See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/369086480

AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16 AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR

MALE HEADSHIP

Article · March 2023

CITATIONS READS

0 738

1 author:

Opeyemi Oladosu
Babcock University
12 PUBLICATIONS 2 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Opeyemi Oladosu on 08 March 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

M.A, Biblical and Theological Studies,
Religious Studies Department
Babcock University, Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State
07036070495 oladosuo@babcock.edu.ng

ABSTRACT
Sexuality, headship, submission, and equality in male/female
relationship in the context of Genesis 3:16 has been a subject of
concern to biblical scholars. The survey of interpretation and
research on Genesis 3:16 reveal those previous efforts at
interpreting the text have centered much on the key words,
Teshuqal and māśāl. From the earlier studies, the question which
seems unresolved is, does the curse on Eve imply male headship of
woman? That is, does the pronouncement of God on Eve imply
man’s superiority or rulership? This paper employed exegetical
method to study this text and investigate its theological
implications to male headship theology. Implications to marriage,
church leadership, society, and salvation were considered. This
research revealed that there seems to be an alteration in the status
of women in relation to their husband after Fall. However, it
appears that the judgment of God does not make women less
human, inferior or bring her under man as a servant. Rather, the
“rulership” of man over woman only suggests women submission,
and dependence to their husbands.

KEYWORDS: Sexuality, Headship, Teshuqal, māśāl, Headship

theology, Submission, Eve.

75
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

INTRODUCTION
Sexuality, headship, submission, and equality in male/female
relationship in the context of Genesis 3:16 has been a subject of
concern to biblical scholars. Genesis records that God created man
in his own image, male and female (Gen 1:26, 27). In Genesis 2,
how and the reason for the creation of woman is explained (v. 18),
and in marriage, man and woman become one flesh (Gen 2:24).
Further, God forbade man from eating “of the tree of the
knowledge of good and evil”1 (Gen 2:16, 17). However, Adam and
eve disobeyed God and ate the forbidden fruit. Consequence upon
the disobedience of Adam and Eve, God pronounced a judgment
upon the serpent (Gen 3:14-15), Eve2 (Gen 3:16), and Adam (Gen
3:17-19). To the woman, God declares, “I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth, in pain you shall bring forth children; Yet
your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.”
(Gen 3:16 NAS). This text becomes the major focus of this
research. The survey of interpretation and research on Genesis 3:16
reveal those previous efforts at interpreting the text have centered
much on the key words, Teshuqal and māśāl. From the earlier
studies, the question that is left unresolved is, does the curse on Eve
imply male headship of woman? That is, does the pronouncement
of God on Eve imply man’s superiority or rulership? This question

1
Unless otherwise stated, all Bible quotations in this proposal will be from
English Standard Version of the Bible.
2
Derek Tidball and Dianne Tidball, The Message of Women: Creation, Grace
and Gender (London: Inter-Varsity, 2012), 50. They argue that God did not
curse Adam and Eve but were only sentenced to experience the painful
repercussions of their disobedience through the corruption and distortion of
their original role in creation.
76
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

needs to be addressed in order to obtain a more complete

understanding of it and its theological significance.

The Purpose of this research is to do exegetical study of Genesis

3:16 in order to determine the authorial intention. Also, this study
seeks to investigate the theological implications of this text to male
headship theology. Implications to marriage, church leadership,
society, and salvation will be considered. Diverse interpretations
and understanding of Genesis 3:16 have impacted the roles of
women in marriage and by extension, the Church. Those who
understand the verse to mean domination and subservience subject
and relegate women at home and in the Church to the background
while those who interpret it otherwise see partnership with women.
Thus, the findings of this research will help to comprehend the
author’s intention and apply the text correctly. Besides, male
headship which has been a bone of contention will be resolved. It
will be a contribution to the body of knowledge.

This research focuses on the Masoretic Text (MT) of the book of

Genesis in its final form. Masoretic Text is considered the
authoritative Hebrew and Aramaic text of the 24 books of Tanakh
for Rabbinic Judaism. The research is limited to Genesis 3:16 in its
immediate context (Gen 1-3). Thus, any aspects which does not
relate to the issue under discussion will not be pursued. Based on
the nature of this text, the methodological approach employed in
this research combines the hermeneutic of biblical exegesis and
intertextuality. Exegesis is an analytical study of a biblical passage
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

in order to arrive at a useful interpretation of the text.3 On the other

hand, “intertextuality is concerned with the relationship between
texts. This is used to express relationships between words, phrases,
or longer statements in one passage of the Bible that are used in
other passages in the Bible.”4 Thus, this method will be used to
investigate the final form of Genesis 3:16 and related texts.

