OF THE SAME FLESH AND BONE (GN 2,23a)

The poetic fragment of Gn 2,23a may perhaps provide a more important

image for Biblical faith than has usually been recognized. I suggest that a
proper understanding of the line might clarify for Scripture study the very
important image of husband-wife which occurs in several OT traditions and
is later utilized in Paul. It may suggest an insight concerning marital relations which need to be thoroughly rethought in light of current changes
happening under the name of "sexual revolution." More importantly, in
light of our current ecological crisis the text places the man-woman in the
context of the larger issue of man's relation to earth. In establishing priorities, there is no doubt that the intimate personal relation is subordinated to
and understood with reference to man's first vocation, the care of and
covenant with the rest of creation.
The text has not been appreciated in Biblical theology largely because it
has been understood primarily in the context of torturous discussions of a
"metaphysical" kind about the physical constituency of the human person
and the sexual relationship.1 Moreover the text appears to be isolated in the
OT and therefore insignificant for larger questions of Israel's faith. In
what follows I will suggest another approach to the verse under consideration.
I
2

Stanley Gevirtz in his careful study of poetic patterns has correctly noted
that certain word pairs are normal and to be expected in a variety of
literary patterns. Noting the fact that certain terms are characteristically
coupled to others greatly illumines the function of a term in any context.
In our verse such a word pair is noted. The term "flesh" and "bone" are
such a pair and frequently stand together. They are used with "skin" to
describe the situation of distress in which the speaker finds himself. Similarly
in Jb 2,5 they refer to one's historical physical existence. In a curious combination in Ps 102,5 in a song of lament, the same two words are used to
describe a situation in which the speaker is immobilized. Interestingly, in all
1

See S. R. Driver, The Book of Genesis (Westminster Commentaries, 8th ed.;

London: Methuen, 1911) 42f. von Rad, Genesis (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1961)
82, rightly protests against such an exegesis in the current context of the line : ". . . the
question about the special construction of the human body becomes nonessential (see
a t v . 24!)."
2
Patterns in the Early Poetry of Israel (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization;
Chicago: University of Chicago, 1963). Cf. the more general discussion of William
Whallon, Formula Character and Context (Cambridge: Harvard University, 1969)
140-161.

532

O F THE SAME FLESH AND BONE

533

three uses, the combination speaks about a person in trouble or on the verge
of it. In passages which we will consider later (Gn 29,14; Jgs 9,2 ; 2 Sm 5,1
[1 Chr 11,1]; 2 Sm 19,13f.), the two terms are used together to speak
about a person in his total relation to another.
Thus the combination as Gevirtz has suggested of such patterns is not
just an addition of terms, or an accidental occurrence, but comes to exist in
its own right as a way of speaking about a functioning person in his totality.
When we exegete Gn 2,23 we shall expect the word pair to function in
approximately this way.
II
It is next to be observed that each of these words has a double meaning.
First and better known, to speak of bsr of course means "flesh," even in the
sense of "meat." As such its reference is visibly physical. This is the way it
has most often been understood and translated in our passage. But it is
equally clear that the term bsr means weakness, empty of power and meaning. As such it is the antithesis of "spirit" (as in Is 31,3). Thus Schmidt3
can speak of it in connection with Janos as "Hinfalligen, Schwanken, Sterblichen." Flesh is that which has no staying power or capacity to work its will
in its environment. As such the term obviously does not relate simply to the
physical notion of flesh, but includes the psychological notion of frailty. And
when one asks about the meaning of the term in any given context, it is
futile to ask if the meaning is "flesh" or "weakness." It embodies both the
physical and psychological. We have no single word in English for this
combination and it might well be rendered with a hyphen "flesh-weakness."
The problem in our language of finding words which express psychosomatic
unity in a personal organism is of course well known. It is this difficulty
which makes the understanding of our verse problematic. The terms are
"wholistic" but we have learned to render them as if they connoted only the
physical. This double focus is important for a fresh understanding of Gn 2,23.
Such an understanding of the term suggests that we are dealing with an
assertion that is not concerned simply with physical relationship but includes
also psychological dimensions of interaction.
The same is true of the other word in the pair. The term of course is
conventionally translated "bone" in our verse and there is ample evidence
to support that rendering. But when it is translated "bone" we tend to
neglect its root meaning of "power" or "might." 3a The rendering "bone"
tends to reduce the encompassing psychic connotations of the word to a one "Gott und Mensch in Ps. 8/' TZ 25 (1969) 8.
3* James Muilenburg, "Introduction and Exegesis of Isaiah 40-66," (IB V; New
York : Abingdon, 1956) 683, understands it to "represent the basic stability of the self."

