Photo by Drew Dizzy Graham on Unsplash
Does the Bible say Eve would desire to grasp Adam’s authority or Eve would desire to control Adam?
In Chapter 2 of my book, I promised the reader they could go to my website to learn more about why a negative motive interpretation is incorrect. (Also, the question assumes Adam has authority to grasp.) For those who are coming to this article outside of reading about it in my book, following is the introduction from the book:
Many times, the phrase is explained as follows: “Wives will desire to rule over or control their husbands, but husbands will rule, as God meant them to.” Everywhere else, we are instructed to first choose the plain reading and meaning of the text. The English word “desire” means “to yearn for” or “want,” as in, “You will want him.” The same Hebrew word translated to desire, teshuqah, is used by Solomon as he desires his lover in a romantic way in Song of Solomon 7:10. This should be the plain reading.
A small minority of translations have made the choice that teshuqah means to try to control. There is weak reason to interpret it this way. The definition of the word teshuqah (noun) (H8669) is “desire, longing” in the lexicons of Brown, Driver, and Briggs (BDB) and Gesenius. Besides the use of teshuqah in the Song of Solomon, it is used just one other time in the OT (a grand total of three times), in the narrative of Cain and Abel in Genesis 4:7.
The choice to interpret “desire” negatively rather than positively is biased since there are many reasons that it should not be interpreted negatively. I did a lengthy study of this topic and listed some of the many textual reasons why this teaching is wrong. See “Eve’s Desire” on my website blog.
My book elaborates more on
- how “Eve’s desire” has been interpreted negatively
- how the negative interpretation was propagated by prolific Reformation era writers/teachers
- how some modern translations (i.e. ESV, NLT, NET) added words such as “contrary” and “control” to the verse to promote the negative idea even though there is no negative words in the Hebrew, and
- how this teaching has done damage.
As promised, below is a bullet point list of reasons why we should associate Eve’s desire as similar to Solomon’s rather than the sin crouching at Cain’s door.
- One of the world’s leading scholars of biblical Hebrew, Andrew A. Macintosh, has five arguments for the word teshuquah being more accurately translated as “single-minded devotion,” rather than a desire to have someone/something. This would give it a positive meaning in 3:16 and a simply focused meaning in 4:7. In other words, Eve will have focused devotion for her husband which will be unrequited as he instead, simply dominates her. Macintosh’s study is peer-reviewed (shows other scholars agree his research was done well) and covers considerations from the Septuagint, the Peshitta, Rabbinic interpretation, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and comparative Semitic philology.
Andrew A. Macintosh, “The Meaning of Hebrew תְּשׁוּקָה (teshuqah),” Journal of Semitic Studies 61.2 (2016): 365–387.
- Studying chiastic patterns reveals Genesis chapters 2-3 has its own pattern and Genesis chapters 4-5 has its own. If chapters 3-4 were a pattern, there would be more reason to see a parallel. (Chiastic patterns are seen throughout the OT and hold interesting insights, especially at the climax of each pattern.)
- Two items make Genesis 3:16 and 4:7 unparallel: Eve and Solomon are humans having the desire (or focus), in contrast to the metaphoric, animal-like sin having the desire in Genesis 4. Also, the phrase “crouching at the door” makes it sinister, whereas there is nothing sinister about the language of 3:16. Genesis 3:16 is, therefore, more parallel to Songs of Solomon 7:10.
- Mashal in Genesis 4:7 is translated as an imperative (command) “you must rule” (over sin) whereas 3:16 is translated as a future tense “he will rule” so the tone of the two passages are different. In 3:16, God is speaking to Eve and describing situations she will have no control over. In 4:7, God is speaking to Cain and commanding him to do something about his situation. This is more evidence that the two passages are not parallel.
- One cannot choose to equate Eve’s desire as sinful (without any leading context outside of one’s imagination) unless one is also willing to equate Solomon’s desire with sin. There is nothing in Songs of Solomon 7:10 that indicates Solomon’s desire was sinful—on the contrary, it is beautiful. The perception by some in the early church that all sex was sinful probably contributed to the biased interpretation that Eve’s desire was sinful.
- The word for rule, mashal, is qal imperfect in both verses followed by a prepositional phrase that can mean “over” so, “sin desires to rule over Cain, and Adam will rule over Eve.” This is not, “sin desires to rule over Cain, and Eve desires to rule over Adam.” The “ruling over” comes from Adam, not Eve. To say Eve desires “to rule over” is to put something (a prepositional phrase for “over”) into the text that is simply not there.
- Not only is there no “over” preposition, but there is also no preposition for snatching or grasping something “away” from him. Rather, her desire (or focus) is “toward” him. Meanwhile, his heart posture of ruling uses the preposition “over.”
An entire book could be written on this subject. It truly is important, because the interpretation that woman desires to rule over man, but he should rule over her instead has caused much damage. Some complementarians agree that the “rule” word (mashal) for the man’s action is negative, and not what God intended, but they still conclude God-ordained, male authority. Just as it cannot be found in this passage, it cannot be found in any other passage if all factors are carefully considered in each passage.
0 Comments