Balancing Act: Parts 1 & 2

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.

Boundaries and Bonds

Let’s re-consider exactly what is happening in the crucial story, a story that introduces a legacy that we are dealing with today. What I want to point out is that the “curse” is not so much punishment as it is difficulty and frustration. The judgment of humanity does not introduce something new into the world. It identifies difficulty, frustration and pain as the consequences of an altered universe. What was supposed to be harmonious, playful, pleasant and filled with joy is twisted; thrown out of alignment with its original design. When sin enters the world, the entire creation is jarred loose from its proper orientation and, as a result, uninvited (but not necessarily unintended) consequences emerge. The curse might not be prescriptive as much as it is descriptive. It is the way the world will now be experienced, not the way God deliberately re-directs the world. The consequences of sin are foreseen and resident in the sinful act itself. This homogenization of sin-consequence relationship is the consistent view of all the Hebrew text. The first act of disobedience is not out of character with every act of disobedience. Sin contains its own consequence. In the Genesis 3 account, two separate divine actions take place. One introduces new results. The other explicates implicit realities.

The difference between a prescriptive and a descriptive view of Genesis 3 is enormous and the implications for the work of redemption are radical. If the curse of Genesis 3 is not a new, creative act introducing punishment into the world but rather a divine prognosis of what is now the present reality of the fallen world, then restoration is possible. Redemption is a return, a restoration of the world to its original, intended state. If the Fall brings about a divine curse that forever prescribes our destiny, then the redemptive activity of Kingdom work in this world is pointless. The only real solution is extinction and regeneration, not renewal and restoration. In other words, Genesis 1,2 already show us in some brief glimpse what God’s intended world looks like. After the Fall, we are invited to bring about that redeemed world, at least in part, while we struggle our way through the natural consequences of sin. “On earth, as it is in heaven” proclaims the mission of redeeming this world for God, just as much as the dark prince desperately wishes to erase God’s hand from an ordered creation. But this is an impossibility if, as a result of the Fall, existing creation is saddled with unredeemable judgment. In fact, the mssion of Jesus can have no substantial effect on the existing world if God truly cursed humanity in Genesis 3. We would have to wait for the new heaven and new earth to be freed from the curse. But if Genesis 3 is descriptive, then some paart of redemption can take place here and now, with the hope of glory to come.

Consider the original mission of Adam. Genesis 1:26 tells us that the male and the female ‘adam were created in the image of God and blessed by God for the express purpose of ruling over all living creatures. Verse 27 ff. expands this original mission statement with “be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth, subdue it and rule over all living things.” The summary task is to rule. Within the boundary of that task, Man is to increase, occupy (fill) and subdue.

Gerhard Von Rad, in his work Genesis, reminds us that the real focus of the creation of Man is not Man’s reflected image of God but rather the purpose of Man’s creation.

“One will admit that the text speaks less of the nature of God’s image than of its purpose. There is less said about the gift itself than about the task. This then is sketched most explicitly: domination in the world, especially over the animals. This commission to rule is not considered as belonging to the definition of God’s image, but it is its consequence, i.e. that for which man is capable because of it. . . . Just as powerful earthly kings, to indicate their claim to dominion, erect an image of themselves in the provinces of their empire, where they do not personally appear, so man is placed upon earth in God’s image as God’s sovereign emblem.”

The Hebrew word radah (rule) is more accurately translated “exercise dominion.” We find it twenty-two times in the simple form (the active, Qal). Most of these occurrences deal with the relationship between masters and slaves, managers and employees, kings and subjects or shepherds and flocks. In these relationships, radah does not imply tyrannical dominion by force or law. Quite the contrary, radah is the exercise of a relationship of stewardship, care, nurturing and protection. This is certainly the case when the word describes the activity of a shepherd. It is also the intended appropriate action in other human relationship as can be seen by the numerous Biblical legislative and proverbial statements that describe dutiful exercise of the authority over others. Hamilton says, “exercise dominion reflects royal language. Man is created to rule. But this rule is to be compassionate and not exploitative. Even in the garden of Eden he who would be lord of all must be servant of all.”

The expansion of the mission brings other aspects into focus. Under the auspices of radah, Man’s divinely ordained task is to 1) increase in number, 2) occupy the earth, 3) act as steward over God’s creation, and 4) have authority over all other living things (v. 28). The critical terms in this divinely ordained mission are: flourish (parah), fill (male), subdue (kavash) and rule (radah). In order for Man to accomplish his mission of radah, he must multiply, occupy and subdue. His is a distributed authority. It requires a community. It is spatially extensive. It requires horizontal expansion. And it is to be accomplished by true effort. It requires force just as the action of erosion on a beach requires force, but this does not imply, nor should it imply, that there is a negative, moral element attached to the word “force.” Man’s task is not political. It is ontological. He is to bring God’s creation under his vice-regent reign as the appointed steward of the whole earth.

We seem to have overlooked some of the implications. First, God intended propagation of the human species through sexual reproduction. Man is to multiply. Sex and childbirth were commanded before the Fall. Both were blessed. Both were to be enjoyed in the fulfillment of the command. We can rightly assume that God’s original intention for childbirth did not include pain. This point is crucial since it is specifically mentioned in the curse.

Secondly, God intended Man to occupy the earth. Man’s authority was to extend itself across the created world. In other words, Man was to expand the Garden. God ‘s original intention was that Man would be the agent who brought the garden of Eden experience to the rest of creation. The Garden was simply the model for all the rest. Adam was supposed to learn the stewardship skills in the place set apart by God in order that he could apply these skills to the rest of creation. The point is clear: Man was never intended to remain a child of the Garden. He was designed to bring heavenly rule to the earthly paradise. He was to become the caretaker of the entire earth by exploring, expanding and extending God’s harmony. This follows from the first part of the command. If Man is to multiply, he will require more territory. Did we imagine that God intended all human kind to occupy the one Garden? Of course not. We were designed to take the Garden with us across the world.

