`1) Genesis 3:16 What are the translation histories of “desire” and “will rule”? How was the woman punished?
Seldom has so much mischief been caused by a translation error that became institutionalized. Many use this passage to emphatically answer that men should rule over and women will have lustful sexual desire [libido] naturally exhibited to their husbands. But will the text itself bear the weight of such important claims?
How was tsuqah translated in the twelve known ancient versions of the OT (the Greek Septuragint, the Syriac Peshitta, the Samaritan Pentateuch, the Old Latin, the Sahidic, the Bohairic, the Ethiopic, the Arabic etc.)? Why did the church fathers (Clement, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Epiphanios and Jerome) seem to have translated the Hebrew word in only one way. And it is not “desire.” We need to ask if modern translators are aware of the Italian Dominican monk named Pagnino who translated the Hebrew Bible. Which was used just 7 years later as a source in the Coverdale English bible in 1528.
The Hebrew word tsuqah, now almost universally translated as ‘desire’ was previously rendered and ‘turning.’ The word appears in the Hebrew OT only 3 times. But when Pagnino went with ‘desire’ English Bibles, following Pangnino, rendered this verse and “Thy lusts shall pertain to..” Or libido and sensual desire. It is time the church returned to the real meaning of this word. It should be: ‘As a result of her sin, Eve would turn away from her sole dependence on God and turn now to her husband.’ The results are not pleasant, warned God, as he announced the curse. ‘You will be turning away from me (God) and (as a result) he will rule over you and take advantage of you.’
Now some want to change the second verb from will to shall. But the statement is only to futurity not to obligation or the normalcy of ‘must rule.’ So we may conclude that it is not lust or desire and neither is it rulership over the women as a type of ordering from God as to how relationships must be expressed.
2) 1Cor 11:3 Head of Woman is Man?
Easily one of the most difficult and debated passages in all of Paul’s epistles. So let’s pursue this from the view of the whole chapter. It goes from “head” passage to “image and glory of God while women is the glory of man” and finally, who are “the angels” in 11:10, due to whom “the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head”?
What does the word ‘head” mean. Most English readers of the text innately regard it as ruler, leader, chief, boss and director are places the mind will go almost immediately. Such an understanding of “head” as connoting “authority over” lead to interpretation of this text (and of Eph 5:22-23) as Paul’s teaching about hierarchical order in the relation between men and women. Some who stand within this interpretive tradition go so far as to posit a “chain of command,” where authority is passed along: from God to Christ to man to woman. The literal “head,” as in the NIV, implicitly suggests an interpretation along the same lines because of the common understanding of “head” in English when applied to persons in relationships such as marriage or other institutions. Common phrases like “she is head of the division” or “he is the head of his family” illustrate this everyday metaphorical meaning of “head” in our language.
Apart from the question whether this common English meaning is also the common Greek meaning of “head” when used figuratively, serious issues are raised by such an interpretation. How are we to see the relation between Christ and God? If God occupies a rank superior to Christ, then we have here a revival of the ancient heresy of “subordinationism” and a challenge to the classical doctrine of the trinity.
Further, if husbands (or men; the Greek word is the same) are under the authority of Christ, and wives (or women; the same Greek word) are under the authority of husbands/men, do we then not have a situation where women stand only in indirect relation to Christ, via their husbands and by extension, all men? A conclusion is then reached by some when they understand it as a series (God - Christ - Man - Woman) as indicating a “growing distance from God,“ or a “chain of command”. The Linguistic evidence points strongly , if not overwhelmingly, away from the common English reading of head as “chief,” “ruler,” “authority over,” though there are those scholars who would challenge this.” One, the most exhaustive Greek-English Lexicons covering Greek literature from about 900 B.C. to A.D. 600, among numerous metaphorical meanings for kephale does not give a single definition to indicate that in ordinary Greek usage it included the meaning “superior rank” or “supreme over” or “leader” or “authority.”
Second, the Septuagint didn’t include the idea of “authority over” or “headship.”
Third, nowhere else in the NT is kephale used to designate a figure of authority or mastery. So, those contemporary readers of Paul’s Greek did not hear our ‘headship” concept in this word but rather the idea of “source, origins and connections.” Cyril of Alexandria, in the 4th Century, on this text wrote: “Thus we say that the kephale of every man is Christ, because he was excellently made through him. And the kephale of woman is man, because she was taken from his flesh (in the beginning). Likewise, the kephale of Christ is God, because he is from him according to nature (John 1:1, 8:42, 13:3 etc).” Thus Paul has the creation narrative of Genesis 1-2 in mind. Though it is obvious that, in a final sense, Christ/God is also the source of the woman’s life (1Cor 11:12), Paul is here considering the sequence of creation of the human species in Genesis. This is temporal, sequential thought is taking in to account Adam as the origin of Eve’s being. Behind this temporal sequence stands God who in 1 Cor8:6 says God is the source of everything. So, the passage refers to Creation and the temporal process of how things were made in that very beginning of humankind. Nothing about hierarchical dominance and authority control in this passage.
