Wow! Through Genesis already! Can't remember the last time I read through Genesis that fast; it was like reading a favorite book - very pleasant.
-Exodus 1:16 shows an early use of population control by Pharaoh, through the use of the medical profession, nonetheless!
-Exodus 2:2 tells how Moses' parents hid him away until he was three months old. Being the mother of an eighteen-month-old and a two-month-old, let me tell you how hard it is to keep an infant under wraps... especially as he starts to "talk" and gurgle and want to play - to say nothing of crying!!
-Exodus 3 interested me because in it, God clearly outlines to Moses everything that will happen along the way to freeing the Israelites. The plan was laid out from the beginning.
-Exodus 4:10 I find extremely amusing. Moses, not wanting to be God's voice to Pharaoh, plays dumb and inarticulate by saying, "O my Lord, I am not eloquent, neither heretofore, nor since thou hast spoken unto thy servant: but I am slow of speech, and of a slow tongue." Dunno. Sounds fairly eloquent to me.
-Exodus 4:24-26 seems stuck in here for some reason I cannot decern. First off, Moses must have been pushing God's buttons because "it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the Lord met him [Moses], and sought to kill him." It is then that Moses' wife, Zipporah, does something very odd: she circumcises her son and tosses the foreskin at Moses' feet. What is even more bewildering is the fact that "he [the Lord] let him [Moses] go."
Moses was surely circumcised himself, but would he have known to circumcise his sons as part of God's covenant with the descendants of Abraham? He was raised in the house of Pharaoh and possibly never learned a whole lot about the traditions and customs of his own people.
How would Zipporah have known circumcision was one of the things God required of His people? Her father was a priest, though the Bible never says what kind of priest he was. I believe it is fairly safe to assume he was not an Israelite.
-Exodus 6:9 gives an example of just how disheartened the children of Israel were upon receiving Pharaoh's command of less straw. When Moses once again tried to cheer them up and paint a glowing future picture, the Israelites could not listen to his words for "anguish of spirit, and for cruel bondage."
-Exodus 7 marks the beginning of the plagues God sent on Egypt to punish the Egyptians for not letting Israel go. An interesting note about the plagues is that each one, in some way, mocked or defamed one of the gods of Egypt.
Blood - god of the Nile (was a water bearer)
Frogs - goddess of fertility, water, renewal (has head of a frog)
Lice - god of the earth
Flies - god of creation, movement of the Sun, rebirth (has head of a fly)
Cattle plague - goddess of love and protection (depicted with the head of a cow)
Boils - goddess of medicine and peace
Hail - goddess of the sky
Locusts - god of storms and disorder (animal head)
Darkness - the sun god
First Born - pharaoh, ultimate power of Egypt
-Exodus 8:10 shows Pharaoh asking for one more night with the frogs, asking Moses to take them away on the morrow, not immediately. Dude must have loved him some frogs! :P
-Exodus 8:25-26 states Pharaoh was on the verge of letting them leave, until Moses pointed out they needed to take everyone and everything with them, so as not to "sacrifice the abomination fo the Egyptians to the Lord... before their eyes." It is interesting to note that Egyptians held every shepherd to be an abomination as well as cows and oxen, which were held as sacred and thus considered to be sacrilegious to kill.
-Exodus 11:2 has everyone "borrowing" from their neighbor. The original Hebrew loosely translates this passage to mean that everyone asked or demanded things from their neighbors. Controversy still reigns as to whether the previous version is true or whether this verse is a very tongue-in-check command to spoil the Egyptians. Nice back wages for 400 years of slavery!
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Day 4: Genesis 40:12 - 50:26
Just a couple "Huh. Interesting" comments for today's reading:
-Genesis 41:46 tells us Joseph was 30 when his true life's work began, just like Jesus later on in history.
-Genesis 42 seems to indicate that Joseph's brothers must have not liked him a great deal. True, it had been fifteen years since they had last seen him, but to not recognize him AT ALL?! Genesis 43 shows that Joseph recognized his brother, Benjamin, even though he disguised it. How much would you have to avoid a family member not to recognize them AT ALL?!
-Genesis 48 gives an account of generational blessing styles. Jacob had been the second-born, yet he received the blessing of his father and of his people. When passing the blessing on, Jacob chose Joseph's sons to receive it. Not only that, but Jacob purposefully blessed the younger of Joseph's two sons.
