End of Story!
Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the [a]sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” Genesis 1:26 NASB
Let them rule – “This statement explicitly excludes men’s rule over women! Oddly enough, this has not been noticed before. An analysis of the wording of Gen. 1:26-28 results in precisely this, however: man and woman rule over the rest of creation, and this implies only too clearly that one gender may not claim power over the other.”[1] End of story!
Well, maybe not quite. You see, there are plenty of men, both theologians and non-professionals, who are desperately seeking a biblical justification for the headship of the man over the woman. They rush to Paul (who, by the way, points back to the Genesis text) without much consolation once they realize that he is a rabbi. They attempt to read Genesis 3:16 as if God declared man the new overseer of woman (but considerable textual manipulation is required for this exegesis). Frankly, they just can’t find what they need so they make the text fit the desired hierarchy. For thousands of years men have tried to enlist God in their quest for superiority. Unfortunately, God doesn’t agree. Well, at least the Church agrees so maybe that is enough.
However, there is something else in support of Schungel-Strauman’s statement that we must consider. The Genesis story was written to educate ex-slaves, and lowest on the totem pole of slaves are women. In fact, outside of the Genesis account, no ancient mythology about creation contains any role for women at all. They simply do not count—for anything. In the ancient world, women are property. By the way, that’s why when you got married the bride was given to you, the man. That pagan ritual reinforces the idea of possession, of property transfer from one male head of house to another male head of house. Go read Genesis 2:24 again to see how God changed this ancient custom (and how we still don’t). So if the God who delivers His people out of bondage doesn’t also deliver women out of bondage to men, then He only does half the job. He might as well be Ptah (the Egyptian god of creation). YHVH delivers! He takes his people out of the house of bondage. That means His people who are women are removed from the house of bondage to men. They are also freed. They are intended to rule. They count. The biblical text is not simply radically different in its conception of creation by sound. It destroys any ancient or contemporary notion that men are divinely appointed custodians of women. It obliterates the idea that women belong to men as property. It permanently and irrevocably installs women in the position of rulers over creation, equal in every respect with men. When the Hebrews were freed from Egypt, Hebrew women were also freed from any form of male dominance. That is the end of the story!
Topical Index: rule, man, woman, Egypt, equality, Genesis 1:26
[1] Helen Schungel-Strauman, “On the Creation of Man and Woman in Genesis 1-3: The History and Reception of the Texts Reconsidered,” in A Feminist Companion to Genesis, p. 75.
I am not a man, so I would like to ask a man this question: what exactly have men been burying under this rock of male domination? I am asking for it seems to me that when I go to repent for unrighteousness, invariably I find that I am using it to cover up something else; usually fear. So, what are men afraid of? Exactly? I am asking this erudite and brave community because I think it is going to have to take both men and women willing to work together to put back these particular pieces of the shattered vase of Truth. In the void where equality should have been, demons on both sides have been creeping and breeding for a long time now. If we, both men and women, would hope to successfully kick those crispy critters to the curb, I think we must be willing to go to the effort to expose them, name them, repent them, and invite them to take a hike.
The question for me as a woman is, what am I afraid of when it comes to stepping up to my half the responsibility here: what buck have I been used to passing, either because I was taught it was ‘righteousness’, or I was just plain ignorant of what men really needed from me, or I was being passively spiteful, and maybe didn’t even know it, out of a sense of frustration and impotence? (You wanna know what impotence REALLY feels like? Ask a woman!)
If one community could ever get it right; if one community understood, really understood, what the steps back to true righteousness in this place really looked like, they could then have the tools in hand to share with others. That could even be us! I think Skip has been yelling (nicely) for all he’s worth on this subject for a while now, but if we are really going to start hearing him, then at some point, shouldn’t we be willing and motivated to step up, roll up OUR sleeves, and say “Got it. We can take it from here.”? And what should we do to make amends for this evil? I need to know what I need to understand about men, to repent to men for, and to restore back to men. To do that, I need to hear correctly from men where they are at, so I can know where I should be. SO, at what point of conviction do we start this dialogue? Isn’t it, like, seriously overdue? I am repenting first for the silence. I am sorry. Thank you, Skip, for hearing the Word on this. Now, I am responsible; and particularly to this community. Amen.
