Partners in the Mystery of Creation

by Dianne Bergant, C.S.A.

from Where can we find her?
searching for women’s identity in the new church
edited by Marie-Eloise Rosenblatt , pp. 11-23

Published by Paulist Press, 1991
published on our website with the necessary permissions

In order to conduct any serious examination of personhood, we should first address the more fundamental question of our operative anthropology.(1) We must recognize that although many individuals and groups assert that women and men are in fact equal, still in many instances their anthropological assumptions belie the seriousness or comprehensiveness of their assertion. Too often the same people are espousing a kind of dual-nature anthropology in which complementarity is seen as inherent in nature.(2) They consider certain specific characteristics as feminine and others as masculine. While no one will deny the physiological complementarity of the sexes, still many are pondering whether or not biological distinctions substantially predetermine psychological, social, intellectual and spiritual realms as well. They wonder also to what extent societal and cultural conditioning has influenced role differentiation and/or personality development.

An operative dual-nature anthropology of this kind leads its proponents to espouse the so-called principle of natural roles, whereby biology determines destiny. These same people tend to make distinctions between mind and body, spirit and matter, culture and nature, rationality and emotionality, etc., and stereotypically align men with the first and more desirable component of the pair and women with its “complement.” According to the tradition which endorses these distinctions, women have been regarded as derivative. They have been considered “natural” followers rather than leaders, supporters rather than administrators, dependents rather than providers. Even when they are successful and are accorded acclaim, too often it is in or for an ancillary role.

Upon careful reflection we are able to recognize that many gender stereotypes have become institutionalized within both the broader society and the church. The myth of the helpless woman, i.e. the “weaker sex” in need of protection and direction, and a distorted theology of self-denial have kept many women in a kind of subordinate state and, what is perhaps even more tragic, have made them satisfied to be so. Consciousness-raising and new experiences challenge some of the cultural and religious stereotypes, but societal and church structures have not always been subject to corresponding reorganization. To insist that they now must and to take steps to accomplish such restructuring is often met with resistance and accusations of disloyalty and serious offense. The issue may appear to be one of justice, as indeed it is, but the underlying anthropological assumptions profoundly influence the manner in which justice is to be understood and pursued.

Sometimes its proponents justify the distinctive point of view of this dual-nature anthropology by arguing from a literal reading of the creation account recorded in Genesis 2 (the rib narrative), while ignoring the one found in Genesis I where equality in creation is undeniable. Even when they have considered this first account, they may not realize just how extensively their own anthropological attitudes have influenced the way they interpret the biblical traditions. It is important to acknowledge that an intimate relationship exists between our anthropological assumptions and our biblical understanding. New insights call for new interpretations; new interpretations result in new insights.(3)

It is not enough to disclaim the dual-nature anthropology and to opt for a single-nature view of humankind. This too is inadequate. There is no human being exempt from sexual differentiation, and this differentiation cannot be dismissed lightly.(4) On the other hand, the claims of androgyny are also misleading. To insist that women and men have both feminine and masculine characteristics still constitutes subscribing to the stereotyping of human traits according to gender, a fundamental premise of dual-nature anthropology.

The time has come for a new anthropological understanding, one that does not confuse sex (physiological reality) with gender (social or cultural conditioning). Such a point of view, often called person-centered or transformative,(5) is, in fact, being fashioned out of materials provided by new and creative interpretations of our religious tradition and comprehensive critical analyses of contemporary experience. This study is offered as a contribution to just such an endeavor.

In the Image of God

The creation account found in Genesis 1 is a work of great reflection and deep theological meaning. While we need not limit our understanding of it to that of biblical Israel (an historical concern), we must be attentive to the form and patterns found within the passage (a literary issue). Its very structure has been carefully determined in order to set forth its teaching. Although only 1:26-27 is specifically anthropological, a simple analysis of vv. 20-28 will enable us to appreciate it in its context. This literary unit deals with the creation and blessing of several animals:(6)

the creation of water animals

v .20 “God said. . .

v .21 “God created . . .”

v .22 “God blessed. . .”

the creation of land animals

v. 24 “God said . . .”

v. 25 “God made . . .”

the creation of humans

v. 26 “God said . . .”

v. 27 “God created . . .”

v. 28 “God blessed . . .”

