So I was sitting in my hebrew reading class, which I must say has been quite smashing and has led to many insights from many different people. This one I credit to the professor, Dr. Stone, who pointed out that the nature of the the second creation story in Genesis climaxes at man and women seeing each other (naked, of course), were not ashamed (which in their context meant that there was honor and comfort in doing what came next).
It’s funny how God says that it isn’t good for man to be alone. Good here is not some sort of moral/ethical good. It’s not like everything was perfect to the point of not needing to progress and grow. The good that God creates has more of a connotation of being good in the sense that pleases. That is funny that such an aesthetic, pleasure oriented word is applied to the creating of Adam’s counter human. Not even the animals met the expectation of man. So God knocks him out and makes woman out of Him. I keep thinking that if it had been an animal, then that would be a case where man would be over his partner.
But this is NOT the case.
Woman is “bone of his bone and flesh of his flesh.”
Some will tell me that I am wrong and that the word is actually the word helper or helpmate, which implies one under, and I return with the response you’re wrong. The Hebrew word is no longer recognized as meaning that (unless you use the old King James Version, who’s texts are not as reliable as the ones we have now).
The subjecting of women, according to the hebrew, happens in the curse, in which woman is told (in my own translation) “you will ravenously desire your husband, but he will rule over you,” which means, not matter how bad you want to be equal or over him, you will be under him.
In this case, I would like to point out that Romans paints a beautiful picture for those under Adam and those under Christ. Those under Adam are definitely under sin and possibly under the Law of Moses (according to Paul). But those under Christ are free.
If this is the case…
are women still under man?
And to those who want to begin saying that Paul states that Women should not lead, you will need to talk to me personally for a lesson in how Paul might be using rhetoric. I am not saying my explanation is without holes, but I am saying that my approach is trying to take scripture seriously, at least compared to someone just simply reading the text with no attempt to explain why.
I hope you enjoyed reading.
Grace and peace to you all.