Introduction

In Genesis 3:16, after the fall, God said that Eve would “desire” her husband and that her husband would “rule” over her. It is popular for Christians to interpret Eve’s desire as sinful, that she would try to usurp her husband’s authority. Likewise, some interpret Adam’s rule as sinful, that he would be a tyrant over his wife. Christians use this verse to explain the existence of dysfunctional marriages: Wives will want to control their husbands and husbands will want to mistreat their wives. These behaviors stem from God’s curse on Eve, so the thinking goes.

I submit that these interpretations are not correct. Are some wives controlling? Are some husbands tyrants? Yes, and both are sinful. But Genesis 3:16 teaches something entirely different. Using the original Hebrew and the context of Genesis 3, I hope to show that Eve’s desire and Adam’s rule were good.

Correcting the ESV

I don’t blame people for thinking that Eve’s desire was sinful, especially if they use the ESV translation of the Bible. The ESV is worded this way: “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.” The word “contrary” is not in the original Hebrew, yet it is inserted into the English. The ESV translators concluded that Eve’s desire was sinful, so they added “contrary” to fit their conclusion. This is the type of thing that translators should avoid doing as much as possible. Their job is to translate words, not to interpret meanings. Translations and interpretations are not the same thing.

The NKJV, NASB, and NIV translate the verse accurately: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” In Hebrew, the husband is the object of Eve’s desire and the desire is not clarified to be good or bad. The word for “desire” is teshuqah, which means “a longing.” The longing could be good or bad, depending on context. This word is used only two more times in the Bible, once in a sinful context (Genesis 4:7) and once in a godly context (Song of Songs 7:10).

When “desire” is used in Genesis 4:7, it is the desire of sin (figuratively), and Cain is told to “rule” over it. The parallels to Genesis 3:16 are undeniable. For this reason – and for its nearness to Genesis 3 – people assume that Eve’s desire was sinful. In chapter 4, the desire is clearly sinful, so it must be sinful in chapter 3. This logic sounds persuasive on the surface, but it ends up begging the question.

Sin’s desire being sinful is obvious. It could not be anything else. The desires of sin will always be sinful. It could be no other way. That simply was not the case for Eve. She was a human being, made in God’s image, who had the capacity to desire non-sinful things. Sin’s desire in chapter 4, therefore, cannot speak to Eve’s desire in chapter 3. At best, it is inconclusive. We must look at other data.

When “desire” is used in Song of Songs 7:10, it is the godly desire of a husband for his wife. This usage fits very well with the marital themes of Genesis 3. Most people want to use Genesis 4 to interpret Genesis 3, because of their nearness in the text. But it’s just as legitimate to use the Song of Songs to interpret Genesis 3, because they are both dealing with the same thing. Namely, marriage.

Not Everything Was a Curse

Another reason why Eve’s desire and Adam’s rule are seen as sinful is because everything God says in Genesis 3:16-19 is assumed to be a curse. But upon close inspection, that is not the case. For example, Adam’s punishment included toil with the ground – with its thorns and thistles – but he would nevertheless eat the herb of the field (Genesis 3:17-18). He would eat bread with sweat on his face, but he would nevertheless eat bread (Genesis 3:19). It was most certainly not a curse that Adam would continue living and that he would eat herbs and bread. Rather, those parts of God’s speech were words of mercy and provision.

Likewise, not everything God said to Eve was a punishment. He said he would multiply her “sorrow” and her “conception.” He said he would multiply two things, not just one. The ESV, NASB, and NIV obscure that point, but the NKJV renders it best from the Hebrew. God would multiply sorrow and conception for Eve. In pain she would “bring forth children.” If we think this through, we would not dare say that conception was a punishment. Sorrow was the punishment, conception was mercy and provision. The multiplication of conception would fulfill God’s command to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28).

If not everything God said was a curse, then we have no reason to assume that Eve’s desire was a curse. I believe there is a severe lack of evidence for that view, but there is strong evidence for another view: That God was promising more blessing on Eve.

Desire and Rule Through New Eyes

I hope I have adequately shown that there is no substantial reason to maintain that Eve’s desire was a curse from God. Once we understand this, we can begin to read Genesis 3:16 through new eyes.

We must first consider the context of Adam and Eve’s marriage. Before the fall, they were “naked and unashamed” together (Genesis 2:25). This means that there was love, affection, and intimacy within the marriage. But at the fall, everything changed. Adam and Eve were now guilty of disobedience, and their sin was exposed. Because of that exposure, their nakedness became a source of shame for them. They made leafy coverings to hide their bodies from one another (Genesis 3:7). The marital bliss of Genesis 2 was no more. Their relationship to God was strained, and so was their relationship to each other.

To make matters worse, Adam blamed his wife for giving him the fruit (Genesis 3:12). Do you think Eve appreciated that? She was truly deceived, as Paul says (2 Corinthians 11:3, 1 Timothy 2:14). But Adam was not deceived. He knew eating the fruit was sinful, yet he allowed Eve to do it anyway (Genesis 3:6). He failed to guard his wife from the serpent. Adam was not being the leader (or “ruler”) God created him to be (Genesis 2:15).

With all of this in mind, we can read Genesis 3:16 with a fresh perspective. God was not cursing Adam and Eve with marital problems, because marital problems already existed. Duties were abrogated, blame was shifted, nakedness became shameful. What God was doing, rather, was promising restoration. Eve would be blessed with children, which meant the marriage had to be repaired. Eve would desire Adam again; she would have godly desire for her husband. Likewise, Adam would be the ruler that God intended. He would guard his wife and be a faithful husband.

What happened next is supporting evidence: Adam gave his wife a name, as he had done at their first union. Originally, he named her “woman” (Genesis 2:23), now he named her “Eve” (Genesis 3:20). He was renewing his wedding vows, we might say. Naming her Eve meant that he was believing God’s word, that she would be the mother of all the living. In Genesis 4:1, we learn that Adam and Eve had returned to the marital bliss of Genesis 2. Adam “knew” his wife and she bore a son. The restoration of the marriage was complete. Adam and Eve were once again “naked and unashamed.” From that point forward, we never see any marital problems between Adam and Eve, though I’m sure they had some. But there is no indication that Eve was a controlling wife or that Adam was a tyrannical husband.

Conclusion

Genesis 3:16 should not be read as a curse upon Eve. It was God’s mercy and provision to repair her marriage. Her “desire” was the godly desire for her spouse, similar to Song of Songs 7:10. Adam’s “rule” over her was not a threat of tyranny. It was a promise that Adam would fulfill his duties to lead, guard, and protect. These are the exact things that Genesis 3:20 and 4:1 show us being fulfilled.

This interpretation does not downplay the fact that some wives are controlling and some husbands are abusive. There are other scriptures that speak to those issues. But we should not read those issues into Genesis 3:16. When we do, we overlook the mercy and provision of God. We fail to see the story for what it is – a story of redemption and romance. It gives hope that dead-end marriages can be revived. Sinful husbands and sinful wives can change their ways. With God’s help, through faith, they can be naked and unashamed again.

Adam McIntosh is pastor of Saint David’s Church in Tomball, TX.