Modern Christianity: Christian Identity movements

Eve and Adam 483-502, Chester Quarles' Christian Identity (2004) 66-127.

Preadamite Theory and the Christian Identity Movement: Race, Hierarchy, and Genesis 1-3 at the Turn of the Millennium:

The Preadamite theory states that Adam and Eve were created after another race of people, the people created in Gen 1.  Adam and Eve were white and were superior, according to this theory.  This, along with the idea that Jews are descended from Eve and Satan, was in the post-Civil War era as well as in the 1970s with the rise of the Aryan nations. 

D.G.Phillips wrote article in 1868 in response to the freeing of the slaves after the Civil War.  In his article he stated that blacks were not descendents of Adam and Eve and question their humanity itself.  He concluded that blacks were sub humans, created before Adam and Eve and therefore inferior to them.  He also discusses the identity of the serpent.  He argues that when blacks were created they were not slaves by nature, but they were still subordinate to Adam.  He believes they were condemned to slavery because of their offenses, which he names later. Mankind was created in Genesis 1:26-27.  At this creation all races were created, and if blacks are human and they were created here too.  He examines the Hebrew and claims that in the use of 'man' and the materials used to make him the author is saying that man was created with red clay this chapter.  This may have a connection to his skin color, not to say that he's a red man but rather a white man created on the sixth day.  Where did the other races come from? They were created on the fifth day.  He claims that they came from a being which from its size and shape and partial confirmation had the image of a man.  He notes the curse of Ham in the Noah's Ark story, and makes a distinction that that was not where slavery was first put upon another race but rather it was in the beginning in Genesis 1-3.  He claims that Adam was more intelligent and exalted then this other being, superior to him but not in a slave to master relationship.  Next he examines the serpent.  He claims that the word serpent in Hebrew does not in any way mean serpent.  Instead the serpent was really a black man.  He argues that white and black men's bones and bone structure are completely different and uses this as definitive science to finally prove his point that blacks are inferior, they sinned and they should be slaves.

Next author was Prospero (he uses a very clever title for his article which is very Shakespearean).  He believes the science proves the races didn't come from a single source, although the Biblical account seems to say differently.  But it actually, he argues, the Bible records to creation stories of humans.  The creation of white men is in Genesis chapter 2:7 – 25.  Wipes began agriculture, domestic life and society.  They were created to be the builders, the farmers, the artists and scientists.  They were mean to be superior to the nomadic gatherers that has existed before Adam.  Now, God took care of all the extra races of Christianity because Christianity is open to all races as stated in the New Testament.  Further evidence for these extra races is found when no suitable helper is found for Adam in the race already there.  And just like Phillips, prospero argues that the serpent was a black man and a member of one of the races that existed before Adam.  The text states that the reason he's called a serpent in the text is because it describes him as well as being vile like a reptile.  He uses the image of an African medicine man, a whispering and seductive sorcerer.   He adds on to this argument that White for superior when they fell because they felt shame and cover themselves, they had modesty for their race.  Whereas, he says that Africans both men and women often go about naked and feel no shame.  On the issue of slavery he mentions that slavery was tolerated in the Bible, both in the Old and New Testament.  Why then did the south of the Civil War if they weren't doing anything wrong?  He argues that the crime of the south committed was not slavery but 'amalgamation', that is, having sex with slaves.  

The next author was W. A. Swift.  He begins by discussing the flood in the implication that has of our view on human ancestry.  Is the flood was a worldwide occurrence then all races would have to be descendents of Noah.  But he argues that this was a localized event, not worldwide.  He takes the Hebrew as support, saying that in Hebrew what is described as being flooded was an area of land not the world.  He believes that a trace had its own spot, so other races survive the flood event.  Next he discussed his creation to tackle with the issue of Adam's descendants.  I noted that he calls the days of creation eras or cycles of time.  Swift believe that the first race of man was created on the sixth day but they succumbed to Satan's dominion in that era.  This first race was nomadic.  On the seventh day God both arrested and created the Admites, these were the white race and descendents of Adam.  This race of men with able and knowledgeable and were meant to be farmers.  They were a divine grace and giving the command not to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which is described as the racial tree made up of the people and races.  They were commanded not to mongrelize in order to maintain the holy seed.  He is the first author in this group to even mention the tree.  Next he talks about Eve.  He says that no ribbon is in the original Hebrew but it says a feminine portion was taken from the man.  This was a separate act from creation on the six-day.  The active creating man on the seventh day established his racial supremacy and Judy to carry out the destiny of building God's kingdom.  

Richard Butler was the leader and founder of Aryan nations.  He believed that white Anglo-Saxon with a true Israel and had a duty to maintain the purity of the race.  He lists a statement of beliefs held by the people in the Aryan nation's group.  They believe that the Bible is the family history of the white race.  They believe that they are the children of Yahweh and Sons of Adam; not all races are descended from Adam, only whites.  They believe that the 12 tribes of Israel are now scattered into the Anglo-Saxons, the Celts, the Scandinavians, and the Teutonic peoples.  They believe that Abraham was the father of all these nations.  They also believe that the children of Satan are real and descended from Cain, the offspring of Eve and Satan.  These descendents are the Jews.  They believe that the Jews are the adversary of the white race and God.  They believe the Jews are out to destroy the racial politics, the white culture, and racial purity.  Those who can resist them are called chosen and faithful.  They believe that a battle is constantly raging against him and that the Aryans are the true Israel of the Bible not the Jews.  They believe that the plan of Yahweh is to bless all people through the seed of Abraham.  They believe that the present world problems are the results of the white race's disobedience of God's laws.  They believe that the white race is in charge of the earth and holds divine power.  They believe that every foundation of faith and worship is racial truth, for the Aryan, Christianity and the race are one.  Sex with other races is prohibited and everything should be done for the improvement of the white race.  Additionally, they believe in the science of eugenics. Butler backs up many of these claims of white supremacy with the Adam and Eve story, mostly the work written by Swift.

