Area 9 of questioning
The Garden of Eden story and gender bias, promoting male domination.
Part of the Hebrew tradition treats women as second class citizens when compared with men. This, of course, is no different to most, if not all other cultures both of the West and the East, over the centuries. Tragically it is still prevalent today in nearly all areas of human civilization. I believe, that for the church, this different status of men and women begins with the second story of creation and is confirmed in the Garden of Eden myth. This different status continues through to the New Testament and is a significant aspect of 1st Century culture as well as today.
It seems to me that Hebrew discrimination against females is enshrined in many of their ancient laws of purity and their civil law as expounded in Leviticus and other early biblical books. An example is in Leviticus.
The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the people of Israel, If a woman conceives, and bears a male child, then she shall be unclean seven days; as at the time of her menstruation, she shall be unclean. ….. Then she shall continue for thirty-three days in the blood of her purifying; she shall not touch any hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying are completed. But if she hears a female child she shall be unclean for two weeks, and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying for sixty-six days. (Leviticus 12:1-5.)
This law continues with the requirement that the mother should bring an offering, a burnt offering and make atonement for herself. It is after this she will be clean. There are no parallels or similar requirements for the father of the child. There are probably some traditional health reasons for these sorts of laws and customs but the discrimination is obvious to me, and it is spelt out in other ancient Hebrew religious rituals and practices. Some New Testament writers continue this discrimination, forbidding women to teach or even speak in church, see 1 Corinthians 14:34. Tragically this continues in certain parts of the church today where women are forbidden to occupy certain positions of responsibility, e.g. no women priests.
I have been taught that, in the Hebrew tradition, adultery was not really considered a crime against a woman. It was considered a crime against another man, taking liberties with another man’s possession, his wife. In the last commandment of the 10, a wife is listed with other possessions owned by the man. Sure the wife is named first but his ox and ass are listed as well, and the commandment concludes with ‘anything that is your neighbour’s’.
I continue to learn a great deal from my grandchildren. My eldest granddaughter, 18 year old Rahni Stuart-Crone has just completed an assignment for her final year in High school. She did amazingly well and, having read it, I can understand why. It was a research project on her chosen topic in the subject of Society and Culture. She chose:
The Surname: To Change or Not To Change? That is the Question.
How attitudes towards marriage naming traditions reflect empowerment, conflict and cooperation at the micro, meso and macro levels of society.
– the custom in our culture for the female to change her family name from the one she inherited from her parents to that of the male she is to marry.
I quote from her Conclusion. She states that she attempted
to understand the origin of surname changing customs and how they influence women’s identity within society. However, through the process of this project, I have learnt that the issue of surname changing in Western marriages is something that not only impacts the perceptions of women but also of men and is the result of long-standing traditions evolved from historical patriarchal structures. I also discovered that it is not a simple binary choice, but a complex issue with not one definite solution.[1]
With the influence, down the centuries, of the Christian church in Western culture, I believe the church has been an active party encouraging these ‘long-standing traditional’ pejorative emphases, embracing the ‘historical patriarchal structures’. In its previously standard marriage liturgy and/or sacrament with the father of the bride ‘giving’ her away to the would-be husband, I believe the idea of ownership was symbolised. I can still remember my father-in-law saying to me when he came down the aisle with Wendy, saying to me, “Well she’s all yours now, mate.” I accepted his humour and 60 years ago neither myself nor Wendy found it offensive nor was it meant to be so. However, symbols can be powerful and I believe this was symbolic of the way many people thought and sadly some still do. I now find this unhelpful, even misogynistic. For the Christian church I think this has its seeds in Bible teachings. I am very pleased I cannot find it in any current Christian wedding liturgy and that the church has changed such liturgies. Sadly much damage has been done in the past.
I have been told by a student of Hebrew history and culture that there was a prayer recommended for males to say at the beginning of each day.
Lord, I thank thee that I was created a male and not a female.
I hope and trust that this prayer is not prayed today by anyone. I don’t know.
There are Old Testament laws which give protection to adult women who had become widows but I perceive these to be in place because such a woman had to be protected because she was the possession of neither her husband nor her father. If she was not protected by a male who owned her, she would be vulnerable, to be used by any other male for whatever purpose. In a way, I suppose this could be considered as discrimination in favour of the female gender. It certainly doesn’t speak well of male behaviour. Can men just use women as they wish if they are not owned by another male?
I reject this gender bias in all other cultures as well as my own. I reject it utterly when it rears its head in church regulations and structures.
