The Fall. The fall disturbed humanity’s relationship to God, thus, the relationships between humanity and nature, and man and woman were also disturbed. In Gen. 3:16 we read, “To the woman he said, ‘I will surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be [against]1 your husband, and he shall rule over you.’” Prior to the Fall man and woman walked side-by-side, both reveling in the difference and similarities of each to the other. After the Fall, Eve was thrown into subjection to Adam, and Adam was placed over Eve. Neither of these positions is inherent in the creation, they are products of the fall.
“There can be no doubt that the condition of man as fallen from God is betrayed first and foremost 
by the fact that it is the condition of secret and open, conscious and unconscious, organized and unorganized shame at the relationship between man and woman; the condition in which one or other of the constituent elements in the order of this relationship is either over-emphasized or neglected, so that the whole order as such is lost” (Barth, III/i 309-11).
As Woman loses her freedom, so too does Man. Woman is no longer free to reign and rule creation alongside man, and man stands alone to wrestle against the earth. Relationships disintegrate. Chaos resumes. Shame reigns. God’s very creation: stained and distorted.
The Hope. Because this man and woman were made in the image of God, we can rest assured that the Fall does not have permanent effects upon this man and this woman or upon us as men and women. Even in the power of the Fall and the Curses the image remains, and it is the hope. Barth writes,
“…[humanity]2 may grasp and hold this hope because [humanity] is God’s image and likeness, and because [humanity] was originally blessed, and is still blessed in spite of the fact that the blessing has been turned into a curse…[and] God is faithful to Himself and work and Word; that the creation of man as male and female, and therefore in the image and likeness of God, is not overthrown by the episode of the fall, but remains…” (III/i 190).
In Gen. 15 we read, “‘I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel’”(emphasis mine). The curse will not always be fact; chaos will be put in order; shame will not always reign. As God is faithful to His word and faithful to Himself, we know that his image, male and female, will be saved. Humanity will not be saved by their own doing or efforts, but solely by God’s desire for a restored relationship and a restored creation. And, in this restored relationship with God rests the hope of the restored relationship between man and woman.
The Glimpse in Proverbs 31. Rather than as a check list of what to look for in a woman or wife, we should look to the woman in Proverbs 31 for hope—the hope of full restoration: restoration of woman to God and the restoration of the relationship between man and woman. It is my contention that she is an expression of the hope for the reversal of the curse of Genesis 3. The hoped for reversal that would be completed in the coming Messiah—the Messiah to whom all of the Old Testament points. The poem would draw those who heard it back into the garden, when woman walked alongside man and they communed together in the presence of God, as co-vice-regents of the earth. The Proverbs 31 Woman is fighting a battle, not just keeping house. The warfare imagery throughout the poem leads us, the reader, to see a woman who is fighting against the chaos established by the fall. The Proverbs 31 Woman is pointing back to Eve, and at the same time pointing forward—through the chaos of the fall—to Christ.
She awakes early, and greets the near dawning sun; her arms are strong, she has full confidence of who she is—better yet, in her creation. She looks about the room; her feet hit the floor. She glances over her shoulder, and casts her glance—recognition intertwined with love—and she watches him sleep soundly. She stands, stretches, and walks to the closet door to remove the purple, silk robe from the door hook; she dons it. Tying the sash around her waist, her glance is drawn to the frost-covered window. She approaches the glass and presses her hand against the pane; winter is loosing its chilly breath upon the earth, she smiles. Hers is a warm house; the cold is suspended outside. Evidence of melt from the heat off her hand is left on the glass; she has left the room while he sleeps, restful.
COMMENTS
39 responses to “"Are You there Jesus? It’s Me, Woman.": The Fall, The Hope, and The Glimpse”
Leave a Reply
1.Using “against” rather than “for” in Gen. 3:16, ref. ESV translation.
2.I’ve replaced Barth’s use of “Man” with “Humanity” because he is referring to “Man” as in man and woman and not just man.
"Woman is no longer free to reign and rule creation alongside man"
So what about submission, or male headship?
Doesn't this require a literalistic reading of Genesis that would have been very foreign to the authors? I agree that original sin is real, but I think in these times we have to find ways to express it without focusing too much on a literal Adam and Eve… Thoughts?
