Tag-Archive for » woman «

Temple Service

Saturday, July 25th, 2009 | Author: Skip Moen

You husbands likewise, live with your wives in an understanding way, as with a weaker vessel, since she is a woman;  1 Peter 3:7

Vessel – Almost all of the sermons I have ever heard on this verse put the emphasis on the word “weaker”.  Most of the time the sermons are almost apologetic.  I think they miss the point. 

While it is generally true that men are physically stronger than women, concentrating on this adjective often obscures Peter’s real point.  The focus is not on a weight-lifting contest.  It is on the use of God’s instrument.  In order to see this, we have to know something about the word skeuos (vessel).  Wuest points out that this word describes instruments used in the temple services.  Certainly those were not common clay pots!  While the word is also used to describe household utensils, when it is applied figuratively to people, as in Acts 9:15, it is about specific, intentional purposes.  The same word describes the mast of a ship, the instrument that gives the ship power.  So, it’s probably time to correct our thinking about wives.  Most of them won’t win an arm-wrestling contest with a man, but that weakness has nothing to do with their designed purpose.  The DNA of the ‘ezer still intends that they be the motivating power, the instrument of direction and the one set aside for God’s specific purpose in marital harmony.

Marriage is not a contest.  At least it’s not supposed to be a contest.  Whenever battle lines are drawn and spouses begin to think in terms of winner and loser, something tragic has happened.  How can a man be a man without the motivating, directing intentional complement of the ‘ezer kenegdo?  The sages recognized that a man without a woman is less than a full representation of God in the world.  Genesis 2:24 makes it very clear that marriage is reunion – the joining of what was once whole and now must be brought back together by voluntary commitment.  What does weaker vessel have to do with this?  Nothing!  The fact that Peter, a burly fisherman, recognizes that women are physically weaker takes nothing away from their design as a vessel of honor.  Weakness only means that men have a greater responsibility to employ the natural strength they have been given as God intends.  That strength does not give a man one iota of divinely-purposed superiority.

The potter makes vessels for his purposes.  Some he makes with thick walls and solid bases.  Some he makes with delicate designs and artistic flair.  But every one of them is made with purpose in mind.  Who would carry perfume in a 200 pound, rough-edged steel box?  Specific design for specific purpose.  Form follows function.

Today is a great day for appreciating the design of the (weaker) vessel.  Today is a day to celebrate God’s purposes built into the choice of container.  Motivator, director, guide – set apart to fulfill God’s intention.

Topical Index:  vessel, weaker, woman, purpose, ‘ezer, skeuos, Genesis 2:24, 1 Peter 3:7

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , , ,  | 6 Comments

Respect?

Thursday, July 09th, 2009 | Author: Skip Moen

“Woman, what do I have to do with you?”  John 2:4

Woman – Have you noticed how much time women spend trying to keep the peace between people?  Perhaps it is the built-in result of being mothers.  Maybe it’s just genetic.  But it seems that when conflict arises, women do their best to soothe the situation.  Men, on the other hand, seem to be much more hardheaded.  They have the flight or fight syndrome.  Just get out or else prepare for battle.  I don’t think this is a result of left-over Neanderthal aggression.  A lot of this difference comes from childhood training processes.  Most boys learn about life through games of competition.  They are taught values through defeating others.  But girls learn games of cooperation.  Their early childhood play is inclusive.  That training has a lot to do with worldview.[1]

In this story, Jesus’ mother is trying to keep the peace.  The first miracle in the gospel of John is about social expectations.  After Jesus gathers a few of the disciples, he attends a wedding.  Mary is also one of the guests.  It becomes obvious to her that the wedding party will soon run out of wine.  She wants to rescue the situation and prevent a conflict.  So, she decides to take the issue to her oldest son.

We are apt to read our own cultural bias into this conversation between Jesus and his mother.  At first glance, Jesus seems insensitive.  He seems to be acting like a typical male.  Why would Jesus address his own mother with such a cold expression?  The Greek word gunai commonly means woman or wife.  The surprising element of this verse is not the translation but the tone.  We are a gender sensitive culture, so this translation seems to depict Jesus speaking harshly to his mother, questioning why she is bothering him about so insignificant a fact as no wine at a wedding.  While the English wording is correct, we lose the real emotion in this translation.

