In concluding my research on Genesis 3:16, an essential question emerged that I believe to be crucial for grasping the verse’s true meaning: Did God intend for people to rule others?
To avoid veering off-topic in my upcoming analysis of the traditional rendering, “and he will rule over you,” I’ve decided to address this important question in a separate article.
Thus, this piece will explore various societal structures where humans dominate fellow humans, assessing their origin as either divine or human. I believe this will offer deeper clarity on Genesis 3:16.
The first topic we will discuss is kingship, followed by governments, employers, patriarchy, families, and finally, slavery.
Kingship
It is crucial to recognize that while the Bible mentions kings and some people advocate for the subjugation of women in the church by emphasizing that these rulers were men only, God’s desire was not for his people to be ruled by a king or a queen. He wanted to be their king, but they rejected him in favor of a human ruler, seeking to imitate the nations around them (1 Sam. 8).
Many, if not all of those nations, initially established kings based on the belief that it was the will of their gods, and some even considered kings to be gods themselves. It’s easy to see then, why this was not the will of our God.
Nevertheless, after issuing a strong warning, the Lord allowed Israel to have a king as they desired. However, this doesn’t suggest God’s approval or endorsement. Rather, it seems he allowed humans the freedom and room to govern the earth as he intended: They insist on having a king? Then let them have their king.
The bottom line is that human kingdoms did not originate from the one true Creator, but from human imagination. Furthermore, what’s remarkably telling, is that all human kingdoms and powers will eventually come to an end, while God’s kingdom will last forever (Dan. 2:44). Next, we’ll look at civil governments.
Governments (National, State, Local, Etc.)
Academic discussions about the origins of governments are ongoing, but the bottom line is that these systems seem to be human constructs, without any biblical support for the idea that human governments were divinely instituted or commanded.
The Book of Exodus provides an early example of human-devised governance, where Moses’ father-in-law, Jethro, proposed that Moses designate leaders to aid in legal judgments and in relaying divine instructions to the community.
13 The next day Moses took his seat to serve as judge for the people, and they stood around him from morning till evening. 14 When his father-in-law saw all that Moses was doing for the people, he said, “What is this you are doing for the people? Why do you alone sit as judge, while all these people stand around you from morning till evening?”
15 Moses answered him, “Because the people come to me to seek God’s will. 16 Whenever they have a dispute, it is brought to me, and I decide between the parties and inform them of God’s decrees and instructions.”
17 Moses’ father-in-law replied, “What you are doing is not good. 18 You and these people who come to you will only wear yourselves out. The work is too heavy for you; you cannot handle it alone. 19 Listen now to me and I will give you some advice, and may God be with you. You must be the people’s representative before God and bring their disputes to him. 20 Teach them his decrees and instructions, and show them the way they are to live and how they are to behave. 21 But select capable men from all the people—men who fear God, trustworthy men who hate dishonest gain—and appoint them as officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 22 Have them serve as judges for the people at all times, but have them bring every difficult case to you; the simple cases they can decide themselves. That will make your load lighter, because they will share it with you. 23 If you do this and God so commands, you will be able to stand the strain, and all these people will go home satisfied.”
24 Moses listened to his father-in-law and did everything he said. 25 He chose capable men from all Israel and made them leaders of the people, officials over thousands, hundreds, fifties and tens. 26 They served as judges for the people at all times. The difficult cases they brought to Moses, but the simple ones they decided themselves. —Ex. 18:13-26 NIV
We lack scriptural evidence of God’s direct approval, but it’s clear this concept was not his original design; instead, he appeared to accommodate and align with it (Ex. 24:12-18), enabling human beings to make their own decisions and rule over the earth as he created us to do.
Still, Christians often teach that God instituted human governments, citing verses such as 1 Peter 2:13-14; however, upon careful review of the passage, it’s clear that it emphasizes the need for God’s people to conduct themselves commendably among pagans, ensuring there is no legitimate grounds for criticism to be directed towards them. It has nothing to do with God establishing or condoning any governing powers.
11 Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, 12 having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation. 13 Therefore submit yourselves to every [a]ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether to the king as supreme, 14 or to governors, as to those who are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good. —1 Peter 2:11-14 NKJV
The text does not convey any divine mandate or commandment concerning human government; rather, it suggests that wise conduct involves respecting human laws and acting like one has good sense, in order to avoid providing non-believers with any cause for ill-speaking, ultimately resulting in God’s glorification.