Jonathan: Thanks for your question. First, the quotation is in reference to the Fall…subjection is what happens in the fall, thus, in subjection, freedom is lost…Woman is subjected to man, ref. Gen 3:16. He rules over her, her desire is against him, these are part of the curses and not the original intention of creation.
second, your question…I am going to address these issues (terms) in a later installment of the series! I am certain it will generate much discussion! I hope you will participate.
Mattie: thank you so much for expressing these thoughts!
you wrote, "Doesn't this require a literalistic reading of Genesis that would have been very foreign to the authors?"
Yes. In a sense. I really appreciate what you are getting at here because I typically argue against always using a "literalistic" lens when reading the bible. With that said, I think you and I will disagree here, as I do believe in the traditional understanding that Moses wrote the first 5 books of the OT. I also believe that God did make man and woman, and that the first two were Adam and Eve. I don't think this would have been a foreign concept to Moses or those who followed after him. Specifically, look at Paul in Romans 5 when he alludes to the one man Adam, in 1 Cor. 11 when he alludes to the creation story, in 1 Cor. 15 referring to the "first man Adam", 1 Tim. 2: Adam was made first then Eve. So, I just think that maybe you and i will part ways here.
You also wrote, "I agree that original sin is real, but I think in these times we have to find ways to express it without focusing too much on a literal Adam and Eve"
Well…I guess whether you look at it literally or figuratively (as in Adam and Eve are metaphor for man and woman, which they are, but I believe they were also real) the message is still the same. In the Fall, chaos took over and the creation was under the curses expressed in Gen 3:14-17. The relationship between Humanity and God was distorted thus all other relationships (between men and women, between humanity and nature) were distorted. If you believe in Original Sin then you probably also believe in the curses; and it is the curses that I'm addressing here–as well as pointing to Hope and a Glimpse of restoration. I didn't want to leave readers only at the Fall…!! 🙂
Does that make sense, Mattie? I really appreciate your thoughts and your questions, and I hope I have dealt with them in great respect. Also, I really do hope you will check back for the next two installments.
Let's keep dialoguing about this.
Thanks, LREL… 🙂
When Mattie asks if you believe in a literal Adam and Eve you wrote:
"Yes. In a sense…. I also believe that God did make man and woman, and that the first two were Adam and Eve."
Can you tell us more about this sense? Here are some questions which may help me clarify what sense you mean:
(1) Do you reject an evolutionary account of the origin of human beings (including rejecting theistic evolution)? This account includes the basic story of humans having primate ancestors with small brains that lived in trees millions of years ago, and slowly through a series of intermediate became increasingly erect, developed larger brains, and so on, eventually coming down to Neanderthals and homo sapiens (maybe 100 thousand years ago).
Another way to ask #1 is:
(2) It's clear that any one of us today had a biological mother, who also had a mother, who also had a mother, and so on for at least thousands of years, all of whom looked fairly much as we do now. Do you believe that this chain goes back to a specific human we are calling Eve; that Eve looked fairly much as we do now (erect, same brain size, etc.); and that Eve did not have a biological mother but rather her body was miraculously created by God?
(3) Do you think that several thousand years ago the entire earth was covered by water? Is the story of Noah and the Flood also a story that you take as reasonably accurate history?
Just curious what your thoughts are — definitely not expecting that you have to answer one way or another.
Warmly,
SD
Just wanted to chime in –
While I think the discussion re: literal reading of creation story is interesting, I'm not sure that it has a major impact on what Lauren is saying. What does have an impact is whether you believe in Original Sin and The Fall (and curse). I think Lauren's overarching point about the subjection of woman to man being a symptom of the curse rather than the original intent of creation applies whether or not Adam and Eve were actual people.
Just wanted to say that. Not that the other discussion is not interesting, just that I don't want it to take away from the real point of the post.
Daniel
For me, the important question is whether there was a literal "fall", or whether things have always been as they are now: dog eat dog and only the strong survive. If there is no literal "fall", then there is no current "disordering" of God's original "creation" because of human moral failure: things are the way God, through the evolutionary process, made them to be. In that case, Lauren's argument for "restoration" of woman to some "pre-alienation from God" position falls apart. (pun intended) So I think one's view of the "creation and fall" account is, unfortunately, more important than I would actually like it to be.
