Tag-Archive for » woman «

Switch

Friday, February 15th, 2013 | Author:

The man said, “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: She shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.” Genesis 2:23  NASB

Man – Something odd is happening in this story about the first man.  Up to this point, the word used for “man” is adam.  God formed the adam from the dust of the ground.  God breathed life into the adam.  The adam was placed in the Garden.  The adam walked and talked with God in Eden.  God gave the adam the first commandment.  God recognized that it was not good for the adam to be alone.  But when the adam woke from God’s formation of woman, he (the adam) said, “This is now bone of my bones . . . she shall be called ishshah because she was taken out of ish.”  What?!  How did the word ish get in there?  Everything up to this point is about adam, not ish.  The first occurrence of ish is in the mouth of the adam.  Why?  And even more puzzling, when we come to the principle verse about marriage, the very next verse, the word used is ish, not adam (“an ish shall leave his father and mother and cling to his ishshah”) but the next verse switches back to adam (“and they were both naked, the adam and his ishshah”).

We might suppose that adam is used to describe man in relation to God and ish is used to describe man in relation to other human beings and the world, but the linguistic evidence doesn’t bear this out (e.g., Genesis 4:1 uses adam, not ish.  Likewise, Genesis 3 uses adam).  But there must be a reason why the word ish, used 2174 times in the Tanakh versus adam, used 562 times, is introduced in this verse.  If we look at usage outside of the Genesis story, we find that adam is almost always a collective noun; a word for Mankind.  Of course, in the Genesis account it is the name of a particular being, but this isn’t its usual application.  In the Genesis account, adam includes several key elements: uniqueness in creation, dependence on God, accountability, and recipient of revelation.  But ish also carries essential elements of what it means to be human.  Ish is about connection.  It is predominately a word about identity in relationship.  In other words, in Hebrew thought I am not human simply because God formed me as adam.  I myself recognize that an essential part of who I am is the connection created by being ish.  In Hebrew thought there are no human islands.  We are all part of the same land.

Perhaps we cannot solve the riddle of ish other than to note that it is introduced deliberately to form a connection with ishshah, a connection, by the way, that has no etymological basis.  Ishshah is not a linguistic derivative of ish.  It is simply a word play.  But that doesn’t make it any less crucial.  The adam realizes that he needs the ishshah, and when he expresses this need, he calls himself by a word that connects him to her.  Think about that for just a moment.  He could have said, “She shall be called ishshah because she came from ha-adam” and he would have been correct.  But he doesn’t say that.  Instead, he alters the description of himself to fit her existence.  He changes who he is because of her.  Adam becomes ish because there is an ‘ezer kenegdo who is ishshah.  Men, do you see what this means?  Have you changed who you are because of her?  Isn’t that what the next verse, the verse about marriage, is all about.  We men are to be transformed into unity with our wives because they are our wives, because of who they are not what they do.  We change in order to become one with them.  Right?

Topical Index:  adam, ish, ishshah, Genesis 2:23, man, woman

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , , ,  | 9 Comments

Ruth, the Warrior

Sunday, September 16th, 2012 | Author:

“And now, daughter, have no fear.  I will do in your behalf whatever you ask, for all the elders of the town know what a fine woman you are.”  Ruth 3:11  JPS

Fine woman – Why don’t we put this in its proper perspective?  It might change how we feel about Ruth and Boaz.  The Hebrew is ‘eshet hayil.  The same words are found in Proverbs 31:10.  This is not simply a “fine woman.”  This is a woman of valor, a warrior for God!  Few women are given such a compliment, but when they are, we need to pay very close attention.  Ruth is not just a good catch.  She is a living representation of all that it means to be a righteous Gentile.  She is to be honored.

Interestingly, the masculine equivalent of this phrase also appears in the story of Ruth.  Boaz is described as the ‘ish hayil.  Eskenazi notes that “Boaz’s language thus casts Ruth’s worthiness as comparable to his own.”[1]  We need to reflect on this observation for a moment.

First, if the ‘eshet hayil and the ish hayil are of compatible worthiness, then there are grounds for asserting that the status of men and women described by these terms is not different.  There is no male superiority here.  Yes, men and women may play different roles on different occasions, but their essential worth in the community and before God is not subject to some pre-ordained order.  This helps us see why the description of the woman of valor in Proverbs 31 is so critical to our understanding of the biblical view of women.  It also helps us see why the typical translation as “virtuous woman” or “excellent wife” is totally inadequate and misleading.   As I have written before, this is warrior poetry, not Pollyanna prose.

Secondly, we must notice that Boaz provides an assessment of the elders, the ruling body of men.  These men recognize Ruth’s actions as warrior actions, suitable as imitations of the character of the one true God.  If Boaz is a man of honor, upright and noble (read “observant”) then the designation of Ruth as equivalent must be understood as an endorsement of the same attributes.  How do the men of the city know this?  There is only one possible answer:  by the way she behaves!  Her faith shows itself to be worthy of acclaim.  This has nothing to do with her declaration to Naomi.  This is about the way she lives.  The leaders of the community acknowledge her righteousness as equivalent with theirs because they see it!  She is a Moabite, a Gentile, and yet, she is an ‘eshet hayil.

