Pastor injects Feminism at Wedding Ceremony

Sin [bad] desires Cain [man], but Cain [man] should rule over sin [bad]. Wife [?] desires husband [man], but husband [man] should rule over wife [?]. If the passages are parallel (as I agree with you: they are), then the parallel position the wife is in is that of sin. So, I'm not sure how you can utilize that to say her desire for her husband is "not bad" when the implication of the parallel is clearly the opposite.

If you want to get really technical, the Hebrew reads as follows: we'el isek tesuqatek we'hu yimsal bak. Here's the breakdown (strongs ID in brackets):

• we'el [413] - the "we" is a conjunctive ("and," though sometimes silent); the "el" has a dual meaning, the two most common out of 404 uses being: 162 translations as "against" and 75 translations as "toward." Accordingly, there is no agreement on whether or not the author originally meant "and toward" or "and against," thus there can be no definitive conclusion.

• isek [376] - from the root "ish" for "man" (this is consistent with the two most common translations: 746 for "man" and 669 for "men," the next closest being "each" at 148. Some variation of "husband" is about 70. All 6 uses in the Bible of this particular conjugation of ish (specifically: isek) are within the 70 re: husbands.

• tesuqatek [8669] - longing/desire (nothing funny; it's only used 3 times in the Bible and all are consistent with this definition); the particular conjugation implies "you/your" instead of "my" or "his" or something else

• we'hu [1931] - again, the "we" is a conjunctive. "hu" can mean he/she/it/this/who; of its uses in the Bible, it's virtually always in the masculine

• yimsal [4910] - rule/control/have dominion. Its 4 most common uses are rule (27), ruler (18), rules (9), and rulers (6). This conjugation implies a "him/her/it" as the subject doing the ruling.

• bak - not referenced in the Strong's, but in this verse most translations agree: "over you"

If I put this all together it could read like any one of the following:

• (1) And toward husband you desire and he rule over you

• (2) And against husband you desire and he rule over you

• (3) And toward man you desire and he rule over you

• (4) And against man you desire and he rule over you

Given the context of child-bearing and the marriage between Adam and Eve, it's highly probable we're dealing with 1 or 2 (i.e. the "husband" options), but if it were 3 or 4 it would say quite a bit about why women through history constantly seek their identity through men (3) or why they are also simultaneously constantly trying to seek control over men (4).

But if I'm right about the "husband" translation, then the only other real distinction is whether or not her desires are to be directed toward her husband or against his interests. This is why some translations reference a positive desire for a husband (NIV, KJV), but others reference a contrary/controlling desire (ESV, NLT).

Now, the Genesis 4:7 parallel looks like this: we'elleka tesuqatow we'attah timsal bow. Here's the comparative breakdown:

• we'elleka - same as we'el, excelt it adds a reversing conjunctive ("but"), making it now mean "but toward/against"

• tesuqatow - same as tesuqatek, but with the subject of "it" instead of "you/your" - "it desires"

• we'attah - parallel to we'hu; where "hu" meant a third party (he/she/it), the attah references "you" - "and you"

• timsal - same as "yimsal" except the subject ruling is no longer a third party, but "you" - "you rule"

• bow - same as "bak," but presumably a change in directive from "you" to "it"

These two phrases are unmistakenly meant to parallel one another, as they are virtually identical except as to conjugation. To that end, Genesis 4:7 should be very key in our interpretation of Genesis 3:16. Which one makes more sense (noting that "it" is a reference to hatat ("sin") from earlier in the verse):

• (a) But toward [you] it desires and you rule it

• (b) But against [you] it desires and you rule it

Between these two, does sin have a positive, affectionate desire toward us, or does it have a desire that works against us? If indeed these two verses are meant to be a parallel of one another, then the answer must be the same for both. Because sin's desire is a controlling desire against our interests, I don't see how we can contextually read a wife's desire as stated in the 'curse' as being an affectionate, positive desire for us ... unless we argue that Moses (the presumed author of Genesis) just accidentally used the exact same phrases a mere few paragraphs apart and had no intention of connecting the two, and God somehow has let the church mistake a connection between those verses for close to 3,500 years since this was put to writing without providing a prophet to communicate otherwise.

TL;DR - It seems pretty clear that the language in Genesis 3:16 references a woman having a desire against her husband (not for him), which is evident both from the fact that the "against" translation has over 2x the usage as the "toward" for the operative word (162 v. 75) and also because the language in Genesis 4:7 is an incredible parallel with 3:16, but clearly means to be interpreted in the "against" sense, and therefore 3:16 should be interpreted in the "against" sense also.

Tag: /u/Xoramung