Genesis 3:16

[robrecht]

I personally take the Genesis account in a symbolic way, but that is beside the current point. A certain theological understanding of women flows from the interpretation of Gen. 3:16 meaning that women have been cursed to want to dominate men. I want to examine the reasoning for this interpretation to see if it is required.

My point is not merely that the passage may be understood as symbolic, but that the creative poetic narrative requires the involvement of the reader in the interpretive process. Different people may interpret the meaning differently without one being right and the other wrong. The experience of God cannot be rigidly defined so a narrative is used to try and capture some of the depth, but the power of the narrative also draws upon the experience of the readers who relate to the narrative differently. A husband may feel the need to dominate the woman, the instrument of sin, but the woman may only desire a loving and equal relationship free of domination. There is room for multiple interpretations because the narrative draws the reader into the story. Valid interpretations may go beyond what was intended by the author, but the author's deepest intention was to capture something that he was unable to capture in straightforward discourse, our mysterious relationship with each other and with God, with our own sinfulness and that of others, our love and struggle to found and pass on a sense of family in a beautiful but dangerous world. The story is not merely symbolic, but it is open symbolism that allows us to create our own story of sin and transcendence. So, no, this or that interpretation is not required, nor can another's interpretation be too easily dismissed. The reality is infinitely greater than the story, which is itself fundamentally greater than any given interpretation of the story.

[Violet]

My point is not merely that the passage may be understood as symbolic, but that the creative poetic narrative requires the involvement of the reader in the interpretive process. Different people may interpret the meaning differently without one being right and the other wrong. The experience of God cannot be rigidly defined so a narrative is used to try and capture some of the depth, but the power of the narrative also draws upon the experience of the readers who relate to the narrative differently. A husband may feel the need to dominate the woman, the instrument of sin, but the woman may only desire a loving and equal relationship free of domination. There is room for multiple interpretations because the narrative draws the reader into the story. Valid interpretations may go beyond what was intended by the author, but the author's deepest intention was to capture something that he was unable to capture in straightforward discourse, our mysterious relationship with each other and with God, with our own sinfulness and that of others, our love and struggle to found and pass on a sense of family in a beautiful but dangerous world. The story is not merely symbolic, but it is open symbolism that allows us to create our own story of sin and transcendence. So, no, this or that interpretation is not required, nor can another's interpretation be too easily dismissed. The reality is infinitely greater than the story, which is itself fundamentally greater than any given interpretation of the story.

So, some people can understand the picture we get from scripture to say that women have been cursed by God to sin in their desire to dominate their husbands...and other people can understand this picture to mean that women will desire their husbands in spite of the women's suffering (sometimes to death) in childbirth, and they can BOTH be right?

[John Reece]

But is it proper to use a figurative verse to interpret a literal one?

As far as I know, yes.

Also, what about the structure of the curses in the verses? God cursed the snake with the promise of a bruised head. He cursed Adam with toiling for bread. He cursed women with suffering in childbirth AND to perpetually sin in her desire?

Not necessarily. Genesis 3 is loaded with redemptive promises; it is not limited to curses.

Would the flow of the verses themselves not rather suggest that the desire for her husband is in spite of the suffering she will have in childbirth? Childbirth was not only just suffering, it often meant suffering to death. Even so, that curse would not stop her from desiring her husband. Apart from Gen. 4, does this not make better sense?

Yes.

So, now I need to ask if the implications make this interpretation invalid, meaning, that if these verses mean that women are cursed to sinfully want to dominate their husbands does this contradict how God has revealed His truth elsewhere. If this interpretation is correct, then God has cursed women with the sin of always wanting to domineer their husbands.

I do not think these verses mean that women are cursed to sinfully want to dominate their husbands; that's possible, but not necessarily so.

As Christ's redemption did not stop man from toiling for bread nor stop women from suffering in childbirth, does it seem logical that Christ's redemption stopped this curse for married women to sin perpetually?

Toiling for bread in not necessarily a curse. Women suffering in childbirth is not necessarily a curse.