The story of Ruth contains plenty of scandalous innuendo.  But this verse redeems.  She is praised in the gates, a woman of Proverbs 31.  Perhaps we need to revise our thinking about at least two things:  what it means to be a woman of God and what warrior behavior looks like.

Topical Index:  warrior, ‘eshet hayil, righteous Gentile, woman, Ruth 3:11


[1] Tamara Eskenazi and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Ruth: The JPS Bible Commentary, p. 63.

 

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 5 Comments

A Woman’s Doxology

Saturday, June 02nd, 2012 | Author:

For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.  1 Corinthians 11:7  NASB

Glory – What an exegetical disaster we have made of Paul’s off-hand remark!  What nonsense, what heresy we have perpetrated upon women as a result of the male proclivity to power!  As Ellul rightly observes, this passage “has often been misconstrued as teaching a hierarchy from God to man and from man to woman.  But this is not its point or purpose.  The question is that of the relation between powers, and of mediation.  . . .  I have often recalled that glory is revelation.  God glorifies himself when he reveals himself as he is.  Jesus Christ glorifies God when he reveals him to us as the God of love who is also the Father.  We ourselves are called upon to be the glory of God as we are his image, as we show by what we are who is the God to whom we bear witness.  In this passage Paul then adds that the woman is the glory of man: she reveals him; she shows what a human being truly is.”[1]

We already know that the rabbis taught that Woman is the final formative act of creation, the capstone of God’s design.  We already know that the serpent attacks the Woman because she is the relationship manager of the unity of the two.  We already know that Adam acknowledges her place as the director and protector in his excuse before the Lord.  Certainly Paul knew all that we know – and much more.  Ellul is right.  God designed the woman to glorify the man; to reveal to him what it means to be fully human.  Rabbinic teaching concludes that the Woman is the first truly human creature since she comes from (finds her source in) the man.  Rabbi Sha’ul (Paul) teaches nothing different.  If you want to see what it means to be fully human according to God’s design, look to His deliberate blueprint in Woman.  Any interpretation that ignores or intentionally misinterprets this passage in order to justify a non-existent hierarchy in the Kingdom is not only erroneous, it is salacious.

We are fortunate to have had thinkers like Ellul.  It’s too bad that the majority of Christian teachers didn’t listen to him.  It’s not simply a tragedy for proper biblical exegesis.  It is a tragedy for all those couples who were seduced by the power-hungry Church of male prominence.  This false hierarchy has destroyed more marriages (intended to be billboards of unity, not hierarchy) and ruined the contribution of more women to the Body than just about any other blasphemy of the Church.  It’s time to overthrow such patent error, regardless of the supposedly learned Christian theologians who continue to proclaim such foolishness.  It’s time for every husband to realize and appreciate the representative of God’s glory given to him in his wife.  It’s time for every unmarried man to search for the woman who reveals what it means to be truly human, and to settle for nothing less.

It’s time for the Church to repent.

Topical Index:  glory, doxa, woman, 1 Corinthians 11:7


[1] Jacques Ellul, The Subversion of Christianity, p. 76.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , ,  | 18 Comments

Communal Identity

Friday, December 16th, 2011 | Author:

“May the LORD make the woman who is coming into your house like Rachel and Leah, both of whom built up the house of Israel!”   Ruth 4:11 NJPS

Woman – Who are you?  That’s the question that faces Ruth when she enters the Bethlehem community.  First, she is a Moabite, a foreigner, an outsider.  Even Naomi indicates that there is some distance between them in spite of Ruth’s covenant declaration.  Have you ever felt like that?  Have you felt the separation from others in spite of your sincere commitment to them?  Then you know what Ruth felt?

Next Ruth is called kalato, daughter-in-law.  This is her official status, but it doesn’t seem to bridge the ethnic prejudice or the emotional distance.  This is merely a legal matter.  There is no comfort here.  Have you experienced this kind of isolation?  Yes, you are part of the group technically, legally, but you might as well be absent in terms of emotional acceptance.  Now you know Ruth a bit better.

Then she is called bat, daughter, by both Naomi and Boaz.  But once again, the term might indicate relative age difference, not emotional connection.  Clearly she is not the real daughter of Naomi or Boaz.  She is acting like a faithful daughter and is recognized for her faithfulness, but at this point in the story, she is still referred to as a Moabite.  How about you?  Have you ever exemplified the characteristics of one who should be included but still found yourself referred to like a stranger?  Ruth knows you too.

Ruth’s next designation is na’arah – “girl.”  Now it’s definitely her age that determines who she is.  She is the young one, the one who is still not treated as a full member of the group.  She is just that same as all those other young ones.  One of the crowd.  Do you know what that feels like?

