FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS IN THE BIBLE

Instructor: Barbara Sutnick
sutnick@internet-zahav.net

Week 1
"HUSBAND AND WIFE" IN THE BEGINNING: ADAM AND EVE

The famous biblical story of the creation and early days of the first couple is one of the most widely interpreted pieces of writing in human history. This is because the Bible is not only basic to Jewish life and tradition, but to that of all of western civilization. Although Adam and Eve were not formally married in the sense that people marry today, numerous values and lessons about marriage have nevertheless been derived from the story of this couple. Another reason for the multiplicity of interpretations is that the story is both mysterious and arresting. It seems to hold the key to our understanding of that which is at the core of the relationship between man and woman; yet it teases us by raising more questions than it answers.

The story of the creation of man and woman is a double story. It is told in two versions, Genesis 1:26-28 and 2:18-24 respectively. Setting aside the question of why there are two tellings, we will focus on what we learn from the total number of clues that they together provide. Please read these Bible texts at least twice. (Also read Genesis, chapter 3 which we will discuss shortly.) Pay attention as you read to anything in the wording or the narrative that raises questions or comments in your mind (that call out "DARSHEINI" -- see course introduction). Note these down for yourself before continuing this Lecture. Also take note of the differences between the two accounts of the creation of the first man and woman. What questions does this raise in your mind? I hope you will find it interesting to see if you would bring the same questions to the text that have challenged biblical scholars for centuries.

PLEASE STOP AND READ TEXTS NOW BEFORE CONTINUING

In the first account, we read that God created man in His image, male and female. He blessed/commanded them to be fertile and increase, to fill the earth and to rule over it and the other creatures on the planet. Taken at textual face value, the king and queen of creation are created simultaneously and equally and appointed by God as joint rulers over the earth. They are meant to be mates, sexual creatures, and this is described by God as "very good" along with everything else created on the sixth day. Indeed, until after they eat from the Tree of Knowledge, they seem unaware of their nakedness (2:25).

In reading verse 1:27 closely a contradiction emerges in the words that cannot be ignored. The creature(s) created by God are mentioned both in the singular and the plural. How can this be explained? One rabbinic midrash tells us that the first humans were androgynous double creatures. Since they found it very awkward to move around (and were probably also starved for private time!), God separated them into their male and female halves. The midrash continues that since then, men and women go about the earth seeking their other half. (Bereshit Rabba 8,1) More than explaining a grammatical inconsistency, this midrash expresses a particular view of couplehood: that we all have a pre-destined mate, and that we will in some way know when we have found the one that fits us. Although this midrash is difficult to reconcile with the soaring divorce rate (unless we speak of human error gone haywire), it certainly reflects feelings that often characterize people falling in love.

A second and more esoteric midrash is linked to the creation account in chapter 1. Since both the male and the female were of the same origins, the woman insisted on enjoying full equality with her husband. This was unacceptable to Adam, so his wife Lilith magically converted herself into a night demon (LiLah = night) and flew off into the darkness. Even though angels of the Lord threatened to kill hundreds of her demon children daily if she would not return to her husband, Lilith refused to give up her independence. Thus a second more subservient type of mate would have to be created for Adam -- one who would not also originate with the dust of the earth. The story continues that to this day Lilith haunts the night and takes her revenge on infant boys and girl children. (Alphabet of Ben Sira, 23, 33) The custom of attaching protective amulets to a baby's crib has early roots in the story of Lilith.

The two midrashim above, show the extremes that define the means in the marriage bond. In the first, there is compatibility, despite initial physical awkwardness, between two equivalent creatures. True harmony is achieved when the couple "reunites" with itself in marriage. The second sounds like the nastiest of divorces. The couple cannot live together because of basic disagreement about their relative status. It only gets worse when the woman flees in anger and frustration. She is threatened by the angels of the Lord (read "his lawyers"), and they both put "the children" in the middle and use them against each other. The clear implication of the Lilith midrash is that at the root of the problem is the woman's claim of equality with her husband: creating the woman second (as in chapter 3) and forming her from the man's rib is the solution to this problem. Would it not be nice if this logic had turned out to ring true: nasty divorces could be unknown to the descendants of Adam and Eve!

The emphasis on fertility ("be fertile and increase, fill the earth and master/conquer it" -- vs. 1:28) in this creation account has caused at least one of the major religions of the Western World to see the overriding function of sexuality in marriage to be production of children. This leads to their prohibition of birth control. In Judaism, the commandment to be fruitful and multiply is interpreted as applying to men (women are technically exempt!). One explanation is because the directive includes the words "and conquer it", with conquering being a traditionally MASCULINE activity. Also, since childbearing is a health risk, and a person is generally not commanded to risk his/her health and safety, the man retains the Jewish legal responsibility for reproduction. (We see that it is definitely not good for man to be alone: he really needs her to carry out this commandment!) As a result of this, birth control is proscribed for husbands in Jewish law; while considerably more leniency is applied to wives. (Many religious Jews, however, avoid birth control, because of the phrase "fill the earth".) In any event, sexual relations are ideally seen as going beyond the realm of reproduction in the Jewish marriage bond, to enhancing the loving companionship of the couple. (For more information about this complicated subject, see David Feldman's book, Birth Control in Jewish Law.)

