So there is an interesting discussion going on out there about the curse declared upon the woman in Genesis 3:16. I don’t exactly have a dog in the fight, but I might have a cat to set among the pigeons because I might have a dogma in the fight. I only ask, running counter to the old saying, that my dogma not be beaten with any stigma. Okay, way too much going on, especially for the first paragraph.
Back on track:
“Unto the woman he said, 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).
At question is whether or not the woman’s desire for her husband is a desire for mastery. This interpretation was apparently first advanced by Susan Foh in the seventies. It amounts to saying that the woman will always want to gain mastery over the man, but, tough luck, the man will nevertheless “rule over” her. In other words, the conflict for mastery between the sexes is a function of the curse. There is a parallel construction in the next chapter (Gen. 4:7), one which seems to make the desire/rule formula a question of mastery. Cain was being warned against sin, and God apparently refers to Abel’s desire to defer to Cain, and the firstborn Cain’s rule over him—therefore, given this reality, if you do right, will you not be accepted? (In my view, sin being the entity having the desire to master Cain introduces too much grammatical and theological weirdness into the equation.)
On the other hand, Foh’s interpretation is a novelty. Prior to this fairly recent attempt to parry the feminists, the standard interpretation was simply that the woman would be oriented toward her husband, and therefore subject to him.
Here is Calvin on it:
“For this form of speech, “Thy desire shall be unto thy husband,” is of the same force as if he had said that she should not be free and at her own command, but subject to the authority of her husband and dependent upon his will; or as if he had said, ‘Thou shalt desire nothing but what thy husband wishes.’ . . . She had, indeed, previously been subject to her husband, but that was a liberal and gentle subjection; now, however, she is cast into servitude.[1]
But if we return to the classic view, given how much feminist water has run under the feckless evangelical bridge in the meantime, we have to be careful how we return to it. As a case in point, I would point to an interpretation that Wendy Alsup offers here:
“I believe it means an idolatrous longing for something from the man that she was created to receive from God alone.”
To interpret it this way is to introduce something new—it is more than just a simple return to an older view. Because of the curse, man was going to have a tough time with the thistles, and woman was going to be burdened with pains in childbirth. Now such things can be the occasion for sin, but there are not sin in themselves. Living in a fallen world is not the same thing as sinning. The frustrations that arise in a fallen world make it easier to sin, but having weeds in my garden is not essentially a sin.
Headship and submission can certainly be an arena where sin occurs, but headship and submission are not essentially sinful.For God to consign the woman to an “idolatrous longing” is to consign her to an essentially sinful condition. Even if you argue that Christ came to reverse the curse, it still means that all married women from Eve to the era of Christ were idolaters. But if it is simple desire for her husband, then you leave room for that desire to be pursued sinfully or righteously. The responses a woman has to this desire can be obedient or disobedient, godly or ungodly. Headship and submission can certainly be an arena where sin occurs, but headship and submission are not essentially sinful.
But this interpretation means, if you come to the conclusion that this longing is essentially idolatrous, the Christian duty is therefore to mortify it. If Christ has dealt with this problem in the cross, then what does repentance look like?
Near the end of her post, Alsup points to the situation where a wife has to stand up to an abusive husband. I agree that there are such situations. In this fallen world, no human authority can be treated as an absolute. Every human authority has appointed creational limits. Of course. There are times when women have to play the role of Abigail. But this interpretation would mean that every married woman has to cast down this idol. Not only so, but doing this while at the same time she is being submissive to her husband in all things (Eph. 5:24), being in subjection to him (1 Pet. 3:1), and having her submission be fitting in the Lord (Col. 3:18). But this is a real challenge. How can you cast down the idol of desire for your husband, that which enables him to rule over you, while simultaneously pursuing the desire to honor and serve him in all things? There would have to be a lot of higher math involved.
Notes
[1] John Calvin and John King, Commentary on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis, vol. 1 (Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010), 172.
