The Josh we don't want to hear about

[ken_sylvania]

I think the Hebrew word is Ezer. Used over 30 times in the OT...and mostly used to describe God as a helper to Israel. It seems compelling to me that in fact it requires a "prejudicial" mindset to make it mean something with regard to "subordination" of women.

I think that's a rather unfair accusation. Are you saying that you think Paul's "prejudicial mindset" is what caused him to link this to God's design that the man should be the head of the woman?

No I am not making a statement about Paul, only that ezer doesnt mean subordinate. The woman being a helper to man and therefore his subordinate requires some presuppositions that aren't in the text. Woman is a helper to man like God is a helper to Israel. Subordination doesnt follow...unless one comes to the text with an end in mind. Regarding the "help meet" language.

Maybe it depends some on what you mean by subordinate? Does the word "help" mean subordinate? - Sometimes it might, but not always. The clue is in the context. If I say that I fell into a ditch and my brother helped me out, it doesn't suggest that he is my subordinate. But if I am washing the car and my nephew is my helper, the context suggests that perhaps my nephew is subordinate to me.

Paul uses the order of creation, specifically the fact that Eve was created as a help for Adam, as supporting proofs when he says that the man is the head of the woman. If, as you claim, there is no subordination in the text in Genesis Chapter 2 unless one is prejudiced to find it there, then Paul's argument is silly.

Perhaps you are making a narrower argument, saying that the word "ezer" doesn't necessarily mean subordination. Technically that may be accurate, in the same sense that "help" doesn't always mean subordination. But the fact is that in certain contexts it does carry the sense of subordination. The way to know is to check the context, which according to Paul the context around the "help meet for him" language lends itself to a sense of subordination.

Looking to the context for clues on how to interpret a word which has varying shades of meaning is not "prejudice" or "coming to the text with an end in mind."

In fact, I think the only way to look at Genesis 2 and conclude that "woman is a helper to man like God is a helper to Israel" is by ignoring the context and meaning of the account, or by twisting it into something that could never support Paul's argument in 1 Corinthians 11. God did not create Eve as an all-powerful helper for Adam (God is a helper to Israel in that he is in control of everything) - Adam already had a supernatural helper. Eve was created as a human helper suitable for Adam - certainly a help to him but not a mini "God."

[joshuabgood]

I understand what you are saying, though I don't find it is as compelling for me as it is for you. 1 Corinthians 11 is another topic, and perhaps worth exploring...but as you note, ezer, doesn't necessarily connote subordinate. In fact, the preponderance of evidence with regard to the way it is used in the Hebraic scriptures also does not give a context of subordination.

Just a quick word on Cor 11...the headship is not a reference to "being served." Christ is the head of man, but he came not to be served but to serve. Likewise, men don't exist with regard to women to be served, but to serve. The lower you go on the pyramid the higher you are. Not the reverse.

[JohnH]

I understand what you are saying, though it I don't think it is as compelling for me as it is for you. 1 Corinthians 11 is another topic, and perhaps worth exploring...but as you note, ezer, doesn't necessarily connote subordinate. In fact, the preponderance of evidence with regard to the way it is used in the Hebraic scriptures also does not give a context of subordination.

This is an entirely novel concept which isn't reflected in the rest of scripture.

God is portrayed as very powerful and supreme over us. God is not portrayed as our "servant" or our "helper", although Jesus did choose to serve us - however, Jesus is very clearly portrayed to us as our "Lord". Anything else is a subversion of what the scripture actually teaches. We were created to serve, love, and be taken care of by God, not the other way around.

[joshuabgood]

I understand what you are saying, though it I don't think it is as compelling for me as it is for you. 1 Corinthians 11 is another topic, and perhaps worth exploring...but as you note, ezer, doesn't necessarily connote subordinate. In fact, the preponderance of evidence with regard to the way it is used in the Hebraic scriptures also does not give a context of subordination.

This is an entirely novel concept which isn't reflected in the rest of scripture.

God is portrayed as very powerful and supreme over us. God is not portrayed as our "servant" or our "helper", although Jesus did choose to serve us - however, Jesus is very clearly portrayed to us as our "Lord". Anything else is a subversion of what the scripture actually teaches. We were created to serve, love, and be taken care of by God, not the other way around.

