Second Look At..... - Women - Christian - http://www.woodrecords.com/secondlookat/OT

Let's first look at the Old Testment verses on women.

Genesis 2:18 A Helper for Man?

Are women inferior to men, merely designed to be their helpers? Is it consistent with the biblical text to view men as the initiators and women as their assistants? Is this what makes women suitable matches for men?

The Creator regarded Adam’s situation as incomplete and deficient while he was living without community or a proper counterpart. The Creator judged Adam’s situation quite negatively: “It is not good.”

Ecclesiastes 4:9–12 expresses this same opinion about aloneness. The wise writer Solomon advised:Two are better than one. … If one falls down, his friend can help him up. … Also, if two lie down together, they will keep warm. But how can one keep warm alone? Though one may be overpowered, two can defend themselves.

True, in Jeremiah 16:1–9 the prophet Jeremiah is commanded by God to remain alone, but this is meant to be a sign that God’s judgment on the people is so near that it will not be worthwhile to get married. Nevertheless, the full life is a life that finds its fulfillment in community with another person or group of persons.

In the Genesis story we find that God created a woman after he had created the man. This would end Adam’s loneliness and the state that God judged to be “not good.” She was to be his “helper”—at least that is how most of the translations have interpreted this word. A sample of the translations reads as follows: “I shall make a helper fit for him” (RSV); “I will make a fitting helper for him” (New Jewish Publication Society); “I will make an aid fit for him” (AB); “I will make him a helpmate” (JB); “I will make a suitable partner for him” (NAB); “I will make him a helper comparable to him” (NKJV).

However, the customary translation of the two words ezer k^enegdo as “helper fitting him” is almost certainly wrong. Recently R. David Freedman has pointed out that the Hebrew word 'ezer is a combination of two roots: '-z-r, meaning “to rescue, to save,” and g-z-r, meaning “to be strong.” The difference between the two is the first letter in Hebrew. Today that letter is silent in Hebrew, but in ancient times it was a guttural sound formed in the back of the throat. The g was a ghayyin, and it came to use the same Hebrew symbol as the other sound, 'ayin. But the fact that they were pronounced differently is clear from such place names which preserve the g sound, such as Gaza or Gomorrah. Some Semitic languages distinguished between these two signs and others did not; for example, Ugaritic did make a distinction between the 'ayin and the ghayyin; Hebrew did not (R. David Freedman, “Woman, a Power Equal to a Man,” Biblical Archaeology Review 9 [1983]: 56–58).

It would appear that sometime around 1500 b.c. these two signs began to be represented by one sign in Phoenician. Consequently the two phonemes merged into one grapheme and what had been two different roots merged into one, much as in English the one word fast can refer to a person’s speed, abstinence from food, his or her slyness in a “fast deal” or the adamant way in which someone holds “fast” to positions. The noun 'ezer occurs twenty-one times in the Old Testament. In many of the passages it is used in parallelism to words that clearly denote strength or power. Some examples are:

There is none like the God of Jeshurun, The Rider of the Heavens in your strength ('-z-r), and on the clouds in his majesty. (Deut 33:26, my translation)

Blessed are you, O Israel! Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord? He is the shield of your strength ('-z-r) and the sword of your majesty. (Deut 33:29, my translation)

The case that begins to build is that we can be sure that ezer means “strength” or “power” whenever it is used in parallelism with words for majesty or other words for power such as oz or uzzo. In fact, the presence of two names for one king, Azariah and Uzziah (both referring to God’s strength), makes it abundantly clear that the root 'ezer meaning “strength” was known in Hebrew.

Therefore I suggest that we translate Genesis 2:18 as “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding to man.” Freedman even suggests on the basis of later Hebrew that the second word in the Hebrew expression found in this verse should be rendered equal to him. If this is so, then God makes for the man a woman fully his equal and fully his match. In this way, the man’s loneliness will be assuaged.

The same line of reasoning occurs in the apostle Paul. He urged in 1 Corinthians 11:10, “For this reason, a woman must have power [or authority] on her head [that is to say, invested in her].” This line of reasoning which stresses full equality is continued in Genesis 2:23, where Adam says of Eve, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” The idiomatic sense of this phrase “bone of my bones” is a “very close relative,” “one of us” or in effect “our equal.”

The woman was never meant to be an assistant or “helpmate” to the man. The word mate slipped into English since it was so close to Old English meet, which means “fit to” or “corresponding to” the man. That all comes from the phrase that I have suggested likely means “equal to.”