3) 1Cor 11:7 Why is man said to be the glory of God, while woman is the glory of man?
Once again Paul seems to put women on step further removed from God than men. In brief it has to do with chapters 8-10 which deal with the issue of Christian liberty in light of true knowledge, caring love and concern for living and acting in ways which “build up” others. Paul sums up this discussion with these words: “whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God” (1Cor10:31). Concerns about propriety with regard to appearance in the context of public worship are addressed first (1Cor 2-16). From 1Cor 11:4-5 we must make some deductions from Paul’s answers. We must assume that social, cultural or ritual norms were being ignored or deliberately set aside in the context of worship.
4) 1 Timothy 2:12, 1Cor 14:34: The Meaning of Women Keeping Silent
For another time but, when we consider the role of women in the first century, Jewish people were very, very clearly oriented to thinking that women were mere chattel. What's remarkable is that the empty tomb accounts would feature only females as heroes of the story. This demonstrates that the Gospel writers recorded what happened, even if they felt it culturally embarrassing. Women had no standing in court or other places regarding testimony. Is this passage a study into principle or custom? Which way do you go on this debate? Clues for 1Cor 14 are written just a few sentences before dealing with silence in 34. A few puzzle pieces for you to bring together in literary word use similarities.
5) 1Cor 10:8 Why did Paul use the number 23,000 if what he is quoting in Numbers 25:9 records 24,000? Which text is correct? How does one square this?
Bibliography: Kaiser, Davids, Bruce, Brauch, “Hard sayings of the Bible.”
GleasonArcher, “Encyclopedia of Bible difficulties.”
1 Peter 3:1-7 has at least five words that are mirroring one another and describing the same nature of activities for the Sir and the Lady.
2x hupostaso: voluntary attitude of cooperation, carry your share of the burdens, abide with, assume your responsiblity as heirs in the grace of life, submissive.
2x anastrophe: conduct, manner and way of life, treatment, behavior.
3x phobeo: veneration, to treat with deference, reverence of husband, fearful manner, respectful.
1x hagnos (1x hagios): immaculate, clean, pure of any fault, free from carnality, chaste.
teemay': precious value, respect of one's high office, honor by reason of one's high ranking, deference, reverence, value of one's worthy price, honor.
Showing posts with label women's issues. Show all posts
Showing posts with label women's issues. Show all posts
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Genesis 2:18: Ezer Kenegdo
Woman, a helpmate for man?
The phrase in Hebrew is EZER KENEGDO
Genesis 2:18 should be read as, as I see it; “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding [and equal] to man.”
The Creator regarded Adam’s situation as incomplete and deficient while he was living without 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. Two are better that one…if one falls down…
Which category bears the evidence; we know, or will know soon, what history and custom have rendered to women; but what does tradition say versus scripture: helper for domestic servitude and female inferiority, error prone, subservient, made ontologically the same but in function less capable and hence must follow, lower rank versus strong effective help, rescuer, equal and co-regency, designed for equal merit, corresponding to and in full view of each other, to bond effectively
EZER
The role of woman as 'helper' to man in Genesis 2:18 has often been taken to mean a kind of domestic servitude and female inferiority. The term 'help-mate' is a mishearing of the AV phrase, "an help meet for him" and was used in Darby's 1884 translation, "a helpmate, his like". It is NOT a subordinate term as it is also used of God in the majority of its occurrences, (e.g., Psalm 70:5; 121:1-2) "...From where comes my help? My help comes from the Lord...". The older English term "meet", meant "appropriate" or "corresponding to".) Most translations render her (women) to be a ‘helper’ by these translations. (RSB, AB, NKJV, JB, NIV, Coverdale, Message, WEB) However perplexing these modern translations appear in uniformity, the customary translation of the two words ‘ezer k-negdo as “helper fitting him” is almost certainly wrong.
The Hebrew is )zr 'ezer, as in 'eben-ezer, 'stone of help' or Ezra 'help'. The LXX, Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, uses the word bohqos boêthos (Strong's 998) to translate 'ezer. Of its 45 uses, boêthos is used 42 times to refer to help from a stronger one, from a more secure or strengthened position, without need of reciprocal help. This strengthens the idea of 'help' as equal or superior rather than inferior. The possible root behind 'ezer may have been either '-z-r "to rescue, save" (as the Ugaritic) and or 'g-z-r meaning "to be strong". The Hebrew letter ghain probably, like Arabic, having previously had two forms implying two roots that may have later got confused when just one Phoenician sign served for both letters. The use of the root verb )zr 'âzar (Strong's 5826) in the Old Testament extends to some 80 occasions, generally of military aid, help from a position of supply or strength. Although the noun is also used of military aid (e.g., Isaiah 30:5; Ezekial 12:14; Hosea 13:9), it does not always imply a victorious intervention or superior assistance. On one occasion it is paralleled with terms for salvation and support (Isaiah 63:5) in the sense of one being leant.F1 In many of the passages it is used in parallelism to words that clearly denote strength or power. Examples are Deut 33;26 and Deut 33:29 etc.