On the women, Butler writes that their only point in life is to have children and maintain the domestic sphere, to support their husbands.  The tasks and spheres of men and women are separate but complementary.  everything they do must be done to maintain the national community, national interests come before private interests.  

From these authors I am left with a few critiques.  None of them seem to go past Genesis 2.  they do not delve deeply into the story of the fall or the consequences.  Additionally they do not take the two stories from Genesis 1 and from Genesis 2 and 3 as separate but together.  Also they seem to imply that supremacy is dictated by order of creation.  If this is so witty Eve be superior to Adam?  Overall, these authors leave out large amounts of the story and do not take the story at face value but try to their interpretations fit the story.  

From many of Butler's writing a movement called Christian identity emerged in America and Europe.  Christian identity believe that Anglo-Saxons, Scandinavians, Germanics and related peoples are the true Israel.  Basically that the true Israel are white Christian who have learned their true identity as descendents of Jacob.  They believe that contemporary Jews are descendents of Cain and are the offspring of Satan and Eve.  Blacks and other nonwhites are considered God's creation but without the same standing as whites.  Within this movement there is much debate whether or not other races can go to heaven.  But some things that groups within this group agree on his racial purity, separatism and white supremacy. They follow Swift's and Butler's beliefs concerning Adam and the other races at creation.  That is, the idea of a race preceding Adam and his superiority over it.  They believe that the Bible is all about the history of the white race.  Those who adhere to these beliefs are sometimes indistinguishable from ordinary church members; they hold the same beliefs about salvation and divine inspiration.  Those who support Christian identity use similar language but use more identity terms and express more Christian patriotism, but it really only differ in ideas of race.  Christian identity supporters tend to twist Bible verses, fit scripture to their police and believe that covenants applied to them and not to the Jews.  This movement is not centralized or organized and does not apply to any single denomination.  There is no set leader.  They do not except Jews are nonwhites into their congregation.  

This movement has divided into several groups who hold similar beliefs.  The American Israel believes that white, Chritsian Americans are the 10 lost tribes.  They are the true Israel that is descended from the Israelites of the Northern Kingdom who migrated to Europe after the Assyrian exile.  The believe in white supremacy, that America is the new promised land and that racial purity makes for America's security.  The US is the nation that Bible promised to restore, divine government with the only true religion.  They are God's chosen people, not the Jews.  Jews are the enemy that wants to set up a one world government and take control.  They also have conspiracy theories about the government.  They believe that the US government wants to take away their right and property, especially their guns.  And so, they do not trust the government and seek to tear it down, sometime violently.  Racial Militias and American Israel groups have issued terrorist threats and hold ideas of holy war.  They think that war will help Aryan realize their identity and prepare them for Armageddon.  They are strong supporters of the documents on which the US was founded, the Bill of Right and Constitution.  These documents are sacred and God-given.  

British Israel is a Christian Identity group in Britain, similar to the American Israel.  They believe that the Bible is a racial book detailing the history of the white race.  They support racial purity and hold belief about Jesus similar to those of traditional Christians.  They also accept Jews and nonwhites into congregations.

Seedlines Identity is another American group that is narrow, constrictive and subjectively interpretive.  They strong believe in the exilic migration of Israelite to Europe and that these people were the true Christian church, protected by God.  The also believe that Yahweh doe snot love everyone, just the obedient.  To them, Jews and nonwhites are doomed, condemned eternally.  

Bloodline Identity also believes that the Bible is a racial book.  However, they believe that the text has been tampered with over time and there is much debate about how accurate today's manuscripts are.  They seek to reestablish God's kingdom and follow many of the beliefs of Swift and Butler.  They also believe that there is a ranging battle against evil always going on that they must fight, especially to win America back for God.  They hold some specific view about Biblical events like the Flood and the end times.  In terms of the Flood story, they believe that Noah was racial pure, the last pure blood Adamite, and need to be saved.  Also, the flood was a localized event, not worldwide, and in order for the Genesis 3:16 covenant to occur, the seed of Satan also had to be on the ark.  

Many of these Christian Identity beliefs have stemmed from the unfairness that rural populations feel from the government and big business.  They see that society is spinning out of control and falling away from christian values.  Many argue for nativism: favoring interests of native inhabitants over new comers (but not for Native Americans, for caucasians).  In terms of Biblical translations, they usual believe only one or two translations are correct, but there are many disputes. Most use KJV or New KJV.  Some also believe that the Bible contain mysteries and codes, specifically concerning the white Israelites.

It is amazing that such ideas have sprung from a few writers interpreting Genesis and what they believe it says about the origins of racial difference.  This is just a summary of how Christian Identity movements have come out of such writing and are no where near the depth that these group really have.  

Modern Christianity: male supremacy vs gender equality

Modern Christian ideas about gender relations hinges on the stories of creation, Paul's interpretations of them and his other writings on the roles of men and women.  Susan Foh fleshes out these sections of the Bible and provide her interpretation of them as it relates to Christians of today.

She first addresses Genesis, admitting that there are indeed to stories of creation.  However, the rest of her argument is based on the assumption that the two stories complement each other.  The general point of view is that the first story (Genesis 1) argues for the equality of men and women, while the second (Genesis 2-3) argues for the subordination of women.  Foh works to reconcile what seems to be opposing etiologies of women's place in the world.  Based on the first chapter, Foh concludes that men and women are equal ontologically.  That is, they were both blessed by God and commanded to subdue and steward the earth.  Both have the same relationship to God and creation.  The next two chapters, according to Foh, illustrate men's need for women.  She clams that in this version of human creation there still is equality, in substance.  Men and women are created equal and not one inferior to the other, yet possessing different functions.  Yet,  the woman was created to help her husband, to follow his lead (this seems to me to contract her earlier claim, but that can depend on the meaning of the word substance).  To Foh, temporal priority equals headship and that the act of naming someone is associated with having authority over them.  However, this is her assumption based on Paul's writing and does not stem directly from the text.  The raw text gives no indication that the man was superior to the woman before the Fall.  Just because I, for example, am older than a friend does not make me superior to them, nor does my act of naming someone give me authority over them.  For example, as a child I gave my parents names: Mom and Dad, and my older sisters: sister.  That is who they are to me, but that does not necessarily give me authority of them.  (One could argue that my parents gave me a name, ergo they have authority, but that is a divergent argument and come with other counter argues hinging on the question of what is authority).

