Posts Tagged ‘Patriarchy’

Patriarchy Is Good for Women

Tuesday, July 20th, 2010

Matriarchy might look good in theory, but it’s about as useful as having all feet and no hands. (See 1 Corinthians 12.)

Says the Elusive Wapiti:

But what feminists didn’t realize at the time they took patriarchy out back and shot it is that patriarchy, among other things, lassoed men into socially constructive behavior and dutiful service of society as a whole. And women in particular. Freed from patriarchy, men were free to throw off the yoke of duty and other-focused behavior and could pursue their own self interests full-tilt. Which quite a few dudes did, and found that a world without patriarchy–the world that women all yelled and screamed and marched and burnt bras for–suited them just fine. And they thought that this world was the one that women wanted.

Hunting Pigeon Blood

Thursday, July 1st, 2010

Another great new addition to the blogroll: Full of Grace, Seasoned with Salt.

Ki Tisa 5770 – Honorable Priorities

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

God wants obedience. He said that if we love him, we will keep his commandments. Yet, Moses and Elijah both appear to have disobeyed God and were honored for it.

Moses came down from Sinai to find the people worshiping and sacrificing to the golden calf, and God said, “Step aside, Moses. I’m going to destroy these people and start over with you.” Moses refused and appealed to God’s reputation to convince him not to destroy Israel. “What will the Egyptians think of you?” God honored Moses’ plea and spared the nation. (Exodus 32:7-14)

Although God had said that the only place authorized for making sacrifices was at the place where he would “put his name,” Elijah built an altar at the other end of the country. After he put the sacrifice on it and soaked it with water, he asked God to light it for him, and God did, sending fire from heaven to consume it, stones, water, and all. (1 Kings 18:18-40)

Why didn’t God push Moses out of the way and finish what he started? It’s not like Moses actually had any real power. Who is man that God should listen to him? Why didn’t he tell Elijah to go to Jerusalem for his contest with the prophets of Baal? Why did he honor Elijah’s disobedience in such a spectacular manner?

The truth is that neither Moses nor Elijah were actually disobedient. If you have been keeping Torah for long, then you have probably realized that there are times when you must break (or stretch) one law in order to keep another. For example, it’s good to work on the Sabbath in order to free a trapped animal or to heal an injured man or feed the hungry. That’s not disobedience at all, but sometimes it takes a great deal of wisdom to weigh the competing priorities. The same thing is going on in both of these stories.

In the Torah, God never named the specific place that would bear his name. It is possible that he could change the location authorized for sacrifices or even authorize multiple locations. There is some room for interpretation in that law (Deuteronomy 12:11). On the other hand, there can be no compromise with Baal or his prophets. We are not to tolerate them, and especially not in the land of Israel. That is God’s land, and they were interlopers. Elijah took the fight into the place they thought of as their own, rebuilt one of God’s altars and proved who was the real owner. He understood God’s character well enough to know which rule took precedence in that situation.

God gave Moses authority over and responsibility for the people of Israel. He was their judge, teacher, and protector. He was the man whom God used to free them from captivity. When they fought the Amalekites, Moses’ upraised arms enabled their victory. When they complained against God, his intercession saved them from destruction. Moses, by divine appointment and as a type of the Messiah, was a spiritual covering for Israel. When God threatened to destroy them, Moses was duty-bound to intervene even against God himself. His role as Israel’s leader took precedence over any possible role as the progenitor of a new people, and he honored God by putting his own life on the line to save his disobedient, ungrateful people.* “God if you will destroy these people, then destroy me too, because otherwise I will have failed them, you, and myself.” Like Elijah, he had a heart that understood God’s.

I pray that YHWH will bless me with such understanding, with such love, with such a relationship with him, that I will know how to obey him even when obedience seems impossible, how to honor his calling, his people, and his Torah. Barukh YHWH!

*What a great example for all leaders and husbands! Moses put his own life in jeopardy because his love for God and his people demanded it.

Increasing Complexity

Monday, February 8th, 2010

In the sequence of Creation as depicted in Genesis chapter one, God handiwork becomes more and more complex as the week goes on. First light, then stars and planets, then plants, then animals, then man, and finally woman, who truly is the piece de resistance of God’s creativity.