Here we may conclude that either the land animals receive no blessing or the pattern has been interrupted and the description of the creation of humans has been inserted. Thus the blessing is now transferred to them and significantly expanded.

A close look at the text itself will reveal that the animals of the water and the birds are created “according to their kind” (v. 21) as are the creatures of the earth (v. 25). This phrase is absent in the description of the creation of humanity. Instead we read that humankind was created in God’s image and according to God’s likeness (vv. 26-27). While acknowledging human affinity with the creatures of the earth (suggested by the structure), the account states that there is a dimension to this earth creature that is uniquely associated with God.

The Hebrew selem (image) usually refers to some kind of material representation such as a molten image, a painted picture, etc. It brings to mind the images of gods which were set up to mark the hegemony of the deity. The physical character of this word prohibits a strictly mythological understanding. The word demût or likeness is less concrete and denotes similarity. Juxtaposed, the meanings of these two words modify each other. Whatever it is, the image/likeness of God is neither merely physical nor purely spiritual. It transcends the either/or dichotomy without excluding either.

The text itself tells us nothing about the nature of this image/ likeness. Down through the ages, several divergent scholarly and doctrinal interpretations have been advanced.(7) However, in many instances they have gone far beyond what is actually stated or what the text would warrant. While the text may not provide us with a definition, it does suggest ways of understanding this figure of speech.

The poetic structure of the first two lines of 1:27 is an example of inverted parallelism:(8)

and God created humankind in his image;
in the image of God he created him;

This is followed by a third line which is in direct parallelism with the second:

male and female he created them.

Clearly, male and female has some kind of correspondence with the image of God. There is some similarity or commonality that allows for such a construction. However, in poetic parallelism correspondence is seldom, if ever, one of identification. Therefore, made “in the image of God” is not to be understood here to mean that humankind is male and female. Rather, whatever it does mean, both male and female participate in it.

If being created in the image/likeness of God sets humankind apart from the other animals, we should be attentive in our analysis to whatever else is unique to humans. It is clear that of all the living creatures only they are told to “subdue” the earth and “have dominion” (v. 28). We might conclude, then, that image/ likeness has some correspondence with these special activities. In accepting this interpretation, we must keep three important points in mind: (1) image/likeness should be understood from the point of view of function rather than nature; (2) since both male and female are in the image/likeness of God, both are directed to subdue and have dominion; (3) it is as image of God and not as God that they subdue and have dominion.

The direction taken in this brief literary analysis is borne out by historical information. It appears that Israel, like many other ancient Near Eastern cultures, understood image/likeness in relational terms. Rulers were often thought to be the images of the gods,(9) or considered direct descendants of deities. They ruled in place of the gods in and over the land. This is precisely the notion advanced in Genesis 1. Here women and men are not the menial slaves they seem to be in the creation myths of other ancient Near Eastern societies. Instead, they are representatives of God, exercising dominion in God’s place.

Furthermore, this dominion is exercised by both. The verbs “be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth . . . subdue . . . and have dominion” are all plural and are addressed to both the woman and the man. Neither is favored over the other; neither has an advantage. Both come from God in the same creative act; both have a correspondence with image/likeness; both are blessed and commissioned. They are indeed “partners.” To read a discriminatory interpretation into the text is to diminish its import and to minimize its theological potential.

Finally, image/likeness suggests not only the humans’ relationship with God but also their place in the world vis-a-vis the animals and the land. To subdue and have dominion is a responsibility, not a right, and it is to be exercised in a limited and restricted manner. This is implicit in the notion of image/likeness. Women and men are representative of, but not identical with, the divine sovereign. They must act as regents of the true ruler, not as absolute rulers in their own right. They are responsible to God and for the earth and the things of the earth.

Although historical data has provided the insights regarding responsibility for the earth and all the things of the earth, it is corroborated by the obvious sense of the entire creation account. All other living things have been created in such a way as to ensure their survival. Implicit in this is the notion of ecological harmony and balance. Surely it is presumed that the human couple would exercise its authority in accord with this harmony and balance.