Foh asks, is this fair? Answering that it is not our to says since we do not know how this felt to Adam and Eve because they, at that time, had not experience sin.  They operate harmoniously without the use of corrupt power.  Foh revisits the idea that men and women were equal in being at creation, yet I do not see how women can be equal and subordinate.  Foh does seem to address this later by claiming that though the sexes are equal, God put one in authority over the other.  That's the way it is and we shouldn't question his divine will.  I suppose this is valid from a religious standpoint that hinges upon faith.  Still though, I don not think that Foh can authoritatively argue that women were subordinate before the Fall.  In my opinion, this was not true until after it.  Foh then addresses the interaction between Eve and the snake.  She is writing under the assumption that the snake was Satan and that he was lying even though, as I have stated multiple time in other blog post, the raw text does not say so. In fact, the texts sounds like the snake was telling the truth, because what he said would happen did happen.  Foh does point out that the text doesn't support the ideas many hold about women being weaker and more easily deceived.  Rather she was, as perhaps Adam would have also, persuaded by arguments.  Foh supports this with the fact that Adam and Eve experienced the effects of the act simultaneously.

Like I said before, if the text is taken on its own without the later commentaries by Paul, in my opinion there is no concrete evidence that women were subordinate to men until after the Fall.  Foh argues that the Fall simply made men's exercise of authority more difficult.  I think this is a very broad reading of the text, as opposed to taking the text at its face value.  She argues that "woman's willing submission is replaced with a desire to control her husband" and a man must now fight for headship.

Next Foh address the problem of what women are allowed to do according to 1 Timothy 2:8-15 and several other related passages.  Whether or not women should work or exercise any form of authority of any men.  She posits that this passage is dealing with the church worship situation.  This validates the idea of the working woman.  She lists what some rules are from other passages: women may pray and prophesy, teach other women and children, and given private instruction to men but otherwise, not teach.  1 Timothy 2:8-15 teaches that women may not exercise authority over men.  Foh says that Paul supports this with the Garden of Eden story: man was created first and woman was deceived.  This 'support' is loaded with assumption which I have already discussed.

Next, Foh argues against women's ordination to the ministry, using the support of 'scriptural prohibition.'  They may no be ministers or elders.  This is where she puts forth that although this may be unappealing, this is God's command, whether or not is makes sense or is just is immaterial.  I will not argue with this because this line of argument branches into the topic of faith and is better suited to a sacral setting.  Debate that could stem from this could include but are not limited to: is God good/just? Do things have to make sense to us to be true?

Back to Foh's argument.  She states that man came first and and the woman came from the man.  Man must be a representative of the human race (note today our common use of the word mankind).  And this is may be why elders should be male, to represent the congregation.  However, this reminded me of something Susan B Anthony said: in the beginning woman came from man but now men are born of women, they come from women.  I wonder what Foh would say to that?

One crucial point I feel that Foh is leaving out of her whole line of thinking is context.  I am in Dr. Lewis' Introduction to Hebrew Bible/Old Testament class.  One extremely important thing I have learned is that the Bible is historically bound.  In my opinion, this is not to say exclusively, I am a Christian and hold my own beliefs about the Bible.  Since coming to college the beliefs I used to hold have been challenged and I am still working out exactly what I think the truth is.  I do know that the Bible contains truth, sometimes in the truth of the history and sometimes in the truth of what is being taught.  I aim to take the Bible not as 'literal' in the strictest sense but in the way in which it was meant to be received and what it was meant to teach.  That in itself is truth.  With or without the Bible, I hold to my beliefs because I have seen and experienced too many things that cannot be explained away.  But I am digressing.

The Bible was written in a different time and it is important to understand the time periods in which it was written.  In Paul's time, generally speaking women were never given any type of formal education, most were illiterate.  It was a predominantly patriarchal society.  Men were the ones given instruction in the matters of religion and teaching.  So, at such a time, why should Paul advocate for women to stand up and teach men.  This would probably have been seen as offensive, even aggressive, and might have caused havoc within the church and power struggle.  Maybe this was happening and that's why he wrote about it.  This would have been the easiest (perhaps the best) way to resolve the issue.  These instructions are a letter, not a theological book, written to a specific group of people at a specific time.  Additionally, I wonder if he had any notion that this letter or any of this letters would be canonized and kept for thousands of years.  How could he have foreseen or even comprehend a society such as ours; a patriarchy is all he ever knew.

Foh concludes, women may: pray and prophecy in the congregation provided they are covered, teach Sunday-school, or be deacons and administrators, and shouldn't: ask question during the period of instruction, hold the office of elder or a teaching-ruling position in the church.

Foh's argument has many holes and assumptions which I have outlined.  Honestly, in general, I don't think it's worth arguing whether or not Adam is superior before the Fall.  The fact remains, whether a person believes this is truth or not, the story teaches that we live in a post-Fall world.  And God said that women will be ruled by man.  So what's the point of trying to arguing it was such before; it really doesn't matter.  We're not in Eden anymore and we can't go back.

Phyllis Trible is another Christian commentator.  In my opinion, she takes a more academic approach than Foh, examining the raw text of the story and the precise words in the original hebrew.  She does have an agenda for writing what she writes but I think she has well grounded support.  Her agenda is to prove that the Eden story is not grounds for male supremacy and female submission.  She has several important points to support this:

1) The first human being (man/ 'adham/Adam) was androgynous.  'adham is where we get the name Adam but 'adham isn't a proper name or a term for 'male'.  It can be translated as such but in general it is a term meaning human.  Ergo, male and female were created together as one being and God separated them.  At such time, the different sexes originated, male and female ('ish and 'ishshah).  The woman wasn't an afterthought nor man superior by order of creation.

