One of the main goals of Lori Hope Lefkovitz’s book In Scripture: The First
Stories of Jewish Sexual Identities, is to critique sexual identities and the roles assigned to them based on patriarchy. Lefkovitz challenges the reader to imagine, or even believe that the creation account that we have become comfortable with reciting could be more culturally taught and believed because of the consistently concrete retelling over time rather than inherently actual. She wants us to see sexual identity as ambiguous; for example, Lefkovitz reads Genesis as presenting God as having both male and female attributes. Like God, Adam also brings life into the world, a role designated as the essence of what it means to be female. Eve and Lillith, on the other hand, have the ability to seduce and control sex, roles having been seen as belonging to the male. I will argue, however, that what Lefkovitz refers to as gender switching or ambiguity, are actually two different definitions of creation. God as the creator was not confused when He began His unique work of art that did not naturally evolve. He was specific in organizing the chaos that existed in the beginning. Lefkovitz says that God’s naming creates a system of classification, defines opposites, and is a way of organizing primal chaos, “but there is actually nothing inevitable about the opposites here named, and each acquires its value only in relation to its designated opposite” (Lefkovitz p. 17). While I do agree that God’s naming created order, I do not see man’s and woman’s titles as weak and strong classifiers, but rather identifiers. Ecclesiastes 7:29 says that God created man upright but they have sought out many inventions; this scripture references the sins of man and how man seeks to follow his own inventions as opposed to God’s. It comes to mind because Lefkovitz is inserting her own idea or invention of gender roles when, in the account of creation there were no roles based on gender; it was not until they disobeyed that God cursed man to work hard and woman to experience pain in the birthing process. In the opinion of Lefkovitz, God displays characteristics of both male and female but in reality, creation is characterized by God, the “I Am”. As for Adam, his gender role is questioned because of the authority he was given to name creatures and his help meet, “God and Adam, who are male, are the first sources of life, both as creators of life and those who name the world into meaning” (Lefkovitz p. …show more content…
19). The fact that God gives Adam authority to name does not qualify him as the “giver of life”. To speak something to life means it is already there and the power of your words (God’s image) calls it forth, to give birth is to bring forth; Adam neither birthed, nor created. What Adam did was assisted God in the ordering process. The author asserts that Adam established ownership over Eve by naming her but I believe God was allowing Adam to affectionately associate himself with the creation that was there to walk beside him. I also believe that the way we have come to see gender roles in the story of creation is through the eyes of those who have created this patriarchal society we live in. What I see in the account of Eden is the way we now “romanticize” love, Eden was what and how we should be living now and not the power struggle that some may see. After the fall comes the true chaos, but in the garden I do not believe that Adam had to contend with Eve for power. Eve came to be because God saw that Adam was not good without someone to help him, she was placed there as a companion not as someone who would be less than him, but rather, someone that Adam could relate to on the same level, especially since he could not have that with any of the animals. So now sin occurs and “female sexuality brings the greatest threat to obedience to God” (Lefkovitz p. 22) and Eve is a seductress and the reason for the end of peace in the garden. Eve has now been blamed for man’s inability to
Stories of Jewish Sexual Identities, is to critique sexual identities and the roles assigned to them based on patriarchy. Lefkovitz challenges the reader to imagine, or even believe that the creation account that we have become comfortable with reciting could be more culturally taught and believed because of the consistently concrete retelling over time rather than inherently actual. She wants us to see sexual identity as ambiguous; for example, Lefkovitz reads Genesis as presenting God as having both male and female attributes. Like God, Adam also brings life into the world, a role designated as the essence of what it means to be female. Eve and Lillith, on the other hand, have the ability to seduce and control sex, roles having been seen as belonging to the male. I will argue, however, that what Lefkovitz refers to as gender switching or ambiguity, are actually two different definitions of creation. God as the creator was not confused when He began His unique work of art that did not naturally evolve. He was specific in organizing the chaos that existed in the beginning. Lefkovitz says that God’s naming creates a system of classification, defines opposites, and is a way of organizing primal chaos, “but there is actually nothing inevitable about the opposites here named, and each acquires its value only in relation to its designated opposite” (Lefkovitz p. 17). While I do agree that God’s naming created order, I do not see man’s and woman’s titles as weak and strong classifiers, but rather identifiers. Ecclesiastes 7:29 says that God created man upright but they have sought out many inventions; this scripture references the sins of man and how man seeks to follow his own inventions as opposed to God’s. It comes to mind because Lefkovitz is inserting her own idea or invention of gender roles when, in the account of creation there were no roles based on gender; it was not until they disobeyed that God cursed man to work hard and woman to experience pain in the birthing process. In the opinion of Lefkovitz, God displays characteristics of both male and female but in reality, creation is characterized by God, the “I Am”. As for Adam, his gender role is questioned because of the authority he was given to name creatures and his help meet, “God and Adam, who are male, are the first sources of life, both as creators of life and those who name the world into meaning” (Lefkovitz p. …show more content…
19). The fact that God gives Adam authority to name does not qualify him as the “giver of life”. To speak something to life means it is already there and the power of your words (God’s image) calls it forth, to give birth is to bring forth; Adam neither birthed, nor created. What Adam did was assisted God in the ordering process. The author asserts that Adam established ownership over Eve by naming her but I believe God was allowing Adam to affectionately associate himself with the creation that was there to walk beside him. I also believe that the way we have come to see gender roles in the story of creation is through the eyes of those who have created this patriarchal society we live in. What I see in the account of Eden is the way we now “romanticize” love, Eden was what and how we should be living now and not the power struggle that some may see. After the fall comes the true chaos, but in the garden I do not believe that Adam had to contend with Eve for power. Eve came to be because God saw that Adam was not good without someone to help him, she was placed there as a companion not as someone who would be less than him, but rather, someone that Adam could relate to on the same level, especially since he could not have that with any of the animals. So now sin occurs and “female sexuality brings the greatest threat to obedience to God” (Lefkovitz p. 22) and Eve is a seductress and the reason for the end of peace in the garden. Eve has now been blamed for man’s inability to