A survey of 'ezer's 20 or so uses reveals strong contexts and parallel terms for might or power, not one of service or slavery. A better and new translation: "I will make a power/strength corresponding to/equal to man." A relationship of equals. In short, it should be suggested that we translate Genesis 2:18 as “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding [and equal] to man.” F.F. Bruce says and Freedman even suggests on the basis of later Hebrew that the second word in the Hebrew expression found in the verse should be rendered ‘equal to him.’ Heightened in Genesis 2:23 where the phrase “ bone of my bones” has an idiomatic sense of “one of us” or in effect “our equal” or “corresponding sameness.”
KENEGDO
The last part of v.18 reads literally as "I will make him for him a helper as in front of him." The phrase 'as in front of him', kenegdô, occurs only here and in v.20, and suggests correspondence, with the new creation (woman) being neither inferior nor superior, but equal. The substantive, negdo, means 'that which is conspicuous, in full view of, in front of', the related noun, nagid, means a 'ruler' or 'prince', and the verb, nagad, means to 'declare, tell, expound, reveal, announce' (interesting in the light of the denial of women teachers by some) or 'go ahead'. This last one suggests 'achievement, pioneering, risk and deliberate thrust into the unknown'.
The phrase in Hebrew is EZER KENEGDO
Genesis 2:18 should be read as, as I see it; “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding [and equal] to man.”
The Creator regarded Adam’s situation as incomplete and deficient while he was living without 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. Two are better that one…if one falls down…
Which category bears the evidence; we know, or will know soon, what history and custom have rendered to women; but what does tradition say versus scripture: helper for domestic servitude and female inferiority, error prone, subservient, made ontologically the same but in function less capable and hence must follow, lower rank versus strong effective help, rescuer, equal and co-regency, designed for equal merit, corresponding to and in full view of each other, to bond effectively
EZER
The role of woman as 'helper' to man in Genesis 2:18 has often been taken to mean a kind of domestic servitude and female inferiority. The term 'help-mate' is a mishearing of the AV phrase, "an help meet for him" and was used in Darby's 1884 translation, "a helpmate, his like". It is NOT a subordinate term as it is also used of God in the majority of its occurrences, (e.g., Psalm 70:5; 121:1-2) "...From where comes my help? My help comes from the Lord...". The older English term "meet", meant "appropriate" or "corresponding to".) Most translations render her (women) to be a ‘helper’ by these translations. (RSB, AB, NKJV, JB, NIV, Coverdale, Message, WEB) However perplexing these modern translations appear in uniformity, the customary translation of the two words ‘ezer k-negdo as “helper fitting him” is almost certainly wrong.
The Hebrew is )zr 'ezer, as in 'eben-ezer, 'stone of help' or Ezra 'help'. The LXX, Greek Septuagint translation of the Old Testament, uses the word bohqos boêthos (Strong's 998) to translate 'ezer. Of its 45 uses, boêthos is used 42 times to refer to help from a stronger one, from a more secure or strengthened position, without need of reciprocal help. This strengthens the idea of 'help' as equal or superior rather than inferior. The possible root behind 'ezer may have been either '-z-r "to rescue, save" (as the Ugaritic) and or 'g-z-r meaning "to be strong". The Hebrew letter ghain probably, like Arabic, having previously had two forms implying two roots that may have later got confused when just one Phoenician sign served for both letters. The use of the root verb )zr 'âzar (Strong's 5826) in the Old Testament extends to some 80 occasions, generally of military aid, help from a position of supply or strength. Although the noun is also used of military aid (e.g., Isaiah 30:5; Ezekial 12:14; Hosea 13:9), it does not always imply a victorious intervention or superior assistance. On one occasion it is paralleled with terms for salvation and support (Isaiah 63:5) in the sense of one being leant.F1 In many of the passages it is used in parallelism to words that clearly denote strength or power. Examples are Deut 33;26 and Deut 33:29 etc.
A survey of 'ezer's 20 or so uses reveals strong contexts and parallel terms for might or power, not one of service or slavery. A better and new translation: "I will make a power/strength corresponding to/equal to man." A relationship of equals. In short, it should be suggested that we translate Genesis 2:18 as “I will make a power [or strength] corresponding [and equal] to man.” F.F. Bruce says and Freedman even suggests on the basis of later Hebrew that the second word in the Hebrew expression found in the verse should be rendered ‘equal to him.’ Heightened in Genesis 2:23 where the phrase “ bone of my bones” has an idiomatic sense of “one of us” or in effect “our equal” or “corresponding sameness.”
KENEGDO
The last part of v.18 reads literally as "I will make him for him a helper as in front of him." The phrase 'as in front of him', kenegdô, occurs only here and in v.20, and suggests correspondence, with the new creation (woman) being neither inferior nor superior, but equal. The substantive, negdo, means 'that which is conspicuous, in full view of, in front of', the related noun, nagid, means a 'ruler' or 'prince', and the verb, nagad, means to 'declare, tell, expound, reveal, announce' (interesting in the light of the denial of women teachers by some) or 'go ahead'. This last one suggests 'achievement, pioneering, risk and deliberate thrust into the unknown'.