2) The woman was created as a helper.  That is: "a helper fit for him" = 'ezer, a relational term designating a beneficial relationship and doesn't specify the positions within a relationship or imply that one is inferior to the other.  Also she was made by God just as Adam was made by God.  Adam had no hand in making her

3) To name v. to call.  Adam named all the animals and therefore exercise superiority over them.  He call the woman woman.  After the Fall, he named her Eve, exercising superiority over her.

4) We don't actually know why the snake spoke to Eve.  There are theories but the text doesn't say why exactly.  No indication that the female was the weaker of the two.  In fact, she is a 'theologian and translator' who contemplates and examines and intellectually converses with the snake.  She acted independently while the man seems to take the passive role.

5) The woman should not be seen as a temptress or seducer of the man.  The man blames the woman (not say that she seduced him) and he blames God.  Like Trible points out: if the author had meant to make the woman appear as such he could have.  It is the snake who is labeled as the deceiver/seducer by Eve.

6)  The snake is cursed while the man and woman are judged and the judgements are commentaries, mandates.  "They describe and not prescribe."  Male supremacy is a perversion of creation.  Because of sin there are broken relationships between people and people and animals.  The subjugation of women is not a result of creation but a result of the Fall.

7) Repentance of sin and the grace of God liberate men and women from this brokenness.

Like Foh, some of these point hinge on faith and what one believes (no surprise since she is an outspokenly Christian commentator).  I like that she examines the Eden story on its own to better understand it instead of relying on Paul or other commentators or Genesis 1.  I also like her approach of analyzing the text with few assumptions and her examination of the hebrew.  In fact the only thing I would critique is to ask: was the snake lying or telling the truth? is the point really the disobedience or the tree? what about the tree of life?  She probably didn't address these because, like I said, she is writing for a purpose, which is not an examination of the story per se, but to show that the story doesn't promote male supremacy.

Modern Judaism: the issue of marriage and gay marriage

Genesis 1-3 is the foundation for current debates on laws defining and "protecting" marriage.  How does current understanding of the evolution of human sexuality compare with the current arguments about marriage?  Is Genesis 2:24 an etiology of marriage or sexual desire or neither?


Current arguments about marriage:

A number of writers have composed arguments discussing their views on marriage and sexuality, particularly as it relates to the Bible and the Garden of Eden story.

Joseph Hertz, the editor who composed The Authorized Daily Prayer Book (1945), believed that marriage embodied the dignity and sacredness of life, was a key part of the creation scheme, intended for all of humanity and strictly between a man and a woman.  He saw it as something deeper than a civil contract.  The purpose of marriage is posterity (emphasis on the family and children, as commanded by Genesis 1:28) and companionship (emphasis on what a man gains from a female companion and the completeness he finds in her, as commanded by Genesis 2:24).  Marriage is also monogamous, ideally in the Bible.  He addresses the ideal marriages of the patriarchs but fails to explain why many of them had multiple wives or concubines.

Samuel Dresner in "Homosexuality and the Order of Creation" argues against homosexuality along with other forms of sexual acts prohibited in the Torah.  Like Hertz, he argues in favor of heterosexual marriages for the purpose of companionship and children.  He uses the same passages as Hertz to support these claims.  Adam and Eve were monogamous and so humans were meant to dwell in monogamous families.  But he doesn't stop with creation.  He use the flood story too, stating that God destroyed the world because of sexual corruption and this was fixed by the heterosexual marriages between Noah and his wife and his sons and their wives.  He then turns to the patriarchs' ideal marriage which were not tarnished by their relationships with other wives and concubines.  Family is central to everything and homosexuality is against nature.  He argues that homosexuals are not so by choice, but they are like those born blind: "As the existence of such persons does not deny the fact that humans hear and see 'by nature,' so humans are heterosexual 'by nature,' though individual persons may be homosexual."  He believes that homosexuality is permitted then what will stop adultery, incest and bestiality from being "rejected."

Michael Coogan in God and Sex: What the Bible Really Says discusses sexuality using Biblical support in a different, more openminded way.  He begins by first making it clear to the audience that the Bible is a historically bound text that originate in a society drastically different than our own.  It cannot necessarily be used a guidebook on the practice and theory of marriage.  Like Dresner and Hertz came is a definition of marriage, Coogan sees marriage's function in Biblical times to be the production of offspring.  In contrast to Hertz, Coogan states that arranged marriages were extremely common and widely accepted in the biblical world.  Examples are strewn throughout the Bible.  According to biblical law and practice, endogamy was a (n encouraged) conditions of marriage in ancient Israel.

Coogan also addresses the practice of polygamy (or polygyny).  It was not uncommon in the Bible, even sometimes encouraged by God, as seen in the patriarchs.  In fact, it is attested among Jews as late as the 300s AD.  In response to the Adam and Eve story, Coogan posits: "in the beginning, according to Genesis, there was only the original couple in the Garden of Eden, no one else with whom either could have any sort of relationship; but Genesis never reports a marriage ceremony. Not long after Eden, however, the biblical writers tell us, men began to have more than one wife, beginning with Cain's descendant Lamech, who had two wives."  It had great advantages: children were a source of labor and multiple wives were a status symbol.  He discusses further the connection between sex and power and how though the Bible they are often associated with each other.

Unlike Hertz ideas of sacredness in marriage, Coogan points out that the Bible does not contain the idea of romantic love that many hold today.  In the Bible love is synonymous with sexual obsession and physical attraction.  Yet, 'loving marriages' do seems to be described in other cases.  Coogan also goes into a long discussion about divorce in the Bible, seen in some cases as permissible and in other cases not.

