“Desire” in Genesis 3:16b is not just the “battle of the sexes” as presented in the NLT. Desire is not the crutch for unwise counsel that often has been dispensed by pastors and counselors to otherwise victimized wives. Rather “desire” in Genesis 3:16b results from the frustration felt by the victim of an abusive relationship, frustrated by her inability to fulfill her natural desire for oneness.

SUMMARY

Has Genesis 3:16b been interpreted completely in describing difficult marriages? The NLT bible, first published in 1996, tells us (italicized):

Then he said to the woman, “I will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy, and in pain you will give birth. And you will desire [Hebrew: tĕshuwqah] to control your husband, but he will rule over you. [Genesis 3:16, NLT]

Historically, Susan Foh’s paper (click here), published in the Westminster Theological Journal in 1975, interpreted Genesis 3:16b as proclaiming the “battle of the sexes.”  Tracking the same exegesis, John Piper (click here) published his 1989 interpretation: “when sin has the upper hand in woman, she will desire to overpower or subdue or exploit man. And when sin has the upper hand in man, he will respond in like manner and with his strength subdue her, or rule over her.”

Is this “battle of the sexes” truly an all-encompassing interpretation? My counseling of wives and ex-wives of difficult marriages reveals that many have blamed themselves: feeling inadequate, guilty, unwanted, unappreciated, bitter, depressed, and often were verbally combative. Many had turned to some form of “escapism”— escaping into comfort food; volunteerism; work; extramarital emotional and/or sexual interests, and so forth. None of these were godly choices. How are pastors and counselors to help women who feel many of these negative emotions and may have even turned to escapism? Are they to be counseled as  “problems,” being principal contributors to the “battle,” or as “victims,” being tyrannically “ruled over?” Are wives made in God’s image, or are they just another Stepford wife? [i]

Post-Fall marriages are consummated by two naturally, selfishly sinful people. This leads to a broad range in marital power dynamics – at one extreme is a servient wife (the Stepford wife), while at the other extreme (hopefully infrequent) is hand-to-hand combat. [ii] Genesis 3:16b described above seemingly leans towards the combative side of the equation. Given this narrative, pastors and counselors move towards calming the wife: counseling her to be more tolerant, more submissive, and more respectful of her “controlling” husband.

What’s missing is the biblical approach to counseling wives who are constantly being demeaned, and who may have chosen “escapism.” Counseling of these wives as “the problem” only emboldens and vindicates controlling husbands. Rather these wives should be counseled as “victims,” counseled to follow 1 Peter 3:13-17, that’s “doing good” by setting relationship boundaries that enable husbands to opens their eyes and see their post-Fall sinfulness.

This paper tracks the metanarrative of Genesis 1-4, a metanarrative that actually tracks the entire book of Genesis, reappearing in Paul and Peter’s writings, where the ending point is anchored in the Trinity. Tracking this metanarrative reveals that Genesis 3:16b points to “frustration” as the foundational longing that underpins “desire” as used to describe Post-Fall marriages.

BACKGROUND

In interpreting Genesis 3:16b, the Hebrew word translated by English bibles as “desire” is tĕshuwqah. Tĕshuwqah appears only in Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 and in Song 7:10.  Foh and Piper’s exegesis considers only the two usages in Genesis, deeming the third usage in Song 7:10 as contextually irrelevant. This exegesis is based upon the close grammatical parallelism and virtually the same usage of Hebrew words found in both Genesis 3:16 and 4:7.

Referencing the ESV translation, the three uses of tĕshuwqah in the Hebrew bible are:

1. 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 contrary to [alternate: shall be toward] your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
2. Genesis 4:7 — If you do well, will you not be accepted?[Literal translation: will there not be a lifting up (of your face)?] And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to [alternate: is toward] you, but you must rule over it.”
3. Song 7:10 — [The woman is speaking] “I am my beloved’s,and his desire is for me.