Michael:
Thanks for those thoughts. True, my whole argument is based on a belief that there was a creation of a man and a woman, that the fall happened and and that consequences of the original sin entered the world, thus disordering it. If that isn't true, than i'm waisting my time. But we only have what we have in the Bible, and with that I will deal.
Plus, if the fall didn't happen, if we are speaking hypothetically here, then why the Cross? If we are always "dog-eat-dog", as you put michael, then why Jesus? Why the Cross? What was there to ammend?
I wish I knew why thomas removed his comment.
Lauren, I'm with you all the way on this one.
Hey Michael. Really loved your first post. Felt like it was right on target, especially the last sentence.
In your second post ("I'm with you…"), are you implying that you reject evolution as an explanation of human origins and that you do believe in a special creation of Adam and Eve?
Again, just curious…
Michael, Right, on! Sorry, if I came off defensive; I realized after I wrote that I might have appeared that way. But you are surely right, everything I'm writing depends on one believing it. Thanks, again, for commenting!
While I think it is theoretically possible that God literally created Adam and Eve, I think the way the story is told and the scientific knowledge we have today both make it highly unlikely. I think the ancient authors intended Genesis 1-9 to be allegorical. May I ask how you explain the various writing styles, levels of knowledge, historical perspectives, and doublets in the Pentateuch if you believe Moses was the author of all five books?
However, I do believe if one reads Gen. 1-2 allegorically we are left with a difficultly. If there was no literal fall, how can we explain original sin? I really struggled with that for a while. Yet, I see sin all around me and in myself so I know it is a reality.
The conclusion that I came to is that I think there is a way to believe that the world is disordered (ie. fallen) and yet not have to believe in a literal Adam and Eve story. Given this, I personally find it helpful to think of sin in a medical way rather than a forensic way. If we use the idea of sin as a hereditary disease. This is not novel; Augustine was very fond of using medical imagery to describe the role of Christ in a sick world, and Jesus himself said it is the sick who need a physician. We can't pinpoint the first person who had any hereditary disease, but we can tell with reasonable certainty that a person will pass on this defective chromosome to their child. I think that original sin is a mutation, caused by historical rebellion, passed on to all who are born. I am comfortable with not knowing who the "original sinner" was because I am confident that even if God's original design for human relationship and perfection had persisted until today, I myself would be that "original sinner." 🙂 In my mind, sin is an inevitable result of free choice. Does that mean God created humanity knowing we would sin? Yes. Does that mean he willed or intended it? No.
I am also wondering what role you see Mary playing in your understanding of woman's identity in Scripture. She seems to be a more clear "New Eve" than the woman of Proverbs 31, particularly in her ultimate surrender (through faith) to the grace of God in her song on Luke 1.
Thanks for your response… I look forward to your thoughts on these things.
I don't post here often, but I read the blog all the time. Thanks for posting something I feel passionately about!
Mattie
sorry for some of the typos in the last comment! posted it too fast… i think you can get my ideas, nevertheless 🙂
mattie
Yes. Excuse me, Herr Bultmann, but I am just an ignorant hillbilly who doesn't see any way around the problem I stated earlier. If there is someone out there who can solve that problem, I'd love to hear the solution.
Ummmm… Michael? Why are you calling yourself an ignorant hillbilly?
And were you calling me "Herr Bultmann" just now? And if so, why? Bultmann and I are pretty different theologically.
I am still unclear what you believe about human evolution. Your post didn't actually say… though I am guessing it means you don't believe in it. Is that right?
Mattie–Thanks for your thoughts. I was in the process of posting my response to SwampDog (who, by the way IS the product of evolutionary process) when you posted yours.
The problem that I see with the medical analogy is that the things about human physiology and the world that cause sickness are also crucially important to human survival. The whole process of mutation that causes biological screw ups is also essential to evolutionary advancement. So who is to say that the "human condition" that we call "sin" is not actually essential to human evolution on the grand scale? If God so ordained that humanity would take its present form through the evolutionary process, then why is he so upset if I follow the urges that have made the whole thing work?
