One principle that I learned about Bible study and theology is the idea of letting the Bible itself define which themes are most important. Tom Olbricht was one who especially tuned me into this idea. When I am choosing which topics to emphasize in my teaching ministry, I look to see which things are repeated in the Bible.

That’s one of the flaws I see in much teaching about gender roles, especially when it comes to the Old Testament. Much is made of Deborah and Huldah. Miriam gets some mention, and Esther is referenced at times. These minor characters in the Old Testament story are elevated to principal roles.

These women deserve to be studied alongside characters like Ehud and Nathan, Aaron and Mordecai. Their stories should be known, just as we know Barak and Obadiah. But let’s not exaggerate their importance. Only Miriam is referenced outside of her own story! These women play a definite role in the story of God’s people, but it’s not a leading role.

Reading the Old Testament does not lead us to say, “Wow! God wanted women leading His people right alongside men.” We may bring in ideas from the New Testament that lead us to that idea, but I don’t think the Old Testament itself takes us there.

Edited: 8:50 a.m. to take out some pejorative language. HT to Nick Gill

I’ve mentioned before that I’ve been influenced by Susan Foh’s article on Genesis 3:16 and what it means for a woman to desire a man.

Foh summarizes her article by saying:

Contrary to the usual interpretations of commentators, the desire of the woman in Genesis 3:16b does not make the wife (more) submissive to her husband so that he may rule over her. Her desire is to contend with him for leadership in their relationship. This desire is a result of and a just punishment for sin, but it is not God’s decretive will for the woman. Consequently, the man must actively seek to rule his wife.

The translators of the NET Bible found Foh’s arguments to be convincing. They translate Genesis 3:16 in this way:

To the woman he said,
“I will greatly increase your labor pains;
with pain you will give birth to children.
You will want to control your husband,
but he will dominate you.”

Their notes say:

Many interpreters conclude that it refers to sexual desire here, because the subject of the passage is the relationship between a wife and her husband, and because the word is used in a romantic sense in Song 7:11 HT (7:10 ET). However, this interpretation makes little sense in Gen 3:16. First, it does not fit well with the assertion “he will dominate you.” Second, it implies that sexual desire was not part of the original creation, even though the man and the woman were told to multiply. And third, it ignores the usage of the word in Gen 4:7 where it refers to sin’s desire to control and dominate Cain. (Even in Song of Songs it carries the basic idea of “control,” for it describes the young man’s desire to “have his way sexually” with the young woman.) In Gen 3:16 the Lord announces a struggle, a conflict between the man and the woman. She will desire to control him, but he will dominate her instead. This interpretation also fits the tone of the passage, which is a judgment oracle.

and

This passage is a judgment oracle. It announces that conflict between man and woman will become the norm in human society. It does not depict the NT ideal, where the husband sacrificially loves his wife, as Christ loved the church, and where the wife recognizes the husband’s loving leadership in the family and voluntarily submits to it. Sin produces a conflict or power struggle between the man and the woman, but in Christ man and woman call a truce and live harmoniously (Eph 5:18-32). The Hebrew verb מָשַׁל (mashal) means “to rule over,” but in a way that emphasizes powerful control, domination, or mastery. This also is part of the baser human nature. The translation assumes the imperfect verb form has an objective/indicative sense here. Another option is to understand it as having a modal, desiderative nuance, “but he will want to dominate you.” In this case, the Lord simply announces the struggle without indicating who will emerge victorious.

So it’s hard to interpret the last part of God’s statement, whether He is saying that man will dominate woman in an ungodly way or (like Cain in 4:7b) that man is supposed to overcome woman’s attempts to control him. Either way, Genesis 3:16 leads me to see that the wrangling for control and domination between man and woman are a consequence of the sin in the garden.

In Genesis 3, we find God’s pronouncements as to the consequences of Adam and Eve’s sin. The consequences for the serpent are announced first, for Eve second, and for Adam third.

Here are some general thoughts:

• God speaks of enmity between the serpent and the woman. Interesting that Adam isn’t mentioned. Is that because of the previous interaction between the serpent and Eve? Should we think in terms of actual serpents or Satan himself? Or both?
• There are messianic overtones to the statements about “the descendants,” especially as the part about wounding the heel and crushing the head are spoken in singular.
• The first part of the pronouncement about the woman is limited in effect; that is, it only applies to women.
• What God says about woman desiring man is extremely similar to what God says to Cain in Genesis 4:7. The two sentences are almost identical grammatically. That has to be taken into consideration when interpreting Genesis 3:16. Remember that there was no big number 4 in the Hebrew text; the proximity of the two texts demands that they be considered together.
• There is no mention of “curse” in what God says about Eve. That is, the text doesn’t use the term “curse.”
• In contrast, God says that the earth itself will be cursed because of Adam’s sin.
• God only announces death for Adam, yet other biblical texts say that Adam’s sin brought death to all mankind.

What other thoughts occur to you when reading Genesis 3:14-19?

Yesterday’s post focused on the use of singular and plural in Genesis 3. I asked for your thoughts upon reading through the text. Here are some of mine:

• It’s interesting to note that Satan discusses God’s command as a plural (directed to Eve and Adam) while God talks about the command in the singular. Just a style difference? A reflection of the personal nature of commands vs. impersonal? Indication that God saw Adam as ultimately responsible for the command being observed?
• When God seeks out the sinning couple, He calls to Adam. Singular.
• God first queries Adam as to his sin, then follows the chain to Eve and to the serpent.
• The punishments given out are both personal for the serpent and for Eve (indirectly to all women), while Adam’s punishment falls on creation itself and brings death to all humanity (stated in singular, yet understood to affect all).

In the next post we’ll talk about the language of verse 3:16. That verse often comes up in discussions of men and women in the church. It’s deserving of its own post.

When I read Genesis 3, I see God holding Adam accountable in a special way. This fits with my understanding of the biblical teaching of male leadership. I would not build an entire theology around this one passage (nor any one passage); I’m merely saying that it fits.