But are we to rightly believe the woman was cursed to sin?

Not necessarily.

Read verses 3:8-15, wherein promises of blessing precede and predominate the curses listed in 3:16 ff.

[robrecht]

So, some people can understand the picture we get from scripture to say that women have been cursed by God to sin in their desire to dominate their husbands...and other people can understand this picture to mean that women will desire their husbands in spite of the women's suffering (sometimes to death) in childbirth, and they can BOTH be right?

No, not according to me. I would not endorse two such opposing opinions. I will sometimes recognize the validity of differing opinions, sometimes perhaps even diametrically opposing views, but not these two, especially not the first. Some versions of the comparison with Genesis 4 are certainly worth considering and may not be too easily dismissed, but I do not believe in a God who curses people to sin. Some may feel cursed or feel that others have been cursed, but I do not believe that God curses anyone to sin. God desires freedom and love.

[Violet]

I do not think these verses mean that women are cursed to sinfully want to dominate their husbands; that's possible, but not necessarily so.


Toiling for bread in not necessarily a curse. Women suffering in childbirth is not necessarily a curse.

Do you believe they are punishments for all mankind or only for Adam and Eve alone?

Is this just a matter of words? Gen 3:16-19 seems to me to be curses. If not curses, then punishments. These punishments were handed down to the rest of mankind, right? Like the punishment of having to work cursed ground and the punishment of childbirth pain.

If these punishments are for mankind, and one of the punishments is that women will desire to control her husband (which is sinful) then this SIN in womankind is a direct punishment because of the fall just as pain in childbirth is a direct punishment because of the fall. So while every other punishment is physical, God singled women out to be inherently sinful in her marriage. Women were punished not only to suffer physically, but to suffer to always sin perpetually. Not as a choice, but as a perpetual defect IN HER CHARACTER--by God, as her punishment.

To say that women were punished by God to desire to control her husband is to say that God Himself punished woman in giving her moral deficiency along with the pain of childbirth and along with Adam's sweat on his brow...

[Violet]

No, not according to me. I would not endorse two such opposing opinions. I will sometimes recognize the validity of differing opinions, sometimes perhaps even diametrically opposing views, but not these two, especially not the first.

That's well and good, I'm glad you don't endorse the first view of God cursing women to sin against their husbands. But what's to say this view is actually...wrong? What if the reader brings this understanding to the text when they read it and it's not wrong to them?

[robrecht]

That's well and good, I'm glad you don't endorse the first view of God cursing women to sin against their husbands. But what's to say this view is actually...wrong? What if the reader brings this understanding to the text when they read it and it's not wrong to them?

Well, what do you suggest? Should we kill them perhaps? Seriously, I've learned over the years that most people will believe whatever they want to about God and the bible and religion. Doesn't matter if they don't know Hebrew, Greek or Aramaic, they still are not inclined to listen to anyone that does, unless they are assured that they will just be giving them reasons to support what they already believe. Some people genuinely want to learn and explore the possible meanings of texts, learn the languages, the evolving history of interpretation, and the merits of opposing viewpoints, but they seem to be in the minority. My advice is to always seek the truth, learn from those who, know more, and generously offer help to others along the way. Live in communion with those who are like minded or of good will and respect all. Some will defer to pastoral leaders or pursue academic questions, but largely people will choose their own authorities. Ultimately, if people can't grasp the idea of a loving and merciful God, who doesn't curse us to the eternal slavery of sin, probably the best thing to do is pray for them and be kind to them.

[Violet]

I am more for reasoning with them over killing them. I also want to know what the text actually means, not what I bring to it and go from there. I want to know, from scripture, that God has not made me as these interpreters say He made me--punished as a woman to sin against my husband. It's not enough for me to feel its wrong, I must know it, too, from scripture. As a Christian, the Word is the standard by which I may judge if my feelings are right or wrong.

