So, I looked at other versions. The NKJV is interesting “And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” That makes some sense to me, 'comparable to him', and on reading Matthew Henry’s commentary on the verse, I suspect that's what was in his mind when he wrote “Not made out of his head to top him, not out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.’
How important is this?
The Church is still in some level of conflict over issues to do with women in marriage and women in church leadership. Most any view that could be thought of is held as important in a church somewhere - and all using scripture to justify their viewpoint. Confusion!!
Whilst there are a number of perspectives all with their scriptural justification, nevertheless, we must look to scripture to find a solution. In doing that I note that I have learned from my years as a Christian that it is possible to take a scripture or two, and argue most any belief.
I loved Philosophy at University, well, it was more I loved learning to argue first one perspective, then the opposite, a lot of fun!
Slavery for instance. I read part of an article recently that was first published before William Wilberforce took up the call for slavery abolition. What an excellent article, very convincing, quoting scripture to justify the thesis – in essence that it was acceptable (more, it was proper), for a man/woman to own another man/woman.
A great argument indeed, but today most of the church find slavery abhorrent.
We are now enlightened.
The point is that it wouldn't be overly hard to spend an hour arguing plausibly for slavery, and, then another hour following arguing the opposite – both perspectives argued from a scriptural perspective.
So, can we find truth?
According to most of the church at the time Martin Luther was a danger to the church. His extreme views were heretical apparently and certainly during those times some were burnt alive for simple things like printing Bibles. The church of the time considered these were people with anti-biblical perspectives and the church leaders of the day aggressively justified their established views.
A scriptural basis
So, let us return to scripture regards Genesis 2:18, looking at several versions, endeavouring to read it with a fresh pair of eyes.
The NASB reads similar to NKJV; and the NLT, which I love to read is at this time quite unhelpful - “And the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a companion who will help him.” So, woman has no brain or life of her own, or, maybe we could read that it is that man needs a woman to help him because he can't make it on his own?
The ESV is also unhelpful “Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” A ‘helper fit for him? With these words the writer may be expressing a view that perhaps man needs a woman – without her he is not fit, or is it possibly that a slavish/servile type of relationship is inferred? Does God intend that type of relationship? Certainly the church did believe and support slavery at one time....
Interestingly the Hebrew word used here which is translated as 'helper' is also attributed to God, such as in the NT - 'help in our time of need”. In the OT we read in Exodus 18:4 and the other was named Eliezer, for he said, "The God of my father was my help (ezer), and delivered me from the sword of Pharaoh."
God as our 'ezer' is not following our lead by helping us. He is being our strong ally.
When God formed the woman from the very tissue of the man, she was to become the strong help that he needed as one who is like him yet different. Help in what? Help in his aloneness.
Gen. 2:18 And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”
Some time ago in a church where I was on the leadership team, a man who attended from time to time advised one of our ladies in leadership that she was subordinate to him as he was a male and she was female. It seemed he thought that he felt he could tell her to do pretty much anything and she needed to submit - an interesting view!
Most of the church I think would agree the general tenet of scripture is not for this type of servile relationship to exist within Gods Kingdom, but there are certainly strong views expressed under the banner of 'godly authority' in male-female, leader-fellowship, etc., relationships.
I grew up in the Calvinist tradition, which taught me much that was good, and also some that has restricted me in my walk with God. One of these areas was how relationships work. My view was that they could only work within an authority structure, otherwise nothing would get done, and God would be angry with me for messing up.
At the time it all seemed so logical, but with a closer relationship with Him, has come more understanding on who God is – His nature and character. He is not angry, as so much Church doctrine seems to imply. As I grow deeper and deeper in love with Him, I find more and more He is love, and, He is good!
As I've meditated and listened to some of today’s great church teachers expound on this, it sure is staggering how good He is and how He is love itself.
Seems quite simple when it's put like that, and I wonder sometimes why it's taken so long to come to the place where I am today.
Continuing deeper
So, in determining the key thrust of scripture allow me to quote Jesus from Matthew 22:37-39 (New Living Translation) - Jesus replied, “‘You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, and all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. A second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’
Given Jesus said in verse 40 following, “The entire law and all the demands of the prophets are based on these two commandments”, we can be sure then that these two commandments are important. Both commandments are relational, so we may call these relationship commandments and they tell us simply and fundamentally the importance of relationships with God, and all of the human race.