BRIEF SURVEY OF INTERPRETATION OF GENESIS 3:1-

6
Background of the Interpretation
God’s divine judgment upon Eve states that, “… Your desire shall
be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” (Gen 3:16c). The
Hebrew term teshuqah which is translated as “desire”5 in most
English Versions of the Bible occurs three times in the Hebrew

3
Douglas Stuart, Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and
Pastors, 4th ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2009), 1.
4
Enrique Báez, “Allusions to Genesis 11:1-9 in the Book of Daniel: An
Exegetical and Intertextual Study” (PhD Dissertation, Berrien Spring: Michigan,
Andrews University, 2013), 13.
5
KJV, NAS, ESV, NIV, NAU translate “teshuqah” as “desire,” TNK, “urge,”
LXX English Translation, “submission,” while ISV translates it as “turning.”
Also, it is noted that, of the twelve known ancient versions (the Greek
Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Old Latin, the
Sahidic, the Bohairic, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, Aquila’s Greek, Symmachus’s
Greek, Theodotion’s Greek and the Latin Vulgate), almost every one (twenty-
one out of twenty-eight times) renders these three instances of teshuqah as
“turning,” not “desire.” Likewise, the church fathers (Clement of Rome,
Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome, along with Philo, a Jew
who died about AD. 50) seem to be ignorant of any other sense for this
word teshuqah than the translation of “turning.” See also, Marg Mowczko,
“Teshuqah: The Woman’s “Desire” in Genesis 3:16.” Accessed 16 February
2020. https://margmowczko.com/teshuqah-desire/.
78
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

Bible (Gen 3:16; 4:7, and Songs 7:10) while māśāl, translated as
“rule” appears in one hundred and twenty-six verses in forty-six
forms. There has been divergence of perspectives on the translation
and interpretation of these two Hebrew terms. On the other hand,
some Bible scholars interpret māśāl to mean, subservience,6
dominion,7 contention,8 and hierarchy.9 Whereas, Doukhan
Jacques asserts that the text has nothing to do with men controlling
and subduing their wives.10 Below are the six major views on the
interpretation of the text:

6
U. Cassuto, From Adam to Noah: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis: Part
1 (Skokie: IL: Varda, 2005), 165. U. Also, Ellen van Wolde states that
“dominion is combined with desire.” Ellen van Wolde, “Facing the Earth:
Primaeval History in a New Perspective,” in The World of Genesis Persons,
Places, Perspectives, eds. Philip R. Davies & David J.A. Clines (Sheffield,
London: Sheffield Academic, 1998), 34. However, John J. Schmitt argues that
the idea of male domination is not really present in Gen 3:16. He posits that the
original idea in Gen 3,16e is the male's "similarity to " the woman rather than his
“domination over” her. John J. Schmitt, “Like Eve, Like Adam: mšl in Gen 3,
16,” Brill 72, no. 1 (1991): 2. Water Vogels affirms that the relationship between
husband and wife, whatever the verse means exactly, is how it is, not what it has
to be like (Walter Vogels, “The Power Struggle between Man and Woman (Gen
3, 16b),” Brill 77, no. 2 (1996): 200. In his own view, Victor P. Hamilton affirms
that between Adam and Eve, there is a desire to break the relationship of equality
and turn it into a relationship of servitude and domination. The two would
attempt to rule each other. Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-
17, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990), 202.
7
Derek Kidner, Genesis: An Introduction and Commentaries, vol. 1 (Downers
Grove: IVP Academic, 2008), 33.
8
Susan T Foh, “What Is the Woman’s Desire,” The Westminster Theological
Journal 37, no. 3 (1975): 383.
9
Joel N Lohr, “Sexual Desire?: Eve, Genesis 3:16, ‫ ”תשןקה‬Journal of Biblical
Literature 130, no. 2 (2011): 228.
10
Jacques Douhkan, “The Subordination of Women Revisited: A Contextual and
Intertextual Exegesis of Genesis 3:16,” Faculty Publications, January 1, 2016,
http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

2 Views on the Interpretation of Gen 3:16

In the history of interpretation, there have been diverse views
regarding the interpretation of Gen 3:16. Such views are:

Male-headship but not divinely intended

This school of thought affirms that the pronouncement of God that
says, “…Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule
over you” (Gen 3:16) implies male headship. In his view, David
Carr opines that Genesis 3:16 implies male rulership but it was not
divinely intended.11 It is believed that “hierarchy and headship
comes to play as part of the consequence of the fall, rather than
being part of God’s original intention.”12 This view considers man
and woman as being equal until the fall when “headship” of man is
introduced. That is, headship of man over woman is not in the
original plan of God for husband-wife relationship.

Subordination – creation ordinance

Genesis 3:16 is interpreted to mean that the subordination of
woman is a creation ordinance which was distorted but must be
restored by the gospel.13 Further on this, the verse is perceived to
mean subordination as a creation ordinance but see in the text not

/pubs/214. See also, Benjamin G Wold, “Genesis 2-3 in Early Christian

Tradition and 4QInstruction,” Dead Sea Discoveries 23, no. 3 (2016): 337,
https://doi.org/10.1163/15685179-12341407
11
David M. Carr, The Erotic Word: Sexuality, Spirituality, and the Bible (New
York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 55.
12 Tidball and Tidball, The Message of Women: Creation, Grace and Gender,