Jesus came, literally he said, not to be served, but to serve. That is the upside down Kingdom. The way up, is paradoxically down. His Lordship is through the moral authority of his goodness (not like the scribes who took on coercive positional authority), of which sacrificial service, that is literally the way of the cross, is salvation.

[JohnH]

Jesus came, literally he said, not to be served, but to serve. That is the upside down Kingdom. The way up, is paradoxically down. His Lordship is through the moral authority of his goodness (not like the scribes who took on coercive positional authority), of which sacrificial service, that is literally the way of the cross, is salvation.

God's kingdom isn't an "upside down" kingdom. We are still called to serve Jesus and to make him our Lord and to obey him.

The Bible does not teach that Jesus came in order to obey us and to serve our wants and desires.

I think this is a rather dangerous inversion of what the Bible actually teaches. The picture we have of Jesus in Revelation is one indeed of a warrior - and one who will sit in judgment, including condemning all of those who don't choose to serve and follow Jesus to eternal torment.

[joshuabgood]

Jesus came, literally he said, not to be served, but to serve. That is the upside down Kingdom. The way up, is paradoxically down. His Lordship is through the moral authority of his goodness (not like the scribes who took on coercive positional authority), of which sacrificial service, that is literally the way of the cross, is salvation.

God's kingdom isn't an "upside down" kingdom. We are still called to serve Jesus and to make him our Lord and to obey him.

The Bible does not teach that Jesus came in order to obey us and to serve our wants and desires.

I think this is a rather dangerous inversion of what the Bible actually teaches. The picture we have of Jesus in Revelation is one indeed of a warrior - and one who will sit in judgment, including condemning all of those who don't choose to serve and follow Jesus to eternal torment.

To be clear, I don't think Jesus came to obey us either. The question is, what are the levers for his kingdom? The way of the cross. Suffering love...

[JohnH]

To be clear, I don't think Jesus came to obey us either. The question is, what are the levers for his kingdom? The way of the cross. Suffering love...

Obedience to God the Father. Jesus talked over and over about how he obeys his father.

The point is, God is our Lord, and is our God, and we serve, worship, honour, obey, submit to, and are not superior to, above, or over him.

[ken_sylvania]

I understand what you are saying, though I don't find it is as compelling for me as it is for you. 1 Corinthians 11 is another topic, and perhaps worth exploring...but as you note, ezer, doesn't necessarily connote subordinate. In fact, the preponderance of evidence with regard to the way it is used in the Hebraic scriptures also does not give a context of subordination.

Just a quick word on Cor 11...the headship is not a reference to "being served." Christ is the head of man, but he came not to be served but to serve. Likewise, men don't exist with regard to women to be served, but to serve. The lower you go on the pyramid the higher you are. Not the reverse.

I agree. The man is to be the head of the woman, not her master - and she is not more his servant than he is hers.

[joshuabgood]

To be clear, I don't think Jesus came to obey us either. The question is, what are the levers for his kingdom? The way of the cross. Suffering love...

Obedience to God the Father. Jesus talked over and over about how he obeys his father.

The point is, God is our Lord, and is our God, and we serve, worship, honour, obey, submit to, and are not superior to, above, or over him.

Yes...but also he came not to be served, but to serve. And he calls us friends and makes us joint heirs. He took upon himself the most humble form. In a similar way, we should relate to women, per 1 Corinthians 11.

[JohnH]

To be clear, I don't think Jesus came to obey us either. The question is, what are the levers for his kingdom? The way of the cross. Suffering love...

Obedience to God the Father. Jesus talked over and over about how he obeys his father.

The point is, God is our Lord, and is our God, and we serve, worship, honour, obey, submit to, and are not superior to, above, or over him.

Yes...but also he came not to be served, but to serve. And he calls us friends and makes us joint heirs. He took upon himself the most humble form. In a similar way, we should relate to women, per 1 Corinthians 11.

Yet 1 Co. 11 teaches us that Christ is the head of man, and God is the head of Christ. This seems to remind me of where my "spot" is. I do not view Jesus as my servant.