The Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974/75) 376-83

Copyright © 1974/75 by Westminster Theological Seminary, cited with permission;

 

 

            WHAT IS THE WOMAN'S DESIRE?

 

       SUSAN T. FOH

 

THE current issue of feminism in the church has provoked

the reexamination of the scriptural passages that deal with

the relationship of the man and the woman.  A proper under-

standing of Genesis 3:16 is crucial to this reconsideration of the

Biblical view of the woman. In Genesis 3:16 God pronounces

judgment on the woman.  Two areas of the woman's life are

specifically mentioned:  childbearing and her relationship to her

husband.  The latter is the concern of this article; "yet your

desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you"

(Gen. 3:16b, RSV)

 

A.  Common Interpretations

 

     The translation of  hqvwt causes a large part of the difficulty

in understanding Genesis 3.16.  There are three typical inter-

pretations. (1) hqvwt is frequently equated with sexual desire.

The woman's craving for her husband will be so strong that

to satisfy it she will be ready to face all the pains and sorrows

of childbearing."l  ". . . thy desire shall be to thy husband--

thou shalt not be able to shun great pain and peril for child-

bearing, for thy desire, thy appetite, shall be to thy husband. . ."2

The woman still desires marital intercourse though the result,

conceiving, and bearing children, brings pain.  This interpretation

closely links verse 16b with verse 16a (as does the RSV render-

ing of the waw as "yet," which could be translated "and"), and

so fits the immediate context.

     (2) hqvwt is viewed as "the desire that makes her the willing

 

     1 David R. Mace, Hebrew Marriage:  a Sociological Study, London, The

Epworth Press, 1953. p. 196.

     2 Adam Clarke, Commentary on the Holy Bible, Kansas City, Mo.,

Beacon Hill Press of Kansas City, 1967, p. 22.

376


WHAT IS THE WOMAN'S DESIRE              377

 

slave of man."3 It is that "immense, clinging, psychological de-

pendence on man."4 Seeing no reason to limit the scope of

"desire" to sexual appetite, Clarence J. Vos would not exclude

from it the woman's desire for the man's protection.5 Keil and

Delitzsch see "desire" as a morbid yearning; the woman ". . . was

punished with a desire bordering upon disease (hqvwt from qvw

to run, to have a violent craving for a thing) . . ."6

     (3) Calvin states that Genesis 3:16b means that the woman

will desire only what her husband desires and that she will have

no command over herself.7 The woman's desires are wholly sub-

servient to her husband's, as a result of God's judgment.8

     Despite the differences in the interpretation of hqvwt, all of

the commentators cited above agree that, through the woman's

desire for her husband, he rules her.  In other words, because

the woman desires the husband in some way, he is able to rule

over her.

 

B. Objections to the Preceding Interpretations

 

     (1) The interpretation of hqvwt as sexual desire appears to be

contradicted by etymology.  Biblical scholars are well aware of

the danger of confusing diachrony and synchrony in the use of

this tool, but all sources of help must be weighed when there

are only three occurrences of the word.9 The verbal root appears

 

     3 John Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis

(International Critical Commentary), Edinburgh, T. & T. Clark, 1930,

p.82.

     4 Gini Andrews, Your Half of the Apple; God and the Single Girl,

Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1972, p. 51.

     5 Clarence J. Vos, Woman in Old Testament Worship, Delft, N. V.

Vereinigde Drukkerijen Judels & Brinkman, n.d., p. 24.

     6 C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament in Ten

Volumes, V. 1: The Pentateuch, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans

Publ. Co., n.d., p. 103.  Cf. H. C. Leupold, Exposition of Genesis, Colum-

bus, The Wartburg Press, 1942, p. 172.

     7 John Calvin, Commentaries on the First Book of Moses Called Genesis,

v. 1, Grand Rapids, Wm. B. Eerdmans Publ. Co., 1948, p. 172.

     8 Cf. U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, Part 1, Jeru-

salem, The Magnes Press, 1961, p. 165, and Edward J. Young, Genesis 3:

A Devotional and Expository Study, London, Banner of Truth Trust,

1966, p. 127.

