Introduction
The term desire theshuqah[1] is used only three times in the Old Testament. It is employed twice in Genesis (3:16; 4:17) and once in Song of Songs (7:10). The term has generated controversy,[2] particularly with regard to its use in Gen 3:16b, “Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you”.[3] This verse has been debated over the centuries; more so recently by feminist interpreters; probably as a reaction against extremely chauvinistic (sometimes verging on misogynistic) interpretations. Because lexical and etymological studies of the term have yielded scant results, I. A. Busenitz concludes that the central consideration in the interpretation of Gen 3:16b is context; the meaning of “desire” is best determined in the light of its immediate contextual setting.[4] This is essentially the approach adopted by this article; the term is analyzed within its wider context, but first a text critical emendation is proposed. On the basis of the proposed textual emendation a fresh contextual reading will be offered.
Text Critical Proposals
The function and purpose of textual criticism is to reconstruct the original wording of the Biblical text and to establish the history of transmission of the text through the centuries. However, in no single instance is the autograph available and therefore the reconstruction of a critical text is always, to a certain extent, subjective. In order to analyze the Hebrew term translated as “desire” in Gen 3:16b it is appropriate to compare it with Gen 4:7 as it demonstrates parallel verbal usage. However, although scholars readily acknowledge the similarity in grammatical construction between Gen 3:16b and Gen 4:7b, they discount the usefulness of Gen 4:7b in determining the meaning of 3:16b, as it is itself considered to contain interpretive uncertainties.[5] The similarity between the texts is immediately recognizable:
Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you. Gen 3:16b
And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it. Gen 4:7b
Many scholars admit that Gen 4:7 is one of the most difficult in all of the OT to understand. J. Skinner [6] has observed: “Every attempt to extract a meaning from the verse is more or less of a tour de force, and it is nearly certain that the obscurity is due to deep-seated textual corruptions”.
The text is grammatically puzzling, for in theshuqtho (“his/its desire”) the pronominal suffix is masculine. If the antecedent were “sin [khata’t] crouching at the door,” one would expect a feminine pronominal suffix, since “sin” is feminine.
“Sin” in Gen 4:7 is usually understood as a zoomorphism, G. Von Rad comments:
In v. 7b the final t of Ha††ä´t (“sin”) is best taken as the initial letter of the following verb form and read H높 tirbac (“sin lies in wait”); then one obtains the expected feminine form. The comparison of sin with a beast of prey lying before the door is strange, as is the purely figurative use of “door” (door of the heart?) in such an ancient narrative. One suspects that the meaning of the passage was once quite different.[7]
Alter states that the poem is archaic and enigmatic: “The first clause of verse 7 is particularly elliptic in the Hebrew, and thus any construal is no more than an educated guess”.[8] T. Stordalen suggests that the rare word, theshuqah, only received a linking function (between Gen 3:16b and Gen 4:7b) “late in the redactional process of Genesis”.[9]
The Septuagint version further complicates the matter as the translators of the LXX attempted to clarify their understanding of the original Hebrew by translating the relevant word with the Greek apostrophē in Gen 3:16b and Gen 4:7b. This word can be rendered in a positive sense of “turning, turning back, refuge, or bend in a direction toward”; it may also be employed in a negative sense of “turning away from”. The LXX rendering of Gen 3:16b is,
Your apostrophē is toward your husband
The LXX translators interpreted Gen 4:7b as a reference to Abel’s “desire” toward his brother:
…to you shall be his apostrophē
R. G. Loader understands apostrophē as “returning” – he detects symmetry between the woman repeatedly returning to the man (from which she was taken) in order to get pregnant and the man returning (apostrepsai) to the earth from which he was taken – both relationships are defined by pain and toil (man/earth, woman/man).[10]
This may well achieve a plausible exegesis for Gen 3:16b but it breaks down when applied to Gen 4:7b. Loader states, “Here, too, LXX translates h` avpostrofh. (“return”), where probably with reference to sin returning and to Cain’s needing to rule over it”.[11] This explanation is unsatisfactory and does not account for the difficulties of the Masoretic text. Far more plausible is the suggestion made by R. Bergmeier[12] that the LXX translators were apparently reading the Hebrew, theshubah (return) for theshuqah (desire) and translating it with the Greek apostrophē.
