Your Desire Will Be For Your Husband: Examining Genesis 3:16

Your Desire Will Be For Your Husband: Examining Genesis 3:16

Image Created With Microsoft Copilot

 

In my last post, I analyzed the first part of Genesis 3:16, and concluded that it was more likely referring to something deeper than physical pain during childbirth. There were two possible interpretations:

And to the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your grief and your sighing. Among grief you will bring forth descendants…

And to the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your toil and your child-birth. Among toil you will bring forth descendants…

Now, we will turn our attention to the next section of the verse, commonly interpreted as: “Your desire will be for your husband” to try and discover its meaning. ”We will begin by investigating the claim that all women have a tendency to take power from men, and then we will compare this claim with the truths found in Scripture and our daily lives. Following this, we will briefly introduce an alternative viewpoint, which will be followed by a study of the Greek text. Without further ado, let’s begin.

Usurpers By Nature?

The next portion of Genesis 3:16 is commonly rendered as “Your desire will be for your husband.” However, the translators of the ESV took the liberty to alter the traditional text,  translating it as “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband.” Both translations essentially suggest that, as a consequence of the fall, women will inherently seek to control their husbands or “usurp” his authority.  John MacArthur has stated:

“With the Fall and its curse came the distortion of woman’s proper submissiveness and of man’s proper authority. That is where the battle of the sexes began, where women’s liberation and male chauvinism came into existence. Women have a sinful inclination to usurp man’s authority and men have a sinful inclination to put women under their feet. The divine decree that man would rule over woman in this way was part of God’s curse on humanity, and it takes a manifestation of grace in Christ by the filling of the Holy Spirit to restore the created order and harmony of proper submission in a relationship that has become corrupted and disordered by sin.”

First of all, let me say that God never cursed humanity. Honestly, I’m tired of hearing people imply this since it misrepresents God’s character. Furthermore, how ironic is it that Christians constantly boast that God is quick to forgive and forget all our sins, yet he still holds all women accountable for a sin committed by one woman at the beginning of time? What sense does that  make? 

Even with Adam and Eve, we are not in a sinful condition because of them alone; they were merely first to expose the inherent flaws of the human heart. In other words, we are not reaping the consequences of their sinful actions. Each person has the power to decide whether to sin or not, and at some point, everyone will make the choice to sin, just as they did, and many will continue to follow that path.

But on to the point. What does it actually mean for a wife to “usurp her husband’s authority?” What does it mean for her to desire to control him? Is she harboring animosity towards him and secretly plotting to replace him? Your guess is as good as mine, so let’s first search for any scriptural examples, followed by explanations from proponents of these ideas to understand the origins of this concept.

Meaning of Usurp

Let’s begin by exploring the meaning of the word “usurp.” Many Christians love to use this term, and I must admit, it is a fun word to say. However, I would bet that more than half of those who fervently assert that a woman should not “usurp” authority over a man may not truly understand what it means. So, let’s take a closer look. 

The English word usurp, which translators often select to interpret certain biblical terms, is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary as “to take control of a position of power, especially without having the right to.” According to Merriam-Webster, it means “to seize and hold (office, place, functions, powers, etc.) in possession by force or without right” or “to take the place of by or as if by force: SUPPLANT.” 

Now, let’s be real. These definitions do not describe a woman making family decisions without a man’s input. They refer to a position of power being taken over by force. This wouldn’t be some lightweight metaphoric type of overtaking. Recognize that we are not talking about usurping in your modern-day place of employment; we are talking about usurping in ancient times, and there is no reason to believe that the word would be used lightly or figuratively in this verse. 

I have diligently sought out explanations from anyone who has attempted to clarify how this ungodly ambition in women might appear within the context of a mutually intimate relationship between a man and a woman, or even in a general sense. Unfortunately, there isn’t much explanation, which is a red flag for me.  

Thankfully, we have a clear biblical example of a woman who usurped authority—Athaliah, a wicked old grandmother who eliminated any potential heirs to the throne, including her young grandchildren, to secure her reign over the kingdom, after her son, the king, passed away, (2 Kgs. 11). 

