The Yahwist Creation Narrative
Genesis 2:4b – 3:24
Biblical scholars usually designate this story as the “Yahwist” narrative, because the Name for God used here is “Yahweh,” a personal name of the tribal God, rather than (or in addition to) the simple generic noun for “God” (’Elohim).
There are at least three different levels of interpretation in this story. The first, and earliest level is that of the story's primitive origins, before the compilers of the Yahwist tradition organized it as a unified narrative. At this earliest level the primary motivation of the creation stories and most of the material in Genesis 1-11 is an etiological motivation. That is, these narratives are a pre-scientific, mythological effort to explain persistent and common questions about origins.
These questions are concerned with matters like the origin of the world (Genesis 1), the relationship of man and woman (Genesis 2:18 ff.), the nature of sex (Genesis 3:6 ff.), the reason for pain in childbirth (Genesis 3:16), and for the necessity of human labor (Genesis 3:17 ff.). They also are concerned with more peripheral matters like the origin of music (Genesis 4:21 ), or of people of unusually great stature (Genesis 6:1 ff.), of wine and its effects (Genesis 9:20 f.), or of the dispersion of peoples and the variety of languages in the world (Genesis 11:1 ff.).
The second level is the work of the Yahwist compiler(s). The entire work is constructed around the central theme of divine promise and fulfillment. Yahweh makes a promise to Abraham in Genesis 12:1 ff. (and subsequently repeats the promise to Isaac and to Jacob) that (1) Abraham's descendants shall become a great people and that (2) they shall be given a homeland. The promise is to be fulfilled in the formation of the people under Moses (the Exodus experiences) and the conquest and occupation of the land of Canaan Palestine
But the Yahwist compiler(s) also understand that God’s concern and activity have ultimate implications in a third promise that is not fulfilled in the scope of the Yahwist work: that in Abraham and in Abraham’s descendants all the nations of the earth will be “blessed.” Thus, the Yahwist work is prefaced with what is contained in the stories in Genesis 2-11. This “preface” is not for the purpose of etiology—understanding origins—but as a theological prelude—a prelude setting forth the fundamental terms of God’s relationship to human beings in the world. It is a prelude justifying and explaining the peculiarity of God’s particular activity on behalf of Israel
The third level of interpretation is that of the post-exilic community, from whose perspective the whole of Israel BCE is endorsed and confirmed in the fifth century BCE . At both levels the story serves a theological, not an etiological purpose: it reflects the faith of Israel Israel Israel
The first creation story asserts that creation is good (Genesis 1:31 ) and that God is graciously disposed toward human beings (Genesis 1:28 f.). The storyteller expresses this in universal terms. In this second, and older creation story the storyteller reaffirms this in more intimate, more highly personalized terms. God Himself labors in the creation of humanity (2:7). God Himself plants the garden (2:8). Seeing His creature's loneliness Yahweh makes the human creation—almost—a partner in creation: every living creature is brought into being and presented for approval, and a name. And for Israel
But love must give freedom, and freedom requires the ability to choose, and an understanding of alternative choices. It is a good creation, and an altogether good and loving Creator—but Israel Israel
The primary questions for the Yahwist writer(s) are, “How can it be that human beings sin?” “Where does sin originate?” “Is God responsible for sin?” The story may seem familiar, but note the following:
1. Nowhere is “Satan” mentioned. The snake is simply one of God’s creatures, “the most cunning of all the creatures Yahweh had made.”
2. The woman does not get a name (i. e., Eve = “living”) until the end of the story. Therefore it is incorrect to speak of “Adam and Eve” at this point.
3. The “forbidden fruit” is not an apple; nowhere is the kind of fruit stated.
4. “Good and Evil” are very broad terms, that also include such terms as “useful and useless,” “pleasure and pain.” This is not simply moral understanding, but rather the basic understanding of the nature of all things. To know “Good and Evil” is to know everything; the “Tree-of-the-knowledge-of-good-and-evil” is the “Tree of All Knowledge.”
5. “Nakedness” has nothing to do here with sexuality. Obviously they could see and know that they were naked before their disobedience. But before the disobedience they were “one flesh” in harmony with each other. After the disobedience they are alienated from each other, and this results in their shame to be seen naked in each other's presence. Something of their one-ness has been lost.
6. The Hebrew word, “cover” is also the Hebrew word for “forgive.” For the man and the woman to attempt to “cover” themselves with fig leaves is an attempt to “forgive” themselves, i. e., to “cover” their guilt. But it is Yahweh alone Who ultimately “covers” their nakedness with garments of skin, a sign of Yahweh’s forgiveness and grace.
7. Disobedience fractures the relationship between the humans themselves, between the humans and animals, between the humans and even the earth/ground from which they were created, and especially between the humans and God.
8. The snake told the truth! The man and the woman, in fact, did not die, and they did become “like God,” aware of the whole range of knowledge, from good to evil.
