|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
All scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the New King James Version. Copyright 1982 by Thomas Nelson, Inc. Used by permission. All rights reserved. Bible text from the New King James Version is not to be reproduced in copies or otherwise by any means except as permitted in writing by Thomas Nelson, Inc., Attn: Bible Rights and Permissions, P.O. Box 141000, Nashville, TN 37214-1000. (see text) |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Chapter Seven: |
|||||||||
|
And Breasts That Are Dry
Doubtless there are those out there -- assuredly the majority of which are male -- who would wonder whether one must be suicidal or a fool to even attempt to write a chapter on this topic. Nonetheless, and not entirely without trepidation, I venture into this chapter not as I welcome opportunity for debate, but as this subject has, perhaps more than any other, been so fully embraced by the proponents of political correctness, that it needs to be addressed -- not as to how I believe it should be, but as the word of God Almighty prescribes it must be if we are to live lives according to His good and perfect will.
Just to set the record straight, the Bible clearly shows that man was created first, and woman for him, as it was "not good that the man should be alone". Given the ferocity of the women's movement today, most in my position might undoubtedly have chosen to omit this bit of information; however, I am unable to, as relating to the natural order of things -- as ordained by God, not pollster -- this was included in the holy word of God for a purpose. What the purpose might be, I am not inclined to guess; however, the Apostle Paul, as guided by the Holy Spirit, felt it appropriate enough to emphasize this natural, God-ordained order in his first letter to the believers in Corinth, where he wrote: For man is not from woman, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (I Corinthians 11:8-9) Okay. So we've established who was created when, and for whom, but this still tells us very little about how, if at all, the different genders were to function distinct from one another. Some argue there is no distinction between sexes -- apart from the obvious, physical one, that is (although many today even try to deny that, too). Does God's word teach a distinction between man and woman other than the previously mentioned order and purpose of creation?
Superficially, this appears to be nothing other than a restriction against transvestism. But, doesn't it really say more? Aside from the all-important restriction against cross-dressing -- one which, I dare say, has become something of a joke in today's culture (and I don't believe anything important enough for God to include in His holy word should be so casually disregarded as this command has been today) -- this passage also clearly illustrates a divinely-imposed distinction of sexes. One is not even to look like the other, much less act alike. And, almost as if Moses knew this command wasn't likely to be taken very seriously, he made sure to add: for all who do so are an abomination to the LORD your God. Okay, so this isn't merely some eccentricity of Moses', but something abominable to God. If God so detests men who dress like women, and women who dress like men, what must He feel toward those who strive to erase the attributional distinction between the sexes which He established? Today, there are not only women who dress masculine, talk masculine and act masculine, but if they were somehow able to attach masculine genitals to themselves, they would no doubt do that, as well (not that some women, entirely dissatisfied with being women, haven't tried -- if not physiologically, certainly succedaneously via the emasculation of their partners). It has become an unpardonable crime among even many mainstream feminist groups for a woman to actually look or act like a woman. Liberal forbid each gender actually conducts itself in the manner as prescribed by God! What could we have been thinking all those centuries past when women prided themselves in being women and not pseudo-men?! How unenlightened they must've been to find contentment in their femininity! Perhaps that's why men tried for so long tried to keep them out of "institutions of higher learning" (and I use that phrase loosely) -- to prevent, or at least delay, their enlightenment and realization that being a woman was something less than desirable, and that God hadn't a clue when He designed two separate, distinct and multifariously unique sexes. What's so tragic about being a woman? Male authority? Female submission? Even if these antiquated concepts still existed, is there anguish in obeisance to God? Is God's way so difficult to bear? Are the alternatives more pleasant? Do we know better than our Creator how the order of things best serve His purposes? We submit to God -- at least, we should. We also submit to rulers, leaders, directors, commanders, bosses, chiefs and superiors of every sort. Children submit to parents -- perhaps not as in generations past -- why not one gender to another, specifically as God has decreed it to be so? Is submission by gender that much more difficult to accept than submission to these others? What does the word of God teach about man's authority over woman? Does the Bible really teach that at all?
