Put the Men In Charge
Dispatches were sent to all the provinces of the king, to every province in its own script and to every nation in its own language, that every man should wield authority in his home and speak the language of his own people. Esther 1:22 JPS
Wield authority – One woman stands up against debauchery and male egoism and the whole kingdom of men is threatened. Vashti refused to be paraded in front of the king’s guests as some sort of trophy. The entire male hierarchy was incensed. “We can’t let this go. She must be punished. In fact, all women need to know their place – under our authority!” And so Esther comes to the throne.
Perhaps the commentary of Adele Berlin is appropriate. “Such an edict is unenforceable, if not downright silly, even a farce.”[1] I wonder if we have learned anything since the Persians. It seems to me that a good deal of Christendom still thinks that Persian king was right to issue this edict. Men should be in charge. The king says so. Who can put up with a woman who doesn’t do whatever a man wants her to do? But apparently we have overlooked the fact that this edict comes from a thoroughly pagan empire. You won’t find such stupidity in God’s Kingdom. As Berlin notices, such bombastic fluffing of the male feathers is not only unenforceable, it is laughable. It speaks of only one thing – phallic ego.
We should also notice that God uses this display of male pride to bring Esther to the throne at just the right time to save the Hebrew nation. So, we discover, God is able to use even the greatest display of male egotism to accomplish His purposes through a woman. Apparently all that prancing about as the “head of the home” does nothing more than give God the opportunity to use the one who really has the power.
I have argued in some detail that the woman is the true relationship manager of God’s intended unity in marriage. I have also argued that the real power in submission belongs to the one who submits, not the one who is given authority by the submitter. In other words, in biblical parlance no husband has authority unless the wife grants it to him. Since biblical marriage is not a power trip, and there is no justification for compelling subservience, men must learn (quickly, I hope) that they are blessed when she is released from their petty power plays. While every man might wish to be king and command his woman to play the trophy display, biblically-based husbands know that the two become one, not because men make it so but because men get out of the way of what God is doing with the blessing-maker. It really becomes a representation of our relationship with God Himself. We submit so that He can bless. We have the power not to submit – and we bear the consequences of such stupidity. Would we refuse to give God authority over our lives because we want to show off our religious status? How ridiculous! So why are men so insistent that they must be kings when God calls them to be servants?
Topical Index: wield authority, Esther 1:22, submission
Love that last line!
Superb! Thank you.
No one can grant what is not theirs to give. A wife can only grant that which God has given her to grant. In other words, true authority can only come from God himself and any delegation of it carries the authority of God with it. Anything else is outside the bounds of what God has ordained and results in disharmony, not harmony.
It’s actually quite nice to ride in the back seat for awhile…or maybe in the passenger’s seat upfront. :-).
As one who has managed and supervised both men and women in my job for about thirty years, I can tell you that the true power always resides with the servant…with the one who submits. A king who derives his power from an iron fist has really no authority other than that he can forcibly take with that iron fist. His subjects follow because they have to. But a king who derives his power from being a servant to his subjects has real power. His subjects follow him because they want to.
Men, we need to submit to our wives because we want to…not to gain power…but because God has told us to. In fact, in marriage there really should be no power play by either the husband or wife because we are to mutually submit to each other.
It’s funny that we talk about men having having authority in the home when we all know where the power has always resided…with the wives. Even society in general knows it. They joke about and make lame television shows about it, but they really do know it…although the men don’t want to admit it.
I will happily cede any authority that I am stubbornly holding onto to my wife. In reality, God has placed her in the driver’s seat for a reason…for a very good reason…that being usually a much closer, more intimate relationship with our Creator God. That places her in the unique role of being closer to God’s heart and his purposes for our lives. I thank God for giving me an incredible wife who I will happily always love, follow and submit to. She really does know what is best for our family!
The buck stops here. With me. I do believe in the priesthood of (each) believer (male and female) and also believe in the Biblical principal of “headship.” The final decision or choice belongs to the male. This is not “phallic egoism” (cute!) but a man’s God-given responsibility to be the “head of the home.” Anything with two heads is (let’s just say) unnatural.
