My Dad always tried to teach me to take responsibility for my actions. He never enabled me by making excuses for my bad behavior. I have, at times, struggled to be as good as my Dad in this area. I draw some consolation in the fact that I am not alone. None other than Adam, the first man himself, was full of excuses for his bad behavior. To make matters worse, there are those today who would be Adam enablers.
Eve’s Sin
Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the LORD God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?” (Genesis 3:1)
The fifth argument hierarchists make for the authority of male over female is the idea that the Serpent strategically usurped the authority of Adam by approaching Eve first.
Eve, on her part, sinned when she took the lead in answering the Serpent, instead of letting her husband do the talking.
Finally, Adam’s sin was in allowing all this to happen and listening to the woman.
This hierarchist argument necessitates an assumption of patriarchy in the pre-Fall narrative that is simply not there.
This is a concept so detrimental to male-female relationships in society at large that I feel it imperative to counter each piece of the argument in some detail.
Yes, I’m making excuses for why this blog article is so long.
#5 – The woman was deceived by the serpent, in part, because the serpent subverted God’s pattern of male leadership by approaching the woman first.
The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it” (Genesis 3:12).
Raymond Ortland is representative of this view when he writes, “Eve usurped Adam’s headship and led the way into sin. And Adam, who (it seems) had stood by passively, allowing the deception to progress without decisive intervention – Adam, for his part, abandoned his post as head. Eve was deceived; Adam forsook his responsibility. Both were wrong and together they pulled the human race down into sin and death.” [77]
This is a case of an a priori assumption shaping interpretation. If the man’s authority over the woman is assumed, then the natural conclusion is that the woman usurped that authority by talking to the serpent or making a critical decision without consulting her husband.
However, as I have shown, nowhere in the text is there any clear indication that the man was in authority over the woman. And even if authority is assumed on the meager evidence collected thus far, the question becomes, what does the man’s authority over the woman entail? Does she have any autonomy or free will? Obviously, she does. She is held personally accountable for her actions by God, which indicates a degree of personal autonomy.
Schreiner when advocating for this argument seems to see its inherent weaknesses. He writes, “I do not want to make too much of this argument, and my case hardly depends on it. I acknowledge forthrightly that it could be incorrect, but in any case it would not affect the other arguments presented.” [78]
Schreiner shows himself to be a careful and thoughtful scholar. The weakness in this argument is that it depends completely on the a priori assumption that the man has complete authority over the woman. Absent that assumption there is absolutely no evidence to support the argument of usurpation.
The Literary Structure of Creation and Fall
Wenham may make the best case for this argument, basing his conclusions on the literary structure of the second creation and Fall narratives. [79]
He divides the Genesis 2-3 narrative into seven scenes:
(1) 2:5-17 Narrative – God sole actor; man present but passive
(2) 2:18-25 Narrative – God main actor; man minor role, woman and animals passive
(3) 3:1-5 Dialogue – Snake and woman
(4) 3:6-8 Narrative – Man and woman
(5) 3:9-13 Dialogue – God, man and woman
(6) 3:14-21 Narrative – God main actor, man minor role, woman and snake passive
(7) 3:22-24 Narrative – God sole actor; man passive
He then notes the tight structuring of the scenes into a palistrophic style, with a perfectly balanced mirror-style inversion; where scene 1 matches scene 7, and scene 2 matches scene 6, and so forth.
In this structure, scene 4 has no match and is, therefore, the centerpiece of the narrative. Scene 4, of course, is the dramatic scene where the man and woman eat the forbidden fruit.
Wenham’s contention is that “the hierarchy established in scene 2 and reaffirmed in scene 5 is overturned. God-man-woman-animal in scene 2 becomes snake-woman-man-God in scene 4. The order of creation is totally inverted.” [80]
He concludes that the concentric palistrophic pattern of the narrative draws attention to the inversion of roles that characterize the narrative. [81]
While I disagree with some of the particulars of Wenham’s literary analysis, on the whole, it seems sound. There are, however, a number of other ways to view the rhetorical structure of the narrative. [82]
For instance, literary analysis gives us another potential approach to understanding Genesis 3:1. It is quite possible that a literary device used in this scene is that of irony. The ancient Hebrew storytellers loved irony.
Susan Foh points out that the irony is found in that the woman, who was created to be a “helper” for her husband, “helps” him in the wrong way. She “helps” him to sin (Gen. 3:6). [83]
This could explain why the serpent comes to the woman first in the narrative. The ancient storyteller’s lesson, then, is not the usurpation of the man, but simply this: Life is full of irony.
