The Curse on the Woman – ‘multiplying I will multiply’

Introduction

Adam and Eve were given a clear command that they disobeyed.  They had been told that the punishment for disobedience was death. In NT comment on the events in the Garden of Eden we have confirmed that by one man came death and death by sin. (Rom 5:12) In addition to this punishment, each of the three characters in the narrative are the subject of a specific ruling. The serpent is cursed to go on its belly, to eat dust and to have enmity with the woman’s seed (Gen 3:14-15). The man is told he would have difficulty in growing and harvesting food (Gen 3:17-19). The consequence for the woman’s sin was pain in childbirth, along with rulership by her husband.

The interpretation of the second clause of the pronouncement for the woman’s is not obvious. It has commonly been supposed that by this ruling God institutes the patriarchal configuration of human societies. Some even interpret these words as being directive so that wives are obliged to be “ruled” by their husbands. In this essay I will explore the interpretation of the pronouncement on the woman and argue that this clause is not directive.

Not Universal

Are the words to the woman a ‘curse’ for all time for all women or only a punishment for Eve? Is the fact that women can relate to the words spoken to Eve indication that it is a ‘punishment’ inherited by them from Eve? It is important to separate Eve’s punishment from the nature we inherit from her.   This is a subtle difference, but a difference with important ramifications.  To view Eve’s punishment as causative for all the pain and sorrow of childbirth that women experience today is to take the inherited nature we share beyond the application the NT authors give it in places like Romans.

This universal application is not traditionally applied to any other similar pronouncements. The curse on Cain we interpret as a simple curse on Cain. The curses on the nation of Israel in Deuteronomy we read as curses on a nation.  We apply them to ourselves by acknowledging that these curses show a correlation between good living and blessing, and forsaking God and cursing, yet we do not believe we inherit them.  What justification do we have for believing we inherit the words spoken to Eve?

The word curse is used in relation to the serpent and the ground that Adam would till. The curse on the ground is reinforced in passages relating to the birth of Noah (Gen 5:29) and after the flood where God promises he would never again curse the ground. (Gen 8:21). The word ‘curse’ is not directed to the woman or Adam.  Some have suggested that since the words to the woman and Adam follow on from the serpent’s curse, this is implied.  The English understanding of the word ‘curse’ is a prophetic punishment which is unavoidable.  To apply this to the words spoken to the woman does not permit an interpretation which sees this as a non-directive consequence of action rather than a universal punishment for all time.  Genesis 1:28 gave the directive to ‘multiply and fill the earth’ and this command is not superseded by the pronouncements to the three parties.  The Gen 1:28 passage is a directive, but the ‘curse’ of Gen 3:16 takes the form of a plain statement of consequence.  ‘Because you have done this’ are the words God uses to the man and the serpent.^[1] The command to fill the earth and populate was a positive one, but their sin would make the whole experience difficult.  The pronouncements explain the effect of sin on them and their subsequent knowledge of good and evil.  Previously they understood ‘good.’  Now they would understand ‘evil’.

‘Crime’ and Punishment

It has been suggested that Eve’s punishment was because she usurped her husband’s authority when taking the fruit, but contextually none of the other pronouncements relate to the sin of the individual.  The serpent’s curse of going on his belly has little to do with his lie, and Adam’s sin of difficulty in work does not correlate at all with his sin.  Eve was as well versed in the commandment as Adam, even though she diminishes it and turns a certainty (dying you shall die) to a contingency (lest you die). She did not need to confer with her husband about the details before eating the fruit.  Eve’s sin was as simple as Adam’s: disobedience to a command of God. The nature of her failing was different to her husband’s in that she was deceived, yet this weakness was not the basis for her punishment, as some have suggested.

