Yesterday, I talked about a recent brouhaha over some comments by Douglas Wilson and Jared Wilson (no relation) over at The Gospel Coalition about gender and marriage. Jared quoted a book by Douglas where he says, among other things, this:
…the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts.
His (and Jared’s) main point was that they believe there’s an inherent “loving” “authority” exercised by men in marriage, even in the sexual act. Further, this is God’s loving design that Christians are to embrace. They believe that some of our culture’s male addiction to porn and female addiction to S&M bondage fantasies stem from our culture’s rebellion from this “proper” and “loving” exercise of male authority over women, causing them to turn to “improper” ways of exercising these God-given drives.
Needless to say, they got a lot of flack over this. They insisted time and time again that they are not advocating forcible marital sex or that women should just be treated as passive “receivers” of sex. They defended themselves, attacked their critics, and yet, (inexplicably, to them) critics kept saying these harsh things about them. Yesterday, I wrote about the background of this, the responses, and then wrote some words to Jared Wilson. Please go to that link for that relevant information. Today I want to give more of my specific perspective on this:
First, to both of the Wilsons…
As I said yesterday, I don’t think you’re stated opinion is that sex should be forced, dominating, unloving, or the like. But there’s a reason that people have continued to comment and say the same things even after you clarified them.
It’s because it still doesn’t seem like you see the inherent misogyny in your words, however genuinely unintended it might be.
It’s simply not the case that you can use the language of “penetration”, “conquering”, and “colonization” for sex and then turn around and use the language of “mutual submission”, “cherishing”, and “love”.
It would be like saying that blacks, though equal in “value” in the eyes of God, should have “separate but equal” places in society and in relationship with other races, but then saying you’re not at all being racist (or at the very least, clearly appearing that way).
It’s like blowing up innocent civilians and saying it’s for the cause of peace.
It at least sounds similar to a tweet John Piper put up a couple of years ago telling women they “shouldn’t complain” about their husband’s porn addiction if they watch movies with him that have nudity.
This all reminds me of this line in this song by Derek Webb:
…tell me since when do the means justify the ends
and you build the kingdom using the devil’s tools?
It appears you want to say that the “ends” of love, mutual submission, and cherishing are arrived at through penetration, conquering, colonizing, and “seeding”. How is this not building the Kingdom using the tools of the devil–tools that have been subverted, reversed, turned upside-down and backward through the Cross of Christ? As J.R.D. Kirk so beautifully said in his post on this issue:
When Jesus came and showed us what Christian manhood was all about, he did not conquer, but allowed himself to be conquered; he did not pierce, but allowed himself to be pierced; he did not plant by scattering his seed forcibly, he planted by giving up his own life–the grain of wheat falling to the earth and dying that it might produce a crop 100-fold.
“Husbands, love your wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her.”
You want to be a man in the bedroom? Learn what it means to give up your power rather than clinging to that primal desire to conquer.
You want to be a Christian man in the bedroom? Go and learn what this means: “The husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does” (1 Cor 7).
Even the bedroom is to be part of the way of the cross. Play the part of the Roman centurion, and you’re not telling the Jesus story any longer.
A couple of months ago, I posted an extended quote from William Struthers’ book Wired For Intimacy: How Pornography Hijacks the Male Brain that also speaks of a more biblical portrait of masculinity than the one you guys promote. I encourage you to read it.
In the end, people can’t just “take your word for it” that you swear you’re not a chauvinist any more than they can with someone giving that “separate but equal” line even as they swear they’re not a racist. Many people keep talking about this because they’re trying to show you the logical endpoint of your language–and ultimately, your perspective on this entire issue.
I know both of you Wilson’s love your wives dearly. But I would humbly submit that the moments you can think of that you have loved them best would have been precisely those moments when you were the least “authoritative”, hierarchical, and instead submitted your whole self to her and for her. In other words, when you–even unwittingly–suspended the practical and logical outworking of your theological opinion about this issue.
In other other words, I wonder if you have loved your wives best when you were being very bad complementarians (however you try and “re-define” that term to mean something it does not).
The clear implication of Wilson’s quote (no matter how much you want to belittle your readers and insult their “reading comprehension skills”) is that men rape because of a twisting of their God-given drive for conquest; a drive that’s intended to be directed in love towards wives, but when that’s rebelled against, it gets perverted into things like rape. But, according to your theology, what are some of the ways this “rebellion” displays itself in our society? Women working for most of their lives even after having kids, women sometimes being the breadwinners, women teaching men theology, women elders caring for the hurt and broken in their community, and women leading Gospel-centered churches that are growing believers in faith and maturity.