A Critique of Wenham’s Conclusions
Again, any one of a number of literary structures could be correct. They are all useful for a better understanding of the brilliant mind of the narrator.
That being said, there are a few points to Wenham’s analysis that deserve critique.
First, his conclusion that a hierarchy of roles has been inverted after the Fall depends on the assumption that there was a hierarchy of roles established in scene 2 (from his diagram).
Wenham admits this and bases his assumption of hierarchy on the progenitorship of the man and the naming scene. [84]
As argued previously, I do not agree with his assumption based solely on those factors. Therefore, although his literary analysis lends itself to some interesting insights, his final conclusions are based on faulty a priori assumptions.
Second, it is possible that the inverted palistrophic form portrays the upheaval of creation in general terms. However, it was clearly not a reversal of roles between the man and the woman that caused the upheaval.
In fact, in Wenham’s structural diagram the scene on which everything turns, the climactic scene, is not scene 3 (where the serpent tempts the woman), but rather scene 4 (where the woman and the man eat the forbidden fruit).
Scene 4 is the catalyst for the inversion. Therefore, according to Wenham’s literary analysis, it was sin that caused the inversion and consequent upheaval, not the woman’s usurping of the man’s role. In fact, it was all of creation that was inverted, not solely the man-woman relationship.
Wenham points out that Walsh also draws attention to the inversion of roles that characterizes the narrative. [85] However, Walsh’s argument only shows that the usurpation of roles by the woman occurred in her relationship to God, not the man.
Walsh points out that the man listened to the wife instead of God; and the woman listened to the creature, instead of God. In listening to the serpent the woman did not usurp the authority of the man – she usurped the authority of God.
Wenham rightly points out that up to this point “it has been God who has made all that man requires; now man and wife attempt to make loincloths (Gen. 1:7, 11, 26, 31; 2:18, etc.). The human pair were shown usurping divine prerogatives as well as explicitly disobeying God’s expressed word. When God made the couple clothes of skin in Genesis 3:21, this was both an act of grace and a reassertion of the creator’s rights.” [86]
It was, therefore, the headship and authority of God that was usurped, not that of the man.
The Question of Intellect
Some scholars argue that the deception of Eve is an indication of her inferior intellect or ability to discern. Robert Culver writes, “Eve was deceived by a flashy half-truth; her man was persuaded by a tie of affection. She was deceived, but he was not.” [87]
Culver bases his conclusion, not on the creation narrative, but on 1 Timothy 2:8-15. I disagree with his interpretation of 1 Timothy 2:8-15, and will deal with that when I get to the teachings of Paul. However, at this point, I would only point out that there is no indication in the creation narrative that Adam was not deceived along with Eve.
Adam acted on his own volition. Adam tried to blame the woman, but God didn’t seem to accept his excuse.
Culver quotes Bengel who says, “the deception (of Eve) indicates a lesser ability in comprehension, and so this limitation is why it is not allowable for a woman to teach … At the present day we could hardly find a more vivid illustration of the essential difference between masculine and feminine nature.” [88]
If, as Culver would have us believe, Eve was intellectually inferior, what does it then say about Adam that he followed her advice?
Culver and Bengel assume that the serpent came to Eve because she was easier to deceive. There is, however, no biblical basis for that arbitrary assumption.
One could just as easily assume that the serpent came to Eve because she was a more stimulating conversationalist than Adam, or perhaps because she was smarter than Adam and would be better able to follow his logical arguments, or that she was more intellectually curious and therefore more prone to ask questions.
I don’t believe these to be true, but they are neither less likely, nor more arbitrary than the assumptions of Culver and Bengel.
Ortland also points out that it was the woman who was deceived. The man, according to Ortland, sinned in heeding the woman. Based on Genesis 3:17, Ortland suggests that Adam sinned on two levels: (1) he listened to the woman; and (2) he ate from the tree. [89]
Ortland misses several important factors.
A Refutation of the Argument on Intellect
First, the statement in Genesis 3:17 is causal. The “and” between the two clauses is not meant to separate, but to link them as one. The verse should be read as causal – “Because you listened to your wife which led you to eat the forbidden fruit …”
There is only one sin – Adam disobeyed God. Listening to the woman was not a sin. Listening to her voice over and against God’s voice was the indictment from God against Adam.