-Genesis 50:2 states Jacob was embalmed at Joseph's command even though it seemed to me that Jacob didn't really want anything to do with Egypt; he wanted to be buried in the land of Canaan. I wonder if Jacob was feeling badly for how he had treated Leah during her life because he asked to be buried with her, not Rachel.
I find it further interesting that the triad of patriarchs were all buried in the same place with their first wives: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah.
-Genesis 41:46 tells us Joseph was 30 when his true life's work began, just like Jesus later on in history.
-Genesis 42 seems to indicate that Joseph's brothers must have not liked him a great deal. True, it had been fifteen years since they had last seen him, but to not recognize him AT ALL?! Genesis 43 shows that Joseph recognized his brother, Benjamin, even though he disguised it. How much would you have to avoid a family member not to recognize them AT ALL?!
-Genesis 48 gives an account of generational blessing styles. Jacob had been the second-born, yet he received the blessing of his father and of his people. When passing the blessing on, Jacob chose Joseph's sons to receive it. Not only that, but Jacob purposefully blessed the younger of Joseph's two sons.
-Genesis 50:2 states Jacob was embalmed at Joseph's command even though it seemed to me that Jacob didn't really want anything to do with Egypt; he wanted to be buried in the land of Canaan. I wonder if Jacob was feeling badly for how he had treated Leah during her life because he asked to be buried with her, not Rachel.
I find it further interesting that the triad of patriarchs were all buried in the same place with their first wives: Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebekah, and Jacob and Leah.
Monday, January 4, 2010
Sunday, January 3, 2010
Day 2: Genesis 17:1 - 28:19
In today's reading, I didn't have as many insights as yesterday... But then, of course, those first sixteen chapters of Genesis cover A LOT of ground and history.
-I was first struck by how long Abram/Abraham had to wait AFTER Ishmael before Isaac came along... fourteen years!! He was 86 when Ishmael was born and 100 when Isaac was born. That's a long time to wait on a promise. Abram waited a total of 24 years before he saw God fulfill His promise!
-Genesis 19:17-30 tells an interesting story about Lot and his family. Before destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, the angels told Lot, "Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed." Lot's response was to beg to go to Zoar, a little city nearby. "I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die... Oh, let me escape thither [to Zoar], (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live."
The angel listened to Lot's plea and spared Zoar for Lot's sake. It took all night to get there, but when the sun rose, Lot and his family were safe at Zoar when God rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. Shockingly, Lot's wife, already safe and protected in Zoar, "looked back from behind him [Lot], and she became a pillar of salt."
Now pay attention here. Lot, having received permission to live in Zoar because he was afraid of living in the mountain, now leaves Zoar and "dwelt in the mountain... for he feared to dwell in Zoar." Lot never struck me as a firm character, but this kind of cinches his pusillanimous way of dealing with life; always taking the easy and comfortable path.
-Genesis 24:34 seems to indicate one of two things: either men didn't get married very early in those days, or Isaac was a bit of a mama's boy and had not gotten a wife by the time he was 40! And even then, Isaac doesn't look for a wife or initiate the search for her - his father does!
-Genesis 20 tells the story of Abraham and Sarah lying to Abimelech, king of Gerar, because Abraham feared being killed for his wife's sake. And yet, he really didn't completely lie, because Sarah really was his sister, "the daughter of my [Abraham's] father, but not the daughter of my mother.]
Many years later, in Genesis 26, we find Abraham's son, Isaac, living in the land of Gerar still ruled by, you guessed it, Abimelech. Immediately, Isaac tells the men who lived there that Rebekah was his sister because he, too, was afraid of being killed for her sake. Isaac flat out lied and thankfully, Abimelech figured out what was going on and reproached Isaac for his dishonesty, pointing out he could have brought ruin on the land.
I wonder if Abimelech knew Abraham and Isaac were related and if he realized they had done the same thing to him. Regardless, he wasn't taking any chances and placed in effect a death penalty for anyone who even so much as touched Isaac or Rebekah.