Bereishit 5769 – An Help Meet for Him

Monday, October 20th, 2008

Genesis 2:18, part 2

I will make him an help meet for him. According to Adam Clarke, the Hebrew for “help meet for him,” ezer kenegdo, “implies that the woman was to be a perfect resemblance of the man, possessing neither inferiority nor superiority, but being in all things like and equal to himself.”1 He was right to a certain extent. Eve was like Adam in that she was of mankind, and not animal kind, and in that she possessed both body and spirit while the animals have only body, but was not quite “a perfect resemblance of the man.” The physical differences between men and women are obvious. The spiritual differences are not so obvious, but they are evident in the Creation story, in many other scriptural references to the differently ordained roles of men and women, and in the practical roles into which men and women have almost universally organized their activities.2

Ezer implies more of an ally than a servant. In fact, David used that word several times to refer to God. In Psalm 33, he wrote, “Our soul waiteth for the LORD: he is our help and our shield.” And in Psalm 70, he wrote, “O God: thou art my help and my deliverer.” The term implies an ally, an indispensable supporter, a rescuer, and a man’s wife is certainly all of these things. There is nothing in the word to imply inferiority, but there is really nothing in the word that implies any kind of relationship at all except one of crucial support. The fact that she was made specifically for Adam’s purposes, and not for her own, however, demonstrates God’s intended purpose for her, to actively serve Adam, just as man’s purpose is to actively serve God. Stephen B. Clark wrote, “The description of the woman as a ‘helper fit for him’ implies that the woman was not simply to be, but to do. Her role is to be an active one in the support of her husband.”3 Eve was not created just to keep Adam company, and both men and women will live happier lives if they focus on their God ordained tasks. Women will be happier if they focus their lives on serving their husbands and rearing their children.

There is also no reason to suppose that women have no other purpose but to serve their husbands and bear their children. God has often used women as prophetesses to convey his words to mankind, and he has also given women the ability to take over leadership roles when men fail either through inability or abdication. Women might have their own missions assigned directly by God, but the vast majority of women will be happier and more fulfilled as wives and mothers, just as the majority of men will be happier as husbands and fathers. And a part of being a godly wife and mother involves willingly submitting to her husband in her role as his subordinate ally.4

1 Clarke, Adam. Commentary on the Bible. e-Sword v7.0.5. Copyright 2000-2003, Rick Meyers. .
2 Goldberg, Stephen. The Inevitability of Patriarchy. New York: William Morrow & Company, Inc., 1974. 228. “…the central fact is that men and women are different from each other from the gene to the thought to the act and that emotions that underpin masculinity and femininity, that make reality as experienced by the male eternally different from that experienced by the female, flow from the biological natures of man and woman…the women of every society have taken the paths they have not because they were forced by men but because they have followed their own imperatives.”
3 Clark, Stephen B. Man and Woman in Christ. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Servant Press, 1980. 20.
4 “Genesis 2:18 describes the man’s problem as being his aloneness, but it describes the solution as being ‘a helper fit for him’. Genesis does not describe woman as a companion to man but as a helper. As Von Rad points out, the phrase is not a romantic evaluation of woman. Rather it presents woman as ‘useful’ to man. A man’s wife is supposed to ‘do something’ for him, just as he is supposed to ‘do something’ for her. If she does not do what she is supposed to do for him (and if he does not do what he is supposed to do for her) deep interpersonal sharing will not make the marriage a good marriage.” Clark. Man and Woman. 22.

Ki Tisa 5768 – The Price of Patriotism

Thursday, February 21st, 2008

Exodus 30:12
…every man a ransom for his soul…
Although the King James translators chose to put “children” here instead of “sons,” the remainder of the text is clear that males are intended. This tax was only levied against men who were able to fight. No women or children were included. The resulting count of half-shekels was no doubt used to assign the leaders of tens, hundreds, and so forth, as well as to estimate the nation’s fighting strength. Women and children were not counted, because they did not participate in combat except in the most extreme circumstances. The half-shekel was silver, representing the blood of the donator. It was a statement of patriotism, of willingness to defend Israel to the death if required.

Veils, Tallits, and Covering

Monday, January 28th, 2008

When Moses came down from Mt. Sinai, his face glowed and he wore a veil over his face to hide the glory of it from the Israelites. I was taught that this was a purely pragmatic act, that he had absorbed so much of God’s glory that nobody could withstand it. I don’t think that’s true. When he was about God’s business–for example, when he spoke the Torah to the assembled Israelites and when he was in the tent communing directly with God–he removed the veil. When he was about more mundane business–for example, judging legal cases and performing administrative duties in the camp–he wore the veil. The key distinction is not whether or not the person in front of him could stand to look at him, but whether or not it was appropriate to display directly God’s glory.

