Twu Wuv, Twoil, and the "Curse" of Genesis 3:16 - Episode 119

Carey Griffel: [00:00:00] Welcome to Genesis Marks the Spot, where we raid the ivory tower of biblical theology without ransacking our faith. My name is Carey Griffel, and first of all, apologies to those of you who might not understand the title of this episode. It is a head nod to the movie Princess Bride. So, if you haven't watched that movie, please do so. Just go watch it right now. Even if you have to pause this episode, go watch The Princess Bride if you haven't before.

I have been asked to talk about Genesis 3. 16, and the Curse on the Woman. This is going to connect to my recent episodes about dominion, but it's also its own thing, as we dive a bit deeper into this particular passage.

Even though the second [00:01:00] part of the passage has to do with ruling and dominion, I think we'll talk about that first, and then we'll talk about the first part of the passage second. And I think we'll have some really interesting points that you may not have heard before. So definitely stay tuned for that.

Now Genesis 3. 16 is another one of those passages that people turn to about the idea that humans don't or shouldn't rule over each other and that it is possibly a result of the Fall. This is the first instance we have that suggests such a thing. And there is probably unrighteous ruling here, but by who? That is one of the questions we've got today. Is it only the man who is ruling unrighteously? Or is the woman also domineering over her husband? Or is it possible that one of them is actually free and they are supposed to rule [00:02:00] and that maybe this is prescriptive and not just descriptive.

I'm going to read from the Arial Bible Commentary by Arnold Fruchtenbaum. He is coming at things from a Jewish perspective, and later on I will read a section from his commentary that I particularly don't like, but I like this part because he is giving a Jewish perspective.

And I want you to note the love of the rabbis to add ideas to the text, and we might criticize them for that, but when you have a text that is your formative view of everything, well, sometimes it's fun to speculate, right? We do that a lot.

At any rate, Fruchtenbaum says, quote, The rabbinic interpretation is that the woman was cursed with ten curses, just as the serpent was cursed with ten curses. First, menstruation. [00:03:00] Second, the bleeding of a virgin. Third, the discomfort of pregnancy. Fourth, miscarriage. Fifth, pangs of childbirth. Sixth, the anguish of raising children. Seventh, Covering her head. Eighth subjection to her husband. Ninth, forbidden to testify in court. And 10th physical death. This is why in rabbinic theology, a woman must keep certain special traditional commandments in particular. First, the commandment of the nadah, which are laws concerning menstruation. Second, challa, laws concerning the portion of bread, and third, lighting the Sabbath candles. End quote.

Okay, so obviously Genesis 3 doesn't bring out all of those 10 curses in particular, but you can maybe kind of see how they're [00:04:00] getting to some of these things, right? If everything unpleasant having to do with childbirth and fertility as far as a woman is concerned, is a result of what's going on here, then, that is where this list is coming from.

Now let's get into some historical interpretation from a Christian perspective, just for fun. Here is a quote from Ephrem the Syrian, whom we've mentioned before regarding the historical interpretation of Genesis 6.

Ephrem the Syrian says, quote, The punishment decreed against the serpent was justly decreed. Why? Because it was fitting that punishment returned to the place where folly begins. The entire reason God began with this impious creature was so that, when justice appeased its anger in this creature, Adam and Eve should grow afraid and repent, so that there might be a possibility for [00:05:00] grace to preserve them from the curses of justice. But when the serpent had been cursed, and Adam and Eve had still made no supplication, God came to them with punishment. He came to Eve first, because it was through her that the sin was handed on to Adam. End quote.

So Ephraim is saying that God addressed the serpent first so that Adam and Eve would have a chance to be like, Oh, hang on, we don't want to be cursed. We want to repent instead. And they didn't. So they retained the punishment. That's an interesting take.

Now let's look at St. John Chrysostom. He says, quote. See the Lord's goodness, how much mildness He employs, despite such a terrible fall. I will greatly aggravate the pain of your labor. My intention had been, He is saying, for you to have a life free of trouble and distress, rid of [00:06:00] all pain and grief, filled with every pleasure, and with no sense of bodily needs, despite your bodily condition. But, since you misused such indulgence, and the abundance of good things led you into such ingratitude, accordingly, I impose this curb on you to prevent your further running riot, and I sentence you to painful labor. I will greatly aggravate the pain of your labor. In pain you will bear children. I will ensure, he is saying, that the generation of children, a reason for great satisfaction, for you will begin with pain, so that each time without fail, you will personally have a reminder, through the distress and the pain of each birth, of the magnitude of this sin of disobedience. In the beginning I created you equal in esteem to your husband, and my intention was that in everything you would share with him as an equal, and as I entrusted control of everything to your [00:07:00] husband, so did I to you. But you abused your equality of status. Hence, I subject you to your husband. End quote.