She was not rightfully in power; she took it by force, eliminating anyone who stood in her way, including those precious grand-babies. But, what does this look like in regular life? How does it play out in relationships? Such themes are common in fairy tales, such as Snow White, but how do they translate into modern marriages?

For instance, does a woman resort to hiring a hit-man to eliminate her husband in order to assume control of the family? Does she trap him in the basement and deceive the children into believing he abandoned them, allowing her to dominate the household? 

Does she then unilaterally decide on expenditures for necessities, manage bills at her discretion, and make significant choices regarding the children’s education and what to eat for dinner without her husband’s input? 

While I’m being somewhat sarcastic, I’m still quite curious about how this is meant to work. How does a woman displace a man and assume his role as husband and father? Furthermore, how does this desire, which is distinct from action, reveal itself? How does it turn into reality? 

According to the traditional interpretation, isn’t it the man’s role to put an end to this by ruling over the woman? So, how do women actually carry out these desires, as many claim that they do? Does it suggest that God was lying? Are men sinning by allowing it to happen?

And what about within a church context? Which authority figures are these so-called rebellious women supposedly usurping to elevate themselves into their “positions?” I hate to break it to you, but such scenarios are simply not a reality. If they do occur, they are certainly not the norm. Let’s verify this by looking first at Scripture, followed by a general observation of our world today.

Rebellious Women in the Bible?

One can easily observe that women desiring to usurp men is not the norm. Additionally, we lack biblical examples of such behavior. Even Jezebel did not act in this manner towards her husband, though some try to stretch the narrative to make it seem as though she did. Although Jezebel had a negative influence on her husband, she never attempted to take his place. 

Therefore, if this mindset to usurp men, developed among women after the fall, strangely, it doesn’t appear to be common in the biblical context. It is possible that some are confusing the Bible with fictional stories such as The Taming of the Shrew, which depict women as rebellious. But, the reality is, no other woman in Scripture, apart from Athaliah, committed such an act, and her actions stemmed from sheer wickedness. 

Therefore, it seems quite exaggerated and somewhat degrading to ascribe such a tendency to all women. The bottom line is, “usurp” is not an appropriate translation— neither in Genesis 3:16 nor in 1 Timothy 2:12.

What, then, do people actually mean when they speak of women usurping men as part of a “curse” placed upon women? Jason DeRouchie, a professor at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, expressed the following insights in his article on desiringgod.com:

“Just as Genesis 4:7 identifies sin’s destructive work, 3:16 details God’s judgment against sin manifest in the wife’s destructive work (A’). Just as sin sought to overpower and subvert Cain, the woman’s “desire against” her husband means that, in the cursed world, the wife will seek to overpower and subvert her husband’s God-given authority.”

“Opposite of the excellent wife in Proverbs 31:10–31, the wife who follows in the pattern of the curse has a husband who can’t trust her (31:11), for she continually works him harm (31:12). She begrudges her work (31:13), fails to supply her part for the household due to her idleness (31:15, 27), and operates in weakness rather than strength (31:17, 25). She takes rather than gives (31:20), fears rather than trusts (31:21, 25), and speaks foolishly and harshly rather than wisely and gently (31:26). Such persistent patterns move children to curse, rather than bless, and lead husbands to failure, rather than success (31:23), and to displeasure, rather than praise (31:28).1”

On his blog, Tim Challies has written:

“What we see is that God is not referring to a good sexual desire, but about that bad, sinful desire, just like in his warning to Cain. A woman’s desire shall be to dominate her husband just like sin seeks to dominate all of us. In place of the family structure God calls us to, with a husband lovingly leading his wife and the wife joyfully submitting to his leadership, there would now be a power struggle, a struggle to dominate.