51.
13
Richard M. Davidson, “The Theology of Sexuality in the Beginning: Genesis
3,” Andrews University 26, no. 2 (July 1988): 121–31.
80
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

a distortion but a reaffirmation of subordination as a blessing and a

comfort to the woman in her difficulties as a mother.14 Some
arguments have been advanced in support of a male-
headship/female-submission. They include: God named the
humans “man,” thus implying male headship, Adam was created
before Eve in Genesis 2, thus implying that males should have
authority over females, and woman was created to be a helpmate to
the man, thus giving the woman an inferior function.15

Equality of sexes
Nahum Sarna posits that the “ideal situation was equality of the
sexes. The new state of male dominance is regarded as an aspect of
deterioration in the human condition that resulted from defiance of
divine will.”16 Davidson argues that since God created man and
woman in his image, there is “no hint of ontological
superiority/inferiority or functional leadership/submission between
male and female.17 Hence, since both were created in the image of
God (Gen 1:26) and both were given the mandate to have dominion
over the earth and the created things (Gen 1:28), then, both sexes
are equal with none superior to the other.

14
Richard M. Davidson, “Theology of Sexuality in the Song of Songs: Return
to Eden,” Andrews University 27, no. 1 (Spring 1989): 125,
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/22-
songofsongs/text/articles/davidson-songofsongs-auss.pdf.
15
Jan A. SigvartSen, “The Creation Order—Hierarchical or Egalitarian?,”
Andrews University 53, no. 1 (2015): 128–31.
16
Nahum M. Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary (Philadelphia: The
Jewish Publication Society, 1989), 28.
17
Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007), 22.
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

Headship: established before the Fall

According to this view, Gen 3:16 is used to proof theology of
headship. One of the features of this theology is “the belief that
Adam’s headship in marriage was established by God before the
fall, not as a result of sin, and that God created Eve to be
subservient to Adam.”18 Wayne Grudem advances ten points to
indicate that male headship exists between Adam and Eve before
the fall.19 Irvin A. Busenitz notes that “sin-corrupted headship of
the husband.”20 Hence, male headship is God’s original intention
not a consequence of sin.

Equality – No male superiority/leadership

Richard Davidson declares that there is “no indication of male
superiority or leadership over the woman, and female inferiority or
submission to the man, in the account of the temptation and fall
(3:1-7).21
Davidson affirms that

18
Gerry Chudleigh, “A Short History of the Headship Doctrine In the Seventh-
Day Adventist Church,” 2014,
http://puclibrary.net/subjectsplus/assets/users/_kvanarsdale/a-short-history-of-
the-headship-doctrine-in-the-seventh-day-.pdf.
19
Wayne Grudem, ed, Biblical Foundation for Manhood and Womanhood
(Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002), 25–40. His reasons include; Oder: Adam was
created first (Gen 2:7, 18-23), the representation: Adam, not Eve, had a special
role in representing the human race; the naming of woman (Gen 2:23); the
naming of the human race: God named the human race “Man,” not “woman.”
The Purpose: Eve was created as a helper for Adam; the primary
accountability: God spoke to Adam first after the fall, etc.
20
Irvin A Busenitz, “Woman’s Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered,”
Grace Theological Journal 7, no. 2 (1986): 212.
21
Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament
(Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2007), 65.
82
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

before the Fall there was full equality with no

headship/submission in the relationship between Adam and
Eve (Gen 2:24). But after the Fall, according to Gen 3:16,
the husband was given a servant headship role to preserve
the harmony of the home, while at the same time the model
of equal partnership was still set forth as the ideal. This
post-Fall prescription of husband headship and wife
submission was limited to the husband-wife relationship.22
Further, he maintains that there is no statement of dominance,
subordination, or leadership/submission in the relationship of the
sexes in Genesis 1 and 2.23 It is argued that, “in addition to both
man and woman being created in the image of God and therefore
ontologically equal, neither have a headship role (i.e., egalitarian
view).”24 With reference to headship in Genesis 3, egalitarian view
states that, “although male headship was instituted in Genesis 3,
Christ’s death has abolished such headship, for in Christ there is
“neither male nor female” (Gal 3:28).

Male-headship: instituted by God at Creation and reaffirmed

after the Fall
Paul S. Ratsara and Daniel K. Bediako assert that male headship
was instituted by God at creation (Gen 1-2) and reaffirmed it after
the Fall (Gen 3) stressing that male headship ordained by God at

22
Richard M. Davidson, “Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture,” in
Women in Ministry: Biblical Perspectives, ed. Nancy Vyhmeister (Berrien
Spring: MI: Andrews University, 1988),
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wim/wim13dav.htm.
23
Richard M. Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament, 34.
24
Ibid.
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

creation remains binding both within the family and in the church
(i.e., complementarian view).25
It is further said that Genesis 3:16 is to be viewed as being
prescriptive and not just descriptive. It presents husband leadership
and wife submission as God’s normative pattern for the marriage
relationship after the fall.26
The above discussions continue today as there has not been a
consensus among bible scholars whether male headship is intended
in the divine pronouncement against Eve. Hence, scholars still have
polarized views regarding the interpretation of Genesis 3:16.

