Seminarian N.C. Harrison offers a reading of scripture that presents women as allies rather than helpers or servants.
“So the person gave names to all of the livestock, to the birds of the air and all of the wild animals. But for Adam there was not found an ezer suitable for helping him.” Genesis 2:20.
The interpretation of this verse, in which the word ezer is often translated “helper” or, in the venerable King Jame’s Bible “help meet,” has often been used for the purposes of mischief across the years, decades and even centuries. Those who propose that they hold to “tradition” have wielded it as a club in order to beat women into a subservient position to men, a position which they consider proper. Critics who have examined the word and seen only the shackles that these previous interpreters imposed, ignoring the unique, historical strength of women, have used it as a proof text for sexism inherent in the Torah.
The interpretation of this verse has often been used for the purposes of mischief across the years, decades and even centuries. Those who propose that they hold to “tradition” have wielded it as a club in order to beat women into a subservient position to men.
|
It is likely that neither of these interpretations is fully correct. The first one, as it condones the dominance of one being created in Imago Dei over another, fails on internal grounds when the verse is telescoped against Acts 10:34 and Romans 10:12 in the New Testament and against Deuteronomy 1:17 and 16:19 in the Torah. The second view, though it is noble for criticizing the problematic first view, fails on external grounds for failing to examine fully the poetic potential of the word ezer in the context of the surrounding verses.
The literal meaning of Genesis 2:20 is, as with many verses in Abrahamic Scripture, relatively straightforward. The Man of Red Clay, whom ADONAI has shaped and breathed life into, has examined the creation into which he is situated. The animals under his care are named and his first job is complete but he is lonely. Though he cares for the animals like a good steward should, none of them is found suitable to be his life’s companion.
Unwilling to see His creation suffer, ADONAI placed him into a deep sleep, drew out one of his ribs and formed it into a complementary creature, made also thus of red clay and in His own image. He named it Woman, Eve or Isha–depending on what text you read or who you are–and, upon awakening, the Man of Red Clay proclaimed that she was a part of him, he a part of her, and that their fates would be bound for eternity.
The words used in the account of the Lord’s creation of the Woman are one’s first clue as to the depth of metaphorical meaning inherent in this tale. Ezer, the word so often translated as “helper,” might in some instances better be translated as “ally,” “companion” or even by the phrase “one who stands beside in a time of need.” This is underscored by the source of the flesh from which ADONAI drew as He operated upon the Man of Red Clay. Although “rib,” “side,” “ally” and “helper” do not sound much alike in the English language, tzela and ezer in Hebrew make the relationship between the two much clearer. One cannot read the terms in this manner without understanding that the two companions are meant to be joined at the hip, to borrow a modern phrase, walking side-by-side instead of one in front of the other. This idea only deepens when the Man of Red Clay refers to his Isha as “bone of my bone” or, in Hebrew etzem. This word, which again links phonically and sonically–as the Torah is meant to be read aloud–to both ezer and tzela has the connotation, in Hebrew, of being what cuts to the heart of the matter. The Red Clay Man is therefore saying, in this small phrase, that the concerns and the very matter at the core of his being are those at the core of the Isha’s being and vice versa.
Although I am not yet married, and have had some truly strange and less than happy experiences with relationships in my life, I am not quite ready to give up yet.
|
Ezer is used, also, at various other places throughout Scripture and never in a subservient position. It is said that ADONAI was the ezer of one delivered from the sword of the pharaoh in Exodus 18:4 and, again, the Lord is the ezer and shield or ezer and deliverer of Israel in Psalm 33:20 and 70:5. None of these could describe one who is in a subservient position. One can also see, when one looks at truly healthy relationships as presented in the Scriptures of both Israel and early Christianity, that friendship and mutual respect and kindness were the goals. Ruth and Boaz, for example, built a life together based on these, as did Solomon and the one who was Dark But Lovely, the Lily Among Thorns, the Shulamite and, in the New Testament, Miriam and Yosef. Even in the realm of friendship, instead of romantic affection, one can look at the relationships which developed between Yeshua and Miriam, Martha and Lazarus of Beth Ani (two sisters and a brother He was close to) or the friendship between the Apostle Paul and Phoebe of Rome as presented in Romans 16:1-2. Even the Lord Himself, when seeking to send a Messiah, did not just speak Him into being but chose, instead, to have Him be born and raised by a human alma (young woman, as described by Isaiah 7:14) who grew up to be a human isha. If there could be any more eloquent a statement of equality and respect in relationship, I cannot think of it.
As a final note, I am once again unsure if any grand conclusions can be drawn from this article. Although I am not yet married, and have had some truly strange and less than happy experiences with relationships in my life, I am not quite ready to give up yet. Perhaps one day this simple being of red clay and dusty will find an isha to stand by his side.
