Divine evaluation and the quest for a suitable companionship.

Then the Lord God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper as his partner."

Genesis 2:18, NRSV 

HISTORICALLY, THE CREATION ACCOUNTS in Genesis 1-3 have generated considerable attention in both scholarly and popular circles. Jewish and Christian adherents alike have explored these accounts, and purposely employed them to function in certain ways. Among the many significant, complex, and sometimes inscrutable sections of these accounts, Gen. 2:18 has proven intractable in providing clarity. The rich complexity of phrases such as lo tov and ezer knegdo have ensured that passionate engagement with this particular text will continue unabated. The conventional translation of ezer knegdo as "helper" (RSV, NRSV, JB, TANAKH {fltting helper}), with all of the cultural baggage which it carries has further exacerbated the notion that the creation of the ezer knegdo is simply designed to create one to serve, to aid the adam who is viewed conventionally in a male gender specific way. Yet, as new and challenging ways of reading and interpreting the biblical texts have spawned, and gender and cultural sensitivities hav e emerged, no longer is one able to read ezer knegdo in a conventionally narrowly defined way. Phyllis Trible suggests that "the phrase k negdo which accompanies ezer tempers the connotation of superiority to specify identity, mutuality and equality. According to Yahweh God, what the earth creature needs is a companion, one who is neither subordinate nor superior; one who alleviates isolation through identity" (God and the Rhetoric, 90). Many have used, and often misused this text as a means of perpetuating and maintaining a particular ideological agenda. Thus, the creation of the e zer from the bone of the adam has been employed by many to argue for the divine sanctioning of heterosexuality as the singular relational mode of being for human beings. It is virtually indisputable in some branches of theological thought and ecclesiastical circles that this text is a cornerstone for the argument that it was God's intent to create the nucleus of male and female. Whether the proponents of this position cite biblica l infallibility or biblical literalism as the default means of interpretation, or point to a broad notion such as "family values" or "religious virtue," the end result is essentially to use the text to establish and perpetuate an exclusivist position. This male-female disposition has often served as a theological basis for incendiary and exclusionary perspectives on human sexuality.

On the other hand a number of scholars have argued with similar passion for a more open and broader perspective on human sexuality. (Most notably and recently John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality; Peter Gomes, The Good Book; Samuel Terrien Till the Heart Sings; and Phyllis Trible, God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality, inter alios.) In particular feminist scholars in challenging the traditional, and narrowly defined biblical perspectives on the role of women have posed significant questions, and paved substantially new and dramatic ways of reading the text. They have invited a reading of the biblical text with a closer eye and attention to the details and the intent of the narrative, as much as that is possible. In this brief article, I will explore two neglected aspects of the text that call in question some of the long established positions that have all but become axiomatic. The discussion that follows is not per se a narrow challenge to the established convention of heterosexuality a s embedded in the text, even though at the end of the Genesis account the male/female dichotomy is clearly established. Nor for that matter is the argument in this article such that it might be construed as making a case for a non-heterosexual reading of the text, though in my view this possibility is allowed by the text.

First, both the pronouncement of lo toy and the need and quest for an e zer k negdo establish 2:18 as a defining moment in the creation narrative. To be sure this verse has always been viewed as critical, but it is more than simply a pause in the narrative. It is indeed a turning point. Throughout the narrative to this point everything that had been created by God has been reflected upon and evaluated by God and then pronounced as "good" and together, all of creation was assessed as "very good" (1:31). The narrative suggests that creation was not arbitrarily tossed into being. There was meticulous care in bringing creation into being, and moment by moment God reflected on what had been done. If indeed all did not appear to be what God intended or anticipated, then there is a movement to rectify that particular aspect. Many laity and scholars alike are timid in acknowledging this aspect of creation as it appears to call into question the power and prescience of God. These concerns likely rooted in the person's theological undergirding are unwarranted, as the text itself persists in the belief that God's creation and provision is such that there is ongoing divine evaluation and assessment. The pronouncement of "very good" included the creation of the adam. The attributing of the qualifies of divine prescience and omnipotence does not in any way preclude God from reflecting, assessing and ultimately changing as God saw fit. Throughout the process, from day one through the day of rest, there is divine reflection and intermittent rest, and there is certainly no hint of haste in the divine pursuit of creation. The issue that is raised in 2:18 reflects divine intentionality in what has preceded and notably gives shape to everything that follows. It is not so much divine dissatisfaction, but rather it is the result of divine reflection and the pursuit of a new ideal which at the time was still unknown to the adam. It is biblically untenable to intimate that God does not change God's mind even after a divine pronouncement is made. (See e.g., Gen 18: 22-33; Jonah.)