I think it was important that he did not appear to be speaking for God at every waking moment. He wasn’t Pharaoh’s replacement god; he was an emissary for that replacement. He had to hide his face so that the Israelites would not be tempted to worship him or to take every word as divine law. Removing the veil was like the pope speaking ex cathedra. He removed the veil when he read God’s Law, because he wanted Israel to see God speaking.

After studying the biblical mentions of veils and the like, I’ve concluded that coverings in general are emblems of authority, protection, and separation. There are several different kinds of coverings talked about in scripture: headcoverings, veils, mantles (or stoles), robes of state, wraps, hangings, bedding, and shadows.

I think that headcoverings and mantles are two sides of the same coin. How the covering is worn or used advertises the bearer’s relationship to the authority. Worn on the head, they indicate submission to the authority of someone else over the wearer. One who is under authority is obligated to obey, but is entitled to protection and provision. To a certain extent, he shares in the power of that authority. Worn on the shoulders, a covering represent the authority carried by the wearer. Think of Atlas holding the world on his shoulders. One who carries authority is responsible for its exercise and for the protection and provision of its subjects. Paul’s argument regarding the wearing of headcoverings in worship helps to clarify this principle that the Torah and the prophets only alluded to.

Some examples of coverings representing the bearing of authority:

  • Elijah was a chief prophet and the headmaster of a school. He wore a mantle on his shoulders as a badge of office and passed it on to his successor, Elisha.
  • The High Priest wore an onyx stone bearing the names six of the twelve tribes on each of his shoulders. They represented his right to judge the nation on spiritual matters, while he wore a gold plate with twelve different precious stones over his heart to represent his obligation to judge with love and mercy.
  • Jacob gave Joseph a coat of many colors. Immediately after that, Joseph dreamed that all of Israel would someday bow to him. I don’t think that Jacob meant for Joseph’s coat to represent anything except his affection, but God had other plans. Think of the twelve differently colored stones on the High Priests breastplate. How much do you want to bet that there were exactly twelve different colors on Joseph’s coat?

Some examples of coverings representing submission to authority or protection:

  • Ruth covered herself with a corner of Boaz’s tallit as a subtle marriage proposal.
  • Boaz told Ruth to remove her veil–something that should only be done by someone in authority: a husband or father, for instance–so that he could fill it with barley. He was replying in the affirmative to her proposal.
  • Paul argued that a woman who prays or prophecies without a headcovering dishonors her husband.
  • Headcoverings were frequently used to hide shame or sorrow, a response which I believe to be very closely related to submission.
  • The Hebrew word for “pitch” in the story of Noah’s ark literally means “covering.” The same word is also translated “bribe” or “ransom.”
  • After God threatened Abimelech’s life for attempting to take a prophet’s wife as his own, Abimelech told Sarah that Abraham was a covering for her.
  • In the trial of a wife suspected of adultery, the priest removes her headcovering before subjecting her to the ordeal, symbolizing the removal of her husband’s protection.

Noah’s pitch coated his ark to keep out the floods that destroyed the rest of the world, like Yeshua’s blood that separates us from our world and its eventual fate. Likewise, the Hebrew word translated “mercy seat” in Exodus 25:17 referring to the lid of the Ark of the Covenant actually doesn’t have anything to do with seats, although it does imply mercy. It means “lid” or “cover” and comes from the same root as the word translated as “pitch.” Both coverings protect the contents of a wooden box from something outside. The Ark of the Covenant represents (at least on one level) the heart of a human being. It’s where David said he hid God’s law and where God says he wants to write it in every person. We can’t face God in our natural state directly, but in the Tabernacle, God’s presence hovered above the Ark. The mercy seat represents Yeshua’s role as our High Priest and intermediary with the Father, who sees us through the filter of his son. In this case, Yeshua as our covering takes on almost every aspect symbolized by all the other types of coverings. He hides us from an overwhelming power. He seals our hearts off from the rest of the world. He commands our obedience as we submit to him.

Tamar wore a veil to hide her identity but also to subtly tell Judah that the deaths of his sons weren’t her fault. Her very name means “upright.” The real problem was with Judah’s sons and their mother. Through the entire humiliating ordeal, she remained submitted to authority, and thereby wound up with Judah’s life and power in her hands. She took his staff (a symbol of power and authority) and rings (rings, bracelets, and ear/nose rings are symbols of betrothal and ownership) from him, and returned them in such a way that had he insisted on prosecuting her, he would have forfeited his own life.

