The wife is God to the huband

On the blog, A Wifes Submission you will find the exegesis of the term “help meet”. The writer makes no great attempt to mask her intentions, but she does take the reader pretty far down the page before she springs the coup de grace on us.

She begins by decrying the standard definitions of help meet, that she is , well, helpful, supporting, offers succor, etc., and says that sound a lot like a household appliance:


I dislike the historically demeaning interpretation of “help meet”. For example look at this description:

John Gill (1697-1771) Bible Commentary: I will make him an help meet for him; one to help him in all the affairs of life, not only for the propagation of his species , but to provide things useful and comfortable for him ; to dress his food , and take care of the affairs of the family ; one “like himself” {c}, in nature, temper, and disposition, in form and shape; or one “as before him” {d}, that would be pleasing to his sight, and with whom he might delightfully converse, and be in all respects agreeable to him , and entirely answerable to his case and circumstances, his wants and wishes.


She sounds very much like a “household appliance”.
Slightly more useful than a plain doormat.


Its the standard feminist template, to redefine any gender relational aspect of the Bible as we have known it and make it into something ugly, extreme, or dangerous. Then she can come along and replace it with something that seems so much more reasonable. This trick plays on emotions. It leaves distaste after the opening, and leaves the reader emotionally open to anything that will wash the bad taste away and make her feel better.

So comes:(my emphasis)


When God creates Eve, he calls her an ezer kenegdo. “It is not good for the man to be alone, I shall make him [an ezer kenegdo]” (Gen 2:18 Alter). Hebrew scholar Robert Alter, who has spent years translating the book of Genesis, says that this phrase is “notoriously difficult to translate”. The various attempts we have in English are “helper” or “companion” or the notorious “help meet”. Why are these translations so incredibly wimpy, boring, flat… disappointing? What is a help meet, anyway? What little girl dances through the house singing “One day I shall be a help meet?” Companion? A dog can be a companion. Helper? Sounds like Hamburger Helper. Alter is getting close when he translates it “sustainer beside him.”

The word ezer is used only twenty other places in the entire Old Testament. And in every other instance the person being described is God himself, when you need him to come through for you desperately.

Most of the contexts are life and death, by the way, and God is your only hope. Your ezer. If he were not there beside you… you are dead. A better translation of ezer would be “lifesaver”. Kenegdo means alongside, or opposite to, a counterpart.

She clearly equates the help meet to being God to the husband, indeed setting the scenario to its most grave, a matter of life and death.

Ive read this writers posts on forums for years and happen to know that she sets the wife up as the de facto holy spirit for the husband where she is to take what are Gods standards for the man, she is to determine if the man is living to Gods standards, and she then is to act in a corrective manner to get the man back in God’s will. She doesnt acknowledge that the standard set for men by God are God’s to judge and react in a corrective manner if needed, she fails to acknowledge any fallen nature in woman that could lead to jaded perception especially when the standards she is focused on all coincidentally have to do with how the husband treats the wife. This means simply, if mamma aint happy the wrath of the help meet (aka, a kid of god) shall be brought down by her on him.

You can see how this aligns with J and K and their female emoto-centric guidance to couples that a man be little more than a bottomless well of empathy for the woman.

One of the ways this god-like authority is weilded is in justifiable sexual denial, of course.

I don’t feel like doing it and I don’t do it when he’s been an unrepentant jerk.
And lo, he is vastly more considerate nowadays

The limits on sex though even go beyond the standards she is now to enforce. She also must determine that his mind is clean, somehow she just knows that he has had no impure thoughts, that he has not looked upon another women, nor is he about to recollect ever having done so, lest the sex they have be sinful, or in her word she often used, beasty. Finally, she sets a standard and she affords herself the right to judge if the sex act is one intended for physical pleasure, or it is intended as an expression of oneness and love. If its physical, it is animalistic.

Thus one may not have intercourse if husband and wife are not committed to one another are thinking of divorce, nor if they quarreled during the daytime and have not resolved it by nightfall. Raavad refers to this as exploitation, using one’s partner as a harlot. One should not perform the conjugal act while imagining some other partner. The physical onah must be expressive of love; otherwise, it is simply animalistic…(emphasis in the original)


These are offshoots to J and K that represent an interesting thing. The thing is the desire of women to mine scripture for purely self serving reasons, having no one to edify save self and own gender.

Ive always held it questionable to truly argue using scripture. How much worse then to mine it for complex derivations that do nothing to advance God’s kingdom or glory.


7 thoughts on “The wife is God to the huband

  1. Really so many of these sites put out by evangelical feminists are so disgusting it’s hard to find a single shred of value out of any of them. One could make a full-time job blogging about their rebellion at every step, but it really just isn’t all that profitable in the long run, except to know that there are people like this “Charis R. Hart” and others that are just in open rebellion against God and only have the fear of everlasting judgment to look forward to in the end.

  2. And I meant to respond to one of the posts that you wrote today that I read, but I didn’t have the time to respond to when I read it. I can’t find the post (or where it is now), but here is the response (given the text you should be able to figure out what it was):

    Feminism is elementally the same no matter where you find it when it comes to the principles behind it. The fact that people misidentify it within the church is because people tend to respond and categorize things according to how the message is presented more than the principles involved. Secular and religious feminism couldn’t be more differently presented, yet have the same goals and principles behind them. The fact that the average religious individual sees feminism as the “burning bras”, “equal pay”, type stuff is a powerful deception which keeps them from seeing it within their midst for what it is. The fact that they don’t has been incredibly useful to feminism at large. While secular feminism has waned since the 60’s, religious feminism has proven to be so pervasive that the churches are really the stronghold in this day and age.

  3. Empath, one of the problems I found when I started attending the church I now worship in, was that a large number of the congregation seemed to think that they did not have to consider what the preacher said and weigh it against Scripture. Most thought that because all the preachers were licensed by the denomination, then what they said would be traditional orthodox Christianity. Having come there from a church that had decided that hmosexual activity in a committed loving relationship *was* compatible with Scripture, and the senior pastor was the man who led that charge by the liberals, I was under no illusions whatsoever.

    With websites, it is even more important to be sure that we measure everything that is said against Scripture, because, as bskillet has shown with his posts about Joel and Kathy, there are more than the occasional charlatan out their who is leading the flock astray.

    Even on this side of the Pond, we have some ‘interesting’ people around. Not all the preachers from the British Isles are Alaister Beggs or JI Packers.

  4. The idea of a “preacher” really hasn’t been effective, almost since the concept began. One thing I’ve found with people (and myself) is that one has to engage with the Scripture and claim the words to be able to have any change effected. In that sense, two-way communication (what is stressed through Scripture in the Greek – the word used there is where we get the word “dialogue”) is a must if meaningful communication and change is to occur.

    Then as empath described, there is very little to no admonition (I counted “none” the last time I set foot in church) done at all. The whole goal of Churchianity is to get people to feel good in coming out and want to support it monetarily and otherwise..

  5. I remember this poster. There were many days I just couldn’t stomach posting anything. That were the days the wolf pack was making their mark.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s