my exam. There are many references missing as I don't have time to go
into that much detail simply for exam prep. I certainly did not read
the bible and come up with this on my own, but thought it might be of
interest!
Male Female Relationship in
Genesis 1 to 11.
___________________________
For many centuries the world has be dominantly a patriarchal society.
The bible itself can be read to support this, and has in fact been
doing this for generations. The hierarchical system goes God, Man,
Women and then birds, fish and beasts. Only in the last century or so
has a feminist movement been able to push equality back into the
picture landing women right next to men on the hierarchical chart.
However, this has not come easily.
Equality is now argued by most contemporary scholars. In chapter
1:26-31 we see the creation of human beings as made in the image of
God. A detailed creational account of human beings is not witnessed
until chapter 2 but it must be noted that here 'human beings' mean
both Adam and Eve. Their gender differences are put aside and a
function is assigned them to be God's administrators on earth. They
both received God's blessing and his divine command to be fruitful, to
multiply and subdue the earth and have dominion over all creatures.
The gender differences come more to the fore in chapter 2. We have
Adam naming the animals and finding no suitable helper. Thus God
intervenes, and like a father passing off his bride (Von Rad, Genesis,
82) he creates Eve. But what does 'helper' mean in relation to Adam
(or man)? Following is a couple of interpretations as outlined by
David Clines [What does Eve do to help... 1989] as he focuses on the
interpretation of Gen 2:18. In his article he tries to take an
egalitarian stand-point and reflects on other feminist works.
1) The word 'helper' in Hebrew can be taken as a relational term, like
how Yahweh helped out Israel throughout it's history (c.f. Gen 49:25;
Ex 18:4; Deut 33:26; Ps 121:1-2; Hos 13:9). It is a beneficial term
that does not reveal the position of a person within the relationship,
but describes mutual equality. However, there are those that push this
a bit far, for example, Trible [c.f. Clines, 28] would take this
further and suggest that while a relational term it brings with it
notions of superiority.
2)There is also the suggestion that seeing the two Hebrew words
together 'ezer' (helper) and 'neged' (lit. like what is in front of
him, TNIV translated 'suitable for him') connotes in itself equality.
Clines concludes that his understanding brings him closer to 1. He can
not help but notice that any 'helper' will find themselves in a place
of inferiority. As the helped, one can accept or decline the 'helpers'
assistance, they can even regulate how much the 'helper' can actually
help them. Thus rather than a status, he interprets 'helper' to be a
relational term that connotes equality between man and woman. Clines
would not suggest that 'helper' brings superiority, even if by
technical status the 'helper' is as in the case of Yahweh. Adam and
Eve are created differently as to make up for each others deficits but
also as equals; Eve the bearer of children and Adam the worker of the
ground.
So what does it mean then for man to rule women as seen in 3:16? It
could mean any one of the following:
1) The women has fallen under the curse of greatly increased child
birth pains, but shall be ruled by a desire for a husband on a sexual
level anyway
2) That women shall now willingly desire a husband on a psychological
and emotional level. This is different to 1 in that it is not limited
to a sexual desire, but companionship, intimacy and support.
3) That women shall now desire what it is that their husband desires.
Through etymological studies Sandra Foh shows that an interpretation
of this on a sexual level is highly inaccurate. It is also pointed out
that a woman willing to seek a husband for support, intimacy and
companionship is not living what should be a punishment. Lastly,
experience shows that women do not all necessarily desire the same
things as their husband. Also, a woman who is willingly submissive to
their husbands desires seems incongruent with the context of Paul's
teachings on being submissive to their husbands; if women were already
submissive what would be the need for Paul to write on it? It is
evident that a submissive feature is not prevalent in all women.
Instead, Foh argues that before sin entered humanity, male ruled
female. They loved and cherished each other, but post-sin the rule
became tyrannical, and females began to rival their male counterparts
for rulership which was not a part of the original created order. What
started as love and cherish became to rule and dominate (Kidner,
Genesis). What occurs as a result of the fall is not to be interpreted
as curses. Rather they are to be understood as consequences for eating
of the tree of good and evil. Foh draws a parallel between 3:16 and
4:7 showing that as a result of sin's entry into the world man must
now try more actively to rule his wife as Cain had to be more active
in his rulership of sin. However, man's rule of his wife must be
congruent with Paul's teaching, this is to be loving and gentle, not
abusive and oppressive.
Cheers
Jimmy
No comments:
Post a Comment