What if we change the view angle?: These “curses” actually = promises. To Satan: “You lose” That’s not given so much as a curse on him, BUT as a Messianic promise to us, right? To Eve (and all of us): “INCREASED sorrow WITH those kiddos, and an attentive, leader of a husband” That’s an acknowledgment of the death that came with the sin, BUT with the reality of producing those kiddos, including the Messiah that rules over her, the Church. To Adam (and all of us): “Sorrow now; difficult work; BUT given daily bread, nonetheless; and the dust you are… Read more »
I like that, Eric. We do need to change the view angle. I have often said God hides blessings in what some like to call “curses.” But God does not curse his children in Genesis, He curses the ground and He curses the serpent. Consequences are not curses. Childbirth for example, excruciatingly painful and yet so wonderful, such a blessing, some of chose to do it over and over again. Desire for her husband, well that too seems like a great blessing to me, no matter how you define it. And men, as much as they complain about work, there… Read more »
Losing a kiddo, Eve realized another aspect of that sorrow firsthand.
Think of all the lost children — i.e., all children (little & big).
Then Adam names her “Mother of all the living” >> ain’t that a shout of hope?!
Amen, Eric! A shout of hope, indeed. :)
I think the “point of view” is an often overlooked, but very important, element in the Genesis account of the first marriage. https://swimthedeepend.wordpress.com/2011/12/12/the-pov-of-marriage/
“At question is whether or not the woman’s desire for her husband is a desire for mastery. This interpretation was apparently first advanced by Susan Foh in the seventies.”
I heard it from the pulpit at least 50 years ago.
She was in your pulpit 3 years earlier?
(sorry)
I also heard it from Baptist friends way back.
Maybe Susan took & ran & popularized it.
You mean the Patriarchalists actually listen to what a woman has to say? Or is it only when it suits a particular agenda?
Should we listen to a woman soley because of her sex, or should we listen to her because she has something insightful to say? Which of these is more honorable?
Why would they not?
it is God’s agenda.
If a woman complies with God’s agenda why should we not listen?!
Again with the incredulity about women’s contributions, on a blog written by a man whose wife and two daughters are all published authors on matters of practical theology, and whose philosophy of education he openly and regularly attributes to influence by Dorothy Sayers — just to name a few of the ways in which female contribution is explicitly honored.
If there can’t be an original song, can someone at least come up with a different verse?
” … can someone at least come up with a different verse?” Verse? Did somebody ask for a verse? “Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness.” Then there is this one: “I permit no woman to teach … men; she is to keep silent.” And this one: “As in all the churches of the saints, the women should keep silence in the churches.” And this: “For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says.” More? “If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home.” Pay… Read more »
Fabulous, Kevin Brendler now becomes the very caricature of a patriarchist Nonnadg is complaining about and blaming Pastor Wilson for.
I’ll write the next chapter. Nonnadg is right,it is darkly humorous that Susan, a woman, wrote the perverse bit of biblical doctrine that the patriarchists now use to justify abusing women.
Hypocrisy much?
I’m a little puzzled here. Is Kevin suggesting that, although this is not a church, it is shameful that women discourse here with men about theological issues? That Doug has forsaken the faith by permitting women’s participation? Would this rule out co-ed theology classes and Bible studies (oh silly me, I forgot that women don’t need those things to help them match up socks).
Yes, he is suggesting that, and yes, he would probably not consider your reductios to be absurd.
The cast of characters that show up here legit cracks me up.
Speaking of characters, has anyone checked in to be sure that ashv, Barnie, mkt, and Timothy are safe?
Going to research this one – the wording difference in the ESV and the KJV are enough to confound me.
http://thecripplegate.com/four-reasons-why-desire-in-genesis-316-is-about-intimacy-not-domination/#more-218350
First recent reference I found. Be blessed!