Thus anyone attempting to use v.18 to put women down or dismiss their ministry is in danger of having the Hebrew words thrown back at them as rather suggesting woman's superiority, ability to declare, teach, expound and reveal, and to be a pioneering leader out in front! In Rabbinic Hebrew, kenegdô is translated as 'corresponding to'. Gretchen Gabelein Hull coins the helpful phrase of woman as "'completer', not his competitor."
Genesis 1:26-28 should be taken as an a priori interpreter of 2:18, as it precedes it, and both are pre-Fall statements. Here, dominion, image, and blessing are conferred upon man, but the text continues, 'let them have dominion ...', 'them' could conceivably refer to all 'male-kind' or the generic inclusive term, 'man-kind'. Since, literally speaking, only Adam and Eve then existed, and the creative blessing to 'go forth and multiply' needed to be spoken over the first couple in order to put the rest of us here on this planet, it would suggest that the 'them' referred to is Adam and Eve. Indeed 1:27-28 elucidates: "male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion ..."
Thus, as Galatians 3:28 ("there is neither male nor female, all are one in Christ") interprets the other New Testament statements of Paul, so Genesis 1:28 interprets other Old Testament statements, for Scripture must interpret Scripture.
The idea of joint dominion as joint heirs is not alien to the rest of the Bible. In the Old Testament women could inherit in the absence of male heirs, and 1 Peter 3:7 speaks of "being heirs together of the grace of life."
NT SONSHIP
Sonship, and its companion ideas of inheritance and access to God as Father, is a privilege of both men and women in Christ (cf. John 1:12; Romans 8:17; 2 Corinthians 5:17). Though the politically incorrect use of a male term to describe a male and female privilege does not deny its 'equal opportunities' application (cf. later, where bishop, elder and particularly, deacon, were male terms but could include females such as Phoebe). Further, sonship also implies the priesthood and ministry of all believers (1 Peter 2:9), male and female alike.
So we should neither make man superior nor woman inferior. She corresponds to man as left is to right, different yet equal, taken from his side, not his head nor his foot. The customs and subjugation that suggest woman is lesser and only fit for laborer 'helper' duties would have to place God as a helper and employee also. As I would not consign ‘God is my helper’ only to the kitchen and laundry sink neither is women!
PREAMBLE
The biblical case against the women having access to various authority depends primarily on three New Testament texts: 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 (veiling of women); 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (silence of women); 1 Timothy 2:11-15 (silence of women).
Opponents of women’s ordination will often point to Ephesians 5:21-33 (submission of wives to husbands) and Genesis 2 (secondary creation of women) to buttress their position, as well as to Jesus’ choice of twelve males as his most intimate disciples. Now I happen to believe that all of these biblical passages, when rightly understood, actually support the ordination of women. But I will grant that, on the surface, 1 Corinthians 12, 1 Corinthians 14, and 1 Timothy 2 appear to oppose this practice.
Yet the passages I have just mentioned are not all the Bible has to say about women in positions of authority in God’s kingdom. In fact, there are many, many passages that either portray women in positions of authority or provide theological support for this perspective. Let me mention some of the main passages:
Genesis 1:26-28 - Man and woman created in God’s image; Man and woman given the command to fill the earth and subdue it.
Genesis 2:18 - Woman is created as a “helper” for the man. Ezer, the Hebrew word for “helper,” almost always refers to a stronger person, and, in the Old Testament, usually to God.
Judges 4-5 - Deborah was a prophetess and judge of Israel, with obvious and divinely endorsed authority over Israelite men.
Luke 8:1-3 - Jesus had many women among his entourage of disciples. Women were the first at the tomb after the resurrection; and, as such, they were the first to broadcast His victory over death (Luke 23:55-24:11). Matthew, Mark, and Luke all called attention to the loyal women who participated in Jesus' Galilean ministry and followed Him all the way to the cross and the grave. They shared the greatest news: “He is not here, but has risen” (Luke 24:5 NRSV).
John 20 - The resurrected Jesus chose a woman to be the first “evangelist” who bore witness to his resurrection.
Acts 2:17-18 - In fulfillment of Joel’s prophecy, the Holy Spirit is poured out on men and women, and it is stated that women will prophesy.
Romans 16:1-2 - Phoebe is a minister (Gk. diakonos) and someone whose authority should be respected by the Roman church.
Romans 16:7 - Junia is named as a prominent apostle. (Most likely reading, in my opinion, among several options.)
1 Corinthians 7:4 - A wife has authority over her husband’s body, even as he has authority over hers.
1 Corinthians 11:5 - Women pray and prophesy in church.
Philippians 4:2-3 - Euodia and Syntyche are leaders in the Philippian church and Paul’s co-workers.
Titus 2:3 - Older women are “to teach what is good.”
Revelation 2:18-29 - The church in Thyatira accepts a woman as a prophet and a teacher. This acceptance is never criticized, only the content of her teaching.
