For Christian theologian Phyllis Trible Genesis 1:27 is the central biblical clue for how to
understand the whole of the biblical metanarrative: So God created
mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male
and female he created them.
While Muslim theologian Amina Wadud observes that in the Quranic version of the story the genders relate to God and themselves in God’s creating them from the same genderless soul. While both versions have slight nuance, both show the equality of the genders from the beginning of their creation...
Within
the context of Genesis 1, Genesis 1:27 represents the pinnacle of
creation. The whole of the chapter has been building up to this
moment where “creation moves in an orderly fashion from chaos to
cosmos.”1
In the first three days of creation God designs the frame of the
universe in creating light and darkness, the firmament separating the
waters, and the earth which puts forth vegetation. Whereas day four,
five and six, fill in the world with the lesser lights and a
separation of day and night, aquatic and aerial animals, and
finishing with land animals and humankind.2
The acclamation of creation as good is exclaimed throughout the
creation account, with a final affirmation of humankind as the
pinnacle of creation in it being declared “very good.”3
Within
the creation of humankind they are identified more specifically as
male and female, and are then given the responsibilities of dominion
and fertility with an added blessing of food given to them in Genesis
1:29-30.4
Trible points out that both male and female are created on the same
day and they both eat the same food, and in doing so “complete the
symmetry of the overall design.”5
The
sexual differentiation of male and female is made only for humans,
and this is intended “not for procreation but to the image of
God.”6
While animals and humans share in procreation, the distinction of
male and female goes beyond to a deeper meaning. The further
specificity of human purpose is also pointed out in their sharing of
“dominion over the earth” and only to human beings does God
“speak directly in the first person.”7
In
relation to the poetic structure of Genesis 1:27, Trible points out
in the “male and female” correspondence to God’s image there is
a “formal parallelism” which “indicates a semantic response.”8
The move from the singular “him” to “them” shows how the
“plural form reinforces sexual differentiation within the unity of
humanity.”9
Trible
sees this best understood as a metaphorical model where God is the
“lesser known” underlying and overarching element which drives
all of creation. The “male and female” humanity is the “vehicle”
through which he makes himself known as his image bearers.10
Many Muslim and Christian theologians would be comfortable with
describing this as the relationship between a wholly “other” God
making himself in some way knowable through his creational action.11
Trible
goes on to suggest that the three nouns humankind, male, and female
correspond to the pronouns him and them in such a way that they are
all “objects of the verb create
with
God as its subject.” These fives words in interaction with each
other show their “shared and particular meanings.”12
When
Genesis 1:27 moves from “him” in the singular to “them” in
the plural, it reinforces the reality that there is “two creatures,
one male and one female.” For Trible this does not allow for any
“androgynous” interpretation of the original humanity. “Humankind
exists as two creatures, not as one creature with double sex.”13
The singular word “humankind” in relationship with the singular
“him” also shows that “male and female are not opposite but
rather harmonious sexes.” Humankind does not get split into two,
but it is in the unity of “male and female” which shows the unity
of humanity. The sexual differentiation of male and female is neither
identical nor is it an “antonym” rather it “recognizes
distinction within harmony.”14
The
parallel nature of “male and female” further shows that their
harmonious differentiation is not a hierarchal relationship but one
of equality. They were created at the same time, and “neither has
power over the other; in fact, both are given equal power.”15
Humankind is given dominion over the earth which is followed by the
plurality of “them” showing that God has given both of them
“equal power over the earth.”16
The fact that Genesis 1 does differentiate “male and female” in
their shared roles of procreation and dominion shows that we should
be open to a diverse understanding of how to enact and share these
responsibilities. The parallel command given to the fish and the
birds to procreate was not individualized into gender roles, so we to
should be weary of doing so. The uniqueness of humanity is not in our
ability to procreate but in the shared dominion we are given as
humankind. Therefore we should be careful not to stereotype the text
with “masculine” and “feminine” gender roles.17
Within
our understanding of being God’s image Trible reminds us like any
