![\"Michelangelo](\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/40\/2015\/04\/Michelangelo-Creation-of-Eve.jpg\")
<\/a>Genesis 2 provides a creation account both distinct from an complementary to the creation account of Genesis 1. In both accounts the culmination of creation is human beings, male and female, placed in God\u2019s sacred space to be his image \u2013 a royal priesthood tending his garden. There are many aspects of Genesis 2 that could be used to shape this post. The difference in the order of creation and the impact this should have on our understanding of the creation accounts in scripture.\u00a0 The importance of the garden as a royal space next to the king\u2019s palace. The significance of the named rivers and the trees.\u00a0 These are all important and have all come up in posts in the past.\u00a0 Today, however, I would like to focus on man and woman, male and female.<\/p>\nAll three of the commentaries shaping this series on Genesis (Tremper Longman III,\u00a0 Genesis<\/a><\/strong><\/em> in the Story of God Bible Commentary, John Walton, The NIV Application Commentary Genesis<\/a><\/em><\/strong> and Bill Arnold, Genesis (New Cambridge Bible Commentary)<\/a><\/strong><\/em>) comment explicitly on the nature of humankind as male and female and its significance in the creation account. The first point, on which all three authors would agree, we need to avoid reading modern questions and answers back into Genesis 2, expecting it to address questions that were not important to an ancient audience. Our current questions about complementarian or egalitarian relationships, and more significantly about women in ministry, simply weren\u2019t the burning questions for the original author or audience. Genesis 2 has much to say about the partnership between a man and a woman, but little to say about the other issues.<\/p>\n First, the text:<\/p>\n Genesis 1:26-28 notes the creation of humankind with a purpose and a mission. There is no distinction, just a recognition of male and female. \u201cSo God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.<\/em>\u201c<\/p>\n Genesis 2 goes into more detail about the relationship between male and female.<\/p>\n The Lord God said, \u201cIt is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n \u2026<\/em><\/p>\n But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man\u2019s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, \u201cThis is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called \u2018woman,\u2019 for she was taken out of man.\u201d <\/em>That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh. (v. 18-24)<\/em><\/p>\n The word play in English woman from man is also present in the Hebrew, the ishshah<\/em> was taken out of the ish<\/em>. The point is that the women belongs to the same category as the man \u2013 they are human beings. Much has been made of the word translated \u201chelper\u201d in v. 18 and 20. The NRSV translates suitable helper as \u201ca helper as his partner.\u201d\u00a0 The intent is not to establish a hierarchy but to establish a partnership.\u00a0 Arnold, Longman, and Walton all agree on this point.<\/p>\n Bill Arnold comments:<\/p>\n The phrase itself, \u201ca helper as his\u00a0 partner\u201d occurs only here in the Bible. The compound preposition k\u0115negd\u00f4<\/em> implies complementarity (hence the NRSV\u2019s \u201cas his partner\u201d), so the need is for someone \u201ccorresponding to him\u201d as his counterpart. While in English the term, \u201chelper\u201d may imply subordinate or inferior rank, this is not the case in Hebrew. Various uses of the verb \u2018zr, <\/em>\u201chelp, support\u201d refer to God\u2019s help for humans or of military help, and the noun \u2018\u0113zer<\/em>, \u201chelp(er)\u201d can likewise be used of God. In such cases there is no hint of inferiority or subservience. \u2026 Indeed, this story of human origins may be related to the lives of ordinary women in the highland villages of early Israel, whose societal and household roles may be reconstructed on the basis of archaeological and anthropological parallels. Prior to the monarchy, the subsistence work of families required the interdependence of men and women to perform the tasks facing families, such as clearing the rocky land for agriculture and producing children to help with the farming. At this early stage of Israelite thought, egalitarian views of the roles of men and women were God-given and unquestioned. (p. 60)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Tremper Longman makes a similar point on the word ezer<\/em>.<\/p>\n Some people believe that a \u201chelper\u201d implies subordination, but nothing could be further from the truth. The Hebrew word \u201chelper\u201d (ezer<\/em>) is not equivalent to the English word \u201cvalet.\u201d How do we know this? The psalms frequently refer to God as Israel\u2019s helper (Pss 33:30, 89:18-19; see also Deut. 33:39), and, of course, God is not Israel\u2019s valet. In military contexts, the word ezer<\/em> is translated \u201cally.\u201d Indeed, since we will see that there are threats to the garden (the serpent), ally may work for this context as well. This ally is \u201csuitable to\u201d or \u201ccorresponding to\u201d him. The emphasis is on equality throughout the description of the woman in Genesis 2. (p. 50)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n John Walton digs into the Hebrew a bit more completely in his commentary and in doing so gives more appreciation for the difficulties inherent in translating an ancient text in a \u201cdead\u201d language. However, he comes to a similar conclusion. Walton points out that Adam finding companionship with a woman runs counter to trends in Mesopotamian literature. In the Gilgamesh Epic, Enkidu find animal companionship satisfactory until he is seduced by a prostitute. How different the picture in Genesis 2!\u00a0 With respect to \u201ca helper suitable for him\u201d Walton points out that \u201cnothing suggests a subservient status of the one helping; in fact the opposite is more likely. Certainly \u201chelper\u201d cannot be understood as the opposite\/complement of \u201cleader.\u201d\u201d<\/em> (p. 176) His reasons are similar to those provided by Arnold and Longman. Elsewhere the word is used with God as the subject or in the context of military alliances. Concerning the phrase translated in the NIV as \u201ca helper suitable for him,\u201d Walton concludes \u201cI would choose a translation such as \u201cpartner\u201d or \u201ccounterpart.\u201d The former better reflects the \u201chelper\u201d part of the combination, while the latter better reflects the compound word. If we could make up words, \u201ccounterpartner\u201d would be a great one.<\/em>\u201d (p. 177)<\/p>\n Others have suggested that in the Genesis 2 story, the original man was not male, but simply human, an earthling. Male and female are two parts of one whole. Iain Provan in Seriously Dangerous Religion<\/a><\/em> notes \u201cThe special place of human beings in the cosmos is in this way underscored. Only another image bearer will suffice as a partner for \u2019adam\u2026. And so the earthling is divided and becomes male and female.<\/em>\u201d (p. 89)<\/p>\n\n
\n