The idea that there is a term called a «helpmeet» in the Bible for women, or the inference that it is something subordinate in any way, is ignorant at best. (oppressive and deceptive at worst.)
- It would be first helpful to understand basic English grammar. In the phrase «help meet» it is necessary to understand that help is a noun and meet is an adjective. If I said, «Find me a shoe fitting for this dress (or size foot) we wouldn’t turn that phrase into a compound noun and call it a «shoefitting.» The phrase «help meet» has been turned into another meaning that implies the woman is responsible for «meeting» the man’s needs. (whatever he deems as a need I guess. 🤷🏻♀️ I mean, I think it’s helpful when I tell him he’s being ridiculous, but I dont think that’s what they mean.)
- Before we define meet, let’s take a look at the word help. Help doesn’t imply «second-in-command.» Both the Hebrew word used here (ezer) as well as the English word «help» is used in reference to God himself all through the Old Testament. (See: Psalm 33:20, Psalm 70:5, Psalm 115:9–11, Psalm 121:1–2, Psalm 124:8, Psalm 146:5, Deuteronomy 33:7, 26, 29, Exodus 18:4, Hosea 13:9) Unless we are meaning that God himself became subordinate to Israel or individuals, it is inconsistent to say that help in Genesis 2:18 places the woman in a subordinate position.)
- The word «meet» in Hebrew is kenegdo. It means, corresponding, opposite (across from or facing), suitable, or equal. The Bible uses «meet» in this way many times. (Exodus 8:26, Deut. 3:18, Judges 5:30, Esther 2:9, Job 34:31, Proverbs 11:24, Jeremiah 27:5, Ezekiel 15:5, Matthew 3:8, Matthew 15:26, Luke 15:32, Romans 1:27, 1 Corinthians 15:9, Phil. 1:7, Col. 1:12, 2 Thess. 1:3, 2 Timothy 2:21, Hebrews 6:7, 2 Peter 1:13.) Even the verb «to meet» implies standing opposite someone, face to face. It is not the modern usage of «meeting someone’s needs.»
- The use of the phrase «helpmeet» as a noun completely ignores the purpose that Adam needed a partner in the first place. Genesis 2:18 says, «It is not good that the man should be alone….» It doesn’t say, «It is not good that man should have to darn his own socks or make the sandwiches. He needed a COMPANION, for RELATIONSHIP, not all the chores that he doesn’t get to. Additionally, the statement that Eve was «meet for him» was simply a statement that she was his corresponding equal in that she was HUMAN. (And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.) I think we can all agree that no animal would be meet as a companion for Adam.
- Yes, men should be leaders and providers, but so should women. The Bible says in Genesis 1:26-27 that both are created in the image of God. In the same verses and verse 28 he gives BOTH of them dominion and the job to rule.
- The idea of a male breadwinner and that the phrase «keepers at home» implies that the woman doesnt have a job is a modern invention. We see this in upper class societies, especially the Victorian Era, but that was a privilege not afforded to the masses until a small degree during the Industrial Revolution, but not mainly until the 1920s-1940s. A sole breadwinner with a housekeeper wife is definitely not a biblical idea. Ironically, historically, men were not always the ones providing most of the food for the household. Myth of the Male Breadwinner
