I am teaching a class in Moore's Introduction to the Bible.
This week we are looking at one of my favourite sections: Genesis 1-11.
But there is a strange comment in the notes about the order of creation and its reversal in the fall. That is, in Genesis 2 you have a hierarchy of man, woman, creature; in the fall the problem is the woman listens to the creature and the man listens to the woman; and then in judgment, the right order is restored as God addresses man, woman, creature. I have heard this preached in sermons, read it in books and heard it bandied about as evidence of the order and the sin which is at root the upsetting of this order.
Only: in Genesis 2 we don't EVER see order established in this way! In fact, the creatures are made it seems before them both... It is a curious logic indeed.
30 comments:
What would have happened if the serpent had talked to Adam first? Would Eve have sinned in listening to her husband trying to convince her to eat the fruit?
Just thinking...isn't the order established a bit in 1:28 in terms of man over animal and then Gen 2:23 the order is established in terms of man/woman? Doesn't the fact that the animals were created before man just serve to highlight man as the pinnacle/climax of creation on day 6?
Gen 2 aside, doesn't the author want us to see an order reversal in 3:1-14, when contrasting Satan's address with God's address? Surely the weight of 3:1-14 alone warrants some investigation of a 'created order'? I'm a bit of coward when mixing with the 'big boys' so I'm asking rather than stating (maybe in a few years time I'll start stating!)
1.yes, the order of dominion is created, but applies to both genders in 1:28;
2.2:23 says nothing about order if we mean by that authority;
3. yes, I think so;
4: well yes, but what is meant by the order and its reversal? Is the sin in the reversal of the order as such or in the disobedience of God's command?
5. I am a very little boy! please feel free to state away!
The interesting NT passage is of course 1 Tim 2.
How do you account for the man being called to account in the garden and not the woman? And that corporately humanity sinned 'in Adam'?
Can't remember where I read it (will check my stuff at home) but it was suggested that the serpent targetted the woman in order to upset the good ordering of creation.
Gen 1 establishes the dominion of humanity - male and female over the animals. In Gen 2 we see that the cration of humanity is in 2 stages - man first, then woman. Man began the task of ruling and having dominion, shown for example in his naming of the creatures (a dominical act throughout the bible). Then woman is created as a helper fit for him. Very interesting that the woman is created specifically for the man and as a 'fit' for him. I'd argue this establishes an order of relationship between the man and the woman.
In blatant self-promotion, some of my thoughts on this are over at http://mandycurley.blogspot.com/2006/10/more-reflections-on-gendered-humanity.html
Is there any significance of the Man naming the woman in Gen 2:23 which is similar to what the Man did in v19?
The naming point is a good one. I am not sure of the relevance of the 'in Adam' point....
"Then woman is created as a helper fit for him. Very interesting that the woman is created specifically for the man and as a 'fit' for him. I'd argue this establishes an order of relationship between the man and the woman."
Depends what you mean: 'helper' is not a subordinate word. After all, God is called our helper too using the same expression. The rib also implies that if there is an order, there is an alongsideness between them.
I suppose the issue is: is the sin in the garden the disordering of the order, or something else?
Is Adam punished for listening to his wife per se, or is it for listening to what his wife said to do?
Well, if nothing else, sin distorts relationships - it impedes the ability of persons to relate rightly to each other, to the world and, especially to God. Whatever you think dominion means in Ch.1&2 it has now becomes toil in Ch.3, with a fairly strong element of trouble, strife and ultimately death.
The extent to which persons serve each other's freedom has certainly disappeared from the relationship between the man and the woman. The man certainly seems to act oppresively towards the woman and the woman is either self-destructively servile to the man or outwardly opposes him. In all the two of them still seem to be glad to be one flesh but the struggle will be between untiy and uniformity.
On what basis can you draw a distinction between the two alternatives?
Yep, there's the answer to your question, Micahel - the order in Genesis 2 is preached like that because of the naming.
Mike
who said Adam listens to Eve at all?
Gen 3.6 (ESV) says
"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."
You might imply Eve speaking to Adam but its not explicit. Given the carefully constructed narrative of Gen 3 we probably should be slow to 'imply the gaps'
What is there, and what I've never understood, is the curious introduction of Adam to the scene which you might think just involves the serpent and Eve... 'she also gave some to her husband who was with her'. Is this a later act? It doesn't sound like it. It reads more like Adam being silent. Does Eve say anything to Adam? Unlike Eve, he doesn't claim to have been deceived.(3.12-13) Should we picture him listening in to the serpent's spiel?