Finally, Man was designed to subdue the earth. Kavash is a word of force. It is used to describe subjugating opponents, assault and military conquests (cf. 2 Chronicles 28:10, Micah 7:19 and Numbers 32:22). Hamilton comments:

“All these references suggest violence or a display of force. For reasons already indicated, it appears unlikely that we need to transfer the nuance of force and dictatorship into the use of kabas in Genesis 1:28. Probably what is designated here is settlement and agriculture; “subdue the land” in ch. 1 is a semantic parallel to “till and keep the land” in 2:5,15. Genesis 3:17).

Hamilton may be right, but one additional comment is needed. The fact that kavash is used to describe subjugating or military force in the rest of the Biblical text could be seen as the natural extension of the meaning of the word in the fallen world, a place that resists the control of Man. In its original use, kavash may mean simply the application of effort to accomplish the task. There is no reason to suppose that Adam’s life was to be one of passive indulgence. He was not designed to simply lay under a tree, picking fruit to satisfy his needs. He was designed to carry forth the project of extending God’s reign and rule. This requires work, and work is a blessed and essential part of human existence. Since the implication of “multiply” and “fill” clearly involves extending the Garden, the divine call on Adam implies the active engagement of his skills and talents, including his God-given force. We are not required to imagine that Adam must overcome a resistant world. We are only required to see that Adam is intended to be a physically and mentally active agent under God. Expanding the Garden around the world takes real effort.

What happens to this divinely designed purpose when sin enters the world? The method for fulfilling God’s design changes. But the purpose of Man does not change. Man is still created in God’s image, even after the Fall, and as such he is equipped and charged with the divinely designed purpose. Man is still to be God’s representative of sovereignty in creation. The curse does not alter the design. It alters the means by which the design will be accomplished. What was intended to be a joyful exploration and expansion becomes a tedious and laborious process. Toil is introduced into the equation. The text says, “you shall eat of it in sorrow all the days of your life” (Genesis 3:17).

We must give strict attention to the actual components of this curse. God curses the serpent. “Because you have done this, you are cursed” (Genesis 3:14). God curses the ground (“the ground shall be cursed because of you” – Genesis 3:17). But God does not curse Adam and Eve. Instead of a divine curse, the lives of Adam and Eve will now experience “sorrow”.

The Hebrew verbal root for “sorrow” is ‘atsav. Biblical synonyms include sad, grieve, become tired and weary, become irritated, writhe, be bitter, feel disgust, anguish, trouble, toil and turmoil. It’s not a very nice picture. The general idea behind ‘atsav is physical and emotional pain and distress. Imagine how the world changed when these qualities suddenly entered the picture. To get just a glimmer of the original Garden environment, all we need to do is think about life without this list of traumas. Fortunately, God’s creation has not been totally erased. His glory, harmony and joy can still be found in relationships and nature. But a tragedy has befallen us. Life is now layered with ‘atsav.

Two occurrences are particularly important for our inquiry. Once the verb is used in the reflexive tense in Genesis 34:7 where it describes the grief, anger and sorrow that Jacob’s sons feel after discovering that their sister, Dinah, has been raped. The only other occurrence in the reflexive tense is in Genesis 6:6. In this remarkable passage, God says of Himself that He grieves over the creation of Man and the subsequent corruption and destruction caused by sin. He repents of His decision and decrees the destruction of humanity in the Flood. ‘Atsav not only affects fallen humanity, it also impacts the God Who created humanity.

The example of ‘atsav in Genesis 6:6 tells us something important about the consequences of sin. Sorrow, grief, anger, toil and trouble are the automatic results of sin. In the Hebrew mind, sin and its consequences are not two separate, judicially connected actions. Sin and its consequences are the hand-in-glove unity of evil. Our contemporary judicial thinking is based on a Greek model where the guilty act is separated from the subsequent result. We have a court system that distinguishes between verdict and punishment. But this is not Hebrew thinking. In the Hebrew world, a sinful act brings about its natural, sorrowful consequences. The two are inseparable. With this in mind, Paul can proclaim, “Whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.” The theological thought behind “the wages of sin is death” is this binding character of sin and consequence. In other words, ‘atsav is not necessarily a prescriptive determination. It is a description of the natural, inevitable connection between disobedience and its consequences. In the passage in Genesis 3, we recognize that God initiates prescriptive,judicial punishment upon the serpent. He curses it. God also issues a prescriptive judgment upon the ground; a curse that is the direct consequence of Adam’s sin. But instead of cursing Adam and Eve, God describes what is now an automatic consequence of their failure to obey. The consequence of their sin is not new. Sin did not originate with Adam and Eve. Although we are not privileged to have an exhaustive account of the origin of sin, we know that the angel Lucifer sinned in his attempt to usurp God’s place before Eve listened to the serpent. Paul makes this quite clear in his choice of the Greek verb eiserchomai (“to come into, to enter”) in Romans 5:12. “Even as sin entered into the world through one man,” carries the nuance of Adam opening the door for sin to come into this world. Rebellion, disobedience and the consequence of separation from God already existed. Adam just let all of this disaster into this creation. God was quite familiar with the consequences of sin prior to the fall of humanity because He already experienced the rebellion of Lucifer. Therefore, God can say with absolute, existential certainty that as a result of the disobedience, Adam and Eve will experience the natural consequence of ‘atsav as a part of human existence.