-Genesis 27:46 is sad and funny at the same time. I guess Esau's wives were giving Isaac a hard time because he mentions, "I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth... what good shall my life do me?" It is also interesting to note that the "daughters of Heth" were descendants of Canaan, Ham's son, who had been cursed by Noah. Isaac was a descendant of Shem, who had been blessed by Noah.
-Genesis 28:6-9 seems to indicate that Isaac didn't exactly do his part in raising his sons in a godly manner or teach them important things they should have known. It would seem Esau had no clue that he was not supposed to marry Canaanite women. Until, that is, he "saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away... to take him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters for Canaan."
Esau "seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father... took unto the wives which he had" daughters of Ishmael. Apparently, Esau was trying desperately to do the right thing, but had never been instructed what the right thing to do was.
-One interesting parallel I found was in how Isaac and Jacob's wives were found. They were both discovered at the well with their flocks. I'm not sure how Abraham found his wife, but wouldn't it be funny if he found her at a well, too?
I
-I was first struck by how long Abram/Abraham had to wait AFTER Ishmael before Isaac came along... fourteen years!! He was 86 when Ishmael was born and 100 when Isaac was born. That's a long time to wait on a promise. Abram waited a total of 24 years before he saw God fulfill His promise!
-Genesis 19:17-30 tells an interesting story about Lot and his family. Before destroying Sodom and Gomorrah, the angels told Lot, "Escape for thy life; look not behind thee, neither stay thou in all the plain; escape to the mountain, lest thou be consumed." Lot's response was to beg to go to Zoar, a little city nearby. "I cannot escape to the mountain, lest some evil take me, and I die... Oh, let me escape thither [to Zoar], (is it not a little one?) and my soul shall live."
The angel listened to Lot's plea and spared Zoar for Lot's sake. It took all night to get there, but when the sun rose, Lot and his family were safe at Zoar when God rained fire and brimstone on Sodom and Gomorrah. Shockingly, Lot's wife, already safe and protected in Zoar, "looked back from behind him [Lot], and she became a pillar of salt."
Now pay attention here. Lot, having received permission to live in Zoar because he was afraid of living in the mountain, now leaves Zoar and "dwelt in the mountain... for he feared to dwell in Zoar." Lot never struck me as a firm character, but this kind of cinches his pusillanimous way of dealing with life; always taking the easy and comfortable path.
-Genesis 24:34 seems to indicate one of two things: either men didn't get married very early in those days, or Isaac was a bit of a mama's boy and had not gotten a wife by the time he was 40! And even then, Isaac doesn't look for a wife or initiate the search for her - his father does!
-Genesis 20 tells the story of Abraham and Sarah lying to Abimelech, king of Gerar, because Abraham feared being killed for his wife's sake. And yet, he really didn't completely lie, because Sarah really was his sister, "the daughter of my [Abraham's] father, but not the daughter of my mother.]
Many years later, in Genesis 26, we find Abraham's son, Isaac, living in the land of Gerar still ruled by, you guessed it, Abimelech. Immediately, Isaac tells the men who lived there that Rebekah was his sister because he, too, was afraid of being killed for her sake. Isaac flat out lied and thankfully, Abimelech figured out what was going on and reproached Isaac for his dishonesty, pointing out he could have brought ruin on the land.
I wonder if Abimelech knew Abraham and Isaac were related and if he realized they had done the same thing to him. Regardless, he wasn't taking any chances and placed in effect a death penalty for anyone who even so much as touched Isaac or Rebekah.
-Genesis 27:46 is sad and funny at the same time. I guess Esau's wives were giving Isaac a hard time because he mentions, "I am weary of my life because of the daughters of Heth: if Jacob take a wife of the daughters of Heth... what good shall my life do me?" It is also interesting to note that the "daughters of Heth" were descendants of Canaan, Ham's son, who had been cursed by Noah. Isaac was a descendant of Shem, who had been blessed by Noah.
-Genesis 28:6-9 seems to indicate that Isaac didn't exactly do his part in raising his sons in a godly manner or teach them important things they should have known. It would seem Esau had no clue that he was not supposed to marry Canaanite women. Until, that is, he "saw that Isaac had blessed Jacob, and sent him away... to take him a wife from thence; and that as he blessed him he gave him a charge, saying, Thou shalt not take a wife of the daughters for Canaan."