534

T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

[Vol.

32

dimensional physical object. The problem is the same in both the pair words.
The term rather speaks of a person or agent in his ability to function
effectively and to work his will in his context. For example in Gn 26,16,
Abimelech acknowledges that Isaac's company is larger and therefore
stronger and so he has no intention of resisting or challenging him. Again
the term combines the interpersonal with the physical in a way which
tends to be lost in our translation, so that again, it is useful to use a hyphen
and render it "bone-power."
Thus our two words which conventionally appear in English as physical
properties of the body need to be rendered in ways that speak of the function
ing of the whole organism. We shall render them "flesh-weakness" and
"bone-power."
Ill
The two terms in Gn 2,23 which we have now rendered "flesh-weakness"
and "bone-power" are not to be regarded as referring to two simples states.
The fact that they are a continuing pair in the traditions means that to
gether they mean something different from what either might mean sepa
rately. Because they are antithetical, it is most likely that they mean to
state two extreme possibilities and include everything between them, thus
all physical-psychological dimensions of interaction from A to Z.
The phenomenon of two opposites including the range of intermediate
possibilities is of course well known. In Gn 2,9 the tree of "good and evil"
may refer to "everything." Though this is a much disputed exegetical ques
tion, von Rad 4 understands it that way: "Knowledge of good and evil
means, therefore, omniscience in the widest sense of the word." That point
has been challenged by Robert Gordis 5 but it is at least a possible rendering.
A more obvious case is the frequent use of gdl-qln "from the greatest to
the least" (cf. 1 Sm, 5,9; 20,2; 22,15; 30,2.19; *2 Chr 34,30; Est 1,5.
20; Jer 6,13 ; 31,34; Jon 3,5 ; Gn 44,13), which of course means to include
every part of the group. Probably the same is expressed in "Heaven and
6
earth" (Gn 2,4), "city and field" (Dt 28,3), and perhaps this phenomenon
is relevant in the word pairs of Is 11,6-9: "wolf-lamb," "leopard-kid," "cowbear," which mean to speak of shalom among all parts of creation.
In our verse (Gn 2,23), the poles of "flesh-frailty" and "bone-power"
* Op. cit., 79.

"The Knowledge of Good and Evil in the Old Testament and the Qumran Scrolls "
JBL 76 (1957) 125.
6
See Cyrus Gordon, The World of the Old Testament (2d ed.; Garden City
Doubleday, 1950) 35, . 3.

1970]