In 1986 Irvin Busentiz published a counter argument (click here) concluding: “in spite of the Fall, the woman will [still] have a longing for intimacy with man involving more than sexual intimacy.”  Busenitz’s interpretation hinges on his contextual analysis that the woman’s desire (Genesis 3:16b) for her husband and his ruling over her is not punishment for having exalted herself over her Creator, but rather it’s God’s elaboration of marital behavioral Post-Fall. Her punishment is “pain” in childbirth (sex specific) while Adam’s punishment is (sex specific) “pain and toil” as he provides for his family (Genesis 3:17-19). Busentiz emphasized Song 7:10 over Genesis 4:7.

Ed Welch’s blog of April 5, 2018, in commentating on Busentiz’s and Piper’s papers (click here), rightfully concludes: “This [Busentiz’s] interpretation does not suggest that there will never be power struggles in marriage. It does suggest that we should not assume that all women want power over their husbands.

Busentiz hits the target, yet narrowly misses the bull’s eye. As the metanarrative reveals, a wife’s natural longing (desire) is for complete oneness with her husband, and is what’s frustrated by her husband’s abusive nature. How can a wife naturally relish in the closeness and intimacy of emotional and spiritual oneness with a husband who constantly demeans her? [iii]This frustration is what the metanarrative reveals to be the biblical foundation of “desire” in Genesis 3:16b.

In 2017 Rachel Miller also published an analytical review of Foh’s exegesis missteps (click here), solidifying a viewpoint that Foh’s presuppositions likely lead (eisegesis) to her conclusion, thus reinforcing the typical lie pattern of abusive men: “I’m not at all abusive.”

TRACING THE METANARRITAVE STARTING AT GENESIS 1:28

The fabric on the Canon is woven from the strands of many metanarrative, all self-consistent with the Canon’s overarching narrative. Individual verses remain true to the metanarratives.

Creation —> Fall —> Redemption —> Restoration

The metanarrative in focus begins foundationally at Genesis 1:28. God had just created his children, male and female, and he now bestows his Blessing upon them – and upon us. Among other names, Genesis 1:28 is known as his Covenant of Works:

And God blessed them. And 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.” [ESV]

The Blessing is the very first words God speaks to his children. As C. S. Lewis explains: [iv]

 “God made us: invented us as a man invents an engine. A car is made to run on petrol, and it would not run properly on anything else. Now God designed the human machine to run on Himself. He Himself is the fuel our spirits were designed to burn, or the food our spirits were designed to feed on. There is no other. … God cannot give us a happiness and peace apart from Himself, because it is not there. There is no such thing.” 

The Blessing is God “filling our tank” with his “fuel.” Parsing these commands (his fuel), the first two are inwardly focused as God is ordaining how parents are to marry and to raise his children. His intended objective is God-fearing Vice-Regents managing his Earth in his image, glorifying him:

The command to replenish is a pivot, meaning that what children learned from their parents (who have been obedient to the first two commands) is transferred to and emulated in their newly formed families. What are the intentions of these commands?

BE FRUITFUL

So that his children, men and women, will have the natural tendency to marry, God created sexual attraction, which he elaborates upon in Genesis 2 where he creates Woman from Man: Initially one, their natural desire (sexual attraction) is to return to each other, becoming one again. This joy in recreating oneness is what’s reflected in Song 7:10.

MULTIPLY

God defined marriage overall in Genesis 2:20-25. Those couples he calls to be parents are to bear the fruit (multiply God fearing children), an act to be again repeated, multiplying God-fearing children on down through the generations, replenishing and filling his Earth with Christians. Those not called to parent are called to be supportive of his Blessing.

REPLENISH/FILL

Within his overall definition of the marriage is the very essence of what parents are to model and teach their children (Genesis 2:24-25). These two verses speak to the natural oneness (their desire is to return and become one again) that unites parents in intimacy, unites parents and children, and unites family with God. It’s this pervasive family oneness that children will learn, transfer to, and emulate in their new family units, fulfilling his command to multiply.

DESIRE IN GENESIS 3:16b REFLECTS FRUSTRATION

The true meaning of “desire” in Genesis 3:16b is discerned from Genesis 2:24-25, the Theology of HOME. [v] Here God ordains creation of Family (the Hebrew word for “made” in Genesis 2:22 is banah, which literally means “to build a house, as in establishing a family”), and is reflected by Paul’s “family dialogue” in his two letters to Timothy. Family (HOME) is God’s creative intent, the wisdom behind his creation of sexual attraction – the attraction that facilitates the natural longing he created for returning to the intimacy, nurture, and cherishment as in the beginning.