I am by no means deeply acquainted with Strong’s, but it is curious to me that the word for desire (תְּשׁוּקָה tĕshuwqah) only appears three times in the OT. Our subject verse, the verse about Cain that was referenced, and Song of Songs 7:10. Defined as desire, longing, craving – it seems that mastery is digging a little deep to me. Certainly sin wants mastery over us Genesis 4:7, but isn’t desire a personification of sin? It’s not really what it does is it? It seems sin is more the vehicle by which Satan devours and its wages are death.… Read more »
I for one always thought that the desire for dominance (woman) and reality of dominance (man) that came out of the fall were directly related to the temptation that was succumbed to… that being a desire “to be like God”. Essentially self-elevation, which is of course what Lucifer fell to, and which is trait of all mankind. So how fitting that out of the fall, this self-elevation (either desired or effectual) dominates our marriages. You want to be a god… here, be a god in your marriage and see how that works out for you. And how redeeming that marriage… Read more »
The desire is “for” her husband. The question is whether it is “toward” or “against”.
I think Foh makes a good point in seeing the parallel in the Cain passage.
Bethyada, I always–without thinking about it very much–took it to mean neither idolatry or a desire for dominance. I thought it meant that women will naturally want to be married, will look to their husbands as their primary source of natural happiness and sense of purpose, and will tend to love more devotedly than they are loved in return. As Lord Byron put it, ” Man’s love is of man’s life a thing apart, ‘Tis woman’s whole existence.” Her husband may rule her unkindly, and she will love him nonetheless. Or, as Jane Austen has a character say in “Persuasion”:… Read more »
“How can you cast down the idol of desire for your husband, that which enables him to rule over you, while simultaneously pursuing the desire to honor and serve him in all things? There would have to be a lot of higher math involved.” Now Pastor Wilson is implying girls aren’t good at higher math! Sheesh. J/K. In all seriousness, there is math involved, but I think that is it precisely. Look at the issues that often plague women in relationships, co-dependancy, abuse, or simply “he’s not making me happy,” ” he doesn’t meet my needs.” Those are all issues… Read more »
“On the other hand, Foh’s interpretation is a novelty. Prior to this fairly recent attempt to parry the feminists, the standard interpretation was simply that the woman would be oriented toward her husband, and therefore subject to him.” So, Douglas Wilson, is her interpretation false? Is Calvin’s true? I can tell that you’re undermining Foh passively, but you won’t say straight-out that her interpretation is false. In fact, your mere assertion that it’s not standard hardly persuades me that Foh’s is wrong. The standard interpretation you’re proposing isn’t any more true because it was the typically accepted interpretation. I want… Read more »
Prince, I am not ready yet to reject Foh’s approach outright, although I am currently leaning against it. My point was that we can capitulate to feminism either way we go, and so we have to be careful.
am I wrong in assuming that Christians 150 years ago and during Paul’s time did not debate roles or whether men and women were different?
I mean if feminism was divine and a fruit of the spirit surely Jesus and the apostles would have taught it?!
I feel like people are sowing so much confusion , basic guidelines for life are now debated way too much.
Foh’s arguments’ fatal flaw might be throwing our parents into the same bag with the dragon.
God cursed only the horny one, not the other two.
“For they sake” = benefit, not judgement.
Pains / sweat / thorns / rule — all hold hidden hope.
“the DAY that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die” — didn’t happen.
If you say “It did, spiritually” — the text mysteriously misses this.
Instead, God worries they’ll LIVE FOREVER (in this condition, with access to the tree).
So they’ve REPENTED and God has reneged, or rather postponed that day of death — to deliver that judgment on HIMSELF in Jesus, and on Satan.
Each work to Adam & Eve then = promise that leads to that wonderful anti-death day.
Hence Adam’s first words after God’s covenant PROMISE is that Eve is the mother of the LIVING!