Since the purpose of Man does not change, humanity retains the role of steward and vice-regent, but this role will now have to be achieved in the context of ‘atsav. We can clearly see this in the description of Adam’s new reality. He will still till the ground. The command of Genesis 1:27 is summarized in 2:15 in two Hebrew verbs, ‘avadh and shamar. Literally, the two mean “to serve” and “to guard with great care.” God places Adam in the Garden with these two tasks before him. He is to work the Garden as servant and guardian. In this way, Adam will fulfill a part of the command of 1:27. With Eve as his ‘ezer (helper), they will multiply and fill the earth and together work to subdue and rule over it. None of this changes with the act of disobedience. Adam’s reality is still tied to the ground. But now he will have toil. He will have sorrow, trouble and irritation as he fulfills his divine commission. And eventually he will return to the ground, an inevitable consequence of sin. He will die.

Let’s look very closely at the consequence for Eve.

To the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply your pain in childbirth, in pain you will bring forth children; yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16)

Why pain in childbirth? The Old Testament represents giving birth as the high point of a woman’s life. It may be hard for our contemporary, planned-pregnancy generations to appreciate this perspective, but there is no question that having children was considered a blessing from God and a greatly anticipated, life-changing event in the Hebrew culture. A moment’s reflection on the trauma of Sarah’s barrenness gives us ample evidence of the centrality of this event. Notice that God’s judgment on Eve does not eradicate her role in reproduction. She is still the mother-to-be of all humanity. But in the moment of her glory, she will discover a reminder of her lowest point in life. At the precise moment of fulfillment, she will experience ‘atsav. Eve’s divinely initiated purpose continues. She is still central to “multiply and fill” the earth. But just as Adam will fulfill his role in the context of ‘atsav, so will Eve. The ground that she works in her productivity will also experience ‘atsav.

Then there is the second part of the statement to Eve.

Hamilton comments:

“In God’s second word to the woman one does hope that God is speaking descriptively and not prescriptively. For this consequence deals with a marriage relationship that will go askew: the woman shall desire her husband but he shall lord it over her.”

The word for “desire” is found only three times in the Old Testament; here and in Genesis 4:7 and Song of Solomon 7:11. The occurrences in Genesis 4:7 and Song of Song of Solomon 7:11 help us understand what is happening. The meaning in Genesis 4:7 clarifies what is intended in this statement to Eve. In Genesis 4:7, the darker side of the word is revealed. Sin desires Cain. It desires to control and rule over him, to bend his will to its purposes and to remove the proper authority of a relationship with God. God warns Cain that in his emotionally charged state he is vulnerable to sin’s seductive ploy and its attempt to control him. We know the story. Cain succumbs to anger and sin gains the upper hand. Its desire is fulfilled. Cain is lost.

This story gives us important insight into the first occurrence of the word. It is an insight that we desperately need because it helps us correct a stifling heresy. The first occurrence of teshuqa in Genesis 3:16 is God’s statement that Eve will desire her husband but he will rule over her. We should not think of this in terms of physical desire. Cain corrects us. Eve will desire to take charge of her husband but now, in a fallen world, he will hold the upper hand. The pact of mutual responsibility and harmony is broken. Now there is a battle for control. In spite of her longing to take charge, she will be under his command. Her life will be frustrated in fulfillment of both divinely-commanded purposes: to bring new life into this world and to act as the protector and provider for her mate. She will have ‘atsav in the moment of her greatest joy and ‘atsav in the attempt to exercise her intended destiny.

Before we look at a startling implication buried in this second phrase, we must clearly understand the context of the Genesis 3 curse.

1. The prescriptive curse is not extended to humanity. Only the serpent and the ground receive curses.
2. The descriptive declarations of the effect of sin on Adam and Eve are the natural results of sin and are concomitants of sin itself.
3. The divine command issued to Adam and Eve is not erased or rescinded. What changes is the means by which this command will be fulfilled.

Paradise Regained

With this in mind, we look at the third occurrence of teshuqa. In Song of Song of Solomon 7:10, we find a startling use of the word. The imagery is the same; a longing for authority and control. But the roles are reversed and the context dramatically altered. The man’s desire is for the woman. Does this mean that the woman in the Song wrests control from the hand of the dominant male through sexual power? Not at all. The verse says quite clearly, “I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me.” The picture in the Song points us in another direction, a direction that we may find quite challenging and provoking because it reveals something about Eve’s original destiny. The imagery of the Song suggests that in a description of the world before the Fall, the roles for husband and wife were quite different. When the Song portrays a redeemed marriage, the idea of the wife’s desire, opposed by the husband as a result of the Fall, is now reversed. In the Song, the man desires the woman. What specific impact this reversal has for a theology of redemptive marriage is left unspecified, but the implication is clearly there. Something extraordinary is happening in the Song.

We might easily imagine that the description of the paradise found in the Song of Songs is poetry written through the eyes of Eve before that fateful day. Consider once again Adam’s statement when Eve is presented to him. “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh,” a celebratory declaration of her perfection. Now hear the words of the woman in the Song:

My lover is radiant and ruddy, distinguished among ten thousand!

His head is pure gold. His locks are wavy, black like a raven.

His eyes are like doves by water streams, bathing in milk, sitting by pools.

His cheeks are like spice beds growing aromatics.

His lips are lilies dripping with liquid myrrh.

His arms are bars of gold, set with Tarshish-stones.

His member is an ivory tusk, ornamented with lapis.

His legs are pillars of marble, founded on gold pedestals.

His appearance is like Lebanon, choice like the cedars

His palate is sweet. He is totally desirable.