When the husband rejects her longing to return to intimacy, nurture, and cherishment by demeaning (lording over) his wife, he frustrates her longing.

²¹ So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh. ²² And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made [to build a house, as in establish a family] into a woman and brought her to the man. ²³ Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called Woman,
because she was taken out of Man.” [ESV]

When wordplay appears in the Canon, it calls our attention to a key point: Here, Adam is using the Hebrew words for woman (ishshah) and man (ish) that sound alike – calling our attention to the specific point that while woman and man are physically different, they are really one – this is key to the true meaning of “desire” (longing) in Genesis 3:16b.

God devoted five passages in scripture to explain his intentions for creating oneness. Focus on the Family summarizes oneness, her longing to return and become one again (click here), as follows:

“For what reason is man to marry a wife? Because woman was originally a constituent part of man, she must return to become one with him again, so that the full expression and design of God’s image in human beings can be revealed.”

Reinforcing his message of oneness, God tells us that Adam poetically greeted his wife reflecting “delight and cherishment” – just as the woman longs for oneness with her husband, the husband must not loose sight that he is to “greet” her conjugal return with cherishment and nurture, his delightful feelings coming from the many ways he delights her. For a husband to otherwise not cherish and nurture his wife, nor to take delight in doing so, is to frustrate her natural feelings; frustrated by her inability to fulfill her anticipated longings of bonding and glorification of God.

In retrospect, Martin Luther observed[vi] that God might have taken a bone from Adam’s toe to signify that he’s to rule over her, or perhaps a bone from his head to signify that she rules over him. Rather in taking a bone from his side, God signifies EQUALITY and MUTIAL RESPECT. Charles Spurgeon[vii] extends God’s metaphorical picture noting that the rib is close to Adam’s heart to signify that she’s his BELOVED (we are reminded again of Adam’s heart-felt poetic reaction to meeting Eve in Genesis 2:23) and that the rib is under his arm denoting that he’s her PROTECTOR, a key point that Adam will soon forget.

THE BONDING OF ONENESS

Bonding is to be covenantally modeled before children. Paul anchors this aspect of our metanarrative in Ephesians 5:29 (For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church [NKJV]) where he summarizes the Theology of HOME – bonding (oneness) is the spiritual equivalent of the unity of the Trinity.[viii] When the spouses put aside their defenses, stripping off their pretenses (masks), tearing down defensive walls, and expressing their love for each other (1 Corinthians 13), they are connecting their oneness to God (1 John 4:8), recreating Eden in fellowship with God.

To clearly understand Genesis 2:24-25, the Gesenius’ Hebrew-Chaldee Lexicon helps us discern the definitions of the relevant English/Hebrew words (as noted bold italics):

²⁴ Therefore a man hall leave [`azab, a primitive root meaning “to loosen bands”] his father and mother and be joined [dabaq, a primitive root that means to adhere, firmly as if with glue; to be glued (think Krazy Glue) characterizing the secure attachment that forms between spouses] to his wife, and they shall become one [‘echad, an adjective; its root is the cardinal number ONE, being properly unified] flesh. ²⁵ And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed [buwsh, a primitive verb meaning simply to be ashamed, to not blush and not even to feel terror because someone else knows your inner most secrets]. [NKJV]

“Naked” in v. 25 underscores God’s closeness of oneness. God is telling spouses not to wear a mask to hide vulnerabilities and desires. Masks are employed to hide not just from others, but also, sadly, from ourselves. Post-Fall we all have become “pointers” (we naturally avoid taking personal responsibility for our own behavior) as well as mask-wearing “hiders” (we naturally hide from ourselves). Pointing and hiding negate oneness.

TURNING FRUSTRATION INTO ACTION: “DOING GOOD”

When pastors and counselors advise wives to be more tolerant, more submissive, and more respectful of their “controlling” husbands, they actually are counseling “pretense” – for wives to pretend an untruth, to engage in a pretense that’s totally contradictory to God’s marriage ordnances, to uproot their hearts from Living Water, and to become co-conspirators with their husband’s continued abusive behavior.

