Steel Magnolia
I’m a northern woman, so I don’t know all the nuances of southern talk. I wouldn’t know when to drawl “Well bless yo’r heart!” if my life depended on it. (Though I’m sure I could beat Southerners hands down in the “How’s it goin’, eh?” department.) I’m just not the pink, frilly, flufey kind.
But there’s one Southern phrase that I’m quite drawn to: “Steel Magnolia.” I love the phrase, because to me it speaks to the essence of womanhood. The image melds beauty with perseverance, softness with backbone, delicacy with durability, sweetness with stamina.
It reminds me of what the first man exclaimed when he saw the first woman. When Adam laid his eyes on her, he broke into an exuberant, spontaneous poem:
“This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman (Ishsha), because she was taken out of Man (Ish).” Genesis 2:23 (ESV)
The first man called himself “Ish” and the woman “Ishsha.” This appears to be an extremely clever and profound play on words. The sound of these two Hebrew words is nearly identical-Ishsha merely adds a feminine ending- but the two words have a complementary meaning. Ish comes from the root meaning “strength” while Ishsha comes from the root meaning “soft.”
The implication becomes clearer when we observe the biblical meaning of a man’s “strength.” Strength refers to a man’s manhood- his potency, virility, and procreative power (Ps. 105:36; Prov. 31:3; Gen. 49:3). By contrast, a woman’s “softness” has to do with her pregnability, penetrability, and vulnerability (in a very positive sense). One commentator has suggested English equivalents of “Piercer” and “Pierced One.”
The bodies of male and female reflect this idea. A man’s body is built to move toward the woman. A woman’s body is built to receive the man. But the pattern goes beyond the mere physical difference between men and women to encompass the totality of their essence: The man was created to joyfully and actively initiate and give. The woman was created to joyfully and actively respond and receive. The woman is the “soft” one – the receiver, responder, and relater. The man is the “strong” one with greater capacity to initiate, protect and provide. Each is a perfect counterpart to the other.
The Lord created male and female as an object lesson – a parable as it were – of a profound spiritual reality:Â The relationship between Christ the husband and the Church, His Bride. Men are to reflect the strength, love and self-sacrifice of Christ. Women are to reflect the character, responsiveness, grace and beauty of the Bride He redeemed.
In the past few years, the Hollywood portrayal of the ideal woman is one who is aggressive and tough – both physically and sexually. This is a far cry from what woman was created to be. According to Scripture, it’s woman’s softness, her ability to receive, respond, and relate – that is her greatest strength.
copyright 2009, Mary A. Kassian
I have never before heard the strength/soft definition before! That is beautiful imagery. Thank you for this article!
When you wrote, Man (ish) I thought for a moment that you were refering to the Septuagint. In Proverbs 31, the virtuous woman is called the andreia wife, that is the “mannish” woman. It means courageous or mighty, and in Hebrew it is the identical word that is used for mighty men. It is only the English that splits men and women into strong and soft. You will find that the Hebrew, Greek and Latin call men and women alike, strong. There is no differentiation in these languages. A study of Proverbs 31 will clarify this and keep the study of women based on scripture, which is our first responsibility as interpreters.
No. The Hebrew words in Genesis 2:23 are Ish=Man and Ishsha=Woman. Ish=Strength Ishsha=Soft. That’s the Hebrew meaning. That is not to say that woman lacks strength, or that man lacks softness, but just to say that there is a fundamental difference between men and women that is a part of the created order.
Mary,
Thanks so much for explaining. I have not read this etymology of ish and ishhah before. Could you reference a Hebrew lexicon on this.
Throughout the Hebrew Bible men and women are both equally labeled chayil, which means mighty. This was translated into Greek as andreia which means “manly” and then into Latin as forta which means “strong.” That is, the plain meaning of the Hebrew text is that men and women as individuals both have strength as their attribute. These references can be verified against the Septuagint and the Vulgate.
I would like to see some reference for ish as strong and ishhah as soft. I have simply not read this in the scholarly literature before. Both Bruce Waltke and Al Wolters, who are both respected complementarian scholars attest to the fact that women are to be chayil, that is mighty.
Thanks for responding and I hope to gain from your research.
Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT), and writings by John McArthur and Stu Weber.
I think now I understand what you mean. Ish in Hebrew, and aner in Greek refer to a man as opposed to an adam or anthropos.
Adam and anthropos refer to a human being, possibly even a slave.
But, ish and aner refer to a man who has citizen status in the group, and possibly a warrior or noble.
The difficulty here is that once the notion of nobility is turned into an adjective, that is in Hebrew chayil, or in Greek andreia, this refers to a human being of a certain class, either a man or a woman. And that is why women of note in the Bible are always called chayil.
Mary, thank you for this article. I have noticed that some are saying that the original human being was not called male until the female was split off. Then we have both ish and ishsha, male and female. Until then there was no male and female, only a human being.
What do you think of that interpretation? Paul in the NT speaks of Jewish fables. Augustin also addressed these kinds of heresies in his day.
How can we answer those who are promoting this teaching in our day? Some are being deceived. Have you written any articles on the subject of ancient Jewish fables as it relates to feminist theology?
Some Jewish theologians did indeed suggest this idea, but it has not been accepted as correct. I believe that Adam would not have felt his need for a counterpart so keenly if God had created him as an androgynous being. The people who are forwarding this interpretation are trying to skirt around there being role differentiation between the sexes. But the weight of evidence in the passage supports the conclusion that the “firstborn” of humanity was male, and not androgynous.
Mary,
Thank you. I see now that you are refering to the fact that ishshah may be derived from enosh, which does have the meaning of mortal as weak.
Would you also apply this meaning of weakness to the Messiah in this passage where Christ is given the name “bar enosh” in Daniel 7.
13″I saw in the night visions,
and behold, with the clouds of heaven
there came one like a son of man (bar enosh),
and he came to the Ancient of Days
and was presented before him.
14 And to him was given dominion
and glory and a kingdom,
that all peoples, nations, and languages
should serve him;
his dominion is an everlasting dominion,
which shall not pass away,
and his kingdom one
that shall not be destroyed.
****
Is there special significance to the Messiah being called bar enosh in this passage. Does it indicate his weakness? Is his dominion a dominion of weakness? I wonder whether the derivation of this word enosh is significant in all the passages in which it is used.
I haven’t looked at that particular passage. My guess is that it’s referring to his humility.