On another tangent, does the NT Adamic responsibility for sin take us down a gender-order tangent?
Is Adam punished for listening to his wife per se, or is it for listening to what his wife said to do?
I take it that you ask this question with Genesis 3:17 in mind?
Remembering that I am a non-evangelical trying to adopt a "evangelical friendly argument" and that I don't necessarily subscribe to the following position, I would suggest that eating the fruit must constitute part of the matrix of Adam's sin according to the text. This matrix may or may not also include the suggestion that Adam also sinned by listening to his wife, but I think it rather impossible to suggest that listening to Eve formed the sole basis of his judgment.
Well to answer you question about NT Adamic responsibility: no.
God does say to Adam 'because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree...'
Hmm. The naming: it's not an exactly explicit reference to authority, is it?
Just to add to the mix:
1) The collective naming of humanity "man" in Gen 1 is at the least suggestive, what Raymond Ortlund describes as "whispering" male headship.
2) Adam's naming of the animals implies an element of responsibility. It's legitimate to suppose there might be a parallel with his naming of Eve.
3) On Eve being made from the rib: this detail seems to matter in a particular way to Paul, for whom it forms the basis of his discussion of submission/headship in 1 Cor 11:8. It seems there is more than just "alongsideness" going on.
4) Adam's being made prior to Eve is, again, significant for Paul, providing his first reason for the restriction in 1 Tim 2:12.
5) It is hard to sidestep the double impact of
(i) God calling to Adam to account for what they had done (Gen 3:9, even though they were both together at this point), and
(ii) Paul's teaching that sin entered the world through Adam (though in fact Eve was the first to eat the fruit), and that in Adam all have sinned. Adam bears some sort of corporate responsibility for what both did.
6) In the context of the above, the rebuke to Adam for listening to Eve seems not to mean that to do so is wrong per se ("Husbands, do not listen to your wives", as though most husbands needed to be told!), but that Adam's listening was, in this instance, tantamount to abdicating his responsibility as head by letting Eve initiate their rebellion. (This seems, to me, to lie behind 1 Tim 2:14, which might otherwise seem to suggest that women are just more prone to being deceived.)
Well, many good points here: wish I had many good answers!
But: I do think Ortlund's point is specious.
Where is responsibility for the animals mentioned in Genesis 2?
And: it's worth asking - what IS Paul saying in 1 Cor 11 vis a vis order and authority? Is submission what it is about really? (not that it isn't of course)
Please, btw, take this as an exploratory discussion and not an adversarial debate; and thankyou for those who have contributed thus far.
How come specious? Ortlund's point is not knock-down, but it makes sense of what is something of an oddity in the text, and in a way that fits the later biblical teaching on gender. Again, it is suggestive, if not conclusive.
Yup, no direct mention of responsibility over animals, but again suggestive given the context of stewardship/authority over creation.
Dunno exactly what 1 Cor 11 is about, except to say that it involves headship between the man and the woman, and that this is in some way reflective of the headship of the Father over the Son within the trinity, and of the Christ over the church. The emphasis on women covering heads (which Paul derives from Eve having been made from Adam and not vice versa) is usually taken as a sign of submission to/honouring of the head. Where the angels fit into this (11:10) is anybody's guess...
Thanks for kicking off this discussion: am likewise thinking aloud here in anticipation that iron will sharpen iron.
Oooops. Sorry for that last post folks. Of course God said 'because you listened to your wife'. No more late night postings for me.
Romans 5 makes quite a point that it is Adam's trespass that leads to condemnation for all. If the heart of sin is reversal of the created order, then why not also nominate the action of Eve or for that matter the serpent? You could perhaps argue it is because of Adam's peculiar responsibility as head of the created order.
Another problem is making sense of the serpent in some man-woman-creature order. This is, I take it, no ordinary serpent. The rest of the bible's take on the identity of this serpent would seem to argue against identifying him as a representative of the animal kingdom as I think you are pushed to in some man-woman-creature schema.
How about jelly sharpening jelly? ;-)
I just think the Ortlund argument sounds like reading into the text trying to find more hierarchy/subordination than is actually there.