What God had intended then was to make a “power” or “strength” for the man who would in every way “correspond to him” or even “be his equal.”

Genesis 3:16 Why from a Rib?

Whereas Adam was formed “from the dust of the ground” (Gen 2:7), the text describes Eve as being formed from “one of the man’s ribs.” Why this difference? Is there any significance to these two separate materials being used by God in the formation of the first human pair? If so, what is it? If not, why the distinction?

It has become customary for many in recent years to point to the Sumerian “Dilmun poem” as being the best way to explain this association of Eve with a rib. The Sumerian name for “rib” is ti (pronounced tee). But the Sumerian word ti also means “to make alive.” These two facts are necessary background information to understand the myth that was told in Sumer.

It happened that the Sumerian water-god, Enki, fell sick, with eight of his organs or bodily parts being affected. A fox promised, if properly rewarded, to bring back the great mother-goddess Ninhursag, who had disappeared after an argument with Enki. Upon her reappearance she brought into existence eight corresponding healing deities, and Enki was restored in time. In order to heal Enki’s rib the goddess created Nin-ti, “the lady of the rib,” which may also be translated as “the lady who makes alive.”

Now it is true that Adam called the woman that God had formed from his rib “Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20). Samuel Noah Kramer commented, “It was this, one of the most ancient of literary puns, which was carried over and perpetuated in the biblical paradise story, although here, of course, it loses its validity, since the Hebrew word for ‘rib’ [tsela'] and that for ‘who makes alive’ [hoveh] have nothing in common.”¹

The association of Eve with a “rib” and the “living” appear to be the common features in both the Sumerian and the biblical accounts. In that regard, the Sumerian myth may well be a garbled record of the same oral tradition about the inception of the human race. But the explanation in Sumer, of course, is set in an account with numerous deities and with petty quarrels and misadventures.

But no real explanation has been achieved as yet. It is not necessary to assume that the Hebrew wanted to promote the same pun that the Sumerian Dilmun poem did. The point of the Hebrew story actually takes off in another direction. In fact, Genesis 2:19 had just noted the animals had also been formed “out of the ground.” This only emphasized the fact that Adam lacked the kind of companion he needed.

In order to teach the close connection that woman has with man, the text does not say that God also created her from “the ground” or “the dust of the ground”; instead, she came from one of Adam’s ribs. Thus the phrase “bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh” pointed not only to the woman’s origin, but also to the closeness of her marriage relationship and the partnership she was to share with her mate.

It is not without significance that the Hebrew word for “rib” appears nowhere else with this meaning in the Hebrew Bible; its usual meaning is “side.” Thus, as some of the Reformers put it, woman was not taken from man’s feet, as if she were beneath him, or from his head, as if she were over him, but from his side, as an equal with him.
Some have tried to relate “rib” to the space or cavity of the body of Adam on the strange assumption that man was originally bisexual. The attempt is then made to substitute the word for female sex organs in place of “rib.” But this attempt is foiled from the start, for what will we make of “one of the man’s ribs”?

The point is that man and woman together share a commonality and partnership observed nowhere else in the created order. To emphasize this closeness, God actually took a real part from the side of the man as he brought to life for the first time this new creation called woman.

Note: ¹Samuel Noah Kramer, From the Tablets of Sumer (indian Hills, Colo.; Falcon's Wing Press, 1957), pp.170-172.

Genesis 3:16 Is Childbearing a Curse or a Blessing?

If bearing children was declared a blessing from God in Genesis 1:28, why did God totally reverse this blessing as a result of the Fall? Indeed, the “pains,” a word which reappears in verse 17 in the curse on man as well, are said to have increased. But no pain had been mentioned previously; only a blessing.

There is no doubt that this term refers to physical pain. Its root lies in a verb that means “to injure, cause pain or grief.” Whether the pain would lie in the agony of childbirth or in the related grief that accompanies raising that child cannot be finally determined; the text would seem to allow for both ideas.

Katherine C. Bushnell, in God’s Word to Woman, suggests that verse 16 be translated differently since the Hebrew text could support such a reading. She noted that some ancient versions attached the meaning of “lying in wait,” “an ambush” or “a snare” to the word generally read as “multiply.” This idea of a snare or a lying in wait, however, may have been moved back to Genesis 3:15 from its more normal position in Genesis 3:16. Bushnell would render the opening words of verse 16 this way: “Unto the woman he said, ‘A snare has increased your sorrow and sighing.’”