It is in Gen 2:18 that for the first time in the creation narrative, something has been pronounced "not good" and this assessment of lo toy comes in reference to the adam. "Good" and "not good" are qualities known and determined only by God at this point. The text does not tell of the measure that is used to make these determinations, and it is solely the purview of God. Even though there is a solitary human, there is no indication in the text that the human is lonely, nor for that mater does the human believe that being the lone human is unacceptable, or for that matter divinely ill-conceived. It is clearly only God who knows the quality of aloneness. Why at this point God determines that the adam is lo toy remains a mystery. There are at least two scenarios in this regard. First, it is the case that perhaps it is God who has experienced what it means to be solitary, and thus understands this quality, and has determined that it is lo toy. Second, it might be the case that as Christian orthodoxy subscribes, G od is a Triune God and since the human is created in the image of God, then like the divine, community for the human is essential. As a Christian development this latter view is something of a theological cornerstone, and as such not surprisingly is given a place of distinct prominence. However on the basis of the text and the sequence of events leading up to the creation of the ezer knegdo, it is the former perspective that seems to resonate most sharply. The adam is good but in the view of God, as per God's knowledge, the isolated adam is lo toy. As the tone and the break in the text at Gen 1:26-27 intimates, the creation of the adam is to be set apart from the rest of creation. It was an entity unto itself Indeed the adam created was both male and female. Gender was thus established simultaneously, though at the time companionship and community for humankind was either not thought of, or certainly not established. When the status of adam is pronounced to be lo toy later, the issue for companionship is to secure/create one who is comparable in strength and not precisely and necessarily one of opposite gender. Despite the fact that the creation of the human is set apart from the other aspects of creation, when God acknowledges that it is not good for the human to be alone, it is to the animals that God turns, as God invite s the adam to seek companionship from among them, a suitable ezer kenegdo.

The phrase lo toy need not be understood entirely as a negative notion. The pronouncement of lo toy is not said over against something else or in comparison or relation to another aspect of creation, but on its own merit. There is no other parallel aspect of creation in view here. Indeed the issue is not about the human, for already the adam has been pronounced "very good" as part of all of creation. However the quality of being solitary as it relates only to the human is lo toy. Companionship and community will not happen by accident as perhaps might be the case in other aspects of creation where there is no formal or direct concern expressed. Human community in the very created order will be inherent; it is to be systemic and intrinsic to the being of humankind. The situation is lo toy in light of what could and must be. It is simply not good enough to have one isolated human and no other human with whom to be in relationship. Trible suggests that, "The divine evaluation. . .contrasts wholeness with isolati on" (God and the Rhetoric, 89). As Terrien suggests, "The Hebrew word translated as 'alone' (Gen 2:18) carries an overtone of separation and even alienation" (Till the Heart Sings, 9). Despite the inherent goodness of the adam, there is a divine "yet." Lo toy is not a divine acknowledgment of that which is flawed or that which is a mistake. It is not even an issue of the adam being incomplete. Rather it is about the ideal of what it means to be a human in human community.

