Genesis 2.4b-9, 15-25, Luke 8.22-25
The Second Sunday before Lent, 24 February 2019
Austwick, Clapham, Keasden
I’m going to go where many men fear to tread today. I’m going to give you the ‘patriarchal’ reading of Genesis. Here it is:
Before feminism, everyone in the garden of Eden knew their place. At the top of the pyramid, even though the garden wasn’t in Egypt, was God. Under him was his under-gardener Adam, created to carry on the maintenance of the garden that the master-gardener had planted. On the next rung down, the pyramid having mutated to a ladder, came Eve, who had not originally been thought of, but had been created out of Adam as a ‘helper’ once all the animals had been paraded before Adam without a single helper being found among them. Beneath Eve were the animals, obviously unsatisfactory as helpers, but not in every respect inferior to her; for the cleverest of them has theological insight that Eve lacks. [1]
Well, the theologian Phyllis Trible calls the second chapter of Genesis ‘a love story gone awry’ [2], because our familiarity with this simple tale of origins has bred stereotypes, mistakes and contempt, and has nurtured the impression that male superiority and female inferiority is proclaimed as the will of God. She says,
It portrays woman as “temptress” and troublemaker who is dependent upon and dominated by her husband. Over the centuries this misogynous reading [became the accepted norm] so that those who deplore and those who applaud the story both agree on its meaning. [3]
So it’s commonly assumed that Genesis tells us that a male God creates first man and last woman; first meaning superior and last meaning inferior or subordinate. It’s assumed that Genesis tells us that woman is created for the sake of man, a helpmate to cure his loneliness. Genesis tells us that it is man who gives birth: that contrary to nature, woman comes out of man: she is denied even her natural function of birthing. As the rib of man, she is dependent on him for life; taken out of man, woman has derived from him, she has no autonomous existence. Man names woman and thus has power over her; man leaves his father’s family in order to set up through his wife another patriarchal unit so as to keep the male dominated world going. It is God’s world after all. And throughout most of scripture, God, as we know, is called a male.
But, hang on, what was that joke I heard those women say the other day? Why did God make Adam before Eve? Because everyone needs a rough draft before they make the final copy.
So can Genesis be read a different way? The book’s first chapter offers a contrast. In that creation story no distinctions of status or role are drawn between women and men; there, male and female are created in God’s image, together, and blessed, together.
There’s no doubt that that ‘Biblical religion is patriarchal’; ‘Hebrew literature ... comes from a male dominated society’. But surely our biblical faith doesn’t intend to divide people from each other but rather to offer salvation for both women and men. Surely it is possible ‘to translate biblical faith without sexism’. It is possible for Genesis to be ‘redeemed’ to a reading which challenges the sexist approach. [4]
So when we read that woman is created last we must remember that in the bible often the last is regarded as ‘first’. In Genesis 1 for instance, humankind is created last but is immediately given dominion over all other living things. Taking this line of reasoning, woman may be seen as the culmination of creation. Why did God make Adam before Eve? Saving the best till last. [5]
About the idea that woman is to be a helper, ‘while the English word helper suggests an assistant, a subordinate’, ‘the original Hebrew word ezer is often used to describe God, a superior who creates and saves Israel. So a ‘helper’ is not an inferior. In close translation Genesis here speaks of ‘a helper who is a counterpart’. This man-woman relationship is about ‘identity, mutuality, and equality’.[6]
While it is true that woman is taken from the man’s rib, it is not man who created woman, it is an act of God. For both man and woman ‘life originates with God’. When the man says ‘bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh’ he is not implying that woman is derived from him or subordinate to him but rather that woman shares equally with him and the dust of the ground in owing their origin to a ‘divine mystery’. [7]
And it may be a misreading of Genesis to assume that Adam named Eve. The text states that ‘she shall be called woman’. By contrast, when Adam named the animals in Genesis 1 he called them by name. Because the formula of the words is different in this instance, we can conclude that ‘in calling the woman, the man is not establishing power over her but rejoicing in their mutuality’. [8] Later on, Eve herself names her firstborn son. So naming is thus not only Adam’s prerogative. [9]
Maybe the most important words in this passage of Genesis are these: “It is not good that the man should be alone.” The whole passage can be read as an affirmation that God created us to be communal beings, a celebration of fellowship between people. It is good news today, at a time of growing loneliness in our world - a problem recently described by the prime minister, Theresa May as “incredibly damaging to our humanity” when she launched a national loneliness strategy, creating a government-backed fund to support projects across England which bring people together. [10]
“It is not good that the man should be alone.” - is the good news in Genesis Chapter 2. When you read into it deeply you realise that it goes way beyond reinforcing an ancient culture’s particular idea of marriage and family. It takes us into the realisation that ‘God created us to live with and for others. God has planted in each of us an instinctive longing to achieve a closer likeness to him, a longing that urges us toward love, community, and unity.’ [11] From this right through to Jesus’ two commands to love God and love our neighbours, the message is the same. ‘If we are filled with God’s love, we can never be lonely or withdrawn for long; we will always find someone to reach out to. God and our neighbour will always be near us. All we need to do is find them.’ [12]
Notes
This talk draws on my Ridley Hall Year Two external essay, Is Genesis 1-11 irredeemably sexist? [pdf]
[1] David J. A. Clines, What Does Eve do to Help? p.25
[2] Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p.72
[3] Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p.72. My paraphrase bracketed.
[4] Based on a summary of Phyllis Trible’s approach to biblical criticism in Clines p.26/27.
[5] Phyllis Trible, Depatriarchalizing in Biblical Interpretation’ (Journal of the American Academy of Religion 41, 1973) pp.30-48, quoted in Clines, p.27 [pdf]
[6] Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p.90
[7] Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p102
[8] Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, p.99-100
[9] Ilana Pardes, ‘The Politics of Maternal Naming’ in Athalys Brenner, ed, A Feminist Companion to Genesis, p.174
[10] Robert Booth, England to tackle loneliness crisis with £11.5m cash injection. Guardian, 22 December 2018.
[11] Johann Christoph Arnold, It Is Not Good for Man to Be Alone. Plough.com.
[12] Johann Christoph Arnold, It Is Not Good for Man to Be Alone. Plough.com.
Comments