Romans 13:1 is another passage often used to promote the idea that God created human governments. The verse reads as follows:
Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. (NIV)
Within this verse, the Greek phrase εξουσιαις υπερεχουσαις, literally translates to “higher, or superior powers,” rather than “governing authorities” or “government rulers,” as some translations say, depending on how the specific version interprets it.
The link to federal or state governmental structures and the like, seem to stem from a later reference to paying taxes (v. 6-7). However, the Greek word interpreted as “taxes” literally translates to “tribute” or “any payment,” and could therefore, mean a number of things.
Furthermore, the word “authorities” is sometimes inserted where it is absent in the original text. For instance, Romans 13:5, does not call for submission to any authority or government; it simply states that it is necessary to submit oneself. This could mean a variety of things once we remove the word and the concept of “government” from the preceding verses.
But what all of this suggests to me, is that the passage was likely translated based on creating a desired perception and response, rather than strict adherence to the written Word. Basically, it seems as if someone wanted people to think the way they wanted them to think, in order to affect their behavior.
In my opinion, there is no reason to think this passage refers to civil governments. No, I’m not saying it’s a wrong interpretation; I’m just saying that it’s not what the passage says, and unless I’m convinced otherwise, it’s not what I believe the passage is about.
Moreover, although governments around the world have been used for good and for evil, I cannot accept that even half of them could be considered servants of God; while they may serve some purpose of God, that does not make them his servants (Rom. 13:4). A servant faithfully serves his or her master’s purpose.
It is quite possible that this passage could have no relevance to our modern civil governments or any human government for that matter. Therefore, there is no obligation to believe that God instituted human government from a reading of this passage. Those are just my thoughts. Nonetheless, my research into the passage has not been extensive enough to state anything more definitively.
But the fact remains that although they can sometimes be good and in some cases bad, and at times should be respected and at other times rejected, the concept of human governments—-entities and individuals exercising authority over others in a nation, state, or community—arose from human devising, not God’s will. There is no biblical evidence that proves otherwise. We will now take a look at employment.
Employers
God’s intent for humankind has, beyond doubt, always included the concept of work. Contrary to widespread belief, “work” signifies far more than just earning a paycheck; it serves as a form of worship to the Creator. Therefore, every action we undertake, whether salaried or not, should honor God by aligning with his commandments within our daily tasks.
Adam, as we see in Scripture, was created specifically for the purpose of work from the very outset (Gen. 2:15), his tasks both divinely directed and personally rewarding. Even in “paradise,” there was the expectation to work.
After leaving the garden, however, survival necessitated more human effort, with people hunting and gathering for their basic needs, often sharing duties and reaping shared benefits among family or tribal members.
The advancement of societies spurred a demand for various goods from skilled craftspeople, such as tools for hunting and textiles, leading individuals to trade their handmade creations. As this demand increased, a corresponding increase in the need for workers to sustain these early businesses became inevitable. Hence, the birth of employment.
This prompts fundamental questions: Was this development born of sheer necessity or developing greed? Did this shift stem from a need for greater survival assistance, or from people’s newfound craving for material things?
Was the concept of employment ever truly essential? Or did those with superior talents in specific areas accumulate influence and resources, leading others to work for them for those resources and for their basic needs?
Does employment—defined in this post, as working for wages under someone else’s authority—align with God’s original intention? Let’s see what Scripture reveals.
While Abraham maintained servants, Jacob appears to be the first person in the Bible to engage in the practice of working for a reward, agreeing to serve his uncle Laban for seven years to marry Rachel. Yet, Laban deceptively exchanged Rachel for Leah, coercing Jacob into another seven years of labor for Rachel (Gen. 29:15-30).
Despite the fact that employment in itself is not wrong, and there are many righteous employers, this vividly illustrates how humans can and do corrupt power bestowed upon them, strongly implying why such a system would have been unlikely to have originated from God.
But the bottom line is that there is no biblical evidence to support the idea that it did. The concept of employment, therefore, where humans oversee and have authority over other humans in a working environment in exchange for compensation, does not seem to come from God.
Next, we’ll take a closer look at another ruling structure: patriarchy. Just as employment evolved from communal survival into a hierarchical system, so too did family and society leadership morph into something far removed from God’s original design.