Neither is this a statement about solitude. Solitude, the need for a time set apart for personal introspection and reflection even as God did in the midst of creation one might argue, is a necessary ingredient in what it means to be fully human. Community does not eliminate the need for solitude. Naturally a single person may function fully in the context of community, and may have companionship outside of established nuclear relationships. Moreover, this text does not seek to make a pronouncement on the primacy of marriage. Rather, this is more about the human who determines to live in isolation, or who, more importantly is made to live in isolation. One should not be surprised that as a particularly punitive action, prisoners are often made to be in isolation, in solitary confinement. While for any number of reasons one might find a solitary life--living apart from community--desirable, this text suggests that as a permanent choice or imposition this would be limiting.

After God tells the human to find a suitable 'ezer, we are not given any indication what "suitable" entails, and in making the determination from among the animals, one who is "suitable" cannot be found. Community of the order that God intends will only come from other humans. Despite the fact that no particular directions are given with regard to suitability, the adam determines through the intimacy of naming the animals that no suitable 'ezer is to be found. External commonalities will not do, even if there are some. None of the animals which adam named struck a heart chord with him; none led him to a pronouncement of oneness. Indeed the text leads one to wonder who exactly is looking for the 'ezer [k.sup.e]negdo. Both scholarly and lay conventions typically concluded that it is 'adam who is looking, and it is 'adam who is the one to make the determination. Yet in Gen 2:20, the text indicates that "he did not find..." and the identity of "he" remains ambiguous. It is certainly awkward to have the 'adam be " he" if in fact the text refers to himself as the 'adam. Further in 2:21, in this instance "he" refers to the Lord God. God is looking intently at the animals as they are being named with the sole intent of finding a suitable 'ezer [k.sup.e]negdo for the 'adam. There is no textual indication that the 'adam is actively seeking in any way. In 2:18, as God had done before, God speaks without a particular object to God's speech. This is internal wonderment on the part of God, as the structure of the statement makes direct speech to the 'adam unlikely. As intimate as the naming process of the animals was, this level of intimacy in itself could not lead to community. Such is both the human and divine conclusion.

Second, there is a persistent and unavoidable paradox of "sameness" and "other" in the creation accounts. The human being is unique in this regard, as it is only the human within all of creation who is to be found in two "same-other" paradigms. In Genesis 1:27, the human being is created in the image of God, both male and female, and thus there is "sameness" between God and the human being, but the human being, both the man and the woman, is not God. Likeness to God does not make the human God. Yet, it remains that the human is "like" God and even though being in God's image is not defined, nevertheless there is a fundamental and inherent relationship between the creator and the human. God and the human will forever be aligned, and in this way, there will be an ongoing, indelible connection. Divine and human comparison will be inevitable, and "sameness" and "otherness" will be acknowledged repeatedly, and the essential tension will be maintained. The proper perspective of the relationship will only exist in t he tension of "same" and "other." In 2:19, the animals and the birds are created from the 'adama, as the human was in 2:7. Certainly there is a rooted connection and relationship here, as both humankind and animals are created from the same source, and in this way, they are alike; there is "sameness." But the 'adam is not animal; they are different. It is in the divine acknowledgement that it is not good for the 'adam to be alone that the animals are created. The sequence of events in the text suggests that within the creation of the animals lies a possible 'ezer for the 'adam. "Same" and "other" would come to define the 'ezer, but neither God the heavenly creator, nor the animals, the earthly creatures would do as the 'ezer. When God pronounces that it is not good that the 'adam should be alone, God might very well have been acknowledging that God knows what it is like to be alone, and it is lo tov. God is the one who has made the determination regarding the deficiency of isolation. Moreover, the creator has determined that a relationship between God and the 'adam was insufficient to overcome human isolation and perhaps aloneness of the 'adam. A human-divine relationship could not finally fulfill this need. If in fact the determination regarding humankind's aloneness and isolation reflects the experience of the divine, and if indeed the creation of the 'adam fulfilled that divine longing, neither is precisely elucidated in this text. Whether or not the 'adam satisfied the divine aloneness remains ambiguous and a mystery. What is without ambiguity is that the divine singularly cannot bring satiety to human isolation. As desirable as it is to have a relationship between the human and God, as indeed one would expect a relationship between creator and creature, it is not enough; it is only human community that will bring completeness to humankind. Thus there needs to be an appropriate relationship between the 'adam and a member of the created order. It is the latter need that prompted God to act anew. The fundamenta l issue at stake is companionship; it is the establishment of community.