Okay, I think that follows along pretty well with what a lot of Christians think about this verse, right?

Then we have Augustine. Let's read what he has to say. He says, quote, there is no question about the punishment of the woman for she clearly has her pains and sighs multiplied in the woes of this life. . Although her bearing her children in pain is fulfilled in this visible woman, our consideration should nevertheless be recalled to that more hidden woman.

For even in animals, the females bear offspring with pain, and this is in their case, the condition of mortality rather than the punishment of sin. Hence, it is possible that this be the condition of mortal bodies, even in the females of [00:08:00] humans. But this is the great punishment. They have come to the present bodily mortality from their former immortality. Still, there is a great mystery in this sentence, because there is no restraint from carnal desire, which does not have pain in the beginning until habit has been bent toward improvement. When this has come about, it is as though a child is born, that is, the good habit disposes our intentions toward the good deed. In order that this habit might be born, there was a painful struggle with bad habit. Scripture adds after the birth, you will turn to your man, and he will rule over you. What can this mean except that when that part of the soul held by carnal joys has in willing to conquer a bad habit, suffered difficulty and pain, and in this way brought forth a good habit, it now more carefully and diligently obeys reason as its husband. And taught by [00:09:00] its pains, it turns to reason, and willingly obeys its commands, lest it again decline to some harmful habit. End quote.

That is from Augustine's two books on Genesis against the Manacheans. So Augustine is really hitting on some points about carnality and Augustine has some issues with sexuality and the act of sex as we can see in another quote, where he says, quote, Why, therefore, may we not assume that the first couple before they sinned could have given a command to their genital organs for the purpose of procreation, as they did to the other members that the soul is accustomed to move to perform various tasks, without any trouble and without any craving for pleasure. For the Almighty Creator, worthy of praise beyond all words, who is great [00:10:00] even in the least of his works, has given to the bees the power of reproducing their young, just as they produce wax and honey. Why then, should it seem beyond belief, that he made the bodies of the first human beings in such a way, that, if they had not sinned, and had not immediately thereupon contracted a disease that would bring death, they would move the members by which offspring are generated in the same way that one commands his feet when he walks, so that conception would take place without disordered passions and birth without pain. But as it is, by disobeying God's command, they deserved to experience in their members, where death now reigned, the movement of a law at war with the law of the mind. This is a movement that marriage regulates, and continence controls and constrains, so that where punishment has followed sin, their correction may follow punishment. End quote.

[00:11:00] So, in part, what he's saying here is that sexual interaction should not be pleasurable, and that originally it would have just been like walking down the street. No pleasure, it's just a thing you're supposed to do in order to gain an outcome. Quite fascinating.

So now we go to St. John of Damascus. And he says, quote, virginity was practiced in paradise. Indeed sacred scripture says that they were naked, to wit Adam and Eve and were not ashamed. However, once they had fallen, they knew that they were naked and, being ashamed, they sewed together, aprons for themselves. After the fall, when Adam heard, dust thou art, and unto dust you shall return, and death entered into the world through transgression, then Adam knew his wife, who conceived and brought forth. [00:12:00] And so to keep the race from dwindling and being destroyed by death, marriage was devised, so that by the begetting of children, the race of men might be preserved. End quote.

I have to wonder how he thinks the mandate of Genesis 1 to fill the earth was going to happen without having children, but that is something to consider for later.

All right, so maybe you've heard some of these things already in regards to this verse of Genesis 3. And I have said probably several times by now that there is no word " curse" here in regards to either the woman or the man.

Specifically, the serpent is cursed, and the ground is cursed. Now, just because the word isn't used in regards to the woman and the man, doesn't mean that something curse like, or [00:13:00] basically a curse, isn't happening. But that is the question for today.

One of the things that has happened recently is that the ESV, The English Standard Version, has recently changed a few verses, and their new publications from here on out are going to be including these new changes. One of these changes is in Genesis 3. 16. But what you need to realize, as well, that what the ESV is doing is actually going back to its original reading. So, you have the reading from 2001, that is like the one that they've changed it to, and it was changed back in 2016 to say something different, and now they're just changing it back.

So, the 2016 version, and this is the version that you will still see as of my recording today, in the Blue Letter Bible, because they have to kind of [00:14:00] roll out these changes and it will take some time for it to actually propagate out.

So the ESV 2016 version says, quote, To the woman he said, I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing. In pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband. But he shall rule over you. End quote. And then there is a footnote for the words "contrary to," and it says, or shall be toward, see Genesis 4, 7.