In some respects, this verse seems like the one thing that every mother fears – rejection by one of her children.  Mary is at the wedding.  She is thrilled to have her oldest son there.  She is proud, perhaps much more so than anyone can realize.  The absence of her husband Joseph probably indicates that he has died.  So, Jesus is the “man of the house” now.  She relies on him.  She knows that he can take care of things.  When she realizes that there is a social embarrassment in the making, she goes to her reliable refuge – Jesus, the good son.  But it looks as though Jesus says something that would unnerve any mother’s expectations.

Does Jesus really say, “Mother, please!  What does bad wedding planning have to do with me?” as if to imply that this kind of problem is not really a problem that should be brought to the attention of the God-Man? If we read the verse like this, we will be greatly mistaken – and we will miss a very important lesson.  In order to understand the real emotions here, we need to look at other uses of this word translated “woman”.

Jesus uses this same Greek word in moments of great tenderness, for example, when he transfers earthly responsibility for care of his mother to John as he is dying on the cross and when he speaks to Mary Magdalene at the tomb.  It is not a cold and sterile rejection.  Our modern translations remove the tone of voice.  We are inclined to think that Jesus is separating himself from the concerns of his mother.  That is a mistake.  Jesus is actually being tender.

But it is not just the tone that is missing.  The way that Jesus frames his response to Mary has been altered.  It might not be good English grammar, but the chopped-up word order in the Greek text tells us something we need to know.   This verse literally says:

“What to me and to you, woman?”

Do you see that Jesus is not isolating himself from Mary at all?  He includes both of them in the situation.  His expression is “to me and to you.”  Jesus makes both of them a part of this problem, and part of the question about its solution.  Jesus is not saying, “Why are you bothering me?”  He is saying, “How are we related to this issue?”  Jesus is inviting her into the solution.  He seeks her cooperation. 

Jesus is not playing the stern male.  He is not correcting her or belittling her.  He acknowledges her concern with tenderness.  He asks Mary how this matter connects them.  Jesus does not cast her aside.  He invites her to join him in the solution.  With tenderness, he salutes her role in his life – and then he asks if she understands his role in her life.  What does this thing have to do with us?  How will this issue bring us together?

No problem is too small to put before Jesus – not even wine at a wedding.  But do not be surprised if the problem raises a different question – a question that includes you in the solution, a question that asks about your relationship to him before both of you decide what to do.

Jesus puts the same question before each of us.  We come to him with some problem.  It may not even be our problem.  We may, like Mary, be looking for a solution for someone else.  But when we place the problem before Jesus, he does not ask, “What do you want me to do?”  He asks, “How does this thing bring us together?”   The lesson is simple:  the problem we see is only a window that opens a relationship with Him.  It’s not about the wine.  It’s about the willingness to enter into the problem together.

Expectation.  Interruption.  Surprise.  Re-orientation.  Are you watching for God in all the wrong places?

Topical Index:  woman, gunai, together, Mary, John 2:4

 

This is excerpted from my book Jesus Said to Her which I hope to have out by the end of the year.

[1] A very insightful woman, Deborah Tannen, noted all this in You Just Don’t Understand (Quill, 2001).

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 13 Comments

A Special Kind Of Help

Saturday, May 30th, 2009 | Author: Skip Moen

And said YHWH Elohim, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make for him a [‘ezer kenegdo].” Genesis 2:18

‘ezer kenegdo – The Bible was not written with chapter and verse numbers. Those were added thousands of years later. Unfortunately, their addition often breaks our thinking about the text so that we don’t see the continuation of one thought into another. Once these artificial stops are removed, the context of our interpretation often changes. Such is the case with the introduction of the ‘ezer kenegdo. Immediately preceding God’s statement about the need for the ‘ezer kenegdo is this command:

“Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat, but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, you shall not eat of it; for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die.” (Genesis 2:17).

What follows this warning? What follows the only prohibition that God gives Adam? The necessity of an ‘ezer kenegdo. The argument proceeds from the prohibition concerning the tree of the knowledge of good and evil to the requirement for an ‘ezer kenedgdo. Furthermore, the entire story of the Fall focuses on the role of the ‘ezer kenegdo and the tree. How can we ignore the obvious conclusion that the purpose of the ‘ezer kenegdo is somehow connected to the command for Adam to obey. Adam doesn’t need an assistant or a co-laborer. The assignment to care for the garden, be fruitful, multiply and take stewardship over the earth is given to both male and female. They equally receive God’s directive. It is not the case that Adam is given the assignment and then delegates some of that responsibility to his faithful companion, Havvah.

