Women have struggled throughout history to understand what womanhood means. The struggle doesn’t dissipate for Christian women. In fact, the struggle may actually heighten for God’s daughters as they attempt to align their lives to the measure of Scripture. Author Carolyn Custis James tackles this struggle head-on in her book Half the Church: Recapturing God’s Global Vision for Women.

Here in the third of a four-post review (also see Part 1 and Part 2), I want to highlight how James unpacks the concept of womanhood. As with most polarizing discussions, people find comfort when everyone runs to the corner of belief that best defines their position. That makes it easier to stereotype and label rather than discuss and grow. James calls us to come out from our corners and have a chat.

In seeking to understand God’s intent for women, James leads us to common ground. Square one is found in the creation account, where we see how God defined Eve (and therefore, all women who would come after her): “Then the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him’ ” (Gen. 2:18).

Ah, helper. The mere mention of the word scatters us to our corners where we cling to what we think we know. Yet, the debate continues, even among the most respected theologians and thinkers. James asks us to stay on square one a bit longer to reconsider that word helper, which is ezer in Hebrew. That Hebrew word holds a treasure for us, if we will stay long enough to consider it:

Long before I started digging, scholars tallied up the twenty-one times ezer appears in the Old Testament: twice in Genesis for the woman (Genesis 2:18, 20), three times for nations to whom Israel appealed for military aid (Isaiah 30:5; Ezekiel 12:14; Daniel 11:34), and here’s the kicker—sixteen times for God as Israel’s helper (Exodus 18:4; Deuteronomy 33:7, 26, 29; Psalms 20:2; 33:20; 70:5; 89:19 [translated “strength” in the NIV]; 115:9, 10, 11; 121:1–2; 124:8; 146:5; Hosea 13:9).

James is telling us that ezer is used to describe: (1) women, (2) nations that will rise up to protect Israel through military aid, and (3) God as Israel’s helper in trouble. That’s quite a trio! My first reaction was to play that game Which-One-of-These-Things-Is-Not-Like-the-Others—and women would be my pick. Nations offering Israel military protection and God rising up on behalf of Israel? Yes, those go together. But how do women fit with them? I certainly don’t think of myself in this way.

But just because women don’t see themselves as ezers, and just because men don’t see women as ezers, that doesn’t undo God’s intent. God created Eve and called her an ezer, made to partner with Adam in ruling the earth. James contends, “Putting the facts together, isn’t it obvious that the ezer is a warrior?”

The facts may stand, but I, for one, have never considered myself a warrior, physically or otherwise. Over the years, I’ve bounced many synonyms about for the word helper. Never has warrior been among them. This definition gives Genesis 2:18 a whole new meaning: “I will make him a [warrior] fit for him.” Maybe warrior is no less confusing than helper, but James believes this word is large enough to house the essence of God’s passionate, protecting love that seeks to rescue the poor, defend and redeem the oppressed, pity the weak and needy, and protect people from violence (Ps. 72:12–14).

To be honest, I have no clue what it means to be a warrior. That’s why I appreciate how James instructs us to walk out our identity as God’s warrior daughters. She urges us “to fortify ourselves for the daunting mission God has given us” by being strong in the Lord, for “the ezer-warrior’s first line of defense and . . . primary source of strength is her theology—what she knows about God.” If I am to reflect Him to the world, I must know Him and His heart. I must dig deep into the Word and let it change me, correct me, soften me, and heal me, so that I will be a vessel God can use to bring healing to the nations. Then I will echo the cry of Mary’s heart when she learned of her role in God’s redemptive plan: “Behold, I am the servant of the Lord” (Luke 1:38). That’s the heart of a warrior made in her Father’s image, and that’s the sort of daughter I want to be.