Okay, so in other words, your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you. This translation makes it sound like the woman is being, domineering herself first.

The change in 2025, which again, this goes back to the 2001 reading, says, [00:15:00] quote, To the woman he said, I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing. In pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. End quote. The footnote for the word "for" says, or to, or toward, or against. See Genesis 4:7.

So this is suggesting that the woman has a more positive attitude towards her husband, that she desires him potentially in a good way, at least. At least that's a potential reading when you read the word "for" here.

So let's talk about some other translations. But first I want to remind you that as we've talked about before, the word "rule" here, is also used in Genesis 45, 8 in reference to Joseph's rule [00:16:00] over Egypt. This word "rule" is not the word that is used in regards to animals. that is also parallel to the word subdue in Genesis 1. So this is a different word. This is a very common word for general ruling.

Now let's compare translations. Some translations have the word "for," like the ESV 2001 and 2025. The King James Version says, " shall be to," which is kind of a similar idea. And then you have the word "for" in the New King James Version, the NIV, the CSB, the NASB, versions 20 and 95, the LSB, the RSV, the ASV, the Young Living Translation, and even the Darby Version, way back in the 1800s.

[00:17:00] A couple of translations that use "contrary to" are the NLT, the New Living Translation, and the NET, the New English Translation.

And there's a whole bunch of other translations I could look at here, but clearly the word "for" is vastly outnumbering the number of translations that have " contrary to." Now, again, translation is not a popularity contest, but that does kind of say something about what we have here.

I'll talk a little bit more about the different translations. But let's jump over to Genesis 4 7, because this is another place where we'll see the construct of language here. For a very common view, I'm going to read from the New American Commentary, which is not one of my favorites, I have to say.

But the New American Commentary says, quote, It has been [00:18:00] explained widely as sexual desire on the basis of Song of Songs seven verse 10, and the reference to childbirth in three 15. If so, the rendering of the following clause, yet he will rule as NASB and NRSV have it, would mean that, despite her painful experience in childbirth, she will still have sexual desire for her husband. In other words, the promissory blessing of procreation will persist despite any possible reluctance on her part due to the attendant pain of delivery. Others view the woman's desire as broader, including an emotional or economic reliance on her husband. In other words, she acted independently of her husband in eating the fruit, and the consequent penalty is that she will become dependent on him. Her new [00:19:00] desire is to be submissive to the man, and quite naturally he will oblige by ruling over her. Some have mitigated the idea of penalty by contending that Eve's submission is a penalty only when her husband takes advantage of his position and mistreats her. Others argue that 3. 16 is no part of the judgment. It is a description of the inherent consequences of sin, wherein the headship of the man has been corrupted by sin. Although sexual desire conforms to verse 15, better is the explanation suggested by Genesis 4 7 where desire and rule, mashal, are found again in tandem. It desires to have you, but you must master mashal it. In chapter 4, sin is like an animal that when stirred up will assault Cain. It desires to overcome Cain, but the challenge [00:20:00] God puts to Cain is to exercise rule or mastery over that unruly desire. If we are to take lexical and structural similarities as intentional, we must read the verses in concert. End quote.

Okay, so stopping here for a second. This commentary has given some views of how this is seen by different parties. But now here we are with the connection of Genesis 3. 16 and 4. 7, and there are definite grammatical similarities. And Kenneth Matthews here says that we should read these in concert.

My question, though, is does reading them together mean that they have to mean the same thing, though, and that they have to have the same orientation? I would suggest that it's possible to read this as an intensification or a [00:21:00] worsening of the situation.

So you go from 316, which has one idea, And then you go to Genesis 4 7, and it might have a worse idea. It doesn't have to be the same exact idea, right? There could be an intensification of the parameters of what's going on here.

All right, so leaving that for you to consider for a moment, back to the New American Commentary, it says, quote, This recommends that 3. 16 also describes a struggle for mastery between the sexes. The desire of the woman is her attempt to control her husband, but she will fail because God has ordained that the man exercise his leadership function. End quote.

Alright, skipping ahead a bit, it continues with, quote, What is the nature of the man's rule? Rule, as a verb or derivative, [00:22:00] is found seven additional times in Genesis, where it may indicate governance, and refers to exercising jurisdiction. The temperament of rule in the Old Testament is dependent on the varying circumstances in which the power is exercised. The term is used too broadly to isolate its meaning in 316 lexically as either beneficent, or tyrannical, end quote.

Okay, he goes on to talk about quite a few other points here. But I think that it is really good to realize that the word "rule" here, in and of itself, is basically neutral. It doesn't necessarily suggest dominance, but it's not necessarily good either. However, what we can see is that it's contrasted with the woman's desire. So you have the woman's desire and the man's rule, and [00:23:00] presumably, because this is in the context of the aftermath of the eating of the fruit, the man isn't going to be acting particularly well here.

