• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

Your "desire" shall be for your husband

Mark C

Mark C

Seasoned Member
Real Person
Male
There are challenges in attempting to walk in accord with God's Word concerning the issue of Biblical patriarchy. My house has been the subject of much attack over the last several months, as many here are also well aware.

One of the consistent negative "raps" that I constantly see when corresponding with people who are just beginning to study marriage from an honest Biblical perspective is that "polygyny is always portrayed negatively" in the Word. While this gross oversimplification is also untrue, it glosses over the real issue:

Almost all marriage in the Bible is portrayed in arguably negative terms! After all, the "First [presumably monogamous] Marriage" is the one "by which sin entered the world"!

The truth is, we learn best from stories, examples, and parables that show pain, conflict, and strife. Our Creator Wrote a Book tailored to our needs.

This weekend, I started down a Bible study path which I have found to be quite interesting, and actually remarkable - as well as almost as politically-incorrect as patriarchy is itself. It starts in Genesis, immediately after that first act of rebellion - and is directly related to marriage and headship. I would be interested in your responses to this introduction, and to the series of articles that I will shortly recommend.



A verse that has long intrigued me, and been the object of much study and prayer as a result, is God's admonition to Eve in Genesis 3:16 that her "desire [shall be] to thy husband". Some of the midrash, or teaching, on that verse seems to make clear that there is much more here than meets the eye, and that there is even some ambiguity about the charge - it can perhaps be either a curse, a blessing, or both. "Desire" does not necessarily mean exactly, or only, what the English seems to imply; it could mean a desire to possess or command as well as to love and be loved.

As a bit of background, here is a bit of the Strong's concordance info from the online "Blue Letter Bible", for example:





Lexicon Results
Strong's H8669 - tĕshuwqah
תשוקה

Transliteration

tĕshuwqah

Pronunciation

tesh·ü·kä' (Key)


Part of Speech

feminine noun

Root Word (Etymology)

from H7783 in the original sense of stretching out after

TWOT Reference

2352a


Outline of Biblical Usage

1) desire, longing, craving

a) of man for woman

b) of woman for man

c) of beast to devour




What has fascinated me for some time is the almost identical language and Hebrew wording used by God to Cain in Genesis 4:7 - only a few verses after His charge to Eve. Here is a word search on תשוקה - Strong's H8669 - (transliterated as "tĕshuwqah"):



תשוקה


Gen 3:16 Unto the woman 802 he said 559 , I will greatly 7235 multiply 7235 thy sorrow 6093 and thy conception 2032; in sorrow 6089 thou shalt bring forth 3205 children 1121; and thy desire 8669 [shall be] to thy husband 376, and he shall rule 4910 over thee.

Gen 4:7 If 518 thou doest well 3190 , shalt thou not be accepted 7613? and if thou doest not well 3190 , sin 2403 lieth 7257 at the door 6607. And unto thee [shall be] his desire 8669, and thou shalt rule 4910 over him.

Sgs 7:10 I [am] my beloved's 1730, and his desire 8669 [is] toward me.






A online search of these two verses and concepts led me to the following article, which actually turned out to be part 10 of a wonderful series. I'll list this one first, since that is how I read it:


http://www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/ ... rt_101.asp


The whole set is here:


http://www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/


Blessings,

Mark


"If you love Me, keep My commands."
-- John 14:15



PS> The whole set of these articles also has another fascinating "rabbit trail" - as Bible studies often seem to - concerning the "aleph-tav". More on that later...
 
Ha, Aish is a good reference.

I didn't go to the referenced article yet, but I've studied the words otherwise.

Very good of you to point out that marriages in general can be viewed portrayed in negative terms. That is a good counter-argument I've not yet leaned or devised. Thanks
 
There is a problem with the democratic understanding of Gen 3:16 in relations to Gen 4:7.

4:7 reads:
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.

Here is the point in which I wish to stress: After the first sentence, there is a change of subject. "His desire" is speaking of Abel and not "sin." And the sin being mentioned here means sin offering not sin as the devil. It looks forward and is in reference to Christ being the perfect sacrifice for sin. The sin offering, the lamb, is crouching at the door.