This translation is not all that different in meaning from the more traditional “I will greatly multiply … ” The difference between the two readings is found wholly in the interlinear Hebrew vowel signs which came as late as the eighth century of the Christian era. The difference is this (using capital letters to show the original Hebrew consonantal text and lowercase to show the late addition of the vowel letters): HaRBah AaRBeh, “I will greatly multiply,” and HiRBah AoReB, “has caused to multiply (or made great) a lying-in-wait.” The participial form ARB appears some fourteen times in Joshua and is translated as “ambush” or “a lying in wait.”

If this reading is correct (and some ancient versions read such a word just a few words back in verse 15, probably by misplacement), then that “lier-in-wait” would undoubtedly be that subtle serpent, the devil. He it was who would increase the sorrow of raising children. This is the only way we can explain why the idea of “a snare” or “lying-in-wait” still clings to this context.

But another matter demands our attention in verse 16, the word for conception. This translation is difficult because the Hebrew word HRN is not the correct way to spell conception. It is spelled correctly as HRJWN in Ruth 4:13 and Hosea 9:11. But this spelling in Genesis 3:16 is two letters short, and its vowels are also unusual. The form is regarded by lexical authorities such as Brown, Driver and Briggs as a contraction or even an error. The early Greek translation (made in the third or second century before Christ) read instead HGN, meaning “sighing.” The resultant meaning for this clause would be “A snare has increased your sorrow and sighing.”

What difference does such a rendering make? The point is simply that this curse cannot be read to mean that the right to determine when a woman will become a mother is placed totally outside her will or that this function has been placed entirely and necessarily in the hands and will of her husband.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that this statement, no matter how we shall finally interpret it, is from a curse passage. In no case should it be made normative. And if the Evil One and not God is the source of the sorrow and sighing, then it is all the more necessary for us to refuse to place any degree of normativity to such statements and describe either the ordeal of giving birth to a child, or the challenge of raising that child, as an evil originating in God. God is never the source of evil; he would rather bless women. Instead, it is Satan who has set this trap.

The next clause strengthens the one we have been discussing by adding “in sorrow [or pain] you will bring forth children.” Once again note that bearing children in itself was a blessing described in the so-called orders of creation of Genesis 1:28. The grief lies not so much in the conception or in the act of childbirth itself, but in the whole process of bringing children into the world and raising them up to be whole persons before God.

Notes:
¹Henry George Liddell and Richard Scott, A Greek-English Lexicon, 2 vols., rev. H. S. Jones and R. McKenzie (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1940), 1:944-45.
²Berkeley and Alvera Mickelsen, "What Does Kephale Mean in the New Testament?" in Women, Authority and the Bible, ed. Alvera Mickelsen (Downers Grove, Ill.:InterVarsity Press, 1986), pp.97-110.
³See, for example, Stephen Bedale, "The Meaning of Kephale in the Pauline Epistles," Journal of Theological Studies n.s. 5 (1954): 211-15; C.K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (New York: Harper & Row, 1968); H.N.Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of Theology, trans. J. Richard deWitt (Grand Rapids, Mich.:Eerdmans, 1975), pp.379-82; S. Scott Bartchy, "Power, Submission, and Sexual Identity Among the Early Christians." in Essay on New Testament Christianity, ed. C.R. Wetzel (Cincinnati: Standard Publishing, 1978), pp.50-80.
⁴G.W. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon (Oxford:Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 749.

Genesis 3:16 How Was the Woman Punished?

The meaning of the second part of the woman’s penalty centers around two very important words that have a most amazing translation history, “desire” and “will rule.” Seldom has so much mischief been caused by a translation error that became institutionalized.

Is it true that due to the Fall women naturally exhibit overpowering sexual desires for their husbands? And if this is so, did God simultaneously order husbands to exercise authority over their wives? In one form or another, most conservative interpreters answer both of these questions emphatically yes and point to Genesis 3:16 as the grounds for their answer. But will the text itself bear the weight of such important claims?

The Hebrew word t^esûqah, now almost universally translated as “desire,” was previously rendered as “turning.” The word appears in the Hebrew Old Testament only three times: here in Genesis 3:16, in Genesis 4:7 and in Song of Songs 7:10. Of the twelve known ancient versions (the Greek Septuagint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Old Latin, the Sahidic, the Bohairic, the Ethiopic, the Arabic, Aquila’s Greek, Symmachus’s Greek, Theodotion’s Greek and the Latin Vulgate), almost every one (twenty-one out of twenty-eight times) renders these three instances of t^esûqah as “turning,” not “desire.”

