'Ezer, again...

(Note: Here's another contribution from Andy Halsey.)

This argument keeps coming up from feminists and would-be non feminists who just can't seem to shake their modern anti-help bias. The argument, if I've got it right, is this:

1. God is an 'ezer when he delivers Israel from military occupation, when he fights for them and delivers them from their enemies.

1a. This is the predominant use of the word in the Old Testament

1b. It follows, then, that this must be the central meaning of the word in all of Hebrew usage.

2. God is a superior being to man.

3. Therefore every other 'ezer must be a strong military figure and be at least the equal of the one receiving help from the 'ezer.

Okay you logicians, have at it. Where are the holes here?

First, 1b doesn't follow from 1a. This is why word studies can so easily go awry--word meanings should not be established based on the words' use in only one type of literature (in this case, the canon of the Old Testament). God's help in the Old Testament necessarily means help against foreign oppressors He Himself usually sent to oppress them in the first place (so I guess 'ezers always deliver people from traps the 'ezer has set?).

Hence to David, this was the kind of help that inspired him to write his Psalms--he was a man of bloodshed so he wrote about military intervention.

Second, 3 should read "Every 'ezer is a strong military figure and is always superior to the one receiving the help." This would be a more honest interpretation of the facts gathered by Mrs. James during her all-night word study (as reported on her website). Therefore what anyone who follows her logic should say is that man is to be subject to woman.

But the Bible says, "Husbands live with your wives in an understanding way, as with someone weaker, since she is a woman; and show her honor as a fellow heir of the grace of life, so that your prayers will not be hindered" (1Peter 3:7).

So I am supposed to treat my warrior as though she were someone weaker than I? "Go easy on your bodyguard now?" I don't get it.

The Bible says, "For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman's sake, but woman for the man's sake. Therefore the woman ought to have authority on her head, because of the angels" (1Corinthians 11:8-10). I have no idea what Paul is talking about with his reference to the angels. But one thing is clear: What applies to God as 'ezer, namely, that He made us for Himself, by no means transfers to woman as 'ezer since she was made for man. And Paul's main concern is that women are to live in such a way as makes clear they are under the authority of their husbands.

He does go on to say that neither man nor woman is independent of each other but the point about authority stands. And this is the application of his point that "Christ is the head of every man and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ" (11:3).

It seems to me the only reason to argue for the "warrior" interpretation is the feeling that to be a mere "helper" is to be wasted and insignificant. But woe to those who call evil good and good evil. Should we tolerate that language about "JUST being a helper"? Shouldn't the more knowledgable women help the younger women gladly embrace what God declared to be "very good"?

Why is Rambo now the preferred role model for Christian women--instead of Ruth or the virtuous/valiant woman of Proverbs 31?