“Prince, I am not ready yet to reject Foh’s approach outright, although I am currently leaning against it.” So you are undecided on this. You have written entire books on marriage, and you’re not sure you reject Foh’s interpretation of Genesis 3:16. That’s incredibly confusing to me. Given that you’re a man who has written books on marriage, I knew you must have interpreted this verse before. I doubt you had some wavering undecided opinion to offer your readers, so I did some digging into your books on marriage. What you’re saying now is a bit odd in light of… Read more »
To follow up my most recent comment, you also agreed with Foh’s interpretation of Genesis 3:16 here as well:
“The prophecy that her “desire shall be for her husband” was not speaking of romantic getaways, but rather predicting that there would be a struggle for mastery. So instead of trying to gain mastery over her husband, she should struggle to gain mastery over this besetting impulse within herself.”
https://dougwils.com/s7-engaging-the-culture/21-theses-submission-marriage.html
That previous quote from your 21 theses on marriage was published a month ago, so therefore, you didn’t just hold to Foh’s interpretation eleven years ago. You held to it as early as last month! Also, from page 29 of your book Future Men: “Part of the curse in Genesis is seen in how the woman desires to have mastery over her husband. When God tells Eve that her desire will be for her husband (Gen. 3:16), this was not referring to romantic getaways. The phrase is virtually identical to the one found in the next chapter, when God warns… Read more »
Prince Asbel wrote: That previous quote from your 21 theses on marriage was published a month ago, so therefore, you didn’t just hold to Foh’s interpretation eleven years ago. You held to it as early as last month! Asbel doth protest way too much. Wilson never said he didn’t hold to Foh’s interpretation. He even said he wasn’t ready to reject it, implying that he still holds it. However, he said he was “leaning against it”. That’s not a statement of having reached a conclusion. So Asbel shouldn’t jump to conclusions on Wilson’s behalf, or try to rush him into… Read more »
Wilson never said he didn’t hold to Foh’s interpretation. He even said he wasn’t ready to reject it, implying that he still holds it. However, he said he was “leaning against it”. That’s not a statement of having reached a conclusion. This is gobbledygook. If he is presently leaning against it, then that implies he DOESN’T still hold to it. Talk about twisting words to no avail. Also, if he hasn’t reached a formal “final” conclusion, big deal. He has concluded ENOUGH to go out of his way to undermine his own teachings in this article. So Asbel shouldn’t jump… Read more »
And then, there is the non-feckless evangelical road:
Of making many books there is no end, and much study wearies the body.
13 Now all has been heard;
here is the conclusion of the matter:
Fear God and keep his commandments,
for this is the duty of all mankind.
14 For God will bring every deed into judgment,
including every hidden thing,
whether it is good or evil.
In Genesis 4:7, to my mind, Cain’s sinful nature is the entity that “lieth at the door” and that Cain must rule over. I’m apparently missing the grammatical and theological weirdness you speak of.
Oh to have a vast kingdom of sin, of which I am king.
Holy Smokes, what a tangled mess! And here I thought you Solo Scripturists believed in the perspicuity of Scripture. And to think the popular current interpretation among the Patriarchalists was first advanced by a woman. Oh, the irony of it all.
What meanest this solO scripturist, Nonnadg?
Against RC church documents, I’m thinking the reformers formulated SolA scriptura to say they’d accept only scriptures are the sole, normative, infallible rule of faith.
That may have been a mistake for them to put it that way, since natural revelation always inescapably gets all in your face and also normative & infallible.
Well, now you know! Check out the Westminster Confession (1:7):
All things in Scripture are not alike plain in themselves, nor alike clear unto all; yet those things which are necessary to be known, believed, and observed for salvation, are so clearly propounded, and opened in some place of Scripture or other, that not only the learned, but the unlearned, in a due use of the ordinary means, may attain unto a sufficient understanding of them.
Almost gnostic, no?
Gotta rise to a certain level of understanding of specific propositions (which data is available only in this particular literature) to be able to be saved.
Not even close.
