Intimacy and Alienation in the Garden

The following quote is by Alan Jon Hauser - Genesis 2-3: The Theme of Intimacy and Alienation. Michelle Lee-Barnewell refers to Dr. Hauser's paper in Neither Complementarian Nor Egalitarian in the section where she proposes that unity is the primary theme of Adam and Eve's relationship in Genesis 2 rather than authority/submission or even equality.¹ As I read Dr. Lee-Barnewell's argument and then Dr. Hauser's analysis, I think they have both honed in on something that has been missing from the gender debate. (I would add that Lee-Barnewell's position does not necessarily negate male elders nor any application of Ephesians 5.) If unity/oneness is indeed the hallmark of Adam and Eve's pre-fall state, then sin brought in alienation between men and women and between mankind and God. In Hauser's examination of the text, he notes that the Hebrew verb tenses are plural even when the serpent is addressing Eve, thus emphasizing the oneness of Adam and Eve. But the tense switches to singular post fall.² There are many parallels and word plays that he cites, which strengthen his thesis of perfect intimacy devolving into alienation. This all leads me to wonder  - Are we barking up the wrong tree by emphasizing hierarchy, no matter how benevolent? Is there something more fundamental that needs to be mended between men and women than just making sure we know what we can and cannot do?

On Genesis 3:

The motif of man's alienation from God and from woman reaches its climax in v. 12. In previous scenes the intimacy between man and woman has been thoroughly developed, especially through the idea that man and woman are one flesh (2:23-25). Furthermore, when woman's relationship to man has been described, she has consistently been referred to as 'shtw (his wife; 2:24,25; 3:8). Now, however, man coldly passes the blame for his deed to "the woman" (h'shh) /16/: "she gave to me" (hw' ntnh ly) /17/. To man she has become an object, not a companion, and the clause 'shr ntth c mdy (whom you gave to be with me) points the reader back to an earlier situation of intimacy which no longer exists. The alienation of man from woman is complete.

While God's question in v. 11 called for a simple yes or no answer, man refuses to accept responsibility for what he has done. It is not only woman who is blamed, however, as indicated by the words 'shr ntth c mdy (whom you gave to be with me) /18/, which closely parallel the immediately following words hw' ntnh ly (she gave me). Man is clearly saying that God is to blame, since God gave to man the woman who led him astray. Thus, not only has man ceased to see woman as a companion: he also has ceased to see God as a well-intentioned creator who provides man with all good things. The alienation of man from God is also complete. ³ 

1. Neither Complementarian Nor Egalitarian, Michelle Lee-Barnewell, Baker Academic, 2016, pg. 142.

2. Genesis 2-3: The Theme of Intimacy and Alienation, Alan Jon Hauser from Art and Meaning: Rhetoric in Biblical Literature, Alan J. Hauser, David J. A. Clines, David M. Gunn, editors, JSOT Press, 1982, pg. 26. 

3. Ibid. 30. (emphasis mine) Note: The numbers between the slashes refer to endnotes.