With this in mind, let’s return to Genesis 2:18. The choice of the Hebrew word ‘ezer (helper or helpmate) is not what you might imagine. There were many choices for the correct word to use in this verse about God’s decision to make a woman. The Bible could have used “woman”, “wife”, “female” or something else. But God chose ‘ezer. This is quite an unusual choice. First, the word is masculine gender. Like most Romance languages (French, Spanish, Italian), Hebrew nouns are either masculine or feminine, even if they are about tables and chairs. Here, the noun is masculine but it is about “woman”. Something unusual is happening here. Secondly, this same noun is used to describe God’s relationship to Israel. God is the ‘ezer of His chosen people. Finally, other uses of this word in the Bible give the sense of “save from danger”, “deliver from death” and “succor”. The context shows that this word carries the idea of help from one who is more capable. or in the superior position. In fact, the etymology of this word suggests someone who has superior military strength. That, or course, is precisely the implication when the word is used to describe God’s relationship to Israel. But it is hardly what we have come to imagine about the role of the “helpmate” in our contemporary society.

What does this tell us about the original destiny of Eve? Could it be that God intended Eve to be the protector and provider, the stronger party, in the male-female relationship? There can be little doubt that these thoughts are captured in the choice of ‘ezer. She is the one who will be his strength, who will safeguard him.

The Christian world has almost universally misunderstood the concept of ‘ezer. More often than not, the role of the “helper” has been viewed as some kind of assistant, available to carry out the tasks not assigned to the male. Household maintenance, child raising and domestic affairs become the boundaries of the helper’s world. Those parts of Scripture that describe women in terms other than domestic are ignored. Even Proverbs 31, often proclaimed as the model of a perfect wife, is reduced to actions under the oversight of the male. Thousands of years of cultural assumptions do not justify these conclusions. The Biblical record suggests a different picture.

This is particularly important when it comes to understanding how the Bible views “protector and provider.” If we allow the cultural motifs to dominate our thought, we are likely to argue that men are physically stronger and therefore innately equipped to be protectors and providers. We will allow the dominance of centuries of patriarchal history to define these Biblical ideas. But that would be a mistake. How does God exercise His role of ‘ezer over Israel? Don’t we find His protection and provision woven into a history of faithfulness in spite of apostacy, compassion in spite of disobedience and nourshing in spite of rejection? How would we characterize Jesus’ role as protector and provider? As blunt force trauma or as willingness to sacrifice? As demand for control or as invitation to follow? Is the protection of the sovereign God a guarantee against tragedy or is it a guarantee of the conclusion in justice and hope? Is provision a promise of full bellies and an esay life or is it the covenant of final redemption?

Given the patriarchal history of humanity, we are tempted to think that Woman was created as Man’s assistant. But the Genesis account presents a different picture. It is significant that Genesis 1:27 includes both male and female in the single category of “our image, and according to our likeness.” The Hebrew uses a single word, ‘adam, distinguishing the two only by gender. The role given Eve is not implicit in her creation. It is an assigned function, not an ontological one. This is a critical correction to the idea that Woman is subordinate to Man. Both genders are created in the image of God. Both have equal status before God as created beings. How they differ is not a matter of the display of the divine image but rather a matter of what roles they play in the divine drama. Those roles are not built into the way they are created. They are subsequent to creation.

Since it is clear that God created woman to perform such wonderful functions for man, how did we ever come to act as though women were not equal, were not important or were not to be respected? It is a grave sin to carry such beliefs. God never endorsed any of those lies. God created the perfect match for a man, identical in ontology, distinguished in purpose. Now we realize that part of the results of the Fall is the alteration of the intended purpose and the subsequent effect on the relationship. Sin frustrates the woman’s role as the responsible and capable one, but it does not erase it. The ‘ezer has a specific role to play, separate from the role of the man and not in conflict with that role. We are the ones who have allowed our own fallen history to dictate how we deinfe the role.

Suddenly we recognize something about the second part of the judgment on Eve. It is not possible to understand “your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you” without realizing that there is an implied previous state where the opposite is true. The frustration of Eve’s intended role reverses what was previously a natural state of affairs. Before the Fall, she was expected to execute her role of responsible control. Now she will experience a battle to do what she was naturally equipped to do. Cain’s story tells us that the word speaks of control. Song of Solomon shows us what it meant before the Fall. But in Genesis 3, we encounter the great collapse. Eve still knows what she was meant to do, but now her destiny is opposed by the very one who called her the perfect match. She seeks to be the protector and provider over the very same person who now refuses to acknowledge her destiny.

This is not so startling as we first imagine. Consider the psychological interactions between Adam and Eve during and after the temptation. First, notice that the serpent approaches Eve, not Adam. This is no accident. Scripture tells us that the serpent was the craftiest of all beasts. What better way to defeat God’s purpose than to turn the protector and provider to self-glory? With Eve’s seduction, Adam will be no problem. Furthermore, notice that the serpent’s appeal to Eve lies along the same path as her destiny. She is to be the steward of Adam just as Adam is to be the steward of the earth. The serpent appeals to her desire to accomplish this task by suggesting that she will be better equipped to fulfill her destiny if she has the same knowledge and status as the Creator. After all, with the power of discerning good from evil, she will rise from the role of the steward of another to the role of the benefactor of another. It is the appeal of enhancing her resident capacity that sets the sin in motion.