However, the command prohibiting eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil is given to Adam alone. It is not Adam’s productive energy that needs assistance. It is his faithfulness to God’s moral obligation. He needs a protector. He needs someone whose job is to keep him on the straight and narrow. He needs one who comes alongside for the express purpose of supporting his obedience. Havvah has a role to play, but it is not the role of domestic servant, sexual outlet, production assistant or Vice President for Public Works. It is the role of priest! She is to be the one who makes sure that Adam stays faithful to God. She is the one who stands between God’s command and Adam’s obedience, watching over him so that he will not go astray. The help she brings is the help of rescue and salvation. In this role, she parallels God’s ultimate relationship with Israel. God is the protector, provider and deliverer of Israel in the fallen world, but those are only roles God takes upon Himself after the Fall. In order to understand the role of the ‘ezer kenegdo, we must look at God’s relationship with human beings before the Fall.

For this exploration, we have only the barest of clues, but these will do. The Hebrew words for “male” and “female” contain double stories. Yes, they describe our sexuality, but they also imply something more. The Hebrew word for “male” is zakar. zakar has a homophone, another word that is spelled exactly the same way in Hebrew (Z-K-R) but which has an apparently different root and a different meaning. In this case, zakar as a verb suggests some very interesting nuances. The principle meaning of zakar as a verb is “to remember.” zakar describes a presence of mind that is taken to heart. In other words, it is thinking that becomes doing. There is no better connection between these two elements than what is described in Psalm 103:18. “To those who keep His covenant and remember His precepts to do them.” The purpose of zakar is not simply to bring something to mind. It is to bring something to mind in order to act upon it. “Thus remembrance of God and the obedience it implies are experienced as a vitally necessary relationship, from which a man cannot and must not escape” (Eising). zakar is an action that is “necessary for human existence” and “a fundamental bond of mutual remembrance that unites God and man.”

Do you see why the homophone of zakar is so intriguing? Is it possible that being in God’s image as male (zakar) could be related to a man’s necessity to remember who God is and how God is related to men? Man is called to remember – in particular to remember God and his obligation to God, the Creator. In this sense, Adam bears the image of God as the one who is called to remember what God said, who God is and to act accordingly.

What about “female?” The Hebrew nekavah also has another story. In combination with zakar (male), the two words demonstrate that the image of God is carried in the complement of these two. Both are necessary for human beings to be human. But nekavah also has its own enhancement. In this case, the Arabic cognate not only means “to pierce, to make a hole,” but also “single out” and “appoint as a leader.” These meanings are also found in Scripture. For example, a slave for life (voluntarily) is marked by a hole bored in the ear. When he is given a name, his identity is transferred from the hole in the ear to the name he bears. Furthermore, we find the word used to describe an appointment to a high office. Finally, Isaiah 62:2 describes being given a new name (nakav) as something of importance and value. Could it be that the nekavah as ‘ezer kenedgo is appointed to an office of distinction, a role in which she carries a new identity and bears the mark of that identity with her sexuality. After all, she is the “mother of all living”. Everyone born of woman must find a new identity through the breach or tunnel of her body and in the process acquire a name.

What do we discover about the ‘ezer kenegdo? The text suggests that she is designed for the specific purpose of maintaining obedience between her man and God. She is his intercessor. She is to guard his relationship with the Creator, support him when he embraces God’s direction and oppose him when he does not. She is the helper-opposite in the only arena where he needs additional attention. Not work, not world-changing assignments, not dominion, not stewarding – but spiritual awareness and obedience. Without her, the man is at great risk and particularly vulnerable.

Is this the role you imagined for the ‘ezer kenegdo? This makes it rather impossible to think of women as second-class citizens in the Body, doesn’t it?

(I’m sorry that this one is so long.  I just couldn’t say what had to be said with less.)