On the topic of homosexuality (referred to as homoerotic relationships), Coogan states that the Bible does not have very much to say.  He examines cases which some people believe contain elements of homosexuality, like David and Jonathan or the men of Sodom and Gibeah.  In David and Jonathan's case, he explains that the expressions of love can be taken as not homoerotic because such expressions were not uncommon in the ancient Near East.  In Sodom and Gibeah's case, he asks whether or not sodomy was the sin of Sodom.  In his opinion, no.  By examining other biblical references to the destruction of Sodom, it seems that their sin was actually the lack of hospitality to strangers and social injustice.  There are explicate commands against homosexual relationships in Leviticus but it is only those.  Coogan goes on to examine how the New Testament handles homosexuality.  "Contemporary moralists who argue that the Bible is opposed to homosexuality (or, better, homoeroticism) are correct, but when they appeal to the Bible's authority as a timeless and absolute moral code, they ignore the cultural contexts in which the Bible was written."

In Coogan's case, he does not seek to make a point and then back it up with Biblical support, but rather to critically examine the Bible to understand what it says about marriage and sexual relations.  According to him the Bible says: marriage is meant for the production of offspring, arranged marriages were extremely common and widely accepted in the biblical world, endogamy was a (n encouraged) conditions of marriage in ancient Israel, polygamy (or polygyny) was also widely accepted (arguing against the Eden account and its validating of strictly heterosexual marriages), the Bible does not contain the idea of romantic love that many hold today, divorce was seen in some cases as permissible and in other cases not, and finally the Bible does not have very much to say about homosexuality except that there are explicate commands against homosexual relationships in Leviticus.  One might call this a more academic reading of the text.


Current understanding of the evolution of human sexuality:

In terms of biology and the evolution of human sexuality, marriage and sexual relations is drastically different.  It seems that, by nature, men tend to be polygamous and women monogamous.  Evolution chooses (although I cannot see how ‘evolution’ which is simply a concept can consciously choose) the path which leads to the most offspring.  Food availability therefore pays a large part in this.  It is females and no males who ultimately, albeit usually subtly, determine a species’ mating strategy.  When food is in short supply a female may choose to share a male with other females, but when food is abundant she may choose to be in a monogamous relationship.  In such sircumstaces, the female will be more careful in choosing a mate.  In fact, “from a biological point of view, the predisposition for influence, substance and prestige are all merely expressions of a male positioning himself to acquire women with whom to mate.”  One might assume that because food is so readily available for us, monogamy is preferable.  This may be.  Nevertheless, humans are somewhat sexual dimorphic and sexual dimorphism is a tendency of species who engage in polygamous relationships.  So, biologically, we seem to be polygamous.

The tendency of men to remain with the mother of his children appears to be a recent evolutionary development.  This was achieved through infertile sex and the sex drive.  Through these, humans were ultimately able to invest more time and energy into raising children, leading to more brain development and a more advanced species. 

Like polygamy, homosexual relations are also not cancelled out by biology.  Some chimpanzees practice same-sex activity.  

Despite this, there is still love. “Sexual love is complex, all embracing, uplifting, elusive but real, and it is a uniquely human characteristic. Human sexual love is highly selective - usually limited to one person at a time. It involves an intense desire for prolonged, close proximity with a person who is the object of affection.  Passion leads to intimacy and commitment.  Love can be so strong that it can endure for long intervals without genital consummation.”

Is Genesis 2:24 an etiology of marriage or sexual desire or neither?

Based on the readings from Eve and Adam, Genesis 2:24 is an etiology for both marriage and sexual desire, coming together to form the idea of monogamous families.  According to Hertz, this verse supports the idea that one of marriage's 2 key components in companionship.  According to Dresner, this verse supports the idea that marriage should be heterosexual.

In my point of view, this verse is an etiology of marriage.  Although it is out of place with the Eden story, a man is leaving this parents and cleaving to his 'wife'.  This term wife is suggestive of marriage as is the idea of a man leaving his family to start his own family.

Gender Relations

What is new in Stanton's interpretation and in her attitude towards the text?

Using the Garden of Eden story to understand and argue issues of gender relations is not new.  What is new is Elizabeth Stanton's take on the story.  Unlike many of her predecessors, Stanton, in my opinion, looks at the story more scientifically, as a means of making the point that women and men are equal and were created so.  She bring in other scientific elements to argue the importance of women.  She recognizes that the earth requires women for procreation and the continuation of our species.  I also love how she notes that at the present men come from women and asks, "shall his place be on of subjection?"  She goes so far as to mention Darwinian evolution and the problems it causes with the Biblical interpretation.  I feel that most commentators would not even touch this subject and I admire Stanton for not ignoring it.

Strangely enough, Stanton writes that the first 3 chapters of Genesis contain two stories! Before this, I had not read a commentator who made that observation.  Instead of trying to reconcile the first three chapters to make them fit as one, she delves into Israelite history and Biblical authorship.  She cites the scholarship of her day, which had been analyzing the Bible, and declares that Moses did not write Genesis.  She continues in outlining details of history and Israelite record-keeping like a Biblical scholar.  She even analyzes down to the very words in Hebrew and brings in elements of the Documentary Hypothesis (<http://imp.lss.wisc.edu/~rltroxel/Intro/hypoth.html>).  

According to Stanton both of these stories cannot be true and she chooses to side with the one in chapter 1 of Genesis because "second story was manipulated by some Jew, in an endeavor to give "heavenly authority" for requiring a woman to obey the man she married" (she said that so well that I had to quote it).  In the first story no dominion of men over women is given in creation, they are equal and have equal dominion over the earth.  "No lesson of woman's subjection can be fairly drawn from the first chapter of the Old Testament."

The aforementioned Jewish author, according to Stanton, had to find a way to counter the equality in the first chapter and effect subordination, thus, he introduced a spirit of evil (a spirit which existed before man and therefore was not caused by women and they are no the origin of sin).  I don't know exactly why Stanton goes into what she believes to be a false story of the creation (that is the Garden of Eden story), but I suppose it is to have an answer for critics and give further evidence to her point.  

