In the preceding post we saw God declare that it was not good for the man he had created to be alone. And in response God creates all the animals which the man then proceeds to name. However, none of these are found to be a helper as a mirror. We now continue to discover how God solves the problem.

Hebrew text:

21 וַיַּפֵּל֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֧ים׀ תַּרְדֵּמָ֛ה עַל־הָאָדָ֖ם וַיִּישָׁ֑ן וַיִּקַּ֗ח אַחַת֙ מִצַּלְעֹתָ֔יו וַיִּסְגֹּ֥ר בָּשָׂ֖ר תַּחְתֶּֽנָּה׃

22 וַיִּבֶן֩ יְהוָ֨ה אֱלֹהִ֧ים׀ אֶֽת־הַצֵּלָ֛ע אֲשֶׁר־לָקַ֥ח מִן־הָֽאָדָ֖ם לְאִשָּׁ֑ה וַיְבִאֶ֖הָ אֶל־הָֽאָדָֽם׃

23 וַיֹּאמֶר֮ הָֽאָדָם֒ זֹ֣את הַפַּ֗עַם עֶ֚צֶם מֵֽעֲצָמַ֔י וּבָשָׂ֖ר מִבְּשָׂרִ֑י לְזֹאת֙ יִקָּרֵ֣א אִשָּׁ֔ה כִּ֥י מֵאִ֖ישׁ לֻֽקֳחָה־זֹּֽאת׃

24 עַל־כֵּן֙ יַֽעֲזָב־אִ֔ישׁ אֶת־אָבִ֖יו וְאֶת־אִמּ֑וֹ וְדָבַ֣ק בְּאִשְׁתּ֔וֹ וְהָי֖וּ לְבָשָׂ֥ר אֶחָֽד׃

25 וַיִּֽהְי֤וּ שְׁנֵיהֶם֙ עֲרוּמִּ֔ים הָֽאָדָ֖ם וְאִשְׁתּ֑וֹ וְלֹ֖א יִתְבֹּשָֽׁשׁוּ׃

Transliteration:

21 way·yap·pêl  Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm  tar·dê·māh ‘al- hā·’ā·ḏām  way·yî·šān; way·yiq·qaḥ, ’a·ḥaṯ  miṣ·ṣal·‘ō·ṯāw, way·yis·gōr bā·śār  taḥ·ten·nāh.  

22 way·yi·ḇen  Yah·weh ’ĕ·lō·hîm  ’eṯ- haṣ·ṣê·lā‘ ’ă·šer-  lā·qaḥ min- hā·’ā·ḏām lə·’iš·šāh;  way·ḇi·’e·hā ’el- hā·’ā·ḏām.  

23 way·yō·mer  hā·’ā·ḏām zōṯ hap·pa·‘am,  ‘e·ṣem mê·‘ă·ṣā·may, ū·ḇā·śār  mib·bə·śā·rî; lə·zōṯ yiq·qā·rê ’iš·šāh,  kî mê·’îš lu·qo·ḥāh- zōṯ.  

24 ‘al-  kên ya·‘ă·zāḇ-  ’îš, ’eṯ- ’ā·ḇîw  wə·’eṯ- ’im·mōw; wə·ḏā·ḇaq  bə·’iš·tōw, wə·hā·yū lə·ḇā·śār  ’e·ḥāḏ.  

25 way·yih·yū  šə·nê·hem ‘ă·rūm·mîm,  hā·’ā·ḏām wə·’iš·tōw; wə·lō  yiṯ·bō·šā·šū. 

NIV:

21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 

22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.

23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”

24 That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.

25 Adam and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Study:

The text begins by stating that God induces sleep in the man. The man is completely inert while the woman is being created, indicating that he had no say in the matter. Unlike the situation with the animals in which he had the authority to name then and in so doing categorize them, in the case of the woman the man is not involved. 

We probably do not recognize how subversive this is. The man may have been created first. But the woman is created to fill a lack that the man had. And we saw that the word עֵזֶר (ezer) now to be used of the woman is used in other instances only to describe God’s role in delivering his people. The man needed someone who could live up to the tall order of giving the kind of help that only God can give. And so God creates the woman to fulfill this role while the man is asleep.

Some have claimed that the rib indicates that the woman is the equal of the man. The argument is that if she had been created from a part nearer the man’s head she would dominate him. And if she had been created from a part nearer his feet he would dominate her. I don’t think this is indicated in God’s choice of the rib. In fact, I think this is one more instance of patriarchal views bring read into a text that is desperately trying to challenge those views. The location in the man’s body from which the woman is created is not related to any power differential between the two. Seeing power issues in something purely anatomical reveals a perspective that is steeped in patriarchal views. What do I mean? If one were to think of what one could spare anatomically, one would not point to a bone in the cranium nor to one in the foot. However, one less rib is feasible in the imagination.

When the woman is brought to the man, he recognizes that she is related to him more closely than any of the animals. She is ‘bone of my bones’ and ‘flesh of my flesh’ according to him. Whatever has gone into making her the man recognizes as being a part of himself.