[robrecht]

So it sounds as if you want an authoritative interpretation of scripture by an academic, pastor, or politician. But invariably others will not accept this authority. The best academics, in my opinion, reject the idea of academic authority altogether, so there we have hope for reasoning with others. But you will never get many academics to agree about much. As we have already seen, some will insist on the importance of Genesis 4,7 for interpreting 3,16. They have not arrived at this position irrationally and will try to reason with you as zealously or dispassionately as you try to reason with them. Unless you want to try and impose some form of pastoral or political authority, I think you will have to just accept a certain degree of subjective experience and preference.

[Violet]

So it sounds as if you want an authoritative interpretation of scripture by an academic, pastor, or politician. But invariably others will not accept this authority. The best academics, in my opinion, reject the idea of academic authority altogether, so there we have hope for reasoning with others. But you will never get many academics to agree about much. As we have already seen, some will insist on the importance of Genesis 4,7 for interpreting 3,16. They have not arrived at this position irrationally and will try to reason with you as zealously or dispassionately as you try to reason with them. Unless you want to try and impose some form of pastoral or political authority, I think you will have to just accept a certain degree of subjective experience and preference.

I appreciate that. I'd suffice, however, for a reasonable, logical interpretation. I don't need it to be from an authority, I just need it to be sound. I don't expect or need consensus, I just need an educated understanding and exegetically allowed interpretations. I've given up on having "certainty" some years ago, I am content enough with "reasonable".

[robrecht]

I appreciate that. I'd suffice, however, for a reasonable, logical interpretation. I don't need it to be from an authority, I just need it to be sound. I don't expect or need consensus, I just need an educated understanding and exegetically allowed interpretations. I've given up "certainty" some years ago, I am content enough with "reasonable".

Have you not yet found a reasonable and logical interpretation?

[Violet]

Have you not yet found a reasonable and logical interpretation?

I'm still gathering information before I reach a tentative conclusion. I have not the education to trust that my understanding thus far is well enough informed.

[Paprika]

I hope you will re-examine the wording. Does not "your desire shall be " given as a curse sound like a mandated desire? Does not a curse from God make it necessary?

Haven't we (ie we as Christians) sufficiently hashed out the difference between desire and sin with regards to same-sex attractions, for example? That I desire to do X does not necessarily mean I will do X; that is where self-control or the lack of it comes into play.

Please see what you are saying in this, please. Do you not know that it means that I cannot stop sinning in this way if God has cursed me like this? What of Christ, what of the new creation? What of sin no longer being my master? Christ did not redeem man from needing to toil, nor did His redemption keep women from suffering and even dying in childbirth. Do you think that this curse of sinfully wanting to dominate her husband was taken away? Or not?

Doesn't look like it.

Read again what you wrote. Are you ready to accept that women are handed over to a sinful mind, cursed in their very womanhood to necessarily sin? All women, even redeemed women, have depraved-like minds towards this sin...do you not see your logic?

I am ready to accept that mankind in general are handed over to sinful minds and depraved lusts (as per Romans 1); even redeemed people still face temptations to sin because the flesh wars against the Spirit; hence there is no difficulty to accept that some people - ie women - are still tempted by particular sins.

[Paprika]

I am more for reasoning with them over killing them. I also want to know what the text actually means, not what I bring to it and go from there. I want to know, from scripture, that God has not made me as these interpreters say He made me--punished as a woman to sin against my husband.

You need to distinguish between two layers of the text: one layer is of course, what happens to the individuals of Adam and Eve. The second is whether the story has a wider meaning for mankind: man or woman in general?

[Paprika]

Violet: I offer a reading of Genesis in which the punishment is logical in a narrative sense:

The authority structure is pretty clear: God, the Creator over his image, both male and female, who areover the beasts of the field, whom the man named, and creation in general.

But the serpent, one of the beasts, tries to gain power over the female: by displacing God's rightful authority as manifested through the command not to eat and tempting the woman. Similarly, the woman tried to dominate the man by overthrowing God's authority upon him.

As a consequence, the woman's domination is punished with a desire to continue dominating, but it will not be fulfilled. The snake who tried to gain ascendancy over the woman is brought low, and the woman's offspring shall crush his head.