In my experience, men argue for male headship for one or both of two reasons. 1) they think the Scriptures teach it and so they want to be in line with Scripture and/or 2) they want to be in control. These two reasons fit nicely together, giving men Scriptural justification for their desire to be in control. But once you unravel the Scriptural basis, then you find few men who are willing to say, “Yes, now I see. I don’t have to be in control.” In the end, the real motivation is CONTROL. By the way, that’s what EVERY HUMAN BEING really wants. Our version of freedom is being in control. We don’t want to be submitted to anyone, including God, by the way. This is THE BATTLE of being human. Men are no different than women here. It’s just that men have been preaching the “I’m in control” mantra for so long that women think they have no control (that doesn’t mean they don’t WANT it). So men feel that if they give up control, especially to a woman whom they have kept under control for so long, their lives will become chaos. Fear of reprisal and lack of control keeps them advocating male hierarchy EVEN AFTER the lack of Scriptural justification is clear.
I think it’s fundamentally fear of ineptitude. It comes from doing the math wrong. Men are taught that a woman was “added” to the equation to help him out, that’s a “doubling”- 1+1=2
The truth is that he was squared, not doubled. 1 squared = 1 “and the 2 shall become one.”
In other words, we see a woman as separate from a man, instead of an extension of us and that’s where the tension comes from. That has to change.
YHWH bless you and keep you……
Robert Lafoy, I really like the equation thing! Thank you!
So Skip is saying that it is a control problem and I am hearing you say it is a “fear of ineptitude”. I know that fear of ineptitude leads me to desire ‘control’ every time!
So you guys do feel inept on your own. If you are lacking your extension, of course feeling inept should cause one to go looking for the other part that would cure ineptness. But instead, it seems to cause men to go seek ‘control’ OVER. Hmm, Devil’s glitch.
So if women could come to the plate with the understanding that a man needs to be protected from a sense of ineptness by getting completed wherever he is at, then I assume he would no longer panic and think he needs ‘control’, right?
So women should look at men as needing protection from ineptitude by getting handed the missing pieces for success? If she could look and see what that is, whether it is something she could bring, like encouragement or a rephrasing of the problem, or even downright action on her part, or something that the man could change or should implement, then she could present, or offer, either her services or advice. But, isn’t that the same thing women should be needing from men, too? A lot of times, though, when a women tells a man she doesn’t need him to FIX IT, as much as she needs to be heard thinking or emoting out loud, how different a response does a woman need from a man than a man needs from a woman? Any woman want to jump in, here?
I think I can see that what might be missing most from the equation, that could be driving both sides into ‘need for control’ mode, is simply a need to be validated. Period. Heard, respected, backed up no matter what, and reassured. If a man does not get this, does he feel insecure? If a woman does not get this, does she feel like she does not exist? Is this the main way we are to complete each other? What are the main factors, here?
I think we might have been fooled into thinking there is this HUUUGE problem, when most of it could well be, after you take out the power, money and control allurement, of course, just basic decency, respect and human relating. Is it because we just don’t want to think of the other as just like ourselves? I want to see the bottom. Thanks everybody, and Skip most of all.
Beautiful and perfectly said. Thank you so much, Laurita, for speaking for me. I see YHVH in tears when He witnesses (and experiences) the abuse of the sexes by both genders.
Laurita, in my opinion it would be impossible to have any serious dialog with any man who has not read Skip’s book Guardian Angel. Social customs and long ingrained beliefs must be HONESTLY addressed personally by each one who would enter the discussion before their comments could be considered relevant.
Amen! I might add that, imho, most men who are stuck on the “I AM TO LORD OVER MY WOMAN” will never read anything Skip is teaching. That would be WAY too threatening. They have to be in crisis first… they have to REALLY see that their way doesn’t work, and if “their women” keep feeding into the “woman was created as a doormat,” the men in her life will continue to live it out.
Daria and John, you might be encouraged to hear this: A good friend of mine, as devout a Roman Catholic as you could find, was among a group of us discussing world issues. Someone asked, “What group of people have been most persecuted throughout history?” Jews? People of color? Christians? Etc. My friend said, with all conviction, “Women. Women have been the most persecuted group of people in history.”