Patriarchy
Patriarchy, from a Greek word meaning, “rule of the father” is defined by Merriam Webster as a “social organization marked by the supremacy of the father in the clan or family, the legal dependence of wives and children, and the reckoning of descent and inheritance in the male line.”
Cambridge Dictionary defines it as “a society in which the oldest male is the leader of the family, or a society controlled by men in which they use their power to their own advantage.”
Some Christians subscribe to the idea that God ordained a particular order among people, where men are intended to hold a leading position over women in the household, the church, and the community. This theological view, often termed biblical patriarchy or complementarianism, maintains that although men and women are of equal value and dignity, their roles are distinct.
While I agree with this understanding, as it is clearly evident, I do not believe it translates into any divine command, system, or structure where one gender rules or is superior over the other. As a matter of fact, it takes some mighty fine reaching to come to that conclusion.
Still, despite the lack of solid scriptural proof, many Christians hold that God established “male headship”—with men as the dominant gender—at humanity’s creation. However, researchers propose that this system of governance—patriarchy— originated in other ways such as in human cultural evolution.
This would imply that male governance of women in societies, families, and religions is another human concept that isn’t a part of God’s original design or scriptural teaching. You won’t find anywhere in the Bible where God initiated it or commanded it, and the scriptures used to support this claim are very weak and not well thought out; more on that in the future. But ultimately, patriarchy or “male headship” is a human creation. We now turn our attention to “the family.”
Families
The purpose of a family is to teach and train new human beings in the way they should go (Prov. 22:6), how to find one’s work or place in the world, and to teach what is right and what is wrong — something that probably wasn’t needed originally before humankind came into the knowledge of good and evil.
After the fall, however, we’d have to learn how to do right and choose good. This would take some time and someone would need to teach us; hence, the ultimate purpose of a family (Deut. 4:8-9; Deut. 6:7; Deut. 11:19; Deut. 31:12-13; Deut. 32:45-46). However, the role of parents in our society, is commonly distorted.
Parents are not meant to dominate their children, or enroll them in beauty pageants before they can walk, or predetermine their college or career paths before grade school; instead, they are there to provide a nurturing, caring, and safe environment for children’s physical and mental development and learning, allowing them to develop the capacity for making intelligent decisions independently.
In our flawed mindset, however, we tend to confuse responsibilities given by God with a kind of authority granted by humans, leading us to think we have a right to dictate the lives of others. But, even in a family setting, parents ought not to dominate their children or attempt to dictate their life choices, as this can lead to various psychological problems for the kids.
To reiterate, just because God uses someone to usher a new being into the world, doesn’t mean they hold power over that individual’s existence. Instead, it imposes a duty to nurture, guide, and support the child until they are capable of self-reliance and, quite possibly, starting their own family to maintain the life cycle.
It is my conviction, therefore, that no absolute authority resides within a family unit. Parents are merely temporary stewards, charged with preserving and guiding a human life for a period of time.
Nonetheless, children, while under parental supervision, should learn obedience. This is not due to any inherent power parents possess over their kids, but rather because it is beneficial for the child’s growth and development and encourages adherence to God’s teachings, a crucial early lesson.
And so, the family system was indeed implemented by God, but it is not a system where humans rule over others. Though they are not rulers over their children, parents merit respect for their significant contribution to an individual’s maturation. Let’s now look at one of the most evil and oppressive systems of human rule: slavery.
Slavery
It is widely accepted that the oppressive institution of “slavery” as we understand it today, in all its forms, was never ordained by God. Unlike the traditional concept of slavery, God’s teachings do not involve one person dominating another individual’s existence and subjecting him or her to inhumane cruelty. Such harsh dominion over fellow humans has consistently been, and remains, a human construct, likely influenced by demonic entities.
Now, I’ll admit. There are some difficult passages in the Bible, such as one that seems to condone beating a slave; but it would be helpful to look beyond preconceived ideas and modern perspectives to gain a better understanding. To grasp what I mean, let’s look at the passage.
20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property. — Ex. 21:20-21 NIV
My initial encounter with the above passage left me speechless, with a flood of negative commentaries only deepening my confusion and distress. I then paused, concluding that my interpretation simply did not align with my understanding of God’s character from Scripture, prompting me to re-evaluate my thoughts to determine what I was missing.
