The Garden of Eden: The Original Society of Adam and Eve

Locke describes original humanity as savage, broken and scavenging in the state of nature where we are left alone. However, the Christian origin story describes a much different beginning. Instead of being created alone, God created Eve to be with Adam, a partner, another half to make Adam whole. (Genesis 2:18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.") And instead of being left to scavenge for what they need to survive, they are provided with everything they need in Paradise. Paradise is originally defined as a plentiful garden, and the Garden of Eden was just that. (Genesis 1:31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good.)

However, Adam and Eve give up this Paradise; they defy their God and creator, and thus become broken and alone in this world left to scavenge for their own needs (Genesis 3:23 therefor the LORD God sent him out from the garden of Eden to work the ground from which he was taken). This savage state of nature is a result of our own sin and not what we were created for. Man was created as a complete whole for the purpose of reflecting that of God's image (Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his image, in the image of God he created him), on earth as it is in Heaven. Man was to multiple, creating new life, and fill the earth so as to live abundantly. In the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were of one flesh (Genesis 2:23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh) and a reflection of God designed to birth new life in God's image.

One interesting point to mention about the union of Adam and Eve, a point that is often omitted from many wedding ceremonies, is the responsibilities that God gives to each of them (man and woman). In Genesis 3:16 reads: “To the women he [God] said, ‘I will surly multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring forth children. Your desire shall be for you husband, and he shall rule over you.” It is very interesting that this is omitted from many Christian weddings. It is very plainly stated in the book of Genesis that a women’s husband shall rule over her. One of two things has happened here: either people have forgotten this passage, or people are purposefully ignoring this passage. The passage is very plain, but it is being ignored. In the Western world it seems obvious that it is ignored because people do want to submit to another, as it insinuates a type of bondage and control over them. It is interesting to note that this charge by God is given to Eve after the deception of the serpent. It does not seem that this charge was to be given to Eve otherwise. Based on the events listed in Genesis, it seems that this charge is given in response to Eve being deceived by the serpent. Genesis 3:13 writes: “‘Then the LORD God said to the woman, ‘What is this that you have done?’ The woman said, ‘The serpent deceived me, and I ate.’“ Taken in context of events, it seems that this charge of rule is a punishment for Eve, but does it apply to all women, that they shall be ruled by men? First, let me say that it is written that in this passage God gave rule to the Husband figure, not the man, but rather the husband.

Being that this charge is a punishment to Eve for being deceived, and that a punishment without a purpose of correction is useless, I believe that it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that this charge is for placing the husband in a protection role for the woman. This is not to say that the woman becomes a slave to the man, but rather that he is charged with her care. An example of an instance in which one is put in charge of another’s care without being over them is the example of a body guard. The bodyguard’s authority is paramount for the purpose of protection. The bodyguard is not in a place of complete power, but is rather charged with a responsibility. With that responsibility, authority is needed.

It is also important to note the manner in which God lays out the punishment to Eve. Preceding the punishment of desiring her husband and being ruled by him, God says that he will “surely multiply your pain in childbearing; in pain you shall bring fourth children” (Genesis 3:16). If this charge is to be taken in order, in which the structure of the charge is important for the individual parts of the charge, then it seems that the pain of childbearing would be important to the charge of desire and being ruled. Let us consider what Jean-Jacques Rousseau says on the reason for which men rule. In his Discourse on Political Economy he writes, “however lightly we may regard the disadvantages peculiar to women, yet, as they necessarily occasion intervals of inaction, this is a sufficient reason for excluding them from this supreme authority: for when the balance is perfectly even, a straw is enough to turn the scale.” If women are to be pregnant for nine months a time, they cannot at that time rule. It is not that women are incapable of ruling, or that they are to be slaves of men or their husbands. But it is rather that man is not subject to a natural (and temporary) incapacitation of pregnancy.

Going back to the original charge to Eve, it seems reasonable to say that the second part of the charge, to desire and to be ruled, is directly related to and stemming from the first part, painful childbearing. If childbearing were not to be painful, then it would not produce any inaction. This is not to say that man is a superior creature because of women’s temporary inaction, but rather it is important to understand the basis for which man has been placed in this position. Husband as head of the household is not a position of power, but a position of responsibility. And with such responsibility is required sufficient authority to carry out such responsibilities.

[Continue to "Eve and Adam's need for a "fit" helper"]