Yes, in 1 Cor 11 the women have a sign of authority on their heads: but whose exactly? Their authority perhaps (since it is they doing the speaking at that point)?
Does it help to see that when Adam names the animals in 2 he is acting like God who names aspects of the creation in 1 (God called the light 'day' etc.)? When we add this to Gen 1 description of humanity as image-bearers of God, part of which seems to involve dominion over the animals, it seems sensible to suggest that Genesis 2 is a manifestation of that dominion (which is presumably the task which Eve is created to help Adam with - rule of creation including the animals), and that Genesis 3 sees humanity failing abysmally in that dominion.
All the key elements of the temptation and fall in ch 3 seem to be a subversion of the creation in ch1-2.
Adam and Eve listen to a serpent not the creator (subverting his command of ch 2 and by implication ignoring the word of the one who creates with his word in ch1).
They doubt the effectiveness of God's word (you will not surely die) when God speaks in Gen 1 and it was so!
They doubt his provision which in 1-2 is bountiful and generous.
They grasp for god-likeness even though God has already crowned them with honour as his image-bearers.
They grasp for the ability to choose good and evil in rivalry to God, when God alone is able to make those kind of judgments (creation is 'good' and man's aloneness is 'not good'.
They obey a wild animal (why else is that highlighted in 3 vs. 1?)when they should've been exercising dominion over it.
The resultant curse is another reversal of the blessings of 1-2 (we should note the order in which these curses are given - serpent-eve-adam).
The care-dominion relationship between animals and humanity becomes marked by conflict.
Similarly the relationship between Adam and Eve, created as fitting partners, becomes marked by struggle and dominion and frustration.
The blessed task of caring for the land becomes toil.
Then of course life in God's garden becomes death outside it, death here being described in terms of an unravelling of creation - Adam goes back to dust!
So, IMHO, given that the chapter is full of such reversals of the elements of creation and eden-life, both in terms of the acts of temptation and sin itself and the consequent judgments, we are wise to seek significance in the fact that it is Eve whom the serpent speaks to, that it is Eve who gives some to her husband (a subversion of her task as helper?), that Adam is silent(given the importance in Genesis 1-2 of words and speaking in governance of creation).
An important parallel can be found in Genesis 16, which is something of a repeated Genesis 3 type fall for Abraham and Sarai. I have blogged all too briefly and inadequately about this at http://peteatcollege.blogspot.com/2006/09/abraham-sarai-de-ja-vu-christ.html
Hope this helps, stimulates etc. etc.
I think I would say therefore that sin seeks to (and is itself a subversion of) subvert or unravel the order/governance/right relationships of the original creation. It is, in Johannine terms, a preferenc for darkness over light. And that to some extent God's judgment is a giving over of humanity to the disorder we've plumbed for, right down to giving us death instead of life.
This of course means that salvation will mean a restoration of all that stuff, hence, I think, the prophetic (and certainly wisdom literature) sense of the kingdom of God as reign of righteousness - establishing a restoration of original creational order/relationships which begins with a reconciliation of the primary relationship between humanity and God. But that's going off subject a little, sorry.
Mike, on the sign of authority on the woman's head being possible a sign of her own authority, Paul tells us that by praying with her head uncovered (i.e. without this sign) she is dishonouring her head, which may mean not her physical head, but the man. This is also supported by Paul just a little later saying that the man is the image and glory of God, but the woman the glory of man (11:8).
Certainly don't claim to understand what all this means, but its interesting to note that while the woman is the glory of man she is not his image. Whatever distinctions Paul is drawing between the man and the woman, they seem not to threaten the foundational equality of both as made in the image of God. (Which we should have already deduced from the fact that the man/woman headship corresponds to the God-the-Father/God-the-Son headship: ontological equality yet functional differentiation.
An interesting further discussion might be whether this arrangement is exclusive to marriage, or whether it applies in some general sense to unmarried men and women. (I incline to the latter as the context seems to be talking in general, creational terms.)
On the nature of sin from the Genesis 3 episode: it's helpful to understand sin not just as some isolated, arbitrary decision to transgress a particular law, but as (to borrow from David Field) a radical disorientation. Life is integrated, and so any defiance of God turns out to be against not only him, but also nature, each other, and our own self. Our postmodern context often views life in a piecemeal, bitty way: life consists of various non-related areas, and so behaviour in one bit has no consequences in any other (think of the lifestyle in Friends). Genesis 3 is an open challenge to that kind of worldview. (Sorry if that takes us a little too far from where we began.)