THE PASSAGE IN ITS CONTEXT

Historical Context of Gen 3:16
Genesis 3:16 is found in the context of God’s reaction and
judgment against Adam and Eve after their disobedience against
his instruction (Gen 3:6-7). Genesis account shows a beautiful
earth created by God (Gen 1) and after creation the Lord made man
and woman he created in his own image (Gen 1:26) to have
dominion over the created things (Gen 1:28). However, as a test of
their loyalty, the Lord commands, “but of the tree of the knowledge
of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it
you shall surely die.” (Gen 2:17). Victor Hamilton opines that “the
knowledge of good and evil” is “moral autonomy” explaining that
“in deciding for themselves what is good and proper and what is

25
Paul S. Ratsara and Daniel K Bediako, “Man and Woman in Genesis 1-3:
Ontological Equality and Role Differentiation,” Theology of Ordination Study
Committee, July 2013, https://www.adventistarchives.org/man-and-woman-in-
genesis-one-thru-three.pdf.
26
Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament, 63.
84
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

not, the couple are making themselves the final moral authority for
their lives.”27 . Until then, everything seems to go well with the duo
until there is a record of an intrusion and a deception. Genesis 3
records a drama between two different characters – the serpent and
Eve. The dialogue between the two can be presented as follows:
Serpent: “Did God actually say, You shall not eat of any tree in the
garden'? (Gen 3:1)
Woman: “We may eat of the fruit of the trees in the garden, but
God said, 'You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree that is in the
midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.”
(Gen 3:2-3)
Serpent: “You will not surely die. For God knows that when you
eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God,
knowing good and evil.” (Gen 3:4-5)
Woman: (She acted on the serpent’s instruction she took of its fruit
and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her,
and he ate. (Gen 3:6).

The above dialogue shows what transpires between the serpent28

and the woman. According to Hamilton, the temptation of Eve has
twofold. One, by twisting and misquoting God’s word concerning

27
Victor P. Hamilton, Handbook on the Pentateuch, Second (Grand Rapids,
MI: Baker Academic, 2005), 31.
28
Hamilton explains that the serpent was a created being, neither eternal nor
divine. he reasons that it was unlike other animals - "subtle/crafty.", 40.
However, it should be noted that the word that is translated “subtle, crafty, or
cunning” is used in the Bible in both a good and a negative sense. In Prov
12:23, it is translated “prudent” and it is rendered “crafty” in Job 5:12. All the
animals are created good (Gen 1:31). Hence, the word may not suggest
anything evil. See, Philip Eveson, The Book of Origins (Darlington, England:
Evangelical Press, 2001), 88.
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

the prohibition, it brings up the question in the woman’s mind

about God’s integrity. Also, the temptation motivates the woman
to declare autonomy, that is different from the guidance God has
given.29 John Fowler explains that “the test lay not in eating the
particular fruit but in choosing to obey or disobey God. The trial of
Adam and Eve was necessary to test their love and loyalty to God
and to allow for growth and maturity of character.”30

Further, the dialogue also reveals that the woman believed and
accepted the serpent’s proposal and acted on it. Consequently, “…
the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked.
And they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves
loincloths. (Gen 3:7). The remaining part of the story records
God’s investigation of the act (vv.9-13) and the pronouncement of
judgment upon the serpent (vv. 14-15); the woman (v.16); ground
and man (vv. 17-19). Hence, this study examines the judgment
upon the woman and its implications.

Setting of Gen 3:16

It is obvious from the Bible narration that the setting of Genesis
3:16 is the Garden of Eden. The Bible says, “And the LORD God
planted a garden in Eden, in the east, and there he put the man
whom he had formed.” (Gen 2:8) “The LORD God took the man
and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it.”
(Gen 2:15). Immediately after God’s pronouncement of judgment,

29
Hamilton, 42, 43.
30
John M. Fowler, “Sin,” in Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist Theology,
vol. 12 (Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 2000),
242.
86
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

the Bible records that “therefore the LORD God sent him out from
the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken.
(Gen 3:23). This implies that the event of the fall and God’s
judgment took place in the Garden of Eden and that it was after it
that the couple was expelled from the garden.

Genre
Genesis 1-3 is a narration. However, Gen 3:1-19 is a drama of two
Acts and two scenes. The first Act and scene contains the dialogue
between the serpent and the woman while the second Act and scene
involve God, Adam and Eve. Thus, to understand the text, one must
study the characterization and the context of the drama.

Structure of the Larger Context (Gen 3:1-19)

Introduction of the serpent – v. 1a
Serpent’s question to the woman – v. 1b
The woman’s response – vv. 2,3
Serpent’s disputation of the woman’s statement – vv. 4,5
The woman’s action – v. 6
The effects of the eating of fruit – vv. 7,8
God’s inquiry/investigation – vv. 9-13
God’s judgment on the:
Serpent – vv. 14-15
Woman – v. 16
Man – vv. 17-19

Structure of Genesis 3:16

Pain in childbirth – v.16a
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

“Desire” for the husband – v.16b

Husband’s rulership – v.16c

The above structure shows that the judgment of the woman is in

the context of the fall and disobedience to God’s command. More
so, it is observed that the judgment of the woman has to do with the
family relationship – that is, “pain in childbirth, “desire for the
husband,” and “the husband’s rulership.”31 This will be examined
in details in the section.

EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16

Text
‫ל־אישֵׁ ְך֙ ְת ָּׁ֣שּוקָ ֵ֔ ֵׁתְך‬
ִ ֶּ‫ֶּ ֶֽאל־הָ ִא ָ ָּׁ֣שה אָ ַ֗ ַמר הַ ְר ָבָּ֤ה אַ ְרבֶּ ה֙ עִ צְ בֹונֵׁ ְֵָּׁ֣֣ך וְ ֵׁ ֶֽהרֹ ֵֵׁ֔נְך בְ עֶּ ֶ֖צֶּ ב ֵׁ ֶֽתלְ ִ ָּׁ֣די בָ ִנִ֑ים וְ א‬
(Gen 3:16 WTT)‫ל־בְך׃ ס‬ ֶֽ ָ ָ‫וְ ֶ֖הּוא ִי ְמש‬
To the woman he said, “I will cause to be great your pain in
childbearing, in pain you shall born children, and your desire shall
be to your husband and he shall rule over you.” (Literal translation).

Literary Context of Gen 3

The narrative sequence is observed in Genesis 3. This is marked by
the use of the vav consecutive. “And the woman said to the serpent,
(Gen 3:2); But the serpent said to the woman (Gen 3:4); And when
the woman saw that the tree was good for food (Gen 3:6 ASV);
And the eyes of them both were opened (Gen 3:7 ASV); And they
heard the sound of the LORD God walking in the garden (Gen 3:8);

31
Philip Eveson, The Book of Origins (Darlington, England: Evangelical Press,
2001), 106.
88
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

But the LORD God called to the man and said to him, (Gen 3:9);
And he said, (Gen 3:10); etc.
Further, the narration is cast in dialogue form. There is a dialogue
between the woman and the serpent (3:1-6). The consequence of
this leads to the conversation God had with the couple (3:9-18).
The conversation is in form of interrogation and response. This
occurs in the serpent’s dialogue with the woman and it is also used
by God.
Davidson affirms that the first two lines (I will cause to be great
your pain in childbearing, in pain you shall born children should be
treated as a poetic parallelism. The first clause seems more like a
hendiadys, that is, two phrases expressing one idea.
Thus, “I will greatly increase your pangs (‫ )עִ צָ בֹון‬in childbearing;
and “in pain (‫ )עִ צָ בֹון‬you shall bring forth children,” should not be
separated.32

Grammatical and Lexical Analysis

‫ֶּ ֶֽאל־הָ ִא ָ ָּׁ֣שה‬
The preposition prefixed with the noun here indicates the recipient
of the judgment. So, the object of the verb ‫ אָ ַ֗ ַמר‬is ‫הָ ִא ָ ָּׁ֣שה‬. God directs
his statement to the woman.
‫( הַ ְר ָבָּ֤ה‬hiphil infinitive), and ‫ארבֶּ ה‬ ְ (hiphil imperfect),” to cause to
be great” go with the noun ‫(עִ צְ בֹונֵׁ ְֵָּׁ֣֣ך וְ ֵׁ ֶֽהרֹ ֵֵׁ֔נְך‬pain and conception) . The
magnitude and intensity of the pain is expressed with the causative
verbs used. That is, the pain of the woman will be caused to be
many or great. Also, ‫הַ ְר ָבָּ֤ה‬, which is hiphil infinitive absolute

32Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament,

59.
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

indicates that the action is caused and unchanging. The next clause,
‫ בְ עֶּ ֶ֖צֶּ ב ֵׁ ֶֽתלְ ִ ָּׁ֣די בָ ִנִ֑ים‬stresses the earlier statement – “in pain you shall
born children.” The woman’s sentence is of twofold. The first deals
with the pain of childbearing. The second one seems to deal with
the status of relationship between man and woman.
‫ל־אישֵׁ ְך֙ ְת ָּׁ֣שּוקָ ֵ֔ ֵׁתְך‬
ִ ֶּ‫וְ א‬, “and your desire shall be to your husband.” This
is an indication of a change in what has been. If God is pronouncing
judgment for sin committed, then, this statement may suggest a
shift in the normal relationship which has been in existence before
sin.
‫ל־בְך׃‬
ֶֽ ָ ָ‫“ וְ ֶ֖הּוא יִ ְמש‬and he shall rule over you.” This last clause equally
buttresses the earlier point of the sentence/judgment. It appears
there is an alteration in what seems to be the status quo. This cannot
be a blessing but a curse that is provoked or engendered by an act
of disobedience.