We propose that Gen 4:7 obviously suffers from deep seated textual corruption, particularly surrounding the word “desire” – this article proposes against Bergmeier that instead of theshuqah (desire) the original Hebrew was read as theshu’ah (salvation, deliverance, e.g. 1 Sam 11:9; 2 Kgs 13:17) or theshurah (gift, present, 1 Sam 9:7) – in either case the unpointed Hebrew varies in only one letter. We suggest that the Septuagint translators mistakenly reconstructed one of these original words as theshubah (return), which they expressed as apostrophē in the Greek. As we will show, the proposed alternatives achieve a better contextual reading of Gen 4:7b and Gen 3:16b.
A Contextual Reading of Genesis 4:7b
The first principle of good hermeneutics is context. If a text is damaged or corrupted (either purposely or through transmission) then it can only be reconstructed or corrected by careful contextualization. The following contextual points support our proposal:
1) First, Cain was the expected realization of the promise made to Eve in the previous chapter (Gen 3:15-16) – as far as Eve was concerned Cain was the fulfillment of the promised salvation.
Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, ‘I have acquired a man from the Lord’… Gen 4:1 (NKJV)
The Hebrew for “acquired” (qanah) is a word-play on “Cain” (qayin); the Canaanites were merchants and smiths. There is no “from” in the Hebrew in “from the Lord”, just the direct object marker. This direct object marker is normally left untranslated and it should not be assumed that the NKJV translators have rendered it as “from”; rather, they have inserted “from” into the text to give it sense. More literally the text is simply,
And the man knew (even or the same) Eve his wife; and she conceived and bore (even or the same) Cain, and said: ‘I have gotten a man (even or the same) YHWH’…
2) Secondly, the sacrifice of Cain was rejected because it came from the cursed ground and therefore represented the “sweat of his face”. Many commentators regard the divine rejection of Cain’s worship as a mystery, or worse, as an arbitrary or capricious act by God. It makes sense to recognise that Cain knew that blood sacrifice was required to cover sin (Gen 3:21) and that the ground (and its produce) was under a curse (Gen 3:17) – God would not accept what had been grown ‘in the sweat of thy face’ (justification by works) as a sin offering (although agricultural produce was sometimes offered together with blood sacrifice).
3) Lastly, the giving or making of a sacrifice implies a place of worship – a sanctuary.[13] Thus, the Garden of Eden is a model of the “heavenly sanctuary” (like the tabernacle).[14]
On the basis of these contextual considerations, we propose that Gen 4:7 should read as follows:
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?[15] But if you do not do what is right, the sin-offering is lying at the door [of the sanctuary]; his gift is for you, and you will overcome. Gen 4:7
We have replaced “sin” as “sin-offering”—a translation also offered by Young’s Literal Translation. H. A. Whittaker comments:
With hardly an exception, the word “lieth” is used of flocks and herds peacefully lying down. Also, the extremely common word for “sin” (169 occurrences) is a double-meaning word; it also signifies “sin-offering” (116 times). In Leviticus 4, the same word comes translated “sin” 8 times and “sin-offering” 10 times (In Dan 9:24 A.V. has got the wrong meaning). Again, the word “door” (87 times) needs to be taken in a literal sense; the figurative usage of it has hardly a single parallel in Scripture.[16]
The “sin-offering” (the lamb) was lying (not crouching ready to jump as suggested by some translations) at the door of the Sanctuary. The verse is therefore not metaphoric – it is not a zoomorphism as suggested by most translations and commentators[17] – but rather a literal picture. Abel had brought more than one lamb (firstlings of the flock, Gen 4:4); he also brought a gift for his brother Cain. This explains another inconsistency spotted by commentators: Cain does not respond to God. According to M. McEntire; “Yahweh’s statement in v.7 indicates to Cain and the reader that Cain still has the opportunity to do well and find favour…Instead of speaking to Yahweh he speaks unto Abel”.[18]
The translation offered in this article makes sense of this anomaly—Cain does not respond to Yahweh because Yahweh has told him that he can still be accepted if he offers the lamb that his brother Abel has brought as a gift for him—this acts as the prompt for Cain to find his brother Abel in the field—not to thank him for the lamb, or to make “peace” with his brother:
Therefore if you bring your gift to the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your gift there before the altar, and go your way. First be reconciled to your brother, and then come and offer your gift. Matt 5:24-25
If Cain had accepted the “gift” he would “overcome” or rule over the “serpent” (man had dominion over the beast of the field, Gen 1:28). Cain’s pride and his envy prevented him accepting his brother’s “gift” – he became the first murderer, making propitiation for his sin by “offering” Abel instead.