The second version of the creation of man and woman is different and much more detailed. The man is created first and placed in the Garden of Eden to rule over its creatures. After a while, God decides that "it is not good for man to be alone" (vs 18). Perhaps God perceives an unhappy loneliness on the part of the man; perhaps He wishes to remain the only Being that is alone and unique, and can create life without a mate. God decides to create an EZeR k'NeGDo ("help-mate" or "fitting helper") for the man. This Hebrew expression practically defies translation, since it is really a combination of opposites, a type of oxymoron. EZeR means "helper"; NeGeD means "against". (The o means "him"; and the k is a prefix meaning "as", "like" or "as if".) Let us first look at the word EZeR (helper). We are reminded by the sages that two is better than one and that the man will certainly need help in fulfilling God's directive that humankind be fruitful and multiply. The word "helper" in modern usage implies an assistant, somebody with less expertise and less status. However, a look in a biblical Concordance will show that the noun form of EZER refers most often to God, the helper of Israel (e.g., Ex. 18:4; Deut 33:7, 26; Ps. 33:20; 70:5; 115:9, 10, 11.) Thus we cannot conclude that EZeR denotes inferiority!

As for the term NeGeD (against): Rashi (see Appendix III) says that when he (the man) merits it, she will be a help; when he does not, she will be against him. We can picture two very different kinds of relationships growing out of Rashi's words. One is a type of "tit for tat" situation with the husband determining the atmosphere for the relationship. If he behaves conducively, she will respond in kind; if he acts in a negative way, she will be at war with him. Indeed, this is in part descriptive of many marriages, if we add that the wife can be equally determinate of positive and negative atmosphere. The second more optimistic interpretation of the phrase, has the partners on the same team: the wife is a source of caring feedback for her husband, the opposite of a "yes man" (or rather "yes woman"). She can be counted upon by her husband to stand facing him and give him both support and constructive criticism, even when that might be hard for him to take. This works best in an atmosphere of mutual love and trust, and is thus a very positive situation. In a good marriage, this type of interaction is a two-way street, with caring feedback given and received by both husband and wife. As it says in the Talmud "there cannot be love without chastisement; and chastisement [is hardly effective] without love".

None of the creatures created so far can be a proper EZeR k'NeGDo for Adam, so God causes him to fall deeply asleep, takes out one of his ribs, creates a woman from that rib and presents her to Adam. First we note that Adam was asleep during this procedure, and therefore had no active part in the creation of the woman. God created her, as He had created him. As Otwell (1977) points out, there is no parallel story to this one in any other ancient literature, so there is no basis for attaching more or less status to a creature created from a rib or a creature created from the dust of the earth. We can say that the range of comments about relative status of the two creatures seems to reflect the reality that some men are inferior to some women and vice versa! For example, Radak connects this verse to Eve's punishment that she be subservient to her husband. He explains that the husband rules over his wife, since she was created from one of his body parts. In the Talmud we read that since the woman was taken from man's body, a man should love his wife as himself; and honor her more than himself. Along similar lines are explanations about why the woman was created second. One is that God waited to give the man a chance to feel his aloneness, so that he would better appreciate his mate. At the other extreme is the explanation that God waited for Adam to ask for a mate, so that he could not later complain to God saying "why did you saddle me with this woman?" (!)

The rabbis (i.e. traditional rabbinic commentators, see Appendix III) connect this story in a rather psychological way to human courtship practices. One contention is that men usually take the initiative in courtship and in proposing, since they are naturally pursuing their lost rib! Another is that Adam slept during the creation of his wife so that she would be presented to him fully formed and therefore full of mystery. If he had observed her creation she would have appeared less exotic/enticing to him. Thus, continues this source, men rarely seek to marry women whom they have known from childhood.

The Bible gives us only hints at the actual interpersonal relationship of our first couple. We are told that a man leaves his parents and "clings to his wife, so that they become one flesh" (2:24) just at the end of the account of the woman's creation. It is only later in the context of Eve's punishment (3:16) that we read that the woman's desire shall be for her husband, and he shall rule over her. Nevertheless, it is indisputable that the Bible presents a relationship characterized by mutual sexual attraction. Adam and Eve are never actually quoted as speaking to each other in the text (In chapter 3 they speak to God). From that we do not assume that they did not converse; only that more is left to our imaginations.

After they eat the forbidden fruit, we get a glimpse of the first couple's mode of communication under great stress. When God accuses them of disobedience they express no remorse. Nor do they seek to protect one another, but go right into a blaming mode: Adam blames Eve and Eve blames the snake! Yet even before the crisis point, we can deduce that there was a significant communication breakdown. When the man is commanded not to eat of the Tree of Knowledge, this is at the beginning of the second version of the creation of man and woman, and before the woman is created. Thus we can presume that only the man heard the direct instruction from God, and that he must have communicated it to his wife sometime after her creation. If we compare what God told Adam, and what Eve later told the snake, we will see interesting differences (emphasised in upper case).

