EZER
Maybe I am asking the wrong question, but it is a question I would like answered. In light of the textual meaning of ezer k'negdo, it seems an entirely appropriate question. It may not be a question addressed in the commentaries and that is ok. It is my question and maybe there is an answer. 


What has happened to move “very good” to “not good”? Woman has not been separated from the adam (human) at this time. What has Adam done or not done that makes it “not good” for him to be alone/unseparated? To make it necessary for him to have an ezer-kenegdo = a helper corresponding to as well as opposite or opposed to him? 
 
Creation at this point in time was not in self destruction mode, and YHVH changes not, so what brought about this change from very good to not good? To have dominion over all the earth is Adam’s mandate. That includes what is already in existence as sin as well as nachash (literally: shining one - translated into English as serpent.). What was nachash doing in the garden? Was this something Adam was supposed to have taken care of and didn’t, thereby bringing “not good” into the mix? Is it possible he is ignoring the part of him that would address this problem? Is this why the separation has to happen? This would certainly support the function defined for woman as ezer kenegdo - we will start with ezer.
 
ezer comes from the root azar (St. 5826/TWOT 1598) which initially meant to surround or encompass and defend. It shows up mostly in military situations. In Ez. 30:8 we see this verb used in connection with soldiers rushing to aid each other during battle. The main usage occurs where God is doing the helping as in 2 Chron. 12:18. 

These are the listed actions that are ezer. The word implies one who is much capable or who has superior military strength and can also be trusted in the same way YHVH is trusted. The Scriptural sense of ezer is a fellow warrior, someone you need to help insure your survival, a comrade in arms, a trusted partner. The separated man and woman become a unique partnership of counterbalances that are at the same time individual entities and one flesh. The word ezer is used 21 times in the Tenach. 2 times it is used in Genesis in relation to the first woman. 3 times it is used in a military context and 16 times it is used of God. In the last two instances, the help discussed is vital and powerful. Of course, we make the connection of these attributes with YHVH when HE is described as ezer, but have not rightly applied the same to the woman. WHY? 
 
If first usage determines the way a word is used in following passages and ezer is defined as a subordinate helper to the man when first used in Genesis, then this meaning would have to hold true for the later places this word is used of YHVH as helper. Is there anyone who holds to the doctrine of subservience of the woman who would agree that YHVH in the role of helper to man is subservient to man? There are just too many problems with this way of thinking for me to see it as viable.


coming soon - k'negdo

Adam has been given his job description and has named the animals.  What happened between Genesis 1:31 when it was ‘very good’ and Genesis 2:18 that it had become ‘not good’? YHVH does not make mistakes, so what is going on here? There are any number of commentaries and speculations as to why this suitable helper had to be brought forth and some make sense while others are, in my opinion, products of fanciful imaginations. In some cases ideas that are generated out of myths and opinions have been forced backward into the narrative to prove specific doctrinal bias. May I propose an idea that is supported by the text but not generally talked about?

 Let me start by addressing the ‘who sinned first’ issue. We are taught (or at least I was) from the time we can think that Eve ate first and therefore she brought the sinful state to mankind and had to be punished - or variations on that theme. Scripture is used, including creation and Genesis 3:16 to ‘prove’ that she is the problem and needs to be controlled. I propose that sin did not enter because of Adam and Chavah’s disobedience. It was already there. The rebellion of the angels had already established sin, which by definition is disobedience to YHVH. Let's look at the phrase in Romans 5:12 - for by one man sin entered. The word in the original Greek for entered is: eisdechomai which means to open to or enter in and does not carry the idea that this is where sin began; that if not for Eve and Adam’s disobedience there would be no sin. Perhaps a better way to say this would be “Adam opened the door to sin, which was already sitting outside and could be just as rightly be stated "for by one man the door was opened to sin,’ which correctly establishes sin as previously existing, as opposed to the biased translation that supports man and by extension, woman as the first sinner. This would be the first time humankind sinned, but according to Scripture's own definition, not how sin entered the world.