A woman’s desire for her husband shall be a desire to push him out of his place of leadership. It should not be lost on us that this is exactly what happened when man fell—the woman was led by a creature and the man was led by his wife. The whole God-ordained leadership structure was reversed. And that is how it continues today. A wife struggles to submit to her husband. The ESV puts a little note in the text explaining that the word for could also be translated against. The woman’s desire shall now be against her husband—against his God-given position of leadership and authority. Her heart will rebel against what God has said is good. The woman will engage a lifelong battle against this sin. It’s part of her sinful nature.

And this is true today, isn’t it? God created something good, something perfect, when he created the marriage relationship, when he said that Adam was to lead his wife and that she was to joyfully follow him. And yet every wife can testify to the struggle it is to submit to her husband’s leadership. Of course in a perfect world it should have been perfectly easy. But in this world a wife’s submission means that she must sinlessly submit to a sinful man. That is a difficult thing to do. But it is exactly what God calls her to.”

It’s true that God implemented marriage and that marriage is good. However, the assertion “…when he created the marriage relationship, when he said that Adam was to lead his wife and that she was to joyfully follow him” is misleading, as nothing following the word “relationship” is found in Scripture, neither explicitly nor implicitly. Nevertheless, this belief persists among many for various reasons, which significantly contributes to the problems within biblical teachings today.

Furthermore, if a woman’s desire to dominate her husband is a result of the fall, why do so many people reference the events involving Adam and Eve prior to the fall to justify this perspective? A more critical question is, how reliable are these assertions and similar ones made by others, in everyday life? We have already noted that such behavior was not common for women in biblical narratives. Next, we will compare this claim with the realities of our modern world.

How Does It Compare to Reality?

We have determined that the word “usurp” is not appropriate for use in Genesis 3:16. However, what about women who wish to control their husbands or take charge in the household? How is this desire for control meant to manifest in what is ideally a loving marriage built on mutual love and respect? 

Even in our modern era, I find it rare to encounter women who intentionally seek to challenge or undermine their husband’s wishes. Similarly, I don’t know many men who would act in such a manner towards their wives. If that were their intention, I would assume they wouldn’t have chosen to marry. 

Moreover, I advocate for women to proclaim God’s Word, and while I’m not married, I envision having a husband who takes on a leadership role, as that is my preference. I can be very indecisive and prefer not to make numerous decisions; I would rather have a man who can take charge and lead. I would have no desire or reason to want to keep him from running the household. Having previously dealt with a “man-child,” I am determined not to repeat that experience.

Nonetheless, I would have the wisdom to recognize that we both possess different skills and knowledge, allowing us to lead in our respective areas. I would expect him to have this same discernment. This is how I believe marriages should function. In fact, I suspect that this is the norm for most marriages—even for those who firmly believe that men should be the heads of their households. This is because marriage, as created by God, was intended to be a partnership—not a dictatorship.

Marriage as a Partnership

I can almost assure you that no man leads his family all the time; it is simply not possible, and it is not how God intended marriage to function. He intended it to be a partnership where both partners support each other with their respective strengths. That is the idea of “help.” Even for those who think a woman’s role is to manage the home—if she is mainly responsible for household duties, then she is effectively leading in that aspect of the relationship, not the man. 

If a man seeks his wife’s input on any matter, which some Christian men often claim is part of their leadership strategy, the truth is that he is not truly leading in that instance; both partners are leading together, making decisions collaboratively, regardless of who has the final say. It’s time to stop glossing over these realities and confront the facts.

But my argument is, there aren’t many women who aspire to take over their husband’s role. After all, what would be the reason for that? Isn’t the primary purpose of marriage to have a companion to navigate life’s challenges with? Why would anyone want to hinder that support? Even among non-believers, when disagreements arise, they typically opt for divorce instead of enduring such conflicts. 

This is based on my own observations in American society, but I would guess that this is also true in other cultures. Have you seen evidence to the contrary? Such behavior is quite rare. Therefore, how valid is the claim that all women have this tendency to control men? 