So if the woman is being contrasted with the man, then it's possible that the woman's desire is still a good desire. The word that is used for desire here is only seen in this verse, and in Genesis 4, and in the Song of Solomon. So that also is too few of instances of the word to determine whether or not the word itself is natively good or natively bad or somewhere in the middle as a neutral word.

Now the ESV, in its new changes, has also changed this verse just like it changed Genesis 3. 16. So if we look at Genesis 4. 7 and Genesis 3. 16, does it suggest that contrary is a better [00:24:00] translation because of the context of sin in Genesis 4?

Well, like I said, there could be an intensification here. This could be about sin being contrary and antagonistic and trying to take over and dominate in a bad way and that it is a power play on sin's part. And the suggestion is that when you read back to Genesis 3. 16, then Eve is also making a power play.

Now, that's a possibility, but what if it's the opposite of that? Because the grammar can go both ways legitimately, and there's nothing suggesting that one has to follow the other. Although, again, if we're contrasting the man and the woman in Genesis 3. 16, rather than showing them as partners in opposition, kind of like, as we see in Genesis 4, then it's possible what we can see here is that [00:25:00] worsening and that intensification, which is a hallmark of Genesis 1 through 11, and really the Hebrew Bible entirely.

If there is inherently a contrast in the same way between Genesis 3. 16 and Genesis 4. 7, then Eve would be domineering over the man, and he would in turn be domineering over Eve. Unless we presume that the man is given dominion and headship to begin with. But if both are being domineering, then there would be no sense of submission of either party. And it's interesting in 4. 7 that sin domineers, and the problem is that Cain is submitting to it. And if you submit, then that's bad, so you're not supposed to submit, and so there's a sense in chapter 4 where both are domineering, or at [00:26:00] least Cain is supposed to be domineering since sin is domineering, right? That's kind of the point there.

But really, in the end, we can't make a definitive judgment just based on these verses. Because, like I said, the similarities could be there to point to exact correspondence, or it could be there to show an intensification of the problem.

And my suggestion here is that if you already have a complementarian bent, you might see Adam's rule as God ordained, benevolent, or, perhaps distorted, but still part of the divine order, right?

But if you're one of those who leans toward egalitarianism, you can see it as a negative result of the fall, a power struggle that Jesus came to undo.

And if you're somewhere in the middle, you might see it as a [00:27:00] neutral reality of the fallen world, where leadership could be good or bad, depending on how it is exercised.

Basically what I'm saying is, our priorly developed views are going to lead on our interpretation here. And please don't tell me that you don't have views that are already developed, or that you're just basing your views on the clear passage of Genesis 3, because it's not clear.

And we are all coming to this verse through church tradition, through family practice. through our cultural tendencies, and we're not reading this in its original Hebraic context, which is basically impossible to do at this point. And, by the way, every side can and will proof text for their own point. And you don't win this argument by thinking that your side is the one that is biblical or that is [00:28:00] backed up by scripture.

Generally speaking, we are talking about multiple unclear passages. Passages that need some contextual meaning and understanding brought in. And, oh by the way, note this idea of "needing to win the argument" to begin with. Hmm, let's think on what that means for our motivation and behavior in the whole question.

However, it is true that this is the first instance of any human ruling over other humans explicitly, and Adam is not doing well in this whole fiasco, is he? Eve was deceived, as we see in 1 Timothy 2, 14. Eve mentions the serpent as a cause when she's talking to God. But man mentioned the woman and God. He didn't say anything about the serpent. Now, of course, there's the question of whether or not he is there. [00:29:00] Probably the grammar suggests that he is and that he could have potentially heard the serpent.

Remember that things here are going south and also remember that the other place that the word desire shows up is in the Song of Solomon, which is romantic and positive. Now, that could have nothing to do with the Book of Genesis because it's a different author and a different time period. But we should not be taking an unclear verse, such as Genesis 4 7, to try to make another unclear verse, like Genesis 3.16 to be clear, which basically means that you cannot or at least should not, be forcing your views on the text, and we ought to be a little bit flexible in reading this.

We really should consider motives and suggestions of behavior of the people who want this to be a proof of husbands ruling over [00:30:00] wives. Are they saying that women need to listen to their husbands, and that husbands are in charge, and that husbands make the decisions regardless of what the woman thinks? Or are they talking about self giving, submissive, slave leadership, as I've been talking about lately?