Word Study:
‫( ְּתׁשּוקָ ה‬Teshuqal)
The Hebrew word ‫ ְתשּוקָ ה‬appears only three times in the Hebrew
Bible (Gen 3:16; 4:7; and Song of Songs 7:11). The general lexical
meanings are; “attract, impel, of desire, affection.” As a result of
its infrequent occurrence in the Hebrew text, it seems the semantic
range is unclear.33 Consequently, contextual study of ‫ ְתשּוקָ ה‬may be
more helpful than denotative meaning.
‫ ְתשּוקָ ה‬in Gen 4:7:
‫יטיב לַפֶּ ֶ֖תַ ח חַ ָטָּׁ֣את רֹ ֵׁבִ֑ץ וְ אֵׁ ֶֶּ֙ליך֙ ְת ָּׁ֣שּוקָ ֵ֔תֹו וְ אַ ָ ֶ֖תה‬
ִֵ֔ ֵׁ‫הֲלָּ֤ ֹוא ִאם־תֵׁ יטִ יב֙ ְש ֵ֔ ֵׁאת וְ ִאם֙ ָּׁ֣ל ֹא ת‬
(Gen 4:7 WTT) ‫ִת ְמשָ ל־ ֶֽבֹו׃‬

33
Busenitz, “Woman’s Desire for Man,” 204.
90
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

“If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do
well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is for you, but you must
rule over it.” (Gen 4:7)

Genesis 4 records the sacrifice of Cain and Abel. Abel’s offering

was pleasing to the Lord while the Lord was not pleased with what
Cain offered. Consequently, Cain was angry with his brother and
killed him. Thereafter, the Lord interacted with Cain and
condemned his act. He says, “If you do well, will you not be
accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door.
Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.” (Gen 4:7). The last
statement appears like a parallel to Gen 3:16.
Gen 3:16: “… Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall
rule over you.”
Gen 4:7: “… Its desire is for you, but you must rule over it.”

One needs to understand the preceding line in order to interpret

correctly the last clause. It is observed that ‫( חַ טָ את‬sin) is feminine
while the participle ‫( ָרבַ ץ‬lie) is masculine. If there will be an
agreement with ‫חַ טָ את‬, its subject, then, ‫ ָרבַ ץ‬should be feminine as
well. The Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary asserts that this
disparity “suggests that Moses was personifying ‘sin’ as a wild
beast crouching at the door, and so deliberately chose to make
robes agree with the masculine wild beast of his figure of speech
rather than with the subject in its literal sense as ‘sin’ or ‘sin
offering.’”34 Jacques B. Doukhan says that

34
Francis D. Nichol, The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary, vol. 1
(Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing Association, 1978), 240.
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

reading Gen 3:16 in the light of Gen 4: 7 suggests that

beyond the
teshuqah of the woman towards the man, it is “sin” that is
profiled as
“desiring” Adam and prompting him to evil. Indeed, the
word teshuqah in Gen 4:7 should be interpreted in relation
to its most immediate antecedent hatt’at “sin,” referring not
only to the evil deed per se but also to the associated
consequences.35

Doukhan submits that the reading of Gen 4:7 suggests that Gen
3:16 does not have anything do with some kind of “sexual” desire
on the part of the woman towards her husband.36 In another vein,
Busenitz attests that both Gen 4:7 and Gen 3:16 are given in a
context of divine judgment and they are written by the same author.
Also, both use same terminology. He then submits that although
the proximity of Genesis 4:7 to Genesis 3:16 implies that a similar
grammatical rendering would have similar meaning.” However,
since Gen 4:7 has some interpretive uncertainties, it should not be
applied unreservedly to interpret Gen 3:16.37 Victor Hamilton
posits that “Gen 4:7 describes sin’s ‘desire’ for man. This desire
man is to repulse and dominate.”38
The grammatical construction of Gen 3:16d seems to indicate that
it is not sin which will rule but the husband will rule over the

35
Douhkan, “The Subordination of Women Revisited,” 10.
36
Ibid., 12.
37
Busenitz, “Woman’s Desire for Man,” 209, 210.
38
Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17 (Grand Rapids, MI:
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990), 201.
92
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

woman. In addition, the context also suggests leadership/headship

but not sexual desire.
Song of Songs 7:11
“I am my beloved's, and his desire is for me.” (Sol 7:10). In this
context, ‫( ְתשּוקָ ה‬desire) seems to have a romantic and positive
connotation, “describing a feeling of mutual attraction between two
lovers.” Unlike Gen 3:16 and 4:7, ‫ ְתשּוקָ ה‬in this text suggests
“longing” or “desire” which the lover has for his spouse.

‫( מָ ׁשַׁ ל‬Māśāl)
Denotatively, ‫ מָ שַ ל‬means “rule”, “have dominion over” or
“reign.”39 It is noted that ‫ מָ שַ ל‬used Gen 3:16 is different from the
verb employed to describe humankind’s rulership over the animals
in Gen 1:26, 28. The verb ‫“ רדה‬have dominion over,” not ‫ מָ שַ ל‬is
used in Gen 1:26,28. This implies that there is a difference in man
having dominion over the animals and the husband “ruling” over
his wife. Davidson further affirms that even though ‫ מָ שַ ל‬does not
always denote submission, subjection, or dominion in the
Scripture, the notion of tyrannous exercise of power is not implied
in the verb.40

Interpretation of Genesis 3:16

The immediate context of the text indicates that God is
pronouncing judgment on the serpent, the woman and man for their
sin. God, as the subject of the verb in verse 16 pronounces with