But finally we come to the joyful proclamation of the village women upon the announcement of the marriage.  For the first time, the other women in the community refer to Ruth as ishshah.  The word is usually glossed as “woman” or “wife,” but since we have examined David Stein’s insight concerning the relational quality of ish, we know that “woman” does not mean “a person of the female gender.”  It means someone affiliated with the community.  Ruth cannot become ishshah until she belongs.  She is a woman because she is now completely related to and accepted by her community.  In fact, Ruth is no longer called a Moabite.  Those days are over.  Now she is one among the women of Bethlehem.  Furthermore, Ruth is the ishshah of Boaz and Boaz is the ish of Ruth.  She has identity in relationship.  She is a woman because she is the essential complement of a man.

In ancient near-Eastern cultures, there is no identity in isolation.  I am because I belong.  Our Greek, Western world rests on a philosophical base that is light years away from this view of personal identity, but that philosophical base doesn’t seem to erase our emotional awareness.  We know when we don’t belong.  We know what it feels like to be an outsider.  We know that isolation is not really who we are.  Ruth is our story too.  And it is God’s story.  Until we belong to Him, we are not who we are meant to be.  And if we stop long enough to feel about it, we will know that this is true.

Topical Index:  woman, ishshah, Ruth 4:11, belong, community

 

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 2 Comments

Out of Character

Monday, November 14th, 2011 | Author:

Now, I find woman more bitter than death; she is all traps, her hands are fetters and her heart is snares.  He who is pleasing to God escapes her, and he who is displeasing is caught by her.  Ecclesiastes 7:26  NJPS

More bitter than death – This is the only verse in the Bible that expresses outright misogyny.  Even this one verse has caused enormous theological backpedalling.  Koheleth Rabba and many of the sages and rabbis read this verse as if it were about only those women who actually are traps and snares.  NASB. NIV, ESV and RSV follow the same pattern, treating the verse as if it applied only to such terrible women.  These translations use the definite article (“the” woman) as a way of suggesting that the speaker doesn’t mean all women.  But two verses later (7:28), Koheleth says that he searched among a thousand to find one righteous person, and not a single woman could be found.  It’s hard to imagine that the Teacher (Koheleth) looked only among the unrighteous in his search.  Apparently this Teacher really doesn’t like women very much.  His remark that woman is more bitter (mar mimavet) than death can hardly be read as comfort and companionship.

What are we to say about a verse like this in the Bible?  First, we should note that it is the only verse in the Bible like this.  Everywhere else the relationship between a man and a woman is held in high regard and women in general are recognized for their special, God-given role.  If Koheleth seems bitter about women, he stands alone in that regard.

Nevertheless, this is Scripture, so there has to be some explanation why God would include such a disparaging remark in holy text.  Michael Fox offers some clues.  The text is hyperbolic.  Koheleth, as is his custom, makes outrageous remarks to grab our attention and drive home a point.  “All is vanity” is such an opening remark.  It wakes us up to a reality that the Bible does not deny.  The world just doesn’t work the way it should.

Koheleth offers his own reconciliation of this statement when he also says that the best life has to offer is the enjoyment of the woman you love (cf. 9:9).  Obviously, this would be impossible if every woman were a trap.  Fox suggests that Koheleth’s own experience stands behind his critical remark.  He has looked for someone to love and hasn’t found her.  This colors his whole world.  He begins to believe that every relationship is only relative frustration.  In verse 28 we see that he sought a woman (yes, I know your Bible doesn’t read that way, but a minor change in the text makes this clear – see M. Fox[1]).  Frustrated love might turn a man away from all women, as we are well aware.

Maybe the lesson in this misogynistic text is that the Bible never hides the real life of human beings.  The Bible doesn’t clean things up, smooth over the rough edges or paint a picture of holiness that isn’t true to life itself.  Koheleth expresses what many men feel.  That doesn’t mean he is right.  It only means he is hurt.  And that is where most of us start – hurt and in pain.  The great lesson of Ecclesiastes is that life is full of injustices, absurdities and failures.  In the end, it’s either bitterness or grace.  You choose.

Ecclesiastes is the best evangelical tract ever written.  If you preach from it, offer the audience a .38 Special or a chance to repent.  These are really the only possible conclusions for human existence.  And there is no human relationship where this is more obvious than in a frustrated relationship between a man and a woman.  No wonder God used marriage as the ultimate symbol of our intimacy with Him.  It has all the human dynamics anyone could ask for.

Topical Index:  more bitter than, mar, woman, misogyny, Ecclesiastes 7:26

 

[1] Michael Fox, Ecclesiastes: The JPS Bible Commentary, p. 52.

Category: Today's Word  | Tags: , , , ,  | 11 Comments

Temple Service

Saturday, July 25th, 2009 | Author:

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:

“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:

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: , , , , , , ,  | 15 Comments

The Great Risk

Friday, May 29th, 2009 | Author:

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:

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: , , , ,  | 15 Comments
« Previous Entries