O F THE SAME F L E S H AND BONE

535

mean to express the entire range of intermediate possibilities from the

extreme of frailty to power. Thus the relationship affirmed is one which is
affirmed for every possible contingency in the relationship, as we affirm in
the marriage formula, "in sickness and in health, in plenty and in want."
Here the text says, "in every circumstance from the extreme of frailty to
the extreme of power." A relation is affirmed which is unaffected by
changing circumstances. It is a formula of constancy, of abiding loyalty
which in the first place has nothing to do with biological derivation, as it
is often interpreted.7
IV
If we have here a formula of abiding loyalty for every changing circumstance, we may further understand the statement of bsr-sm if we examine
contexts which are parallel to our text.
The first comparable text we will consider is 2 Sm 5,1. (The parallel of
1 Chr 11,1 offers no additional data.) The tribes of the north have come
to Hebron to make David their King :
Behold, we are your bone and flesh.
In times past, when Saul was king over us,
it was you that led out and brought in
Israel ; and the Lord said "you shall be
shepherd of my people Israel, and you shall
be prince over Israel.8
The following verses show that a covenant was made between the two
parties though, as Hertzberg notes, it is clearly between a sovereign and
his vassals. Our formula in v. 1 clearly is a covenant formula, an oath of
abiding loyalty : "we will be with you in frailty and power. Our oath to you
will not waiver with changing circumstances." If it is not to be read as a
covenant formula but rather as a statement of blood connection9 then it is
curious that this is not mentioned. To the contrary, the next statement about
Saul does not connect David with Saul but rather drives a wedge between
them, so that the formula must speak about covenant loyalty and not about
7

The discussion by Werner Reiser, "Die Verwandtschaftsformel in Gen. 2,23,"

TZ 16 (1960) 1-4, moves very much in the same direction. I had completed this paper
when I first discovered his discussion. While his discussion does not preclude the
element of physical oneness as I do not either, clearly the emphasis is placed elsewhere, namely, on belonging to each other because of mutual commitment.
8
Reiser, ibid., 2, notes the problematic character of the formula unless it is interpreted as I propose.
9 See Hertzberg, I & II Samuel (tr. J. S. Bowden; Philadelphia: Westminster,
1964) 266.

536

T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

[Vol.

32

blood ties. It is this act which made possible the confederacy of north and
south in a single monarchy which Noth 10 calls a "personal union." Clearly
the categories of personal interaction and relationship are used here for
political and covenantal actions. The formula is a statement of loyalty in
initiating and affirming a treaty relationship.
The second text we will consider is 2 Sm 19,13-14. Whereas the vassals
come pledging allegiance to the sovereign in 2 Sm 5,1, here it is the king
claiming the loyalty of his vassals after his flight before Absalom. Apparently his southern subjects did not urge his return. David makes his claim
upon them :
My brothers are you,
you are my bone and my flesh.
It can of course be argued that this is reference to blood ties. But such can
be the case only in a most general sense. More likely, "brother" and "bone
and flesh" refer to the sharing of covenant oaths. 11 Pedersen12 shows that
"brother" refers to all those who have ties of community and commitments
to solidarity. Thus David's reference here is not to blood ties, though they
may be present, but rather that mutual covenant commitments must be
honored because the vows assume fidelity through thick and thin.
In 19,14 perhaps the allusion to blood ties is more to the fore. Here
David appeals to Amasa to act in loyalty toward him. It is clear that Amasa
was identified as a blood relative of David (cf. 2 Sm 17,25 ; 1 Chr 2,17). But
even if that were so, the fact that David promises a military promotion to
Amasa suggests that blood ties are here subordinated and the honoring of
covenant commitments with all the related political implications is what is
being stressed. As concerns both Amasa and the elders of Judah, David is
reaffirming the vows which bind them in loyalty to him. It is these vows
that let him speak of solidarity in "frailty" and in "power." Our renderings
in this way fit well with a circumstance in which a king has lost his throne
and is about to regain it, i.e., he moves from frailty back to power, and
through it all he anticipates support from those sworn to him.
The third text in which our formula occurs is Jgs 9,2. Abimelech, son of
Gideon, seeks the allegiance of the citizens of Shechem. There is no doubt
that the blood factor enters in, for the clan (mispah) of his mother is mentioned. But our formula is not used with reference to that group, but rather
io The History of Israel (2d ed.; New York: Harper, 1958, 1960) 187.
n John Skinner, Genesis (ICC; Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1910) 70, speaks of
"one flesh" meaning "one clan." Such a dimension to the term bsr is not inappropriate
here if "clan" is understood as a group which has common commitments to each other.
12 Israel MI (London: Oxford U., 1926) 57-60.