Adam’s part in the temptation is also evident. He follows along. There is no suggestion that Adam wavered in his acceptance of Eve’s invitation. In spite of his knowledge of the direct, verbal command of the Creator, Adam accepts Eve’s decision. Of course, Adam is placed in a nearly impossible position. Knowing that Eve has violated the command means that he must decide between Eve and the Creator. One or the other will have to be abandoned. Given his excited endorsement of the role of Eve in his life, is it any surprise that he participates in her choice? What we must not overlook is the fact that Adam accepts Eve’s decision, just as a child might accept the decision of an adult who is a trusted protector. Adam, of course, is no child and is equally culpable. The New Testament tells us that while Eve was deceived, Adam deliberately entered into the disobedience.

Balancing Act — The Perfect Wife

Just how powerfully disorienting the consequences of sin are can be seen in the connection found in Proverbs 31:11. “The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he will have no lack of gain.” The word for trust is batach. This is the only place where the Bible uses this word to advocate a relationship of trust with any person other than God. That says something very important. It says that I am to trust my wife in the same way that I trust God. In spite of the Fall, she is still my ‘ezer. And if Proverbs 19:14 is correct, she is God’s gift to me for precisely that purpose.

If Proverbs 31 is God’s description of the qualities of the perfect wife, then we would expect to see glimpses of the intended relationship God created before sin’s entry upset the arrangement. Batach indicates that the original, and the redeemed relationship between and husband and wife still provides for the husband to put his life in the hands of this ‘ezer. By showing the same confidence, respect and reverence for her as he does for God, the husband underscores God’s perfect creative ingenuity when He formed the ‘ezer. In fact, Proverbs suggests in no uncertain terms that a husband who is willing and able to place this trust in his wife will experience gain. What is particularly interesting about this unique use of the verb batach is that, in this analogy, it is the wife who stands on the same side of the equation as God. Perhaps we should pay a great deal more attention to the metaphors of Isaiah where God describes Himself in female terms.

There are other hints in Scripture that push us in this direction.

Song of Solomon 8:6

In one of the finest love poems from the ancient past, Song of Solomon places sexual intensity, passion, desire and fulfillment under the authority of the “seal.” At the conclusion of this great love poem, the woman instructs the man to “put me like a seal” over your heart and on your arm. Once we know the cultural background of this word, we see God’s view of sexual intimacy also reverses the cultural expectation.

The word translated “seal” is hotham. It describes a cylindrical piece of stone with an external carved inscription. When this cylinder is rolled over a soft material, it leaves a raised impression that establishes legal ownership over the object. Like a signet ring, the seal permanently establishes an unbreakable legal and moral bond.

There are interesting, and powerful, nuances associated with this word. First, the Hebrew word hotham is most likely a loanword from Egyptian. Hebrew has another word for “seal” that is used exclusively in religious rituals. But this loanword is associated with magic, not ritual, in its Egyptian heritage. How appropriate that it should be chosen to describe the bond of intimacy between a man and a woman. Secondly, while there are numerous occurrences of seals establishing male ownership in the archeological record, the occasions of female ownership are very rare. But that is precisely the intention of this verse. The woman asks the man to roll her seal on to his heart and over his arm, branding him as owned by her. In perfect harmony with the context of Genesis 2:24, the man leaves behind his old life and becomes the property of the woman who loves him. He submits to her ownership. This is in alignment with Proverbs 31:11. The man places his life in the hands of the woman. He is hers exclusively, just as he is his Lord’s exclusive property.

If Song of Solomon is a poetic description of the intimate relationship of a woman and a man prior to the Fall, then this use of the symbol of ownership confirms the role of the ‘ezer as the responsible party for protection of the marriage relationship. This is the reason that a man can leave his former familial connections and cleave to his wife. She assumes the role previous provided by the bond with his parents. She is the protector and provider.

Submission and Authority

Before every male reader jumps up in protest, citing Paul’s words, “the man is the head of the woman”., let’s consider some of the implications of Genesis 2:24 . As the authoritative text on marriage, it clearly suggests that the male detaches himself from previous protectors and providers and attaches himself exclusively to a new ‘ezer. The verbs are quite strong. “Forsake” is the Hebrew root azab. It is used extensively in the metaphorical sense as apostasy from God. We find it in Deuteronomy 28:20, Judges, 10:10, Jeremiah 1:16. The prophet Isaiah describes Israel’s idolatry with this word. Hosea uses the same word to describe the adultery of Israel. In its negative use (“not forsake”), it describes the promises of God within the covenant relationship. “Cling” is the Hebrew root dabaq. It is used to describe close affection and loyalty between human beings. But its most important application in Hebrew is the idea that Israel clings to God. This word expresses the required action of the covenant obligation. We find it in Deuteronomy 10:20,11:22,30:20, Joshua 22:5 and Jeremiah 13:11. Both words deal with the concept of loyalty. One means to sever the connection; the other means to establish it. Both words carry considerable force when applied to the relationship to God. Both words demand action and exclusivity.

God establishes the marriage covenant as a living witness to the actions He requires in His covenant. We are to “forsake” the old family loyalties – our ties to the world of origin – and “cling” to the newly created union. Properly understood, marriage is God’s sacramental symbol of our covenant relationship and obligation to Him. If God uses the marriage covenant as a representation of the sacred and holy, clearly, the husband’s obligation in covenant relationship with his wife carries a very heavy spiritual weight.

The role of the husband has often been interpreted in terms of the spiritual leader and decision-maker. Of course, in a Christian household, the first order of business is the spiritual condition of the marriage and that entails the full submission of the husband to his Lord and Savior. The covenant relationship that he enjoys with his Lord is to be transferred in like manner to the covenant relationship with his wife. This requires complete loyalty, fidelity and exclusivity. Without this first step, all the rest is wasted.

