A harmful interpretation?

I think it's time someone challenged some prominent, old notions about Genesis 3:16. Most of my readers will agree that a straightforward reading of Scripture is the best way--it avoids reading things into it and taking presuppositions to it. So let's do that:

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

Ok, this is obviously after sin. Keep that in mind. This is Eve's punishment for disobedience. First part is pretty clear. It's gonna hurt--a lot (I'm told ;))--to have children, and it even has cost many women their lives. Pretty clear. Let's move on.

“And thy desire shall be to rule over your husband, but he will rule over you instead." That's what is says, isn't it? That's what many commentaries would have you believe--and sadly many sermons I've heard. Let's look at that statement again: “And thy desire shall be to rule over your husband, but he will rule over you instead."

Note the changes/additions? Now read it again as it really reads: "and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee." If you have a desire "to" something, does that mean you want to take it over? Could it not be that her desire has to do with her husband himself--as a person, lover, attention-giver, companion, provider. I've read that the word for "desire" can also be translated as "longing." I have a desire for my husband's attention, companionship, love. I also have a desire to love and help him. Always? No. I'm not perfect. But does this other interpretation of "desire=rule" set up a harmful expectation from both husband and wife? Does a husband who's been taught this from the pulpit see his wife as eager to usurp him: prowling for the first chance to pounce upon any opportunity to rule? I would hope not, but I'm sad to say that I do think that is the case for some. I would also hope the wife would not use this as an excuse for her sinful desire to usurp her husband when the temptation strikes: "Well, I was cursed with this desire to usurp my husband." And what harmful sexist implications are there if women were inherently subordinate in a "perfect" world, created in God's image just as Adam was. Sexism and alleged misogyny of the Scriptures are negated by the fact that sin caused the problem and that the role of woman as subordinate is in actuality a punishment and an obedience issue. How could it be an indication of more-limited potential if she can also be a joint heir with Christ?

Note also the "and he shall rule over thee." There's no contrariness here. Shouldn't there be a "but" if she's being rebuffed?

Now to the punishment part. The husband ruling---either way, whether she's trying to usurp or not---is considered a punishment. Who wants a ruler, raise your hand? Male or female, the fact is we don't want ANYONE to rule over us--we want to be the boss. It's called pride, and it's called sin, and guess what? Women don't have the market on those---more like half of it.

Additionally, some commentaries go so far as to say that the woman was punished with subordination because of her "going off on her own" and doing something without Adam's approval. Well (1) Gen 3:6 says Eve gave to her husband "with her." In other words, it's pretty clear (again from a straightforward reading) that he was right there--she wasn't "off on her own." (2) If subordination was a punishment for her sin, just how was she being insubordinate before sin? For the life of me, I can't see how some commentaries, including Matthew Henry's (which I highly respect) put this pre-Fall heirarchy in place. The only Scriptural support I can see for that is in 1 Tim. 2:13, but this is followed by an "and" in v. 14 referring to Eve's being deceived. Certainly Adam being created first has some role in his headship, but I can't see a reason to think this would imply pre-Fall headship. And how could it, with the subordination being part of the post-Fall curse?

Now it gets a bit trickier, how is this desiring a punishment? Well, I must admit that's a little harder to explain perhaps to everyone's satisfaction, although it makes perfect sense to me. If you have a desire to please someone and to have the sole affections of someone--a perfect companion, a perfect relationship (some may see this as romantic--and that's the point: most would agree that women are inherently a bit more romantic/idealistic about relationships than men), this "ruling" thing can really get in the way. Especially if the husband is being sinful. And, remember, this curse came after sin. Man's leading of his wife is, because of sin, far from ideal. A curse for someone who's at times striving for and often unrealistically hoping for a perfect relationship. I'll admit this an interpretation, but is it a harmful one? Does it make sense of the straightforward reading?

Question is, will anyone admit to the "usurping" as an interpretation (which I'd be willing to entertain if someone can explain away these problems adequately), or will it continue to be preached unchallenged from the pulpit, sit not-so-quietly in our Bible commentary (and perhaps our psyche) continuing to cause damage and likening the meaning of Gen 4:7 to this passage? By the way, I'll tackle Gen. 4:7 and its (dis)similarities to Gen 3:16 in another blog soon.

I would encourage you to be a Berean and read up and think on these things. I welcome your comments---and corrections even---as I continue prayerfully studying this issue.