     9 As J. Barr also recognizes; "Etymology and the Old Testament,


378       WESTMINSTER  THEOLOGICAL  JOURNAL

 

to be qvw for which BDB suggests three homographs.  BDB

would relate hqvwt to the Arabic root saqa, to desire, excite

desire.10 However, as they are aware, the phonemic equivalent

of the Hebrew s is s in Arabic, a fact recognized by G. R.

Driver11 and Koehler-Baumgartner.12 This suggests that the

proper etymology in Arabic would be saqa, to urge, drive on,

impel,13 a meaning consonant with the interpretation to be ar-

gued below.

     (2) The rule of the husband, per se, is not a result of or

punishment for sin. The headship of the husband over his wife is

a part of the creation order.  The commentators have dealt with

this problem in two ways.  The one ignores or misunderstands

the New Testament interpretation of the creation order.14 It is

suggested that before the fall, man and woman were equal and

that neither ruled.

     . . . and he shall rule over thee, though at their creation both

     were formed with equal rights, and the woman had probably

     as much right to rule as the man : but subjection to the will of

      her husband is one part of her curse.15

 

Language and Meaning (Oudtestamenische Studien, Deel 19), Leiden,

E. J. Brill, 1974, p. 2.

     10 Francis Brown, S. R. Driver & Charles A. Briggs, A Hebrew and

English Lexicon of the Old Testament, Boston, Houghton Mifflin Com-

pany, 1907, p. 1003.

     11 G. R. Driver, "Notes and Studies; Theological and Philological Prob-

lems in the Old Testament," Journal of Theological Studies, XLVII, 1946,

p. 158.

     12 Ludwig Koehler and Walter Baumgartner, Lexicon in Veteris Testa-

menti Libros,  Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1953.  KB recognizes the derivation as

from saqa by their distinguishing only two verbal roots, p. 957. One must

suspect that the major influence which made BDB willing to contradict

the usual phonemic equivalence and associate hqvwt with the Arabic saqa

was the notion that hqvwt was a reference to sexual desire. The sounder

lexicography may have been overruled by a commitment to the under-

standing of the passage.

     13 Edward William Lane, An Arabic-English Lexicon, Bk. 1, Pt. 4,

London, Williams and Norgate. 1872, p. 1470.

     14 I Corinthians 11:8: I Timothy 2:13a. The source of and reason for

the creation of the woman is significant.  Man is created first; he is the

source of the woman's existence: and she is created for the sake of the

man. Therefore, the head of the woman is man,

     15 Clarke, p. 22,


WHAT IS THE WOMAN'S DESIRE?                        379

 

     The other more frequent method of dealing with this problem

is to differentiate between the husband's God-ordained headship

and his "rule" in Genesis 3:16. The woman was subordinate to

her husband from the beginning, but the "supremacy of the man

was not intended to become a despotic rule, crushing the woman

into a slave. . ."16 as it does after the fall.  Before the fall, man's

rule was gentle; afterwards it is tyrannous. Rule (lwm) in

Genesis 3:16 is said to suggest suppressing or overcoming.17  Not

all agree that the post-fall rule of man is different in quality.

Some have suggested it is different only in extent; after the fall,

the woman is wholly subject to her husband (causing one to

wonder what the pre-fall limits on the husband's authority were).

This total subjection of the woman makes her liable to arbitrary

treatment by her husband; so the complete rule of the husband

can lead to a reign of tyranny.18 Practically, then, there is no

difference in the rule of worse quality and that of greater extent.

      (3) The preceding solution satisfies the demands of the over-

all context, i.e., the tyrannous rule of the husband seems an

appropriate punishment for the woman's sin. However, if the

woman's desire makes her a willing slave of her husband (A.2)

or if she has no desires except for husband's (A.3), the hardship

of punishment in Genesis 3:16b is absent, because the woman

willingly submits herself to her husband's rule. But willing sub-

mission contradicts the context of judgment and clashes with

the New Testament commands to submit to the husband's au-

thority (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; I Pet. 3:1), as well as experience.

 

C. Genesis 3:16b and Genesis 4:7b

 

      hqvwt occurs only three times in the Old Testament (Gen.