Since Paul suggests that the husband is the “head” of the wife, we are inclined to imagine some sort of hierarchy of authority. Our cultural experience after the Fall lends support to this hierarchical view. In the Fallen world, power plays a crucial role in relationship management. But with the imagery of the covenant relationship with God in mind, what can we really say about this hierarchy? Is it as power conscious as we have ordinarily thought? Or is the covenant relationship pointing in another direction?

The key to understanding the biblical view of mutual submission as opposed to the natural man’s view of submission is found in the difference between authority and control. One reason why we react so strongly to the Pauline claim that the husband is the “head” of the wife is based in the confusion of authority and control. We read this claim as if it were about control. In Greek, the word is dynamis. The paradigm example is found in Philippians 2:6-9.

Jesus’ authority, granted by the Father, is an authority based not on priority of position or power but rather on volunteer submission to the point of death. The psychological struggle in the Garden of Gethsemane underscores the point. Jesus is exalted because He is utterly submissive. This is de facto authority, an authority that results from a decision to place myself under the direction of another because I recognize the right of the other to be my lord and because it is in my best self-interest to submit to that control. While God occasionally elects some specific human beings to act as vice-regents of His power, every Christian is called to the model of authority based on submission. Certainly this must be the case in the paradigm human symbol for God’s desired intimacy with His children. There is no grounds for suggesting that the husband rules over the wife under de jure authority (authority based on law). The fact that the husband has any authority at all must arise from the de facto model. In other words, his authority exists because the wife recognizes two critical things: first, she acknowledges his assigned right under God to act as the director of the marriage and secondly, that it is in her own best interests to submit to his leadership. It is her voluntary submission that bestows authority upon him. He does not have it as a “divine right of kings.” He has it because she grants it to him.

Let us be quite clear about this critical point. De jure authority is the result of law. When I operate with de jure authority, I act with specific powers granted to me by a higher agent or agreement. My actions are limited to the power granted to me, but my power does not reside in me. It comes from another source. I act only as the vehicle of the higher authority. For example, a policeman has the authority to give me a speeding ticket if I exceed the speed limit because the law of the land grants him the power to enforce traffic laws on behalf of the government. But he does not have the right to come into my kitchen and help himself to the food in my refrigerator because, even though he represents the law, his representation is limited by the law to specific areas.

De facto authority is entirely different. It is not authority granted for the exercise of a higher governing body. It is authority granted by the one who submits to it. In this regard, de facto authority can operate without any legal standing at all because it is an authority that operates completely apart from the law. It is the authority of duty, self-interest and recognized superiority. Jesus’ entire ministry is based on de facto authority. Jesus does not command us to repent and follow Him on pain of imprisonment or punishment. He invites us to recognize His right to rule, to submit to Him because it is our duty and it is in our own self interest. When we become His followers, we volunteer to grant Him authority over our lives, regardless of the de jure consequences. De facto authority is much, much stronger. It does not proceed based on the power of punishment but rather based on the power of love.

This is precisely the same dynamic model of authority that exists between the Father and the Son. It is the Son’s submission that grants the Father final authority, and the Father gives it all back. In the divine economy, all relationships are based on de facto reciprocal authority.

Marriage is a model of de facto authority. At least, this is what it is supposed to be. Genesis 2:24 shows us the de facto model in the origin of marriage. A man volunteers to leave his previous protector and provider and cleave to his new ‘ezer. The implication is that a man enters into covenant relationship with his wife because he acknowledges this as his duty, because he acknowledges her role of ‘ezer, and because it is in his best interests to do so. What else could explain the radical shift in relationship dynamics in a patriarchal society? How else can we explain that fact that it is the man, not the woman, who breaks one relationship to establish another? This is not at all what we would expect in a patriarchal society, nor is it what is almost universally reflected in the world as we know it.

The statements of Paul and Peter cannot be dislodged from the dynamics of the covenant context of Biblical history. Certainly, a man is the “head”, but that does not express de jure authority as though he is granted power to control his wife. Let’s consider the statement of Paul in Ephesians 5:22 (“Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord”). The Greek text lacks the verb “be subject” or “submit.” The verb must be supplied from the association of this verse with the previous verse. Verse 21 reads, “and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ.” The model of submission is not that of a master and slave, nor even a lord and his subjects. The model is the general principle of all Christian interaction – mutual submission. Under the banner of Jesus, hupotasso (submit) cannot be removed from allelon (one another). Hupotasso means, “to place in order, to arrange, put in submission.” In this context, it describes the voluntary, continuous, placement of my will under the authority of another. Notice that the command to woman in verse 21 (and to men as well) is not to submit to their husbands as lord, but rather to submit to the one and only Lord, and in so doing exhibit behavior toward their husbands that reflects this inner act of the will. There is good reason why the verse does not command submission to the husband without this intervening step. No man may act as ruler over his wife and still fulfill the general principle of mutual submission. No Scripture gives a man control over a woman.

In the Greek text, the imperative incorporates a strong sense of exclusivity. “Be subject to your own husbands” reinforces the fact that Christian marriage is to exemplify the covenant relationship between God and His chosen. These are husbands carefully selected who, by virtue of the submissive act, belong to these wives. Exclusivity implies ownership, just as submission implies de facto authority. And we have already seen that the biblical context of ownership lies in the hands of the woman.