39
F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and
English Lexicon (Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, 2014),
605.
40
Davidson, Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old Testament, 72.
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

authority what becomes the lot of the woman. First, it is noted that
God does not withdraw the blessing of fruitfulness or childbearing.
However, the birth will be with ‫עִ צָ בֹון‬, “pain” “distress,” or “hard
labour.” This is the first alteration to what was obtainable before
the fall. Secondly, by declaring that the woman’s “desire” or
“longing” shall be to her husband and he “rules” over her implies
that there is a subjection in relationship. Unlike being equal before
the fall, the woman’s status seems to change as a result of sin.
Hence, Genesis 3:16 appears to imply an alteration in the
relationship of man and woman. Although, this subjection does not
seem to affect the value of woman, she is no inferior to man nor is
she less than man in being God’s image. The relationship between
man and woman which God planned to be mutual and
complimentary becomes a relationship where there is dependence.
The husband then has a headship role. Although, this headship does
not imply subjugation of women but places man to the status of
leadership.

THEOLOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF GEN 3:16 TO MALE

HEADSHIP THEOLOGY

Implication for Marriage Relationship

This study shows that there is an alteration on the relationship of
man and woman after fall.41 However, the purpose of marriage is
not affected. Eve was created because the LORD God saw that, “…
It is not good that the man should be alone… .” (Gen 2:18). The
judgment on Eve does not adversely affect the companionship the

41
John E. Hartley, New International Biblical Commentary: Genesis (Peabody,
Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, 2000), 69.
94
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

couple were meant to enjoy, although, the environment for the

companionship changed. More so, the mandate to “be fruitful, and
multiply, and fill the earth” remained intact. Meanwhile, the
fruitfulness or childbearing then comes with pain. That is, the
fulfillment of the mandate will be accompanied by pain.42 This
becomes the lasting reminder of the consequence of sin. So, God’s
judgment on Eve relates to the initial blessing of childbearing (Gen
1:28), and the harmonious partnership of marriage (Gen 2:18, 21-
25).43 In addition, the mutual leadership enjoyed before the fall is
affected. The harmonious relationship between the man and the
woman, or husband and wife, changed due to the Fall.44 Man
becomes the sole head in marriage. He is to rule over the woman.
This study has revealed that the “ruling” does not mean subjugation
or tyrannical oppression but it suggests the woman’s submission to
the husband’s headship

Implication for Church Leadership

This study shows that the implications of Gen 3:16 are in the
context of marriage relationship. Thus, in church leadership,
women seem to have the grace to function according to their
spiritual endowments (1 Cor 12:4-11). The Holy Spirit endows
each believer – male and female, different spiritual gift for the
edification of the Church.
However, I agree with Paul Ratsara and Daniel Bediako who assert
that although God made man and woman as equals, they have

42
Sarna, Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary, 27.
43
Tremper Longman III and David E. Garland, The Expositor’s Bible
Commentary, Revised (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2008), 92.
44
SigvartSen, “The Creation Order—Hierarchical or Egalitarian?,” 139.
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

different roles. They explain that the offices vested with spiritual
headship/leadership authority in the New Testament seem to be
those of apostles and elders/overseers, which are assigned to men,
implying that such offices of authority are not to be assumed by
women.45 Bill Arnold also shares this view that “women in the
New Testament period served in many positions of spiritual
leadership, except elder or bishop.”46

Implication for the Society

In the society today, there is a quest for “egalitarianism” or
“equalitarianism” between man and woman.47 This drive is geared
towards equal right for man and woman in the society. Since
women seem to be subjected to men in marriage (Gen 3:16), it
appears that the same seems to be the reality in the society.
However, biblically, they are still equal in the sense that they are
both in the image of God.

Implication for Salvation

The pronouncement in Genesis 3:16 is a divine judgment which is
engendered by sin. It can only be atoned for by the sacrifice of
Christ. Jesus Christ redeems us from the curse of the law (Gal
3:13). The Bible declares that there is no condemnation to those
who are in Christ Jesus (Rom 8:1). However, the total reversal of

45
Ratsara and Bediako, “Man and Woman in Genesis 1-3: Ontological
Equality and Role Differentiation,” 64, 65.
46
Bill T Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker
Books, 1998), 39.
47
Gaius A. Umahi, “Religion and Gender Issues,” in Religion and Society
(Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State: Babcock University Press, 2012), 68.
96
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

the pronouncement on Eve and by extension all women, will be

done in the new earth.

CONCLUSION
The study of Gen 3:16 shows that the blessings bestowed upon the
woman before the fall is altered as a result of sin. She is blessed
with the power to procreate and have dominion over the created
things (Gen1:28). Consequent upon her sin, the childbearing is
beset with pain. In addition, there seems to be an alteration in the
status of women in relation to their husband. It should however be
noted that the judgment of God does not make women less human,
inferior or bring her under man as a servant. Rather, the “rulership”
of man over woman only suggests women subjection or
submission, and dependence to their husbands.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arnold, Bill T. Encountering the Book of Genesis. Grand Rapids,

MI: Baker Books, 1998.

Báez, Enrique. “Allusions to Genesis 11:1-9 in the Book of

Daniel: An Exegetical and Intertextual Study.” PhD Dissertation,
Andrews University, 2013.