Christ is the Head of the man. (can’t argue with this, can we?) 1 Corinthians 11.3 Who is our Authority? Again, without a doubt- He is. Christ is the head of our home. Not me-not her- HIM. We both, my wife and I are in a relationship with our Redeemer, a real relationship of voluntary surrender. Absolute surrender to an absolute LORD. ~ Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave Himself up for her,to make her holy and clean, washed by the cleansing of God’s word ~
This is, again, without a doubt- a tall order. Just how did Christ love His bride (the church are us)? He gave Himself for her. In totality. No “pre-nups” (whoever came up with this hogwash?) Christ gave Himself to us in totality. Remember the towel and His washing the feet of His talmudim? Servanthood. And I will totally destroy any idea of phallic ego by casting down even the idea of servant-“leadership” so popular in our culture today. No, here it is gentlemen, in all of it’s glory. We are servants. (Period with a capital “P.” Servants are us. EGO,boys and girls, from either sex, M or F is Edge God Out. (Another Period with a capital P).
~ Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God ~ This is Holy Matrimony. I give myself to her as her servant-husband. She (voluntarily) gives herself to me in totality. Nothing held back- nothing reserved. We serve and love one another in every way possible.
Here’s the deal- menz. “If only”. If only we would (it is our choice every moment of every day) Not “if only” we “could”.. No, not at all. It is a matter of choice. Love is a choice. Amen and amen. Choose to love your beloved. Fix your focus on her and her alone. One man, one woman- till death doth separate, and that is what death does best.. Death separates. And the wages (consequences, results ) of sin is death (or separation).
One more note for those who are still clinging to the idea of phallic ego.. (ha!) Listen again, and remember dear adams, ~Only by pride comes contention ~ (Proverbs 13.10) May I? – Only with your permission, of course..
Again, “ONLY” (only) by pride comes contention. Was there, (he inquired) any “pride” (any pride) in the LORD Jesus (who is the) Christ? Was He (excuse me- Is He) the most humble Man who ever lived? Does anything say “humility” more than the birth, life and death of our Savior and LORD?
Think of how and where He was born. Think on His life.. “Isn’t this the carpenter’s son?” And He grew up where? In the nowhere town of Nazareth? What a Judean hillbilly! Nothing at all “attractive” about that! And what about His own physical appearance? What do the scriptures say, O ye common taters?
~He grew up before Him like a young plant and like a root out of dry ground. He didn’t have an impressive form or majesty that we should look at Him, no appearance that we should desire Him ~ (Isaiah 53.2) Allow me to describe for you his physical form.. “Ordinary.” Both Samson and the Savior were “ordinary.” Lifestyles of the Poor and Insignificant.
What then is the attraction of the Christ? Why (yes, tell me why) are we drawn to Him? What is this “Authority” He has over me and over you? Why Christ?
Up Calvary’s mountain, one dreadful morn,
Walked Christ my Savior, weary and worn;
Facing for sinners death on the cross,
That He might save them from endless loss.
Blessed Redeemer! Precious Redeemer!
Seems now I see Him on Calvary’s tree;
Wounded and bleeding, for sinners pleading,
Blind and unheeding – dying for me!
“Father forgive them!” thus did He pray,
E’en while His lifeblood flowed fast away;
Praying for sinners while in such woe
No one but Jesus ever loved so.
Blessed Redeemer! Precious Redeemer!
Seems now I see Him on Calvary’s tree;
Wounded and bleeding, for sinners pleading,
Blind and unheeding – dying for me!
O how I love Him, Savior and Friend,
How can my praises ever find end!
Through years unnumbered on heaven’s shore,
My tongue shall praise Him forevermore.
Blessed Redeemer! Precious Redeemer!
Seems now I see Him on Calvary’s tree;
Wounded and bleeding, for sinners pleading,
Blind and unheeding – dying for me!