Paul first declares the general principle: mutual submission (verse 21). He then provides an example of the practical application of this principle in the most intimate of human relationships: marriage. The behavioral characteristics of mutual submission are seen in both parties. For the wife, this is demonstrated in submission to Christ with resulting behavior exhibited toward her husband. For the husband, it is demonstrated in love for his wife just as Christ loved the church, with resulting behavior toward his wife. We may summarize the aspects of this mutual submission as follows:

For the wife, the characteristics of submission as to the Lord are:

1. Voluntary commitment
2. Exclusivity
3. Active obedience (not passive acceptance)
4. Purity
5. Honor and respect
6. Thanksgiving and gratitude

For the husband, behavioral characteristics that describe Christ’s love as head of the church are:

1. Self sacrifice – no personal agenda
2. Compelling love
3. Unwavering faithfulness
4. Complete dedication to purpose
5. Absolute fidelity
6. Continuous forgiveness, mercy and grace

Paul concludes his discussion on the characteristics of this relationship by saying, “Because the husband in the head of the wife.” This looks like de jure authority. But is it? This argument sounds particularly strange to us, but it displays a common rationale of Rabbinic thought. In primeval history, God creates Adam. From Adam, God builds Eve. The priority of creation allows Paul to argue that Man (the adam) is the direct reflection of God but woman is the indirect reflection, that is, one step removed. This is the sense Paul uses when he speaks of the husband as the “head” of the wife. Since the previous verb implies mutual subjection, this is not grounds for de jure authority. The husband is the head in ontological order – Man came first. But hypotasso still implies mutual submission. In fact, marriage is to reflect the model of submission found in the Trinity, a relationship built on de facto authority.

So, what does this look like?

• The wife grants authority to the husband and voluntarily submits to him knowing that it is in her best interests to do so BECAUSE the husband sacrifices his own interest in order to offer all that he has for her.
• The wife treats her husband as her exclusive property, taking ownership of his welfare BECAUSE he woos her with a compelling and unconditional love.
• The wife responds to her husband with active obedience BECAUSE the husband honors her with unwavering faithfulness.
• The wife maintains a life of purity BECAUSE the husband demonstrates complete dedication to the purpose of their unity.
• The wife honors and respects her husband BECAUSE the husband maintains absolute fidelity in behavior and purpose to her.
• The wife expresses thanksgiving and gratitude BECAUSE the husband demonstrates a life of continuous forgiveness, mercy and grace.

And BOTH exhibit submission to each other as to the Lord.

In conclusion, we see that the relationship between husband and wife is complex but clear. From a biblical perspective, the wife is designed to be the protector and provider. The husband is intended to relinquish previous dependencies and shift his entire sense of well-being into the hands of his ‘ezer. Sin has disrupted this process, but it has not erased it. Wives still feel the intuitive and innate impulse to provide and protect. Husbands still feel the need to commit. The spiritual design of human beings equips us to recognize both roles as reflections of their common source in God. The Bible portrays redeemed marriage as a return to the original plan. But the Bible recognizes the reality of the fallen world, and, as a result, adds cautions to the redemptive call to action. First, the wife must bring her innate design under the banner of submission – an act that portrays the heart of God more than any other. This is power relinquished, not grasped, modeling the kenosis (emptying) of the Son. While she maintains theological and teleological ownership, she discovers that the responsibility of ownership involves unwavering service and unmitigated humility. Her ownership is exemplified in her willingness to let go of control. She embraces the most difficult of all spiritual virtues: assumed responsibility without compelling authority.

Secondly, the husband who is the recipient of this an act of submission is cautioned to accept his role as one who is granted authority by another. He is a leader only insofar as she is a follower. His leadership depends entirely upon his continuous effort to sustain her well-being. His authority is granted (not inherent) in mutual submission as he empties himself of his own agenda and takes up what is of value for her. He complements his wife’s spiritual virtue by offering her shalom (well-being) without demanding any reciprocity.

The balancing act is complete: she takes responsibility for his life, but submits entirely to his leadership. He accepts his role granted by her but turns all his efforts toward her well-being.

The balancing act catches us between the world as God intended and the world as it is, Christian marriage must bring the elements of the redeemed world into play in a fallen universe. This is not the effort of two individuals but rather of a single unity for the two shall become one. And if God brings these together, who can ever separate them?

But don’t forget verse 32: This is a great mystery.

Practice

Theological foundations are wonderful. Nothing can be more important than being in alignment with God’s plan. But knowing the plan is different than carrying it out. We may agree that our minds have been opened to the possibility of redeemed marriage, but the question remains: How can I make this happen? Marriage doesn’t occur on paper. It takes place in the hard reality of human interaction. If redeemed marriage makes no difference in the kitchen or the bedroom, it is nothing more than another unattainable, ideal concept.

So what does redeemed marriage look like in action? Perhaps a few suggestions will get us moving in the right direction.

Redeemed marriage places the highest priority on devotion, not service. When Jesus corrected Martha’s zeal by pointing out that Mary’s devotion was of greater value, He gave us all a clue about relationship maintenance. The husband (or wife) who proclaims, “But I do all this work for you,” has confused service with devotion. Production, accumulation and achievement are not the equivalent of dedicated attachment and passionate intensity. If they were, all successful people would have successful marriages. What we intuitively know to be true is that the world’s measurements of success have almost no bearing on the quality of marriage. But in the hustle and bustle of life, we excuse our lack of devotion by importing the false standards of the marketplace. More is not better. Redeemed marriages place time, affection and involvement far above property, power and performance. Whenever pressures from outside the marriage begin to dictate the values inside the marriage, we move away from God’s design. What is true of our relationship to Him is also true of our relationship within the marriage. Intimacy demands attention. There is no substitute for time together.

How do I do this? The role of unexpected acts of devotion. Showing my feelings in creative ways that break the routine.