It is true to a degree that Gen 2:19, often translated and interpreted thus, is a simple continuation of the preceding text. However, the waw connected to ytsr is ill construed when translated simply as "and." The NRSV's rendering of the waw as "so," makes the appropriate constructive connection to the preceding verse. That is to say, given the divine realization that the 'adam needed an 'ezer, God further molded out of the 'adama, whence the 'adam came, other creatures. The central responsibility at stake for the 'adam was naming and establishing identity These creative responsibilities with all of their intimate connections were completed, yet the heart of the 'adam still did not lead to the embracing of any of the animals as an appropriate 'ezer. The 'adam and every animal created came from the 'adama, and thus they have this creative feature in common. The 'adam like God knows every animal, is witness to the nature of every animal and moreover engages at a certain internal level of discernment as far as s uitability for companionship is concerned. Like God, the human shares the creative powers of naming. Like God, the human calls and names the others created from the adama and in this moment establishes an element of divine oversight. It is following the naming and the silent testimony of the human that God decides that a being must be created exclusively as an 'ezer [k.sup.e]negdo. At this point the role of the 'ezer [k.sup.e]negdo is the only raison d'etre of the new being. Moreover the paradox of "same" and "other" continues in the recognition that the 'adam is the only created being that has "sameness" and "otherness" with God, the animals, and the other human. As the one who is the cornerstone of community, all three components are necessary for completeness, though it is only the new creation of another human who is 'ezer [k.sup.e]negdo that brings companionship and community to the 'adam. 'ezer is derived from azar which carries the more precise meaning of "succor" as opposed to the more commonly used i dea of "help." The meaning of 'ezer is more directed at saving someone from some sort of existential demise. Not surprisingly, the term 'ezer with the exception of its occurrence in Gen 2:18, is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in reference to God. (See, e.g. Deut 33:7; Ps 33:20.)

The radical uniqueness of the 'ezer which God seeks for the 'adam cannot be found in any other sphere but the earthly one. The Hebrew tsl' used in Gen 2:21, 22 is typically translated "rib" reflects more accurately the permanence and foundational quality of the 'ezer. This is the only instance in the Hebrew Bible where tsl' is used in reference to a human. As in Ezek 41:5 and 2 Sam 16:13, it is often employed in an architectural manner, referring to columns, chambers, ridges, etc. (See, Terrien, Till the Heart Sings, 12.) When the second human is created from the "rib" of the 'adam, only then is there is human acknowledgement of a suitable 'ezer [k.sup.e]negdo Like the 'adam, the 'ezer [k.sup.e]negdo is both "same" and "other." This knowledge is not borne out of a direct witness or a personal sense of reason. The 'adam is asleep as the creation of the 'ezer [k.sup.e]negdo is undertaken. After the second human comes into being, and is immediately "over and against" him, the 'adam knows it in his bones. However , what the 'adam responded to on seeing this new creation is that which is "same." Never does the 'adam respond to the differences with the new being; never is there a response of any kind regarding the appreciation of gender differentiation. In fact this is in no way acknowledged by the 'adam. It is only after the creation of the woman that the whole identity of the man comes into being. His identity to this point is most notably generically associated with the ground out of which he came, the 'adam from the '[dama.sup.a]; now there is is and 'issa. With this identity comes naming for both the man and the woman. There cannot be an identity without naming. Conversely, when one's name is taken away, one loses one's identity.