To Serve and to Protect. Adam was derelict in his duty in two ways. The very same way we “Adams” today are. He failed to remember the instructions of YHWH and he failed to speak. All He had to do, (all we have to do) is answer the Deceiver in the affirmative, “Yes, God did say that!” Let us also (today) set aside our “phallic ego” and say together.. “Thus saith the LORD” or try this (even in the home).. “Yes, God did say that,”- Let us then ~Love one another with a pure heart fervently ~ Husbands, love your wives.. ~ (this is a command?) and “how” are we to do this? Just as Christ loved the church (His Bride!) and gave Himself for her.
Remember? Love is benevolence toward another- at cost to myself. Today’s agenda? ~ Serve one another in love ~
Adam, alethia and abad ADONAI, amein!
(Ecclesiastes 4:12) … ~ a threefold cord is not quickly broken ~
(all) Adams, remember: Marriage is a sacred covenant; These were our spoken words before God: “and to be faithful, ’til death do us part.” This adam answers Amen. (may it be so).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ocuo5zVGYX8
There is nothing so dangerous and destructive as an ambitious woman who has learned the art of submitting to a controlling man or men and has developed the skill to accomplish things through the attitude of;
“I don’t care who gets the credit so long as I get what I want.”
I would love to believe this, the problem is that in all the different sources I’ve heard the same basic argument, not one can give passage from the Torah verifying this. Quite the opposite in Numbers 30 I see the man as the one who is ultimately responsible for household decisions.
You need to read my book, Guardian Angel. Then you will have the evidence to support your desire to believe this.
I think it’s significant, even if the church doesn’t, Christ appeared to the women before appearing to his male disciples upon resurrecting from the grave.
Yes, it is significant, especially since his disciples were all in hiding but the women showed no lack of courage. However, all of this rests on the Torah foundation found in Genesis. See Guardian Angel.
It truly is a matter of perspective! Thanks – I enjoyed it.
Wow. this is the worst post I’ve read so far. How much can you write about womens lib and NOT refer to Scripture? Ephesians, man is head of the woman, Christ the head of man. There is a hierachical structure in the family unit. Man has the final word, woman role is to take care of the children and run the kitchen, hence the two milk factories and, excuse my french, the vagina. Recieveing mans NUN, the Seed. Created from the man, for the man, to be a help meet.
Women and children rule over you! Whenever there was a woman in charge in Israel, it was meant to be a punishment to them. It was Gods wrath over them
Gods order is: man, woman, children, creation. Todays insane society reverses this: creation at the top:
1. creation: recycling, co2 quotas, nox fees, sort your garbage, humans as consumers and useless eaters etc.
2. women liberation, abortion, government support, working women
3. children rights, rebellion against parents
4. man, father, no rights practically
Nowhere in scripture ever, does a woman have a ministry or a position ruling over a man or Israel, except to punish them.
is everybode blind? whats wrong with you, dont you see? Refering to your own book doesnt change Gods will…
Apparently you haven’t read my book nor have you considered Paul’s comment about Junia, nor the four daughters of Acts, nor Dorcus nor half a dozen or more women leaders in the Tanakh (see The Flame of Yahweh). Apparently you agree with Pagnino’s mistaken translation of teshukah and the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Apparently you haven’t realized that the “hierarchy” you cite above is not correct theologically (God is the head of Christ?) and apparently you’ve not looked at Beyond Sex Roles and the Greek construction. Apparently you are content with what you have been taught. As a man in South Africa once told me when he could not refute the argument, “I’m comfortable with what I believe.”
I thought I would add some more here, but it is all the the book which is based entirely on Scripture. Your supposed hierarchy depends on the meaning of the Greek word kephale, which never means “hierarchy-authority” in an Greek literature current in the first century. The word always means “source.” So, since Paul is a rabbi, he is absolutely correct that the man is the source of the woman (see Genesis 2) but you are absolutely incorrect to suggest that this passage means man is the authority over the woman. You have twisted the meaning of the word. Furthermore, since there is no difference between male and female in the Kingdom (cf. Yeshua), it would be remarkable to suggest that men should rule over women in the Kingdom. As I have noted in other places, this is perhaps the biggest heresy of our century.