Redeemed marriages thrive with listening. If I truly want to know the will of God, I must listen to Him. When I come to God in constant prayers of petition, I presume that God is some kind of blessing machine. He exists to fulfill my wishes. Recognizing the lunacy of this approach causes me to confess my sinful presumption and begin to listen to His purposes. Precisely the same thing must occur in a redeemed marriage. Listening is far more important than talking, and not the same as hearing. But how many of us actually hone our listening skills (and attitudes) when it comes to spouses. The sweet rain of conversation eagerly received transforms the marriage landscape into a field of exotic fragrances.

The hallmark of relationship with God is obedience. No disciple can claim intimacy with the Father or the Son and continue to disregard or disobey the call of the Lord.Genesis 2:24 is the foundation of marriage, then there is no “me and you” in this covenant. There is only “us.” Therefore, my identity is not found in what I do for myself but rather in who I do for you. I am “Rosanne’s husband” or “John’s wife.” That is what defines me. I become who I am by putting the other person’s well-being at the top of the priority list. In other words, I practice the presence of my spouse. Of course, we are quite aware of the spiritual priority: God, others, me. But I believe that this is not the order for those of us who wish to live redeemed marriages. The passage in Ephesians gives us the correct order: The Lord, my spouse, us. There is no me in the equation at all.

How does this look in a society that focuses its energy on affluence and pleasure. Two things predominate in this culture: the desire for affluence and the avoidance of pain (seeking pleasure).

Ownership is one of the fundamental themes of Scripture. The Bible unashamedly supports the idea of private ownership and supplies a legislative framework to protect this. Just as redeemed marriages reverse the cultural preoccupation with self, redeemed marriages take a different approach to ownership. First, redeemed marriages recognize ownership as a gift, not an right. What God puts in my hands is not mine. It is His. I am steward over His property. Therefore, I am not free to do what I wish with it. I am free to exercise the authority of being His steward. This distinction is essential for redeemed marriage. It supports Paul’s assertion that my body belongs to my spouse, not to me. My spouse exercises God’s stewardship over my physical well-being. Of course, this is not the limit of stewardship, but it should be the most obvious. Since I am entrusted with the care of the other, my responsibilities of ownership include all that is needed to insure that God’s full intention is realized in the life of my spouse. There are no circumstances where I am justify my inaction on the basis of the other’s choice. I am steward regardless of the other person’s circumstances or behavior. So, I look after my spouse’s physical, emotional, mental and spiritual peace and prosperity. Secondly, because redeemed marriage is a mutual covenant, I am also the recipient of my spouse’s care for me. The implication is clear: both parties give over the right to themselves to the other and both parties take on the responsibility of the other’s well-being.

Refusing interference and distraction is essential to intimacy with the Lord. It is just as essential to maintain the intimacy of a redeemed marriage. With little reflection, we will agree that life does it’s best to pull us apart. Work, social obligations, even church activities can become thorns of discontent. But perhaps the greatest of all interruptions to intimacy in a redeemed marriage is children. There is no question that the roles and responsibilities parents have toward children are biblically supported. Nevertheless, a redeemed marriage must operate on the principle that spouse comes before child. As demanding as raising children truly is, nothing damages a marriage more than the substitution of the needs of children for the devotion to a spouse. The Bible makes the order of priorities clear. Mutual submission to the Lord followed by submission of the wife, sacrificial love of the husband and obedience of children. Notice that this order carries the ‘ezer undercurrent. First in human priority is “wives, submit.” Second is “husbands, love.” Only after these two do we find, “children, obey.”

Summing Up

Let’s go back to the curse. The mission of humanity has not been erased. The gender role and equipping has not been altered. Only the circumstances surrounding the execution have changed. Consequently, if we are to live out redemption in marriage, we must make a deliberate choice to return to the original design in spite of the circumstances.

This means we must fight against the fallen Adam and the fallen Eve. Adam must learn to trust his ‘ezer again. Yes, she failed him. Yes, in the fallen world he has the power to ignore, suppress and control her. But if he is to engage in redemptive marriage, he must be vulnerable enough to trust her once more with the same degree that he trust God. Both relationships were broken. Both must be restored. He must return her to the role of ‘ezer and place his well-being in her hands. In this way, he will fulfill the condition of Proverbs 31, empowering her to be what God intended.

Eve must assume the responsibility as ‘ezer. This means that she must take ownership of her partner. She must see Adam as the proper object of her concern and accept the responsibility to hold him up, engage in protection of his life and soul and provide what he must have to be all that God wishes him to be. She must set aside the temptation of the seductive serpent to be more than ‘ezer. She must submit her own agendas to the calling of her role, designated by God. If Eve is to be redeemed in her marriage, she must demonstrate active responsibility through submission, modeling her Lord while serving her mate.

Redeemed marriage is not a new authoritarianism. No redeemed husband rules over his wife. God created us in His image, male and female. Our standing before Him is exactly the same. Our need for redemptive living is exactly the same. And we are created so that when we exercise the roles God intended, the fit is perfectly in line with planned divine harmony. The new Adam refuses to let a fallen world dictate his interaction with his wife. He lauds her as ‘ezer, tilling the soil so that she can develop capacity and destiny. He clears away the thistles and thorns that prevent her from being what God designed her to be. His job is to provide the fertile ground for growth. The new Eve assumes the role lost to her predecessor by taking full responsibility as the servant-owner of the mate in her charge. She lives in obedience to her calling, relinquishing her desires in order to bring about the well-being of her partner.

One prepares the ground for the other. One plants, tends and reaps for the other. Both enjoy the harvest.

Additional Resources

I discussed this topic with some students of mine and recorded 82 minutes of audio.  If you enjoyed this, consider downloading and listening to The Scriptural Role of ‘Ezer.  I also recommend reading other articles and Today’s Words that I have posted on ‘ezer.