Well, both Pete and Sam have taken us far, but it was worth the journey!
I am little wary of seeing Gen 1 and Gen 2-3 as thematically connected in the way you have done Pete, seeing that Gen 1 was probably written after Gen 2-3... Which is to say, the themes in 2-3 are most likely not deliberate echoes of 1, though as the text falls that way canonically we could read it like that.
The care-dominion relationship between animals and humanity becomes marked by conflict.
Similarly the relationship between Adam and Eve, created as fitting partners, becomes marked by struggle and dominion and frustration.
hmm: so Adam's relationship to Eve is not one of dominion: but rather dominion when it creeps into this relationship is a mark of the curse...?
I think I meant 'domination', i.e. I was using dominion in a way different to Genesis 1. I was thinking of Genesis 3:16b.
On that note however, it is interesting to think about why the dominion word is used in Genesis 1 but never (as far as I know) used of the husband-wife relationship. This does imply we the kind of authority exercised in the marriage is different to that exercised by humanity over creation. However, this is not problematic for a complementarian view as far as I can see because
a. I don't think anyone would suggest (or indeed has) that the kind of authority the husband is to exercise over his wife is exactly the same as that which humanity is to exercise over the animals.
b. This does not however negate there being an authority/submission element in the relationship. Scripture recognises different kinds of authority and different kinds of submission - note Ephesians 5:21-6:9 where the command to submit to one another is applied to three sets of relationships. The authority exercised in each 'pair' is different as is the submission exercised (wives are to submit, children are to obey) and yet there is still a general pattern/order.
c. The relationships within Genesis 1-3 are a further illustration of the point I'm trying to make in b. The relationship of authority which humanity has over the animals is not the same as the relationship of authority which God has over humanity. And yet this does not deny that there is such a relationship and that this relational order is subverted in the fall.
I think I would want to say that Adam and Eve are to exercise authority over the world together, and yet the way in which they do that is shaped by the priority of Adam being created and receiving the word of the LORD first. In their joint task of governing creation Adam should have provided leadership, as should have Abraham, as should Christian husbands now. We see this order subverted in the Genesis 3 fall, along with the other (differing but in some respects similar) authority-relationships of Genesis 1-2.
'...though as the text falls that way canonically we could read it like that.'
I think this is a crucial point you make. In the mind of the final redactor(s)/compiler(s) of Genesis, whatever sources they may or may not have used, Genesis 3 echoes things we find in Genesis 1 (and 2). Or put another way, perhaps they wrote/inserted Genesis 1 because it provided echoes of the fall narrative!
Assuming intelligence and design in the canonical form of Genesis means our job is not to try and exegete the hypothetical meaning in the different hypothetical sources (I say hypothetical not because I doubt the reality of sources but because I think deciding which bits go with which source is a vexed process and experience would suggest the more we try and do it the more fragmented a view of our texts we end up with).
Is the word 'authority' ever used? Why is authority such a strong theme here?
So, there is not a hierarchy man-woman-beast then, because the relationships are of different character... hmm.
The Gen 1 and Gen 2 relationship argt only has significance for me in that they don't appear to refernce one another at all, so cross-referencing them seems a little weird. They are laid almost alongside one another.
The absence of a word doesn't necessarily imply that the concept is not present. Authority is such a big deal because on the one hand it is what complementarians are trying to affirm and on the other hand it is precisely what egalitarians are trying to deny.
Grudem makes 10 arguments showing male headship before the fall (ie that authority exists in Gen 2) in Evangelical Feminism and Biblical Truth, that I think on the whole are pretty convincing. I'll summarise them here in the hope it will help the discussion.
1. The order - Adam first, then Eve. This is seen as especially significant given that Paul uses the order of creation to ascribe different roles to men and women in 1 Tim 2:13-14.
2. The representation - Adam, not Eve has a special role in representing humanity (1 Cor 15:22). This takes on significance in the parallel between Adam and Christ (1 Cor 15:45-9 and Rom 5:12-21).
3. Naming - one who has authority is able to name another, therefore Adam's role in naming Eve indicates some form of authority over her.
4. the name of the human race - God named the human race 'Man'. Man can refer to a male human being as well as the human race as a whole, 'which gives a hint of male leadership'.