good Muslim or Christian theologian that they were are called to bear
the image of God in our imagination, integrity, dominion, and
freedom, we are never to describe ourselves in relation to God
himself, but only to his giving of “similarities.”18
The God given attributes of the “male and female” shows us not
only our similarity to God, but also the “otherness of the divine
image.” The “male and female” is in this sense the “finger
pointing to the image of God.”19
While
Trible wants to affirm that the switch from plural to singular
pronouns shows the human variety, freedom, and fullness within God,
this shift also preserves with “exceeding care, the otherness of
God.” God is not a man or a woman, or some combination of the two;
rather he is the singular unknowable. We have no idea about the “way
in which the deity creates” but we do know that in his transcendent
creational freedom he has chosen to image himself in the separately
identifiable, yet harmoniously unified “male and female”
creation.20
Genesis
1:27 becomes the creational foundation for how God chooses to show
himself in the world. Metaphors like father, husband, king and
warrior partially express the image of God as male, while images of
God as a pregnant woman, mother, midwife, and mistress show the
“diverse and partial expressions of the image of God” as
female.21If
one were to move deeper into Trible’s meta-narrative of human
failure and redemption, you would be able to see how this
foundational lens of Genesis 1:27 speaks always to the ultimate telos
of humanity.
For Muslim theologian Amina Wadud creation exists in a three step process. You begin with the
initiation of creation, its formation or perfection, and the bringing
of it to life. This creational process is developed through an
analysis of verses like Sura 38:71-72:
Just
recall the time when your Lord said to the angels, 'I am going to
create a human of clay: when I perfect it in every way, and blow into
it of my ruh all of you should bow down before it.
The
Arabic word for create here is khalaqa, and while this word is used
to denote the first step in the creation process, it also used in the
second step of the creation process in how it is used to discuss the
creation of everything. The Arabic word sawwara
which means to “form, shape or perfect,” it is also used to
describe the second step in the creation process. This “perfection”
is used to describe Allah forming “humankind exactly as he wanted
it to be.” Sura 95:4 describes how “Surely We created humankind
in the best stature” while Sura 40:64 describes how it is Allah who
has “fashioned you, and perfected your shapes.”22
Allah
shows in the Qur'an that the form given to humankind is the form best
suited to fulfill its vicegerency on earth. This has a similar
dimension to the biblical account in the sense that human beings are
given dominion over the earth. The biblical account has further
resonance with the Quranic account in that human creation is also
made up of two distinct but compatible genders. These two make up a
part of that which “perfects” the human created form. Hence, “the
creation of the human form was a conscious decision by Allah, ‘who
gave everything He created the best form.’”23
In the third step of the creation process humankind is elevated
“above the rest of creation” with “the breathing of the Spirit
of Allah (nafkhat al-ruh] into each human, whether that be male or
female.”24
Here
we see an interesting intersection of both Genesis 1 and 2. While man
and woman are created at the same time, as is the case in Genesis 1,
the inclusion of Genesis 2 in mankind being given the “breath of
life” makes for an interesting addition to the Quranic version of
the story.
What
becomes foundation for Wadud is how to translate Sura 4:1. The
passage from her perspective should be translated this way:
Mankind!
Be careful of your duty to your Lord Who created you from a single
nafs, and from it created its zawj, and from that pair spread abroad
[over the earth] a multitude of men and women.
The
four contested terms in this passage are the Arabic words ayat,
min, nafs, and zawj.
The term ayat
which
Wadud translates into a form of duty to God can be more deeply seen
as an implicit marker of God. The whole world is made up of these
markers including humanity itself.25
The explicit Ayat is made up of “verbal symbols or words” and is
made up of information about the realm of the unseen world. These
explicit markers cannot be perceived through ordinary means, and must
be seen as divine revelation. Both these explicit and implicit
markers are connected to creation, and are designed to help complete
the purpose of the Quran as guidance to true reality. Therefore, “we
should act always in such a way that our attention be directed
towards something that is beyond it.”26
It is here I think we can begin to sense the platonic or dualistic
nature of the Quran within its contrasting of that which is hidden
and revealed, along with that which is real and false.