Image: Lucas Cranach the Elder – Adam und Eva im Paradies (Sündenfall) – Wikipedia
Your professor sounds like a good guy. Admittedly, I am typically more minded to challenge different interpretations and to encourage others to push mine. In my experience, ‘possible’ interpretations are all too frequently not possible at all, but are just tolerated because people lack the patience, ability, nerve, or will to reveal their weaknesses. In order to be nice and inoffensive to each other, we can often indulge poor readings, treating them as if they had merit. I will probably be finishing a lengthy piece on the subject of gender in Genesis 1-3 within the next week or so, for… Read more »
I don’t think that this is a very convincing case. A few thoughts in response: The implicit suggestion that we can deduce much from the limited other uses of the noun עזר in the Old Testament concerning the relative status of the two parties in this instance is quite unconvincing. The word עזר alone could allow for the possibility that the woman occupies a radically subservient position to Adam. While it is erroneous to argue on the basis of the word עזר alone that the woman (she is not named until Adam gives her her name in Genesis 3:20) is… Read more »
So … are you saying that you’d rather NOT interpret the idea in Genesis to mean that men and women are meant to love and help each other? I’ll allow your own interpretation but I firmly believe the other. Aside from that, I’m not sure this article is a treatise on the Hebrew language. This article seemed written to be an encouragement to men, women and the wonder of their relationships which God created and ordained to be Holy. It’s okay to be encouraging; we need all we can in this day and age. I’ll also say that I’m not… Read more »
At the outset, let me make completely clear that what I would ‘rather’ believe or interpret the text to teach is entirely irrelevant here. What matters is what the text actually says and our duty to be honest interpreters of it. We can disagree with the text if we want, but do not have the right to interpret it however we desire. The article above made reference to the teaching of Genesis 2 as part of its argument and, in particular, to the use of the Hebrew word for ‘help’. My comment was intended to suggest the need for closer… Read more »
My point is not an egalitarian one but a complementarian one. Men and women are different from each other and built to aid one another in the ways that are right for them to do so. Ephesians 5:22 instructs wives to obey their husbands as they would the Lord, after all, but then 5:25 instructs husbands to love their wives as Christ loved the church–indicating that they should be willing, if necessary, to die to save them–and 5:28 indicates that men should regard their wives as vital to themselves as parts of their own body, as in Mark 10:8, during… Read more »
I obviously misunderstood your position to be one of an egalitarian, from whom I most typically encounter the above arguments about the meaning of the word ‘help’ and the framing of the position against the ‘tradition’ and ‘previous interpreters’ (I have problems with both egalitarian and complementarian positions as typically expressed). Most of my points still pertain, however. Irrespective of the theological conclusions that we reach, it is important that we handle the text carefully. I can assure you that I did not ignore the surrounding verses. Like most interpreters of 11:10, I see the ‘authority’ in question to refer… Read more »
Again, this isn’t what the article was referring to — in my opinion — but speaking as a born again Christian, and as a woman who has been married to the same husband for 29 years this year, I can say from experience that a woman’s place is not subservient to a man. I don’t believe mature relationships can withstand a servant/slave mentality. Let me also say I am the furthermost thing from a feminist you’ll find considering I don’t work, I was home with our children full time because I knew that was the right thing to do, and… Read more »
Where did I say that women were supposed to be subservient to men? The point here is asymmetric mutuality, not subservient hierarchy.
It is important, perhaps, to begin by stating that all arguments and discussions are not intended to persuade those who are adamantly opposed to a position. Some are intended to touch those who are the seekers of something or even those who are neutral about a certain idea. This article, even more than this, lies in the realm of exhortation. Many spiritual leaders will provide a message meant to teach, encourage or bolster the faith of those who are in their care or even those who might wander across it and feel sympathetic to the position. This article is meant,… Read more »
Thanks for the response. I don’t think that either of us is going to persuade the other here, and that’s OK. However, conversation is hardly ever about the all or nothing of persuading or not persuading. Nine times out of ten conversation is about sparring with contrasting or opposing positions to discover weaknesses in our thinking, sharpen our understanding, and challenge our interlocutors by identifying flaws in their arguments. In this case, I am providing some pushback to the interpretation of Genesis 2 that you suggest, presenting a case for some of the positions that you are rejecting, and inviting… Read more »
I am indeed okay with agreeing to disagree over a point of interpretation–I have done that enough during my studies with both professors and fellow students. As a wise man (the professor who introduced me to the idea I present here, maybe in a slightly different form but essentially a similar one in substance) noted in our first discussion of the sin of Sodom, “As it’s a bit late in the game for either of us to have Apostlic authority then we shall simply have to celebrate and enjoy the rich breadth of interpretations possible.” The man, in addition to… Read more »