3:16; 4:7; Song of Solomon 7:10).19

     A comparison of Genesis 3:16b and 4:7b reveals that the

 

     16 Keil & Delitzsch, p. 103. Cf. Calvin, p. 172, and Young, p. 127.

     17 Vos, p. 25.

     18 Keil & Delitzsch, p. 83.

     19 Because the context of Song of Solomon 7: 10 is ambiguous, it is not

possible to determine the precise meaning of hqvwt in this case. We shall

only suggest that the meaning of "desire" proposed in this article is

credible in Song of Solomon 7:10. Note that the immediate context is

that of possession: "I am my beloved's. . ."


380      WESTMINSTER  THEOLOGICAL  JOURNAL

 

Hebrew is the same, except for appropriate changes in person

and gender; but the English translation (RSV, ASV) varies.20

 

jb-lwmy xvhv  jtqvwt  jwx-lxv   3:16b

vb-lwmt hqxv  vtqvwt     jylxv    4:7b

 

RSV . . . Yet your desire shall be for your husband,

and he shall rule over you"

            . . . its [sin's]21 desire is for you,

but you [Cain] must master it.

ASV . . . and thy desire shall be to thy husband,

and he shall rule over thee.

. . . and unto thee shall be its desire;

but do thou rule over it.

 

     In Genesis 4:7 sin's desire is to enslave Cain -- to possess

or control him, but the Lord commands, urges Cain to overpower

 

     20 KJV translated them the same: in Gen. 4:7, ". . . and thou shalt rule

over him." The problem is that Cain does not in fact rule, whether the

antecedent of "him" is sin or Abel.  Therefore, the future indicative or

predictive translation of Gen. 4:7 is incorrect.

     21 The masculine pronouns refer to the feminine noun "sin" txFH

A. R. Hulst in Old Testament Problems (Leiden, E. J. Brill, 1960, p. 1)

says: "The Hebr. active part. robes, 'beseiger', is often used of an animal

that lies in wait for its prey. . . . It is quite possible then, that the writer's

use of the masc. suffixes has been determined by this mental image of

'the croucher'." Cf. Robert S. Candlish, The Book of Genesis, v. 1, Edin-

burgh, Adam & Charles Black, 1868, p. 99; G. R. Driver, p. 158; Keil

& Delitzsch, p. 112. The only other alternate antecedent for the masc.

pronouns is Abel; then the rule of Cain as the first born is in view. This

interpretation is unlikely because (1) "Abel" is distant from the pronouns

and does not occur in God's words to Cain but only in the preceding

narrative; (2) it is not conclusive that the first born ruled his younger

siblings; for instance, rule over his brothers is given to the supposed first

born only at the death-bed of Isaac, and it is given to the second born

Jacob by mistake (Gen. 27:29); and (3) what is the meaning of "desire"

in such a case? Calvin (p. 203-4) explains the desire of Abel for Cain

as that of an inferior for the superior, in this case the first born Cain.

"Moreover, this form of speech is common [?] among the Hebrews, that

the desire of the inferior should be towards him to whose will he is

subject; thus Moses speaks of the woman (iii.16) that her desire should

be to her husband." Calvin's interpretation of "desire" in Gen. 3: 16 and

Gen 4:7 is consistent, but it is not appropriate in Song of Solomon 7:10,

where the man's desire is to his beloved. According to Calvin's theory,

the man would then be the inferior.


WHAT IS THE WOMAN'S DESIRE?                        381

 

sin, to master it. An active struggle between Cain and sin is

implied; the victor of the struggle is not determined by the

words God speaks to Cain.

E. J. Young notes the similarity of language in Genesis 3:16

and 4:7 but fails to account for it.

 

           As we examine the language of the Lord, we note that it

     is capable of two interpretations. First of all, however, it is

     well to compare it with the similar language in Genesis 4:7.

     In that verse we read, 'and his desire is unto thee.' The mean-

     ing in this context of the fourth chapter is that what sin desires

     is what Cain will carry out. His desire is unto Cain in the

     sense that Cain is a slave thereto, and must perform whatever

     sin's desire may be. In the present verse Gen. 3:16 we may

     render, 'and unto thy husband is thy desire.' It is obvious

     that the meaning here is the reverse of what it was in the

     fourth chapter. Is it not clear that in this third chapter the

     meaning cannot be that the desire of the woman is unto the

     husband so that he must do what she wishes? Is it not clear

     that the woman is not here pictured as a despot who compels

     the man to do the thing she desires? Plainly this is not the

     meaning of the text.22

 

The above argument relies on certain presuppositions about the

nature of the husband/wife relationship and about what the

passage means. Young neglects the primary exegetical consider-

ation -- context.