In the NT, much is made of the process of Eve’s temptation that involved her being deceived (1 Tim 2:14).  She is also mentioned as being beguiled by the serpent’s cunning in 2 Cor 11:3.  The order of creation is used in 1 Corinthians 11 and in 1 Timothy 2 to prove that woman is subordinate to man, but nowhere is she condemned for usurping her husband’s authority in the garden. Some believe this is implied by the nature of her punishment, but this is not matched by the words to either the man or the serpent, in whose punishments no corresponding link between the nature of their sin and the subject of their punishment can be found. It is not that the man or woman is not linked to their punishment; rather that their sin is not linked to the punishment. The nature of their sin does not form the basis of the subject of their punishment. ^[2]

The NIV, ESV, NASB and RSV all display Gen 3:14-19 as poetry, and the NIV commentary on Genesis identifies it as such.

…the narrative style of the Hebrew authors uses poetry-like conventions to which modern authors must be sensitive.  It is historical narrative, but it does not share the interests of modern historians. Genesis is written almost entirely in prose, not poetry.  But at times that prose is so highly structured that it takes on some of the characteristics of Hebrew poetry.  Herder called it ‘narrative poetic.^[3]

Some of the descriptions in the pronouncements are clearly poetic. The idea of crushing foes is used in other parts of the Bible such as “with God we shall do valiantly, with God we will tread down our foes” (Ps 44:5). Based on this assessment, we should not be surprised to find various features of Hebrew poetry employed.

Broadly, in each of the punishments a statement is made followed by an explanatory statement.   ‘On your belly you shall go (and dust you shall eat all the days of your life)’.  In the case of the woman this forms the punishment.

‘multiplying I will multiply your pain and childbirth
(in pain you shall bring forth children).

Your desire shall be to your husband
(yet he shall rule over you).

More specifically, we have the use of a homogene in the idea of multiplying pain and childbirth.  This is where a verb and its participle are used in combination in order to add an intensity or superlative quality.  It can be used to add strong and emphatic affirmation as it does in the following passages of Genesis:

Gen 2:16 ‘eating thou shalt eat’. The conjugated verb is strengthened and emphasized by the infinitive preceding it.  This infinitive Eve omitted in Gen 3:2 and thus ‘diminished’ from the word of God.

Gen 2:17 ‘dying thou shalt die’ Eve alters the Word of God by saying ‘lest ye die’. Thus she changes a certainty into a contingency.

Gen 3:16 ‘unto the woman he said, multiplying, I will multiply thy sorrow’

And in a strong negation in Genesis 3:

Gen 3:4 ‘ye shall not surely die (Heb: dying thou shalt not die)

Eve’s punishment directly related to the command of Gen 1.28 to be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth. Her desire to know good and evil had resulted in a different outcome than she had supposed.  Instead of the idyllic multiplying of Gen 1:28, she would have ‘multiple multiplied’ sorrow.

The phrase ‘pain in childbearing’ is usually seen as a hendiadys, that is, two nouns in which identical ideas are expressed (e.g. nice and warm).  The description takes the form of parallelism – one arm pronouncing the sentence, the other spelling it out. Pain in childbirth in subsequent Bible passages is always synonymous with the most extreme and inescapable pain that the human vocabulary can describe, and thus is a fitting description of the most extreme aspect of sorrow relating to a woman’s life.  Despite the fact the word is translated ‘childbearing’ it is actually the word for ‘conception’ but considering pain does not accompany conception the word is used to represent the whole process of having children.

Cultural Relevance

We make a mistake if we read the text to find answers to the cultural issues around us. The pronouncement is not a treatise on the role of woman.  It is a comment on the pain and anguish that would form the part of the lives of sinners.  Eve’s pronouncement about the effects on her relationship with her husband and childbearing indicates nothing more than that this was the sphere in which she would be working.  In this way it forms a subtle confirmation of her role as helper and rejuvenator of the empty earth through childbearing, just as Adam’s curse relates to the areas of life in which he would be involved.

Some suggest the ‘fall’ describes a change in state from the previous relationship of Adam and Eve.  They argue that woman was changed from helper (Gen 2:18) to a subordinate position where her husband would now rule her.  Alternatively, others suggest the ‘fall’ indicates that rulership by husbands is not the intention as it takes the form of a punishment, and it is our duty to reverse it today.  Both of these ideas have an element of truth.  The first idea suggests woman became subordinate at this point.  To say that she became subordinate as a result of her failing is to deny passages relating to the purpose of her creation.  She was created second and as a helper for Adam.  There is no denying this fact, which is touched upon in the NT.  This supports a hierarchical view which is the theme of NT passages such as 1 Corinthians 11. The pronouncement references subordination not as a new idea, but to indicate that oppressiveness in that subordination would now be a feature of her life – subordination is presupposed.

