was not you who sent me here but God. He made me a father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler (moshel) of all Egypt. Now hurry back to my father and say to him … come down to me, don’t dally. You shall live in the region of Goshen … I will provide for you there” (Gen. 45: 9–11). In the Joseph story, the Hebrew verb mashal, “rule”, thus has the connotations of life, redemption, provision, and protection.

Significantly, the first time the verb mashal, “rule” (in the noun memshelet), appears in the Hebrew Bible is in Genesis 1:16 where it describes the royal sovereignty of the great luminaries which “rule” over the day and the night (Gen 1:16) and over the light and the darkness (Gen 1:18). Note that this “rule-royalty”, as expressed by the verb mashal of the luminaries, is not a rule of dominion that would come “over” the day and the night to overpower them; it is, on the contrary, a rule of royalty that empowers them, and allows them to fulfill their role as “day” and “night”. The royalty of the sun and the moon is to be understood as a royalty that serves the day and the night to allow them to fulfill their purpose, rather than a royalty that enslaves them and thus destroys them.

In the same manner, considering the positive orientation of 3:16b, Adam will mashal be, “rule”, Eve not in the sense of “rule over” or “rule against” but rather in the sense of “empowering” her, of supporting her, of facilitating the accomplishment of her destiny. Just as Eve’s desire is positively directed “towards” (on behalf of) her husband, so, in response and in parallel, Adam’s royalty is also positively directed “towards” his wife. Note that the preposition be, associated with mashal in connection to Adam, parallels the preposition ’el, “to”, which is associated with teshuqah in connection to Eve.

The positive meaning of the two words teshuqah, “desire”, and mashal, “rule”, is also supported by the literary and syntactical construction of the sentence. As indicated by the disjunctive waw that precedes the first word, the noun teshuqah, “desire”, 10 this phrase is in contrast to the preceding phrase, which has a negative judgment concerning the sorrow of childbearing (3:16a). Thus, instead of translating the waw as the coordinating conjunction “and”, suggesting an additional curse (KJV, JPS), it should be translated as the conjunction “yet” or “but”, expressing a contrast (NAB, TNK) in the sense of a promise.11 While the first sentence expresses the negative aspect of the divine judgment (the “sorrow” of childbearing), the second sentence conveys a positive meaning, a promise, a message of hope in contrast to and in response to Adam and Eve’s respective failures in their relationship with each other. To Eve, who failed to “desire” her husband and moved, by herself, outside of the conjugal circle, the use of the word teshuqah, “desire”, means that she will turn towards her husband and “cleave” to him (2:24, KJV). To Adam, who failed to stand up to his wife and be responsible towards her and towards the world that had been entrusted to him, the use of the verb mashal, “rule”, means that he will recover his status of royal steward of the world through and with his wife, who will reign by his side (2:20–21; cf. Ps 8:4–6).12 Now, it is interesting and certainly significant that all these literary features that have been observed in Genesis 3:16 in parallel to Genesis 3:15 are repeated in Genesis 4:7, thus confirming and supporting our literary analysis.

IV. 

Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:713

This Hebrew verse (Genesis 4:7) has been qualified as “the most obscure verse in the chapter, indeed in the whole book of Genesis”.14 However, the remarkable parallels between Genesis 4:7 and Genesis 3:16, the verbal and thematic connections between the two passages suggest “that the former should be read as a paradigm of human sin. Fratricide illustrates in a different way how sin works”.15

The line “Its desire is for you, but you should rule over it”, is an almost exact replica of Gen. 3:16. As the Hebrew transliteration below indicates, the Hebrew text is basically the same, except for the corresponding adaptations to persons and gender:

• Gen. 3:16: we’el ’ishek teshukatek wehu’ yimshol bak (“to your husband your desire and he will rule over you”).
• Gen. 4:7: we’eleka teshukato we’atah timshol bo’ (“to you his desire, and you will rule over it/him”).