Interpretive Approaches to Gen 3:16b
What are the implications of reading theshurah (gift) in Gen 4:7b for a new understanding Gens 3:16b? N. Sarna lists three possible interpretations of the phrase: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16).[19]
Rashi understood this, together with the next clause, to refer to the satisfaction of female desire being traditionally dependent on the husband’s initiative. Rambam took it to mean that despite the discomforts of pain attendant upon child-bearing, the woman still desires the act that brings about this condition. Third, it may describe a “social reality” in which the woman was wholly dependent for her sustenance upon what her husband could eke out of the soil, in striking contrast to the situation in Eden,” where food was bountiful.
Another view has been argued by S. T. Foh,[20] noting the parallel with Gen 4:7 where, in accordance with the generally accepted interpretation, sin seeks control over Cain but he must master it. Hence, Foh argues that the urge is not a desire for the intimacy of procreation but a desire to be independent of or to dominate her husband, and so the Genesis text states that he will rule over her. P. B. Wilson follows this view and explains that because the word “desire” in Gen 3:16 is the same word found in Gen 4:7, in which God tells Cain that sin was seeking to master the course of his life, in the same way, when God cursed Eve, He was saying to her, “Okay, Eve. You want to be the boss and make the decisions? When you leave this garden you will always want to control and lead the course of your husband’s life. But he will rule over you instead!”.[21] Against this view H. Walton observes that in each of the three texts where theshuqah appears there is no common object desired, so it is better to regard it as referring to a basic or inherent instinct.[22]
The above views can be rejected and a fresh perspective offered on the basis of the alternative interpretation of Gen 4:7 established above:
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, the sin-offering is lying at the door [of the sanctuary]; his gift is for you, and you will overcome. Gen 4:7
The parallelism between Gen 3:16b and 4:7b is more far reaching than mere lexical or grammatical coincidence as both chapters display symmetry in their approach – Genesis 4 is a further outworking of the themes in Genesis 3.
| Genesis 3 | Genesis 4 |
|---|---|
| I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children (3:16) | Now Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bore Cain, and said, ‘I have acquired a man from the Lord’. (4:1) |
| And I will put hatred between you ( the serpent) and the seed of the woman… (3:15) | Cain rose up against Abel his brother and killed him. (4:8) |
| Cursed is the ground for your sake (3:17) | Cain brought an offering of the fruit of the ground to the Lord. (4:3) |
| Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you. (3:16) | And its desire is for you, but you should rule over it. (4:7) |
It is commonly known that Gen 3:15 has typological significance. As early as the 2nd century C.E., it was given Christological significance and called the proto-evangelium. Although this verse has a general reference to the human race, yet the question one asks is: Who is the descendant of Eve who may be said to be victorious over the serpent?[23]
The context is therefore the promised Messiah – the curse was related to the labour pains that the “mother of the living” had to endure in order to come to the birth.[24] The Messiah would rule (Heb: mashal) over the serpent. He would deal the serpent a death blow and overcome. The same word is used in Ps 8:6-7; “You have made him to have dominion (mashal) over the works of Your hands; You have put all things under his feet…even the beasts of the field”.[25] The LXX translates mashal in Gen 3:16 with kurieuō, which means “to lord it over,” but uses a verb form of archō (“to rule over”) in Gen 4:7, possibly to depict a more governmental, autocratic concept.[26]
Scholars have noted that each participant in the drama receives only one punishment except Eve who receives two punishments: (1) the pain of childbirth, (2) subjugation to her husband’s rule. Other scholars argue that the second “punishment” is not prescriptive but descriptive – it simply states the obvious consequences of the fall—sin has corrupted the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband. The relationship is full of dominating, negative attitudes, manipulation and struggle. While the truth of this is a sad reflection of a broken creation, we suggest an alternative that is far more satisfactory:
And I will put enmity between you [=the serpent] and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall crush your head [serpent’s head], and you shall bruise His heel.” To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your gift shall be for your husband, and he shall rule [over the serpent] in you. Gen 3:16
The strength of this reading is that it harmonizes Gen 3:16 and Gen 4:7. Eve was promised the gift of a child that would save her and her husband and give him rule over the serpent. Cain could have used the gift of a lamb left by his brother and thus overcome the serpent. The irony that is implicit in the text is that Eve believed her firstborn to be the fulfilment of that promise. The curse of childbirth was more than physical pain; it was the sorrow of seeing one son murder another – a curse perpetuated throughout history, particularly in the tension between nomadic societies (shepherds) and agricultural societies (who built cities—civilization like Cain).