Of course I could point to many other passages that, in my opinion, support the ministry of women beyond teaching small children in seperate rooms. And, of course, I realize that those who oppose the principle of women have their own ways of interpreting the passages I have just mentioned. But even the staunchest opponents of women’s use of their talents would have to admit that these passages, at least on the surface, suggest that God can and does use women in positions of distinct authority in his ministry, even in positions of wise complimentary authority over men.
Responsible, respectful, in the lead and with corresponding sameness.
Genesis 3:16
Was Adam with Eve when tempted and who is responsible and to be given initial blame? (Genesis 3:6)
"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." (Genesis 3:6, NKJV)
In the age-old debate of male-female blame various accusations have been leveled. Was Eve weaker? Certainly Paul describes her as the one who, unlike Adam, was deceived (2 Corinthians 11:3) and who transgressed (parabasiv parabasis Strong's #3847) first (1 Timothy 2:13-14) but elsewhere he regards sin (amartia hamartia Strong's #266) as having entered the world through one man's disobedience (Romans 5:12,19).
Many have responded to this by saying that Adam should have known better, you can't blame Eve; he was his own man he need not have eaten too; Adam should have taught Eve the commandment better - it was poor discipleship and headship.
I was recently asked the following question as the crux of the larger condition of how translations can effect the very essence of the meaning of an important event:
A friend of mine is having a lively discussion about whether or not Eve had her husband "with" her when the serpent beguiled her resulting in their eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The CONTEXT indicates that Adam was "with her" when she was being beguiled by the serpent. “...she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Genesis 3:6, KJV) My friend is saying that the punctuation indicates that he was NOT "with" her like I am supposing. I pointed out that the King James translators put the punctuation in there, and there ISN'T any punctuation in Hebrew.
The respondent is correct, there was no punctuation in the Hebrew. In fact, the New King James Version tries to make the actions even more separated by adding a period and capitalizing the new action “…and ate. She also gave…”, forming a new version of the Gap Theory, allowing eons of time between her eating and her giving to her husband later at home:
“…she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” (Genesis 3:6, NKJV)
Calvin ( whom I find a great expositor) disputed Adam's presence with Eve during this encounter: “From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible.” (Calvin, on Genesis 3:6)
Rather than not “credible” it is incredible that some would try to read obvious words so obtusely so as to excuse Adam from implication. In the original Hebrew the connecting "ands" indicate a running narrative with what has gone before and after and not a huge time delay with Eve going off to find her husband several hours afterwards. It could have said “she gave to her husband later” but doesn't.
Literally the Hebrew reads:
“…and-she-took from-its-fruit and-she-ate and-she-gave also-to-her-man with-her and-he-ate.”
Furthermore, the word "with", Hebrew )Ie ‘im, implies joint action, as indicated in its dictionary entry in the authoritative HALOT Hebrew lexicon, “communal action or action in company...”.
Backing up a bit it is interesting to note that in each of verses 1-5 of Genesis 3, whilst the conversation is between the woman and the serpent, all of the statements are “you” and “we”. One thing the King James Version did have right, irrespective of its added punctuation, was an obvious distinction between you singular and you plural. Throughout these verses it is “ye” not “thou” and so it appears the serpent was talking about both Adam and Eve, if not to both Adam and Eve.
Eve may have been deceived but she silently gave to Adam, who, without comment, ate. There is nothing to indicate that she was a “temptress” as von Rad describes her (Genesis, p.87) or full of an “impure look…, infected with the poison of concupiscence”, as Calvin commented on Genesis 3:6, or indeed that she even “persuaded her husband” (The New Bible Commentary). She simply gave, Adam took, “Hers is a sin of initiative. His is a sin of accepting and acquiescence”, says Hamilton (NICOT, Genesis 1-17, p.191). No conversation is indicated as Adam was there and had heard the whole dialogue.
It is again significant that in the following verse it is only after both have eaten that “Then the eyes of both of them were opened” (Genesis 3:7). If Adam had not been present and there had been a delay before his eating too, Eve's eyes would already have been opened to her deed, her nakedness, and her sin, and would have rushed home, fully clothed, to deceive Adam or more probably hide from her husband as well as from her God.
That Adam was there all along in his silence is indeed curious but it would seem that his presence is implied. Perhaps Adam was observing Eve listen to the serpent, they had no reason not to listen as they did not yet know evil existed, and holding back himself, but accepting for Eve to make the first move. Of course, later, he was going to be able to say, in the classic double pass-the-buck statement, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I ate” (Genesis 3:12), blaming God for giving him Eve and Eve for giving him the fruit!
In conclusion, Eve, and Adam, and therefore “Mankind” were present and in communal participation, have joint and several liability on their actions. Which is “an undertaking by a group of two or more people to be responsible, either individually or jointly, for any liability which may exist after any member or members have failed to meet their obligations”.
"So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree desirable to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate." (Genesis 3:6, NKJV)
In the age-old debate of male-female blame various accusations have been leveled. Was Eve weaker? Certainly Paul describes her as the one who, unlike Adam, was deceived (2 Corinthians 11:3) and who transgressed (parabasiv parabasis Strong's #3847) first (1 Timothy 2:13-14) but elsewhere he regards sin (amartia hamartia Strong's #266) as having entered the world through one man's disobedience (Romans 5:12,19).