So, in modern syntax, the passage should be understood, If you do well, shall you not be accepted? And if you don't, then a sin offering , a lamb, is right at your door. And your younger brother shall still look up to you as the older brother and leader and you will be over him.

If this then is a better understand of 4:7, then 3:16 should be understood differently as well. Since so many have derived a reading of 3:16 as based upon a faulty interpretation of 4:7, it behooves us to look at it again.

3:16 would then be God saying to the woman that it would be her desire to have her husband as your guide.
 
That is an interesting take, MD, and I don't necessarily disagree at all. (From the standpoint of an understanding of the Hebrew text, I will defer to the "sages"; from the standpoint of an understanding of Messiah - they clearly missed some of the meaning as well. ;) )

What I would add, however, is that the reason I find such Scripture ESPECIALLY interesting is exactly because of that apparent (and indeed even obvious) "ambiguity". Much is written in the various analyses of these passages concerning multiple levels of meaning ("sod", "drash", and so on). But that is part of the wonder of the Word: it has meaning on more levels than we can probably ever comprehend.

Even the Genesis 3 quote can certainly have the same Messianic insight - and it applies to "husband" both in the present and future kingdoms: "Your desire shall be for your Husband, and He shall rule over you" is a wonderful reading, IMO.

Blessings,

Mark

PS> The spectacular multiple-level prophecy from the "Amidah" has always been just about my favorite example of such a double-entendre: (Gen. 22:8)

And Abraham said, My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt offering..
"
 
Sorry that I'm coming along to this discussion a little late.

Here's what I wrote about those two passages:

v16 (cont.) - Thy desire shall be to thy husband… There is a Jewish tradition that this desire refers to a woman longing for her husband who must often be away from the home in order to make his living.1 I believe that God meant a different kind of desire. Perhaps because Adam’s leadership had failed her in the Garden or perhaps because of the new power imbalance between the flesh and the spirit within the woman, she would resent her husband’s headship and seek control for herself even while desiring her husband’s rule over her.2 But the nature of creation and of God’s irresistible plan meant that her husband must still rule over her. Competent sociologists and anthropologists tell us that there has never been a truly matriarchal society.3 When a society becomes dominated by women, collapse will quickly follow. In fact, even before a society can become matriarchal, it must already be degraded by immorality and godlessness. Isaiah 3:12 characterizes Israel in her darkest moment as being ruled by women and fools (or children, depending on the translation). Matriarchy was not the cause of Israel’s demise, only a symptom. When a people obey God and listen to his words they will be ruled by just and righteous men. When they are wicked and given to pride and licentiousness, they will be ruled by women and fools.

God was not commanding the woman to submit to her husband’s rule, although it was certainly proper for her to do so. It was not necessary for him to tell her what she already knew. He was simply informing Eve of what would be, whether she or anyone else approved or not. The parallel with God’s warning to Cain in Genesis 4:7 is inescapable:

Table 1: Comparison between Gen 3:16 and 4:7.

Genesis 3:16
your desire --> your husband
He shall rule over you

Genesis 4:7
its desire --> you
You shall rule over it

This was a warning to Eve that her nature would at times lead her to try to control her husband, but she should resist that tendency, and that her husband must not allow it to happen. It takes active effort on the part of both husband and wife to fight off the natural entropy that pulls them into a cycle of disrespect and dominance. A successful marriage does not just happen, but is the result of struggle and determination. Men must struggle to love their wives and to rule with gentleness and meekness. Women must struggle to overcome their natural inclination to follow their own will in opposition to their husbands.

On the other hand, the only other time that this word for desire, teshuqah, is used is in Song of Songs 7:10 in reference to a healthy relationship in which the husband desires his wife. The great difference is that the two instances in Genesis involve desire and conquest, while the instance in the Song involves desire and submission.

An alternative interpretation, such as that offered by Joseph Coleson, is that Eve’s desire would be for a husband, but she would receive a master instead.4 While this might be an accurate description of what happens in some marriages and it might have much anecdotal support, I do not believe it to be God’s intended meaning.