The NT provides biblical direction: 1 Peter is a letter written to the diaspora living in what is now northern Turkey. Here many Christian wives were married to pagan husbands, and these wives desired to convert husbands to Christianity. Peter is giving advice in a situation that mirrors the Post-Fall marriage described in Genesis 3:16b. How? Husbands who abuse wives, lording over them, otherwise demeaning them, have abdicated their Pastoral Responsibility as ordained in Genesis 2. They have become functional nonbelievers. What advice does Peter convey for wives who want their husbands to be redeemed?

¹ Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives, ² when they see the purity and reverence of your lives. [1 Peter 3:1-2, NIV]

What Peter is telling wives to do is to trust in God, to not sinfully bristle under their husband’s tyrannical abuse, to not choose an escape from frustrations. Rather, to recognize that faith without works is dead (James 2:17). To recognize that talk without godly action is unhelpful (Proverbs 21:19; 25:24). Rather to take godly action! Peter explains:

¹³ Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? ¹⁴ But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threat]; do not be frightened.” ¹⁵ But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, ¹⁶ keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander. ¹⁷ For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. [1 Peter 3:13-17, NIV]

What is “doing good” … “suffer for what is right” mean? Peter himself was flogged for disobeying authority by continuing to preach publically about Christ. Peter’s preaching was “doing good.” Peter suffered for what was right (Acts 4:19-20; 5:17-42).

Husbands will retaliate, just as Genesis 3:16b says. Since the wife is no longer passive, no longer providing Stepford wife benefits of marriage, she will suffer for doing good rather than continuing her suffering for doing wrong – inaction, remaining passive. Take action. Set boundaries that challenge husbands. Speak the truth. Help them open their eyes, to see their sinfulness when crossing a boundary. This is God’s wisdom for pastors and counselors who are called to help destructive marriages, to open their eyes and discern when abuse is present.

GENESIS 4

This chapter speaks to the wisdom of parents choosing HOME, illustrated by the consequences of choosing disobedience (raising Cain) or choosing obedience to Genesis 1:28 (raising Abel/Seth).

The Hebrew word rabah translated in the Genesis 1:28 command as “multiply” reappears in Genesis 3:16, again translated as “multiply” (her childbearing pain), linguistically linking Eve’s painful punishment with a specific aspect of convent obedience, a linguistic marker of God’s restoration of Eve whereby he directly intervened (Genesis 3:15a), turning her heart from Satan back onto himself.

Paul, in 1 Timothy 2:15, confirms that this linguistic marker is to remind us that Eve was to fulfill her God-assigned role, ensuring that “the seed” will be raised in a HOME. How? Genesis 4 suggests that Eve may have become an `Ezer Warrior,[ix] “doing good” (1 Peter 3, above) by setting boundaries that may have reflected Adam’s sinfulness.

Moses is totally silent on how Adam and Eve transitioned from being parents of ungodly Cain to being parents of godly Abel/Seth. As Genesis 3 closed, Adam reaffirmed his governing authority renaming Woman, Eve. Doing so, Adam affirmed his faith in God’s promise that Eve will bear the seed that defeats Satan. God then linked their “sinful nakedness” with his grace by covering their nakedness with animal skins. God instituted the sacrificial act of a “blood offering” as atonement.

Was Adam’s heart still sinfully aligned with Satan, giving rise to ungodly Cain? The story of Abraham, the second Adam, suggests that the likely answer may be a “yes.” [x]

The reality of Genesis 4, and our metanarrative, is that God chose not to reveal the Trinity in Genesis 4, rather waiting until he came to Earth as Jesus. Under our New Covenant, Christ’s obedience fulfills Genesis 1:28. Parents, by placing faith in Christ, the Trinity now provides restoration of otherwise naturally abusive unions. Thus, Peter completes this second aspect of our metanarrative by telling us how, also anchoring this aspect in the Trinity.

SUMMARY

The true meaning of “desire” in Genesis 3:16b refers to the woman’s longing to be intimate, to be cherished and nurtured, to be emotionally bonded with her husband and with God. Song 7:10 is this “desire” joyfully expressed in anticipated conjugal ravishment, to be cherished and nurtured by her husband. Genesis 4:7’s “desire” speaks to the fullness of this “joy,” likened to a crashing wave at the shore, suddenly springing up and over, totally engulfing one’s emotional being.