A number of other parallels exist between the two passages, highlighting their connectivity:

• Linguistic and syntactical parallels: Both verses use the same technical and rare word teshuqah “desire” associated with the same word mashal “rule” and follow the same sequence (desire-rule). Both use the same prepositions at the same place (beginning and end of the phrase): we’el “and to” … be “over”. Both use the same construction of phrase: “to you … but he shall rule over you//to you … but you shall rule over him”.
• Syntax of Contrast: As with Adam and Eve in Genesis 3:16, the two words teshuqah, “desire”, and mashal, “rule”, in Genesis 4:7 have positive connotations in response to the negative problem of the preceding failure. While Gen. 3:16a describes the toil and pain the woman will have to go through in childbirth, Gen. 3:16b opens up a dimension of hope with the restoration of her lost connection to her husband and of his lost stewardship. Likewise, while Genesis 4:7a describes Cain’s failure of his relationship with God, Genesis 4:7b describes the possibility of Cain’s fulfillment of his relationship with his brother. Also, as in Genesis 3:16b, the contrast is indicated by the “disjunctive waw” that introduces the sentence; in both cases the waw prefixes the preposition ’el, “to”.
• Principle of Reciprocity: Both describe the same reciprocal relation between two persons (man–woman//Cain–Abel).

These parallels invite us to read and interpret 4:7 in connection to 3:16, and vice versa, as Walter Vogels argues: “the closeness of these verses… invites us to explain one verse in light of the other”.16 Along these lines, two different interpretations have been suggested.

The first interpretation is reflected in the translation of the pronoun as “its” (“sin is crouching at your door, its desire is contrary to you but you must rule over it”, NKJV, ESV), which implies that it is the khata’t, “sin”, the evil power (the serpent) which “desires”. The Revised English Bible (REB) has reads as follows: “Sin is a demon crouching at the door”. This translation is supported by the fact that khata’t, “sin”, is its closest antecedent, and by the parallel text that presents the serpent as the seductor (3:6; see above). As Matthews comments: “This may well correspond with the ‘seed’ of the serpent in 3:15 which will do battle with the ‘seed’ of the woman Eve. The image is effectively the same and the message clear: sin can be stirred up by wrong choices”. The parallel between 3:16 and 4:7 is again teaching the same lesson: just as it is sin, the serpent (not Abel) that is crouching and desiring Cain and prompting him to sin, it is also the serpent (not the woman) that is lurking and desiring Adam, alluring to sin.

A second interpretation is represented by a number of Bible versions which have opted for the translation “his”17, as seen in the phrase “his desire” (“sin lies at the door and unto you shall be his desire and you shall rule over him” KJV, NAB). This translation, with the understanding that Abel is here the one being referred to, is supported by the Septuagint and several ancient Jewish commentators.18 A number of clues from the biblical text itself validate this interpretation. First, the back-and-forth movement between the two brothers, Cain and Abel (Gen 4:1–9), implies a similar alternation between them in Genesis 4:7. Second, Cain is generally referred to in the second person, while Abel is only referred to in the third person. Note that the explicit pronoun ’atah, “you”, always refers to Cain (Gen 4:7, 11), while the explicit pronoun hu’, “he”, refers only to Abel (Gen 4:4).

V. 

Implications of Genesis 4:7 for Genesis 3:16

The above analysis has important implications for the interpretation of Genesis 3:16. If sin, the serpent (not Abel) is the subject of desire (first interpretation), then the word teshuqah, “desire”, which refers to the serpent, must be understood in the negative sense of seducing. And the word mashal, “rule”, which refers to man, should be understood in the sense of ruling, destroying. If Abel (not the serpent) is the subject of the desire (second interpretation), then the sense must be positive. The word teshuqah, “desire”, which refers toAbel’s righteous attitude towards his older brother as the first-born, should be understood in the sense of “trust”, “respect”, and “love”. And the word mashal, “rule”, which describes Cain’s relationship towards his younger brother Abel, must then be understood in the sense of “responsibility” and “love”. Whatever interpretation is adopted, the connection between Genesis 4:7 and Genesis 3:16 obliges us to conclude that in no way is the connotation of the subordination of woman to man, and her inferiority, intended in Genesis 3:16.