It can be damaging to view ‘he shall rule over you’ as a directive instead of a statement of consequence for Eve’s action.   The suggestion that rulership is not the ideal also has an element of truth, because oppressive rulership and dictatorship is not the leadership which Christ espoused.  The comment to Eve was consequential, that is, a consequence of her failing.  There is no denying that it happened, and does happen.  This does not mean it should happen, but the fact that it does shows that rulership by husbands can become oppressive.  To deny leadership roles for men because of oppressive leadership is to annul the concept of the order of creation.  Dysfunction in practice does not make the principle wrong. The very point the angel is making is that dysfunction in practice would now occur. This is the sense of the introduction of ‘evil’.

The passage in (Gen 2:18) and subsequent conversation with the woman in (Gen 3:16) is sometimes seen as a ‘before’ and ‘after’ scenario in relation to the occupation of Eve.  In reality it is a different perspective on the same person who stands in the same place.  Prior to her sin, Eve had unmitigated pleasure in her role as wife, now this pleasure would be checked.  Instead of perfection and fulfilment, she would find pain, burden, and oppressiveness in her subordination as part and parcel of the moral course she had chosen.  Her action had changed her irrevocably and this would cross into the most intimate parts of her life and involve her relationship with her husband and the birth of her children. The punishment relates strongly to the labour and effort involved in her activities, a point also emphasised to Adam.  The punishment is not a comment on the role she occupied, just as it is not a comment on Adam’s.  The role she occupied is implied rather than explicit.  It is not a question of whether Eve ‘should’ or ‘should not’ be a helper or childbearer.  Eve IS a helper and childbearer.  Her failing would make this occupation more difficult.  It’s not a question of whether Adam ‘should’ or ‘should not’ rule her.  Adam will rule her.

Rulership is seen negatively in today’s world, almost implying oppression just by using the term, but biblically, right rulership is a positive construct.  Passages like Psalm 72 look forward to the right rulership of Christ in the kingdom, his breaking in pieces the oppressor, his judgment with justice, his defence of the poor and needy, his deliverance of the children of the needy.  Yet Eve’s pronouncement is negative, so in this instance the rulership by her husband must be seen to be in some way oppressive.

‘desire to thy husband’.

The word ‘desire’ is Hebrew ‘tsuqah’ and only used three times in the OT, Gen 3:16, 4:7; and Song 7:10.

Scholars are divided over its interpretation.  Feminist interpretations see it either as exposing patriarchy which they believe God tolerated rather than intended and thereby attempt to rehabilitate the woman.  A. J. Bledstein interprets ‘he shall rule over you’ as ‘he can rule over you’.^[4]   J. Galambush suggests that the punishments reflect origins, the man from the ground and the woman from the man.^[5]  The difficulty with feminist interpretations become apparent. If both men and women have the same function at creation, and are equally responsible for any sin then why is the putative subordination the punishment for the woman? Invariably feminist interpretations of ‘desire’ are purely sexual, although they are quick to complain about Adam’s objectifying Eve in Gen 2:23 where he uses ‘this’ three times.^[6]

Others have taken the context of the other occurrences of the word to determine the meaning of ‘desire’. S. T. Foh suggests the desire is something that is to be contended over as a wife attempts to dominate a husband who has to fight for leadership just as sin ‘desired’ to dominate Cain. It is not surprising that her viewpoint has devotees, with the NET Bible mentioning it in their notes.  An interpretation that favours a battle between the sexes seems a logical one in the climate of the culture in which we find ourselves.^[7]  M. F. Stitzinger refutes this idea on the basis that this makes assumptions about the nature of the transgression which does not see Eve forcing her husband to eat the fruit or Adam fighting to take the lead in the transgression.  It also does not work consistently with the other occurrence of the word because Song 7:10 cannot allow an interpretation of forced desire.^[8]  Some have suggested the desire is sexual, a fact K. C. Bushnell refutes, although earliest English translations gave this sense in translating with “thy lust shall pertayne to thy husband”.^[9]