Other coverings represent the outpouring of one spirit or another or separation from God or protection from danger or comfort. I could probably write a book on this topic alone. Enough for now, though. I need to incorporate some of this into the current book first.

Divorce Is Not the Problem

Wednesday, November 28th, 2007

Dr. Stephen Baskerville at MensNewsDaily wrote that “…until we understand that the principal threat to marriage today is not cultural but political, and that it comes not from homosexuals but from heterosexuals, we will never reverse the decline of marriage. The main destroyer of marriage, it should be obvious, is divorce. Michael McManus of Marriage Savers points out that “divorce is a far more grievous blow to marriage than today’s challenge by gays.” The central problem is the divorce laws.”

He’s right that divorce is a problem and that the divorce laws are a problem, but he is way off when he says they are the central problem. The divorce laws are terribly perverse, but that is only a symptom of a greater problem that really is cultural. Or maybe I should say spiritual. The central problem with marriage today is feminism, rebellion against God’s prescribed order. The absurdities of no fault divorce, mandatory and draconian spousal maintenance and child support payments, default child custody laws, homosexual marriage, et cetera, are the logical end of rejecting the common sense of created order. In that context, divorce is actually an oft-abused remedy that God has built into his Law.

Here’s my ideal solution (as of today–I might change my mind later):

  1. Take marriage out of the hands of government. Do away with marriage licenses. The civil government has no legitimate role to play in deciding who may marry whom. Neither does the church.
  2. Replace marriage licenses and platitudinal “vows” that no one takes seriously with real marriage contracts that must be signed by the bride, groom, and at least one senior relative of each. Two would be better. If there are no relatives available, then a spiritual mentor, such as pastor, rabbi, or priest, would do.
  3. Reduce the government’s role in marriage and divorce to contract enforcement.
  4. Immediately eliminate government financed welfare for able-bodied adults and corporations. Gradually eliminate most other government financed welfare programs as well and eliminate the income tax to compensate. Charity is admirable and spiritually mandatory, but there’s no charity at the end of a gun.
  5. Institute a biblically based land and property reform. Every family gets its own land, which will be returned every fiftieth year without obligation. No land can ever be permanently sold, but can only be leased for a maximum term of fifty years. The only way that land can be permanently divided or transferred is through inheritance. Eliminate inheritance taxes. (I did say ideal and not necessarily practical, didn’t I?)
  6. Replace the judicial concepts of punishment and reform with restitution and removal. Scrap 95% of all laws and send all the lawyers to an internment camp on the shores of the Beaufort Sea. The ones we don’t just give to old Billy, anyways. All future judges in local courts must be unpaid and must be respected and successful men of the general public.

Then I think we might be getting somewhere. ;-)

Women Are Conflicted

Thursday, September 21st, 2006

Women suffer an unending conflict between the need to be submissive (1 Corinthians 11:7-9), the drive to control (Genesis 3:16), and the feminist social pressure to appear to be in control (Isaiah 3-4). All of those things are mutually exclusive and they only lead to misery. A happy woman is she with strength to suppress the corruption of sin and a godless society, and her husband is blessed beyond measure.

Ephesians 5:21-33

Saturday, August 26th, 2006

In this oft-quoted passage, Paul compared the relationship between Christ and the church to that between a husband and wife: just as Christ has direct authority over the church, so does a husband have direct authority over his wife.

Paul says that wives should willingly put themselves under the authority of their husbands in every area of life. This does not mean that women are inferior to men in value or in importance to God’s plan. On the contrary, as evidenced by Genesis 2, most men can never be truly complete without a woman. This also does not mean that a woman must obey her husband’s every command as if he was God incarnate. It makes sense to interpret Paul’s command in much the same way as his previous injunction to obey civil authorities: obey as long as obedience does not require you to sin. Obedience falls in line with God’s purpose for creating Eve to assist Adam.

Husbands have a definite role to fulfill in marriage as well. A husband is to love his wife in the same manner that Christ loved the church. He taught the disciples and nurtured them in His ways, then He gave up his life in our place, so that we could join Him as a virgin bride–for the impure in sin could never be one with a holy God. Likewise, a husband should be a spiritual teacher and the high priest of his family. He should be willing to sacrifice nearly everything for the spiritual well-being of his wife and family. By doing so, he will also strengthen himself in spirit and in character.