In support of Eve, Stanton argues her case, like a defense attorney.  First by declaring Eve's equality with or even superiority over Adam.  Stanton notes the phrase "This is now bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh" and comments that this is a statement of equality coming from Adam.  Again in "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother and cleave unto his wife", Stanton states that there is no subjection, but rather a declaration that women are to be the head of the home.  She further supports Eve's superiority in lasting traditions, like call the the Fall the "fall of man" rather than the fall of woman.  It is Adam who is seen as the guilty party.  Then by defending Eve's actions.  She notes that the command not to eat the fruit was given to the man before the woman was made.  Eve is getting the story secondhand.  The snake is interpreted as Satan, an angel or seraphim, and as such his word may have seemed superior to the story Adam told her.  Also, Adam did nothing to stop even though, according to Stanton, he was standing right next to her. 

Some of her interpretations are similar to other commentators   Like, "in God's image meaning a male and female-ness of God, ergo there is female in the Godhead.  Additionally, she does make the assumption that the snake was Satan.  Perhaps this was for the sake of her audience that likely already held that assumption.  Either way, I wish she had gone back to the original text as far as reading that the snake is just called a snake.

Stanton is not denying that God curses Eve to subjection in this story, but rather argue that this story and the one and chapter 1 contain evidence that Adam and Eve were created as equals.  She treats the text differently than many of the commentators we've read have.  She analyzes it as both a sacred text as well as historical one.  The implication of the former being that it is authoritative and true on matter of belief.  Yet, she recognized that it is a Near Eastern text, handed down for generation, prone to misinterpretation and additions of stories that can be misinterpreted.  Rather than taking one side or the other, she seeks a reconciliation of science and history with the Bible.  She could have very easily taken the Bible it was and used it to argue the equality of women.  Instead she analyzes the Bible by bringing in science and scholarly observations.  By doing this, she gives herself more authority and her evidence for equality is more established.  

[Next (in our text book titled Eve and Adam), Stanton analyzes a passage from 1 Timothy which discusses the ideal role and appearance of women in the Christian society.  Stanton makes a good point: "It appears very trifling for men, commissioned to do so great a work on earth, to give so much thought to the toilets of women."  In her opinion, Paul's rules are too strict and she wonders what he would say if he had seen the strong women of the 19th century.  Maybe he would have thought differently.  I am impressed that she attempts to view this work within its historical context.]

The Qur'an and Modern Islam

outline the version of the garden of eden story presented in the quran

The version in the Qur'an approaches the Eden story as if it assumes the reader already knows the story in Genesis.  In Surah 2, The creator makes seven heavens and declares that he will create a steward of the Earth.  The angels ask if the steward will do harm or shed blood and the creator declares that he knows what they do know.  Suddenly Adam appears in the story when the creator teaches Adam all the names.  I am very confused here, it seems to say that the creator taught Adam all the angels' names but then the creator asks Adam to name them and the angels reply that they only know what the creator has taught them.  Adam then has to inform the angels of there own names.  Afterward, the creator commands the angels to bow down to Adam and they do except for an angel named Iblis.  Iblis was prideful and became a disbeliever.  The angels declare that Adam should live in the Garden with his wife and eat of the fruit trees, save "this tree" which will make them into wrongdoers.  The Qur'an then states that Satan caused there downfall and had them expelled.  The text goes on to discuss women's menstrual cycle.  Women are compared to ground to be tilled and further instructions for divorced women are given.  Like I said, this version seems to assume that the reader knows the original story, there is no mention of the circumstances surrounding the creation of humans, animals or really of the earth.  The text just jumps into everything.  No snake, tree of life, or nakedness is mentioned.  Many details are left out.

In Surah 4, women are discussed and instructions are given.  A man may take 1-4 wives and men are in charge of women because men are better.  Women should be obedient, guarding themselves and any that seem rebellious may be admonished, banished or scourged.  If they are obedient, do them no harm.  Further instructions including details on how to settle domestic disputes and being kind.  The text also mentions that if partners are poorly matched, blame is laid on the women, because they pray to Satan.  Worshiping and praying to Satan has harsh consequences.  Apparently, he is beguiling.  Lastly, the text urges peace between spouses.  This section of text seems to draw some elements from the Eden story: domination of men over women, the weakness of women to sin and the beguiling nature of Satan.

In Surah 7, the text again reviews that Adam sinned.  It says that Satan, instead of turning into a snake and persuading Eve to eat of the forbidden tree (as it is commonly interpreted to be Satan), whispered to Adam and Eve that he would tell them the truth about their shame (aka nakedness).  He told them that the creator was trying to keep them from becoming angels or immortals.  From here, the story follows the original, basically, but without the same curses from the creator.  In this version, the creator explains that Satan is ever watchful and unable to be seen, watch out.  I don't really understand the rest of this section.  Again, here the story is distorted, assuming that Satan is the snake.

In Surah 15, the texts explains that humans were made of potter's clay of black mud altered and that the creator breathed into man to bring him to life.  Here again it mentions that the angels bowed down to Adam (except for Iblis).  More details of Iblis' story are given.  The text discusses how he became Satan.  The sections reminds me of Milton, filling in the character backstories and giving the characters motives.  This is a further outgrowth of minor details in the original text.

In Surah 20 and 23-24, the texts again mentions that the angels bowed down to Adam, except Iblis.  In this version, he tempts Adam to eat of the forbidden tree, not Eve.  A clear deviation from the original text.  I wonder why.  The rest of the text discusses women's modesty and marriage.  In Surah,  30 and 49, the text mentions that man is from the dust and that women were made as helpmates.  People were created and became nations and tribes to know one another.  Overall, it seems like the Qur'an draws upon assumptions of the text that had been made of the centuries like the snake being Satan.  And, at times it seems to speak as though the reader knows the original story.  On some details, the Qur'an expands while on some things it is totally silent.  Additionally, it is not one big story but a collective of stories scattered in the book.  I wonder of how much importance it is.

how is the story used in modern arguments on women in Islam?