The Use of “Desire” in Song of Songs
The only other place (besides Gen 3:16b, 4:7b) that theshuqah is used is in Song of Songs 7:10,
I am my beloved’s and his desire is for me.
Davidson comments,
Following her eager wish in verse 9b, the woman responds openly and unashamedly to her lover’s advances. She belongs to him “and his desire is for me” (v.10). The only other place in the Old Testament where this word “desire” is found is in Genesis 3:16 where, as part of her penalty for disobeying God, Eve is told: Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you. That desire in Genesis is something imposed upon Eve, and indicates her submission: here it expresses the joyful claim that links man and woman, to each other. She thinks of his desire not as domination, but as shared joy. It may be that as in the case with Ecclesiastes…a motif taken from earlier biblical material is being deliberately used with a different meaning.[27]
In Canticles the word seems to be a straightforward expression of longing and desire in what is thought of as being essentially a love poem.[28] If that is the case then we have to assume that textual corruption only occurred in Genesis—the LXX translates Songs 7:10 as epistrophē which, when used transitively, means “to make to turn towards (to convert)”; literally—“his turning is towards me” or “his desire is toward me” (NKJV). The LXX Brenton translation is: “I am my kinsman’s, and his desire is toward me”.
The LXX compound noun epistrophē uses a different preposition to apostrophē which was used in Gen 3:16b and Gen 4:7b,[29] but this is not necessarily significant. Again, it is possible that the LXX translators also translated what they mistakenly thought to be the Hebrew theshubah (return) with epistrophē. However, is this likely? Can we assume the same translational path – that theshubah (return) was interpreted instead of theshurah (gift) or theshu’ah (salvation)? Could the verse possibly read as follows?
I am my beloved’s (kinsman’s LXX) and his gift/salvation is for me. Song 7:10
This would be an unusual turn of phrase in a “love poem” but this is no ordinary love poem as it celebrates covenant love – Yahweh’s deliverance of his people from the Assyrians during the reign of Hezekiah.[30] Canticles is not simply a collection of oriental love poems but an allegorical dramatization of covenant love, employing characters such as Solomon and the Shulamite.[31] Salvation is an expression of Yahweh’s covenant love for his people. Interestingly, the next verse (Song 7:11) has an enigmatic connection with Gen 3:16:
Come, my beloved (LXX: kinsman), Let us go forth to the field; Let us lodge in the villages. Song 7:11
Similar phraseology is encountered in Mic 4:10,
Be in pain, and labor to bring forth, O daughter of Zion, like a woman in birth pangs. For now you shall go forth from the city, you shall dwell in the field,[32] and to Babylon you shall go. There you shall be delivered; there the Lord will redeem you from the hand of your enemies.
The immediate context is the deportation of captives transported to Babylon[33] by the Assyrians, who find themselves suddenly liberated (returned)…left standing in the empty field…when the Assyrian army was slaughtered by Yahweh. Note that the metaphor of a woman giving birth is used (cf. Isa 66:7-8) in connection with redemption from the enemy (Gen 3:15-16)—this “bringing” to the birth was Yahweh’s doing—Hezekiah was “resurrected” and a faithful remnant saved. The last section of the phrase—let us lodge in the villages, or more exactly—let us spend the night in the village (kaphar). This is surely reminiscent of the kinsman (Boaz) covering (atoning) Ruth with his “skirt” (kanaph) when he found her at his feet during the night. Divine love in Ruth 3:4 was so scandalous (as it could have ruined the plan to redeem the land) that Boaz could not reveal his secret liaison (love) for Ruth (although nothing untoward happened) until his case had been presented. Similarly in Hezekiah’s time – Yahweh revealed his love for his people at the last moment – he redeemed them and the land– and Eve “the mother of the living” gave birth to a righteous seed – Hezekiah did not die childless.
Conclusion
Our investigation of the word “desire” offers the conclusion that a more intelligible reading can be achieved with gift/salvation, which is almost identical to “desire” in the Hebrew.
The proposed readings make sense in context:
If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, the sin-offering is lying at the door [of the sanctuary]; his gift is for you, and you will overcome. Gen 4:7
And I will put enmity between you [=the serpent] and the woman, and between your seed and her Seed; He shall crush your head [serpent’s head], and you shall bruise His heel. To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; in pain you shall bring forth children; your gift/salvation shall be for your husband, and he shall rule [over the serpent] in you. Gen 3:15-16
I am my beloved’s (kinsman’s LXX) and his gift/salvation is for me (Song 7:11).
[1] Transliteration follows the SBL general purpose style except in quotations from other authors where their style is retained.