Of course we may wish to discuss this with God and suggest that He didn't quite understand people when He stated this, that He wasn't aware how difficult it is to love just anyone like this, let alone a God we can't see. It seems I can hear His laughter even as I write this...
So, fundamental to scripture and to God is relationship. And if relationships and all that is are contained within them are fundamental to life in the Kingdom, then they really are important.
1 John 4:16 (New King James Version) is also important - ‘And we have known and believed the love that God has for us. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him.’
God IS love, that’s quite clear, and if we abide (adhere to, stick to) in love, we abide (adhere to, stick to), in God.
So, this relationship thing, this love for each other is really important, in fact it’s paramount!
In light of the above, why then does the argument centre around marriage and for that matter, leadership within the church, family, etc., functioning in terms of authority and not relationship?
It seems to me that this authority argument flies in the face of the meaning of relationship. Further, if relationships (the connection between 2 or more people) can only function within the confines of authority, then relationship is strictured and the nature of relationship loses some meaning.
If this connection between 2 or more people works only when someone is in authority over another (authority in essence being the glue that keeps the bond (relationship) working), and if our definition of authority is in terms of someone in-charge, someone that is dominant and rules - then we have an interesting relationship, which I believe is somewhat less than the general tenet of scripture suggests.
Galatians 3:5 makes clear regards equality in the Kingdom. Peter also makes it clear 'lording it over' is not acceptable in the kingdom, nor does Jesus who died in submission to us that we might be saved demonstrate it.
I wonder if we think of authority as the glue to make relationships work simply because we can't make relationship work any other way. Is it possible for relationships to be the glue that holds relationship together! Imagine relationships existing between people and not an 'authority' in sight!
How could anything get done, goodness, there is no-one in charge!
If you haven’t read ‘The Shack”, by William Young, can I suggest you do so. It’s a story of forgiveness, and opportunity is taken by the author to raise a contentious point or two in terms of theology and doctrine. One such contentious point being how the Godhead functions not in terms of authority, but in terms of relationship, authority just doesn’t figure.
And finally
I noted in an earlier article a Jewish perspective of this Genesis verse - that the words translated in the article as ‘help opposite’, (ezer kenegdo), are often translated in our Bibles as ‘helper’, ‘helpmeet’, etc.
The term is intriguing and, if the meaning is correctly translated as ‘help opposite’, what does that mean, what are the implications?
A commentator on this verse makes an interesting observation - ‘I found that the word kenegdo is constructed from three words and it occurs only here in the Old Testament. Literally it means ‘like face to face him’ or ‘like opposite him’. This makes it more of an equality description. In fact, taken together, ezer kenegdo, leans toward a strong, perhaps stronger, person like the man and a person with whom the man deals face to face.
Interesting also were some Jewish interpretations of this phrase. For example, The Torah Study for Reform Jews says, “From the time of creation, relationships between spouses have at times been adversarial. In Genesis 2:18, God calls woman an ezer kenegdo, a "helper against him." The great commentator Rashi takes the term literally to make a wonderful point: "If he [Adam] is worthy, [she will be] a help [ezer]. If he is not worthy [she will be] against him [kenegdo] for strife."
The famous Jewish author, Elie Weisel, says this about his wife: "For only now do I fully understand the expression ezer kenegdo, which God uses in the Book of Genesis when He speaks of wishing to create Eve to serve as Adam's "helpful opposition. "I owe much to Marion. She knows how to suggest, to correct, to critically evaluate texts and decisions."’
As this Jewish author has found, I've now learnt to look at my relationship with my dear wife Ruth. For years I supposed we would become more alike, so we could become more together. However, it never happened, nor will it. She is my ‘help opposite’. She complements my weaknesses and challenges me to greater heights.
In phrasing these last words I only see relationship here, I see a beloved Ruth that encourages me on, a Ruth that complements, as Matthew Henry puts it “not made out of his head to top him, not out of his feet to be trampled upon by him, but out of his side to be equal with him, under his arm to be protected, and near his heart to be beloved.’