Concerning women in Islam, Sayyid Abu al-A'la Mawdudi wrote a commentary on their role and functions within the belief system.  He writes that unlike in Jewish culture where women on their period are virtually untouchable, he argues that at such times, men should abstain from sex but maintain other relationships (quotes Surah 2: 222).  I see no connection with the Eden story here.  Next, just as men were cursed by the creator to till the ground, women should be be seen as fields to be plowed.  Not just for sexual pleasure, but for the purpose of conceiving children (quotes Surah 2:223).

Quoting Surah 4:34, Mawdudi argues that men are over women, not because of superior honor or dignity but because God gave one gender certain qualities that the other does not.  And so, the men should be at the head of the family and the women live under their protection and care.  Using Surah 4:119 he also argues against homosexuality, birth control, monasticism, celibacy, sterilization, or any form of preventing either sex from sexual intercourse or procreation is a distortion of creation and worship of Satan.  I am not sure how this (or many other sections of Mawdudi's work) connects to the Eden story.  However, he does use certain parts of the Islamic interpretation of the story to argue his stance on women.

Riffat Hassan also wrote a commentary concerning women in Islam.  She writes that he saw a discrepancy between Islamic ideals and practice insofar as women are concerned.  She believes that women are indeed below men but not less than human, simply different than men and put in subordination by God.  She examines the key to this tradition, found in the Garden of Eden story.   From the story, three points are derived that lead people to believe that women are subordinated to men: 1) woman was created from man's rib, derived and secondary to man, 2) woman was the primary agent of the "Fall", 3) women were created from and for man.  Hassan examines both the Qur'anic passages as well as the Biblical text in an attempt to analyze these three points.  Using the Qur'anic passages containing the Islamic version of the creation story, she examines small details in word usage.  One of these is that the Qur'an does not mention that Eve/Hawwa' came from Adam's rib.  She states that the Qur'an uses "both feminine and masculine terms and imagery to describe creation from a single source."  She concludes that the Qur'an makes no distinction between the creation of man and woman.  So, based on the source material of the Islamic Garden of Eden story, Muslims have no basic to believe that Eve/Hawwa' came from Adam'd rib.  This argument supporting that men are greater than women based on the idea of Adam's rib is not valid.  Hadith literature does contain a more detail Adam and Eve story, but Hassan does not seem to believe the Hadith literature is equal with the authority of the Qur'an.  It seems that here instead of using the Eden story to show women's subordination, Hassan this version (the Qur'anic version) to show that women are more equal than many believe.

I did read the nine parts of desire but I do not see how the Eden story enters into it.  I do see it as an interesting story and look into the life of a woman in a polygamous marriage, according to legend/tradition/history.  It could even serve as an example of the role of Muslim women versus Muslim men.  In which case, it does show that women are/were viewed as subordinate to men.  Additionally, this story involves the guile of women which other commentators, mostly non-Muslims, have argued is why women ate the forbidden fruit or why Eve deceived Adam.  However, here the Eden story is not used to make an argument.

Social Applications: The Shakers, the Oneida Community and Race Relations

The Shakers were an American communitarian groups drawing their model from Genesis 1:26-27.  For them, God is both male and female because in the text God's image is described as male and female ("God created man in his own image...male and female created he them" -Genesis 1:27).  Shaker Elder Fredrick Evans wrote that God must have some element of the feminine in him.  He asks, "How can there be a father where there is no mother?"  And so, since God had been incarnate in Jesus (male) he would become incarnate in a woman.  The Shakers believed that this woman was Mother Ann Lee and that she was Christ's second coming.  Mother Ann Lee was the founder of the Shakers.  For them, she was essential for salvation along with Jesus.

In the Shaker community women and men jointly rule and women have higher social status then American did at the time the Shakers were founded.  Still, in a sense the men and the God the Father was somewhat higher in status than women and God the Mother.  In Shaker interpretation of the Garden of Eden story, the punishments of the Fall are contrary to nature, and so, the domination of men over women is contrary to nature.  In the animal kingdom, the female rules and governs reproduction, but this is not so in the human species.  Stretching this even further, Elder Fredrick Evans argues that he snake represents the persistence of male domination over woman and it was this that comprised the Fall itself.  Taking this view, the Shakers shaped their society to be one which sought to return to the state of Eden by giving women more freedoms and governance.

Another Shaker writer, Pauline Bates writes that in the beginning there were two opposing kingdoms: one ruled jointly by God and the Holy and Eternal Mother Wisdom and the other ruled by Satan and the mother of harlots.  From the latter, she believes, come lust and vile affection.  The duality of God and Mother Wisdom and more importantly Adam and Eve necessitates a female Christ figure.  She also quotes Paul in 1 Corinthians: "woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman."  

The Oneida community was quite different.  Their founder John Humphrey Noyes believed in free love.  His reasons: (1) marriage reduced women to propagating slaves (due to the absence of reliable birth control), (2) marriage formed people into exclusive pairs and hindered the development of a genuine Christian community.  His aim with the Oneida community was to develop reliable birth control and  allow members of the community to be sexually intimate with whomever of the opposite gender in the community they pleased, who was willing of course.  Monogamy was banned.

Noyes claims to have drawn his inspiration from Genesis 1-3.  From this scripture, he learned that sex had a twofold purpose: conception of children and expression of love.  He believed that the love Adam and Eve had for each other was originally a reflection of the love the Father in the Godhead had for the Son in the Godhead.  This love was then ruined by the Fall.  And, the Fall led to our traditional view of marriage.  The marriage where women are at risk of dying in childbirth, women can have many children causing men to need to work more to provide financially, and this excess work takes a man away from his family, leaving him and his wife isolated.  The price of sex is no longer love and enjoyment but pain and isolation for both genders.  They become estranged with a broken relationship that reflects the broken relationship between humans and God.

The Oneida community sought to throw off this and return to the marriage of the originally Eden: allowing men and women the freedom to work together and exist as equals and liberating women from being strictly baby-makers.  Sexually expression was free of restriction or shame and work was a community endeavor.  Noyes believed by living like this, mankind had found the tree of life (Genesis 3:22).  