[2] S. Foh, “What is the Woman’s desire?” WTJ 37 (1974/75):376-83, (376-77).
[3] All quotes are from the NKJV unless otherwise stated.
[4] I. A. Busenitz, “Woman’s Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered” Grace Theological Journal 7.2 (1986): 203-12, (211).
[5] Busenitz states in “Woman’s Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered”, 210, “Furthermore, to appeal to Gen 4:7 with its manifold obscurities to unlock the interpretive door of Gen 3:16 is to throw exegetical caution to the wind”.
[6] J. Skinner, Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1969), 107.
[7] G. Von Rad, Genesis: a Commentary (trans. J. H. Marks; OTL; London: SCM Press, 1961), 101.
[8] R. Alter, Genesis: Translation and Commentary (New York: Norton & Co., 1997), 17.
[9] T. Stordalen, “Echoes of Eden: Genesis 2-3 and Symbolism of the Eden Garden in Biblical Hebrew Literature”, (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology, Peeters, 2000), 209.
[10] W. R. G. Loader, The Septuagint, Sexuality, and the New Testament: Case Studies on the Impact of the LXX in Philo and the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 121-122.
[11] Loader, The Septuagint, Sexuality, and the New Testament, 47, fn. 55.
[12] R. Bergmeier, “Zur Septuagintaubasetzung von Gen 3:16”, ZAW 79 (1967): 77-79.
[13] The flaming sword of the Cherubim at the eastern entrance of Eden (Gen 3:24) may have been the place of sacrifice (cf. Heb 4:12-13).
[14] See G. J. Wenham, “Sanctuary Symbolism in the Garden of Eden Story” Proceedings of the World Congress of Jewish Studies 9 (1986): 19-25.
[15] Alter comments; “The narrative context of sacrifices may suggest that the cryptic s’eit (elsewhere, “pre-eminence”) might be related to mas’eit, a gift or cultic offering”, Genesis, 17. Interestingly, the word has a dual meaning, literally “lifting [up]” as in exaltation and often (in Leviticus) “rising” (as in an unclean leprous swelling – Cain’s mark?).
[16] H. A. Whittaker, Genesis 1-2-3-4 (Cannock: Biblia, 1986), 126.
[17] J. L. Teng Kok is reasonably representative of modern scholarship: “God is in effect saying to Cain that if he had done well he would be able to hold his head up high (or be accepted); if not, sin is personified as a demon crouching at the door waiting to pounce (or dominate) and overcome him (4:6-7). The imagery of a predator waiting to an image of sin lurking is used here (cf. Deut 19:11)”, Grace in the midst of Judgment: Grappling with Genesis 1-11 (BZAW 314; Berlin: Walter De Gruyter; 2002), 155.
[18] M. McEntire, The Blood of Abel: The Violent Plot in the Hebrew Bible (Macon: Mercer University Press), 26.
[19] N. Sarna, Genesis (JPSTC; Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1989), 28.
[20] S. T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” WTJ 37 (1974/75): 367-83.
[21] P. B. Wilson, Liberated through submission (Eugene: Harvest House), 56-57.
[22] H. Walton, Genesis (NIVAC; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2001).
[23] B. T. Arnold, Encountering the Book of Genesis (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1998), 39.
[24] [Ed. AP] Hence, there is an explanation of the problem of human suffering in this text.
[25] A different word (radah) is employed in Gen 1:26, but with essentially the same meaning. “Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth”.
[26] Busenitz, “Woman’s Desire for Man: Genesis 3:16 Reconsidered”, 205.
[27] R. Davidson, Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon (OT Daily Study Bible Series; Minneapolis: WJK Press, 2006), 148-149.
[28] S. C. Glickman, A Song For Lovers (Downers Grove: Inter Varsity Press, 1976), 86-87.
[29] Although the LXX of Gen 3:16 and Gen 4:7 employs the preposition apo to form apostrophē it does not have to carry a negative (turning away) meaning.
[30] We cannot argue for this historical contextualization at this point.
[31] H. A. Whittaker, Bible Studies (Cannock: Biblia, 1987), 123-126.
[32] The phrase “in the field” also has connections with Genesis for it is the place (Samaritan Pentateuch) where Cain murdered Abel.
[33] The reference to Babylon in Micah is usually seen as “late” post-exilic interpolation; however it was common Assyrian practice to “swap” populations in conquered territories. On this see further, H. A. Whittaker, Isaiah (Cannock: Biblia, 1988), 72-75.
The Origin of the Organic World – Part One