The Curse on the Woman

Genesis 3:16 and the ESV Translation Oversight Committee

Earlier this week, the ESV Translation Oversight Committee released a small batch of changes to be implemented in the new 2025 edition.

Some may ask, “Was this necessary?” or “Was the prior edition faulty?”

Most of the changes seem relatively simple—that is to say, the felt impact will be minimal. All the same, striving for more accuracy to the original copies (Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek) is always a good thing, and we should never want our Bible translators to stop this pursuit.

Among these changes, however, two are more than slight. I’ll first point your attention to this article in which Crossway introduces the changes and offers a very brief explanation for the specific alterations to Genesis 3:16 and John 1:18.

Since the committee announced the changes, there has been a decent amount of rumbling about Genesis 3:16, specifically.

The Curse

In Genesis 3:14-24, we encounter the narrator describing a sequence of curses that God pronounced over Adam, Eve, and the serpent following the first human trangression in the garden. Verse 16 recounts the portion of the curse directed toward the woman.

In the 2016 edition of the ESV, Genesis 3:16 is translated: “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.’”

You may be asking, “Why did the ESV committee land on this language in 2016?”

Most arguments for this translation stem from a verb link between Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7. The verb teshuqah (desire) is used in both places. Yet, in Genesis 4:7, the verb is about sin’s desire for Cain. Whether sin wants to corrupt, consume, or defy Cain is left for the reader to interpret. Nonetheless, sin’s desire for Cain is presented as unwholesome.

I can understand why the ESV committee made this decision, given the biblical-theological impulse to link Moses’ words only a few lines apart. Still, I don’t feel there is enough for me to land there.

The phrase “your desire shall be contrary to your husband” is unique to the 2016 edition of the ESV and NLT (2015), yet the 2011 edition of the ESV reads, with virtually all other modern English translations, “Your desire shall be for your husband.”

I feel this is a responsible translation from the original Hebrew, and I’m glad the ESV Translating Oversight Committee is returning to the 2011 variant in 2025.

Once again, you may ask, “What’s the big deal?”

Well, this simple adjustment alters the meaning quite a bit. Will the curse of the woman entail a desire contrary to the man, or will it entail a desire for the man? Will women find themselves opposed and bent toward overriding or opposing men, or will they somehow wrestle with a sense of being drawn to men?

As you might imagine, the translation of this verse impacts the ongoing conversations about biblical masculinity and femininity.

Translation = Interpretation

The variant “contrary to” has been lobbied when discussing the rise of feminism in the modern world. Some look to the “contrary to” translation of Genesis 3:16 as a key citation, for they observe a universal sin tendency among women—grasping for power and usurping male leadership.

In other words, some would suggest that way of reading Genesis 3:16 explains why we have the Feminist Movement altogether and how it started at the beginning of things.

While I agree that feminism (in its extreme sense) is an outworking of sin (just as male domineering is an outworking of sin), I think the “contrary to” logic is problematic.

From my reading of many scholars and commentators, I feel most comfortable with Option A: “Your desire shall be for your husband” (2011/2025) rather than Option B: “your desire shall be contrary to your husband” (2016).

Here are a few reasons:

1) Option A is Textually Straightforward

Textual support from the original Hebrew and its earliest Greek translation suggests a vulnerability of the woman in the curse rather than a rising against her husband.

The use of “contrary” is a stretch for the original preposition—from a linguistic sense. “For” is the most straightforward and most obvious choice.

2) Option A is Thematically Straightforward

In the theological-narrative flow of the passage, the woman’s desire for her husband is tied to her pain in childbearing—an expression of vulnerability.

One commentator puts it this way (with my paraphrase), “even though childbearing is deeply painful, women continually long to be mothers, and therefore continually seek the assistance of a husband who may then abuse this vulnerability found in the woman.”

Whether or not that is an accurate reading, the emphasis is on vulnerability rather than a tone of usurping power.

3) Option A is Historically Rooted

Historical evidence shows that the translation “your desire will be contrary to your husband” was only introduced as early as the 1970s.

After reading some commentary snippets from the patristic period (AD 100-600), I feel good about this claim. In that era of time, “for” was widely accepted.

4) Option A is Historically Observed

There are centuries of evidence where staunch patriarchy in the household was the norm and, more often than not, an abuse of this patriarchy exemplified the outworking of the curse in non-Christian homes (see “but he shall rule over you” as 3:16 continues).

In our day—in the wake of the Industrial Revolution and the feminism movement—wives rising up against husbands is likely more common now than it has been in most households throughout history. We look to Ephesians 5 and Colossians 3 to see that the principle of husband-headship is right and good, and Paul saw it as a real problem in the 1st century.

Still, I think the emphasis in Genesis 3:16, theologically, is female vulnerability as part of the curse.

5) Option A is Theologically Accurate

The curse is meant to be universal, whereas the “contrary to” language implies a marriage relationship.

The relational authority experienced between men and women really only exists in two domains: the marriage covenant and the local church. To suggest a universality that women always attempt to usurp male authority also presupposes that men are always in charge of women, no matter the context. I don’t think we see that in Scripture.

Are men tasked with generally-universally protecting and sacrificing on behalf of women? Indeed so, and especially so in marriages and churches.

But the curse language seems to be broad-reaching, not narrowly focused.

The “contrary to” variant assumes a husband-wife dynamic. As such, this understanding limits the scope of the curse (making it only for married women), which doesn’t seem to accord with the man’s curse (thorns and sweat for all men, not just husbands).

The “for” variant suggests a universal plight among women that can be shared and experienced regardless of marriage or having children (provided we extend “pain in childbearing” to include emotional grief related to motherhood, loss, and childlessness).

6) Option B is Theologically Inconsistent

Finally, I find it inconsistent with the pattern of curses for God to have predisposed women toward a particular type of sin within his curse on Eve.

All other consequences wrought by the cursing affect circumstances of living—trials created by divinely appointed external forces (e.g., thorns, thistles, sweat, pain in childbearing, etc.).

God is not the author of evil, and it seems illogical for him to have architected a particular sin tendency among females.

The Really Important Question

Now, given all the debate and the challenges we see in all of this, can we really trust English translations like the ESV?

Short answer: YES

I want us to have strong confidence in our English translations. There’s no such thing as a perfect translation—a 1:1 equivalence—but that’s okay.

When ancient and far-away literature is carried across a cultural divide, something will slip off the cart now and then. But that which is lost is very minimal at best.

In all this, we must be reminded that all translation is interpretation. Not only do we depend on translators to merely filter the right words, grammar, and structure. We rely on them to understand what they’re translating and to convey the text in a way that makes sense to our English brains and is also theologically precise.

I love the ESV, and it is still my favorite and most trusted English translation. It is a faithful representation of the original manuscripts, which have no error or failure.

I’m thankful for this committee and continued efforts like theirs as we all aim for faithfulness together.