To summarize, the Genesis 1 creation account provides us with the outlines of an anthropology that is concerned with our relationship with God (dignity of image/likeness), with each other (equality in creation), and with the rest of the created world (responsibility of stewardship).

A Suitable Partner

The second major text wherein we find anthropological themes is Genesis 2:4b-3:24. This passage differs considerably from the one just examined. The first narrative might be called a cosmology. It recounts “the heavens and the earth when they were created” (2:4a). The second is part of what might be called an etiology, a narrative that explains the origin of something. As it stands, it offers answers to such questions as: Why is it so difficult to eke an existence out of the ground? Why is childbirth, which is so natural, also so painful? Why do men dominate women? Why do dead bodies decay into the earth? While the answers to these questions are really found in chapter 3, it is in the creation account (2:4b-24) that we find the imagery which will be employed to answer the questions.

We must ask further: Which questions are universally posed by all people and which are conditioned by societal circumstances? (A maritime community would hardly be concerned with matters of agriculture. Might they then fashion the story of creation differently?) It is important to distinguish between the literary expression of a tradition and the basic anthropology underlying the it.

V. 7 is often considered the locus classicus of ancient Israelite anthropology. God took some of the dust (10) of the ground and formed a human being. The relationship between this creature of the ground and the ground itself can be seen in the character of the creative act (being formed), in the material employed (dust from the ground), and in the play on the words adam (humankind) and adama (ground). The human creature was taken from the ground and will in turn work the ground. Out of this same ground God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air (v. 19). This tradition also acknowledges the very close relationship between human beings and the other animals that inhabit the earth.

The drama of creation is not yet over. It is only after a second creative act, when God breathes the breath of life into its nostrils, that the earth creature becomes a living human being. Obviously, the other creatures also breathe, but this exclusive direct transfer of the breath of life is the author’s way of setting the human creature apart from the rest of the animals. As closely as it is associated with the other creatures of the earth, this human being is unique among them.

The reason given for the creation of the animals was that the human creature was not to be alone (2:18). Despite the features they held in common, no animal was found fit to serve as ‘ezer (help) for this unique creature. The word ‘ezer appears in other biblical passages where the context is usually one of blessing after deliverance, and where the ‘ezer, or mediator of the blessing, is God. (11) If it is not good that the human creature be alone, and if the other animals are not fit to deliver him (12) from his aloneness, then only one who is at least his peer can be his companion, his suitable partner. Thus enters the woman.

We need not list the ways that this passage (2:21-23) has been used against women. Let us rather read the text carefully in order to discover what it can mean. Although the woman is taken from the man, he played no part in her creation nor did he even witness it. Like the man, she is brought forth by a deliberate and unique act of God. To argue that she is inferior because she is made of his substance throws into question his alleged innate superiority, for he was made from the dust of the ground. The reason for the use of the rib image is probably found outside of the literature of Israel.

Historical research has uncovered an ancient Sumerian myth of the creation of the goddess Ninti. It is not clear whether she is called “woman of life” or “woman of the rib,” since the Sumerian roots for the two words are the same. As is so often the case in primarily oral cultures, the pun plays a significant role in this account. Appreciating the play on words here can illuminate the Israelite account. It is precisely this linguistic similarity that is at the core of the Genesis narrative. The Israelite author retained the image of the rib, even though the linguistic similarity between rib and life was lost in translation. This explanation of the use of rib is consistent with the literary style of this account, for we have already seen (adam/adama), and will see again, that this author makes use of puns.

V. 23a is clearly poetic. The word pair “bone and flesh” is a typical way of expressing comprehensiveness. A similar pair, “good and evil,” is found early in the narrative (2:9, 17). The reference to the bone and flesh of the man is quite compatible with the story, since there the woman is made of his substance. However, the words have psychological as well as physical meanings, and should be understood in this larger context. The first implies power and the second weakness. When cast in this poetic form, they allude to a total range of concepts limited only by the parameters of the word pair. This is “bone of my bones,” or strength of my strengths, “and flesh of my flesh,” or weakness of my weaknesses, and everything in between. The man recognizes that the woman is the one with whom he can interact totally. He is no longer alone. He now has a suitable partner.

