@BobEstey
@Bruce_Leiter
@KPuff
The verse in question, Genesis 3:16, occurs within the narrative of the Fall, where God pronounces consequences for the serpent, the woman and the man after their transgression. The Hebrew text of Genesis 2:16 reads v’el-ishtekh t’shuqatek w’hu yimshol-bakh. The verb yimshol (from mashal, “to rule” or “to have dominion”) is a Qal imperfect, which in Hebrew can denote future action, habitual action or a consequence depending on context. Unlike an imperative form, which would indicate a command like sh’mor (“keep”) in Exodus 20:8, yimshol lacks the syntactic markers of a divine mandate. Instead it aligns with the other consequences in Genesis 3:14-19, which describe the altered state of creation post Fall, pain in childbearing, toil in labor and enmity with the serpent. These are not prescription but descriptions of a fractured order resulting from sin. @Johann can look into this too.
The catholic and orthodox traditions, following hermeneutics of the Church Fathers interpret these verses as articulating the consequences of original sin rather than divine ordinances. St John Chrysostom in his Homilies on Genesis explains that the rule of the husband is a consequence of the disruption of the primoridal harmony between man and woman who were created as equals in the image of God (Gen 1:27). Similarly, St.Augustine in On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis argues that the subjection of the woman is a penal consequence, not a normative state of creation. THe prelapsarian state as Genesis 1-2 reveals, reflectsin complementarity of male and female, united in mutual love and equality before God. The rule in Genesis 3:16 therefoe is a distortion introduced by sin, not a divine command establishing a perpetual hierarchy.
To determine whether “he shall rule over you” is a command or prophecy, we must consider the nature of God’s speech in this context. In catholic and orthodox theology, God’s will is distinguished into His antecedent will (what He desires for creation in its perfection) and His consequent will (what He permits in light of human freedom and sin). The creation accounts in Genesis 1-2 reflect God’s antecedent will, a world of harmony, where man and woman are co-heirs of divine grace, sharing dominion over creation (Genesis 1:28). The fall, however, introduces a rupture and God’s pronouncements in Genesis 3:14-19 reflect His consequent will, describing the effects of sin while preserving human freedom.
The phrase “he shall rule over you” is best understood as prophecy foretelling the relational discord that will characterize the fallen state. The woman’s desire (t’shuqah) for her husband, paired with his rule (mashal) suggests a disordered dynamic where mutual love is replaced by domination and dependency. THis interpretation is reinforced by the parallel use to t’shuqah in Genesis 4:7, where sin “desires” to master Cain, yet he is urged to resist it. Similarly, the woman’s desire and the man’s rule are not divinely mandated ideals but distorted to be overcome through grace. As St. Thomas Aquinas (man he is amazing, @Johann, am i right) the subjection of woman to man in the fallen state is a result of sin, not a reflection of God’s original intent, which is restored in Christ.
An objection might arise from a literalist reading, suggesting that God’s words are inherently prescriptive because they come from divine mouth. This confuses God’s speech with His will. As St. Irenaeus notes in Against Heresies, God’s pronouncements in Genesis 3 are not commands but revelations of the consequences of human choices, given to guide humanity toward repentance. Another objection might claim that the “rule” reflects natural hierarchy intended by God. Yet Genesis 1:27-28 and Galatians 3:28 (“there is neither male nor female in Christ”) affirm the equality of the sexes in God’s original and redemptive plans. The “rule” is a contingent effect of sin, not a normative structure.
Are biblical gender roles still relevant in today’s culture, or have we misunderstood their purpose?
1 Like