Skinner sees it as “the desire that makes her the willing slave of man”,^[10] G. Andrews the “immense, clinging, psychological dependence on man.”^[11] C. F. Keil and F. Delitzsch see desire as a “morbid yearning”^[12] and C. J. Vos, not willing to limit the scope of ‘desire’ to sexual appetite, adds the woman’s desire for the man’s protection.^[13] J. Calvin suggests the woman will desire only what the husband desires and that she will have no command over herself.^[14] The woman’s desires are wholly subservient to her husband’s as a result of God’s judgment is a suggestion that finds credibility with U. Cassuto and E. J. Young.^[15]

Finally, we may note Stitzinger’s suggestion that ‘desire’ is best translated with reference to the traditional root,

It refers to the ‘woman’s longing or yearning that she may have about the affairs of life’….the phrase ‘your desire is to your husband’, is best regarded as a statement of fact, reminding the first woman that the subordinate principle still remains in effect.  However, it is not a pronouncement that all women will submit all their desires to their husbands.  Their sin nature precludes that they will do this……..The statement regarding the woman’s desire is not a curse in and of itself, but it becomes one when it is treated in relation to the man’s sinful rule.^[16]

The second part of the pronouncement on Eve relates to her treatment by her husband.     The subject of this section is her husband:  she will desire her husband, but he will rule over her. Eve’s punishment does not focus on the morality of the husband but the experience of the woman.   Later, the NT addresses the morality of leadership in its comments about Christian marriages.  Since the NT is consistently reminding husbands to be gentle in their leadership, to use Christ as a model and avoid being ‘harsh’ with their wives, it seems that some abuse of leadership by husbands has been a problem for all sinners inheriting human nature.

In its most basic understanding, the pronouncements on the man and woman indicate that their duty to fill the earth and subdue it would be more difficult. Their subsequent expulsion from the Garden have led some to see the blessings of Abraham as the answer to Genesis 3:14-19.

The blessing of Abraham promised seed, land, and blessing. The promise of seed overcomes the cursed difficulty of childbearing and the loss of harmony between the man and the woman. The promise of land hints at a place where God will once again dwell with his people. The promise of blessing heralds the triumph of the seed of the woman over the seed of the serpent. The blessing is not only for Israel, but for all the families of the earth. These promises fed the hopes, the eschatological hopes, of those who followed in the footsteps of the faith of Abraham, those who considered themselves seed of the woman. The sustenance of these hopes seems to have been the reason the accounts were recorded and passed down, as those who believed God’s promises held to the faith that he would make good on his word.’^[17]

Seen in this way, we see that the ideas of promised seed after pain, promised land after expulsion, and promised blessing after ‘cursing’ is the positive message of the Abrahamic promise.

Conclusion

The words to Eve have an incidental application to women for all time in that they also experience similar difficulties as sharing part of Eve’s nature.  However, women today should not view it as a directive; women are under no more obligation to be ‘ruled’ by their husband than they are to refuse pain medication in labour.

The promise women are invited to share in is Abrahamic, which expands on the seed nature of the comments to the serpent.  ‘The blessing of the Lord makes rich, and He adds no sorrow to it,’ says Proverbs 10:33.  The word ‘sorrow’ here is the same as the word used in Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 3:17.  God’s blessing is pure and untarnished, it does not bring physical pain or emotional sorrow.  The sorrow of a woman in childbirth is turned to joy, because when a child is born a mother forgets her pain and has joy. This theme is begun by the Abraham and Sarah story, and a picture Jesus shares with his disciples in the last supper.  We experience the same kind of sorrow at the absence of our Lord.

‘So you also have sorrow now, but I will see you again, and your hearts will rejoice, and no one will take your joy away from you.’ (John 16:21)