Category: Ezer K'negdo

METAPHOR

8/22/2014

Yesterday, I had an interesting discussion with a friend. She has a unique way of seeing things which often blows me away. She commented that she sees the building of the woman almost literally as YHVH removed the rib from the Adam and made it stand before him. Then she asked, “Why a rib? Why not another bone? What is the function of ribs?”

Think about it. The function of the rib cage, as the main upper part of the torso in the human body, is to protect the vital organs that lie within. These include the majority of the torso organs such as the heart, liver, lungs, kidneys and partially the intestines. Without this protection, fatal damage to these organs could easily occur. They also anchor the muscles that work the lungs and literally keep us breathing by lifting and lowering the rib cage. This is the primary function of ribs, however, they do so much more.

The human rib cage consists of three types of bone. The large flat bone or sternum, in the front center, twelve thoracic vertebrae of the spine, and twelve pairs of ribs. Without the rib cage, the skeletal system would collapse. Individual ribs are composed of inflexible hard bone tissue and flexible cartilage to allow for both protection and breathing.

Interestingly, given the important job of protecting the vital organs, the ribs are actually fairly easily broken. Taking a direct hit during sports or horsing around, a fall, and even a violent sneeze can break a rib. The pain of a broken rib is excruciating and care must be taken that the sharp edges of a broken rib do not puncture a vital organ causing serious, possibly mortal consequences.

WoW! I wonder if it is even necessary to go into the parallels with the role of ezer k’negdo. Protection, aiding in life processes, support, complexity, strength as well as delicateness. What a stunning choice of body parts!

I am intrigued by the information about how easily a rib can be broken. When something is not allowed to perform its function, is abused, fractured, seen as insignificant, not properly respected, can it fulfill its purpose? The answer is: It can try, but with such obstacles, how long will it last? And more to the point, how long can the body that rejects the purpose of the rib(s) continue to be productive?

Ishshah is not like a rib (simile). She IS a rib (metaphor).

1 Comment

Definitely Different

8/13/2014

0 Comments

Ok. So paul is going to have to wait. A while, as a matter of fact. There is too much that needs to be said before we go there. Lest you think that I am about de-gendering or uni-sexing, I think I need to clarify some things.

I was born a woman. I want to be what I was created to be. A woman. The reason I am blogging on this subject is because I have studied for a very long time just what that entails.

I have two sons. The first one was 6 months old when we moved to New Orleans. We lived in an apartment complex next door to another young couple with a little girl exactly 1 day older than our son. I had determined that I would not stereotype my son and included dolls and age appropriate play dishes in his toy box. He did not play with these toys, but the little neighbor girl liked them when she came over.

I was particularly struck one day when they each had a doll. Little Kimberly was cradling hers as she toddled along. My son had his by the foot dragging its head on the ground. I thought about that for days. Boys and girls were definitely different even at the tender age of 12 months. There was an instinctual psychological nurturing reflex in this little girl that was simply not evident in my son.

He loved balls. Any kind of ball. By the time he was 18 months old, he could identify balls. Footballs, golf balls, basket balls, baseballs. His first word was ‘ball’, much to his mother’s chagrin. You wait and coax and long to hear ‘mama’. What I got was “baa’ as he held one of his balls up and then promptly threw it across the room.

Somehow, I feel the need to reassure that I am not going for unisex or transgender. That is not the point of this at all. There are both physiological and psychological differences between men and women and they are good because YHVH designed it that way.

It is said that if you take the actual genetic makeup of men and women, the difference of the one pair of chromosomes that determine sex constitutes only a 4% difference in the entire genetic code. But, what this sets in motion as human beings mature into either male or female, becomes the fodder for books with titles like Women are from Venus, Men are from Mars, clearly delineating the vast differences.

What we do with these differences is the key. Do we try to see how we fit together and make each other better by incorporating the differences? Or do we tear down the opposite sex because they are not like us, implying that there is something bad or wrong with them just because they are the opposite sex?

The Body of Messiah has failed to remain faithful to YHVH’s original design by introducing extra biblical ideas and beliefs into the gender issue, thereby setting the stage for dehumanization, inequality, and injustice.

There are no two identical human beings on the planet, be they two men, two women, or a man and a woman. We were all created for a purpose with a plan for living that purpose out. We must be able to work together, to try to understand the blessing of other than ourselves, and respect the beauty of maleness or femaleness as it is the original building block of relationship between humans.

0 Comments

Separate But Equal

7/30/2014

0 Comments

Really?

Some may bristle with my comparisons today and that is ok. Bristling means to me that I am about to find out something about myself. Usually, it’s because I am holding onto a need to be right. Once in a great while, a very great while, it is because I am coming up against something that is not good. I pray that today’s post causes a bristling against something that is not good.