So to the story of the Garden of Eden.
And the Lord God planted a garden in Eden, to the east; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to till and keep it. And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, “You may freely eat of every tree of the garden but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for the day that you eat of it you shall die.”
Now the serpent was more subtle than any other wild creature that the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden? And the woman said to the serpent, “We mat eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die.’ But the serpent said to the woman, “You shall not die. For God knows that when you eat of it, your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” 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, and he ate. Then the eyes of both were opened, and they knew that they were naked; and they sewed fig leaves together and made themselves aprons.
And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, “Where are you?” And he said, “I heard the sound of thee in the garden, and I was afraid, because I was naked; and I hid myself.” He said, “Who told you that you were naked? Have you eaten of the tree of which I commanded you not to eat?” The man said, “The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” Then the Lord God said to the woman, “What is this that you have done? The woman said, “The serpent beguiled me and I ate.”
The Lord God said to the serpent:
Because you have done this,
Cursed are you above all cattle and above all wild animals
Upon your belly you shall go, and dust you shall eat all the days of your life.
I will put enmity between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed;
And he shall bruise your head and you shall bruise his heel.”
And to the woman he said,
“I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing;
In pain you shall bring forth children,
Yet your desire shall be for your husband,
And he shall rule over you.
And to Adam he said,
“Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
And have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, ‘You shall not eat of it.’
Cursed is the ground because of you;
In toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
Thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat the plants of the field.
In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground,
For out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return.”
The man called his wife’s name Eve, because she was the mother of all living. And the
Lord God made Adam and his wife garments of skins, and clothed them.
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever” – Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from which he was taken. He drove out the man; and at the east of the Garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned every way, to guard the way to the tree of life. Genesis 2:8-9, 15-17 and 3:1-24.).
I look at this story regarding a couple of aspects of it and then at its gender bias.
The first thing to mention is that there are two trees mentioned in the story; something that often goes unnoticed. There is the tree of ‘the knowledge of good and evil’ as well as the tree of ‘life’.
The woman looked at the tree of the ‘the knowledge of good and evil’.
…it was good for food, that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit and ate.. (Genesis 3:6.)
So she took the fruit and ate it. In the story she knew that the Lord had forbidden them to eat the fruit. Apparently, Adam must have told her so. That should have been enough. The serpent in conversation with her said that she would be like God if she ate. Was this the reason she ate? It is not mentioned as such in the text but I think it is not an unreasonable interpretation to think so. She was being disobedient but I do not see anything actually wrong with the stated reasons in the text that gave rise to her eating. It was good for food. It looked nice. It was desired to make one wise. These stated reasons at face value, seem to me to be not unreasonable, for eating. However, she was being disobedient and, for me, that overrides all other considerations.
Knowing good and evil is what enables human beings to be moral creatures. Yet the Lord is portrayed in the myth as saying that this knowledge will give rise to death. Without this knowledge I think humans would be less than human. Knowing good from evil makes humans responsible for their behaviour. What is wrong with that? Does it give rise to death? Did the Lord want us to be puppets, not knowing good from evil? It might appear so because of the command not to eat. It seems very strange to me that the Lord wants to withhold the knowledge of good and evil. It makes no sense to me at all, not even in story form. I think most regular church-goers might think the same if they ask questions of the story.
Then there is the business of dying. The Lord speaks to the man.
…in the day that you eat of it you will die. (Genesis 2:17.)
The man and the woman both eat the fruit but neither die that day. What is going on? Is the Lord deceiving them? Is the Lord saying something that was not true? On the surface, it would seem so. Is the Lord instilling fear to bring about the desired behaviour? Despite the Lord God’s warning, death did not eventuate. They did not die in the day they ate. In the story, I think the Lord’s behaviour was, to say the least, a little strange. There could be more than one meaning to the word ‘die’ but that is not evident to me in the text. I might be under-informed at this point. I think most other regular church-goers would be as well.
Now, to what I see as the gender bias of the story.
Terence Fretheim, Professor of Old Testament in the Lutheran Northwestern Theological Seminary, Minnesota, USA, gives 10 pages of commentary and reflection to this story. He argues that there is a partnership of Adam with Eve in the story.
That the woman plays the lead role in the transgression and the man in the inquest may suggest an interest in balance.[2] Whereas the woman functioned as the dialogue partner in Genesis 3:1-5, the man serves that function in Genesis 3:9-12. Hence the author creates a certain balance between them in the whole story.[3]
He also argues that Eve is not a temptress by emphasising the ‘partnership’ theme.
