A Defense of Eve

                                        Prologue for the Defense of Eve
    “The Defense of Eve” is an opinion piece. It is intended to provide a little balance to a sometimes oppressive social bias against women based on the Bible story of Adam and Eve.  If you believe there might be more than one way of understanding that story then this piece may be of interest. The story of the sin of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden is frequently used in some circles to support a claim of male moral superiority. For some it justifies the subjugation and abuse of women. I find no scriptural justification for that claim. Gradually state and federal laws are beginning to change to protect women from the more serious crimes of abuse. It took many years to abolish slavery; I think it will take many more before women are adequately protected by the law. In the meantime I offer the following points of view for those men and women who believe in equity of the sexes and are seeking arguments to support it within the context of scripture.

                                                                  A Defense of Eve
      Eve was not made from the dust of the earth in the same manner as Adam and all the other creatures in the world.  I think Eve was a very special creature. Scripture says she was made from the flesh and bone of Adam as a special gift from God. If these claims are true then I wonder why Adam treated her so badly by implying that his sin was her fault. Some men have used this as an excuse to abuse women ever since.

      In Genesis 2:16-17 God commands Adam  “And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat. But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” The Bible says that when Eve encountered the serpent in the garden the serpent asked her "Yea hath God said,"  "Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?" Genesis 2: 2-3  says  “”And the woman said unto the serpent, “We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden:  But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.” Eve saw the evidence of the serpent’s argument. Eve thought the tree was good. Genesis 3:6 says “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” 

    The scripture indicates she ate the fruit herself before she offered it to Adam. Eve did not fall down dead. She offered her husband something she thought was good. She knew she was taking a risk in doing so. She gave the best of herself and even took a great risk to honor her husband. Eve had been deceived.

    The scriptures indicate that Adam was told directly by God not to eat the fruit. I have found no scripture indicating that Adam was with Eve during her tempting by the serpent, but I think the Bible supports the supposition that Adam was with Eve when she ate the fruit. I also find no evidence that Eve presented any argument to Adam to get him to eat the fruit. He simply accepted the fruit, ate it then blamed consequences on Eve.

    Eve could not have known what God said to Adam before she was formed. I have found no reference that says God ever told Adam that death would result from touching the tree. Scripture does not tell us that God ever told Eve directly not to eat the fruit. Obviously Eve knew of the commandment but from whom?  If she had received the word from God in a special address to her it seems to me that would have been important enough to mention in the Bible. We know that what Eve told the serpent was not what God told Adam. Certainly Adam could have told her what God said to him but did he embellish God’s command or did Eve misunderstand?  Some people change stories a little or sometimes a lot in the telling. Adam was with Eve when she ate the fruit. I think a loving husband would have at east tried to protect his wife? It would seem to me that Eve’s being a gift from God would obligate one to do so. Obviously Adam didn’t see it that way.

    The Bible tells us the tree was desirable, implying that it would have been as appealing to Adam as to Eve. Genesis 3:22 indicates that Adam did gain knowledge and came to know good and evil. Maybe when Adam saw that Eve did not die he thought he could take the fruit without harm. Scripture does not describe Adams motives. This story provides a basis for those who claim women are inferior. It is used to show that women are treacherous and should not be listened to but should be obedient to men. It has been used for centuries as a rubric for the subjugation and abuse  of women.

    Later in the Christian era the idea that husbands have special obligations to their wives is spelled out. According to Ephesians 5:23,25 and 28 God made husbands responsible to be the head of their families and to protect them, if necessary giving themselves as Christ gave himself for the Church.  Timothy 2.13-14 tells us that Eve was deceived by the serpent, but Adam was not deceived. Romans 5:12 indicates it may have been Adam that brought death into the human race. Eve was tempted of Satan and was deceived. Adam simply accepted an offer.

    A favorite assumption of misogynists is that since Eve ate first and would have been made wise she would have known she was in trouble and just tricked poor Adam into eating. I find no support for this in scripture. The effects of eating the forbidden fruit were not immediate. After they had eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge Adam tried to excuse himself to God by saying the woman gave him the fruit and she was responsible. If woman is weak and irresponsible then we can understand why she might have whined to God about how the serpent tempted her and it wasn't really her fault, but what is Adam’s excuse?