9. Even though the man and the woman hide, certain that God is only intending to punish, God seeks them out, and allows them to bear the consequences of their behavior, but then adds grace in clothing them.
10. The submission of the woman to the man is not portrayed as God’s intention or desire, but rather as a consequence of sin, something that is unnatural.
11. The problem of the origin of sin is never really resolved. Satan does not enter the picture. The humans are responsible for their own actions, but just why they were disobedient is never fully revealed. The reality of sin strikes home: humans do sin (there is no doubt about that) but the “why” is not really clear.
13. Traditionally among Christians this story is referred to as the story of “the Fall of Humanity.” But the Hebrew Bible does not really give the story that much significance. The Hebrew Bible does not, either in this story, or anywhere else, present a theory that says that the “sin” of this initial couple had permanent consequences for the rest of the human race. It does seek to describe the consequences of all human sin: fear, guilt, alienation. But it never defines the human race as being under any kind of curse, and the story is never again referred to in the remainder of the Hebrew Bible. If it bears the eternal significance that some have given it, this fact is rather strange.
But if this story gives no total solution to the problem of the origin of human sin it does analyze the human situation quite well. As the Yahwist tells the story, it seems that the problem of human sin is rooted not in the creation itself, which God created and declared to be good, but in the fact that something has gone wrong within God’s good world.
It may be helpful to ask of this story whether the act of disobedience was even the real problem for the human beings, or whether there was another problem already present:
1. What was it that Yahweh forbade in Genesis 2:17?
2. Did the woman add anything when she answered the snake in Genesis 3:3?
3. Suppose someone says, “Don't eat these mushrooms. They are poison.” You do not wish to commit suicide. Yet you eat the mushrooms. What does your act say about your relationship to the person who gave you the advice?
4. What appears to have been present in the woman even before she committed—or could commit—the act?
5. Compare the definition of “sin” in Romans 14:23 in the New Testament—in that passage “sin” is acting or living apart from faith, or trust, in God.
6. Thus, it appears that the act of disobedience is rooted in distrust (lack of faith). Note a possible paraphrase of the snake’s remarks: God didn’t give you this command for your sake (“lest you die”) but for His own sake (He’s afraid you’ll be as smart as He is). He's really looking out only for Himself, and therefore cannot be trusted.” The man and the woman, not believing (trusting) Yahweh’s word, then eat the fruit.
7. The result of this act of “unfaith”—this cutting off of a trusting relationship with the Creator does turn out to be a kind of “Fall.” It is a “falling out” and a “falling apart.” And to “fall out” with God is to “fall out” with everything:
a. Human beings “fall out” with themselves, finding it necessary to hide—not merely the private parts of the body, but the whole self (Genesis 3:7-11).
b. The man “falls out” with his closest companion: he shifts the blame to his wife (Genesis 3:12 ).
c. Human beings “fall out” with their fellow creatures—there is now enmity and war where once there was communication (Genesis 3: 13 -15).
d. Humanity even “falls out” with the very ground (’adamah) from which it was taken (Genesis 3:17 -19).
e. Indeed, Humanity’s whole existence seems to “fall apart,” to go to pieces. All of nature seems now to be at war with itself, and humanity is caught up in the processes of breakdown and decay that culminate in death. Disintegration and chaos accompany the “falling out” with God. The chief joys that humans experience are now turned to sorrow. The pleasure of sexual union is marred by pain and risk of death in childbearing (Genesis 3:16 ). The pleasure is taken out of work as humans find themselves engaged in fruitless and bitter toil (Genesis 3:17-19). Instead of being on an equal level as God intended, now one sex dominates the other (Genesis 3:16b).
Fortunately, the Yahwist relieves the tension with two brief rays of hope:
1. The man is not completely alienated from the woman—he now gives her a name, “Eve,” ( = “living”), that points to his continued hope for life (Genesis 3:20 ).
2. Yahweh is not without mercy: in a gesture of understanding, Yahweh “clothes” the couple (Genesis 3:21 ). The Hebrew word for “cover,” used here, is also, as we have already noted, the same word for “forgive.” This is deliberate.
This story is not history, but mythology. It takes a story about human beings and God, placing it back in primeval time, to say something about life here and now in the storyteller’s own time, and about life here and now in any time. We retell it not for its “was-ness” but for its “is-ness.”
We should not leave this story without giving attention to the views of certain feminist theologians as a necessary corrective to some traditional male stereotypes of its interpretation.
We begin by noting an ancient Jewish rabbinic saying:
[God] did not form woman out of the head, lest she should become proud; nor out of the eye, lest she should lust, nor out of the ear, lest she should be curious; nor out of the mouth, lest she should be talkative; nor out of the heart, lest she should be jealous; nor out of the hand, lest she should be covetous; nor out of the foot, lest she should be a busybody; but out of the rib, which was always covered. Modesty was, therefore a prime quality.
