When God says, “he shall rule over you,” after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, was he issuing a command or a prophecy?
To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 RSV
The Fall as taught in The Genesis Account.)
First, the serpent would crawl on its belly, and Satan, behind the serpent, would be destroyed by the coming seed of the woman. This would be the Messiah. Thus even in God’s judgment, there would be a redeemer for man and woman. This chapter also has the first example of bloodshed covering sin, when God killed animals to make coats of skin for Adam and Eve. This would be a type of the Messiah shedding His blood for the salvation of all believers.
Second, Eve and her female descendants would suffer pains in childbirth. Many would also suffer from oppressive male headship. But the correct roles in marriage are illustrated in the NT by comparing husband and wife with Christ and the Church.
Third, because of Adam’s actions, death and thorns would enter the world. Labour would no longer be easy but painful and sweaty.
…
J.
The question being: Was God ordering women to be subservient to men, or was he predicting women would become subservient to men due to the sin she had committed?
This was your question.
When God says, “he shall rule over you,” after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, was he issuing a command or a prophecy?
To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 RSV
J.
This was your question.
When God says, “he shall rule over you,” after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, was he issuing a command or a prophecy?
To the woman he said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
in pain you shall bring forth children,
yet your desire shall be for your husband,
and he shall rule over you.” Genesis 3:16 RSV
J.
Paul said:
[33] For God is not a God of confusion but of peace. As in all the churches of the saints,
[34] the women should keep silence in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as even the law says. 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 RSV
What law is Paul referring to?
@BobEstey
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.
Paul states in 1 Corinthians 14:33-34 that there is a law stating women aren’t supposed to speak in a church. I’m wondering if Paul was referring to Genesis 3:16.
@BobEstey, @Johann
Good question, u can see many videos on utube too abt this question.
In 1 Cor 14:33-34, the greek term for “law” here is normos (@johann), typically referring to the Torah in Pauline usage as in Romans 3:19, though occasionally broader Jewish tradition (1 Cor 9:8-9). THe verb lalein (“to speak”) suggests public speechm likely in the context of liturgical assemblies, and the hypotassesthai (“be subordinate”) echoes Greco-Roman and Jewish cultural norms or order. The immediate context of 1 Cor 14 concerns the regulation of charismatic gifts to ensure orderly worship, addressing disruptions in the Corinthian community.
Scholars debate whether Paul refers to a specific Torah passage or a general principle. Genesis 3:16 where God tells the woman “he shall rule over you” is a candidate for u question, as it speaks to male “rule” post-Fall. However, several exegetical considerations militate against this connection.
First, Genesis 3:16 is a prophetic description of sin’s consequence, not a prescriptive law commanding female subordination as argued in the prior response.
Second, Paul’s use of normas elsewhere (@Johann, Galatians 3:19) points to the Mosaic Law or its interpretive traditions, not a narrative pronouncement like Genesis 3:16.
Third, no explicit Torah text mandates female silence in worship assemblies, suggesting Paul may invoke Jewish customary norms or local Corinthian practice rather than a specific Pentateuchal verse.
As we have talked abt it earlier, i hope u read it, that Genesis 3:16 is a prophecy of the relational discord introduced by original sin, not divine command or law establishing female subjection. Please read the prev post abt this. Paul, a trained Pharisee, would distinguish between narrative consequences (Gen 3) and legal prescriptions (eg. Leviticus or Deuteronomy).If Paul intended Genesis 3:16 as the “law” he would likely cite it explicitly as he does with *Genesis 2:24 in Ephesians 5:31, @Johann, @BobEstey. Instead, the “law” in 1 Cor 14:34 may reflect Jewish oral tradition or synagogue practices like women’s separation in worship as later codified in the Mishnah, which Paul attempts to address the Corinthians’ liturgical chaos. Alternatively, some scholars suggest an interpolation or quotation of Corinthian slogans.
U will see many videos abt this, take this i will explain in simple words.
Catholic and Orthodox theology situates 1 Cor 1:33-34 within the divine pedagogy, where God accommodates human weakness while guiding toward redemption. St. Paul’s directive reflects a first-century cultural context, where women’s public speech in mixed assemblies could scandalise or disrupt, particularly in Corinth, a cosmopolitan city ride with moral and liturgical challenges. The “subordination” urged is not ontological but functional, akin to Paul’s call for mutual submission i Ephesians 5:21, i hope u get it @BobEstey St. Cyril of Alexandria in his commentary on Corinthians, emphasizes tht Paul’s concern is ecclesial harmony and not a denial of women’s dignity or gifts as evidenced by female prophets (Acts 21:9) and deaconesses (Romans 16:1)
The absence of a direct link to Genesis 3:16 is further supported **by Paul’s broader theology. In Galatians 3:28, he proclaims, “There is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus”, affirming the baptismal equality that transcends fallen divisions. This echoes the Orthodox doctrine of theosis, where, as St.Maximus the Confessor teaches in Ambigua (Im Oriental Orthodox), Christ’s redemptive work heals the fractures of the Fall, including gender based domination. The Catholic tradition as articulated in St.JOahn Paul II’s Mulieris Dignitatem underscore that women’s roles in the Church, exemplified by the Theotokos reflect their equal dignity, not subservice, am i right @Johann.
An objection might argue that Paul’s appeal to “the law” implies a universal Torah based norm, possibly Genesis 3:16 as u can say, @BobEstey , however, this assumes a legalistic reading foreign to Paul’s Christocentric hermeneutic, where the Law is fulfilled in love (Romans 13:10). Genesis 3:16, as a narrative consequence, lacks the juridical force of a “law”.
Another objection whicn i feel is that one can claim that 1 Timothy 2:11-12 also urges female silence supports a Genesis 3:16 link by citing Adam and Eve (2:13-14. @BobEstey, @Johann). My response would be, yet 1 Timothy references Genesis 2-3 broadly not 3:16 specifically, and Catholic/Orthodox exegesis views such texts as contextually bound, not absolute prohibitions, given women’s active roles in the early Church as example consider Priscilla, in Acts 18:26.
I think it was a prophecy.
That’s what I said sir….
Hi,
God was not stating prophecy or command.
He was telling Adam and Eve the new facts of life given their sinful condition.
Blessings