And so, it’s not a very big jump to connect the dots and come to the logical conclusion that you’re saying that if that stuff wasn’t going on in our culture (Christian and secular), then their might be less rape in the world. I don’t think it’s entirely unreasonable to say that the quote implies a connection between all of those things.
Once again, I am not saying you yourself are directly and intentionally preaching this or believe this. Please don’t misunderstand me. But this is what your worldview preaches–even in spite of you. No matter your intent. No matter your motive. No matter your heart. It is, as Jamie Smith might call it, a “cultural liturgy” that you are participating in simply by using this language; and it will acculturate you (and others) one way or the other, whether by conscious assent or subconscious catechizing of your heart.
And lastly, to The “Gospel” Coalition…
I have remained in shock ever since I realized that “ministries” like The Gospel Coalition, Together for the Gospel, Acts29, and The Resurgence (among others) will compromise with each other and work together with those of differing opinions on infant baptism but not women in ministry. Really? The most fundamental expression of New Testament covenant theology can be tossed aside as “ambiguous” and “open to various interpretations”, but not a women’s role in the church, home, and marriage?!
(Maybe a post is in order outlining why I believe egalitarianism is the only clear, loving, and sane perspective on this in the Bible. We’ll see.)
As Rachel Held Evans has pointed out time and time again, the structuring of relationships so the man will “rule over” women is precisely part of the curse laid on humanity in the garden. You can’t take three specific verses in the New Testament (verses that have many well-documented historical, cultural, contextual, and translational issues) and build a whole theology of women in Christianity around it.
But I’m getting off topic.
I’m not saying that these organizations should begin discriminating on the basis of infant baptism. Rather, I’m saying that they should stop treating such tertiary “opinions” (like complementarianism) as part of the “Gospel” proper.
I’ve written before over how much my heart breaks over this branch of conservative Evangelicalism that wants to divide over these smallest of issues**; how they’ll deprive themselves of some of the best pastors in the world based on their views on this stuff.
(And now for the longest single grammatically-correct sentence I’ve ever written.)
And so ultimately, it saddens me that a site that calls itself “The Gospel Coalition”, in a post by a guy whose blog is called “The Gospel-Driven Church” (by the way, I see that the URLs for TheTertiaryOpinionCoalition.com and TheMinorDoctrineDrivenChurch.com are available. Just FYI.) would want to expend so much of its energy defending–of all the possible “ideas” in the world (I won’t respect it by calling it a “doctrine”)–a system of belief that perpetuates twisted relationships in society, bad interpretations of the Bible, poor relationships with the wider culture (which, for some of these guys, is a virtue), and, worst of all, the degradation of the dignity, honor, strength, and souls of our precious sisters in Christ.
This is the opposite of love.
This is madness. This is power. This is shameful. It has to end.
May we all repent for how we’ve perpetuated this.
So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus….
Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you stand. By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures
–The Apostle Paul
______________________________
** Yes, yes, I know that you can twist the theology of all of this to make this into some “gospel” issue by appealing to the authority/submission within the Godhead and its expression among humanity. But people were able to find ways to make geocentrism “essential” to the gospel based on ideas of the earth being the centrality of God’s focus, work, and redemption in the cosmos. They’ve also been able to show how slavery, genocide, war, crusade, and conservative politics/economics were all “essentially” tied to the Gospel. This doesn’t mean they were right.
the long way home 
you’re right, i like this less.
I think ‘colonize and conquer’ terms were dumb, and yes, I guess they then color what might be interpreted about penetrate and seed. But i don’t want that to obscure that penetrate and seed are perfectly acceptable and valid terms for what goes on, even if one wanted to argue its not literally true from in an atomized scientific perspective (heck in the restricted rarefied terminology of mathematics, topologically, the womb is ‘outside’ the woman). The symbolic freight of what goes on between a man and a woman is colored by the form of the act itself. and 2 of those terms are insanely proper.
Kirk’s post, by implying that ‘penetration’ is what a Roman does to Jesus to kill him, almost seems to be saying that in the new way jesus shows us, men won’t have penetrative sex with their wives*, or men wouldn’t say, ever be on ‘top’, or want to, or want to because they like something about it that they don’t like about not. If what jesus shows us about authority doesn’t actuallys ay *anything* about how you can now have sex, then the default creational symbolic aspects of kto kogo (in russian) still stand.
* From only one limited perspective (the eschaton) that’s true, but we don’t immenantize the eschaton.
“But I would humbly submit that the moments you can think of that you have loved them best would have been precisely those moments when you were the least “authoritative”, hierarchical, and instead submitted your whole self to her and for her. ”
This is true many times. But there are also moments when my wife has been very appreciative of my taking charge of a matter that she felt incapable of handling because of emotion and fear that I was able to approach with an authoritative, yes, i know what to do and what I’m doing, perspective. That’s incredibly useful and valuable.