Separate but equal. The same but different. You can have input (as a woman), but I (as the man) have the final say. Hmm. I have heard these phrases used in church settings to cut the sharp edge of genderism, to placate a woman who is having problems being casted as second class. Problem is that these terms have been repeatedly used in other situations where people were considered second class.

I will never forget the shockwave that went through me as I watched the movie, The Help, the first time.There is a scene where Hilly (a white affluent female in 1960’s Mississippi) is having an outside toilet installed for her black maid. She says something to the effect: “Now isn’t this nice? Your own bathroom. Separate but equal.”

WoW! I thought. That’s me in church. This is where the bristling may occur. How can I compare women in church to the problem of black suppression? Easy. In my last post (read through it if you haven’t), you will see that church has for the last 2000 years portrayed women as subhuman or at best less than. This is exactly how black people were treated in this country for years. Do you think for a minute that being told they were equal when everything about them had to be separate, when everything about them was seen as inferior, when they were not considered capable of thinking for themselves, made them believe it? Of course not. Human beings are human beings created in the image of YHVH, regardless of their skin color, their eye shape, or their sex.

Domination over another human being is not scriptural. It is part of what we have inherited from the church fathers where women are concerned. It may seem unrelated but when a people group is singled out as needing to be controlled or dominated in the sense that they cannot function without being told what to do or even worse, do not have the right to function without being told what to do (given permission/covering) by the powers that be, we will end up with an abused/hated group of people - all justified with Scripture! The Jews did it to the Samaritans, Hitler did it to the Jews, Muslims do it to the world, and church leaders do it to women - and also men who cannot further their agenda.

Where in Scripture is injustice ever tolerated? Where in Scripture are we told 1/2 of humanity is to be accused, abused, and berated? “ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Um. I may be missing something here, but does that include men and women? Ahhh, but what about Paul? Yes, what about Paul?

and the band plays on . . . .

0 Comments

If you tell a big enough lie often enough . . .

7/24/2014

0 Comments

I have spent the first few postings on this predicament trying to discover what is meant by the Hebrew term ezer k’negdo. I want to know what it means to me as a woman. What was I brought into creation for?

My struggle is largely the part of me that will not accept that I am nothing more to YHVH than a slave laborer and baby maker; that my purpose must always remain inferior to that of a man. I know there are women out there who say they have not been treated like this. I am happy for you. The traditional church has definitely made some headway with respect to women and how they are viewed and this is good. I am not convinced, however, that the roots of the misogyny tree have been pulled up and cast into the fire. These roots go deep and their fruit is still in evidence today. We are subjected to it by misguided men whom I have watched disrespect women by walking out on them when they speak, using them sexually and when it goes south, blaming the ‘Jezebel’, and banging their chests like Tarzan and yelling, “You will not usurp my authority!”

From the text in Genesis, various other places in Scripture, and from many early to late Jewish writings, the intent and position of the woman is shown to be one of equality and honor. (Clearly, some Jewish writings and prayers do denigrate women, but by and large, that is not the case.) Yeshua, himself was especially attentive to women and related to them as he related to anyone else. Did the culture cause problems for women? Definitely! Was it ok with YHVH for women to be treated as property? No. Is our culture any different? Has context been sacrificed for a doctrine that says men are somehow better than and more capable than women?

What follows is not nice. But it must be brought to light if we are to understand where this way of thinking came from and why it persists today. I will start close to Yeshua’s day and move forward to today. Please, google and discover that I am not making this up. (See author's comments in purple)

160-225 CE: Church Father Tertullian: “You [woman] are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die.” So Yeshua, who died for all, died more for women and less for men?

150-215 CE: St. Clement of Alexandria (Greek Father of the Church) : "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman...the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame"

347-407 CE: St. John Chrysostom (Bishop of Constantinople) : "It does not profit a man to marry. For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?...The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food ... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre."

347-420 CE: St. Jerome (well known scholar) : "Woman is the root of all evil.

354–430 CE: St. Augustine (Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Hippo) : "I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?" Augustine’s arrogance basically says that if YHVH were really smart he would not have created woman as his helper.

480 - 524 CE: Boethius (Christian Philosopher) : "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer.”

540-604 CE: Pope Gregory: "Woman is slow in understanding and her unstable and naive mind renders her by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in her husband. Her 'use' is two fold; sex and motherhood."

1200-1280 CE: St. Albertus Magnus (Doctor of the Church) : "Woman is less qualified [than man] for moral behavior.
"Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his"

1225-1274 CE: Thomas Acquinas: "Woman was made only to assist with procreation."

1483-1586 CE: Martin Luther: "Women should remain at home, sit still, keep house and bear and bring up children"

"If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."

"the wife should stay at home and look after the affairs of the household as one who has been deprived of the ability of administering those affairs that are outside and concern the state…."

