Genesis 3:16 ESV Part 2 Looking deeper into the word “contrary” H413.
16 To the woman he said, “I will surely multiply your pain (H6093) in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be contrary (H413) to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”
Note two different Hebrew words used in verse translated ‘pain’: Gen3v16pain
PAIN: H6093 – ‘”labor or pain – sorrow, toil” H6089 (grievous, idol, labor, sorrow)
Note how used in Genesis 4:7 ESV
7 If you do well, will you not be accepted? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary (H413) to you, but you must rule over it.”
God points out that there was a conflict within Cain.
Note the term: is contrary to you, el H413 is used.
3:16 your pain The Hebrew word used here is also used to describe Adam’s punishment: He will work the ground in pain. The original tasks given to both Adam and Eve (tending to creation, and being fruitful and multiplying) now involve great difficulty because they live outside Eden (Gen 1:28; 3:24). Compare note on 2:18.
Your desire shall be for your husband The Hebrew word used here, teshuqah, occurs elsewhere only twice (4:7; Song 7:10). In the Song of Songs the term seems to indicate sexual desire, but that meaning does not work well in this context. In Gen 4:7 the word connotes desire to control or desire to conquer (compare note on 4:7). (Faithlife Study Bible)
H413 = אֵל ʾêl, ale; (but used only in the shortened constr. form אֶל ʾel, el); a prim. particle, prop. denoting motion towards, but occasionally used of a quiescent position, i.e. near, with or among; often in general, to:—about, according to, after, against, among, as for, at, because (-fore, -side), both … and, by, concerning, for, from, × hath, in (-to), near, (out) of, over, through, to (-ward), under, unto, upon, whether, with (-in).
Denoting a conflict within….
You have been posed with the question: Why did the ESV version use the word “Contrary” and other translations used as in the NASB:
Here the word “el”(H413) is translated “For” and noted a different sort of conflict is presented, that of “eh will rule over you”…
It leaves the question that the woman would be in ‘conflict’ with her husband, yet he would rule over her. There still is ‘a rub’ going on between the two parties.
WHAT do you think?
Bottom line still is that the husband has been commanded to “Love
his wife” as the overall outcome of such conflict with her (persons). I believe there would be a ‘conflict’
generated between both parties. Yet God
provides the solution to it by stating for the man to love his wife. Love is an ‘action’ controlled by thought and decisions of our
mine. The “agape” for of love is required
by the husband.