Topical Index: ‘ezer kenegdo, woman, priest, intercessor, obedience, Genesis 2:18, male, female

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , , , ,  | 14 Comments

The Great Risk

Friday, May 29th, 2009 | Author: Skip Moen

And said YHWH Elohim, “It is not good for man to be alone; I will make for him a helper [kenegdo].” Genesis 2:18

Kenegdo – Are you ready to talk about risk? Yesterday we learned that there is something incredibly important happening in God’s design of Woman, the ‘ezer kenegdo.

Built into this design is awesome power and responsibility – and terrifying risk! How we unpack what this means requires us to rethink our whole cultural view of the role of women, or at least this particular woman. To do that, we must first step outside the influence of Greek patterns. We have to go back to the beginning – in Hebrew.

Rabbi David Freedman translates the word ezer as “power” or “strength”. He translates kenegdo not as “suitable for him” but as “one equal to him”. But even this is not quite enough. Rabbi Shlomo Riskin provides an essential modification.

The first problem is the strange Hebrew term, “Ezer kenegdo,” the phrase G-d uses to describe the creature He will provide for Adam in order to conquer his being alone. The literal translation is help-opposite. Other translations are “help meet” or “a help to match him” or “compatible helper”; terms which do not fully reflect the inner tension of the concept. Rashi, in explaining the phrase, writes, “if the man is worthy, then his wife will be an ‘ezer’ (a helper), and if he’s unworthy, she’ll be a ‘kenegdo’, (against him, an opposite force).” Despite Rashi’s commentary, a help-opposite is still an unusual term. If it’s not good for Adam to be alone, why doesn’t G-d simply create a ‘helper’ for him, why an ‘opposite’?

The question is the crucial one. Rabbi Shlomo suggests that the answer lies somewhere in the arena of equality. “Husband is not meant to control wife. If he does, he has lost out on discovering his ‘ezer-kenegdo,’ and he will never be able to overcome his social loneliness. We cannot partner with a lesser being whom we subdue! (The phrase “he shall control her” is a punishment and a far cry from the ideal).”

Rabbi Walter Wurzburger notes that The Rav (Rav Joseph Ber Soloveitchik) “interpreted the verse that Eve was to function as Adam’s eizer kenegdo in the sense that Eve was not simply to function as Adam’s helpmeet, but that she was supposed to help him by being kenegdo, i.e., complementing Adam by offering opposing perspectives. In a similar vein, the Rav invoked the special dignity of women as an explanation for the halakhic rule disqualifying women from serving as witnesses. He compared their status to that of a king, who, according to Jewish law, is disqualified from serving as a witness because it is incompatible with royal dignity to be subjected to cross-examination.”

Comments like these certainly help dispel the common Christian belief that rabbinic views of women are degrading. If rabbinic thought considers the ‘ezer kenegdo equivalent to royalty, then a lot of our thinking about the biblical perspective on women must change. This perspective is in keeping with the woman’s position in the creation narrative. As the fulfillment of the created order, she holds a very special place. In fact, rabbinic thought suggests that Havvah is the first truly human being. Why do the rabbis interpret the Genesis account in this way? Because Adam is the creation of God’s breath animating the ‘adamah, the ground. But Havvah is the direct result of God’s construction from human material. She is “birthed” from a human being, not from the ground. She is the first, she is royalty and she is the helper-opposite.

There is something really important going on in this text. If you thought your ideas about the status, role and function of women were based in Scripture, but you didn’t know anything about the ‘ezer kenegdo, then maybe it’s time to look a little deeper. Maybe you need to put your assumptions aside and read what the text really says.

Tomorrow we will have to dig even deeper.

Topical Index: ‘ezer kenegdo, corresponding to, woman, Genesis 2:18

________________________

Rabbi Sholmo Riskin, “Prashat Bereishit: A Help Opposite?” The Florida Jewish News, October, 2003.

Ibid.

Rabbi Walter Wurzburger, Rav Soloveitchik As Posek of Post-Modern Orthodoxy, Tradition 1994, in Moshe Shulman, Modern Orthodoxy in the 21st Century: Lecture VI: Moderation, Ethics & Honesty as Halachic Norms, p. 2.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 4 Comments

Balancing Act: Parts 1 & 2

Wednesday, February 04th, 2009 | Author: Skip Moen

This article gives more detail on the Hebrew view of ‘ezer.  I originally wrote it in 2006, but with the last week of Today’s Words focused on ‘ezer, I wanted to repost on my new website.