The
Arabic term min
represents
one of the more controversial terms in the sense that it can refer to
something being extracted from something else, or it could simply
imply that something is “of the same nature as.”27
Wadud prefers the second definition because of its egalitarian
implications and suggests that her argument is more deeply proven in
how to understand the final more substantial terms nafs
and zawj.
Nafs
for
Wadud “refers to the common origin of all humankind.”28
Nafs
is commonly interpreted as the human soul, and in Quranic version of
creation story, is the original substance from which human beings are
created, and is genderless.29
It is interesting to see the contrast in the biblical account of the
creation story where human beings related to God’s image in their
different yet harmonized gender, while in the Quranic version of the
story the genders relate to God and themselves in God’s creating
them from the same genderless soul. The final significant term which
Wadud wants to point us to is zawj,
which
can be translated into “mate, spouse, or group.”30
Wadud
wants to emphasize that while this has often been used to correlate
with the Biblical account of Eve, we know even less about “the
creation of zawj,
then we do about the creation of the original nafs.”
What really interests her is the analysis of the Quranic use of pairs
throughout the creations accounts. For the Quran “everything in
creation is paired.”31
And the Quran even goes so far as to dictate that “all things”
God has created comes in pairs, and “perhaps you will all reflect
on this fact.”32
For the Quran “a pair is made of two co-existing forms of a single
reality,” the “two congruent parts formed to fit together as a
whole.” Therefore because each created thing is dependent upon its
zawj
(mate), “the creation of both the original parents is irrevocably
and primordially linked” and so the “two are equally essential.”33
Although
these pairs are both created equal, this does not mean they are the
same. Sura 53:45 and 3:36 show their difference in that “male is
not like female” and there is no “explicit characteristics to
either one or the other, exclusively.”34
While the female naturally goes through the child bearing processing,
no other aspect of the child rearing process is given explicitly to
the female as her duty. Thus the biological function of the mother
should not be correlated into Quranic support for the stereotyped
“psychological and cultural perceptions of mothering.”35
While
masculine and feminine are not seen as primordial characteristics,
there is a Quranic dictate for them to be seen as mutual comforts to
one another, as Sura 30:21 suggests that “Among His signs is this:
He has created azwaj for you from your own an/us so that you may find
rest in them.”36
The two central similarities in the the Biblical and Quranic creation stories then in is that men and women were made to have dominion over the
earth, and they are made as different yet equally compatible
companions to one another.
1
(Trible 1978) 12
2
(Trible 1978) 12-13
3
(Trible 1978) 13
4
(Trible 1978) 14
5
(Trible 1978) 15
6
(Trible 1978) 15
7
(Trible 1978) 15
8
(Trible 1978) 17
9
(Trible 1978) 17
10
(Trible 1978) 17
11
(Burrell 1986)
12
(Trible 1978)17-18
13
(Trible 1978) 18
14
(Trible 1978) 18
15
(Trible 1978) 18
16
(Trible 1978) 19
17
(Trible 1978) 19
18
(Trible 1978) 19
19
(Trible 1978) 20
20
(Trible 1978) 20-21
21
(Trible 1978) 22
22
(Wadud 1999) 16-17
23
(Wadud 1999) 17; Sura 32:7
24
(Wadud 1999) 17
25
(Wadud 1999) 17; Sura 2:164; 3:190; 51:49
26
(Wadud 1999) 18
27
(Wadud 1999) 18
28
(Wadud 1999) 19
29
(Wadud 1999) 20
30
(Wadud 1999) 20
31
(Wadud 1999) 21
32
(Wadud 1999) 21; Sura 51:49
33
(Wadud 1999) 21
34
(Wadud 1999) 21
35
(Wadud 1999) 22
36
(Wadud 1999) 22
37
(Wadud 1999) 23
38
(Wadud 1999) 23; 44-61
39
(Trible 1978) 72; 195
No comments:
Post a Comment