It is also possible that Genesis 4:7 is a case of “deliberate ambiguity”,19 implying that both interpretations are valid, serving different purposes in order to convey various ideas. Considering the strong connection between Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 3:15, it is, however, reasonable to think that the first interpretation holds the primary meaning, while the second meaning would serve the additional purpose of allowing a side thought on the birthright issue. In that first interpretation, our reading Genesis 3:16 in the light of Genesis 4:7 leads us to understand that through the teshuqah, “desire”, it is the serpent that is profiled as desiring man, alluring him to sin. In that case, the act of mashal, “rule”, applies here to the evil (serpent) that tempts him. What is “ruled” here is evil and not the woman as a person. It is obvious that this subjection of evil concerns both man and woman in their wrestling with sin. In that connection, it is important to note that Genesis 4:7 does not just refer to sin as an objective reality of the crouching demonic animal but as a presence at the door of the heart. The process of temptation takes place in the heart, just as James describes: “each one is tempted when he is drawn away by his own desire and enticed” (Jas 1:14), a verse that echoes Genesis 3:16.20

When applied to the relationship between man and woman, as Genesis 3:16 implies, this dynamic becomes particularly significant: the man should control the urge for evil within himself whether he sees it coming from the woman or not. And the same can be said for the woman. In other words, the subordination of the woman to the man (and reversely, the subordination of man to the woman) is subject to the subordination of evil (lying at the door of his/her heart).

This emphasis and consistent intertextual connection between the two passages confirms the author’s strong intention to relate the two verses, and invites us to read and interpret Genesis 4:7 in connection to Genesis 3:16, and reversely, Genesis 3:16 in the light of Genesis 4:7. More importantly, the parallel of contrast (negative/positive) between Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7 reinforces, then, the lessons that were drawn concerning the positive intent of the verse, including the positive sense of the two key words, mashal, “rule”, and teshuqah, “desire”.

VI. 

Application to Man–Woman Relations

In light of its immediate context, and specifically of its literary connection with Genesis 3:15, we have understood that the verse Genesis 3:16 has intentionally been given a redemptive perspective, the perspective of Genesis 3:15. The question, now, is the following: “What is the significance of this redemptive connection for the understanding of man–woman relations? When (if) applied to man–woman relations, the particularly redemptive intention of the prophecy suggests three important lessons for the husband-and-wife relations.

• Conjugal Setting. The promise of the Messianic seed in Genesis 3:15 establishes first of all that the prophecy of Genesis 3:16 is related to the conjugal relation between Adam and Eve (Gen 4:1; cf. Gen 4:25). The application of this prophecy to the man–woman relation which implies prophetically the conjugal relation generating the Messianic seed, should therefore strictly be limited to a husband-and-wife setting (cf. Eph 5:28, 33).
• Reciprocal Relation. The reciprocal dynamic that describes the character of the relation between the husband and wife in Genesis 3:16 echoes the reciprocal dynamic that is between the seed and the serpent (Gen 3:15). The reciprocal relationship between husband and wife is not defined in the negative sense of “ruling” or “seducing”, but in the positive perspective of redemption.
• Vertical and Horizontal Interdependence. Adam and Eve’s conjugal relation and fulfillment of the Gen. 3:15 prophecy depends on God’s presence and supernatural provision of the Messianic seed (see Gen 4:1; 5:25; cf. Gen 3:15). In the same manner, God’s promise and blessing concerning the husband-and-wife relation in Genesis 3:16 depends on the quality of their relationship with God. which itself also depends on the fulfillment of their relationship with each other. In other words, the reciprocal submission between the woman and the man is subject to the submission to God.

2. Conclusion: The Interpretation of the So-Called “Curse” of the Woman

The connection of Genesis 3:16 with Genesis 3:15 teaches us that instead of reading this text in the negative sense of a tragic curse (the word “curse” is not even used here), we should read it in the positive sense of a blessing. In light of Genesis 3:15, we learn that Genesis 3:16 should be placed in the Messianic perspective of salvation and the hope for victory over evil and the restoration of the original order. The lessons of this contextual reading of Genesis 3:16 are important not only because they provide us with the key to interpretation from within the text itself, but also because they have direct ethical implications. Whether in the family circle between husband and wife or in social and professional dynamics, these lessons, which place Genesis 3:16 in the perspective of salvation, should definitely inspire and govern man–woman relations, especially in the husband-wife context. Thus, any exegetical exercise or any administrative measure or behavior supporting or promoting the idea of the subordination of woman to man can not only have an ethical impact on relations between men and women, as has often been the case, but will also deny the prophetic intention of the biblical text and thus sadly run against the divine project of redemption.