But how did the man know? According to the text, the man was asleep when the woman was created. He would not have known that God had taken a rib from him. How then does he recognize the woman’s identity as someone akin to him? The silence of the text is polemical in nature. God did not have to explain the woman’s origins to the man. God did not have to point out traits that made the identification possible. In other words, the man possesses the knowledge needed to make the identification that the woman is his equal. This means that any perspective that denies her an equal standing with him is a denial and falsification of the original identification of the man. The woman is intrinsically recognizable as the man’s equal. She needs no extraneous trait to facilitate this identification.

V. 23 has an interesting switch in wording. Whereas earlier the man (אָדָם, adam) is said to have been formed from the earth (אֲדָמָה, adamah), now the woman (אִשָּׁ֔ה, ishah) is said to be taken from the man (אִישׁ, ish). To explain this switch, some have suggested that the first human (אָדָם, adam) was androgynous and that this human was later split into the man (אִישׁ, ish) and woman (אִשָּׁ֔ה, ishah).¹ However, as mentioned in an earlier post, the choice of אָדָם (adam) was to enable the wordplay with אֲדָמָה (adamah). Though אָדָם (adam) is a masculine noun, the gender of the entity that was created is not the focus. Similarly, in Genesis 2.23, the switch to אִישׁ (ish) is to enable the wordplay with אִשָּׁ֔ה (ishah). Reading more into this is problematic because we can see that even after the proposed ‘split’ in v. 22, the word used for the man is אָדָם (adam) and not אִישׁ (ish). Indeed, the man’s (אִישׁ, ish) declaration in v. 23 that the woman (אִשָּׁ֔ה, ishah) was taken out of man (אִישׁ, ish) is incorrect for she was technically taken out of the human (אָדָם, adam).

V. 24 states, “That is why a man (אִישׁ, ish) leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife (אִשָּׁ֔ה, ishah), and they become one flesh.” Note, however, that the word translated as ‘wife’ is אִשָּׁ֔ה (ishah), which just means ‘woman’. However, the immediate context of leaving one’s father and mother, makes it clear that the choice of ‘wife’ is strongly suggested. However, we still need to ask after the reason behind the ‘that is why’. Is it  the man’s declaration at seeing the woman that is the reason for him to leave his father and mother? Is it the man’s recognition that the woman is ‘bone of my bones’ that is the reason?

In my opinion, the reason is further back and refers to God’s act of making the woman from the man. The woman and the man were originally one flesh before God took the rib from the man. Once God had done that, the man was no longer alone. He had a helper as a mirror. However, the text seems to indicate that there is a tendency to reclaim the original union. Something is gained for sure, but something is also lost. Before God took the rib, the man was whole but alone. After God took the rib, the man was no longer alone. But in some sense, he is no longer whole and yearns for that wholeness.

The idea presented here is that marriage is the enacting of the yearning for the two separated parts – woman and man – to return to the original wholeness. Marriage provides the context within which the original wholeness can be recovered without also recovering the aloneness.

This obviously brings up two immediate issues. First, what do we say of those who are single or widowed or divorced? The splitting of the man to form the woman is to be seen as an archetypal event and not as a prototypical one. That is, the splitting indicates that all humans are capable of being helpers as mirrors to each other. This is not solely restricted to the relationship between wife and husband. Good friends can do this just as well. Hence, those who are not in a marriage relationship are well able to have relationships in which the inherent aloneness of humans is addressed.

Second, what do we say about same-sex relationships? The narrative is clear that when God takes the rib from the man, the result is a woman. What else could the text have said? Suppose, for a moment, that the text indicated that God created a second man from the rib of the first. What conclusions would people steeped in patriarchy have drawn from such a narrative? They would have said that only men are truly human and that women are not. Given that same-sex attraction is not a majority experience, they would not have viewed this as being about same-sex relationships because v. 24 would not have spoken about marriage since woman would not have been in the picture.

Or suppose that the text indicated that God created a woman first and from the rib of that woman made another woman. What conclusions would people steeped in patriarchy have drawn from this? They would have concluded that, just as the two women were made to work the ground, so also all women were created to do the hard labor. They would not have viewed the text as being about same-sex relationships.

So if the text had two men or two women, it would have contributed to solidifying patriarchal norms. In order to challenge these norms, the text had to demonstrate that men and women are equal, thereby requiring one man and one woman.

I have viewed the text as being something that is written with a purpose. It does not only transform the reader, but is also intended to transform societies and cultures. Because of this, the text is inherently polemic in nature and not taking into account this polemic angle of the text will result in misunderstanding the text and misappropriating it to support positions that may be outside the scope of its original intent or even in opposition to the original intent.

Prayer:

Gracious, loving Father. We are grateful that you have given us the scriptures which show us plainly that all humans are imbued with the same dignity. And we know that, in creating us to need each other, you have also created in us a desire for wholesome relationships. We ask you to enable us to experience such wholesome relationships and to make us mediators of such relationships. And we ask this in the name of Jesus. Amen.

---

^{1. Marg Mowczko. The Human (Ha’adam), Man (Ish) And Woman (Ishshah) In Genesis 2. (Accessed on 29 June 2019). ↩}