The Story behind This Critique
On September 14, 2016, Crossway Publishers and the ESV Translation Oversight Committee announced that they would be making 52 permanent word changes in 29 verses of the ESV text, and no others.[1] They also announced that not only would these changes remain for as long as the new ESV remained in print and was used, but no further revision was to be permitted or done in the future.
Of the several changes to the ESV that had been proposed, the one to be made in Genesis 3:16b was of the greatest importance for biblical and systematic theology. The new rendering of Genesis 3:16b, “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you,” certainly made clear the Complementarian view that the woman’s “desire” (teshuqa) for her husband is a negative one—a “desire” that is against or contrary to submitting to male dominance, and to dominate man, instead. And the main preposition (‘el), normally translated either as “for” or “towards,” was now rendered “contrary to,” so as to strengthen this viewpoint. Consequently, there appeared a flurry of critical articles protesting this erroneous and dangerous rendering to Genesis 3:16b. At first, it appeared that Crossway was reconsidering a reversal of its plan to change this text. Unfortunately, in the 2017 edition of the ESV, this rendition of the text was incorporated despite its general criticism. Still, three questions remain: Was the proposed revision of Genesis 3:16b justified? Was it the best way to translate the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:16b? And was it some socio-political agenda, rather than any major linguistic issue, that lay behind this intended change of the ESV text?
So the emphasis of teshuqa here appears to be more on Eve’s turning away from God and turning to her husband, with some ambiguity as to the nature of the turning itself—which could be her trust, her devotion, as well as a longing for mutual affection and intimacy, such as the word has in the context of Song of Solomon 7:10. Therefore, it is context, and not merely semantic range, which determines whether teshuqa should be translated “desire, longing, devotion.”
But there is further, more recent evidence that teshuqa can mean something other than “desire” or “longing.” In a recent comparison I made of several modern English translations, I discovered that they confirmed Bushnell’s proposal for providing an alternate translation of Genesis 3:16b that made clearer the true nature and direction of the woman’s desire, which had, in the past, been wrongly understood and interpreted either as “sensual lust” or as a “desire to dominate” the man. So let us look at three modern English translations of this verse, and see what we can glean from them:
“But you will still desire your husband, and he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16b, CEV
“Your trust turns toward your husband, yet he will dominate you.” Gen. 3:16b, ISV
“Your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Gen. 3:16b, TNIV
None of the above translations agrees with the new ESV rendering that the woman’s “desire” was one of “being contrary to” her husband, or of one of seeking what we might call “reverse domination” of the man. Rather, they indicate that she will have a strong desire to experience the comradery, mutuality, and intimacy that existed prior to the Fall; a desire, as indicated by the CEV rendering, which had not changed even though her relationship with Adam had. Yet the woman, to her great sorrow, will find—as all three of these translations indicate—that, instead, her husband tending to take advantage of this desire, treating her like a master would treat an inferior.
Of the three translations, the ISV most clearly indicates that the nature of the woman’s teshuqa can also be understood in terms of “trust, devotion,” and not simply as “desire, longing.” In addition, these translations do not support the new ESV rendering of the Hebrew preposition ‘el (which modifies teshuqa) as being properly translated as “contrary to.” Nor, in fact, do most biblical scholars regard this a legitimate rendering of ‘el.
Sam Powell (himself a Complementarian), in a critique of the ESV revision of Genesis 3:16b, after surveying several authoritative Hebrew lexical aids, demonstrates that ‘el can only be translated as “against” or “contrary to” if the context and verb used show hostility between two parties. Therefore he concludes his article, saying, “To summarize this rather complicated survey, the basic meaning of the word is to or towards. Sometimes, if the context and the verb used are hostile, ‘against’ would be a proper meaning. But this does not mean that we can pick and choose whatever meaning we want. ‘Contrary to,’ in the context of Genesis 3:16 or 4:7 cannot be justified. Only if we make the assumption that the word ‘longing’ indicates hostility can we make the phrase mean ‘against her husband’.”[4] (Italics mine)
And as Scott McKnight points out in another recent article on the ESV changes, the assumption that Eve’s “longing” is hostile leads to some undesirable consequences:The ‘desire’ of the woman in Genesis 3:16 is understood, as the result of the fall and God’s curse on them, to be a desire to rule or dominate. They want to usurp the man’s authority. The man’s task—as part of God’s prescriptive design—is to rule, guide, and lead the woman. I do hear at times softer versions: women desire to be with men and it is the man’s job to mentor and rule women. Either in the harder or softer form, this is God’s design for women and men during at least the Fall period of history. Hierarchy of some sort and patriarchy of some sort are designed by God for fallen human beings. This translation turns women and men into contrarians by divine design. The fall means women are to submit to men and men are to rule women, but women will resist the rule. This has moved from subordinationism to female resistance to subordinationism.[5]
Therefore, there is no good historical textual and lexical evidence that justifies this understanding and translation of Genesis 3:16b, and so the new ESV rendering now is completely unjustified. And to accept it will have negative consequences.
[1] Announcement made on 09/14/16 by representatives of the ESV Translation Committee and Crossway Publishers.
[2] Katherine C. Bushnell. Cf. “Lesson 17: Ancient Renderings of Teshuqa” and “Lesson 18: History of the Translation of Teshuqa,” God’s Word to Women, pp. 57-66. Though some might disagree with her, based on the sources available to her, I think Bushnell proves that teshuqa should never be understood or translated as a lust or craving to possess or dominate the male.