Genesis 4:7
...thou shalt rule over him. The King James use of “him” instead of “it” can be a little misleading, although it was probably intended to maintain the anthropomorphic depiction of sin as a physical assailant “crouching at the door.” The Modern King James Version reads, “If you do well, shall you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin crouches at the door; and its desire is for you, and you shall rule over it.” Some commentators and translators believe that khatawth (translated as “sin” in the KJV) should be translated “sin-offering,” and that the “him” of the second half of the verse refers to Abel. I do not believe that to be correct. Strong’s Hebrew Definitions defines khatawth this way:

An offence (sometimes habitual sinfulness), and its penalty, occasion, sacrifice, or expiation; also (concretely) an offender: - punishment (of sin), purifying (-fication for sin), sin (-ner, offering).

I believe the first definition, with its connotation of habitual sin, applies, and that God was warning Cain not to let it gain control. Echoing his earlier words to Eve, God warned Cain that his fleshly nature, once given a foothold, would always struggle to master him. But God also promised Cain that he could be the master of it if he so chose. This is not a curse against Cain so much as it is an observation on fallen human nature.


1. “Tract Aboth,” Talmud, Book Five. Rodkinson. 6.
2. Goldberg, Patriarchy. On page 104 he wrote, “...there may even be a female desire for men to dominate...that is a secondary manifestation of the neural factors directly relevant to female sexuality. Biological evidence indicates that there is a strong possibility that such dominance and submission factors exist in male and female physiologies...”
3. Robert Sheaffer, “‘The Goddess Remembered’ - A Case of ‘False Memory Syndrome.’” (Combating Feminist Ms-Information, December 1993, http://www.debunker.com/texts/goddess_rem.html. Accessed 05 February 2009.) In part, he wrote, “The idea of a vanished ‘matriarchal’ or ‘woman-centered’ stage of history became part of Marxist theory, and was widely taught. However, modern anthropology absolutely rejects the idea that civilization or history progresses in ‘stages’ because the immense data now available from societies all around the world fails to support it.”
4. Joseph E. Coleson, Ezer Cenegdo: A Power Like Him, Facing Him as Equal. (Grantham, Pennsylvania: Wesleyan/Holiness Women Clergy, 1996.)
 
Excellent, Jay.

Since I first put up my original comments, and the link to the article (which makes a very similar point to Jay's in many respects), I went out and bought his book,
"The Beast that Crouches at the Door: Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Beyond."

I recommend it highly, not only because of the content, but simply because it is quite wonderfully written, and a very enjoyable read.

For those who have not yet seen it, however, let me post a direct link again. (the 'top' link I put up above may be a bit harder to follow, since it shows the whole series of articles, and others as well.)

This article (part 10 of the series) is one of the book's chapters, and where I originally started in it:

http://www.aish.com/literacy/exploring/ ... rt_101.asp



Blessings,

Mark


And I have had the pleasure of reading Jay's book as well so I should not fail to add that it is a resource every library should have!
 
Gen 4:7
If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin (offering) lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his(Abel's) desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
 
if thou doest not well, sin (offering) lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be] his(Abel's) desire, and thou shalt rule over him.
Click to expand...
Sorry, MD - but I have to disagree on that reading. It is sin, or the "evil inclination" which lies at the door, and it is that evil inclination which will (and did) rule over Cain, and his sons.

The fact that those two almost identical structures and phrasings occur in such close proximity in Torah is no coincidence, and it is ultimately the same conflict over righteous authority that is being discussed in both.


Blessings,
Mark


No one has yet commented on what I thought was the crux of the article, and most intriguing. (Although I certainly agree with Jay on the essential element. The English word "desire" can be read on multiple levels.) While all are somewhat applicable, it is the conflict that our King, Kinsman-Redeemer, and ultimate Bridegroom wants us to understand.

Here is the bit that I hope will spark more interest: (from the article I linked just above)

[The Midrash notes] that the word which the Bible uses for desire in each of our two verses is the Hebrew term teshukah. While this fact may seem unremarkable in and of itself, they noticed that this word reappears in Scripture a number of times. They traced these various appearances -- beyond Eve and Cain, the word reappears in connection with rain and with God Himself -- and formulated what they saw was a pattern. Here is what they had to say:

There are four basic] 'teshukot' in the world. The teshukah of Eve for Adam, the teshukah of the Evil Inclination for Cain, the teshukah of rain for land, and the teshukah of the Master of the Universe for humanity.
...
[In] defining the word teshukah...they are making a sweeping, almost radical, statement in the process. Look carefully at the four examples they give -- the desire of Eve for Adam, of the Evil Inclination for Cain, of rain for land, and of God for humanity -- and see if you can isolate a common denominator between them.