The woman takes some of the fruit and gives it to her husband. As a silent partner “with her” throughout this exchange, the man puts up no resistance, raises no questions, and considers no theological issues; he simply and silently takes his turn. The woman does not act as a temptress in this scene; they both have succumbed to the same source of temptation. They stand together as “one flesh” at this point as well.[4]
For me, this commentary is somewhat unconvincing.
Proponents of gender inequality have used this story very effectively. The woman has been regarded as the temptress of Adam in much of the story’s interpretation down the centuries. I agree and so I am surprised that Fretheim, quoted above, states that she was not. If I give something to someone, I am surely suggesting to them that they take it and do with it what is appropriate. I am presenting them with an option. Surely this is what temptation is all about.
The punishment given by the Lord God to the man is prefaced by a statement from the Lord God.
Because you have listened to your wife… (Genesis 3:17.)
What did she say? We are not told in the story. But it would have been absurd to think she would have said, “This is the forbidden fruit so don’t eat it.” What other implication of the Lord God’s statement can be understood than, “You sinned, or at least were foolish, because you listened to the woman?” The tempter or temptress does not commit the sin but they present the opportunity to begin the process. Adam began his downward slide by listening to the woman. Not very complimentary for the woman. Does this give me valid reason for not to listening to my wife?
I find it very disappointing that Fretheim makes no mention, in all his 10 pages, of this statement by the Lord God. I personally find this omission very disappointing and somewhat significant. Was it too difficult to address?
The portrayal of Eve makes this part of the story quite objectionable for me. I believe that with a common sense approach to the story, Eve was a temptress and as such, the story is sexist. Certainly the writer of the books of Timothy, some hundreds of years after the origins of the Genesis story, took its teachings as Eve being the sinner, deceived and the transgressor. Adam seems to be dealt with far more leniently. A New Testament passage certainly states this.
…and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became the transgressor. (1 Timothy 2:14.)
I hear what the author of the Books of Timothy is saying and I acknowledge the context in which he is teaching, but the interpretation/teaching the writer gives, is totally unacceptable to me, both for then and today.
Incorporated in punishment to Eve there is an unambiguous statement of male dominance.
He shall rule over you… (Genesis 3:16b.)
I believe this gives permission for later interpreters, as well as those who read the text as presented, to justify an attitude of superiority of the male of humanity. Fretheim, quoted above, has something to say about this.
The “rule” of the man over the woman is part and parcel of the judgement on the man as much as the woman. [5]
Having read his whole commentary and reflection on this story, I cannot see that he gives any real justification for this conclusion, but it fits well with the general thrust of his approach and his emphasis on partnership.
A major concern I have with this story is not that the man and the woman are expelled from the Garden of Eden but that they were never to return, ever. The man and I presume the woman, cannot be trusted. They are never to return. The expulsion is final and permanent. In the myth the Lord made this quite certain.
…and at the east of the garden of Eden he placed the cherubim and a flaming sword which turned evert way, to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:24b.)
This blocked any future re-entry to the garden. Well that’s not quite what the story says. It says that the ‘way to the tree of life’ is ‘guarded’. Does that mean that coming back into any part of the garden is impossible? The myth does say that the Lord ‘sent him forth from the garden’ and
So the Lord God drove him out of the Garden of Eden to till the ground from which he had been taken. (Genesis 3:23.)
The New English Bible says, ‘drove him out’ and ‘cast him out’. I think it not an unreasonable interpretation of all this to mean that the man and the woman are expelled permanently for the whole garden. I don’t think it is reasonable to interpret this as being expulsion from only part of the garden. If an interpretation is made that the man might sneak back into the garden some other way, avoiding the way to the tree of life, I think that is born from a hidden agenda of wanting to paint the Lord God being less strict and the expulsion being less than total. This interpretation holds no water for me.
It has been stated to me that the expulsion from the Garden was an act of grace by the Lord. The Lord knew what was best for Adam and Eve so the Lord prevented the possibility of them living for ever because living for ever in a fallen state would be unbearable. This interpretation also holds little water for me because it seems rather obvious to me that the Lord is protecting the Lord God’s own superiority. I use the New English Bible translation.