I am not too worried about the details, but the main problem I see is that if God has set up an essentially amoral evolutionary process and we are the result, then that is not reconcilable with the Bible's view that our problem is essentially moral. Just saying that the creation story is to be taken allegorically does not solve that conflict. Even taken allegorically, it is just not true, from an evolutionary viewpoint. I think that this is why people like Bultmann, even with the best intentions, made very little headway in steering western Europe away from almost total secularism once it lost all confidence in the "miracles" of the Bible. But, obviously, I don't really have any answer to this problem.
SwampDog, I was not calling you Bultmann. As far as what I think on this issue, I am not sure what I think, but I am extremely resistant to the idea that we can just say, "well, this is not meant to be taken literally," and think we have solved the problems. I dearly wish that were the case, however. And I don't fault any Christian for how they may try to work our an answer that is at least palatable to them.
Sorry StampDog, my mind was in the evolutionary swamp 🙂 I didn't mean to sound defensive or argumentative toward you at all. The "hillbilly" comment was just a reference to the fact that for many people, where one comes down on the issue of evolution is what separates the educated sheep from the ignorant goats.
Great post, Lauren!
I think this argument speaks loudly to origin of where a lot of the "law" for women originates. If a result of the fall is that man shall rule over woman, it makes so much sense that so much of the literature that is out there for the Christian woman is centered on what a Godly woman should or not should not do. What is more encouraging is to know that because of Christ's sacrifice, this is no longer God's word to us. I hope that humanity catches on to this message, because both men and women do a good job of focusing only on the law for women as a means to spiritual fulfillment, rather than looking for the ways a woman is restored through grace. I am looking forward to your next post!
Mattie:
Thank you so much for your thoughts here, again; I really enjoy reading them and the challenges you present to me. Thanks for "finally" posting a comment on Mockingbird and I'm glad I was here to provoke you into it :).
First, let me address the quick question: The reason I chose the P.31 woman is that she is in the OT, before Jesus' incarnation. Mary, she's a completely different story and certainly not a "glimpse" but maybe more of "evidence" of restoration. I haven't thoroughly studied Mary (that's a huge topic!). So, unfortunately for both of us, I won't be addressing Mary in future posts of this series.
Second, I think that we are going to respectfully disagree on this topic (these topics?). My post does depend on a belief in Adam and Eve being created in God's image and a belief in a "fall" that distorted three primary relationships: God and Humanity, Humanity and Nature, and Man and Woman (the astute and intelligent commenter "Michael" made this clear in one of his comments). The intention of my post was to deal with the Fall and the curses and their subsequent effect on "woman", while also pointing to a couple of instances of "hope". But, again, these things are hinged on the belief that God created an Adam and an Eve and that there was a time before they fell and that they did fall; and that there is hope that the fall won't have permanent effects upon the three stated primary relationships.
Third, while I've greatly appreciated the many comments here about creationism v. evolution, I think that this forum fails to do both sides adequate justice. Those of us who believe in a traditional understanding of Creation believe it for good reasons and evidence, and are convinced by these reasons and evidence; those who believe in evolution believe it for good reasons and evidence, and they, too, are convinced by these reasons and evidence. I really doubt that one side will convince the other that they're wrong. With that said, I'd like to iterate that I do find the discussion extremely interesting and deeply important; and feel that you have a lot of knowledge that I would be interested in hearing. But, do you think we could move it to a different forum? Again, I really want to continue the dialogue, but in a format that won't 1. take away from the original post; and, 2. won't cause other voices to feel intimidated to post their thoughts.
Respectfully, and In Christ,
Lauren
Thanks Kayleigh! Glad to see you here! Your thoughts are well received!!!
Thanks Michael.
Golly… I think you are onto something when you talk about how (apparently) deeply freighted this question (human evolution) is. Especially in terms of emotional baggage and especially self-image issues for Christians.
All I did was ask Lauren a neutral question (what do you believe) and two guys jumped in immediately to say it wasn't relevant, another fellow later accused me of telling him I was an ignorant hillbilly, and so on. I am still reeling from surprise and bewilderment.