Obviously, I havent read your book, Ive read the Bible 🙂
Sha’ul basicly said woman are to cover their heads and be quiet. Not like the short haired Joyce Meyers and her like of today who are clearly in rebellion.
Referring to one occurence of Junia and a few other women mentioned in scripture, doesnt change a womens position under man. Women can pray and prophesy when their heads are covered, no problem.
1.Cor 11 + 1.Peter 3:1-7 + Titus 2:4-5 + 1.Cor14:34-35 and also 1. Gen3:16
Please look up these verses.
Women are clearly told to be obediant and in subjection to their husbands.
Seems very strange and obscure to build a doctrine of women equality on a few verses and some single word study. The fact that one need to read several extra-Biblical books and dive into Greek and Hebrew word study to achieve your view, makes my doctrine alert go off the scale I have to say.
All through the Bible, read it from cover to cover, its always a man and his house, a man and his tent. He is responsible for his household, he gets the blame if his house is not in order.
A woman is always under the authority of a man. A girl is under his fathers authority up until she marries. Then she is under her husbands authority. If the husbands divorces her (Moses letter of divorce), she is sent back unto his father and is back under his authority.
(Also note that when Jesus fed 5000 people, woman and children werent counted, it was 5000 men, not including women and children.)
For the record, I do not hate women 🙂 Humble, God serving women who respect their husband is a good picture of how we all are to be towards God who calls us all his bride 🙂
Concerning men ruling over women in the Kingdom, I never said or suggested that men would rule over women. Actually, I believe that all persons following Jesus/Yeshua who will be saved and are part of his kingdom, is equal in the Kingdom when it is established in the new Jerusalem on the new earth.
Because the curse of 1.Gen 3:16 will no longer be valid. (Because of the Chiastic nature of Gods salvation plan and the restoration that will come) But this is in the eternal when women (or those who were women) will no longer give birth.
Also for the record, Im willing to take corrections and will investigate bible verses that might go against my view. I try to keep an open mind and be a Berean. I prefer to stick to the Bible and the principles God shows us there…
Hi Espen,
I would ask you to consider YHWH’s purpose for including Deborah as a judge over Israel (not women only either). You stated that women selected by YHWH as judges was a means of punishment…was it because only the women were sinning and deserving of punishment???
What about Esther? Was she chosen to create an avenue to kill a disobedient, evil woman and a man was mistakenly executed instead???
What about YHWH discussing with Abraham about doing what his (Abraham’s) wife said in making the slave woman’s child leave due to an interruption in their marriage and the family???
What about the concept of mutual submission or should it always go the way of male thinking and attitudes? I get what you refer to as male headship as taught by Christianity. And I get also, that women would GLADLY bow to their husbands if they were to love their wives and die for them AS CHRIST LOVES HIS CHURCH. With that said, how is that working in the Christian world, with the divorce rate as high as it is???? With the published percentages of men viewing and engaged in pornography, how can we as a society demand male authority, when it appears that men are NOT living according to the lifestyle of Christ? (By the way, I am definitely NOT taking up for women who boss their men because they are control freaks either)
As somewhat of a reforming women’s libber myself, my point is this, it takes two, a MAN AND a WOMAN to make a marriage or relationship, and there is no “I” in team. It appears to me that if many men were more about Biblical love and servanthood rather than power and control, our world would be an entirely different place…just sayin’. I think YHWH is speaking loud and clear through the “manlessness” and “fatherless” culture invading the US…and it is sooo easy to “blame” women. The point of Skip’s book to me is that the roles of men and women have not been properly defined and thus here we are, we haven’t progressed much from the garden, have we?
Hi Mary,
Im not saying men are innocent, perfect or better than women.