(BTW, my back-of-mind perspective on this was shaped by a complementarian who taught me that male headship didn’t mean you got what you wanted when deciding, say, if you wanted to move to take a job in another city and she didn’t because of whatever reason. It meant that you actually had to consider her reasons and make the wisest choice that factored in her perspective. )
” But, according to your theology, what are some of the ways this “rebellion” displays itself in our society? Women working for most of their lives even after having kids, women sometimes being the breadwinners, women teaching men theology, women elders caring for the hurt and broken in their community, and women leading Gospel-centered churches that are growing believers in faith and maturity.”
Does Wilson actually say the first two? Or even the next-to-last (excepting the term ‘elder’, since complementarians are probably ok with ‘elder women’ caring for the hurt and broken, though they do it without ordained institutional ‘authority’ just servant authority we all possess. I agree its a tough call to say get rid of egalitarianism in churches and society and rape will decrease. I certainly don’t think that’s the case. I think perhaps he’s just claiming that we’re not going to rid outselves of rape by adopting ‘egalitarianism’ as an ideal (Wilson keeps talking about submission to God as the main point: yes, i know egals believe their view is the most submissive to God’s authority. But I also think its ok to critique baptist culture for some of the ways their theology leads to unique failures)
It is interesting how TCG works together ignoring baptism and not gender roles. I think when the gender role division has been around for 500 years we may see a new TCG that works together on that too: we all know we divided over baptism a long time ago, and if we wanted, we could point to political forces that led to that division. But gender role division, of course, is more recent, and (thereby also) looks to the one side as a recent compromise with a liberal cultural spirit. So yes, its ironic, but i can understand it.
[i had some more here, but it got eaten, will add it later]
LikeLike
Well said, Paul.
I think the best response I’ve seen to this issue so far was Rachel Held Evans asking, what does “complementarian” sex even look like? How is it different than “egalitarian” sex? She says:
Who knows the exact thought process that went into this, but it sure seems like he didn’t think that far ahead. That he just thought the connections he was making made sense and that people would agree. It seems like the post just wasn’t well thought out and the whole controversy caught them off-guard.
I say a lot of throw away things in daily conversation and debate that I couldn’t defend well if someone really called me on them. They make sense in my head and a lot of times sound good at a glance. But when you’re a well-known speaker/blogger and you make the assertions in Wilson’s original post then you’ve got to be ready to defend every bit of your thought process before you hit the “Post” button. Otherwise it’s too easy just to post things that you think your constituents will eat up without giving any critical thought and your opponents will gloss over without taking the time to argue.
LikeLike
What’s funny is that with these guys and others like them, their desire to “love and protect” women feels like prison bars. Ironically, the plethora of posts from men, yours included, speaking up for the dignity, integrity, and ability of women feels EXACTLY like love and protection – an uplifting and affirming love and protection, rather than a condescending one. One that would actually be welcome.
All that to say, I cheered through most of this. Thanks a bunch.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Gospel Coalition & Sex as Conquest: Jared Wilson, you’re better than this {1} | the long way home
I really wish I’d read the original post in question here before it was removed. Now that it’s gone, it’s a bit hard to tell who said what, what they meant, where there heart was…That being said, I appreciate that your (Paul) posts have really made me freshly think through these issues…
Also, I can’t help but posting a link to a post by Douglas Wilson’s daughter on this whole ordeal – http://www.feminagirls.com/2012/07/18/thems-figthin-words/
LikeLike
Here’s an excerpt from one of Douglas Wilson’s blog posts on the whole thing. Curious to hear your thoughts/reactions, Paul.
“Then there were the other terms that some folks tripped over. In the next few paragraphs, let me just expand on some points I made in the comments at Jared Wilson’s blog.
It is not possible to talk about this without talking about it. “Penetrates.” Is anyone maintaining that this is not a feature of intercourse? “Plants.” Is the biblical concept of seed misogynistic? “Conquer.” Her neck is like the tower of David, and her necklace is like a thousand bucklers. “Colonize.” A garden locked is my sister, my bride. C’mon, people, work with me here.
Incidentally, I know and understand that both husband and wife have sexual authority (1 Cor. 7:4). Her eyes conquer him. “Turn away thine eyes from me, for they have overcome me” (Song 6:4-5). She is like an army with banners. So the language of conquest is language of mutual conquest, but it is still there. But when language of conquest is used with regard to the woman, it is unfortunate that some women get huffy. Guys generally don’t. When she starts to militarize, he gets a sly grin and adopts a policy of craven appeasement.”