    I believe the special nature of Eve's creation and that she was a gift from God obligated Adam to treat her with respect. He had an obligation to protect her and to take her part. He should have stood up for her and explained to God how she was tricked by the serpent or at least he could have pleaded her case and begged for a lesser punishment. But no, that wasn't what he did. Not only did he not try to protect her he tried to pawn his own sin off on her on her by telling God how she tempted him. We all know the outcome. They both were driven from the garden. Adam was punished by having to work but Eve's punishment was more severe, not only did she also have to work she had to submit to Adam and bear children in pain and suffering.

      In today's world little has changed. Many men arrogantly claim superiority not just because they are physically stronger but because they can point out how God said they were to be the spiritual leaders and the women should submit to their domination. For over 2000 years men have used the sins committed in the garden as an excuse to abuse and mistreat women and gain prestige among their peers while doing it. The Bible does not say God is strictly male but most men seem to think so. Some men express the idea that God is a great warrior up in the sky that rains vengeance down on anyone who disagrees with their point of view. There is some scriptural support for this. Exodus 15:3 says,” The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.” The problem is men don't understand that the assignment of male gender to God is a result of language translation and not because God has a physical form of flesh that we would recognize as male. Never the less some men still use the male concept of God to support their argument for moral superiority. I think this argument is inconsistent with the description of God in Genesis.

    In Hebrew the pronoun she might be a more appropriate word to describe God because it contains the masculine he and designates the female gender as well. Reference the Hebrew bible and we find that the Elohim, a principal name for God, in Genesis 1:26  says “ Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.” Why is the reference plural?  Isn't God one?!  The Kabballah describes the Elohim as a plural word formed from the feminine singular, (ALH) Eolh and  (IM, the masculine singular so the word becomes Elohim a plural form embodying both male and female. This promotes the idea of God's true nature that contains both the male and female and hence the plural form when translated. 
When humans were formed both sexes were represented. Men could never have declared moral superiority without a separation of the sexes. To support the superiority claim as an act as well as a directive of God the story had to be told in a way to show the separation was in the service of male superiority.

    The sexes were separated to prevent Adam from being alone in the garden. In Genesis one Adam and Eve are both formed at the same time from the earth. This does not accord superiority of one over the other.  Later scripture alleges Eve was made from Adam’s rib. One idea presents the original Adam as a hermaphrodite and the rib story was an allegory to explain the separation of his feminine side into a separate person. This idea is too much for most Christians. There has to be a greater difference and separation must occur in an entirely unique way. That way must be different from all the other creatures of earth. In the second story of Genesis Eve is formed from Adams rib. That way there is no need to acknowledge the androgyny of men, and women can be viewed as inferior.

    Of the three Abrahamic faiths only the Jews have done a creditable job spelling out man's special obligations to women and the reasons why the obligations are a sacred trust.  Yet as far as I know Jews are not especially kind to women. In Genesis 3:16 God said,” I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” I believe this passage is used by many as license to threat women badly. Women are supposed to suffer. Surah Nisa, Chapter 4, verse 34 gives Muslims permission to isolate and beat their women.  No matter that these men attempt to minimize the issue pointing to a narrow definition of the scriptures, the evidence of physical abuse is a testimony of the truth.
  I believe the Adam and Eve story incites many men to be cruel to women. I think this is why some men think it is acceptable to add a little extra to God's punishment of women or at least make sure the punishment is carried out in full. One excuse for denying Women pain relief during childbirth for centuries is based on the quote from Genesis 3:16” in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children.” Apparently some physicians thought that meant women were supposed to suffer. "Keep em barefoot and pregnant," is a common saying among some poorly educated men and resistance to their sexual advances is met with beatings and rape.

    I think Adam treated Eve badly because he was as weak as Eve and sinned even without being deceived. Neither Adam nor Eve had the saving grace of Christ so their punishment was terrible and they were cast out. Fortunately today’s women do have the benefit of Christ’s sacrifice and men who have received moral instruction. There are many good men who lay no claim to moral superiority based on sex. They love their women as they love their own flesh and honor them as the gift of God they are.

                                                                              Epilogue
    The usual interpretation of the story of Adam and Eve provides an example of the deep seated beliefs frequently used support the subjugation of women and complicates the process of reconciliation when the resulting injuries break families apart. The idealization of marriage, denial of abuse and devaluation of women persists in spite of cultural changes and the courts. Arguments like those above will not change anyone’s faith. I do not believe faith is arguable. The ideas expressed are intended to provide a small measure of support to those who think there might be a better way.