I did like your first post a lot. I think that you are really onto something — 21st century Christians (like myself) want to paper over this and say "not literal" without carefully thinking through the implications for what evolution might mean for the Fall and sin and so on. It's kind of panic move, like putting your hands over your ears and going LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
That doesn't mean that there isn't a good way to make sense of the Fall, Original Sin, and the fossil record's apparent testimony to evolution all together, but if there is it takes some thinking. (Not sure I have the answer at all, though C.S. Lewis had some interesting ideas that you might be curious about.)
Happy to talk to you more about this, though perhaps it should be off thread, since it is a stressor for many?
Hey Lauren, I just saw that I independently came to the same conclusion as you. Which is suggesting that we should probably stop talking about evolution since that is apparently a real sensitive area.
Incidentally, I had a somewhat different perspective on your idea of this thread being characterized by two sides trying to adduce reasons and evidence for their belief or nonbelief in the e-word. [grin] I saw very little of that. My comments for example were almost all neutral: just trying to clarify what people believed. And I saw no e-defenders listing all kinds of reasons why people ought to believe in it. Just my perception.
Best wishes,
SD
StampDog–I had no idea what you thought about the "evolution" issue when I posted my response, nor did I have any thought that you were calling me a hillbilly. I was merely noting what is an obvious and common perception of those who take a dim view of evolution. I really have no idea what I believe on this issue, so I don't have a lot invested emotionally in it. I do not like glib responses to the issue, from either side, however. And, to be clear, I am not saying that your response is glib–far from it.
Love this!! Thank you Lauren!
The issue of the reversal of the fall is crucial and central to the entire nature of the Christian understanding of the work of Redemption. It indeed points to the completion of the work of God in creation expressed in the refreshment and sanctification of the seventh day in Genesis 1, but it clearly includes a development of that work due to the Incarnation and the salvic work of Christ (as touched upon by Paul in Romans 8). Your post regarding the ending of the curse and the 'humanizing' of our race resonates deeply – what an astonishing day is to come!
The early testimony of Genesis, and the writings of works such as Proverbs and the Song of Songs indeed allow us to occasionally 'catch the fragrance' of what is to come – a subject that most certainly needs far more consideration.
May I suggest the works of Albert Wolters – 'Creation Regained' and 'the Song of the Valiant Woman' as helpful places for further research on the subject.
Howard, A Wolter's book on the Song of the Valiant woman was a key book in my masters thesis, from which these posts are derived. I wrote my thesis on the Proverbs 31 woman as the glimpse of restoration of woman to God, trying to counteract the current trend to use her as an example of women should do and look like. Thanks for you comments!
John, thanks for your opinion.
Lauren, Sorry. I removed my original comment intending to comment again, but got sidetracked.
I stand by my original assertion. The point of the post is not evolution vs. a literal Adam and Eve.
And by the way, I believe there was a literal Adam and Eve, and I hold a master's degree and I don't pick a banjo. For me it's enough to know that God is all-powerful, and if he tells me that everything started with one man and one woman, I don't need to understand the mechanics of it.
It's enought for me to know that there was an original sin, a fall, and there will be a reconciliation of all of creation when Christ comes again.
That's what I didn't have the courage to say earlier, and I feel better now having said it.
P.S.- John Stott handles this issue brilliantly in his commentary on Romans, in the section on Romans 5.
Michael and Stampdog – your exchange has inspired me to write a post on Bultmann!
Mattie, this may or may not be encouraging for you, but C.S. Lewis made a very similar apologetic argument in "The Problem of Pain""
“In the fullness of time, God came to descend upon this [human-like] organism, both on its psychology and physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say ‘I’ and ‘me,’ which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past” …. “We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell”
Hey Lauren,
I love your thoughts on this. So, this is what I'm getting from it, and you can tell me if it's what you meant:
What Christ did on the cross frees us from not only the law, but from the consequences of original sin, and restores the relationship between God and Man that Adam and Eve had with Him and each other before the fall.
If this is what you're saying, I think it's so freeing to live from this perspective! It makes so much sense b/c the Cross was all about freedom.
My only question is, and I may be getting too technical, but what are your thoughts on the part about child bearing?