And he was right!
Probably right, tho I wonder whether the unborn baby might be #1. Abortions have been around forever.
Expectations from family, society and history are difficult to face honestly and pointedly. There is a need of going ‘nuclear’ on the issue which tends to leave devastation that most people don’t want to clean up. Namely, rewriting world views, cleaning out desired but destructive ideologies, and renewing the inevitable changed relationships that will surface in light of a new paradigm.
The times I’ve had to vomit from my body rejecting something totally negative and unhelpful inside my digestion system was a horrible feeling, a horrible experience and a horrible journey through the process. However, after going through it, the result was such a great feeling. The crud was out and separated from me. A relief, a renewing and new start, fresh in life without the offending substance. So good, in fact, that I almost forgot how yucky I felt during the affair. Almost.
With experience, you know the onset feeling of needing to purge the bad stuff. With experience one knows to expedite the impending disaster of upchucking in order to hasten the necessary procedure in order to arrive at the desired better feeling and biological homeostasis. The quicker you go through it the quicker you can assume a healthy position.
Would that we could purge ourselves of all the crud we somehow allow in our systems in order to arrive at a healthy state. Would that we had a fool proof system to deal with this phenomenon.
Wait! Isn’t that obedience and confession?
Yes, and understanding to boot
It is good to understand and hopefully a byproduct of obedience, but not necessarily needed, as I understand it. Obedience comes first. Understanding may or may not occur. Great if it does, but not guaranteed and certainly not mandatory in order to perform obedience. imo.
Not meaning this in contention, only as iron sharpens iron. 🙂 I agree that understanding is the result of obedience. Perhaps that’s a kick in the pants for us to weigh our obedience. “my people perish for lack of knowledge.”
🙂
have a blessed Shabbat brother!! Shalom
I’m working on that.
Um, let me rephrase . . . thank you, yes, I’m enjoying the blessing of this Shabbat!
Ditto.
Now go do some in-depth serious study of that particular English translation. You might find something you didn’t expect.
“With experience, you know the onset feeling of needing to purge the bad stuff.” Oh how I long for this discernment. I pray that, as I learn what Scripture REALLY says and doesn’t say, I can understand what my Creator wants of me and I will OBEY. I’ve never been the sort of woman to swallow stuff without question but I do need to know the difference between TRUTH and lies.
Agreed, Daria, for me as well. I wish my experience with confession and obedience was as honed as with my up-chucking prognostications. Alas, forward I still go moving toward completeness. Day by day.
Hi Daria, there’s an awful lot of stuff in this passage as you already know. It might seem difficult at first but what it really takes is time to draw it out. It always amazes me in it’s rich simplicity.
Just a thought about this passage, you can contemplate the according activities for both “sides” of the fence or yourself.
Just concerning the terms, closed up the flesh “underneath” and “rib”. Isn’t it an odd thing that the flesh is “repaired” underneath the rib instead of over the remaining ribs thus closing the wound. It’s almost as though “adam” is now walking around with a “rib” sticking out of his side. It’s a picture, but I think it’s important. Secondly, what’s the deal with the “rib” ? Else where the word is used as a “side” as the side of the ark. In short, it’s about “joining” two or more things. How does a plank become a box? Two planks are enjoined by a “side” board. It’s really about ambassadorship in it’s truest form. (eph. 4) the ambassador is not sent out so much as a representative (that would be two separate entities) but rather a true ambassador is the ability to “extend” and connect yourself to something else. There’s no separation here, it’s one entity extending itself out.
YHWH bless you and keep you……
Skip I really don’t know…please explain Genesis 3:16
One thing that Skip explains in Guardian Angel is the difference between prescriptive and descriptive consequences. The serpent and the ground were cursed, which was a prescriptive consequence from God in response to the sin, or “the Fall”. But Genesis 3:16 is a descriptive consequence. God is describing the reality of what relationship will look like, the fracture that will occur as a result of sin. Adam will not trust Havvah. He will not allow her to be his ezer. She needs to be an ezer, and she will continue to seek ways to do this, but Adam will resist her and assume control.
God didn’t command Adam to dominate Havvah. He merely described what this newly fractured relationship would look like.