Now, listen, I am not trying to put a stake in the egalitarian side for you. Because I think we need hierarchy, I think we need rulership, I think that's how humans are going to work together. But I would suggest that that doesn't have to look the same everywhere. I would suggest we have strong female leadership in scripture, but I would also say that culturally, the Bible is patriarchal. Which is not a bad word, always.

I would call us all to look at how leadership is pictured in Scripture. Are we to stand on our rights? Are we [00:31:00] to be domineering? Are we to be self giving? Do we become the slave of the other? If rulership in the kingdom is self giving, and if we're looking at that correctly, then, here's a question, is there even a difference between egalitarianism and complementarianism, if you're viewing ruling in a self giving, non domineering way?

Well, okay, probably there is a difference, but maybe we should start there with this question. Maybe we should tackle the idea that it shouldn't even be a difference in these views, as long as we understand what ruling is meant to be. Again, who is standing on their rights? Who is being domineering? Who is being self giving?

Now, we could kind of go back and say, wait a second, if being submissive is how you [00:32:00] might rule, then what about submitting to sin? Are we ruling sin? Well, no, that's not what I'm saying. Because the upside down kind of rulership that is presented in Scripture works only under proper, good dominion and under the ultimate headship of God.

All right, I'm going to call upon one more commentary before we move on. I'm going to read from the Word Biblical Commentary. And it translates this verse in three 16 as quote, your urge will be to your husband, but he shall rule over you. Here it is more difficult to grasp the author's precise intention. Evidently, he does not regard female subordination to be a judgment on her sin in that woman was made from man to be his helper and is twice named by man, in 2. 23 and 3. 20, [00:33:00] indicates his authority over her. It is therefore usually argued that rule here represents harsh, exploitive subjugation, which so often characterizes woman's lot in all sorts of societies. To love and to cherish becomes to desire and to dominate. Women often allow themselves to be exploited in this way because of their urge toward their husband. Their sexual appetite may sometimes make them submit to quite unreasonable male demands. Once again, woman's life is blighted at the most profound level. Susan Foh has, however, argued that the woman's urge is not a craving for her man, whatever he demands, but an urge for independence, indeed a desire to dominate her husband. Such an interpretation of urge is required in the very closely parallel passage in 4. 7, where sin's urge is said to be for Cain, [00:34:00] but he must master it. Here in 3. 16, woman's desire for independence would be contrasted with an injunction to man to master her. There is a logical simplicity about Foh's interpretation that makes it attractive, but given the rarity of the term urge, certainly is impossible. End quote.

I mean, honestly, in the end, we went from humanity ruling together to there being a disjunction in relationship, whether that is just the man's fault or whether it is the woman's fault and then the man's fault.

Remember that blaming each other is something that Adam did, so there is that. And perhaps slave rulership was not originally intended either. We wouldn't have the image of slave if not for the concept of tyranny. And now that tyranny exists, we have the opposite thing that corrects it.

Alright, all of [00:35:00] that I will give to you to consider. Now let's move on to the first part of this verse in 316 about childbirth and labor. I said I was going to read again from Ariel Bible commentary. So, let's go ahead and do that. I am not a fan of this passage, by the way. It says, quote, The first provision is in Genesis 3. 16, I will greatly multiply your pain and your conception. There is a multiplication of menstrual pain. The woman will suffer the monthly cycle, something that did not exist before the fall. Furthermore, there is a multiplication of conceptions. Woman had the ability to conceive before the fall, but that ability is now increased, as the woman has the ability to conceive once a month. This is necessary to populate the earth in the face of physical death that will limit human population. Before the fall, woman was not [00:36:00] able to conceive as frequently because the earth would be naturally filled with birth at a slower pattern since man would not die. With the fall, death is part of the human experience, and therefore, in order to fill the earth, it becomes necessary to increase a woman's ability to conceive. The rabbis give this monthly incapacity as one reason why a woman cannot serve as a witness in a court of law. The second provision in Genesis 3. 16 states, In pain you shall bring forth children. Birth would now come with pain. Before the fall, giving birth would have been painless, but now a woman gives birth with pain. However, John 16. 21 states that once birth takes place, a woman does have joy. So there is a joy that follows the pain. 1 Timothy 2. 15 talks about a woman being saved by childbirth. The point is not that she is saved spiritually by childbirth, as that would make [00:37:00] it salvation by works. Rather, it means that the woman is saved from her inferior status through childbirth because continuous human existence is determined by a woman's ability to give birth. End quote.

Okay, so, as I said, not particularly a fan of this, although he is clearly drawing upon those rabbinic ideas, right? That menstruation and things like that are a result of this, in particular. Even though the text really doesn't give us those kinds of details.

