The second word from God concerning the
future is also an instruction, followed by a warning. "You are free to
eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of
the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will
certainly die." The instruction: Eat from all but this particular tree. The warning, almost sounding like a "promise": It is likely that you will eat of this tree even though I have told you not to, and in that case, you will die. In
the open view of God, there actually is room for this not to happen -
this is not a rock solid foretelling of the future, and thus is not, in
my mind, a promise. It did, indeed, happen, but might not have if
humanity had made a different choice.
The first real
promise, in my definition of promises from God being those things that
he says he will do: "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will
make a helper suitable for him." (Genesis 2:18) In my mind, this is God's first
promise to humanity. The creation of the woman was God's fulfillment of
this promise. I am drawn to this idea of my identity as a woman being a
fulfillment of God's first promise.
God's next words speaking to the future are to the serpent after the fall. He will crawl on his belly and eat dust. The woman's offspring will crush the serpent's head and the serpent will strike the offspring's heel. The second promise is to the serpent: "I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and hers." (Genesis 3:15)
And
the third is to the woman: "I will make your pains in childbearing
very severe." (Genesis 3:16) It disturbs me that this comes out of God's mouth in the
first person. Curiously, even though the pain I experienced with an
abrupted placenta is supposedly more severe than normal labor - I don't
actually remember much of the pain itself. I remember being there. I
remember the ride to the hospital as the pace of the contractions
quickened from once every hour to once every five minutes. I remember
being offered a wheel chair and somehow ending up in it. I remember the
specific contents of my dinner from the night before as the only meal I
lost during the entire pregnancy. I do remember refusing to lie down
and the excrutiating pain that would shoot through my lower back at any
attempt. I remember the gurney ride, in my seated position, to the
operating room - and the cold iodine wash on my abdomen as I was finally
pushed to a horizontal position. Finally, I remember the angelic face of
the anesthesiologist as everything around me faded to white. I was
pretty sure I was going to die - I was convulsing, but I don't really
remember seeing my body shake or anything, just a prayer that God would
care for my husband and my babies in my absence.
Then I
remember waking with a very sore throat (I had been intubated to keep
me breathing through the process) and the looming question as my
hand instinctively searched - touching the deflated shell of a womb that
at last remembrance housed my two children in a swell that resembled
the belly of a whale . . . Where were my babies? This is where my own
"childbearing" (the process of giving birth) story ends and the story of child rearing begins.
In
my experience, the third promise has been fulfilled. What about the
first two? There is something very broken inside of me. It would seem
that I have not proved to be a suitable helper. And yet, that desire
for a husband remains . . . Did Eve prove to be a suitable helper?
Well, she successfully helped Adam step right out of God's will . . . I
actually really want to believe that God keeps his promises - that we,
as women, are what God promised we would be. That we are suitable to
the partnership of caring for creation. I want to believe that the
feminine presence is what completes the image of God in humanity - for
man's aloneness is the first thing God proclaimed to be "not good".
And
as for the second promise, the enmity between the woman and the serpent
- that which would tempt us away from all that God created us to be?
Eve fell very quickly into this temptation. Perhaps that is what makes
us women so suitably fierce in our desire to protect and nuture that
which God has brought forth from our womb. It was the woman who looked
deepest into the eyes of the serpent - who communed with the darkness -
and knew things that God never wanted us to know. So we are charged
with opposing the dark forces. Tolkien taps into this idea of enmity in
his portrayal of Eowyn in Return of the King. It was a woman who was best suited to oppose the dark evil of the witch-king.
So I have successfully talked myself into believing that God has kept his first three promises:
√ the woman as a suitable helper to man
√ enmity between the woman and the serpent
√ severe pain in child bearing
As
for the curse given to the man (painful toil) . . . it was not worded
as a promise in the first person from God. I find this interesting but
as a daughter of Eve I will leave further processing on this point to
the sons of Adam.
I have found the New Interpreter's Bible to be helpful in reflecting on scripture. I have gone back to read the commentary of Terence E. Fretheim on the promises I have mentioned and have a few notes I want to include here.
ReplyDeleteOn Genesis 2:18-25 (The Creation of Woman) Fretheim writes: "For the woman to be called 'helper'- a word used by both God and the narrator - carries no implications regarding the status of the one who helps; indeed, God is often called the helper of human beings (Ps. 121:1-2). The NRSV's 'partner' may capture the note of correspondance more than 'sutiable' or 'fitting'." - New Interpreter's Bible Vol. 1 p. 352
ReplyDeleteOn the nature of God's sovereignty in verse 19, Fretheim quotes Phyllis Trible: "God, who dominates the narrative up to this point, now recedes into the background 'not as the authoritarian controller of events but as the generous delgator of power who even forfeits the righ to reverse human decisions.'" -New Interpreter's Bible, Vol.1 p. 352
ReplyDeleteOn Genesis 3:1-7 (The Temptation) Fretheim writes: "The issue of knowledge becomes at its deepest level an issue of trust. Is the giver of the prohibition one who can be trusted with their best interests? Can the man and the woman trust Godeven if God has not told them everything, indeed not given them every possible 'benefit'?" (New Interpreter's Bible, Vol.1 p. 361)
ReplyDeleteOn Genesis 3:14-19 (The Sentence) Fretheim writes: "The 'head' and 'heel' are the natural targets against each other and point to no resolution of the conflict (the NRSV correctly reflects the fact that the same verb is used in both). Yet, striking the head of the serpent would more likely prove decisive and would give at least potential superiority to the human over the animal." -New Interpreter's Bible, Vol.1 p.363
ReplyDelete