This is what I found to be the main issue: my immediate mental image, like countless other people, was of a slave being brutalized without just cause. This image reflected years of absorbing numerous stories and depictions of slaves being wrongfully abused.
Therefore, I assumed the slave in Exodus was either innocent of any wrongdoing or guilty of being of the wrong nationality, the wrong social class, etc. However, this specific passage in Exodus does not provide a reason for the slave’s chastisement. The servant could have in fact, done something deserving of punishment.
The Mosaic Law details various justifiable reasons for punishing individuals, whether free or enslaved (Deut. 25:1-3; Prov. 19:29; Prov. 20:30; Is. 1:5). It therefore stands to reason that, within the framework of the Torah, the slave’s actions likely warranted the beating as a form of punishment, particularly since prisons and jails weren’t common, requiring alternative methods of enforcing justice.
This same form of discipline could have been given to anyone for the equivalent transgression. Therefore, this regulation seems designed specifically to protect the slave suggesting that a death would indicate a motive beyond mere punishment, such as hatred, cruelty, or treating the slave as less than a human being.
This can be inferred by the text immediately preceding verses 20-21 (vv. 12-19) which talk about punishment for those who intentionally harm others vs. accidents. Following this theme, if the slave perished, the individual responsible was subject to penalty, as the death was likely intentional or caused by animosity.
Yet, if recovery occurred within a day or two, no punishment was carried out upon the master, indicating the action was probably a lawful enforcement or an accident, rather than malicious intent. (I acknowledge that some translations imply the slave still dies after a day or two but I’ve found no justifiable reason for the verse to be translated in this manner.)
The fact is, the exact reasons for the beating are not mentioned, leading us to construct a narrative based on our own cultural background and prior understanding. However, there is no basis to suggest that our heavenly father ever approved of any unlawful physical violence or homicide against any individual, including slaves or “servants.”
The interpretation of a slave as another person’s property was another key concern for me. Yet, the original Greek and Hebrew words rendered “property” in some English Bibles literally translate to “silver” or “money,” likely implying the master’s economic interest in the slave—not a reduction of the slave to a master’s actual belongings.
Despite the misguided belief among some that slaves were indeed property, especially when acquired through purchase, my perspective aligns with the view that this merely signifies the owner’s financial setback due to lost work time.
After all, why would the Almighty, who stated, “All souls are mine”—meaning every life is his—ever permit one human to rightfully possess another? (Ezek. 18:4) Why would he ever acknowledge one human’s supposed right to own another in any manner? How can such an arrangement be reconciled with his divine decree? (Ezek. 18:4)
Manmade objects, such as a car, a house, or a television, are considered one’s property. However, a person is not your property. Even land, though one can possess it and steward it, it is not theirs. The owner is God, and the things that come from God belong to God. The things that come from man belong to man.
Consequently, I consider “property” a flawed and offensive translation choice. For further insight into biblical slavery, I highly recommend a detailed article such as this one, to supplement your study of actual Scripture.
But to conclude, although God permitted slavery in biblical times, it was not the same oppressive system typically associated with the term today. For many, this arrangement was a crucial means of survival, an exchange for life’s fundamental requirements. Much like my own experience, having taken jobs that felt enslaving simply to keep food on the table and a roof over my head, it addressed critical needs.
Others considered slavery a grace in lieu of death, while others were forced into slavery against their will. Nevertheless, the ultimate truth is that the Almighty never instituted this form of control over human beings.
Conclusion
In conclusion, although God gave humans dominion over other creatures on earth (Gen. 1:26-28) there is no evidence that he ever intended for any individual to dominate another. This concept seems to have originated from human beings and continues to this day because of cultural tradition.
The idea of ruling over others in a hierarchical structure can be found in everything from modern kingdoms to workplaces but it appears to be a result of our poor decisions in ruling the earth rather than God’s original intention.
Consequently, the rendering of Genesis 3:16 to imply male dominion over women, specifically “…he will rule over you,” is problematic. This interpretation clashes with the historical context, as such structured human governance was absent during humanity’s early beginnings and only evolved much later.
There is no reason then, to believe that the concept of humans ruling over others was anywhere within God’s view for humanity at the time of the events of Genesis 3:16. My next article will therefore explore other possible interpretations of this biblical text.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In