“Desire” in Genesis 3:16b is not just the “battle of the sexes” as presented in the NLT. Desire is not the crutch for unwise counsel that often has been dispensed by pastors and counselors to otherwise victimized wives. Rather “desire” in Genesis 3:16b results from the frustration felt by the victim of an abusive relationship, frustrated by her inability to fulfill her natural desire for oneness.

Hank Miller lives in Newton, Penn., attends Covenant Church in Doylestown, and is a Biblical Counselor specializing in abusive relationships, earnings from which support a non-profit charity, On Eagles Wings Ministry (https://oewministry.com).

[i] Leslie Vernick’s YouTube video “Five Common Mistakes People Helpers Make” speaks to the issues created when pastors and counselors approach the destructive marriage from an incorrect viewpoint.

[ii] How the power dynamics of a marriage are “settled” is very much dependent of the parental upbringing of each spouse, plus any historic “baggage” they bring to the union from prior relationships and/or marriages.

[iii] The relationship is not always all about sex; the longing for the emotional connection of oneness is pervasive. For example, a woman posted the following on an adultery web site: “There are actually some of us out here who truly are looking for that missing emotional link and our spouses are fully aware that something is missing. We are looking for more than a guy who says he is missing something at home when all it is he’s missing is exciting sex. Be honest – say it. Save us all the time. Some women want only that and some don’t. Some of us may be getting the best sex possible already at home but the emotion is missing. It may come as a surprise, but we’re not always here because we live in a sexless marriage. Some – like me – live in an emotionless marriage.” This posting also reflects a relationship founded upon mutual egoism [narcissism]. Such an attitude on both sides is utterly incompatible with God’s ordinances.

[iv] C. S. Lewis, MERE CHRISTIANITY, Book 2, Chapter 3, “The Shocking Alternative,’ p. 50.

[v] See also Luke 15:11-32, the Parable of the Lost Son. This is where we see the broader meaning to HOME, a meaning that applies to the entire human race: “A promise of nothing less than hope for the world,” as Tim Keller points out in his book THE PRODIGAL GOD, Dutton, 2008, pp. 90-104. HOME is the redemptive vehicle; HOME reflects the OT’s overarching metanarative of exile and homecoming. Being HOME in marriage precludes being one’s own savior. HOME negates the inherited self-centeredness we all have acquired from the Fall. HOME maintains spousal hearts nurtured by Living Water. HOME is where two sinning spouses merge, and following God’s ordinances in Genesis 1-2, move together towards redemption. That’s together walking the path of progressive nearness. HOME in marriage is the mini-community of God’s love and mutual accountability, according to his purpose in the creation of Woman – to “build “ his family.

[vi] Scripture note v. 2:21, NKJV Study Bible, Thomas Nelson, 1982.

[vii] G. J. Wenham, GENESIS 1-15 (Waco, TX: Word, 1987), p.69.

[viii] In their book, Timothy Keller, with Kathy Keller, THE MEANING OF MARRIAGE, Penguin Group, 2011, pp. 236, refer to the gloriousness of oneness (the art of gift-giving) as an “embodied out-of-body experience” (call it rapture). “It’s the most ecstatic, breathtaking, daring, scarcely-to-be imagined look at the glory that is our future.”

[ix] In Genesis 2:18, the Hebrew for “helper” is `ezer. Throughout the OT God is referred to as an `ezer.

[x] Abraham’s sinful abuse of Sarah was first disclosed in Genesis 12:11-13, reappearing some 25 years later in Genesis 20:1-17, only to be fully redeemed in Genesis 22:2-8, even though God had made his covenant with him in Genesis 17, changing his name from Abram to Abraham, symbolizing his destiny as father of all nations (Genesis 17:5), fathering Isaac in Genesis 21:3. Time line: 12 (abuse) –> 17 (covenant) –> 20 (abuse) –> 21 (Isaac) –> 22 (heart redemption) Throughout Genesis, God demonstrates that human frailties to sin will not impede his plan for salvation.