Also really strange because, in case you didn't know, children take longer than a month to be produced by a woman's body. Anyway, there's quite a few bits of speculation in here that I'm not particularly fond of.

Let's go back to the New American Commentary. This , quote, confusion revolves around the extent to which the penalty in 3 14 through 19 [00:38:00] altered the condition of the participants. Many reasoning that the serpent's anatomy was altered and the woman's position as Adam's peer changed. There is no anatomical alteration, however, and no change in the essential position of the serpent and the woman. Rather there is added the burden of humiliation. The snake remains the crafty beast that he was, but now he is distinguished from the animals in humiliation as well. Likewise, the woman continues her ordained role as childbearer, and as we contended at 2. 23, her fellowship function. But now she will experience painful labor in childbirth, and her submission is ensured. Also, the man carries on his commission to lead in agricultural pursuits, but now his vocation will be marked by strenuous labor, and he will return to dust in humiliation. The woman's penalty impacts her [00:39:00] two primary roles, childbearing and her relationship with her husband. It is appropriate punishment, since procreation was central to her divine commission, and because she had been instrumental in her husband's ruin. Just as God initiates the enmity between the woman and the serpent, he is responsible, I will greatly increase, for the pain she will experience in the birth of that seed, which will ultimately defeat her arch enemy. The verse consists of two parallel lines, literally. I will greatly increase your painful labor and your conception. In painful labor, you will bear sons, and to your husband will be your desire, and he will rule over you. First, her penalty stresses the painful labor she must endure in childbirth. But the punishment also nurtures hope, since it assumes that she will live to bear children. As parallel terms, itzaban and [00:40:00] etzeb are rendered painful labor, which reflects the customary meaning of itzaban, toil. It occurs just twice more in verse 17 and Genesis 5 29, and indicates hard labor. Thus, the penalty is the attendant labor or hard work that childbearing will now mean for Eve. This matches the labor that Adam will undergo as a consequence of the curse against the ground. By procreation, the blessing for the human couple will be realized, and ironically the blessing is assured in the divine pronouncement of the penalty. By this unexpected twist, the vehicle of her vindication, labor, trumpets her need for the deliverance she bears. Painful childbirth signals hope, but also serves as a perpetual reminder of sin and the woman's part in it. End quote.

Because we read the word biblical commentary before, [00:41:00] I'm going to read it here as well. It says, quote, I shall greatly multiply your pains and your pregnancies. In pain you will bear children. It should be noted that neither the man nor the woman are cursed. Only the snake and the soil are cursed because of man. The sentences on the man and woman take the form of a disruption of their appointed roles. The woman was created to be man's helper and the mother of children. The first part of her judgment is that maternity will be accompanied by suffering. Your pains and your pregnancies is probably hendiadys for your pains of pregnancy. To be a joyful mother of children, preferably a large family, was a sure sign of God's blessing. Yet the pain of childbirth, unrelieved by modern medicine, was the most bitter known then. In pain you will bear children. [00:42:00] Neither the word used here for pain, nor the earlier one, is the usual one for the pings of childbirth. Cassuto plausibly suggests this term has been deliberately chosen by way of a pun on tree, as if to say that the tree brought trauma. End quote.

Okay, so there is a word that I used in that, and we're going to talk about this word. It is the word hendiadys and maybe I didn't pronounce it great before, I don't know. So a hendiadys is a figure of speech. The plural of the word is hendiadyses. It comes from Greek, and it means one meaning through two words. So a hendiadys, again, it's a figure of speech, and we have two words that are connected by a conjunction, so, like the word and, and they're used to express a [00:43:00] singular notion that would normally be expressed by an adjective and a noun.

Okay, so a hendiadys is two words with the word and in between, and it's forming one single idea. Let's look at a couple of examples.

Psalm 51, 17 says, quote, The sacrifices of God are a broken and contrite heart. O God, you will not despise. End quote.

So this is two Hebrew words with the word and in between it. Instead of referring to two separate qualities, the quality of being broken and the quality of being contrite, this is probably a hendiadys, which means a thoroughly broken heart, or a heart that is humbly broken before God.

Let's look at John 1, 14. It says, quote, The Word became flesh and dwelt among [00:44:00] us, and we have seen His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth. End quote.

Okay, so there's two Greek words joined by a conjunction. Grace and truth. This could be a hendiadys, meaning "truthful grace" or "gracious truth" rather than grace and truth being two separate qualities.

Another example from Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 50. Quote, flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God. End quote.

Again, two Greek nouns joined by a conjunction. It doesn't mean flesh and blood separately, but rather a single concept that is talking about frail humanity. So, flesh and blood is a hendiadys for human nature.