1970]

O F THE SAME F L E S H AND BONE

537

with the citizens (ba'ale) of Shechem, a larger group which apparently does
not claim such close kinship bonds. To them he says :
"Remember that
I am your bone and your flesh/'
and the response they make is appropriately : "He is our brother." 13
Perhaps it can be argued that flesh and bone here refers to actual blood
ties. However in the context of a power struggle and with the citizens of the
city being addressed, it is more likely that responsibility for political or
communal loyalty is the topic of discussion. Moreover, the simple response,
"He is our brother," is not merely an affirmation of blood ties, but is rather
a covenant oath which affirms and establishes a pattern of solidarity. The
formula "He is our brother" may be understood as an analogy of the divorce
formula (Hos 1,6), formula of re-marriage (Hos 2,25), or the formula of
adoption and enthronement (Ps 2,7). The consequence of the affirmation by
Abimelech and the response of the citizens of Shechem is apparently community solidarity in which leader and followers are bound together in spite
of any circumstances which may arise.
The fourth and last text which concerns us with the same formula is
Gn 29,14.13a In this text, blood ties are much more in evidence. In v. 12
Jacob is called "brother" and Laban responds :
Surely you are my bone and my flesh.
And the consequence is that Jacob stays with him.
Now of course this story functions to celebrate family connections and
purity of line in its present context. But it is also apparent in the narrative
which follows that Laban is not adverse to claiming loyalty where he can.
Subsequently Laban imposes upon Jacob his "kinsman" who has certainly
obligations to him. In light of the covenant formulated in 31,44ff., it is not
impossible that another old covenant formula is also employed in 29,14 as
the basis for the interaction between Jacob and Laban. They have difficulties with each other but it is equally clear that they are bound to each
13

von Rad, Das Gottesvolk in Deuteronomium (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1929), has

shown that 'ah means all those in a covenant community, so blood ties are to be
minimized in understanding the term. The term "brother" frequently refers to covenantal relations without regard to blood ties. Cf. D. Hillers, Covenant: the History
of a Biblical Idea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1969), R. Clements, Abraham and David
(SBT 2/5; London: SCM, 1967) 50, N. Gottwald, All the Kingdoms of the Earth
(New York: Harper & Row, 1964) 104, N. 20, and J. Priest, "The Covenant of
Brothers," JBL 84 (1965) 400-406.
13a See the discussion of John Van Seters, "Jacob's Marriages and Ancient Near
East Customs: A Re-examination," HTR 62 (1969) 388-391.

538

T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

[Vol.

32

other. Perhaps the formula of "frailty and power" expresses the character of
their being bound to each other.
In all four texts we have examined, there is some ambiguity between blood
ties and covenant commitments. But if the blood ties are the kind Pedersen
suggests, then they are general and very vague. We need to think in terms
of communal solidarity rather than blood ties. The "brotherhood" is one of
common loyalty more than common birth. Thus we are dealing with a
covenant formula which describes the commitments of partners to each other
who have obligations to each other in all kinds of circumstances, thick and
thin ('sm and bsr).
V
We may now return to the use of the formula in Gn 2,23. There is not,
as nearly as I can determine, any evidence from Mesopotamian parallels
which will illuminate our formula. Moreover most commentaries, if they take
up this verse, talk about the word-play 'is-issah in the second part of the
verse,14 but pass over the first part with the translation "flesh-bone" thus
missing the point of the formula as we have presented it here.
It is not my intention here to suggest different layers in the tradition but
only to note the tensions in the text which have been missed in most of the
standard exegeses.
1 ) The play on words in 23b 'is-issah is of course well known and much
interpreted. Its meaning is obvious once it is assumed that woman is derived
from man. However it is clear that this word-play in what sounds like a
very old aitiological formula is an intrusion in the text. This is evident first
in that it does not follow from our formula in the preceding line. It can be
connected with it only if our formula is not understood as a covenantal
formula, but as a statement of biological derivation which it is not. More
clearly, nowhere prior to this is man called 'is. He is consistently "ha 'adam."
Thus the word-play is inappropriate and without connection to its context
and cannot possibly provide a clue to the meaning of the text.
2) In w . 21-22 is the other statement which apparently speaks of biological derivation of woman from man. The statement raises questions because a) to derive one person from another in this story is out of keeping
with the present intent of the story; 15 b) the natural partner of ha 'adam in
the narrative is ha 'adamah and not woman. If a play on words is relevant to
the story it is 'adam-'adamah and not 'is-'issah; and c) the term for rib
(sala') is a strange one used only here in the OT to refer to the human
person. So we must look elsewhere for an understanding of the statement.
14
16