Could it be that some of the early translators were weak men influenced by manipulative women who exhibited such traits? Perhaps they interpreted the Word according to their own experience, projecting their cultural biases into the text. It’s a mystery it seems; but ultimately, the idea that wives seek to dominate or control their husbands is not only unsupported by the Bible but also disconnected from reality. Consequently, there is no basis for believing that this verse speaks to a desire in the woman that is at odds with her husband.

Furthermore, whether we are married or not is irrelevant; there will always be conflicts among humans—between males and females, females and females, and males with males, regardless of marital status. Hence, it seems rather nonsensical to argue that this verse is the reason for disputes between husbands and wives, or to propose that any other explanations exist for their arguments apart from the general sinful tendencies inherent in all people.

Thus, it is unlikely that this verse is referring to a desire within the woman, or any woman for that matter, to control a man. The idea is something someone made up to support their bias against women, and we have been too afraid, too comfortable, and too lazy to think it through to realize it doesn’t make any sense. But, what about sexual attraction? Might these words indicate a form of passion that the woman will show towards her husband?

What About Sexual Desire? 

The use of the same term for “desire” in Song of Songs/Solomon 7:10, leads some to believe that Genesis 3:16 also conveys a positive longing, specifically a sexual desire from the woman for her husband. However, I have yet to find a compelling explanation of this perspective that warrants sharing. Therefore, if you wish to explore this view further, I encourage you to do your own research. 

It is important to note, however, that while we can gain insights into word meanings by analyzing their use in various scriptural contexts, it does not mean that a word’s meaning is the same in every passage, especially when written by different authors. Such reasoning is quite unreasonable.

Nevertheless, I do think the passage may indeed refer to a form of positive desire or passion from the woman towards her man. I will elaborate on this in the next post, but in the following section, we will closely analyze the next part of the text of Genesis 3:16, traditionally translated as: and your desire will be for your husband.

What Is Written?

και προς τον ανδρα σου η αποστροφη σου και αυτος σου κυριευσει

Of the portion of the text highlighted in bold, the first word καὶ (kai) commonly means “and” or “also.” It can also mean “even” and in some cases, it means “but.” Following that, the preposition προς (pros) commonly means “to” or “toward” but can have other meanings depending on the context. 

Some sources say the term can also mean “against,” which likely led the ESV translators to conclude that the woman’s desire would be “against” or “contrary to” her husband’s. In other words, her desire and her husband’s desire would consistently bump heads.

However, this is not a common translation and προς, with an accusative (τον ανδρα), fundamentally refers to movement toward something or being close to someone or something. It doesn’t typically suggest being “opposed to something.” Next, the words τον ανδρα σου, (ton andra sou) often translated as “your husband” can literally translate to “the man of, or from you” and η αποστροφη σου (hē apostrophḗ sou) literally translates to “the turning of you” which commonly denotes a turning away. I addressed η αποστροφη in more detail in my previous post on Genesis 4:7. But, a word-for-word translation of the entire phrase could read:

and/but toward the man of/from you the turning of you… 

Here, “the turning of you” is the subject. Therefore, the turning of you is, was, or will be toward the man. What seems to make the most sense, is that this turning is something that will happen in the future. Therefore, it could read:

and/but the turning of you shall be toward the man of (or from) you, or simply, and/but your turning shall be toward your man.

Traditionally, this is interpreted to be speaking about the woman’s husband, Adam. Therefore, “your man” is usually translated as “your husband.” This makes sense as God was in the midst of addressing the woman about her future descendants which she would create with a man. 

It raises the question, however, of why he would then shift to the topic of Adam’s authority over her. Further context is necessary to clarify the message. Therefore, in the upcoming post, we will analyze the final segment of Genesis 3:16, to identify valid interpretations that do not undermine or diminish women, or suggest they are forbidden from preaching and teaching God’s Word.

About Miranda Turner
Miranda Turner is an author, blogger, and podcaster. In her writings, she discusses God, the Bible, and anything else related to glorifying the Lord. Find out more at https://truthtrumpstradition.wordpress.com/. You can read more about the author here.

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!