 Next, I would like to point out that the Adam (humankind pre separation into man and woman) had been given instructions. One of those instructions was to guard or protect the garden. From what? The animals were content at this time to cohabit with one another. Abba and the Adam were in fellowship together. My question is this: What was Nachash (the shining or luminous one, translated as serpent) doing in the garden?  Had the human already been less than attentive to the guard duties before the separation occurred? Was there a door that had been left unprotected, unguarded? 

To understand this, the phrase- ezer kenegdo - needs to be defined. We will be looking at it from the original language and how Scripture itself uses these words and how they establish a purpose or function that could not be fully realized outside of the separation of the Adam into man and woman.

to be continued . . .

Today I am sharing a posting from a brother whose work I highly respect. It is critical that we discover the difference between looking like something and actually being something, between what we profess with our mouths and what we do with our lives, between what we think is in our heart and what YHVH finds there. Read and consider and do what you must.

Contingent Destiny

Posted on July 6, 2014, updated on July 6, 2014 by Skip Moen

I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give to each man according to his ways, according to the results of his deeds. Jeremiah 17:10 NASB

Results – Frankly, this verse scares me.  There are a few others that give me equal fright, but this one might be at the top of that list.  Jeremiah, speaking for God, tells me that God rewards according to results.  Oh, my!  I so want God to reward on the basis of His benevolence, His mercy and His compassion.  To be rewarded on the basis of my results is terrifying.  I think of all the times when I have not lived up to expectations, when my efforts or lack thereof did not produce the results God wanted.  In fact, I am quite sure my résumé of failures is much more extensive than my résumé of success.  If God rewards “according to the fruit of” my deeds, I am surely lost.  I will arrive in His presence empty-handed at best, but more likely with thorns and thistles rather than olive branches or grapes.

What’s worse is that God searches my heart. It really doesn’t matter if I show well on the outside. Does God care about the size of my bank account, the number of Bibles I have on the shelf, the record of my charitable gifts? If He searches my heart, He may find that those “successes” were motivated by pride or appeasement. Failures! The “fruit” isn’t just the observable result. Paul makes this abundantly clear. Heart and hand must go together if it’s going to be counted by the Lord. Perhaps that’s why this verse does not say, “I search the tax record or the theological statement or even the mind.” (By the way, the word “mind” in this verse is a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew kilya’ which means “kidneys.” It’s the Hebrew way of saying “the innermost secret parts of a man.” It has nothing to do with cognitive functions.)

In Hebrew, the word translated “results” is peri. You might recall this word from the blessing of the wine during the Shabbat meal. It is the word for “fruit,” not “results.” The “fruit of his deeds” is the produce of his practice. Notice it is singular. Just like Paul’s comment on the fruit (singular) of the Spirit. It isn’t the deeds that are measured. It is what the deeds produce. We scramble around trying to do all the deeds perfectly, but that isn’t what God is counting. It is the fruit of those deeds that matters. In other words, it’s not the practice of Shabbat. It is the fruit that the practice produces. If you do everything properly during Shabbat but the fruit is dissension in the household, anxiety over responsibility, concern about social expectations or legalistic separation from others, then the fruit is a failure. The actual practice may be in accordance with the traditions of Shabbat, but the net result is ungodly.

If you attend services, say the prayers, study the Scriptures, follow Torah as best you can, but the produce from your labors drives others away from the Lord, causes family members to dread your theology, disrupts your compassion toward strangers or creates animosity, then the fruit is sour no matter how sweetly planted the vine.

Oh, and by the way, you are not the measure of the quality of your fruit. Only the fruit tasters, the ones who are supposed to benefit from your produce, are the rightful judges of your labor.

So I suppose I should take a confidential survey. I should be asking, “Have my efforts had a positive impact on you?” After everyone has answered I might feel a bit better but I will still need to ask the same question to God. Then I will know what I probably can already guess.

It’s still scary.

Find more @ http://skipmoen.com/