The structure of v. 23b is also poetic, and it too should be understood poetically and not as a statement of science. Once again the author makes use of assonance, a device that catches both the ear and the imagination. We saw that adam was formed from adama. Here issa (woman) is built from is (man). While issa and is come from different Hebrew roots, the ear does not alert us to the distinction. The thought of the poetry may well follow the line of the story, but this play on words cautions us against a literal interpretation. Where the creation narrative uses adam (vv. 2123), a word for man generally, the poetry has is, a word with relational overtones that is often translated as husband. The man and the woman are indeed “partners.”

This poetic construction (v. 23a & b) indicates that the author did not set out to provide an accurate account of the creation of the first couple, but sought to focus on their relationship. This is substantiated by v. 24. Here the reference is not only to the very powerful and natural drive of the sexes to be physically united as one flesh. The verse declares the man’s willingness to disengage himself from his primary relationship and responsibility (his family of origin) and to establish a new social unit. (13) The importance of such a shift of loyalties of someone in the ancient world cannot be underestimated. In this patriarchal androcentric society, the woman is portrayed as the only suitable partner for the establishment of a new relationship.

“Behold, I am making something new!’’ (Is 43:19)

Interpretation is far more than the mere gathering of information about a text. It is an explanation of its meaning. When the text in question is revered as part of the sacred tradition of a believing community, a tradition that is somehow rooted in the self-identity of that community, some kind of historical continuity with the ongoing community seems essential for valid and historically coherent interpretation. This does not mean, however, that the sense of the text is restricted to its original meaning and cannot generate a plurality of other legitimate meanings. (14)

The growth and development of the religious tradition contributed to the shaping of the believing community, and the community in turn shaped the tradition. Down through the centuries, this mutually creative process has continued. The interpretation of the tradition that was handed down may have been different from the original meaning. However, the meaning received was the meaning that the community considered the correct expression of its identity. It appears that the believing community always exercised a good deal of creative freedom in interpretation. This freedom may have been restricted by the specific perspective of self-identity that it inherited from the preceding generation, but it was not restricted to that perspective. This both explains the limitation of certain aspects of the tradition as it has come down to us, and challenges us to reinterpret in ways that are expressive of our time.

Interpretation has been defined as the meeting of the world of the text with the world of the reader. The text articulates the community’s received tradition; the reader brings a particular perspective or understanding of the world to the text. Let us return to the purpose of this study, i.e. the task of fashioning a new anthropological understanding. Our examination of the creation narratives has uncovered some significant themes: human dignity in virtue of image/likeness; the equality of the man and woman; their responsibility as stewards; their relationship as partners. This is the received tradition.

A critical analysis of contemporary society lays bare values that are really disvalues: arbitrary control, competition, indifference, exploitation, domination, etc. These attitudes have shaped the way we read the biblical texts and have reinforced previous anthropological understandings. If we are to give birth to a personcentered or transformative anthropology, we must espouse real values, values rooted in the biblical testimonies and in human reflection on experience: collaboration, cooperation, compassion, justice, mutuality, etc. This list of values is an example of the kind of perspective that we must bring to our interpretation of the texts. The interpretation will then inform our anthropological understanding. The creative and mutual interchange of religious tradition and contemporary perspective will give us the grounding we need to move forward as we transform our world and make “something new.”

NOTES

1. There are no uniformly agreed upon categories that determine anthropological classification. Various authors suggest different delineations and accord different designations. Cf. Mary Aquin O’Neill, “Toward a Renewed Anthropology,” Theological Studies 36:4 (December 1975) 725-36; Mary Buckley, “The Rising of the Woman is the Rising of the Race,” Proceedings of the Catholic Theological Society of America 34 (1979) 49-63; Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk (Boston: Beacon Press, 1983) 93-115; Anne E. Carr, Transforming Grace (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988) 117-33.

2. This is the kind of anthropological position that seems to undergird recent church statements, specifically John Paul II’s meditation entitled Mulieris Dignitatem and Partners in the Mystery of Redemption, the U.S. bishops’ first draft of a pastoral response to the concerns of women in church and society.