5. Primary accountability - God spoke to Adam after the Fall. Adam was called to account for what had happened because Adam had primary responsibility.
6. Purpose - Eve is created as a helper for Adam, not Adam for eve. this does not indicate indderiority of eve but that she is fit for him, correspondeing to him, equal to him. As Paul affirms in 1 Cor 11:9, woman is created for the sake of man.
7. Conflict - the curse of the fall brought a distortion of previous roles, not the introduction of new roles. Work now toilsome, bhilbirth now painful, relationship between man and woman now one of domination and usurping rather than loving leadership and submission.
8. Restoration - salcation in Christ reaffirms the creation order. Col 3:18-19 husbands are to love and not be harsh, wives are to submit. The creation order is restored.
9. Mystery - the relationship of Adam and Eve represented teh relatiohosip between Christ and the Church. This relationship is not culturally variable and not reversible. Headship belongs to christ and submission to the church. Similarly, in marriage as ordained by God the husband has a leadership role the wife does not have, a role that was there from the beginning.
10. Parallel with teh trinity - equality, difference and unity between men and women reflect the equality, differences and unity in the Trinity. Difference does not imply inferiority.
No the word authority is never used. But that means the word isn't used of the relationship between God and humanity either in genesis 1-3, and yet that's clearly taught in the text (and expounded from it elsewhere in the scriptures).
The relationship doesn't have to be an equally balanced hierarchy of man-woman-beast for their to be clearly ordered relationships. see my point above re. differing types of authority relationship.
Hence I'd rather talk about the ordered relationships set out in Genesis 1-2 than draw up a linear hierarchy. Humanity are in authority ove the beasts but under the authority of God. Humanity are also, under God, in dominion over the whole earth (or are to tend the garden in Gen 2 language). Then within humanity it is clear there is priority/ordering/differing responsibilities and roles and levels of accountability. All of these ordered relationships are upset by the fall narrative - the serpent persuades humanity to rebel against God, and additionally this event happens in such a way that the order within humanity is subverted. Similarly all of these relationships then come under the pronouncement of curse.
Also, even if Genesis 1 and 2 do not cross-reference one another (which I think starts to appear a dubious assertion if one includes 3 in the same narrative as 2) but ar merely juxtaposed, I think this in and of itself justifies reading of the two narratives in the light of one another, otherwise why are they juxtaposed? The writer of Genesis (or final redactor) must surely be inviting us to read them in an integrated way, reflecting on how the disordering and unravelling of life in 3 relates to the ordering of 1, and how the micro-picure of 2 relates to the macro of 1 and so on?
well fair enough perhaps on the relations between 1 and 2-3...
but can you really use the word 'clearly' here? You can infer from the text this teaching, but you and Mandy have not pointed to explicit statements but rather to structural features, or echoes or allusions... haven't you? The word authority is not used - by which I mean to say that the nature of Adam and Eve's relationship is not given much description in terms of authority at all.
Like I say, I am pushing the question rather than subscribing to an egalitarian position on this.
Hmmm. This is good, making me think. :)
I guess it relates to the wider issue of how narrative (although what sort of narrative we have in genesis 1-3ff. is a large question in and of itself) teaches.
For my money, the fact that genesis 1-3 (and beyond) is so highly structured is a clue to the fact that we're supposed to try and read implications (albeit carefully) from the structure of the narrative. Then, if we arrive at conclusions which seem to fit with other places where the bible interprets these narratives, we can be all the more confident about the initial implications we've drawn. As I study hebrew I am more convinced of this way of approaching OT narrative - the truth lies in the nuances and the details as well as in the big picture (although I am by no means any kind of authority on hebrew, the 'L' plates are still firmly in place).
Given this, the ordering of the Gen 2 creation account, the order of gen 3 serpent episode and the ordering of the 'curse/judgment' which follows must have some significance. To my mind the options then become whether God in the scriptures means us to learn something about relations within humanity or whether this is merely an example of some sort of accomodation to cultural norms on God's part. This second option leaves me with more questions than the first (though there are questions connected to the first as well - are we meant therefore to read apporvingly of all the elements of patriarchy described in the OT?).
Well indeed. One thing strikes me too: in our wrangling about who is in charge questions we often miss the delight and wonder that is sexual difference. We are so het up about who can and can't do whatever and who is in authority over who that we miss the gift-ness of it!
Post a Comment