"There is no gown or garment that worse becomes a woman than when she would be wise." Martin Luther’s vitriol against women is second only to his anti semitism.

1509 -1564 CE: John Calvin: "All women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior to the male."

1703-1791 CE: John Wesley, founder of Methodist movement (1703-1791), letter to his wife, July 15, 1774: . . .of what importance is your character to mankind, if you was buried just now Or if you had never lived, what loss would it be to the cause of God.

1992 CE: Pat Robertson, Southern Baptist leader, fundraising letter July 1992: The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

1999 CE: James Fowler, Women in the Church, 1999: The Holiness of God is not evidenced in women when they are brash, brassy, boisterous, brazen, head-strong, strong-willed, loud-mouthed, overly-talkative, having to have the last word, challenging, controlling, manipulative, critical, conceited, arrogant, aggressive, assertive, strident, interruptive, undisciplined, insubordinate, disruptive, dominating, domineering, or clamoring for power. This is character unbecoming to ANY believer, not just women! Rather, women accept God’s holy order and character by being humbly and unobtrusively respectful and receptive in functional subordination to God, church leadership, and husbands.

This is where we are and it is not ok, beloved.

0 Comments

k'negdo = like opposite of him = pure contradiction

7/21/2014

0 Comments

The word "neged" comes from the verbal root "nagad" meaning "to be face to face." This verb is always used in the causative form where it would literally be translated as "to make to be face to face" and also means "to tell." The noun form, "neged" is often used for something that is face to face with something else such as in Genesis 21:16 (min-neged) where Hagar went and sat down "opposite to" her son but a distance away.

neged = in front of; in sight of; opposite to - from nagad; to be conspicuous; tell

Used 370 x. translated as: answered (3), another (1), certainly told (1), confess (1), confront* (1), declare (46), declared (13), declares (6), declaring (4), denounce (2), describe (1), disclosed (1), display (1), explain (3), fully reported (1), give evidence (1), indeed tell (1), inform (3), informed (1), informs (2), know (1), known (1), made known (4), make...known (1), messenger (2), related (2), remind (1), report (2), reported (10), reported* (1), show (2), shown (2), surely report (1), surely tell (1), tell (101), telling (2), tells (3), told (131), told plainly (1), uttered (1).

This root - nun/gimel/dalet - relays two nuances that are ignored in the traditional church view of the woman. First, the woman is brought out of the man to face him, to be in front of him in a way that he cannot dismiss, one with equal footing, and second to denote one who speaks, tells, declares, explains, informs.

The prefix "ke" in the word “k'negdo" means like, as, corresponding to, and the suffix "o" means "of him." Putting all of this together, ezer k'negdo is translated literally: "a helper like one opposite of him."

Sorry to seem to be beating this horse, but let's look again at "very good" becoming "not good". Remember, the Adam (humankind) had been created in the image of YHVH and something happened that made it necessary to separate the single entity of the Adam into the manifestations of man and woman or ezer k'negdo as defined above.

Question: Was it possible that Adam was shutting out this part of him and in order for it to be fully realized, YHVH had to bring it out to face him, to make it impossible for him to ignore? Once again, this is not about sex as much as it is about relationship.

Let's say for a minute that they had to be separated to fulfill the mandate to procreate, which is one of the teachings used to put woman in her place. Where in the text does it say this? Yes, they are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but that is not the stated FUNCTION as defined by the term ezer k'negdo. She is brought out for the role of ezer k'negdo. The fact that she is physiologically capable of bearing children is a side issue at this point. YHVH did not say, "I will make you a child bearer", He said, "I will make you someone corresponding to, yet opposite, with ability to inform."

Please, don't take this to mean I am against women bearing children. I think this is one of the most amazing things about being woman. No man could ever know the conflicting emotions of having another human being growing inside you, the pain of birthing and the wonder of seeing the fruit of your womb the first time! BUT!!!! The life and purpose of woman cannot be summed up in the ability to bear children. I am not trying to discount the different aspects of womanhood, I am simply trying to get back to the original intent (the Truth) of what YHVH had in mind when He separated the woman out of the man. And that means seeing what He said and not what years of misinterpretation make it mean.

Before we move out into Genesis three, I will share a little of where the idea that woman is subordinate came from. Also look at the difference between subordination and submission.

until next time . . .

0 Comments

EZER

7/17/2014

0 Comments

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

0 Comments

It Is Not Good . . .

7/13/2014

0 Comments

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 . . .

0 Comments

METAPHOR

Definitely Different

Separate But Equal

If you tell a big enough lie often enough . . .

k'negdo = like opposite of him = pure contradiction

EZER

It Is Not Good . . .

Author

Archives

Categories

Great Sites