I hope I articulated this well. I am nearly through reading Guardian Angel but it is a book I will likely have to read again to really absorb. Feel free to set me straight (anyone!) if I didn’t explain this correctly.
From my reading, I think you described it very well!
You got it. Glad you are reading the book. I look forward to your comments about the topic in the future.
NOW I understand and I WILL be getting this book on Monday….thank you for explaining this to me….I understand now….wow!
End of Story? (or the Beginning?)
Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church.. (and?) and gave Himself (sacrificially- hello!) for her.
First the church, yes, the ecclessia- the “called out ones,”-the assembly, btw, -are BOTH Jew and Gentile. Jew AND Gentile, male and female, from EVERY nation, tribe, people and language.. Friend, “WHOSOEVER WILL”- may come!
(Again..) Who does this “include?” (And again) Who does this “exclude?”
Allow me (one time) to interpret..#thisaintnospin, the “gospel” of Jesus (who is the) Christ, the Anointed, our Heavenly Boaz, our Near-Kinsman Redeemer is for “Who?”- (oy..) Is for “whosoever will!”
Let (allow) the little children to come, let the elderly come, allow all people (even Democrats) or Vegans, or plumbers, or painters… Friend, “WHO” did Christ die for?? (HELLO?) Christ died for sinners. And who has sinned? “ALL have sinned.” Now let me interpret “ALL” for you.. (oy..) All means (fasten your seat belt), “all.” How hard was that? Friends, ~ He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification! ~
Who are these “called out ones?” They (#theyisus) are the (present) Body and (future) Bride of Christ. We really do need to “reread” the book of Ruth! Was Ruth a Jew? Nope. Was Ruth a Gentile? Nope. Ruth, was neither Jew, nor Gentile, she had no home, no identity, – she was half of this and half of that- someone with no identity, no hope, no future… “until!” (I love this love story!) Until one day, along comes Boaz, her Near Kinsman-Redeemer! Are you seeing the picture here? – or are we still drawing a blank?
Ruth, (and her “story”) is all about the Sovereignty and Providence of God. Ruth and Boaz, (and all others!) are a picture, a type, a forshadowing of what we have and who we are *in Christ!* Ahh, but here is the really good news! For what was foreshadowed in the Old(er) Covenant, is fulfilled in glorious reality in the New(er)!
Please, the church is not a building!- It is the (present) Body and (future) Bride of Christ! Christ is our Boaz, and “we,” (all those who are “redeemed” -say so!), – “We” (the redeemed ones, the saved ones, the delivered ones, the twice-born ones are Ruth! – and that is the gospel Truth!
Ruth was not a gentile?
From a Jewish perspective, there are only two kinds of people: Jews and Gentiles – you are either Jewish or you are from among the nations. Among other things, Ruth represents the grafting in of Gentiles who choose to join to themselves to Israel. Ruth most certainly had an identity before she made her commitment to Naomi’s people and Naomi’s God, but she left that identity behind to become something else. It wasn’t that she had nothing to lose; I’m sure she counted the cost, and realized she had everything to lose, but she willingly left behind all that she was in order to join herself to the people of God. Big difference. Perhaps that is also the difference in how we represent following God today. If you have nothing to lose, then it’s easy to put little value on what you gain. I think people are far better served when they understand: walking with the Lord means walking away from the old life. That’s the problem with altar calls, crusades and quite frankly, the syncretized way the NT is presented today. The message conveyed is more often that you can just add on this one new thing and you are “saved”, little or no change required. Small wonder people think they have no need to become Torah observant.
Very aptly pointed out, Suzanne. I agree.
I have lectured extensively on Ruth. Please note that it is unlikely Ruth made a covenant commitment to “God’s people.” She made a commitment to Naomi, a personal covenant to death to her mother-in-law, and as a consequence, she was swept up into the people of Bethlehem. Not until after marriage to Boaz is she recognized as one of the tribe.
And she most certainly was a Gentile. In fact, the background to Ruth (which is vitally important) is that she was prohibited from being a part of Israel BY A COMMAND OF TORAH.
I would strongly recommend getting the lectures on Ruth.
AMEN.
(Amen to Suzanne’s post.) I’m suffering from THE SECOND CONCUSSION this year from head injuries but, if I ever get a brain back, I do so want to study Skip’s teaching on Ruth. I LOVE the book of Ruth.