Esau "seeing that the daughters of Canaan pleased not Isaac his father... took unto the wives which he had" daughters of Ishmael. Apparently, Esau was trying desperately to do the right thing, but had never been instructed what the right thing to do was.
-One interesting parallel I found was in how Isaac and Jacob's wives were found. They were both discovered at the well with their flocks. I'm not sure how Abraham found his wife, but wouldn't it be funny if he found her at a well, too?
I
Saturday, January 2, 2010
Day 1: Genesis 1:1 - 16:16
Observations and interesting bits from Day 1:
-Genesis 1:30 states, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."
Assuming God made all the animals to include dinosaurs... dinosaurs initially ate plants! Could that explain the shallow root system of the fearsome Tyrannosaurus Rex? Perhaps the extinction of many dinosaurs was caused by insufficient plant life to feed these large creatures who were not designed to eat meat? Just a question.
-Genesis 2:1 says, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
Perhaps this could be referring to the creation of all the angels and human souls?
-Genesis 3:14 indicates that snakes once had legs, "...upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." That would certainly account for the pair of seemingly unnecessary "hip bones" found in snakes today.
-Genesis 6:3 makes me wonder if humans were already living forever or if the breeding with angels (sons of God) was causing indefinite longevity because of what God said; "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
Maybe another way to look at this was that God was giving humankind 120 years to straighten things out before He wiped them out in the flood. Or perhaps He knew that in 120 years, mankind would become SO corrupt that it would NEED to be completely wiped out with the exception of some choice human seed.
-Genesis 6:1-4 speaks of the sons of God taking daughters of men as wives and generating giants and "mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Could these half-human, half-angelic offspring be the fodder for numerous tales, fables, and legends of gods and demi-gods who possessed amazing powers, yet were bound with such human emotions?
-Genesis 7:1-2 very clearly indicates that there were clean and unclean animals BEFORE God directed the Israelites what to eat/sacrifice as clean... "Of every clean beast though shalt take... and of beasts that are not clean... Of fowls also of the air..."
Another interesting question pertains to the number of clean and unclean animals taken aboard. Why seven? It doesn't seem right to have an "odd man out" when repopulating the earth. Did God mean seven PAIRS of clean and two PAIRS of unclean animals?
Or maybe, just maybe, the seventh animal taken into the ark was the sacrificial animal which Noah sacrificed upon exiting the ark?
-Genesis 9:2 seems to indicate that animals had not been afraid of people up to this point: "And the fear of you [Noah and his sons] and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea;" Good call! Especially since the next verse directs Noah and his sons to use the animals as food now, instead of just plant life.
-Genesis 9:22 speaks of Ham's son, Canaan, and makes me to wonder if this son is the one whose descendants would be overcome by the post-Egypt Israelites.
-Genesis 9:25-27 has an account of Noah cursing Ham's son, Canaan for Ham's disrespectful wrongdoing. I find it interesting that Noah didn't curse Ham, but cursed his son. It is the descendants of Canaan who would fill the Promised Land (i.e., the land of Canaan) and who would become so wicked that the Israelites would drive them out.
It is interesting to note here that Noah, while cursing Canaan, also blessed Shem and said Japheth would live in his tents. Later, we find that Abram/Abraham, the father of many nations was a direct descendant of Shem. It would be his descendants that would wipe out the land of Canaan.
-Genesis 10:6 refers to a son of Ham as being named Mizraim... this is the Hebrew word for Egypt.
-Genesis 10:9-10 tells us that Nimrod, the grandson of Ham and "a mighty hunter before the Lord," was the founder of Babel - the beginning of his kingdom. I wonder if this is the same Babel where the infamous tower was built.
-Genesis 10:15 foreshadows issues with children of Heth, as bemoaned by Isaac later. Heth was the grandson of Canaan, who was cursed by his grandfather, Noah.
-Genesis 11:4-7 has always amused me. In the King James Version (KJV), the people are quoted as saying, "Go to, let us make brick and burn them thoroughly... Go to, let u build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven..." God comes down to see the city and says, "Go to, let us go down and confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." And who says God has no sense of humor?!
-Genesis 14:18 introduces a mysterious character, Melchizedek. I'm still not sure who he is, but he appears suddenly, with no lead up, and he is the high priest of the city of Salem, which means peace. Not only this, but Abraham promptly gives him a tithe of all the spoil he had just obtained. Curious.