Many have responded to this by saying that Adam should have known better, you can't blame Eve; he was his own man he need not have eaten too; Adam should have taught Eve the commandment better - it was poor discipleship and headship.
I was recently asked the following question as the crux of the larger condition of how translations can effect the very essence of the meaning of an important event:
A friend of mine is having a lively discussion about whether or not Eve had her husband "with" her when the serpent beguiled her resulting in their eating the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. The CONTEXT indicates that Adam was "with her" when she was being beguiled by the serpent. “...she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.” (Genesis 3:6, KJV) My friend is saying that the punctuation indicates that he was NOT "with" her like I am supposing. I pointed out that the King James translators put the punctuation in there, and there ISN'T any punctuation in Hebrew.
The respondent is correct, there was no punctuation in the Hebrew. In fact, the New King James Version tries to make the actions even more separated by adding a period and capitalizing the new action “…and ate. She also gave…”, forming a new version of the Gap Theory, allowing eons of time between her eating and her giving to her husband later at home:
“…she took of its fruit and ate. She also gave to her husband with her, and he ate.” (Genesis 3:6, NKJV)
Calvin ( whom I find a great expositor) disputed Adam's presence with Eve during this encounter: “From these words, some conjecture that Adam was present when his wife was tempted and persuaded by the serpent, which is by no means credible.” (Calvin, on Genesis 3:6)
Rather than not “credible” it is incredible that some would try to read obvious words so obtusely so as to excuse Adam from implication. In the original Hebrew the connecting "ands" indicate a running narrative with what has gone before and after and not a huge time delay with Eve going off to find her husband several hours afterwards. It could have said “she gave to her husband later” but doesn't.
Literally the Hebrew reads:
“…and-she-took from-its-fruit and-she-ate and-she-gave also-to-her-man with-her and-he-ate.”
Furthermore, the word "with", Hebrew )Ie ‘im, implies joint action, as indicated in its dictionary entry in the authoritative HALOT Hebrew lexicon, “communal action or action in company...”.
Backing up a bit it is interesting to note that in each of verses 1-5 of Genesis 3, whilst the conversation is between the woman and the serpent, all of the statements are “you” and “we”. One thing the King James Version did have right, irrespective of its added punctuation, was an obvious distinction between you singular and you plural. Throughout these verses it is “ye” not “thou” and so it appears the serpent was talking about both Adam and Eve, if not to both Adam and Eve.
Eve may have been deceived but she silently gave to Adam, who, without comment, ate. There is nothing to indicate that she was a “temptress” as von Rad describes her (Genesis, p.87) or full of an “impure look…, infected with the poison of concupiscence”, as Calvin commented on Genesis 3:6, or indeed that she even “persuaded her husband” (The New Bible Commentary). She simply gave, Adam took, “Hers is a sin of initiative. His is a sin of accepting and acquiescence”, says Hamilton (NICOT, Genesis 1-17, p.191). No conversation is indicated as Adam was there and had heard the whole dialogue.
It is again significant that in the following verse it is only after both have eaten that “Then the eyes of both of them were opened” (Genesis 3:7). If Adam had not been present and there had been a delay before his eating too, Eve's eyes would already have been opened to her deed, her nakedness, and her sin, and would have rushed home, fully clothed, to deceive Adam or more probably hide from her husband as well as from her God.
That Adam was there all along in his silence is indeed curious but it would seem that his presence is implied. Perhaps Adam was observing Eve listen to the serpent, they had no reason not to listen as they did not yet know evil existed, and holding back himself, but accepting for Eve to make the first move. Of course, later, he was going to be able to say, in the classic double pass-the-buck statement, “The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me of the tree and I ate” (Genesis 3:12), blaming God for giving him Eve and Eve for giving him the fruit!
In conclusion, Eve, and Adam, and therefore “Mankind” were present and in communal participation, have joint and several liability on their actions. Which is “an undertaking by a group of two or more people to be responsible, either individually or jointly, for any liability which may exist after any member or members have failed to meet their obligations”.
Saturday, August 1, 2009
Women's issues
In Titus 2, Paul instructs the elder women to teach the young women to be “keepers at home”. What does this mean? The Greek word translated “keepers at home” (KJV) or “homemakers” (NKJV) is oikouros. This compound word is from oikos- house, household, family; and ouros- a guard, guardian, a watcher, a warden. Let this thought sink in for a moment: the word “oikouros” translated “keepers at home” carries the meaning of “watching the house, of a watchdog” {source}
The commission to “keep” was first given by God to Adam in Genesis 2:15: “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it.” In this case, we are looking at the Old Testament and a Hebrew word. The Hebrew word in Gen 2:15 (Adam’s assignment) is shamar, translated as keep , observe, heed, preserve, beware, watchman, wait, watch, regard, save. The next occurrence of the word shamar is in Genesis 3:24 where “Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life.”
Can you see similarity in meaning of the Hebrew word shamar translated “keep” and the Greek word “ouros” translated “keeper”? The “keep” commission of Gen 2:15 and Titus 2:5 are about protecting, watching, guarding.