Avatar for Erin Straza

Erin Straza

Erin Straza (CAPC partnerships manager and Persuasion podcast host) is a donor communications strategist for nonprofits. Her first book is titled Comfort Detox: Finding Freedom from Habits That Bind You (InterVarsity Press, 2017); she writes from the Illinois flatlands where she lives with her husband, Mike.
WWW Twitter

9 Comments

  1. The challenge for me, besides not being a woman, is how image of a warrior seems like such an ill fit for Jesus. I suppose you could see Jesus in this light as one who destroys, but I struggle to see Jesus waging war the way our culture defines it. If Jesus is God in the Flesh and the clearest revelation of God we have seen, it seems to point towards a Christcentric definition of manhood and womanhood.

    Reply

  2. Michael > Wow, I’m glad you commented on that warrior perspective because I was seeing warrior more so as a heart-stance. When I think of Jesus rushing to my aid, I’m always thinking of Him as loving Father who tends to my heart and soul even when all the world may come against me and tear me to shreds. Jesus was warrior in terms of rescuing me from sin and self—He stopped at nothing, giving up His very life. That’s the sort of warrior I was thinking of, and that’s why I referred to Psalm 72. I am to follow in the Lord’s steps, warring against the brokenness of this world—but the war is carried out as He did it: with the laying down of my very life.

    Reply

  3. Two thoughts.

    First, in pop culture, I’m not sure warrior is understood that way. A warrior dominates through aggression and violence. Even if the warrior suffers along the way, they are ultimately vindicated through the use of physical violence over the enemy. It’s the part of most every action film that we love. The bad guy gets what’s coming to them and the good guy walks away limping, but ultimately ok. It’s why we cheer when people like Osama bin Laden get killed. The myth of redemptive violence (the narrative that good can come from perpetrating violence) is part of the American ethos.

    This gets mixed up with religion in general, and Christianity in particular (because Christianity is the dominant religion in America). A great example is the Republican race for the nomination for President. 4 candidates out of the 7 remaining claim to be people that practice the Christian faith and that God told them to run for President (Perry, Cain, Bachman and Santorum). Yet, they all have to be pro-military and pro-defence. They also have to take a hard stance on immigration in a way that seems to give them permission to talk about undocumented immigrants as less than fully human (take Cain’s ‘joke’ about undocumented immigrants and death by electric fence).

    Ultimately, I think you are right in saying that Jesus was not passive. He fought the system of sin and death which took concrete form in the violence of the cross. Yet he did not fight as the world fights. Even though he could have easily won a military victory over Rome, or any other power, he choose not to. He choose to absorb the violence into himself returning good for evil. In that sense, Jesus was a true warrior. He refused to do to others what they were doing to him and he forgave them as they did it. Do you think that vision of being a warrior would fly in our culture?

    Which leads to my second thought. The only way we can embrace the cultural myth of redemptive violence and try to make it compatible with the way of Jesus, is to spiritualize Jesus’ teaching. People say Jesus wasn’t battling concrete nails and swords and hammers that would pierce his flesh, or the violent Roman Empire that enforced the Pax Roma through cruelty, violence and fear. Jesus was battling sin (like being gay or watching porn or drinking too much or getting divorced). People say that when he called his followers to deny themselves, take up their cross and follow him, he wasn’t calling them to give their very lives, as he did, in direct non-violent action against the powers. They say he was telling them not to be self-centered and not to let psycho/social problems bring you down or keep you from having faith.

    The problem is, His disciples would almost certainly not have understood Jesus that way. They literally thought they were going to die. That’s why Peter denied Jesus three times. He didn’t want to actually die. Yet, eventually, they all did. They followed the way of Jesus and the powers killed them. The powers are still doing it today all around the world including our own government. If every person was willing to do what Jesus did and unwilling to do what the Roman soldiers did, the world would be radically different. If only Christians were willing to do what Jesus did, the world would be radically different.