Men are as guilty in rebellion towards the father as women, we are all sinners, no question about it. Infact 1.Gen3:16 are haunting mankind to this day, and I believe its a curse on men. Women are craving mans position in all things. thats why we see women today cutting their hair short, wearing pants, demanding “equality” , rights and all the rest of it. they want to become men, and it has horrible results in our societies.
The Hebrew words Shemash Shemesh are worth a study. While the sun rules in the sky, it also serves creation. Mal 4:2
Parents rule over their children, but they also serve them (food, clothing shelter etc.)
Men are set to rule over their wifes, but also serve them and love them.
In our western Greek culture we tend to think that to rule means to command around and treat like a slave, but this is not how men are supposed to treat their wifes.
There is an I in the team, the man has the final say in all matters of his house, but just as Sha’ul says, they are to love (serve) their wifes, and wifes are to submit to their husbands.
Granted, so many years after the writings, we strive to understand them and to walk in the will of YHWH and not our own. You have also mentioned a good illustration of the principle rule/serve, however, you lost me when you mentioned the cultural “law” of hair, pants, demanding equality rights.
What does the length of hair and pants have to do with equality? Does either hair or pants define our roles and whether we obey Messiah?
I must say, when my husband is following Christ, I am happy to obey, when he is not, there is either conflict or confusion. I too, am learning conflict resolution and he is graceful to learn with me. Shalom
God distinguishses (or may I use the political incorrect word ‘discriminate’) between the sexes when it comes to clothing.
A man is not to wear womans clothing and vice a versa. I couldnt find the exact reference for it, its in one of the first 5 books. is actually called an abomination.
Revelation also states that no efeminate man is to enter the kingdom. Men are to be men, women to be women. Women have naturally long hair like God gave them, it says its her crowning glory. Men have shorter hair and have a beard. wich is why I wonder why most men shave these days. why?
Look at the greek statues. clean shaven most of them, with a few exceptions. The enemy has made it ‘trendy and popular’ for men to shave. Why would we shave of the beard that God has given man? it is a sign of authority. When I decided to grow a beard, my wife rebelled. She was really offended. why? whats the problem? Something in women reacts to this. Yes I am aware that some women also have beards. 🙂 thankfully, they like to shave it off and help make a clear distinction between the sexes.
shalom
Once again, there is NO passage in Scripture that suggests that men RULE OVER their wives. Please, let’s be careful of the words we use. How could Paul ask for MUTUAL SUBMISSION if you are correct? Your view is simply poor exegesis, but it is typical of some Christian teaching, sad to say.
Gods order is: man, woman, children, creation. Todays insane society reverses this:
Hi Espen, It’s quite interesting that you could make this statement in regards to God’s order. I would ask that you take another look at the creation account and discern the order for yourself.
Yeshua told his disciples that the “ruler” would be “last” and the servant of all. The creation account places the man at the tailend of creation, not the head (rosh). Note that the “helpmate”, as it’s been translated, is made AFTER Adam.
The trouble we encounter with God’s true order isn’t the order of it, as much as the definitions. As long as we hold to the definition of ruler as “the boss”, instead of the ultimate servent as a director, we’ll continue to pervert God’s intention.
Here’s a thought, in the story of Deborah it would seem that the concern that she expressed was that the “glory” would go to a woman. Does a true leader need to be recognized? Go back and read the gospel accounts with this in mind and look at the dynamics between The Messiah and women, it might surprise you. But concerning Deborah and Barak, male egotism has been around for a long time, it doesn’t take much to thwart God’s order if everybody has been convinced (by force or favor) that men are the ones in charge because of the assests they have been given and have abused.
Adam was the crowning glory of creation, set to rule over it, created from Adamah, the dust of the ground and were ruddish, dam.
After a while he was set to name all the animals. this must have taken considerable time, I believe. No helper was found among them. Then Isha was taken from Adams rib.
The woman was created FROM the man FOR the man to be his helpmeet. A derivative of the man, not taken from the ground.
As for first, last and ruler, I cant see how that verse applies to creation and that a man-derivative should be above man?