See for example Skinner, op. cit., 69f.

See, e.g., von Rad, Genesis, 82.

1970]

O F T H E SAME F L E S H AND BONE

539

S. N. Kramer 1 6 has suggested that the whole motif of "rib" is derived from
a Sumerian usage in which the term used means both "rib" and "live" the
latter referring to the woman as the mother of life. Thus the usage in
Sumerian is a pun. The "lady of the rib" is also "the lady who makes live."
In the Hebrew rendering the figure of the rib remains but the power of the
pun is completely lost. And when the meaning of the pun is lost, all that
remains is a device whereby woman enters the scene. Thus in w . 21-22 we
have a lost pun and in v. 23b we have a word-play which is inappropriate to
the story. These are the main elements which speak of woman being derived
from man. Quite clearly neither embodies the focus of the narrative about
man and woman in its present context.
3) What remains when these misleading elements are placed in perspec
tive are a) w . 18-20, the need for a mate and difficulty in finding one,
b) v. 23a, the affirmation of finding a partner, and c) v. 24, the implication
of this new partnership. None of these, it is clear, is concerned with bio
logical derivation. Now the issue is the continuing relation with reference
to their freedom and responsibility. Thus I shall insist, the main point is
that the two, man and woman, are covenant partners and this partnership is
decisive for understanding the life of either or both.
We affirm that the formula of 23a is a covenant formula as in its other
uses we have examined. The formula is intensified by double use of bsr and
'sm to express the profound loyalty and solidarity of purpose which is now
expressed. They are bound by oath now to share in their common cause in
every circumstance of weakness and every circumstance of strength. And
that to which they have made common oaths is the care of the earth (cf.
v. 15). For both of them the responsibility of 'adam is 'adamah, and the
woman partner now shares that loyalty and that responsibility.
4) This formula of solidarity in "weakness and strength" is underscored
by the frustration of w . 18-20 in which among all other creatures there is no
suitable "helper," i.e., there is no other able to enter into this kind of
covenant for every circumstance. 17 Perhaps this is the most radical statement
about human personhood made in Scripture, namely the capacity to make
oaths and enter into covenants, and the counterpoint which Reiser stressed,
17
that man is congenial for covenants only with humankind. * It is important
that the covenant-mate is to "help" (vv. 18,20). The help that is to be
16 The Sumerians, Their History, Culture and Character (Chicago: University of
Chicago, 1963) 149. Cf. T. Gaster, Myth, Legend and Custom in the Old Testament
(New York: Harper & Row, 1969) 21-22, and the works cited there.
17
On this point Reiser, op. cit., 4, is especially pertinent.
i? Though G. Kaufman, "Imago Dei as Man's Historicity," JR 36 (1956) 157-168,
is a comment on the creation narrative, the central point of his argument is not
unlike the one being made here, i.e., man is that creature who can make covenants.

540

T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

[Vol.