-Genesis 15:16 states that the Amorites weren't wicked enough for Abram to destroy, but "in the fourth generation they [Abram's descendants] shall come hither again."
-Genesis 16:3 showed me something I'd never really thought of before. Previously, it seemed to me that right after God promised Abram a son (and it didn't happen), that Ishmael came along. This verse contradicts that idea, stating Abram waited TEN YEARS before Sarai gave him Hagar to be his wive.
-Genesis 16:11-12 is one of the most historically provocative verses from today's reading for me. "I will multiply thy [Hagar's] seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude... thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael... And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."
God's promise to Abram's descendants applied literally to his descendants. God kept his word, even though Ishmael was a result of human action, rather than waiting on God's timing. That simple act of impatience has resulted in one of the most turbulent and long-lasting conflicts in history; the Arab/Jew conflict in the Middle East.
Something to think about, huh?
-Genesis 1:30 states, "And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so."
Assuming God made all the animals to include dinosaurs... dinosaurs initially ate plants! Could that explain the shallow root system of the fearsome Tyrannosaurus Rex? Perhaps the extinction of many dinosaurs was caused by insufficient plant life to feed these large creatures who were not designed to eat meat? Just a question.
-Genesis 2:1 says, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them."
Perhaps this could be referring to the creation of all the angels and human souls?
-Genesis 3:14 indicates that snakes once had legs, "...upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life." That would certainly account for the pair of seemingly unnecessary "hip bones" found in snakes today.
-Genesis 6:3 makes me wonder if humans were already living forever or if the breeding with angels (sons of God) was causing indefinite longevity because of what God said; "My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."
Maybe another way to look at this was that God was giving humankind 120 years to straighten things out before He wiped them out in the flood. Or perhaps He knew that in 120 years, mankind would become SO corrupt that it would NEED to be completely wiped out with the exception of some choice human seed.
-Genesis 6:1-4 speaks of the sons of God taking daughters of men as wives and generating giants and "mighty men which were of old, men of renown." Could these half-human, half-angelic offspring be the fodder for numerous tales, fables, and legends of gods and demi-gods who possessed amazing powers, yet were bound with such human emotions?
-Genesis 7:1-2 very clearly indicates that there were clean and unclean animals BEFORE God directed the Israelites what to eat/sacrifice as clean... "Of every clean beast though shalt take... and of beasts that are not clean... Of fowls also of the air..."
Another interesting question pertains to the number of clean and unclean animals taken aboard. Why seven? It doesn't seem right to have an "odd man out" when repopulating the earth. Did God mean seven PAIRS of clean and two PAIRS of unclean animals?
Or maybe, just maybe, the seventh animal taken into the ark was the sacrificial animal which Noah sacrificed upon exiting the ark?
-Genesis 9:2 seems to indicate that animals had not been afraid of people up to this point: "And the fear of you [Noah and his sons] and the dread of you shall be upon every beast of the earth, and upon every fowl of the air, upon all that moveth upon the earth, and upon all the fishes of the sea;" Good call! Especially since the next verse directs Noah and his sons to use the animals as food now, instead of just plant life.
-Genesis 9:22 speaks of Ham's son, Canaan, and makes me to wonder if this son is the one whose descendants would be overcome by the post-Egypt Israelites.
-Genesis 9:25-27 has an account of Noah cursing Ham's son, Canaan for Ham's disrespectful wrongdoing. I find it interesting that Noah didn't curse Ham, but cursed his son. It is the descendants of Canaan who would fill the Promised Land (i.e., the land of Canaan) and who would become so wicked that the Israelites would drive them out.
It is interesting to note here that Noah, while cursing Canaan, also blessed Shem and said Japheth would live in his tents. Later, we find that Abram/Abraham, the father of many nations was a direct descendant of Shem. It would be his descendants that would wipe out the land of Canaan.
-Genesis 10:6 refers to a son of Ham as being named Mizraim... this is the Hebrew word for Egypt.
-Genesis 10:9-10 tells us that Nimrod, the grandson of Ham and "a mighty hunter before the Lord," was the founder of Babel - the beginning of his kingdom. I wonder if this is the same Babel where the infamous tower was built.