Brown, F., S. Driver, and C. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs

Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, Massachusetts:
Hendrickson Publishers, Inc, 2014.
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

Busenitz, Irvin A. “Woman’s Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16

Reconsidered.” Grace Theological Journal 7, no. 2 (1986): 203–
12.

Carr, David M. The Erotic Word: Sexuality, Spirituality, and the

Bible. New York: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Cassuto, U. From Adam to Noah: A Commentary on the Book of

Genesis: Part 1. Skokie: IL: Varda, 2005.

Chudleigh, Gerry. “A Short History of the Headship Doctrine In

the Seventh-Day Adventist Church,” 2014.
http://puclibrary.net/subjectsplus/assets/users/_kvanarsdale/a-
short-history-of-the-headship-doctrine-in-the-seventh-day-.pdf.

Davidson, Richard M. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old

Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2007.

———. “Headship, Submission, and Equality in Scripture.” In

Women in Ministry: Biblical Perspectives, Ed. Nancy Vyhmeister.
Berrien Spring: MI: Andrews University, 1988.
http://www.sdanet.org/atissue/books/wim/wim13dav.htm.

———. “The Theology of Sexuality in the Beginning: Genesis

3.” Andrews University 26, no. 2 (July 1988): 121–31.

———. “Theology of Sexuality in the Song of Songs: Return to

Eden.” Andrews University 27, no. 1 (Spring 1989).
http://faculty.gordon.edu/hu/bi/ted_hildebrandt/otesources/22-
songofsongs/text/articles/davidson-songofsongs-auss.pdf.

98
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

Douhkan, Jacques. “The Subordination of Women Revisited: A

Contextual and Intertextual Exegesis of Genesis 3:16.” Faculty
Publications, January 1, 2016, 7–20.

Ellen van Wolde. “Facing the Earth: Primaeval History in a New

Perspective Eds. Philip R. Davies & David J.A. Clines.” In The
World of Genesis Persons, Places, Perspectives. Sheffield,
England: Sheffield Academic, 1998.

Eveson, Philip. The Book of Origins. Darlington, England:

Evangelical Press, 2001.

Foh, Susan T. “What Is the Woman’s Desire.” The Westminster

Theological Journal 37, no. 3 (1975): 376–83.

Fowler, John M. “Sin.” In Handbook of Seventh-Day Adventist

Theology, Vol. 12. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald
Publishing Association, 2000.

Grudem, Wayne. Biblical Foundation for Manhood and

Womanhood. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2002.

Hamilton, Victor P. Handbook on the Pentateuch. Second. Grand

Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2005.

———. The Book of Genesis: Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids, MI:

William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

Hartley, John E. New International Biblical Commentary:

Genesis. Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc,
2000.
Oladosu Opeyemi Tunbosun

John J. Schmitt. “Like Eve, Like Adam: Mšl in Gen 3,16.”

Peeters Publishers Vol. 72, No. 1, no. No.1 (1991): 1–22.

Kidner, Derek. Genesis: An Introduction and Commentaries. Vol.

1. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008.

Lohr, Joel N. “Sexual Desire?: Eve, Genesis 3:16 and Tshwḳh

[Unpointed Hebrew Characters].” Journal of Biblical Literature
130, no. 2 (2011): 227–46.

Longman III, Tremper, and David E. Garland. The Expositor’s

Bible Commentary. Revised. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan,
2008.

Nichol, Francis D. The Seventh-Day Adventist Bible Commentary.

Vol. 1. Hagerstown, MD: Review and Herald Publishing
Association, 1978.

Ratsara, Paul S., and Daniel K Bediako. “Man and Woman in

Genesis 1-3: Ontological Equality and Role Differentiation.”
Theology of Ordination Study Committee, July 2013.
https://www.adventistarchives.org/man-and-woman-in-genesis-
one-thru-three.pdf.

Richard M. Davidson. Flame of Yahweh: Sexuality in the Old

Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: BakerAcademic, 2007.

Sarna, Nahum M. Genesis, The JPS Torah Commentary.

Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1989.

100
 AN EXEGETICAL ANALYSIS OF GENESIS 3:16
AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR MALE HEADSHIP

SigvartSen, Jan A. “The Creation Order—Hierarchical or

Egalitarian?” Andrews University 53, no. 1 (2015): 128–31.

Spencer, Aida Besancon. Beyond the Curse: Women Called to

Ministry. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 1985.

Stuart, Douglas. Old Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for

Students and Pastors. 4th ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox Press, 2009.

Susan T. Foh. “What Is the Woman’s Desire?” The Westminster

Theological Journal 37 (75 1974): 376–83.

“The New International Commentary on the Old Testament.” In

The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17. Grand Rapids, MI: William
B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1990.

Tidball, Derek, and Dianne Tidball. The Message of Women:

Creation, Grace and Gender. London: Inter-Varsity, 2012.

Umahi, Gaius A. “Religion and Gender Issues.” In Religion and

Society. Ilishan-Remo, Ogun State: Babcock University Press,
2012.

Walter Vogels. “The Power Struggle between Man and Woman

(Gen 3,16b).” Peeters Publishers Vol. 77, no. No.2 (1996): 197–
209.

View publication stats