Your desire (to control) was toward your husband
Genesis 3:16
"Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
NKJV
That is how the New King James version translates it. Most other translations do something very similar. The GWT is perhaps the worse with "Yet you will long for your husband, and he will rule you." But most versions are echoing the same thing, the woman will long sexually and emotionally for their husbands. And the verse then adds the result: the man will certainly rule over the wife. There have been a lot of good sermons to share this view!! :)
That is how it is popularly understood. You can read it in the NIV, NASB, GNT, RSV, NRSV, ESV... they all read pretty much the same. Even the Message yields similar wording, removing, the sexual innuendos (which, btw, would be wrong to do, if the word really means "longing for"), and reads, " For you'll want to please your husband, but he'll lord it over you." At least, the Message gets a nice translation for the second part. This indeed refers to a man "lording it over" the wife.
The good news is: These are bad translations of the verse. And some of the newer translations are yielding a much more correct understanding.
Look at this nice example from the New Living Translation:
"And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you."
NLT
Does that give you a different understanding of the verse? The NLT says the desire is to "control your husband." That is quite another thing all together!
But is it right?
I believe this verse is nicely translated in the NLT and is also nicely translated in the NET. But, why do so many versions mis-translate this verse? Easy: First, it is a tad confusing. Second, there is history of translations that take this word, "desire," to mean, sexual/emotional desire. Third, this bad translation is based on understanding this Hebrew word for "desire" as the same as in Song of Solomon, where it means "sexual wanting."
But, is the usage of this word in the Song of Solomon the best way to understand "desire" in Genesis? The suggestion is that, it is not.
Rather, look at the very next chapter in Genesis, Chapter 4, and you find that word again... In Chapter 4, we have Cain struggling with the rejection of his "sacrifice." Then God warns Cain that Sin (personified) is waiting at the door (tent post), "desiring to master" Cain. Yes, the author uses the same Hebrew word for "desire." But clearly this is not sexual desire. This is a desire to control in an evil way.
Which is the correct usage for Genesis 3:16?
It is best to go with the same author in the same book, written in the same era. Solomon's usage comes a thousand years later. In addition, that this word in Genesis 3:16 could possibly mean sexual desire seems highly strange, does it not? So, in the field of Hebrew exegesis, most scholars today agree that this word "desire" in Genesis 3:16 caries the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Genesis, "the desire to dominate or control." That is why NLT and NET get this right, they are newer translations that were willing to break with the history of the bad translation. Oops... goodbye to all those "good sermons." Turns out that the CURSE OF THE WOMAN in 3:16 does NOT include making her HOT for her HUSBAND. Sorry, guys. But, that ain't so bad, most women do adore their husbands anyway, because they care for them and love them.
This newer reading should make some common sense too. Why in the world would the punishment for wrong doing being that a woman would desire (emotionally and physically) her husband?? That sounds like a good thing... Do you suppose that Eve didn't long for Adam before this "curse"? That makes no sense.
How might I translate this? A translation something like:
"Your (evil) desire was to control your husband;
Yet now he will dominate you."
That is talionic justice.I would put it in the past tense (but that is a translator's choice).
Note one other VERY important thing:
This is a curse, a punishment. It is NOT God declaring man to be the Biblical Head of his wife. (not in Genesis 3:16). This is not a declaration of husband's servant leadership for the wife. Not here in 3:16. Rather, this verses is punishment. Like the man's punishment, it is specific to what she did. And I might suggest that the outcome of this verse is indeed, "the way of the world." This "curse" is what we have seen for thousands of years. Precisely, this is male domination of women. It is a curse, not a blessing. This is domination of the strong over the weak. This is a negative thing, not a positive thing. Male dominion is different from a husband's Biblical headship within a family.
While I believe strongly that husbands should provide both loving and decisive leadership, it is never to be at the harm of the wife, nor run rough-shod over her. Never the less, it should be leadership.
Remember, caring people should help remove "the sting of the curse," not increase it. If the curse is male domination ... and harsh domination at that... then marriage should be so much more, more grace centered, more other centered.
So, a husband may work hard and bring forth a crop (make a paycheck) at the sweat of his brow through many thorns. But, the loving wife would try to remove the sting of that curse, by warmly receiving him and working to make things better. So too, a loving husband would never treat his wife as some slave to be "ruled over." I believe in male headship, but this headship is SERVANT LEADERSHIP... it is using his strength to better the wife and serve the family. It is NOT, however, simply becoming a servant-boy to a queen-like figure in the home *(which is the opposite extreme and is just as bad as the male-domination). This thought would have turned things bad again. Rather, this verse says, in the world, women are going to be dominated by men, that is the result of sin. (Have we seen that? If so, this verse is accurate!)
So, in 3:16 we see Eve (and women) cursed for the sin of breaking God's law and for trying also to control (with evil intention) her husband, Adam. For the later, she is given the judgement that men would dominate/control women. That is the "curse" upon her in this section. Now, not to worry, there is plenty of grace for the woman and the man. But that is for another time. In short, especially as is exampled by Jesus, men ought NEVER to dominate women. And HUSBANDS should never simply seek to "lord it over" their wives, but rather serve their family (wife, husband, and kids, if any) with wisdom, descerment and love ... choosing to serve that mission, removing the sting of male domination that is prevelent in the world.
JJ
miller@teacher.com
Genesis 3:16
"Your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.”