    Which, to come full circle, impacts how we see our essential role as men and woman made in the image of God (or, in the Greek, eikons, or image bearers). What did God have in mind for Adam and Eve? Could the term ezer in the creation narrative possibly mean the same thing it does later in the conquest narratives? I say no. Why? Because there was no sin, death, violence, warfare in the garden. There was no need for protection from outside aggression pre-fall. Whatever ezer means in the creation account, it is most definitely not warrior in the sense that we think of it today. That’s why the term is nearly universally translated “helper” or “helpmeet”. That doesn’t imply a hierarchical relationship to Adam, but a coequal partnership in discharging the tasks God gave them.

    That doesn’t even begin to take into account how the incarnation illuminates the Old Testament. Again, Jesus is the clearest revelation of God, our understandings of the OT must run through him. That’s very problematic for pro-violence views of God post-Jesus.

    I’m an Anabaptist, not an evangelical, so you can write this off as a quirky sectarian perspective, but I think fidelity to the way of Christ through concrete, tangible acts is what Jesus calls us to. Male and female, we are charged to work together to steward God’s gift of creation which was given as a source of life for ALL people in every place at every time. The way that God brings healing to the nations is through empowering us with boldness and courage to stair death in the face as we confront the powers that work injustice, inequality, violence, poverty and every form of oppression. Nonviolent direction action against that which kills, steals and destroys is most definitely in accord with the way of Jesus. But the enemy isn’t too keen on having an army of Christians who are willing to fight that way. So the compromise or the dilution of Jesus’ message comes in the form of moving away from concrete, social engagement and towards Jesus loves me, takes away my sin, heals me, keeps me safe, gives me stuff, etc., etc. If all of that doesn’t lead to a life spent on behalf of the least of these, it’s nothing more than a security blanket that wards off the horrors of a world gone off the rails. Our faith can actually be the very thing that keeps us from doing what Jesus calls us to.

    Many apologies for the long response. Grace and peace!

    Reply

  4. I’m not a Hebrew scholar by any stretch of the imagination, but given the other contexts given, the term “Warrior” all by itself is a thought provoking but incomplete choice. The other contexts don’t seem to be just “warrior” but “warrior in a time of need”‘, “reinforcement” maybe? “Relief”? as in “relief troops”

    Interesting article, and very thought provoking, thanks.

    Reply

  5. Erin,

    I hate to say this, but ‘ezer does not mean ‘warrior’. It simply means “help” or “succor.” I am afraid that James has committed an exegetical fallacy here, and by doing so, has spawned a lot of discussion about women warriors that has no relation to the actual thing the word is describing. There is a reason that no translation out there ever translates Gen. 2:18, “I will make him a warrior fit for him.” My how things would be different if that word meant warrior!

    Reply

  6. @Brad:
    Neither Erin or James seem to be saying that ‘ezer means “warrior.” Rather they are pointing to connotation. If often through Scripture, the term connotes a kind of military assistance, then it may be appropriate to read that connotation back into the charge given to women.

    I like the direction Rich Guy takes with the term and would suggest a more well-rounded understanding of “helper” would be to see it as one who makes it certain that the other successfully stands against any foes that would threaten to bring him down. This accounts for both the militaristic use of the term as well as the Edenic use and paints a graver picture of just how serious Eve’s fall in the Garden was. If her divinely-appointed object was to seal the man against failure before his enemy, then becoming emissary for that enemy would understandably be table-turning rebellion.

    @Michael:
    I’m not sure your concern over Christ as warrior is exactly relevant or merited. Apart from the fact that Scripture seems happy to portray Christ in the terms of a warrior (cf. Joel, where he is pictured as a divine warrior/army of locust), I don’t think there’s any need to convey that from woman to Christ or vice versa via the connection of God’s image—largely since Scripture doesn’t tie the woman’s role to the image.

    I agree with you that the path set before Christians is one of peace and I find much evangelical expression along the lines of justified violence at odds with the direction Scripture takes us. I don’t see how it’s necessary to diminish Christ’s description in warrior terms in order to retain the ethics of peace. But more importantly in this context, I just don’t see how pacifism’s relevant to the article or the direction its author takes.