He (the Lord) said, “The man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil; what if he now reaches out his hand and takes fruit from the tree of life also, eats it and lives forever?” So the Lord God drove him out of the Garden of Eden…..He (the Lord) cast him out, and to the east of the Garden of Eden he stationed the cherubim and a sword whirling and flashing to guard the way to the tree of life. (Genesis 3:22-24.)
‘Knowing good and evil’ as well as ‘living for ever’ seem from the story, to be two qualities of being that the Lord God does not wish to share with humans. They seem to be significant regarding the Lord God’s superiority. The man ‘has become like one of us’, like the Lord God, by gaining the first quality of being. The second quality of being must be withheld at all costs. My interpretation, I know, but it seems logical. The Good News Bible has reason for the expulsion stated clearly.
He must not be allowed to eat fruit from the tree of life, and live forever. (Genesis 3:22.)
‘So’ in both the New English Bible and the Good News Bible, or ‘Therefore’ in the Revised Standard Version, the Lord took decisive action. This surely indicates the reason behind the expulsion. God and humanity must ‘live’ in different zones; separate.
I believe about 100% of regular church-goers would say that the reason for the expulsion was punishment for disobedience. That is what I and other church-goers have been taught. This is not what the story says.
The myth states that the Man is expelled permanently so that he (and she) will never eat from the tree of Life and live for ever. Punishments for disobedience are detailed a bit earlier in the myth.
There are other ways of looking at this myth, some more recent interpretations. Like some other origin myths, this myth can be considered as answering the question “How do humans become different from the gods?” After questioning the authority of the Lord God, the humans then go to live in their world, tilling the soil. The gate is shut, not as punishment but as a barrier for them ever to enter the world of the gods, where they don’t belong. Just like a human family, when children challenge the rules laid down by parents and then move out to find their own way in the world. I find this interpretation rather unconvincing in that it does not take into account the fact that, in the myth, Adam and Eve are driven out by the Lord God. They did not move out. They were kicked out by the Lord God. This particular act of the Lord God, I believe points to an important message within the myth as it is told in Genesis, as taught in the history of the church, and as taught to me. It is about God’s relationship with me and the rest of humanity. It certainly has links to my growing up, looking to spread my wings and the propensity of humans to want to take complete control, but, for me, the action of the Lord God in ‘casting out’ Adam and Eve is crucial. This was the Lord God’s deliberate and decisive action. The ending of this story, the permanent expulsion from the Garden, has featured large in the history of the church. ‘The story of the Fall’ is a very common term used over the years, to identify this story. It is a story about the disobedience of humans, the first sin, the ‘Fall’ of humanity.
In my experience of the church, Paradise has been equated with the Garden of Eden and Heaven. Heaven is where God is. I believe it is understood by many regular church-goes that because of this permanent expulsion from Paradise there has been a complete and continuing separation from the presence of God. This could be changed only by the death of Jesus on the Cross. There has to be a reconciliation. This is the past teaching from the church I have received. I despair.
I find the Koran has a more balanced way of telling this story of the Garden of Eden. The Koran accepts that the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, as Holy Scripture, even if it does not give it equal value or authority as it gives to the Koran itself. It tells this story.
And We said: O Adam! Dwell thou and thy wife in the Garden, and eat ye freely (of the fruits) thereof where ye will; but come not nigh this tree lest ye become wrong-doers.
But Satan caused them to deflect therefrom and expelled them from the (happy) state in which they were; and We said: Fall down, one of you a foe unto the other! There shall be for you on earth a habitation and provision for a time. Then Adam received from his Lord words (of revelation), and He relented toward him. Lo! He is the relenting, the Merciful. (Sura 2:35-37.) (‘We’ and ‘He’ are both pronouns for Allah often used in the Koran.)[6]
Aysha Hidayatullah when giving commentary on the story, states:
And then we actually move to the story of Adam and Eve. What we find is that there is no indication that Eve was created from a rib of Adam. She is not secondary or a derivative creature. That she was created of the same source that Adam was, that she was not supposed to be simply the helpmate for Adam…..She was not created from Adam or for Adam. One of the other things we learn is that Eve does not figure as a kind of temptress either. You see that both Adam and Eve being responsible for a transgression in eating from the tree, and both committing that transgression and both actually being forgiven that transgression.[7]
I find the Koran story far more acceptable than the story as told in the Bible, and certainly better than the New Testament interpretations/quotations from the Timothy and Colossians, stated previously.
I realise the Bible has another perspective and this is stated also in Genesis from the first creation myth.
So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. (Genesis 1:27.)
This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he created him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when he created them. (Genesis 5:1-2.)