NKJV
That is how the New King James version translates it. Most other translations do something very similar. The GWT is perhaps the worse with "Yet you will long for your husband, and he will rule you." But most versions are echoing the same thing, the woman will long sexually and emotionally for their husbands. And the verse then adds the result: the man will certainly rule over the wife. There have been a lot of good sermons to share this view!! :)
That is how it is popularly understood. You can read it in the NIV, NASB, GNT, RSV, NRSV, ESV... they all read pretty much the same. Even the Message yields similar wording, removing, the sexual innuendos (which, btw, would be wrong to do, if the word really means "longing for"), and reads, " For you'll want to please your husband, but he'll lord it over you." At least, the Message gets a nice translation for the second part. This indeed refers to a man "lording it over" the wife.
The good news is: These are bad translations of the verse. And some of the newer translations are yielding a much more correct understanding.
Look at this nice example from the New Living Translation:
"And you will desire to control your husband,
but he will rule over you."
NLT
Does that give you a different understanding of the verse? The NLT says the desire is to "control your husband." That is quite another thing all together!
But is it right?
I believe this verse is nicely translated in the NLT and is also nicely translated in the NET. But, why do so many versions mis-translate this verse? Easy: First, it is a tad confusing. Second, there is history of translations that take this word, "desire," to mean, sexual/emotional desire. Third, this bad translation is based on understanding this Hebrew word for "desire" as the same as in Song of Solomon, where it means "sexual wanting."
But, is the usage of this word in the Song of Solomon the best way to understand "desire" in Genesis? The suggestion is that, it is not.
Rather, look at the very next chapter in Genesis, Chapter 4, and you find that word again... In Chapter 4, we have Cain struggling with the rejection of his "sacrifice." Then God warns Cain that Sin (personified) is waiting at the door (tent post), "desiring to master" Cain. Yes, the author uses the same Hebrew word for "desire." But clearly this is not sexual desire. This is a desire to control in an evil way.
Which is the correct usage for Genesis 3:16?
It is best to go with the same author in the same book, written in the same era. Solomon's usage comes a thousand years later. In addition, that this word in Genesis 3:16 could possibly mean sexual desire seems highly strange, does it not? So, in the field of Hebrew exegesis, most scholars today agree that this word "desire" in Genesis 3:16 caries the same meaning as in Chapter 4 of Genesis, "the desire to dominate or control." That is why NLT and NET get this right, they are newer translations that were willing to break with the history of the bad translation. Oops... goodbye to all those "good sermons." Turns out that the CURSE OF THE WOMAN in 3:16 does NOT include making her HOT for her HUSBAND. Sorry, guys. But, that ain't so bad, most women do adore their husbands anyway, because they care for them and love them.
This newer reading should make some common sense too. Why in the world would the punishment for wrong doing being that a woman would desire (emotionally and physically) her husband?? That sounds like a good thing... Do you suppose that Eve didn't long for Adam before this "curse"? That makes no sense.
How might I translate this? A translation something like:
"Your (evil) desire was to control your husband;
Yet now he will dominate you."
That is talionic justice.I would put it in the past tense (but that is a translator's choice).
Note one other VERY important thing:
This is a curse, a punishment. It is NOT God declaring man to be the Biblical Head of his wife. (not in Genesis 3:16). This is not a declaration of husband's servant leadership for the wife. Not here in 3:16. Rather, this verses is punishment. Like the man's punishment, it is specific to what she did. And I might suggest that the outcome of this verse is indeed, "the way of the world." This "curse" is what we have seen for thousands of years. Precisely, this is male domination of women. It is a curse, not a blessing. This is domination of the strong over the weak. This is a negative thing, not a positive thing. Male dominion is different from a husband's Biblical headship within a family.
While I believe strongly that husbands should provide both loving and decisive leadership, it is never to be at the harm of the wife, nor run rough-shod over her. Never the less, it should be leadership.
Remember, caring people should help remove "the sting of the curse," not increase it. If the curse is male domination ... and harsh domination at that... then marriage should be so much more, more grace centered, more other centered.
So, a husband may work hard and bring forth a crop (make a paycheck) at the sweat of his brow through many thorns. But, the loving wife would try to remove the sting of that curse, by warmly receiving him and working to make things better. So too, a loving husband would never treat his wife as some slave to be "ruled over." I believe in male headship, but this headship is SERVANT LEADERSHIP... it is using his strength to better the wife and serve the family. It is NOT, however, simply becoming a servant-boy to a queen-like figure in the home *(which is the opposite extreme and is just as bad as the male-domination). This thought would have turned things bad again. Rather, this verse says, in the world, women are going to be dominated by men, that is the result of sin. (Have we seen that? If so, this verse is accurate!)
So, in 3:16 we see Eve (and women) cursed for the sin of breaking God's law and for trying also to control (with evil intention) her husband, Adam. For the later, she is given the judgement that men would dominate/control women. That is the "curse" upon her in this section. Now, not to worry, there is plenty of grace for the woman and the man. But that is for another time. In short, especially as is exampled by Jesus, men ought NEVER to dominate women. And HUSBANDS should never simply seek to "lord it over" their wives, but rather serve their family (wife, husband, and kids, if any) with wisdom, descerment and love ... choosing to serve that mission, removing the sting of male domination that is prevelent in the world.
JJ
miller@teacher.com
Genesis 3:16
