> If we tried your purposed (sic) wording, it just doesn't work logically. "...cursed are you out of all the livestock..."

"Cursed are you as separated out from the livestock." The serpent is cursed; the livestock are not. What the serpent did is out of the realm of what the animals did. It's a separate action with a separate consequence—a curse, actually. The animals are not cursed; the serpent is.

> I'm not sure why you would make a distinction here.

Suppose I'm the one who supplies the fresh produce to your restaurant. Suppose I do something bad, and my whole crop is wiped out by an enemy. My whole business is ruined. One consequence of my evil is that you, as the restaurant owner, will no longer have the supply of my goods. You are not cursed, but you are affected by my evil and my curse. But in a very different way. You just have to find a new supplier. For the time being you can continue to function without produce. There are options. As for me, my business is gone.

Back to Genesis: "the other animals were not cursed, though there was consequential effect on them because of what the serpent did."

> It makes much more sense to simply acknowledge that all creation is cursed.

There is no Scriptural teaching that all creation is cursed. We only teach what the Bible teaches; we don't add or subtract from it.

> I disagree with that premise. It doesn't implicate the animals.

If all the animals are cursed because of what the serpent did, then they ARE implicated in his sin. If the serpent is just curses more than ("above") the animals, then they are cursed because of what the serpent did, which is unjust.

> The text says explicitly that the curse is for our sake

Where does it say this? I surely don't see it.

> The term used is מִכָּל (mikal), which literally means "Out of; separate from." It is not a comparative signifying "more than." Instead, it means "out of (separate from) all the livestock and wild animals, YOU are cursed."

I don't think I could accept that translation as possible. All the most popular translations do not word it that way. The NKJV actually does word it as "more than."

If we tried your purposed wording, it just doesn't work logically. "...cursed are you out of all the livestock..." The serpent was not livestock. This wording doesn't make sense.

> the other animals were not cursed, though there was consequential effect on them because of what the serpent did.

I'm not sure why you would make a distinction here. It makes much more sense to simply acknowledge that all creation is cursed. The nature of animals' existence changed. They now experience death, they are at odds with God's creation, and they toil for survival. This wasn't so before Adam and Eve sinned. This seems like a textbook definition of a curse.

> Victor Hamilton writes, "It makes little sense to curse him above all cattle, for it implicates all the animals in the serpent’s sin.

I disagree with that premise. It doesn't implicate the animals. The text says explicitly that the curse is for our sake, not because of wrong doing on the animals' part.

The term used is מִכָּל (mikal), which literally means "Out of; separate from." It is not a comparative signifying "more than." Instead, it means "out of (separate from) all the livestock and wild animals, YOU are cursed."

Now, to be sure, we learn from Jer. 12.4 and Rom. 8.20 that all creation was affected by the deceit of the serpent and the disobedience of Adam & Eve, but the serpent was actually directly cursed in a distinct way from the effect on all creation. Only the serpent was cursed; the other animals were not cursed, though there was consequential effect on them because of what the serpent did.

Victor Hamilton writes,

"It makes little sense to curse him above all cattle, for it implicates all the animals in the serpent’s sin. What is imposed on the serpent is alienation from the other members of the animal world. The serpent was banned from them. This ban involves a unique form of locomotion: crawling on his belly (an expression of humiliation and subjugation). This posture will make him eat dust (symbolically). It matches his sin. He who tempted Eve to eat now will himself eat. He who was arum, “subtle; shrewd,” is now ‘aror, “banned; cursed.” The most subtle of all animals becomes the loneliest and oddest of them."

When the text says the serpent is cursed more than other animals, do you not take that to mean that the other animals were also cursed?

It is neither a curse nor a command/prescription. Only two things were cursed in Genesis 3: the serpent and the ground. Note the language carefully. Neither the woman nor the man were cursed.

God is telling them what changes have been made by their own grab for power. Instead of a spontaneous equality, husband and wife would have to produce it (their equality) by exertion. Derek Kidner writes,

"This phrase, with the reciprocating one that follows, portrays a marriage relation in which control has slipped from the fully personal realm to that of instinctive urges passive and active. 'To love and cherish' becomes 'to desire and to dominate.' Now the pull of sin will always be towards domination."

"...[A]nd he will rule over you" shows the corruption that has now entered their relationship. The wonder of marriage becomes a dysfunction of pride and power, competition and domination. Hierarchy will now be the reigning paradigm rather than the equality that God created and intends. This is not God's curse, but the inevitable consequence of them acting according to self-interest (Gn. 3.1-7). In our fallen world, those with power (typically males) will use their power to exploit and abuse those with less power (typically females and children). It is not license for male supremacy, but rather its condemnation. Subjugation and supremacy are perversions of creation.

Victor Hamilton writes,

"The wonder of marriage becomes a matter of domination. The relationship of equality is broken and it turns into one of servitude and domination."

"Your husband will rule over you" - is this a curse, or a command/prescription?

I've heard this verse cited as a way of reinforcing the view that husbands are supposed to be authority over their wives.

The problem, though, is that that verse is a curse. We never say, for instance, that Christian women should be banned from taking painkillers during childbirth because that curse verse said women would now suffer in childbirth as a result of the Fall. Nor would we ever say that pain in childbirth is a good thing. So why is the "your husband will rule over you" part considered to be a good thing?