While you are musing about that, you might notice that some of the "desires" which the verse speaks about don't sound much like desires at all. Let's look, for example, at the last two: the desire of rain for land, and the desire of the Almighty for humanity. If you were given the words "rain" and "land", and someone asked you which of these two "desires" the other, what would you say?

I would say land. Land needs rain to nourish its crops; rain doesn't need land at all. And the same holds for God and humanity. A basic tenet of theology states that God is a perfect Being, and that He has no needs at all. So if we are thinking about God and humans -- if anything, it would be humanity that desires God. Why do the sages have it the other way around?
...
The question I want you to think about is this: Is that the only kind of desire there is in this world -- or perhaps, is "desire" a larger concept than this? Is there such a thing as a desire that is not based on a sense of need, that doesn't come from some kind of lack that I have? If all my needs and lacks were taken care of, would that be it -- or could I still have some sense of desire?

I think the sages are answering that question with a resounding yes. Yes, it is possible to desire something even when you don't need anything. Rain doesn't need land a whit -- but somehow, it still "desires" land. God doesn't need people a whit either, but somehow, He still desires them. The sages are arguing, I think, that teshukah is a code name for this special kind of desire. And it is this very kind of desire, this teshukah, that the feminine has for the masculine. And that the Evil Inclination, whatever that is, has for Cain.
Click to expand...
 
Is there any other place where we can see 'sin' depicted as a person and it be unequivocal?
There is at least one other place where 'sin' is meant to be understood as sin offering:
2 Cor 5:21:
For he hath made him [to be] sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

With the interpretation that I am putting forward, the implications would be as follows:
Abel (and consequently all male siblings other than the first born) and Eve (and the natural following of all women) would look to oldest son / husband as the leader and they, the first born / husband would exercise preeminence over them.

With the interpretation that you are backing, the logical outflow would be that it is now in the natural desire of women to control their husbands. While I am very much opposed to feminists and women's liberation, I do not believe that it is within the natural inclinations of a woman to usurp this authority. Rather, it is planted there by propaganda and all women are not affected.
 
... I do not believe that it is within the natural inclinations of a woman to usurp this authority. Rather, it is planted there by propaganda and all women are not affected.
Click to expand...

It was clearly within Eve's - even if she was tempted first. Neither is it too much of a leap to conclude that all who were ultimately born of that union bear the consequences of that rebellion.

"For all have sinned and fallen short..."

"NONE righteous, no not one..."

I've known quite a few people who claim not to be affected by temptation, or the "evil inclination", or lust for power, or rebellion to God...or any number of such things. Since even our Savior was at least "tempted", I tend to be skeptical on that score, MD. ;)

Blessings,
Mark
 
I agree with Mark that the inclination to control her husband (the spirit of Jezebel) is in every woman, just as the inclination to rebel against God is in every single human being. Here are a few stray thoughts I had after reading the article Mark linked:

I see two commonalities in the four teshukah pairings.

First, the desirers all want to dominate the objects of their desire. Sin wants to control Cain's behavior and thoughts. Eve wants to do the same to Adam. Rain wants to wash away or cover the land. God wants to rule humanity.

Second, the desirers all need to act through the objects of their desire. Sin can only affect the world through Cain (representing all mankind). Eve can only find security and provision for herself and her children through Adam's strength. Rain can only infuse life and create orthography by acting on the earth. God wants to use humanity as his executor on earth.

These desires aren't intrinsically bad. Without the evil inclination motivating us, we might not have sufficient drive to accomplish difficult goals. Without Eve seeking Adam's protection, Adam might not think much beyond his own needs or have sufficient motivation to improve himself. Without the rain, geology and biology would be very boring sciences. Without God wanting to rule through us, we wouldn't even exist. If I am correct, then each teshukah relationship also works in reverse. For example, Adam must have teshukah (the desire to work through) for Eve if he wants his children to be reared by her. The difference is that Eve must submit to Adam, while he must not submit to her. (Although there is nothing wrong with a man being influenced by his wife.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top