-Genesis 10:15 foreshadows issues with children of Heth, as bemoaned by Isaac later. Heth was the grandson of Canaan, who was cursed by his grandfather, Noah.
-Genesis 11:4-7 has always amused me. In the King James Version (KJV), the people are quoted as saying, "Go to, let us make brick and burn them thoroughly... Go to, let u build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven..." God comes down to see the city and says, "Go to, let us go down and confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech." And who says God has no sense of humor?!
-Genesis 14:18 introduces a mysterious character, Melchizedek. I'm still not sure who he is, but he appears suddenly, with no lead up, and he is the high priest of the city of Salem, which means peace. Not only this, but Abraham promptly gives him a tithe of all the spoil he had just obtained. Curious.
-Genesis 15:16 states that the Amorites weren't wicked enough for Abram to destroy, but "in the fourth generation they [Abram's descendants] shall come hither again."
-Genesis 16:3 showed me something I'd never really thought of before. Previously, it seemed to me that right after God promised Abram a son (and it didn't happen), that Ishmael came along. This verse contradicts that idea, stating Abram waited TEN YEARS before Sarai gave him Hagar to be his wive.
-Genesis 16:11-12 is one of the most historically provocative verses from today's reading for me. "I will multiply thy [Hagar's] seed exceedingly, that it shall not be numbered for multitude... thou art with child and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael... And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him; and he shall dwell in the presence of all his brethren."
God's promise to Abram's descendants applied literally to his descendants. God kept his word, even though Ishmael was a result of human action, rather than waiting on God's timing. That simple act of impatience has resulted in one of the most turbulent and long-lasting conflicts in history; the Arab/Jew conflict in the Middle East.
Something to think about, huh?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Uniquely Suited to Complement; not Compete
One of the issues I've had to contend with in the Bible is the role of women.
Now before there I am decried as a feminist and alpha female (which I'm not), let me explain where I'm coming from. Throughout the Bible, I have noticed God's penchant to put men in a position of authority and leadership... not the woman. Additionally, there are many verses which apply to firstborns being specially chosen by God, but they tend to be male firstborns... and that's a completely different subject which I may or may not ever get into.
The motif I'm trying to get at here is my initial responses to God's choice of men over women for authority and leadership purposes and the consequent delineation between men and women's roles. To be perfectly clear, I don't believe this elevation of man to his rightful position of authority is unjust or a denigration of women by God; in fact, I believe God has a very high opinion and respect of women throughout the Bible as can be noted from the responsibilities He has placed on the women.
A woman's responsibilities may not seem as important or as demanding or as stressful as a man's responsibilities, but I would argue that the woman often has a harder lot in life then the man if she is to do things according to God's standards.
The argument by women in today's society is that men don't do anything so they must. This has led to a militant force of women sweeping the globe and infiltrating even the most discriminatory fields and areas of life, business, military, etc. Since man is not being a man, woman must fill his place. Women complain about how men lack initiative, drive, focus, responsibility; how they live their lives in complacency, seemingly spineless, lackluster creatures - which drives the woman insane.
Women have a tendency to see something that needs to be done or a problem that needs to be solved and if the man doesn't do it, obviously the woman must. It is here that women make the most terrible mistake of all; the mistake of impatience and usurpation of the man's role in society.
God made men to be leaders and to be the heads of whatever body they are leading. Their rule begins with their family and moves up from there: work groups, companies, governments, states, countries. The man has been uniquely equipped to rule and to be in command. However, their ability to be men seems directly linked to the amount of respect, honor, and deference women show to them.
Men need to be given a chance to be the leaders they were created to be.
And this is where the woman must realize when to step aside. It may take the man longer to realize what the problem is, it may take him longer to take any action. If a woman immediately throws herself into the problem and attempts to solve it herself, she removes the necessity for the man to do anything at all. Because of the intensity that arises from a woman trying to do a man's work, it is often more convenient for the man just to stay out of the way.
Result: a society of women who are frazzled beyond all belief as they try to juggle their responsibilities as mother and homemaker with the man's responsibilities of leadership and provision. On the other side is a society of men whose masculinity has been trampled by a stampede of high heels and a flurry of impatience and disrespect, leading them to a life as a target of disdain and disgust - why bother?