Balancing Act: Reflections on the Curse of Genesis 3

God’s curse after the Fall deserves another look. Typically, our focus on the subject examines the punishment God imposes. We see Adam fighting thistles and thorns in his effort to raise crops to survive. We feel the sweat as he works against the land, fighting in a world now turned hostile. We wince at the sound of Eve in childbirth, experiencing pain in what was supposed to be fulfilled pleasure. And then we read that fateful verse, “and he shall rule over you.” Images of the suppression of women throughout history come rushing into view. Women treated as possessions or worse. We imagine that all of this, including the supposed “Biblical” justification of male domination, is contained in God’s curse.

I think we may have missed the point. It’s time to look closer. more…

Category: Articles  | Tags: , , , ,  | 3 Comments

Double Dose

Saturday, August 16th, 2008 | Author: Skip Moen

for this shall be called woman because out of man this has been taken Genesis 2:23

Woman – There is something crucial happening here, deeper than we can see in the simple translation.  It is connected to the formulation of the Hebrew words for man and woman.  It tells us something important about roles and relationships, but to see it we will have to really dig.

Until this verse, the word for “man” is always the translation of the word adam.  Adam is not only the name of the first person, it is also the word that signifies all Mankind, both male and female.  It is directly related to the Hebrew idea of blood.  The pictograph tells us that the word adam means first door of water, in this case the liquid called blood.  The connection between adam and adamah (earth) is the compound picture “what comes out of the first door of water.”

But this is not the word used in this verse.  In this verse, Adam (the person) names the female Woman.  We don’t see the word play in translation but we do in Hebrew.  The word for “man” is iysh.  It carries the picture “the strong arm that consumes.”  When Adam gives the name “woman” to this new human being, the word is ish-sha. You will see the phonetic similarity.  The pictograph is actually explained in the text.  The addition of the Hebrew consonant Hey at the end of this word reveals the meaning “that which comes out of.”  Therefore, Adam says that this is woman – that which comes out of man.

But there is something else here that is not so phonetically obvious.  The Hebrew consonants for iysh are Aleph-Yod-Shin.  Notice that in the word for woman, the consonant are not what we would expect.  The middle Yod is replaced by a double Shin before the Hey is added.  Thus, “man” is A-Y-SH but “woman” is A-SH-SH-H.  We would have expected “woman” to be A-Y-SH-H, but this isn’t the case.  Why?

Eliminating the Yod removes the pictograph of the strong arm.  Man is the strong arm that consumes, but woman is the strong consumer (doubled) who comes from Man.  They are completely connected, in fact, identical in the picture of strength (Aleph = leader), but something changes after that initial identity.  We know that the Scriptural explanation for the added Hey consonant portrays the created connection between man and woman (i.e., the woman comes from the man).  But what about the doubled Shin?  What does that tell us about the Hebrew concept of the woman?

Here’s a conjecture.  It offers some explanation and some insight, but it is only conjecture.  The letter Shin has multiple meanings, as do most pictographs.  Shin means consume, eat and destroy.  That makes perfect sense since what is consumed is destroyed.  In this word for woman, is it possible that Adam’s name is prophetic, that in offering the name “woman”, Adam recognizes that she has both the strength to consume and to destroy?  Remember that God does not name the woman.  In fact, contrary to popular mythology, her name is not Eve.  It is chavvah (see Genesis 3:20), a proper name that means “making alive.”  In Genesis 2:23, Adam is not naming this person.  He is designating the functional role that this new creation will play.  He is pronouncing her identity, not her label.  She is the one who is both potential consumer (along with him) and destroyer.  Perhaps Adam sees the risk.  Perhaps he is somehow aware that this one presents the possibility of choosing between her and God.  Perhaps he already sees that her role as ‘ezer is fraught with danger because she is so much like him and, at the same time, so completely what God designed just for him.  Adam’s aloneness is resolved in a way that presents the quintessential risk of free will.  The one who would be his protector and provider (the ‘ezer) is also the one who can become his greatest dilemma.  It is the same for us, isn’t it?  Somewhere along the way, we must choose.  Will it be the one perfectly made for us, or will it be obedience to the Designer?

It’s just a thought.  Run with it.  But if every letter is inspired, there must be something behind this unexpected double dose, right?

Topical Index:  Woman

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: ,  | Leave a Comment