32

rendered apparently is in "tilling and keeping" the earth (v. 15). When the
matters in vv. 21-22 are recognized as a device to comment on the appearance of woman, we can read directly from v. 20 to v. 23 to follow the main
thread of the story. Seen this way the "help" is found when the covenant
formula is spoken, for the solidarity is in doing man's work, namely, caring
for the earth. Thus the covenant formula implies obligations.
5 ) The covenant formula is further substantiated by the concluding statement of v. 24 (v. 25 is presented to make the transition to Chapter 3) ,18 The
first part of v. 24 has the language of covenant relations, to abandon
(azav) and to cleave (davaq). The latter term, when used of interpersonal
relations, as in any context, is clearly a covenant term. It is especially used
in Deuteronomic contexts in clusters of covenant words to speak about
loyalty to covenant partners (Dt 11,22; 10,20; 13,5; Jos 23,8; 1 Kgs
ll,2). 1 8 a In the speech of Jos 23 for example, the term suggests an exclusive
relationship which asserts the jealousy of the covenant partner and excludes
all other relationships. Conversely the term ('azav) refers to abandoning
one covenant commitment for the sake of another (cf. Jer 1,16; Hos 4,10).
The two terms in Gn 2,24 also speak of terminating one loyalty and the
embrace of a new one. Thus it substantiates the covenant formula of 2,23a.
Finally, in 2,24b the term "one flesh" can of course be taken to refer to
kinship and blood relations,19 but in light of our understanding of v. 23, it
can refer to all those who have a mutuality of concern and loyalty. Certainly
it refers to a community bound in covenant as in mispah (Lv 25,49) and
cannot at all be understood in terms of biological derivation or sexual intercourse. "One flesh" refers to the solidarity of purpose about which we have
already spoken.
VI
We come to the conclusion then that Gn 2,18-24 in its comment on man
and woman is an attempt to talk meaningfully about interpersonal relationships which has been often misunderstood in conventional exegesis. Among
the implications of our conclusion are these :
1 ) The key phrase about the relationship in 2,23a is a covenantal formula
which does not speak about derivation in a biological sense but means to
speak about commonality of concern, loyalty, and responsibility.
is See Skinner, op. cit., 71.
18a
Cf. . Lohfink, Das Hauptgebot (Analecta Biblica 20 ; Rome : Pontifical Biblical
Institute, 1963) 79, and the cluster of words to which davaq is related.
19
See Brown, Driver, Briggs, A Hebrew and English Lexicon on the Old Testa
ment (Oxford: Clarendon, 1907) 142.

1970]

O F THE SAME FLESH AND BONE

541

2) That exegetical tradition which understands the text to speak about

biological derivation of woman from man is based on a lost pun ( w . 21-22)
and an inappropriate word-play (v. 23b) which surely miss the main point
of the text. Such an exegesis fails to understand the main thrust of the text
which speaks of the solidarity of man and woman in loyalty and responsibility.
3) The solidarity of that relationship as presented in the narrative is of
course for mutuality, but is also addressed to the larger meaning of humanness with reference to 'adamah. Any understanding of human interaction
which ignores this counterpoint presents only a partial understanding of
humanness. Indeed the mutuality of the pair is subordinated to the primary
mutuality of 'adam is-'issah)-'adamah.
4) The image of God and his bride Israel is of course a familiar one in
the prophets (cf. Hos 1-3 ; Jer 2,2 ; 3,1-5 ; Ez 16,23 ; Is 54,1-8). The image
is presented both in terms of infidelity and then of restored relation.
It is of course recognized that the marriage image is an attempt to talk
about covenant. But on the basis of Gn 2,23a as I have presented it, it
becomes clear that marriage is not a more personal or tender image for
covenant, but speaks directly about a relationship which endures through
thick and thin, weakness and strength. It is most appropriate for asking
about fidelity and infidelity, which is the meaning of the marriage imagery
for the Yahweh-Israel relation. Thus the terms davaq and 'azav are precisely
appropriate.
5) The same imagery in Paul (Eph 5,21-33) is illuminated. The relation
of Christ and his bride-Church is grounded in a commonality of concern,
loyalty and responsibility which is pledged to endure through weakness and
strength. Notice that in v. 31, Gn 2,24 which we have understood as a
covenant formula is quoted. It affirms that Christ and his Church are
bound by vows which make them "one flesh/' i.e., one loyalty to endure all
circumstances.
Though the figure is slightly different, Paul's image of "one body" in 1
Cor 12, 12-27 also speaks of a common loyalty in which the body (one flesh)
is held together by sharing in the same purpose.20 This way of handling the
image suggests the spectacular scope of this purpose and loyalty to which all
the covenanted parts are committed.
6) Finally it is appropriate to add a word about the insight of this text
into male-female relations. The text suggests nothing of the superiority of
20