Before anyone insists this isn't saying what it appears to be saying, let's look at the word here which, without a doubt, is cause for manifold vexation throughout most of the woman's rights movement: "rule". It is the Hebrew word mashal, meaning to rule or to have dominion over, to govern or have power. It is the same Hebrew word which appears in the forty-fifth chapter of Genesis where Joseph, in speaking to his brothers, says: "So then, it was not you who sent me here, but God. He made me father to Pharaoh, lord of his entire household and ruler of all Egypt." (Genesis 45:8)(NIV) There can be little doubt as to the nature of Joseph's authority over Egypt. Nonetheless, for the sake of doubtless verification, let's also turn to the eighth chapter of Judges where this same word appears four times in the space of only two verses.
The meaning seems apparent enough, but let's check another.
The passage here is in reference to the coming Messiah. It does seem to mean "rule", doesn't it, and not "co-chair"? And this is the LORD God speaking in Genesis 3:16, saying a woman's husband will "rule over" her -- not exactly a factor on the side of those who say, "It's a man's world -- what do you expect from a man? Certainly, man is going to elevate himself to a position of authority over womankind every opportunity he gets. This is merely another example of inherent, oppressive, male chauvinism." Even if it were only the words of a man -- Moses, David, Solomon, Isaiah, Paul -- the fact that it appears in Scripture (a Scripture accepted by Christ, the very Son of God) is reason enough to accept it as truth. That it comes from the very mouth of the LORD God Himself, makes it nothing less than an absolutely incontestable certainty. "And he will rule over you." Like it or not, there it is. But, let us turn to yet another passage of Scripture which employs this same Hebrew word, mashal, or rule, in another sense which is, coincidentally, applicable to this very subject.
Now, to place this passage in context, one must read all of chapter three, as well as the majority of chapters two and four. In the context of the whole, it is quite obvious that this judgment Isaiah's calling down upon the people of Judah -- as directed by the LORD -- is a curse, not a blessing. If one reads this again in that light, it's very clear that what's being said here is that when a society allows women and children to rule over them, it's pretty much down for the final count. It's not very flattering to women, I must admit, but it's the word of God, as spoken through the prophet Isaiah. And going back to what I'd written in chapter one of this volume, if one believes this is the word of God, one has to accept it all, not just the portions one finds pleasing. God only knows there are passages (far more than I'd like to admit) in His word that are difficult for me, as well, but God's word is God's word, and there's no getting around it. After all, this is His creation, and we accept His way or we don't. Either way, in the end, what we want, and the way we want it, doesn't really matter, as it's God's way that prevails, and should prevail. So now that I've fully alienated every living woman whose intention it was to read this volume, what else, if anything, does God's word teach about feminism and the woman's right to assert herself in male-dominated society? Does the Bible touch upon this, or is there to be no societal distinction between male and female?
Again, this would appear to be fairly unpalatable for those of the female persuasion; however, on further study of this passage, it can be ascertained that women are not the only ones being called to submit to authority here: The head of woman is man, the head of man is Christ, the head of Christ is God. "Well, that's easy," some might argue. "It's easier submitting to a perfect Lord than it is to a quite-far-from-perfect man!" On this point I'd have to concur. Given the choice of being lorded over by God or man, my choice would be obvious. There is no contest. It's a foregone conclusion: Perfect God over imperfect man any day. But, we as men aren't let off the hook that easily -- unless, of course, we care to forget passages like Romans 13:1-6, Titus 3:1, Hebrews 13:17 and I Peter 2:13-15. There's a lot of authority there to be submissive to -- all of us, both male and female alike. Although, as in any case, one should not submit to sin, or do anything contrary to the will of God; that must be made perfectly clear. Man's and woman's obligation to their earthly masters is always secondary to their obligation to God. The fourth chapter of Judges relates the account of the prophetess, Deborah, who was leading or judging Israel in the days following the passing of Joshua. Many claim that as the Bible recounts the leadership of woman, it is, in some way, endorsing it. However, as already demonstrated in chapter one, just because the Bible records an historical event as fact, in no way implies this event was the proper or righteous thing to do. (The Bible records David's adultery and murder. This is, in no way, an endorsement of adultery and murder -- even though the Bible refers to David as a "man after God's own heart".) If one reads the entire fourth chapter of Judges, it becomes apparent that no such endorsement is forthcoming. As a matter-of-fact, Barak, the son of Abinoam, is ridiculed by Deborah for fearing to go into battle without her.
And, lest anyone believes this is anything but an insult, turn to the third chapter of the book of Nahum, verse thirteen.