For starters, I don’t think that Foh’s interpretation can be ignored based on it being new or being a response to feminism. Many a person has investigated issues in response to a person or and ideology. Sinaiticus manuscript was discovered by a man who devoted his life to looking for early manuscripts in response to a biblical sceptic and cynic. Strobel intended on refuting Christianity. One secured his belief, the other changed his, but motivation is not intrisically a bad thing. The claim of being new has more to it; novelty is not as wonderful as the moderns and postmoderns… Read more »
this is expected, they want feminism to creep into theology to confuse and spread satanic lies
People should ignore such agents of the devil, why even discuss it, and she is a woman she needs to learn, not teach men…
also if women were “cursed” to naturally desire their husbands…
why do women initiate majority of divorces?!!
I think that what we see today has not been typical of women through the ages. Women (and men) are surrounded by encouragement to frivolous divorce.
I thought this was going to be about Chris Tomlin.
I’ve been sympathetic with Foh’s view before I ever heard her name.
It’s also a good sign that the SJW-Lite, “Women are always victims, men are just plain evil” female bloggers really don’t like Foh. See the comment in this blog by a so-called “women watch blogger”:
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2017/03/02/the-desire-of-the-woman-a-response-to-susan-fohs-interpretation/
Good find! A recent article helps with my ESV conundrum as well.
https://adaughterofthereformation.wordpress.com/2017/07/20/eternal-subordination-of-the-son-and-the-esv-translation/
That analysis was strained. Many of her complaints seem incorrect.
I wonder about the argument that is frequently brought up by women, “wives need to stand up to an abusive husband.” It seems if a man is abusive….that’s the last thing you should do. I think about Elizabeth Hanson’s story of being a Christian in captivity to an abusive man (Indian in this case). I would think that as a Christian woman she should behave toward an abusive husband in a way so as to *win him over* to repentance (the kindness of God leads us to repentance, right?) If that is not an option (some situations certainly warrant it),… Read more »
One of the problems with submitting in cases like that is that you are dealing with a bully and no bully was ever appeased by someone who does not fight back In fact, attempting to comply can trigger even more rage. A bully will simply up the ante. In the bible we can win him over if he is a “non believer.” Nowhere does the bible say that applies to bullies too. Nowhere does it say that applies to abuse. Attempting to pour appeasement over an abusive man works about as well as it did in high school with bullies,… Read more »
I think a lot of this would depend on the nature of the abuse and on what “standing up” to him would look like. I don’t think it’s true that physically abusive men will stop as long as their wives offer them no provocation. Physically abusive people look for provocation, and can find it anywhere. I think the one thing that might stop a man from punching his wife is the certain knowledge that she will leave and that he will face criminal charges. And even that is not certain. (I would say exactly thing about a wife who throws… Read more »
Would understanding Genesis 3:16 as a curse which disrupts godly headship and submission between husbands and wives be in line with Foh? An explanation like, because of sin, now women will generally desire to wrongfully usurp their husbands headship and men will in turn wrongfully use their power to rule over women. I am still not sure what exactly the problems are with this understanding? I am also not sure what kind of “weirdness” Doug is referring to in the Genesis 4:7 parallel passage. Are there compelling reasons to not think that it is referring to ruling over Cain’s sin?… Read more »
If anyone wants some really good research on this, Sam Powell has done a good post.
https://myonlycomfort.com/2016/09/08/genesis-316/
Sam Powell is the definition of feckless. Stay away from him.
Here is another (fascinating) interpretation of Genesis 3:16 by some Hebrew scholars Curley & Peterson in their article “Eve’s Curse Revisited: An Increase of Sorrowful Conception.” They argue that the curse makes it more difficult for woman to conceive. They note how almost all of the matriarchs in Genesis had difficulty conceiving. That Exodus 23:26 removes this curse for faithful Israel in the Promised Land. The “desire for her husband” – is the desire to procreate, and the authors note to what lengths many women in Genesis went to get pregnant. I found their arguments totally convincing. Unfortunately I can’t… Read more »