What Noyes blatantly forgets in the Fall.  He completely leaves out snake and temptation, the reasons for mankind's disobedience.  He offers no explanation or tie in for his argument.

The story of Adam and Eve was appropriated in the struggles for and against slavery.  To some rabbis, people of over races and ethnicities were the offspring of Eve and the snake (Sammael) or that of Adam and Lilith.  They were considered inferior, illegitimate and even evil.  In the United States' struggle over the issue of slavery, proslavery orators sought support from the Bible.  They found plenty of support from the New Testament, which teaches that slaves should be obedient to their laster and masters should treat their slaves kindly. In the Old Testament, they looked to passages like the statutes governing Israel slavery as taught by Moses and Noah's condemnation of Ham and his son Canaan (and further demand that Shem allow Japheth to live in his tents).  Some even went so far to say that this event is God's blessing of African American (Ham) slavery and God's order to the Native American (Shem) to hand over their land to the Europeans (Japheth).  In connection to Eden, it was argued that the subordination of women as a result of the Fall went hand in hand with the enslavement of African Americans.

Our instructions for the Race Relations homework: Each student will lead discussion on one text and outline how Gen 2-3 is being used in the argument.  I have done the above but I don't know if we are to analyze all the passages.  If so, I will do so.

The Protestant Reformation: Martin Luther and John Calvin

For Martin Luther and John Calvin, both man and woman were created in the image of God.  Both of these men account for Eve's disobedience differently but have a similar opinion on what the effects of the event in Genesis 3 are on human relations.

Luther attempts to reconcile Genesis 1 and Genesis 2-3.  According to him, Moses writes that the 2 sexes were created together to indicate that Eve was also made by God as a partaker of the divine image and of divine similitude and ruled over everything.  This applies to later writing by Peter who declare that women also partake of Jesus' saving grace.  Eve was not inferior to Adam in body or soul.  Yet, he states that there is a difference between the sexes.  Women are inferior but may not be excluded from any glory of the human creature.  Women were created that they should 'everywhere and always be about her husband.'  In the garden, Luther says that the woman allowed herself to be persuaded.  The snake, which he believes to be Satan, attacked the weak part of the human nature, woman.  They were created equally righteous but Adam had some advantage over Eve.  The only evidence he seems to have for this is just the fact that Satan chose her.  He does references what happen after the fall, like Eve's dependance on her husband.  Perhaps the strength of the male sex surpasses the female sex.  Luther notes that Eve didn't mention the punishment as God had stated it ("on whatever day you will eat from it, you will surely die" vs. "lest perchance we shall die.." (she adds perchance)).  The 'deceit of the lying spirit met with success.'  Satan saw this and took advantage of it; according to Luther, the root and source of sin is unbelief and turning away from God.  Eve was engrossed in unbelief both in spirit and in body that she didn't realize she was doing evil.  For Luther, Eve's disobedience is a result of women's innate inferiority to men, despite his claim that men and women were created equal in body and soul, equally righteous.

Luther sees Adam as a typical case of any human being who sins: he blames God and others, and this necessitates the grace through the Gospel.  Eve is not any better than Adam; Eve also blames another (the snake).  "Out of a human sin comes a sin that is clearly demonic, unbelief turns into blasphemy, disobedience into contempt of the creator."  Luther sees Eve's punishment as a source of joy which shocked me at first.  Nevertheless, he does explain all the punishments and pain of bearing children, so he is not calling child-bearing easy.  Although troublesome there is a hope left for a better life strengthened together with those punishments (Eve was not repudiated by God).  He goes on to say that the heathen see women's pains in having child and think its better for a man not to marry.  However, through marriage a man transfers a part of women's punishments upon himself (for he cannot without grief see those things in his wife).  The second part of Eve's punishment is cohabitation: the rule remains with her husband and the life is compelled to obey by God's command.  From this, Luther believes that the wife looks after the household.  Before 'the fall', women were free and equal to men and in no way inferior.  However, because of child bearing (gestation and birth), women now do not go beyond their most personal duties.  Ergo Eve's sin lead to her and all women becoming subjected to their husbands and having no part in rule.  Of course women don't like it and they grumble, but they cannot perform the functions of men, teach, rule, etc.  To Luther, motherhood is an honor.  The effects of Genesis 3 on human relations, according to Luther, is that now women are no longer free but subjected to men and have no part in ruling or teaching, but must maintain the household.

Calvin sees Eve like Luther does.  He believes that Eve was not just created for Adam to procreate.  His reason is that the spiritual and physical intimacy in marriage is a gift.  Calvin notes that Eve was a good creation which also bore God's image.  However, Calvin sees Eve differently in other respects.  He says that Eve tried to resist sinning, unlike Luther.  He notes that she tried to repel him and reject his words.  However, he still does view Eve as somewhat weaker.  He notes that the snake (Satan) chose Eve because he saw her as the weakest part of man.  She did not seduce or coerce Adam into sinning, this belief is grounded in 1 Timothy 2:14 in the New Testament which says that the woman was deceived but not Adam.  He explains that Eve alone was not responsible.

Calvin then examines Eve's punishments: pains in childbirth and subjection.  He believes that Eve was subordinate to Adam from the beginning, all along.  However, it was a liberal and gentle subjection.  After 'the fall' the subordination was more rigorous, Eve became a servant. Yet, they are only subordinate in the political realm and not in the spiritual realm.  This was likely a reinforcement of gender hierarchy.

Both Calvin and Luther believe that women have been somewhat inferior to men since God created them.  However, Luther believes that women were free before 'the fall' and Calvin believes that they were not completely.  And because Eve was weaker, she was the one to sin.  Additionally, they hold similar beliefs about the change in human relations after 'the fall', primarily the punishment on women.  Both see it as a two fold punishment: pain in childbirth and subjection to men.  'The fall' lead to women becoming lower in social hierarchy then men.  They do not look upon women as wicked like some earlier writers but just inferior and unfit to rise above men to teach or lead.