     The passage, he continues, has two possible meanings, which

we have considered before:

      (1) The desire of the woman will be subject to her husband

(A.3).

      (2) The wife has a yearning for her husband, as a disease

(A.2).

Young prefers the first alternative.23

     What Young considers an obviously impossible meaning for

"desire," the meaning which "desire" has in the same syntactical

setting only 15 verses away, is not impossible. The woman has

the same sort of desire for her husband that sin has for Cain,

a desire to possess or control him. This desire disputes the head-

ship of the husband. As the Lord tells Cain what he should do,

i.e., master or rule sin, the Lord also states what the husband

 

22 Young, p. 126-7.

23 Ibid., p. 127.


382      WESTMINSTER TIIEOLOGICAL JOURNAL

 

should do, rule over his wife. The words of the Lord in Genesis

3:16b, as in the case of the battle between sin and Cain, do not

determine the victor of the conflict between husband and wife.

These words mark the beginning of the battle of the sexes. As a

result of the fall, man no longer rules easily; he must fight for

his headship. Sin has corrupted both the willing submission of

the wife and the loving headship of the husband. The woman's

desire is to control her husband (to usurp his divinely appointed

headship, and he must master her, if he can. So the rule of love

founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny and dom-

ination.

      Experience corroborates this interpretation of God's judgment

on the woman. If the words "and he shall rule over you" in

Genesis 3:16b are understood in the indicative, then they are

not true. As Cain did not rule over sin (Genesis 4: 7b ), so not

every husband rules his wife, and wives have desires contrary

to their husbands' and often have no desire (sexual or psycho-

logical) for their husbands.

      As we have stated earlier on the basis of context, the woman's

desire does not contribute to the husband's rule; the opposite is

the case. The two clauses, "and your desire to control shall be

to your husband" and "but he should master you," are anti-

thetical. The presence of the personal pronoun xvh (htx in

Gen. 4:7) supports this understanding of the relationship of the

two clauses.

      The participants of two parallel but in some ways different

      activities are brought into prominence by realizing them as

      grammatically similar items in preverbal positions. A common

      way of doing this is to refer to the two participants by means

      of explicit pronoun subjects.24

The use of the personal pronoun in preverbal position (xvh) is

unusual and redundant and brings the participants into con-

trast.25

 

     24 Francis I. Andersen, The Sentence in Biblical Hebrew, The Hague,

Mouton, 1974. p. 150.

     25 Ibid.; cf. Takamitsu Muraoka, Emphasis in Biblical Hebrew, thesis

submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to the Senate of the

Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1969, p. 42.


WHAT IS THE WOMAN'S DESIRE?                        383

 

D. Summary

 

     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 rela-

tionship. 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 reasons for preferring this interpretation are:

     (1) It is consistent with the context, i.e., it is judgment for

sin that the relation between man and woman is made difficult.

God's words in Genesis 3:16b destroy the harmony of marriage,

for the rule of the husband, part of God's original intent for

marriage, is not made more tolerable by the wife's desire for her

husband, but less tolerable, because she rebels against his leader-

ship and tries to usurp it.

     (2) It permits a consistent understanding of hqvwt in the

Old Testament also consistent with its etymology.

     (3) It recognizes the parallel between Genesis 3:16b and

4:7b. The interpretation of 4:7b is clearer; we know from the

context that sin's desire to Cain involves mastery or enslave-

ment and that Cain did not win the battle to rule sin.

     (4) It explains the fact that husbands do not rule their wives

as a result of God's proclamation in Genesis 3:16b. (Further

support is implied by the New Testament commands for wives

to be submissive to their husbands and the requirements for

elders to rule their families.) jb-lwmy xvhv is not an indicative

statement, for if God states that something will come to pass,

it will.

 

Westminster Theological Seminary,

Philadelphia.

 

 

This material is cited with gracious permission from:

            Westminster Theological Seminary

            Chestnut Hill

            Philadelphia ,  PA   19118

            www.wts.edu

Please report any errors to Ted Hildebrandt at:  thildebrandt@gordon.edu