Couple of examples that [00:45:00] we would use in common English. We could say, nice and warm. Which means, nicely warm. Or there's the phrase, safe and sound, meaning completely safe. You could say, fire and fury, which means furious fire or intense wrath.

So I hope you understand the term hendiadys. Now, I want to talk about whether a hendiadys is the same as a merism. A merism is another figure of speech that uses two words to convey a bigger idea. Both a merism and a hendiadys are rhetorical devices that express more than what their literal words say, and they're both common in both Hebrew and Greek.

But a merism is particularly the idea that is using two extremes to talk about [00:46:00] a totality. So, day and night means all the time. It is specifically using two extremes to talk about the totality of those extremes. But a hendiadys expresses a single idea using two words. It's not talking about two extremes that express a totality. A merism is showing that totality through contrast. A hendiadys is about fusing two words into one concept rather than listing opposites. In a merism, the words are not changed. They retain their original meaning, but they work together to broaden the scope of what's being talked about. There's no modification of the words. But in a hendiadys, one word often modifies the other, meaning they're not distinct ideas, but one combined idea.

All right, let's look at a [00:47:00] passage that could possibly be either a merism or a hendiadys. This is in Psalm 23, verse 4.

Now, keep in mind, we're talking two languages, and we can't always directly translate one into the other without using more words if we're really trying to get a conceptual idea across.

Psalm 23, 4 says, quote, Your rod and your staff, they comfort me. End quote.

Okay, so is rod and staff a merism, or is it a hendiadys?

if this phrase is a merism, then rod and staff represents the totality of God's guidance and protection by mentioning two contrasts. The rod is the idea of discipline or correction, but the staff is the idea of [00:48:00] support and guidance. So with a merism view, the phrase doesn't mean two separate things, like a literal rod and a literal staff, but rather it's referencing the totality of all the ways that God shepherds his people. So in other words, this phrase means everything about God's leadership, both correction and as well as care, is meant to bring me comfort.

Okay, so that's one view. Now, if it is instead a hendiadys, then rod and staff expresses a single, unified idea of divine protection rather than two separate tools of that protection. So, we're not bringing in two distinct ideas of correction and care, but rather, the phrase would mean comforting protection.

And Hebrew poetry often pairs [00:49:00] synonyms to intensify a single concept rather than listing two separate things. That's why we have so many hendiadyese in scripture. So if this is in fact a hendiadys, then we have the comforting protection of a shepherd.

And you might think that it really doesn't matter, it's like six of one and half a dozen of the other. But I think it does, because in the construct of a merism, God is doing two different things, and they are separate actions. Either he is being corrective, or he is taking care and giving guidance. And those are two separate things that God does. And they're not married into the same concept.

But in the hendiadys construct, it is bringing the two things into one concept. Not saying that God does two separate things, and that all of God's care is under all of [00:50:00] these umbrellas. Rather, there is one umbrella, and God is protecting and caring at the same time.

Okay, so now, let's go back to Genesis 3 16. Word Biblical Commentary suggested that what we have in Genesis 3 16 is a hendiadys. So let's look at the language, and let's look at our English translations.

We have the term 'itsabon, sorrowful toil, and the word heron, or conception, childbirth, pregnancy. These two words are joined by the word and. So let's look at our translations because some translations will show that language, and others will not.

The KJV and the NKJV say that God will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy [00:51:00] conception. The LSB says, God will greatly multiply your pain and conception. The ASV says, God will greatly multiply thy pain and thy conception. The Young Living Translation says, multiplying, I multiply thy sorrow and thy conception. And, personally, I think that's a winner right there for looking at the Hebrew behind the English, because there is that double multiplying in Hebrew. And that shows an intensification of the idea.

Alright, now let's look at some translations that do not show that structure. The New Living Translation says God will sharpen the pain of your pregnancy. The NIV says God will make your pains in childbearing very severe. The ESV says I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing. The [00:52:00] CSB says, I will intensify your labor pains. The NASB says, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. The Amplified version says, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth. And so on and so forth. We have the NET, the RSV, and several others.

Now, why does that matter? Well, it matters because if it's a hendiadys, then this idea of increasing the pain in childbirth is in fact what we have talked about.

But there's another option. It's entirely possible that this is not a hendiadys. And as we've seen with our other examples, there really isn't a clear cut way to determine whether a phrase is a hendiadys or whether it's not. And there are several scholars out there who [00:53:00] are saying that we really should not read this as a hendiadys.

And if we don't read it as a hendiadys, then that really fundamentally changes the meaning of the whole passage. Or at least this first part of the passage.