For me, even though these two quotations point to an equality of male and female, they do not adequately compensate for, what I believe is the sexist content of the biblical story of the Garden of Eden. I suppose it depends to an extent, on one’s presuppositions when reading.
So what for me now?
A lot of ‘clearing out’. I do not see enough in the biblical story of the Garden of Eden to entice me to retain it. There are the important lessons about wanting to hide when we know we have done wrong, about very quickly blaming others when found out, as well as wanting to make one’s own decisions regardless, but my journey with Jesus would have been better off without this story. There are also lessons about God’s concern in this second creation myth but this is abundantly evident in Jesus’ teachings. The church’s use of this story over the centuries and presently, confirms this for me.
This story plays no part or influence in my beliefs about God’s relationship with humanity and with me personally. It also plays no part in my attitude to the female sex, or indeed my relationship with my wife. I believe it leads in a direction away from Jesus. I find some helpful instruction in the story about my behaviour but I know about this if I take mindful recognition of how I am tempted, how I respond when being found guilty and when making some decisions. Other sources, particularly the teachings of Jesus, guide me in this.
Many ways the church has used this story down the centuries, are, I think, deplorable. I ‘faithfully reject’ this myth. but I do this with some reluctance because there are salutary lessons about the self-interest behaviour of humans and the caring nature of God which I find helpful but the permanent expulsion from the garden is diametrically opposite to my panentheistic beliefs make the rejection necessary.
What I see as the gender bias is a very serious problem, and rightly so, for a growing number of women and men who are members of the church.
In this area of my discipleship I have to ‘Start all over again’ and I have to be careful to continue along this path. My grandchildren know nothing of this story and I am not going to introduce it to them. For me, a major aspect of this myth points in the wrong direction, away from Jesus’ teaching.
Having said all this, I also need to say that within my church experience I have been taught and encouraged in many positive ways regarding gender equality. I remember how Jesus gave equal respect to both men and women and I remember and treasure some other biblical teachings.
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28.)
However, there are other Bible quotes which I choose to reject.
Wives, be subject to your husbands; that is your Christian duty. (Colossians 3:18.)
A woman must be a learner, listening quietly and with due submission. (1 Timothy 2:11.)
Bid the older women likewise to be reverent in behaviour, not slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, and so train the young women to love their husbands and children, to be sensible, chaste, domestic, kind, and submissive to their husbands, that the word of God may not be discredited. (Titus 22:3-5.)
Notice how this quote from Titus links behaviour with ‘the word of God’ in order to give it more weight and a status of absolute authority. Unfortunately, this still happens in the church today.
In the business of ‘clearing out’, I find some teachings in the New Testament quite obnoxious.
Yet woman will be saved through bearing children if she…’ (1 Timothy 2:15.)
Where does this leave women who, for physical or genetic reasons, find it impossible to have children, or who have decided for their own reasons not to have children? They don’t need this sort of disgraceful misogynous comment lumped onto them from a book that is claimed to be ‘sacred’. I think there might be a message for me, in that, this passage is the only one in the complete copy of the Revised Standard Version of the Bible I have, which has been moth-eaten. Thank you moths. You have done a good job.
These latter quotes seem to be more specific when compared with the earlier one, but together they demonstrate to me very clearly, how the Bible can be quoted to suit one’s prejudice and previously decided attitude. I know I do this as well, so I have to be careful not to dismiss others who do the same thing but come to a different conclusion. I can question, even disagree vehemently, with their ideas and beliefs, saying that I believe they are terribly harmful, but I still respect others as people with their right to a different interpretation.
Coming from a different age and a different culture, I think it might be as well to leave some of the Bible where and when it was created, especially when dealing with certain matters of current concern. Some, but certainly not all biblical teaching should endure. This myth of the Garden of Eden together with the second myth of creation, lead me down the track which I believe is quite unhealthy. I reject these myths. They are not helpful for me on my journey with Jesus. I hang on fiercely to,
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. (Galatians 3:28.)
[1] Stuart-Crone, Rahni, email, rahni.stuart.crone16@iclond. com
[2] Terence Fretheim, The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, Volume 1, 359
[3] Ibid, 362
[4] Ibid, 361
[5] Terence Fretheim, The New Interpreter’s Bible Commentary, Volume 1, 363.
[6] Aysha Hidayatullah in a DVD series from Living the Questions, The Jesus Fatwah.
[7] Ibid, The Jesus Fatwah.