Before anyone tries to argue that this is a compliment, they'd better read the rest of the book of Nahum -- which is (even to the most unreceptive, shallow-minded liberal), in its entirety, a curse -- a call for judgment on Nineveh. It is not a message of acclamation to Nineveh, applauding Assyrian accomplishment and liberal progressiveness for its incorporation of women into its military. The passage, Surely, your people in your midst are women! is a metaphoric taunt at the Assyrian Empire, depictive of the weakened state of its ranks. This is an insult leveled by a prophet of God who is foretelling of their (Nineveh's) imminent collapse as punishment for their wickedness. Also, concerning a woman's status in society, the entire thirtieth chapter of Numbers illustrates that a woman' vow-taking rights are clearly restricted by the authority of the male she is living with. If an unmarried woman still living in her father's house utters a vow which her father disapproves, he may nullify it. In the same manner, a married woman's husband may nullify any vow his wife makes which he disapproves of. And lest anyone think I'm making this all up, the thirtieth chapter of Numbers ends by recording that These are the statutes which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, and between a father and his daughter in her youth in her father's house. (Numbers 30:16) (The word of God says nothing about an unmarried woman living on her own, but in those days that just didn't happen with any great frequency. Whether such is approved by God or not, I cannot venture to say, as God's word does not touch upon this subject at all. The LORD God gave these regulations, not the author of this book.) Another societal restriction placed on women by the word of God was the proof of virginity at marriage, as related in Deuteronomy 22:13-21, but I will be dealing with this later in chapter eight. Preceding this, the twenty-first chapter of Deuteronomy allows men at war to take captive women as wives. Again, this isn't my decree, but God's, and I make no apologies for it. Clearly, the word of God is not altogether sympathetic with the woman's movement of our day, and having to choose between God and the women's movement, most professing Christians today have chosen the latter. What about women's dress? Today a lot is made of a woman's right to dress, or -- more appropriately to our times -- "undress" as she sees fit, often with a blatant irresponsibility toward the effect it might have on others -- particularly the male of the species (who is already preoccupied with sex, and certainly needs no additional stimuli). Does God's word, in any way, tackle this?
So much for those who defend a woman's right to be lewd and flirtatious. It seems to me that God is altogether disagreeable to this idea; knowing man as He does, He has good reason to demand this sort of exhibitionism curbed. (I am thoroughly convinced that had women ever placed themselves inside a man's mind and body for even an hour, they'd behave a lot differently in the presence of men, and more likely than not, weld themselves into suits of armor and never leave their homes.)
These seem to be clear and require no further comment on my part. However, while we're in I Timothy two, we can drop down to the very next verse and get started on another touchy topic.
Some contend these passages apply only to propriety in worship, and that a woman's submission to man (and prohibition from authority over men) is not an eternal premise, but applicable only to situations within Christian worship. Looking at the passage from I Timothy, there is no mention of worship, congregation or assembly whatsoever. Contrarily, the passage does invoke the creation order, where it emphatically states: For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. In reiterating the eternal, immutable order of creation, the application of this passage must itself be clearly construed as eternal and immutable -- in contrast to the passage above from I Corinthians fourteen, which does mention congregations and churches. The head-covering controversy of I Corinthians eleven is yet another example of false implication derived from an improper reading of the actual text. As with the passage from I Timothy, some maintain the head-covering principle from I Corinthians is applicable exclusively to situations of worship. Again, I contend that no such implication can be supposed from what the text is actually saying. As in the passages from I Timothy, nowhere are the words worship, congregation or assembly even suggested at. Indeed, no mention, or even hint of formal assemblies is made until verse seventeen, where the subject matter changes entirely -- this occasioned by the interjacence of In the following directives I have no praise for you. (I Corinthians 11:17) One need not have a doctorate in languages to recognize this. Some insist, however, that as praysand prophesies are mentioned in verse four, this does indeed refer to an order of worship. Again, I disagree, as formal assembly was never requisite for prayer or prophecy anywhere else throughout the whole of Scripture. Indeed, Christ told the woman at the well -- in response to her inquiry about place of worship (see verse twenty) -- that God is to be worshiped "in spirit and truth" (see John 4:18-24). Paul nowhere indicates he is establishing a principle for worship in the first sixteen verses of I Corinthians, chapter eleven. Indeed in verses fourteen and fifteen he invokes the natural creation order again, where he writes: Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him? But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering. (I Corinthians 11:14-15) Contradistinctive to this, the passage from I Corinthians fourteen is clearly an order for worship: For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. (I Corinthians 14:33-35) This restriction is clearly applicable specifically to the circumstances mentioned: in the churches. The restrictions indicated in the previous passages quoted herein, contain no such qualifiers, and are decidedly the natural, created order, applicable to all times, places and circumstances. Also, the restrictions for worship indicated in I Corinthians fourteen are not merely restrictive only to the circumstances of the first century Corinthian church. Nowhere does Paul indicate this, as he clearly does in other passages where applied restrictions were conditionally temporal due to specific, local circumstances (chiefly I Corinthians 7:26). I personally know of Christian women who claim they must take positions of authority and speak out in Christian assembly as the men refuse to do their part and nothing would get done otherwise. Granted, the men of many, perhaps most, Christian congregations may be neglectful of their God- given duty in this, as well as many other areas, but I am aware of nowhere in sacred Scripture that God ever allowed one person to disregard His commandment because someone else had broken one. The regulation applies, and as with all of God's precepts, there are no exceptions. It is the clear and unambiguous teaching of God, borne up throughout the whole of His word. Having now touched upon the Bible's views of a woman's roles within society and the Christian assembly, what does God's word teach about a woman's role in marriage?