Likewise, the church fathers (Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanius and Jerome, along with Philo, a Jew who died about a.d. 50) seem to be ignorant of any other sense for this word t^esûqah than the translation of “turning.” Furthermore, the Latin rendering was conversio and the Greek was apostrophe or epistrophe, words all meaning “a turning.”

With such strong and universal testimony in favor of “turning,” how did the idea of desire ever intrude into the translator’s agenda? Again, it was Katherine C. Bushnell who did the pioneer research on this problem. She traced its genesis to an Italian Dominican monk named Pagnino who translated the Hebrew Bible. Pagnino, according to the infamous biblical critic Richard Simon, “too much neglected the ancient versions of Scripture to attach himself to the teachings of the rabbis.” Pagnino’s version was published in Lyons in 1528, seven years before Coverdale’s English Bible. Now except for Wycliffe’s 1380 English version and the Douay Bible of 1609, both of which were made from the Latin Vulgate, every English version from the time of Pagnino up to the present day has adopted Pagnino’s rendering for Genesis 3:16.

The older English Bibles, following Pagnino, rendered this verse as “Thy lust [or lusts] shall pertayne [pertain] to thy husband.” Clearly, then, the sense given to the word by Pagnino and his followers was that of libido or sensual desire. The only place that Bushnell could locate such a concept was in the “Ten Curses of Eve” in the Talmud.

It is time the church returned to the real meaning of this word. The sense of Genesis 3:16 is simply this: As a result of her sin, Eve would turn away from her sole dependence on God and turn now to her husband. The results would not at all be pleasant, warned God, as he announced this curse.

Nowhere does this text teach, nor does nature confirm by our observations, that there would now be a tendency for a woman to be driven by a desire for sexual relationships with her husband or with other men. This is both a misrepresentation of the text and a male fantasy born out of some other source than the Bible or human nature. Even if the word is tamed down to mean just an inclination or a tendency, we would be no further ahead. These renderings would still miss the point of the Hebrew. The Hebrew reads, “You are turning away [from God!] to your husband, and [as a result] he will rule over you [take advantage of you].”

Though this text only predicts how some husbands will take advantage of their wives when the wives turn to their husbands after turning away from God, some argue that this second verb should be rendered “he shall rule over you.” This would make the statement mandatory with the force of a command addressed to all husbands to rule over their wives.

The Hebrew grammar once again will not allow this construction. The verb contains a simple statement of futurity; there is not one hint of obligation or normativity in this verb. To argue differently would be as logical as demanding that a verb in verse 18 be rendered “It shall produce thorns and thistles.” Thereafter, all Christian farmers who used weed killer would be condemned as disobedient to the God who demanded that the ground have such thorns and thistles.

The often-repeated rejoinder to this will rule/shall rule argument is to go to Genesis 4:7: “Sin is crouching at the door; unto you is its turning, but you will [or shall in the sense of must] rule over it.” There is no doubt that both the word t^esûqah (“turning”) and the verb to rule are found in both contexts. But what is debated is the best way to render the Hebrew.

Several suggestions avoid the traditional interpretation that insists on an obligatory sense to the verb to rule. One way predicts that Cain, now governed by sin and pictured as a crouching beast at his door, will rule over him (his brother, Abel). This, however, does not appear to be what the author meant.

A preferred way of handling this phrase would be to treat it as a question. (The absence of the particle introducing questions is a phenomenon witnessed in about half of Hebrew questions.) Hence we would render it “But you, will you rule over it?” or “Will you be its master?” (This interpretation is also favored by H. Ewald, G. R. Castellino and, to some extent, Claus Westermann.)

Even though many hold to the belief that 1 Corinthians 14:34 refers to Genesis 3:16 when it records, “Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says,” I cannot agree. (see comment on 1 Corinthians 14:34).

The only conceivable way a person could link up Genesis 3:16 with 1 Corinthians 14:34–35 would be if the Genesis passage said husbands must rule over their wives. Since such a wording of the verse has been proven impossible, this reference should be surrendered. We should lay no stronger burden on God’s people than what is warranted in God’s Word.

Later on in God’s revelation, our Lord will affirm a job subordination within the marriage relationship, and the husband will be answerable to God for the well-being of his wife and family. However, Genesis 3:16 does not carry any of those meanings.

We may conclude, then, that t^esûqah does not refer to the lust or sexual appetite of a woman for a man. Neither does the verb to rule over her express God’s order for husbands in their relationships to their wives.

For views on the New Testament verses on Women, check out NT Women. NT=New Testament.