From what danger do you suppose Adam was supposed to “keep” the garden? (Remember, he was given this assignment before the fall: before thorns, weeds.) Is this “keep” directed to Adam a mere calling to domestic servitude as a gardener? The Titus 2 admonition to be “keepers at home” is no more a reference to domestic servitude than was God’s "KEEP" commission to Adam.
Fulfilling God’s commission to “keep” is a way in which male and female reflect the image of God who is referred to in scripture by a Greek word which means “keep above all”.
1 Peter 1:5 in several versions:
“Who are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” KJV
“who, in the power of God are being guarded, through faith, unto salvation, ready to be revealed in the last time” YLT
“who through faith are shielded by God's power until the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed in the last time.” NIV
“who are protected by the power of God through faith for a salvation ready to be revealed in the last time.” NAS
The Greek word for each of the highlighted translations above is a conjugation of phroureo: oureo=watcher/keeper ; phr= before; above
Head and absolute ruler of Household
The reader may question a wife’s authority to “KEEP the home” in the sense expressed above. My understanding of a wife’s authority was revolutionized by understanding the meaning of one Greek word in Scripture. Katherine Bushnell lifts the veil on the well-kept secret. Quoted from paragraph 368-369 of Lesson 48:
Men often talk of the father and husband as the “final authority” in the home. What says St. Paul on the point? The Greek word for “despot” (despotes) furnishes us with our English word. Its meaning is precisely the same in Greek as it is in English. It means an absolute and arbitrary ruler, from whom there can be no appeal. It was the title slaves were required to use in addressing the master who owned them as property. Please read all the passages in which this Greek word despotes occurs. It is rendered “Master” in the following places: 1 Timothy 6:1-2; 2 Timothy 2:21; Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18; “Lord” in Luke 2:29; Acts 4:24; 2 Peter 2:1; Jude 4; and Revelation 6:10.
Oikos is a very ordinary word in Greek, meaning “house.” These two words, oikos and despotes, unite to form the word oikodespotes, which, as you can see, means “master of the house,” and it is so rendered, Matthew 10:25; Luke 13:25 and 14:21. Now the Apostle Paul makes use of a verb corresponding to this noun oikodespotes, namely, “to master the house,”oikodespotein. He says, 1 Timothy 5:14, “I will that the younger women marry, bear children, oikodespotein, give none occasion to the adversary to speak outrageously.” After the analysis of this word, we can all see how it should have been translated. The A. V., however, translates, “guide the house” the R. V., with a little more justice translates, “rule the household.” Now whom, if anyone, does St. Paul make the “final authority in the home?” The woman. But, and to extend beyond this, we believe that Paul would teach that God alone is final authority in a Christian home when the whole of God's Word is layed open to all the nuance and different settings of men and women.
A visit to the online Greek lexicon resource of Tufts University will confirm the definitions exposed by Bushnell some 100 years ago in God's Word to Women: oikodespot-eô and oikodespoteō from 1 Tim 5:14 to be master of a house or head of a family, to rule the household.
taken in part from Charis R. Hart
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Women's issues
Macall,
Thanks for calling yesterday. I like it when you do things like that.
I've been thinking about that subject that must always come up when one has a score in which your opponent gets two sets before you. Here are a couple of my thoughts that I would like to contrast between your mother and me. You can correct me if she doesn't use this term.
So here goes:
1. Where your mom says that, you have to love yourself more - and immediately at that. While I say, that self-respect (maybe synonymous with love) is built up over periods of time. Sometimes a lifetime. I'll give you an ancient but relevant example. I think it a problem that more women of today can't get their hands around the antiquity of Sarah and not find the modern relevance of this women from Ur. (Bad analysis, thinking and a lack of savvy, I suspect.)
That is enough to see that you don't necessarily get born with it. It comes as a result of activity, which you are pursuing, that will make it clear that you must go from point A (what you possess now) to point B ( more confidence than you had at point A). That is called development.
When you get to that part of the match where these activities of the mind make your muscles twitch with nervous energy, you will - little by little - learn what to do, or cease to do, better than the last. But never with perfect success.
I know this a bit archaic but Sarah is miscontrued most of time and I would like you to understand her not for what men say she is, but for who she really is.
I cannot know if this will help or not, but it helps me to know that just being told to think a certain way is not all there is to it. (Next time I will state why there is no 'law of attraction' and you don't get something by thinking a certain way.)
I'll leave it there for now,
Dad
Thanks for calling yesterday. I like it when you do things like that.
I've been thinking about that subject that must always come up when one has a score in which your opponent gets two sets before you. Here are a couple of my thoughts that I would like to contrast between your mother and me. You can correct me if she doesn't use this term.
So here goes:
1. Where your mom says that, you have to love yourself more - and immediately at that. While I say, that self-respect (maybe synonymous with love) is built up over periods of time. Sometimes a lifetime. I'll give you an ancient but relevant example. I think it a problem that more women of today can't get their hands around the antiquity of Sarah and not find the modern relevance of this women from Ur. (Bad analysis, thinking and a lack of savvy, I suspect.)