The third chapter of I Peter, verses one through six, closely parallels this passage from Ephesians, then refers to wives in verse seven as the weaker vessel (in both NASB and NKJV). The word here translated as weaker is the Greek word asthenes, or weak. Whether this characteristic of a wife is in reference to physical, spiritual or some other stamina, I cannot say, as it does not appear from the context of the passage that such might be ascertained.
Again, that obedient to their husbands has found its way into God's word, this time with an explanation tagged to it: that the word of God may not be blasphemed. There's also a very provocative homemakers attached here. Similarly, Proverbs 14:1 declares that The wise woman builds her house, But the foolish pulls it down with her hands. Many in the woman's movement today would more than willingly identify themselves with the latter of the two women described above. However, perhaps the most detailed portrayal in Scripture of an ideal wife appears at the conclusion of the book of Proverbs, chapter thirty-one, verses ten through thirty-one. Here, the author describes a godly wife of noble character, worth far more than rubies.
But a woman who fears the LORD, she shall be praised. Hardly descriptive of the majority of today's liberated women, the thirty-first chapter of Proverbs illustrates the ideal woman from God's perspective. The key elements here are: the LORD, husband, children, household, wisdom and faithful instruction -- not herself, position, wealth, authority and recreation.
But, lest we seem to dwell only on wives' duties and obligations to their husbands, we'd best not forget the rest of Ephesians, chapter five: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. "For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh." (Ephesians 5:25-31) Here, it would seem that husbands aren't exactly being let off the hook regarding marital duty and obligations. From this passage it's evident that a man must be willing to give up his life for the sake of his wife, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her.... Nowhere in Scripture are wives ever called upon to do the same. The early chapters of Isaiah paint a dismal and frightening portrait of the last days, where the proud and lofty will be humbled, and the arrogance of man brought low. It is when, for the haughty and flirtatious women of Isaiah three (previously mentioned in this chapter), Instead of sweet smell there will be a stench; Instead of a sash, a rope; Instead of well-set hair, baldness; Instead of a rich robe, a girding of sackcloth; And branding instead of beauty. Your men shall fall by the sword, And your mighty in the war. Her gates shall lament and mourn, And she being desolate shall sit on the ground. (Isaiah 3:24-26) Here, in the opening verses of the fourth chapter, the prophet Isaiah writes of the women in those days: And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, "We will eat our own food and wear our own apparel; Only let us be called by your name, To take away our reproach." (Isaiah 4:1) It's difficult to imagine a day like this may soon be coming, drawing ever closer with each passing moment -- "Only let us be called by your name, To take away our reproach." In that day, it would seem, there will be no more lust for ascendancy, no more room for contention, no more aversion to male prepotency; for the women's movement, on that day, it will be the last stop. The feminist movement and its agenda will die -- not because of efforts of men, but because it is against the natural, created order ordained by the sovereign God of the universe. God set an order in creation. Those who follow it, more easily arrive at their intended destinations. Those who reject it, struggle against the grain and will find no peace. For man is not from women, but woman from man. Nor was man created for the woman, but woman for the man. (I Corinthians 11:8-9) They're not my words; they're God's. It is the eternal order of creation. Those who struggle against it, do so in vain. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
 |
||||||||