Please read Guardian Angel before you continue to provide exegesis of the text. Your views are certainly culturally based and fit within the typical Christian thought of the last 1500 years, but they are not Scripturally based. The Genesis account is far deeper and far more about the new identity of the tribe of Israel than it is about Adam’s “rib.”
Then please tell me where these Bible verses fit in:
1.Cor 11 + 1.Peter 3:1-7 + Titus 2:4-5 + 1.Cor14:34-35 and also 1. Gen3:16
I would really like to know, thank you
Shalom
Please read the book, Guardian Angel, since it deals with many of these verses in great detail. Or you could search my web site for the references.
Here is an informative and interesting take on patriarchy and women who are a part of that structure in the Tanakh.
This is taken from the introduction of Tikva Frymer–Kensky book: “Reading The Women of the Bible — A New Interpretation Of Their Stories”
Pages xiv and xv:
“It is important to get the facts straight; though patriarchy preexisted the Bible, the Bible was not written to construct it. Readers can accept the Bible’s moral structure without conforming to the patriarchal social structure within it. At the same time, there is no ignoring the fact that even though the Bible did not create patriarchy, it also did not eliminate it. The Bible did not question the patriarchy in the social structure it shared with the rest of the ancient world, just as it did not question another glaring social inequity, slavery. Biblical thinkers, so radical in their transformation of ideas about God and about the relationship of humanity to the cosmos, never conceived of a radical transformation of society. They were very aware of social problems, trying to ameliorate the suffering of the downtrodden, curtailing abuses, helping runaway slaves stay free, redeeming those sold into slavery, and calling for a limit to capitalist aggrandizement. Despite such concerns, the Bible did not eradicate slavery, it did not eliminate patriarchy, it did not eradicate economic oppression.”
“However, the Bible also does not defend the status quo, for the idea of social revolution is integral to biblical thought. God is a god of change, for God elevates the lowly, brings the marginalized to the center, and raises high the socially inferior. In this way, power and privilege are necessarily impermanent. But reversing position does not create a more egalitarian world and more then ameliorating suffering does: it only changes the fortunes of individual people. Biblical thinkers never conceived of a social order without hierarchy.”
Pages xvi and xvii:
“The Bible’s lack of justification for social inequity can be interpreted in two radically different ways. Reading with a hermeneutic of suspicion, we might speculate that the Bible did not need to justify patriarchy, because patriarchy was so firmly entrenched, and that the Bible’s lack of stereotypes about women is simply a gender blindness that totally ignores everyone but economically advantaged males. If, however, we follow the hermeneutic of suspicion with a hermeneutic of grace, we might conclude that even though the Bible failed to eradicate or even notice patriarchy, it created a vision of humanity that is gender neutral. Biblical thinkers treated social structures as a historical given: they sought to regulate social behavior, but not to explain or justify the social structure itself.”
“The Bible’s view of gender sets up a dramatic clash between theory and reality. On the one hand, women occupied a socially subordinate position. On the other hand, the Bible did not label them as inferior. This gap between ideology and social structure has a major disadvantage: it did not explain people’s lives, did not give people a way to understand why women had no access to public decision making. Such dissonance could not last forever: one of the two had to give, and the Bible’s vision of a gender-neutral humanity ultimately gave way in the face of ongoing patriarchy. At the same time, the biblical vision had the enormous advantage of not adding prejudice to powerlessness. The biblical view understood that women were powerless and subordinate without being inferior. This insight had enormous implications for the way Israel viewed itself. Israel was always small and vulnerable in comparison to the empires surrounding it. As the time went on, this vulnerability gave way to defeat, and Israel was conquered by more powerful nations. The Bible’s view of women became central to Israel’s thinking, for it provided a paradigm for understanding powerlessness and subordination without recourse to prejudicial ideas. Israel was subject to the power and authority of others on an international level just as women were subordinate within Israelite society, and the Bible’s own image of women enabled its thinkers to accept this powerlessness without translating it into a sense of inferiority or worthlessness. In this way, the Bible’s image of women was an essential element in its self-image and its understanding of Israel’s destiny.”