Further, the issue was not to create "a couple." Genesis 2:24 which unfortunately often leads to this conclusion introduces ideas that are foreign to the narrative and undoubtedly have been "read" into the story. The principal focus here is not on family units and the relationships with parents, or for that matter the concept of parental relations. As significant and prevalent as these ideas are today, they are nevertheless foreign in this discussion. When the 'adam acknowledges the new being, the 'ezer, the 'issa, it is based entirely on that which is same. Sexual dimorphism is certainly a factor, but it is not a unique factor, and when 'adam sees the being, it is the "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" that he immediately embraces; it is this "sameness" that will bring companionship and community. In acknowledging and discovering the 'issa, the 'is comes to recognize who he is. The recognition of the "other" allows the 'is to recognize the "self" The paradox of this unity comes from the division withi n. Unity of the two comes first from separating from within. This separation from within will be paralleled by a separation from without, and therefore the 'is leaves his father and mother, and clings to the 'issa and they become one flesh" (NRSV 2:24). That which is without, even the divine, the creator would not be enough. It is that which is formed from within that brings unity and the recognition. Paradoxically, had the 'adam remained "whole," the being would have remained an incomplete 'adam and not become the whole Adam.

Humans begin the process of self-discovery more fully and the need for community even as we recognize others. Even though the phrase "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" is literal in this text and context, the phrase is used elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible to speak to the importance of human relationship and community. In the case of Laban's greeting of his nephew Jacob, not only is the issue of gender differentiation irrelevant, but indeed the "sameness" of the "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh" is not enough to prevent conflict and possible estrangement (Gen.29:14). Community and companionship will ultimately and automatically not mean uniformity and perfection simply because of the "sameness" of the "bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh." One does not need to look any further than Abimelech's pleading with his maternal relatives to support him on the basis that he is of their "bone and flesh," and with their financial support, he slew all but one of his brothers (Judges 9:2).

The "other" in Gen 2:21 is clearly not defined exclusively as sexually dimorphic, but even though the "other" is sexually over and against the 'is, most fundamentally, the "other" that God seeks to find for the 'adam is meant to fulfill what God foresees as the longing that comes with isolation. God sees and foresees loneliness, and thus "pro-vides" as only God is able to do at this point. Communal longing and the need for companionship transcend sexual differentiation. Certainly one of the many mandates that the 'is and the 'issa will have is to reproduce. Indeed in Gen 2:28-30, the invitation to reproduce is not expanded upon, as is the invitation to have dominion and oversight of the rest of creation. Reproduction is not set apart in the manner in which contemporary society views it. The elevation of human reproduction to a place of prominence and primacy within the narrative has perhaps become something of a commonplace belief today, but in reality the text does not declare such prominence. There is no in dication in the text that this is the fundamental reason for the creation of the 'izer knegdo. It still remains that community and companionship are the driving forces behind the 'ezer. The invitation to reproduce has therefore to be understood in the context of God's insistence on the importance of community and the need for an ongoing companionship.

Ultimately the man and the woman will cling (dbq) to each other (2:24). While dbq has most often been taken to mean sexual union, this particular meaning and application is too narrowly construed. Indeed there is nothing in this text at this point to suggest this, and in fact dbq at this point is more akin to the use of dhq in Ruth. that is, the caring of the other--community, companionship. It is this togetherness, this closeness in weakness and in strength that is established as the norm for community and companionship.

Sources Cited

Boswell, John. Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality. University of Chicago Press, 1980.

Gomes, Peter. The Good Book: Reading the Bible With Mind and Heart. Morrow Press, 1996.

Terrien, Samuel. Till the Heart Sings: A Biblical Theology of Manhood and Womanhood. Fortress Press, 1985.

Trible, Phyllis. God and the Rhetoric of Sexuality. Fortress Press, 1978.

Hemchand Gossai, Ph.D. is Associate Professor of Religion at Muhlenberg College, Allentown, Pennsylvania. He is the author of Justice, Righteousness and the Social Critique of the Eighth Century Prophets; Power and Marginality in the Abraham Narrative and is Go- Editor of Religion, Culture and Tradition in the Caribbean. He is the Series Editor of Studies in Biblical Literature, published by Peter Lang. He has published widely in several academic journals.