Here is a short snippet:
528. … Before ever he [Abraham] obeyed God, and left his own kindred with Sarah, he put her under bonds to represent herself as merely his sister, to save his own life from all risk (Genesis 12:13)…
529. Sarah, at this period, lacked self-respect; and Abraham had insufficient respect for her.…
530. Sarah ought not to have agreed to such an arrangement with Abraham, and she would not have done it later in life,¾if we read her character aright, in its unfolding. But not knowing any better, God protected her,
537. The legal requirements of King Hammurabi which Sarah obeyed… Par. 144 says: “He shall not take a concubine” if his wife “has given a maid to her husband;” and Par. 146 says, if “she has given a maid to her husband and she has borne him children [and] that maid has made [should make] herself equal with her mistress,” the mistress may reduce her to servitude again, but may not sell her. This is surely wonderful confirmation that Sarah’s treatment of this whole matter, up to the time of Isaac’s weaning, was precisely in accord with the legal provisions and customs by which the country was governed. But when Isaac was weaned, she took another course, and God, by express revelation to Abraham, confirmed her new departure as in the line of His will.
538. It is worthwhile for us to pause long enough to call attention to these very unjust and humiliating laws, as relates to women, engraven on that stone which records the Code of Hammurabi, …
539. Sarah did go through the form of asking Abraham to bear a son by Hagar, but the act should be judged by the fact that a man had legal right to divorce a childless wife, and she was now past seventy-five years of age. That Sarah had had reason to fear divorcement seems certain, because when Hagar became arrogant in her treatment of Sarah, the latter accuses Abraham of being himself to blame for Hagar’s conduct, in the words: “My wrong be upon thee.” The Septuagint gives the idea conveyed by the words as, “I am wronged by thee.” Sarah is opening her eyes in new self-respect; she tells Abraham he had no right to have ever brought Hagar the price of her humiliation into the family; and then to have so conducted himself as to have created in her the fear of being divorced, through no fault of her own, but merely because she had not fulfilled for him the promises of God, that he should have a son. This is what we understand by her expression, and she adds: “The Lord judge between me and thee,” declaring her confidence that her position was just in God’s sight.
540. And Abraham yielded, which he would not have done so readily had he not felt she was right.
545. God cannot always elect, that is, select persons who are ideal, for they cannot be found. He takes faulty ones, but those capable of development. Such was the condition in which he found Abraham and Sarah. It is simply ludicrous to read some of the attempts that have been made by blundering expositors to explain away all the wrong things Abraham did: “Abraham’s venture was not from laxity as to the sanctity of marriage, or as to his duty to protect his wife: it was from a presumptuous confidence in the wonderful assistance of God,”thus speaks Lange’s Commentary. Such men, in their strained efforts to make Abraham appear ideal from the day God called him, leave no place for that most valuable and much-needed lesson, as to the wonderful transformation of character which the grace of God can bring about in the faultiest person who will submit to God’s authority, as Abraham began to do when he left his home in Chaldea.
546. The character of Abraham changed greatly under the moulding influence of divine grace, but we will not occupy the space to describe this transformation, for the reason that, as women, we are more interested in the character of Sarah, who, we hold, has been greatly belittled by the same commentators who will not admit that Abraham ever had many faults. Her character underwent a transformation quite as wonderful as Abraham’s. Think what she was, as the servile female who went, apparently without protest, into the harems of Pharaoh and Abimelech, not knowing that she could ever come out undefiled; accepting polygamy weakly, if not happily. Like almost any Oriental woman of today, her husband’s wish seemed as law, even when it bade her do that which was immoral, and which she may have utterly detested to do. She makes no complaint, but obeys.
547. Now study her character a little later, when she wakes up to resent the way she had been treated by Abraham in the matter of Hagar. She accuses Abraham as in the wrong, and appeals to God to judge between them. There were reasons why she might have been very cowardly at this moment, for Hagar was in the ascendancy just then, and was making the most of her position. Sarah might have reasoned: “I must not offend Abraham now, while Hagar seems so much more in his favor because of the boy.” Doubtless Hagar counted on such a compromise. But Sarah was courageous, and met the situation boldly, calling upon Abraham to defend her in refusing Hagar the right to be a concubine, or a second wife, in the family, for Sarah had yielded to the provisions of Hammurabi’s Code on purpose to prevent this.
That is enough to see that you don't necessarily get born with it. It comes as a result of activity, which you are pursuing, that will make it clear that you must go from point A (what you possess now) to point B ( more confidence than you had at point A). That is called development.
When you get to that part of the match where these activities of the mind make your muscles twitch with nervous energy, you will - little by little - learn what to do, or cease to do, better than the last. But never with perfect success.
I know this a bit archaic but Sarah is miscontrued most of time and I would like you to understand her not for what men say she is, but for who she really is.
I cannot know if this will help or not, but it helps me to know that just being told to think a certain way is not all there is to it. (Next time I will state why there is no 'law of attraction' and you don't get something by thinking a certain way.)
I'll leave it there for now,
Dad
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)