"And the Lord God commanded the man saying, of every tree of the garden you are free to eat, but of the tree of knowledge of good and bad, you must not eat of it; for as soon as you eat of it, you shall be doomed to die." (2:16-17)

"And the woman said to the serpent, we may eat of the fruit of the other trees of the garden. It is only about the fruit of the tree in the MIDDLE of the garden that God said: 'You shall not eat of it OR TOUCH IT lest you die.'" (3:2-3)

Eve talks about the tree in the MIDDLE of the garden--in her words the tree has become central, an object of obsession and desire. We do not know if she and Adam already share this fascination with the tree, or if it is a private desire of Eve's. She also adds the phrase "or touch it" in speaking to the snake. Did Adam add this warning to God's words to prevent his wife from coming close to sin? Did Eve (or Adam) misunderstand? The addition of this phrase is viewed with much significance by the rabbis. In the midrash, when the snake heard Eve's words he TOUCHED the tree and encouraged her to TOUCH the tree. When nothing happened he hissed "sssssseee, we did not die." Emboldened by this, Eve then picked the fruit and ate it. Thus, the manufactured prohibition against TOUCHING the tree ironically becomes the stumbling block that caused Eve and Adam to eat of it. Rashi considers this an antecedent of the later biblical legal dictum that "anybody who ADDS to the word of God actually lessens or destroys it". (Deut. 13:1)

Of course we do not know where the broken telephone actually broke down. Did Eve paraphrase her husband's words incorrectly; or did Adam add emphases that the Lord had not intended? If we lay the cause of the first sin at the door of communication breakdown between husband and wife, then we see that the numerous books in print today about communication between men and women have antecedents that stretch very far back in time!

Interestingly enough, contained in this story we also have an example of highly positive "inter-personal" (so to speak) communication under stress. In 3:8 - 13 God is our positive role model. He starts by calling out "where are you" to the hiding couple, knowing full well where they are (He is after all omniscient). Rashi points out that God enters into discussion with them gently (rather than punishing them immediately as he does with the serpent for whom he has no such respect - vs. 14-15). He counts on their guilty conscience to lead the discussion to where it needs to go. This is exactly what happens: "I was afraid because I was naked, so I hid". The man's response to the Lord's accusing question (vs. 11) is to counter: "the woman whom YOU PUT AT MY SIDE" is at fault, thus blaming both God and the woman. The Lord does not dignify this attempt at avoiding responsibility with a response. He simply goes on to mete out punishments. (It is emphasized in vs. 3:17 that Adam must share the responsibility.)

As we have seen, the creation story in Genesis does not undertake to describe the relationship, ideal or otherwise, between a husband and wife in any direct fashion. Like most biblical stories, it calls on us to use our informed imaginations and to draw our own conclusions. Even so, a Jewish bride and groom are traditionally blessed under the wedding canopy with these words: "Blessed are You O God, Sovereign of the Universe, who created man in His image...may you cause this couple to be as happy as the loving companions you created in the Garden of Eden in the beginning."

QUESTIONS FOR FURTHER THOUGHT

(please e-mail your responses and other comments to me at sutnick@internet-zahav.net)

1. What does the story of the creation of man and woman seem to tell us about the Bible's view of the relative status of man and woman? Which specific words/elements in the story refer to status?

2. To what extent is the story of Adam and Eve PRESCRIPTIVE? (i.e. tells us about what marriage should be like) Are these prescriptions that you find yourself wanting to follow or to criticize? How do you relate to the blessing said under the wedding canopy?

3. To what extent is the story of Adam and Eve DESCRIPTIVE? (i.e. describes human reality) Which descriptions do you find to be accurate?

4. What place should loving chastisement have in a good marriage (see comment on EZer K'NeGDo)? Would you like to identify with this description of an EZer K'NeGDo? be married to one? be looking for one?

5. Adam and Eve do a lot of blaming when accused by God of eating of the forbidden fruit. Whom would you blame? To what extent do the punishments fit the crime?

6. Based on your reading of the story of Adam and Eve and the above discussion, do you think an effective marriage counselor could have helped the young couple to avoid eating the fruit and losing their place in the Garden of Eden? If so, what program of treatment might s/he have suggested?

7. Since in the biblical world the general custom was for the WOMAN to leave her family circle to marry into the family of her husband, how do you make sense of the following quote from our story?

"Hence a man leaves his father and mother and clings to his wife so that they become one flesh." (2:24)

Biblical life aside, do you think this can be useful advice to a young couple today? Explain.

8. What exactly was Adam and Eve's sin, in your opinion? After studying the story, would you connect it to the Western notion of "Original Sin" (i.e. sexuality)? Why or why not?

[Home] [Homepage] [Next]