The image of woman in Genesis 1-2.
Earlier this week I was reading the opening chapters of the Book of Genesis and I was reminded of the richness of the imagery used for the creation of women. In 1.27 when “the human” is created it is “male and female” and these humans are made in “image” (צֶ֫לֶם) of God. I am one of those who finds “image” language to be primary functional and primarily about humanity being a regent of God over creation. The woman is as much human as the man. She is created as a regent of God over the world. She shares the rule of man.
In 2.18 the woman is said to be a “helper” of man, but עֵ֫זֶר is used of God in the Hebrew Bible and it carries the connotation not of an inferior servant, but a co-laborer. In v. 22 the woman comes from the side of man which some have noted seems to be metaphorical for equality of sort. I have read this quote attributed to Augustine (though I don’t know if it is from him or not): “If God had meant woman to rule over man he would have taken her out of Adam’s head. Had he designed her to be his slave, he would have taken her out of his feet. But God took woman out of man’s side, for he made her to be a helpmeet and an equal to him.” In v. 23 Adam poetically describes the woman as “bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh”. She is what he is, nothing inferior.
Admittedly, Genesis 2 is a tad less egalitarian than Genesis 1 with man coming first in order of creation. Overall though, woman is exalted and she is equal in function. While different than man in that she is woman she shares his basic essence and according to Genesis 1 she is as much the regent of God on earth as man.
It isn’t until Genesis 3 that woman is made “inferior” to man functionally and this has to do with the curse of sin. Oddly, many Christians practice gender relations more in the mentality of Genesis 3 than Genesis 1-2.
This may be a road too far for you, but I also think it’s helpful to remember that the name Adam can also be understood to mean “man” as in humanity. Before the creation of Eve, male and female would have resided in Adam. The act of making Eve was the act of seperating men and women in order for them to be in relationship with each other. Or at least those are some ideas I have been kicking around about the whole thing. Good post!
Rebecca: There does seem to be a sense that in 1.27 the first “man” contained the two genders. This imagery fits well with Genesis 2 where woman emerges from the body of man.
Your theory may have more support than you realize. The depiction of God in Genesis 1 is primarily “preistly” he is depicted as “seperating” the elements so that they remain pure and uncontaminated. You see this throughout the whole narrative. So the idea that the first man contained both genders might actually work out. God would then complete his act of creation by “seperating” the genders so that they are now male and female.
Perhaps the fact that the woman was created after the man in Genesis 2 is not evidence that she is inferior because she is created second, but as some scholars argue, she is the “crown of creation”. If in Genesis 1 God’s crowning work is reserved for the last day – his creation of humanity – perhaps the same idea is inferred as the female is created as God’s “best work”?
@ David Fields
Hmmm…then why didn’t Jesus appear as a woman?…
@Brian: That is an insightful way of examining it. I will need to think on it more, but it does seem to have some merit to it.
@David: Possible, but I tend to think of it more as a completing of his project than a superior aspect of it.
In Hebrew, the number ‘one’ is absolutely and completely indivisible. (The ‘unity’ operator was seen by the Hebrews to be a ‘strong statement’ of fact). For example, notice
[Deuteronomy 6:4] which says “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.” {emphasis on indivisible}
Therefore in looking at gender in the bible, we’re doing so from a lens. We see the smallest separate divisible unit of ‘personhood’ as the ‘individual’ (which is why we are called ‘individuals’). One could argue this is every bit, what Paul said it would be in [2 Timothy 3:2-3]. As lovers of self and swollen with conceit, we see the relationship of man to woman through a filter of individualism, as we see the relationship of man OR woman to Christ the same (how very democratic!)
From the very beginning God created man in his own image “in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created THEM” [Gen 1:27] treating one ‘man’ as man in woman in ‘one flesh’, making it seem like man and woman together were created as ‘one’ atomic unit (modeled after the trinity?).
Before knee-jerk reacting to this idea as radical however consider what the bible says immediately after in [Gen 2:24] “Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become ONE flesh.” This is the same defacto, indivisible ‘ONE’ used to describe God in [Deut 6:4]. It may be a little thing in our culture, but it would not have been in the Hebrew culture.
Our modern emphasis of treating man and women as separate as individuals or in Christ, ignores the bible’s actual emphasis ([Romans 12:4-5],[1 Corinthians 10:17, 12:12-14,18, 12:20,25], [Ephesians 2:16], [Colossians 3:15]). The Bible’s smallest atomic unit seems not to be the individual, but “one flesh” defined as both the male and the female joined in marriage [Malachi 2:15].
See also ([Genesis 2:24][1 Corinthians 6:16][Matthew 19:5-6][Mark 10:8][Ephesians 5:31]). From there it grows, where ‘nation’ is a larger version of this ‘one flesh’. Spiritually, the NT treats it no differently [Ephesians 4:3][Philippians 1:27].
Modern consideration of gender relationships are not equipped to make sense of it because our focus is individuals.
As always, when we question our own pre-suppositions given Pauls warning not to be ‘lovers of self’, and ‘swollen with conceit’ [2 Tim 3:2-4] to see the bible’s gender relationships in a different light.