Reading Genesis Together Part 7
Taking on the "He will rule over you" argument of Genesis 3
When I say, “I built a house.” What image comes to mind? A typical suburban-style home? A grand Victorian-style home? A shoddy, wooden cabin? How about when I say, “I poorly built a house.” Now, what comes to mind as you think about my craftsmanship?
In such an example, the qualifier is crucial for understanding the verb “built.” It provides more context to determine whether it is good or bad, high quality or low quality. Without such adverbs, you have to make an inference. Any interpretation of the style or type of construction would be subjective. There isn't enough information to go on.
As we continue our series walking through Genesis, we come to another place in Genesis 3 that many HCs/Complementarians attempt to give meaning to a phrase that the context does not.
16 To the woman he said,
“I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children.
Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,
but he shall rule over you.”
The argument proceeds as follows: In Genesis 3:16, God describes the consequences of the fall as they relate to Adam and Eve. Adam’s once loving, service-oriented leadership, seen in Genesis 2, will now be harsher and domineering. The manner of rule will change.
However, here is the problem: the text does not provide a qualifier to indicate that we should interpret it that way.
Remember, up to this point, I have tried to show that Genesis 1-2 does not have to be interpreted as establishing a male leadership structure. And there is historical warrant not to see male headship in the garden. Not much, but there is some.
I suggest that Genesis 2:24 is the reason behind the story. In this way, it becomes the hinge point for understanding the creation story that came before, as it establishes a complementary harmony. The fall and its consequences come after, dividing and breaking it up.
Two side notes, that in reality should be footnotes, but I want to draw attention to them rather than bury them. First, when I use the term “complementary” in the sentence above, please note that MCs/Egalitarians were the first to adopt it in the late 1970s. You can read more about that here and here.
Second, we already understand that between God and humankind, the story of the Garden is about vertical relational harmony and community in a unique way that was broken by the fall. We understand that Christ’s coming was to re-establish this relationship between us and the Father. So it is not a stretch to make the argument that this story is also about male and female harmony and community being established and then broken because of the fall.
However, if you do choose to see hierarchy in the garden before the fall, when you get to verse 3:16, you will need to add a qualifier to your interpretation to nuance out what makes this rule different than that rule before the fall. The manner of rule will need clarity because you are choosing to see it in both places.
In quoting scholar Gordon Wenham, Kevin DeYoung, in Men and Women in the Church, writes this nuanced conclusion,
“As Gordon Wenham notes, the fact ‘that woman was made from man to be his helper and is twice named by man (2:23; 3:20) indicates his authority over her."‘ Consequently, Adam’s rule in verse 16 ‘represents harsh exploitative subjugation.’ Whereever husbands are domineering or abusive toward their wives, this is not a reflection of God’s design but a sinister perversion of it.” [Emphasis added]
First, note that Wenham makes an inference. He states a “fact” but then makes an inference by saying, “…Indicates his authority over her.” The inference is because the text does not explicitly state the why behind these “facts.”
Secondly, if this is your interpretative foundation, meaning you see male authority before the fall, in God’s creation order, then you have to nuance verse 16 to explain the verse. And so, DeYoung and almost all HCs/Complementarians see this verse as a perversion of the good kind of ruling before the fall.
It is argued that the fall twists and perverts God’s creation and design. And yes, this is true, like the Orcs being the twisted perversion of the Elves. True evil cannot really create, but only manipulate.1 And I do like this interpretation, the fall does pervert God’s creation. But it is not a perversion of authority in marriage; it is a perversion of harmony, unity, and community in marriage.
If we dig deeper, we can see another way that this interpretation is not warranted in understanding verse 16. If you look up the Hebrew word mashal, you will find numerous references throughout the Old Testament, from Genesis to Psalms. In most instances, there is no warrant to interpret the word positively or negatively unless context is given. For example, mashal denotes “rule” in Genesis 1:18, where celestial bodies govern day and night, and in Psalm 136:8, where God’s rule is benevolent.
Similar to my opening illustration, “build” requires context to understand the manner of construction. Using adverbs like “poorly” or “extravagantly” does not change the core meaning of “build.” Likewise, in Genesis 3:16, mashal means “rule,” not inherently “harsh rule,” as HCs/complementarians often claim. It means “rule” because there are no textual qualifiers to support a shift in meaning. Assuming “harshness,” “domineering,” or “abusive” in Genesis 3:16 is like assuming a house was built poorly without any actual evidence.