If one may risk opinion about later Church doctrine this line of reasoning is
surely useful when one considers the relation of Father to Son in high Christology
(cf. Jn 17,11) and indeed even the language of the councils which speak of "one
substance."

542

T H E CATHOLIC BIBLICAL QUARTERLY

the male as often suggested, nor is it really an affirmation about the

legitimacy of sex, as if the question even arose in Israel.
On the positive side two factors are most important. First, the relation is
grounded on shared concerns, loyalties, and commitments which are taken
with seriousness. It is not a light, casual relation nor one grounded in a
mood or a feeling. It is rooted in an oath of solidarity. Second, the real
meaning of the relation is not found in mutual enjoyment though that is not
precluded, but is directed toward the human task of caring for the earth. 21
Human relations are set in a context where solidarity with and responsibility
for the larger world are directly affirmed.
In summary then the central teaching of the formula concerns fidelity to
vows, constancy in purpose, acceptance of responsibility which are appropriate to our humanness. When the formula of 2,23a is understood in this
way, the whole fabric of Israel's faith is greatly illuminated in terms of
fidelity and solidarity. Israel from the beginning knew she lived in a world
where solidarity, fidelity, and responsibility are the essentials of shalom. The
categories in which this verse is usually exegeted show how far we are
removed from the main point of the tradition. To recover the power of such
texts requires liberation from some of our most valued exegetical presuppositions and a return to the covenantal categories in which Israel viewed
her world and lived her life.
WALTER BRUEGGEMANN

Eden Theological Seminary

St. Louis, Missouri
21

This dimension is not given adequate expression by Reiser. Thus the formula
in its present context affirms man's is-'issah) lordship over the earth. It is in this
role that he needs "help."

^ s
Copyright and Use:
As an ATLAS user, you may print, download, or send articles for individual use
according to fair use as defined by U.S. and international copyright law and as
otherwise authorized under your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement.
No content may be copied or emailed to multiple sites or publicly posted without the
copyright holder(s)' express written permission. Any use, decompiling,
reproduction, or distribution of this journal in excess of fair use provisions may be a
violation of copyright law.
This journal is made available to you through the ATLAS collection with permission
from the copyright holder(s). The copyright holder for an entire issue of a journal
typically is the journal owner, who also may own the copyright in each article. However,
for certain articles, the author of the article may maintain the copyright in the article.
Please contact the copyright holder(s) to request permission to use an article or specific
work for any use not covered by the fair use provisions of the copyright laws or covered
by your respective ATLAS subscriber agreement. For information regarding the
copyright holder(s), please refer to the copyright information in the journal, if available,
or contact ATLA to request contact information for the copyright holder(s).
About ATLAS:
The ATLA Serials (ATLAS) collection contains electronic versions of previously
published religion and theology journals reproduced with permission. The ATLAS
collection is owned and managed by the American Theological Library Association
(ATLA) and received initial funding from Lilly Endowment Inc.
The design and final form of this electronic document is the property of the American
Theological Library Association.