Contradiction # 1: Ezer
Ortlund, Grudem, and Frame disagree as to the meaning of the word "ezer" (help) found in Genesis 2.
Find it in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood
Ortlund: p 104
Grudem: p 87
Frame: p 227, Footnote 19, p 507
Ortlund recognizes that
his theology has an error – the clear contradiction between Genesis 1 and 2 –
and he tries to correct it by resorting to a paradox, but it is a perilous
path, as philosopher Manuel Velasquez points out, “Once a single contradiction
is allowed, it is easy to prove with rigorous logic that any statement
whatsoever is true. That is anything can be proven once you accept a
contradiction.”[1]
Accordingly, Ortlund and Grudem give two entirely different and contradictory
meanings to ‘ezer (“help”) which are both considered true.
Ortlund
It
is the word “helper” that suggests the woman’s supportive role. Spencer argues,
however, that this description of Eve “does not at all imply inherent
subordination.” She adduces the fact that God Himself is portrayed in Scripture
as our “Helper,” which He is. She then interprets this fact: “If being ‘one who helps’ inherently implies
subordination, then, in that case, God would be subordinate to human!” This
reasoning is not really fallacious. The fallacy lies in the implication of what
she says, namely, that God cannot be subordinate to human beings. He does so
whenever He undertakes to help us. He does not “un-God” Himself in helping us;
but stoops down to our needs, according to His gracious and sovereign will.
Similarly, I subordinate myself to my children when I help them with their
homework. … So it is with God. When He helps His people, He retains His
glorious deity but (amazingly!) steps into the servant role, under us, to lift
us up. He is the God who emptied Himself and came down to our level – below us,
to the level of slavery – to help us supremely at the Cross. Therefore, the fact that the Old Testament
portrays God as our Helper proves only that the helper role is a glorious one,
worthy even the Almighty. This Biblical fact does not prove that the
concept of helper excludes subordination. Subordination is entailed in the very
nature of a helping role.”[2]
Grudem
It
is true that God is often called our “helper,” but the word itself does not imply anything about rank or authority. The
context must decide whether Eve is to “help” as a strong person who aids a
weaker one, or as one who assists a loving leader. The context makes it very unlikely that helper should be read
on the analogy of God’s help, because in Genesis 2:19-20 Adam is caused to
seek his “helper” first among the animals. … Yet in passing through “helpful”
animals to woman, God teaches us that the woman is a man’s “helper” in the sense
of a loyal and suitable assistant in the life of the garden. The question seems
to assume that because the word (like helper) has certain connotations
(“Godlikeness”) in some places it must have them in every place.[3]
What becomes clear from the
above quotes is that the analogy of God and woman can be used if it proves that
the woman is subordinate, but not if it makes the woman superior to the man.
Not surprisingly, Ortlund and Grudem never propose that the word ‘ezer means that the woman is an equal,
for it would destroy their concept of male headship. Instead they focus on
refuting a scenario in which the woman is the stronger and the man the weaker,
which they perhaps expected to create an instant negative response as seen in
Ortlund’s response to Spencer’s comment on Genesis 2. Ortlund expresses
indignation that she would even suggest that the “helper” could be superior to
Adam.[4]
But however indignant Ortlund is, his own argument makes the woman superior,
since he compares her to God who stoops
down to help us and to a parent who comes down to the child’s level. If God subordinates Himself, He must be under human
authority, for subordination signifies occupying a lower position in a
hierarchy. Tertullian refuted such a belief in already the third century when
he wrote, “[Y]our divinity is put in subjection to Christians; and you can
surely never ascribe deity to that which is under the authority of man.”[5]
Thus God does in fact “un-God” Himself if He subordinates Himself to human
beings.[6]
[1] Ibid., 405.
[2] Piper and Grudem, 104.
[3] Ibid., 87.
[4] Ibid., 103.
[5] The Apology,
Ch. XXIII.
[6] John M. Frame, on the other hand cannot decide whether
the word help implies subordination
or not in his essay Men and Women in the
Image of God. He writes, “Humans beings are to help God (1:28); woman is to
help man (2:20),” (Recovering, 227) and he believes “the very submission of the
woman also images God. God the Lord is not too proud to be our “helper.” (230) But
suddenly and somewhat inexplicably he agrees with those “who say that ‘helper’
does not in itself connote any subordination,” for although God is the helper
of Israel He was not created
for Israel
as the woman was for the man (Footnote 19, 507). Frame does not explain how the
woman’s submission can image God’s if God does not submit.