Ortland tries to backtrack in his notation, explaining that he doesn’t mean to say that men are never to listen to women. [90] Yet, if these are universal truths, as he claims, then that is exactly what his interpretation, taken to its logical conclusion, would necessitate.
Second, it’s possible that, in Genesis 3:17, God was addressing Adam’s initial response in Genesis 3:12. God was not blaming the woman. Adam had already blamed the woman and God for creating her (Gen. 3:12).
The Hebrew writers had a wry sense of humor and loved irony. Adam pathetically blamed the woman and so God said to him (tongue in cheek) – “Because you listened to the woman …” In other words, “your lame excuse is not going to get you out of the consequences of your sin.”
Finally, the narrative never actually reports that Eve told Adam to eat. Adam was in the scene with Eve the entire time. She simply ate and handed him some of the fruit. For all we know, he asked for it. Adam “listening” to his wife may have simply meant, he willingly and without coercion followed her example.
Foh observes that “Adam is judged not because he heeded his wife’s advice per se, but because he followed her bad advice to disobey God (Gen. 3:17).” [91] The source of his sin is his disobedience to God.
In affirmation of this, it is noteworthy that when Paul wrote of sin coming into the world, he always spoke of Adam, and rarely of Eve. According to Paul, sin came into the world through Adam (Rom.5).
Final Conclusion
In conclusion, there is no evidence that in speaking to the serpent the woman was usurping the role or authority of the man. The narrator simply reports that the serpent spoke to the woman.
Why did the serpent speak to the woman instead of the man? The simple answer is we don’t know. The narrator doesn’t tell us, nor does he seem to be bothered by it.
We do know, however, that the second creation account ends with a male-female relationship of equality, mutuality, and interdependence, without explicit reference to roles.
Without the a priori assumption of male authority (which is not found in the text), the argument of the usurpation of roles fails.
FOOTNOTES
77. Piper, RBMW, p.107.
78. Schreiner, Thomas R. “Women in Ministry: Another Complementarian Perspective.”
Two Views on Women in Ministry. Ed. James R. Beck. Grand Rapids: Zondervan (2005), p. 286.
79. Gordon J. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, volume 1, (Word Biblical Commentary, Zondervan Academic, 2014), p.134.
80. Ibid, p.142.
81. Ibid, p.145.
82. The ancient storytellers used many literary devices in telling the story. Chiasmus, repetition, double-entendre, word-play, irony, scenic formation, poetry, allusion, compare-contrast, and metaphor are all found in the creation accounts. Which literary structure was in the mind of the original storytellers is extremely difficult to ascertain with any certainty.
For instance, I would suggest a chiasmus structure that spans the entire narrative of Genesis 2-3. It begins and ends with decisive acts of God, namely creation and banishment.
These acts of God form an inclusio to the entire narrative. It follows a pattern that includes all the characters – God, man, woman, and the serpent. It could be diagrammed as follows:
God creates the man.
The man cannot be alone.
God creates the woman.
The serpent tempts the woman.
The woman eats the fruit and gives it to the man.
The man eats.
God arrives on the scene.
God questions the man.
God questions the woman.
God addresses the punishment on the serpent.
God addresses the punishment on the woman.
God addresses the punishment on the man.
God banishes the man and woman from the garden.
The narrative, then, can be diagramed in the following chiasmus:
God
. Man
. Woman
. Serpent
. Woman
. Man
God
. Man
. Woman
. Serpent
. Woman
. Man
God
This was, as previously mentioned, a mnemonic device developed over time in the telling and retelling of the story. It could be argued that the storyteller has the woman eating first because it fits the literary structure. She is naturally the next character in the chiasmus, and getting the story straight (telling it the way it has always been told) demands that she arrives after the serpent is introduced.
Another possible way to diagram the narrative is a circular motif where the creation of the man and woman forms an inclusio.
The narrative begins with the creation of the man (Gen. 2:7) and comes full circle with the creation of the woman (Gen. 2:21-22). It circles again, beginning with the scene of the man-woman relationship created (Gen. 2:25; perfect relationship in the Garden), and ending, full circle, with the man-woman relationship broken (Gen. 3:24; relationship is broken and banished from the Garden).
83. Foh, WIM, p.74.
84. Wenham, Genesis 1-15, p.142.
85. Ibid., p.142.
86. Ibid., p.142.
87. Culver, WIM, p.36.
88. Culver, WIM, p.37.
89. Piper, RBMW, p.110.
90. Ibid., p.110.
91. Foh, WIM, p.74.