A more modern interpreter saw it differently. John R. Sampey, a Baptist Hebrew scholar, said (1922),
“ . . . woman was not made out of man's head to rule over him; nor out of his feet to be trampled on by him; but out of his side, to be equal with him; under his arm to be protected; and near his heart to be beloved.”
Another Jewish rabbinic tradition says similarly that God’s choice of a rib to make woman was significant.
“It was not the head, lest she rule over him. It was not the foot, lest he rule over her. But it was the rib that they might stand as equals.”
In more modern times feminist scholars have examined the entire story of Genesis 2-3 from a slightly different perspective. For example, Dr. Phyllis Tribble, a North Carolinian; who is professor of Biblical Interpretation at the Divinity School of Wake Forest University, has reminded us of the following facts in a recent essay:
1. The Hebrew word ’Adam is a generic term for humanity, not a sexual designation for a male human being.
2. Thus, in commanding ’adam not to eat of the tree, the Deity is addressing both female and male (Genesis 2:16 -17). Until the differentiation into male (’ish) and female (’ishshah), ’adam is basically androgynous—one creature incorporating both sexes.
3. In the Priestly tradition of Genesis 1:27 , God created ’adam as male and female in a single act at the same time. This is really not different from what happens in Genesis 2, when the woman is built from the rib of the human creature, so that male and female are differentiated at the same time.
4. Some traditional interpreters have suggested that in Genesis 2, the creation of the female from the body of a male implies that the female was inferior because the male was the first created. But if we were to use that logic, we would then have to take note of the fact that in Genesis 1, the human being—male and female—is last, after the animals, yet is clearly the crown of God’s creation. Using the pattern of Genesis 1, we might therefore come to the conclusion that later is better, and that woman in Genesis 2 is not an afterthought, but a culmination (this time God finally “got it right”)!
5. In Genesis 2:18 woman is created because the human creature needs a “helper” (Hebrew: ’ezer). In the Hebrew Bible an ’ezer is a relational term—it designates a beneficial relationship—it may pertain to God Himself, to people, and to animals—it does not imply inferiority. God is the helper superior to human beings; animals are helpers inferior to humans; woman is the helper equal to man.
6. In the creation of the human creature (Genesis 2:7), even if we do have a male here at the beginning of the process, and in the differentiation of the sexes when the woman is built from the rib (Genesis 2:21 -22), it is still God alone Who creates. The man has no part in making the woman. The man is out of it. He exercises no control over the woman’s existence. He is neither participant, nor spectator, nor consultant. Thus, like man, woman owes her existence solely to God.
7. The rib means solidarity and equality, if it means anything (Genesis 2:23 ). The pun (’ish/’ishshah) proclaims both the similarity and the differentiation of female and male. Sexuality is simultaneous for both man and woman.
The sexes are interrelated and interdependent. Man as male does not actually precede woman as female in this story. Only in responding to the female does the human creature discover himself to be male.
8. The narrative does not sustain the judgment that the woman is weaker or more cunning or more sexual than the man. Both have the same Creator, Who explicitly uses the word “good” to introduce the creation of woman (Genesis 2:18 ).
9. Both are equal in birth, in responsibility, in judgment, in shame, in guilt, in redemption, and in grace, according to this story.
10. The character portrayals in this story are extraordinary for a culture dominated by men: The woman is the theologian, the interpreter of what God has said. She is fully aware when she eats the fruit. The initiative is hers, and the decision is hers alone. She does not consult with her husband. She seeks neither his advice nor his permission. She acts independently. By contrast the man is portrayed as a silent, passive, and bland recipient. His one act is belly-oriented, and is an act of quiescence, not initiative. The man is not dominant, not aggressive, not a decision-maker. He follows his wife without question, denying his own individuality. If the woman is portrayed as intelligent, sensitive, and ingenious—the man is portrayed as passive, brutish, and inept!
11. But the contrast between the woman and the man fades after their acts of disobedience. Now they are one in their new knowledge, one in hearing and hiding. First to the man come questions of responsibility—but the man fails to be responsible (Genesis 3:9, 11, 12), and in the end (3:12 ) he does not blame the woman, but the Deity.
12. The judgments describe—they do not prescribe. They protest; they do not condone. Genesis 3:16 is not a license for male supremacy, but a condemnation of that very pattern. It declares that subjugation and supremacy of male over female are perversions of God’s creation. It is only because of human disobedience that woman has become a slave, only because of human sin that her initiative and her freedom vanish. The man is corrupted also, for he has become a master. Thus, the subordination of female to male signifies their shared sin. This sin vitiates all relationships. Whereas in creation they know harmony and equality as God intended, in sin they know alienation and discord. But God’s grace makes possible a new beginning.
13. The Yahwist narrative tells the readers who they are (creatures of equality and mutuality; and it tells them who they become when they sin (creatures of oppression), and thus it opens up possibilities for change, for return to true liberation. In other words, it calls both male and female to repent.
No comments:
Post a Comment