    Reply

  7. Seth,

    Thanks for the comment. Here’s where I’m coming from. For the follower of Jesus, both male and female, the ultimate model of what it means to be fully human, made in the image of God, and living out our vocation and calling is rooted, not in Hebrew words found in Genesis, but in the person of Jesus. So I would disagree. Paul’s teaching about Jesus as the second Adam, made in the image of the invisible God, etc. connects Jesus with the imago dei in such a way that it is relevant for us as Jesus’ people. As a man, if I want to know what it means for me to live faithfully today as God’s image bearer, the best example is the life and teaching of Jesus. It is the exact same for women. So, I think it’s incomplete to read Genesis, and discuss, for example, the usefulness of the word ‘ezer’ in illuminating the role of women relative to men, without reference to Jesus.

    At the same time, I’m an anabaptist. That means that while I recognize passages such as the Joel passage as speaking of Messiah, I don’t use Joel to understand Jesus I use Jesus to understand Joel more fully. Joel is speaking in apocalyptic language about something he doesn’t not fully see or understand. In Jesus we see more clearly.

    My issue with the descriptor ‘warrior’ relative to Jesus has nothing to do with the possible usage of the image in the Old or New Testaments. Rather it has to do with the usefulness of the term in our cultural context given how it is generally understood. That has led to much confusion and has made it easier for Empires to co-opt the message of Jesus towards an end that Jesus, in my opinion, would not have supported – at least based on the gospel accounts of what he said and did. I have the same concern about that term being used relative to any follower of Jesus. I suspect that the use of the world ‘helper’ or ‘helpmeet’ isn’t that positive either. So, I’m sympathetic to James’ project. In our culture, the word ‘helper’ carries with it the connotation of subservient, working for or under another, etc. My wife is a teacher’s aide or helper which means she’s not the teacher’s equal she’s her subordinate. I don’t think the Hebrew term carries that meaning.

    Thanks for the push back. I’ve enjoyed the convo. I’m out of the country tomorrow and unsure of computer access. So, if there are other responses and you don’t hear from me I haven’t taken my ball and went home.

    Grace and peace

    Reply

  8. @Seth

    I agree with you, and I think your second paragraph hits the nail on the head. My point is that we are working with a word that is clearly defined, and it is not helpful to start packing into a word more meaning than is there. In every instance of the term, it simply means “help, succor, one who brings aid or help.” Warriors can do this, certainly! However, so can letter carriers and chariot wheel makers.

    James may not be trying to say this, but I felt that when she wrote, “Putting the facts together, isn’t it obvious that the ezer is a warrior? ” and then Erin wrote, “This definition gives Genesis 2:18 a whole new meaning: “I will make him a [warrior] fit for him” that the entire comment section became a sort of speculation on what ‘ezer meant. It simply means what it means: “help, aid, one who helps”.

    It seems to me that this is turning grammar on its head. That is, we are using the word being modified to define the modifier. That’s exactly backwards. By that, I mean to say that God is Israel’s help in time of need, so are her allies and their armies, and so is a woman to a man. It does not have to mean warrior.

    Reply

  9. Great discussion, folks! So much to chew on, not sure how to get to all of it response-wise, especially b/c I’m tight on time for the next few days. Due to the potential that I have skewed the author’s intent, here’s a link to James’s blog where she addresses the definition of ezer. The post looks to be a close match to what’s in the book. Happy reading! http://www.whitbyforum.com/2005/12/return-of-ezer.html

    @Brad > your examples of ways people can be helpers are hilarious. (I choose chariot wheel maker.) Your concern about language is valid—I’m pondering . . .

    @Seth > your focus on context re: women engaging w/the world in passionate prayer, help, work, etc. align w/the author, I believe.

    @Mike > yes, this definition for women may be incomplete due to the way I have written about it. Please do not assess all of James’s book on this very small excerpt. The whole of the work is about looking to Jesus and following Him. I appreciate your heart for focusing on Christ alone. Good stuff!

    @ Rich > thought provoking, indeed! Thanks for joining the discussion.

    Reply

Comments are now closed for this article.