It is my belief that if women would stand down and suppress the frequently overwhelming desire to DO something, men would move forward to fill the gaps. If women would stop despising men and focusing on what they don't do and start showing respect and deference for the laudable things they DO do, men would blossom and begin to reclaim their manhood. If women would expect men to be men and to take charge and not only wait for them to do so, but encourage them as they moved toward that goal, the blood of manhood would once again run through their veins.
I believe women have a much more difficult role in life... we are to be supportive and respectful.
This can be one of the hardest things a woman can ever do; to stand back and wait for the man to fill the gap he was uniquely created to fill. This is not a wimpy role, it does not detract from womanhood to do this. In fact, I believe it will elevate men's opinion of woman and instead of seeing and treating her as a poorly-behaved man, he will begin to see and treat her as a woman - completely different from him, yet uniquely suited to complement, not compete, with him throughout life.
It is time for women to stand down and allow men to stand up... they will if we let them.
Now before there I am decried as a feminist and alpha female (which I'm not), let me explain where I'm coming from. Throughout the Bible, I have noticed God's penchant to put men in a position of authority and leadership... not the woman. Additionally, there are many verses which apply to firstborns being specially chosen by God, but they tend to be male firstborns... and that's a completely different subject which I may or may not ever get into.
The motif I'm trying to get at here is my initial responses to God's choice of men over women for authority and leadership purposes and the consequent delineation between men and women's roles. To be perfectly clear, I don't believe this elevation of man to his rightful position of authority is unjust or a denigration of women by God; in fact, I believe God has a very high opinion and respect of women throughout the Bible as can be noted from the responsibilities He has placed on the women.
A woman's responsibilities may not seem as important or as demanding or as stressful as a man's responsibilities, but I would argue that the woman often has a harder lot in life then the man if she is to do things according to God's standards.
The argument by women in today's society is that men don't do anything so they must. This has led to a militant force of women sweeping the globe and infiltrating even the most discriminatory fields and areas of life, business, military, etc. Since man is not being a man, woman must fill his place. Women complain about how men lack initiative, drive, focus, responsibility; how they live their lives in complacency, seemingly spineless, lackluster creatures - which drives the woman insane.
Women have a tendency to see something that needs to be done or a problem that needs to be solved and if the man doesn't do it, obviously the woman must. It is here that women make the most terrible mistake of all; the mistake of impatience and usurpation of the man's role in society.
God made men to be leaders and to be the heads of whatever body they are leading. Their rule begins with their family and moves up from there: work groups, companies, governments, states, countries. The man has been uniquely equipped to rule and to be in command. However, their ability to be men seems directly linked to the amount of respect, honor, and deference women show to them.
Men need to be given a chance to be the leaders they were created to be.
And this is where the woman must realize when to step aside. It may take the man longer to realize what the problem is, it may take him longer to take any action. If a woman immediately throws herself into the problem and attempts to solve it herself, she removes the necessity for the man to do anything at all. Because of the intensity that arises from a woman trying to do a man's work, it is often more convenient for the man just to stay out of the way.
Result: a society of women who are frazzled beyond all belief as they try to juggle their responsibilities as mother and homemaker with the man's responsibilities of leadership and provision. On the other side is a society of men whose masculinity has been trampled by a stampede of high heels and a flurry of impatience and disrespect, leading them to a life as a target of disdain and disgust - why bother?
It is my belief that if women would stand down and suppress the frequently overwhelming desire to DO something, men would move forward to fill the gaps. If women would stop despising men and focusing on what they don't do and start showing respect and deference for the laudable things they DO do, men would blossom and begin to reclaim their manhood. If women would expect men to be men and to take charge and not only wait for them to do so, but encourage them as they moved toward that goal, the blood of manhood would once again run through their veins.
I believe women have a much more difficult role in life... we are to be supportive and respectful.
This can be one of the hardest things a woman can ever do; to stand back and wait for the man to fill the gap he was uniquely created to fill. This is not a wimpy role, it does not detract from womanhood to do this. In fact, I believe it will elevate men's opinion of woman and instead of seeing and treating her as a poorly-behaved man, he will begin to see and treat her as a woman - completely different from him, yet uniquely suited to complement, not compete, with him throughout life.
It is time for women to stand down and allow men to stand up... they will if we let them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)