Todd–From what I can tell, C.S.Lewis had no real settled position on this issue, changed his views over time, and felt that it was beyond him, as a non-scientist, to say much about it. Wise move. That is a beautifully stated quote from him, but of course there is not a shred more scientific evidence for the notion Lewis throws out of "God descending on an organism" to break into the evolutionary process at some point than there is for talking snakes, or, for that matter, for a man rising from the dead. At least the Germans are brutally consistent, as usual, on those points. I look forward to your post on Bultmann!
Thomas: thanks! i'm glad to see you back. Yes, I, too, don't pick a banjo and have an MDIV! Although, !
Todd: YES! WRITE ON BULTMANN!
Kari: Great to see you here! Yes, I think you see things correctly. I'm heavy on the cross as means to restoration of the relationships and the restoration from the curses (at least this is where i'll go in up coming posts).
I super love your questions: "but what are your thoughts on the part about child bearing?" I love it so much, that this is the area I want to do my phd dissertation. No joke. I'm working on a second masters with thesis starting this fall that will focus on ethics (luther, barth) and gender and then, hopefully, I'll move into a PhD program that will set me up to write on the role of pregnancy for a woman, in marriage in light of the life and work of Christ and the Cross (gender ethics/bio-ethics). This doesn't answer your question really, but at least you know I'm thinking about it. And really think it's a GREAT question!
we'll talk more about this!
A good source for the evolution/Adam & Eve discussion is Francis Collins' highly readable book 'The language of God'…he is the well-known MD/PhD famous for mapping the complete human DNA sequence, as you may know. His conclusion on the matter? It is more likely that A&E are allegorical because the diversity of the genome dictates that homo sapiens came about with no less than thousands of ancestors. I'm obviously not doing his argument justice, so check out the book.
Here's a taste from his book:
Every woman alive today received her mitochondria from her mother. And the number of mothers who provided the mitochondria is less than or equal to the number of women alive today. Some mothers had more than one daughter, and other women had no children at all. If we trace the passage of the mitochondria back one generation to the mothers, we have fewer women than today. If we trace back another generation, we find an even smaller number, and with each previous generation this number decreases. Eventually this traces back to a single woman from whom all women alive today received their mitochondrial DNA. Using careful measurements of genetic diversity, scientists estimate that this woman, called the Mitochondrial Eve, lived between 150,000 and 200,000 years ago. However, this does not mean that Mitochondrial Eve was the only female alive at the time. Indeed, based upon study of diversity in the genome as a whole, geneticists estimate that thousands of others lived at the same time.
And in a discussion hosted by the Pew Forum–you can find the transcript here: http://pewforum.org/events/?EventID=217
Collins: 'I think you could make a plausible argument that Adam and Eve were historical figures, a pair of Neolithic farmers, at a time where the brain had reached the point of sufficient complexity for the arrival of the sense of free will – which then got misused – of the moral law and of the soul. Or, you could also make the case that Adam and Eve are standing in for that whole group of about 10,000 ancestors from which we are all descended. And that’s about the number. It wasn’t two; it was about 10,000. Just looking at the diversity and complexity of the human genome, you can’t really shrink it back much more than that. Or, some would argue that Adam and Eve were never intended to be historical. They’re allegorical; they represent all of us, and we are all going through that same experience of being given great gifts and then using our free will to break God’s law.'
Re: the forthcoming glorification.
Lewis supplies three astonishing visions –
The first, of creational innocence in Ransom's meeting with the Lady, a second Eve, in the novel, Perelandra, so truly beautiful that 'neither our most sacred or profane art could make her portrait'.
The second comes in that equally splendid voyage, The Great Divorce, where the redeemed estate of a glorified woman, Sarah Smith, radiant in the 'abundance of life she has conveyed in Christ' is evidenced, again, in wonder, granting us an insight into what redemption includes.
The bridge for me between the two comes in the marvelous re-telling of the myth of Psyche, revolving around the story of Orual in Till we have Faces.
As with the record of Genesis itself, it is all too easy to simply file such reflections as allegory – tales we perhaps pondered in earlier times, but the reality we must engage with here must not be lost beneath the often fossilizing strata of modernity.
Howard, thanks so much for contributing those thoughts. I've probably not read as much Lewis' fiction as I should…I probably spend too much time in Barth ((**sigh**)). I think your comment is a fitting "close" to the blog post!