Let me state it as clearly as I can. The text gives no qualifier to be interpreted the way HC/Complementarians choose to interpret it. None. They are not there. If you were to go back and reread chapters 1-3, verse 16 is the first place where rulership/authority is explicitly referenced. And it is referenced as a result of the fall.
Andrew Bartlett summarizes it by writing,
The interpretation of verse 16 to refer to a distortion of a previous ruling role is without any textual warrant. It is directly contrary to the plain meaning of the text, which is explicit that the rule of the husband is a result of the fall…The writer’s contrast is therefore not between benevolent rule and harsh rule but between the united alliance of 2:24-25 and the competitive disharmony of 3:16, where the man is now on top.
It comes back to the foundational questions,
Is the focal point about challenging headship or dividing companionship? To ask it slightly differently, is the core struggle about overturning God’s order? Or about the loss of harmony in His blessed union?
The better contextual interpretation is the MC/Egalitarian reading. It fits the larger narrative better, and it implies far less of the text than the HC/Complementarian reading. It brings the focal point where it belongs, in the loss of harmony and communion, both vertically with God and horizontally with each other.
Now, I admit I focused on the very last line of verse 16 as it is the most pertinent to my series. Especially as I want to focus specifically on the male/female relationship in regards to a mutual or hierarchical understanding. However, the first half of the verse presents some interesting points to consider as consequences of the fall and the shift in interpretation.
In the 1970s, there was a shift in the interpretation of the word “desire” and its meaning. A brief article,2 published by Susan Foh, proposes an interpretation that desire is about a “desire to control.” Historically, it was understood to mean a desire for intimacy and closeness. Now, I admit I like this interpretation. I think you can still hold to a mutualist interpretation and see that verse 16 is now pointing out a battle of the sexes. Both will no longer work in harmony but will instead look to control the other. One through “desire” and one through “rule.”
Either way, I would argue that it does not change the primary interpretative purpose of the story, which is a separation or division of harmony. And this is amplified if we understand that now hardship, difficulty, and toil will be experienced in relation to Adam and Eve’s source of creation.
In verses 16-19, these ideas are presented. For Eve in relation to Adam and childbearing, and for Adam in relation to the ground and working it for food. This is often presented by HCs/Complementarians as an example of roles and responsibilities before the fall. That now, fulfilling their roles will become difficult. But look back in the text. Is childbearing and cultivating the garden explicitly said to be a role of each?
I would argue that in Genesis 1:28, we see these commands given to both Adam and Eve. So their roles are not as explicitly defined, at least in Genesis 1. In Genesis 2, there is no clear explanation of roles either. This is done through inference.
What we do see, however, is Adam coming from the ground and Eve coming from Adam, or flesh. Now, rather than harmonious relations with their sources, there will be tension, toil, and hardship. Eve in relation to Adam and Adam in relation to the soil. This does not necessarily refer to a role or responsibility, but rather, echoes the division of harmony that existed before the fall. God and humankind. Man and woman. Man and woman and their sources. Pain, hardship, and difficulty all around because the harmonious balance and unity have been broken.
All of this is to say that the text does not give us the context to interpret Adam’s rule as a harsher perversion of the good authority given before the fall. For my journey of study, this was another domino to fall in my understanding of HC/Complementarianism. This was another thread that helped me see there was a biblically faithful way to understand the scriptures that made just as much sense, if not more, and still held the scriptures in just as high regard.
Next week, as we begin to wrap up this series, I want to look at one more often-used argument: When God said to Adam, “Because you listened to your wife…” he was saying Adam had given up his leadership responsibilities to lead his wife, and rather let her lead them.
I hope you can already see the inference based on six words…
This is a footnote worth burying. I am very proud of myself for making it this far in my writing, and just now making a Lord of the Rings reference. Some readers will say it's about time, while others will say “thank you.”
You can read the original article here. And there have been many responses over the years. Here and here are just a couple of examples.
made an excellent video summary of Susan Foh and her influence on current interpretation. I highly recommend!