I am going to read the translation that Dr. Joy Fleming gives. Now, Dr. Joy Fleming is a Ph. D. scholar, who, along with her husband, has produced a few books about this, they have produced a podcast about this, and they go into all of the nitty gritty details of why they landed on this interpretation. In the show notes, I'll try and remember to put this book in the links.

But the Flemings book called The Book of Eden, Genesis 2 to 3, God didn't curse Eve or Adam, or limit woman in any way is a look at this passage, and it gets [00:54:00] into nitty gritty details of the Hebrew and the linguistic basis behind this argument, but it's written in a way that should be very accessible, and it even has some little section headings at the end of the chapters, so if you're going through this book and this passage in a small group, you can use these study guides that they have in the book.

So Dr. Joy Fleming translates this verse like this. She says, quote, I'm going to greatly multiply your 'itsabon, your sorrowful toil in fieldwork, and I'm going to multiply your heron, pregnancy, or conception.

Actually, let me go ahead and read this way she describes the whole verse. Quote, I will surely multiply your sorrowful toil in fieldwork. And your conception. With effort, you'll bring forth children. Your loving desire is to your husband, but he is rebelliously ruling [00:55:00] over himself and will rule over you. End quote.

What's really interesting to me in this book that I'm going to link in the show notes is that it is not just a grammatical argument, but the argument also rests on not just the grammar of this single sentence here, but the wider passage as well.

So, they talk about chiasm, they talk about how the multiplication of both the toil as well as the pregnancies is pointing backward to the previous part with the serpent and the seed, and it's also pointing forward to the passage with Adam and the 'itsabon, or the toil of the soil.

And I have a harder time arguing against a description and an interpretation that doesn't just look at the grammar, [00:56:00] but that looks at the passage as a whole and its actual beautiful design. Now, you can kind of think about this for yourself. If we separate the concepts out of the toil and the childbirth, and we don't bring them together into one concept, then what this means is that the woman is subjected to the same toil that Adam is going to be subjected to in regards to working with the ground, and that is obviously a bad outcome.

But the idea of the pregnancies and the conceptions being multiplied is actually a blessing. So the woman is partaking in the bad consequences that the man is going to be partaking in because of the curse of the ground, but she is also blessed because her pregnancies will be multiplied. So do you see how that is a very different view than just [00:57:00] saying everything in here is negative? There is a lot to think about for the implications of the differences there.

Now, even if it is a hendiadys, and maybe Dr. Fleming is wrong, I think the point remains that the text is pointing both backward to the serpent and the seed mentioned there, as well as pointing forward to the man in the ground. The woman seems to form a connective tissue of sorts here in this passage, which is pretty amazing.

And even if the man is to rule justly, the care of the man for the woman is not to look like what actually happened. He messed up. And he keeps messing up, ruining things for everyone. And being in a position of rule or authority should be kind of a scary thing to [00:58:00] contemplate because when you mess it up, there's major consequences.

Now in all of my looking at this verse and all of my reading of different authors and different conceptions of this passage, where I land is that we can't necessarily know which one is the intended meaning originally. And I would say that that's okay. Maybe it's meant to be a little bit vague.

There is no indication that the woman's body was changed. They were always meant to procreate and to have children. It doesn't personally make a lot of sense to me that women should be burdened with pain and childbirth in a way that she wasn't before because of this incident. So I kind of lean towards the it's not a hendiadys option. But to be fair, it could still be a hendiadys.

But [00:59:00] I lay out the conceptions to you and you can think over the implications. You can think over the thematic justification for one concept over the other. And maybe in the future I will be able to talk a little bit more about this because I think this is a very interesting idea that could conceivably change a lot of things. But I will remain standing on my position before that neither the man nor the woman is directly cursed. I think there is a lot of view of mercy and God's caretaking in these passages.

So, I think I will leave it there for now, and I hope you enjoy looking at this passage in this light. And what's fun when you take an interpretation of something from the first part of Genesis is that you now get to take that forward into the rest of Scripture [01:00:00] and see how the rest of Scripture takes these themes and utilizes them.

That is one reason I love biblical theology so much. It gives us that extra lens of interpretation and study. So, I wish you all of the best for that, and thank you for listening to this episode. Thank you for joining me, as always. If you think of a person or a group or a place that would enjoy this episode, I would love if you would share it there so that others can think about new ideas and have new things to talk about and argue over. Thanks for all of the questions. If you guys have any questions or feedback from me, you can reach out to me on Facebook, or you can reach out to me on my website at genesismarksthespot. com.

I really appreciate all of you who do interact with me. And a big shout out to those of you who [01:01:00] financially support me. I really appreciate you guys. You can find out more about that on my website at GenesisMarksTheSpot. com. But at any rate, I'm going to wrap it up for this week, and wish you all a blessed week, and we will see you later.