Hi Carl,
I appreciate your attempt to make Ruth a typology and allegorize the text, but I don’t think it will fly. No one in the original audience would have drawn any conclusions about the Messiah or the “church.” All of that is anachronistic.
Skip!
I don’t know why/how but we are BACK on here ABLE to post & even see our photo!
But really GLAD we are!!
LOVE LOVE LOVE this community! I learn so much. I am CHALLENGED so much.
I am comforted so much! This is SO MUCH! 😀 Thank you everyone! THANK YOU!!!
I must admit hubby & I are “LIVING” this ‘ezer kenegdo thingy out in real life for over 33 years!
It’s really YAH-mazing how we just lived/worked this way even when all those around us in the christian community did NOT. Can we say persecution? We have scars to prove it. Sigh.. And we are still LEARNING what this means & how to LIVE it clearer!
The picture YAH is painting in/on us just keeps getting more “YAHFEH”!!!
It’s all a miracle! It’s ALL HIM!
Sorry.. gushing!! giggle..
Thanks Skip for being that truth bearer that brought us the “WHY” of all of this “woman thingy”.
Appreciate YAH for giving us ~ you & your words!
Hugs
(from the Texan miracles~ again)
Chari
Skip, you appear to be mixing up SPECIES with gender roles. MAN; male & female (Image AND Likeness) has Dominion over WOMAN; male & female (Image only), so in this regard, MAN does have Dominion over WOMAN (Spiritually Immature people, identified spiritually as fish in the sea, birds, etc.).
As for a husband having Dominion over his wife, that is true and false. According to Genesis 2:24, the husband is actually supposed to blindly follow his wife first, which means the wife leads the marriage initially. Once a husband has learned how to blindly follow his wife, he learns how to follow Jesus Christ/The Father in Heaven (Matthew 6:33). Once THAT occurs, THEN, according to Ephesians 5:22, the wife is supposed to submit/blindly follow her properly trained husband. The wife would not need to submit if she weren’t already leading.
Finally, as you bring up the word PROPERTY, the etymology of the word must be reviewed to fully understand. The etymology of the word PROPERTY means ‘nature, quality’, which when you research further, ‘quality’ means ‘temperament, character, disposition’. A Matthew 6:33 has become the ‘property’ of The Father in Heaven (Aleph/Image & Likeness), and as such, he possesses Tselem AND De’mut, while his wife onlu possesses Tselem. By blindly following her Matthew 6:33 husband, a wife becomes her husband’s property (learns Righteous character, temperament, and disposition), the same way a husband who blindly follows his wife became her property, learns/adopts his wife’s character, temperament, disposition.
I’m going to allow this blog comment even though you don’t seem to be a regular contributor or supporter (the usual requirements) because I think it demonstrates exactly the argument and attitude that I write against. It mixes up later Christian teaching with an examination of the Genesis text, using concepts from thousands of years after the text was written to provide justification for Christian doctrine. Citing Matthew to explain Genesis does nothing to help us understand the meaning of the text to the original audience. Please don’t put out the “It was all written by God” argument here. The original audience could not wait 1500 years for Matthew to clarify. It has to mean something to them when it was written, and that’s what we are trying to uncover. I also notice that you seem to think Jesus Christ has something to do with proper interpretation of a text to an audience that has NO IDEA about him, his role, his story or anything else. I suggest that we try to determine what this story meant to the children of Israel coming out of slavery in Egypt, and THAT is the background of the text, not something the Church later interpreted via it’s particular view of the gospels or Paul. Finally, you seem to think that my work promotes “blindly following,” but I never said that and didn’t even hint at it. All of the story is about mutual and equal relationship, co-dependence and role articulation. If you think that the initial relationship in marriage is simply a STEP toward following Jesus Christ, then I suppose you must conclude that NO MAN before the birth of Yeshua could have ever actually had the kind of marriage God had in mind since it was impossible to follow the Messiah who had not yet been born. The idea that a man somehow possesses some quality that his wife lacks ONTOLOGICALLY is simply not supported by anything in the Genesis account.
But thanks for trying. Now maybe you need to read the book, Guardian Angel.