3. Feminist interpretations of the creation accounts include: Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978) 12-30; Maryanne C. Horowitz, “The Image of God in Man-Is Woman Included?” Harvard Theological Review 72 (1979) 175-206; Phyllis A. Bird, ” `Male and Female He Created Them’: Gen 1:27b in the Context of the Priestly Account of Creation,” Harvard Theological Review (1981) 129-60; Dianne Bergant, C.S.A. and Carroll Stuhlmueller, C.P., “Creation According to the Old Testament,” Evolution and Creation, Ernan McMullin, ed. (Notre Dame: University Press, 1985) 15375; Lisa Sowle Cahill, Between the Sexes (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985); Alice L. Laffey, An Introduction to the Old Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988) 21-27.

4. Recent church statements challenge a “unisex” notion. See Pope Paul VI, Octogesima Adveniens (USSC, 1971) 13; “Women/Disciples and Coworkers,” Origins 4:45 (May 1, 1975) 719 (revised translation). Also see the Vatican intervention at Mexico City Women’s Year Conference, Origins 5:7 ( July 17, 1975) 107ff. However, these statements still maintain the dual-nature anthropological position that women (never men) have a special vocation proper to their nature.

5. Mary Buckley, op. cit. 54f.

6. It is interesting to note that the reproductive powers of plants appear to be included in their creation. Only human beings and the animals are endowed with the power of self-propagation by a separate act, in fact a blessing. However, the fact that animals are also told to “be fruitful, multiply and fill” their habitat prevents us from understanding image/likeness in terms of procreative ability.

7. They include such diverse views as the differentiation of the sexes, the human ability to stand upright, or the possession of the mysterious powers of thought, love or creativity.

8. Trible, op. cit. 16ff.

9. Aage Bentzen, King and Messiah (London: Lutterworth Press, 1955) 43.

10. apar (dust) is the dry surface of the ground. It also alludes to the ground of the grave and thus carries the idea of perishability. The human creature is made of the stuff of the grave. This is an etiological explanation for decomposition.

11. Cf. Ex 18:4; Dt 33:7, 26, 29; Is 30:5; Ez 12:14; Pss 20:3; 33:20; 70:6; 115:9, 11; 121:1, 2; 124:8 146:5.

12. Trible argues that there is no sexual differentiation before the creation of the woman. I believe that the obvious relationship between the specific creations and punishments of the man and the woman suggests otherwise. Arguing etiologically: The man suffers in relation to the ground from which he was formed (3:17-19). The woman suffers in relation to the man from whom she was taken (3:16). We will see later that it is assonance not biology that determines origin. Therefore, here ‘adam should be understood as singular and male.

13. Some commentators see this as an allusion to a beena marriage, where the man left his home and joined his wife. Cf. Roland de Vaux, Ancient Israel, Vol. 1 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965) 28f.

14. Cf. Sandra M. Schneider, I.H.M., “Faith, Hermeneutics, and the Literal Sense of Scripture,” Theological Studies 39 (1978) 71936.

Recommended Reading

Anne E. Carr, Transforming Grace: Christian Tradition and Women’s Experience. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1988. An introduction to some of the fundamental theological issues relative to women and the church. The author has an excellent explanation of theological anthropology.

Adela Yarbro Collins, ed., Feminist Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship. Chico: Scholars Press, 1985. A series of essays on biblical topics by feminist scholars. The collection is Number 10 in the Society of Biblical Literature’s Centennial Publication series entitled Biblical Scholarship in North America.

Alice L. Laffey, An Introduction to the Old Testament: A Feminist Perspective. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1988. This work is a critical supplement to the more comprehensive introductions. Issues of patriarchy, role stereotyping, male preference, etc. are addressed as they appear in the biblical material.

Rosemary Radford Ruether, Sexism and God-Talk: Toward a Feminist Theology. Boston: Beacon Press, 1983. Considered one of the first comprehensive theological works from a feminist perspective. The author treats aspects of the major categories of systematic theology: anthropology, christology, eschatology, etc.

Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978. Using rhetorical criticism, the author throws new light on texts with which most people are familiar. The volume is one in the Overtures to Biblical Theology Series.