LikeLike
That’s not what Wilson is saying. If you show the woman also having authority, you make it an “egalitarian pleasure party”. Which he thinks is harmful.
To me, he’s trying to promote a strange hyper-Calvinism in the bedroom.
Knowing Wilson, when he says conquering, he’s probably thinking of something like Constantine, who rides up in splendor to the city gates, and those in the city *want* him to be king and not the other general therefore throw the gates open and cheer. But he needs to actually say this. And he’s spending way to much time thinking of women as pictures of the church and not enough time about how they also picture Christ.
LikeLike
Pingback: The Gospel Coalition & Sex as Conquest: it’s still misogyny, however unintended {2} « Prophetshrek
Pingback: Complementarians and Martial Sex: The Jared Wilson / Gospel Coalition Saga « The Dunedin School
Wow a Chrisitian man actually said this, I feel physically SICK! I really do wonder if some men understand the complexity a woman’s sexual nature. We weren’t just put on the earth for your sexual desire so we can just be penetrated; we are not property. Thank God the men I am surrounded by affirm my value in GOD. To the men that are too stupid to understand if you refer to having sex with a woman in dominating terms like colonising she will just end up hating you.
I knew a lady who is now divorced as her rather dumb x husband always demanded sex from her and used emotional abuse to get it. Always demanded to be on top and to cut a long story short used her for his sexual pleasure. As a result the poor lady views men as nothing short of rapists. Of course this is a more extreme case but it did start with an over dominating man who failed to understand to submit sexually to his wife or the sexual dynamics of a woman. Sadly this is quite prevalent among Christian men, however there are still some decent ones left.
LikeLike
Pingback: A “vagina” & minor theological disagreement is going to keep a good book off of a Christian bookstore’s shelves | the long way home
Pingback: On women leading & teaching stuff in churches {1}: a story | the long way home
Pingback: Epiphany: a great time to talk Magi & biblical errancy | the long way home
Pingback: Humbled into Pride (thanks & sorry) {a confession} | the long way home | Prodigal Paul
Pingback: Putting the FUN back in Fundamentalism! (vs. Atheism) | the long way home | Prodigal Paul
I’ve written before over how much my heart breaks over this branch of conservative Evangelicalism that wants to divide over these smallest of issues**; how they’ll deprive themselves of some of the best pastors in the world based on their views on this stuff.
Until you reach the theoretical end state: MILLIONS of One True Churches, each with only one member, each in constant Jihad against all the Heretic Others.
LikeLike
Men Believe They Are Allowed to Dominate Women?!?
I have become alarmed and sickened at modern male “Christians”, and worse yet “preachers”, who teach that Yahweh allows and even instructs men to dominate women in every area and aspect of life, up to and including sexual intercourse in the marriage bedroom (or wherever their unrestrained proclivities may demand it).
This selfish, childish, disobedient, and even satanic theory appears to have become epidemic throughout the “young turk” preacher set who all seem to fancy themselves the next great reformist, or enlightener, or televangelist con-man, or (fill-in-the-blank). I can only attribute this pandemic to one or more of the following:
1. No attendance of a reputable Bible training institute that actually understands Hebrew
2. Attendance of a reputable Bible institute and sleeping through Hebrew class
3. Overactive testosterone levels that cause willful ignorance of Hebrew
4. Quenching and Ignoring the Holy Spirit / Hagios Pneuma / Ruwach of Yahweh
5. No conversion of mind or choice to obey Jesus, the Messiah of Yahweh
6. Actually being an agent of the deceiver / destroyer who has taken the form of an “angel of light” and is really a demon in disguise, bent on destroying Christianity from the inside
Yes, you read that correctly. I am accusing many of the new-preachers-on-the-block of really being servants of the devil and not being anything remotely close to a Christian servant/slave of Jesus, the living Words of Yahweh. If you believe I am hiding behind the safety of the internet and would not accuse you to your face you are very, very, VERY wrong. In May of 2008, I was in Iraq during Operation Charge of the Knights and walked through Basra, Iraq, with the 1st ANGLICO Marines as we liberated the city from Taliban, Al Qaeda, Hamas and Iran Army insurgents who were burning people alive. I think accusing a preacher-boy to his face would be a whole lot easier than that little “vacation.”
Actually, you should be grateful I am not accusing you to your face. I have stepped up to quite a number of “preachers” after I heard them teaching lies and pretending it was the words of Yahweh. The last liar I confronted was in August, 2012, when he taught; and I quote:
“If Rahab the lying whore” [he repeated that so many times I swear it gave him an erotic pleasure] “was not in the lineage of Jesus then Jesus never would have been born because it takes the DNA from both parents to create the child.”
If that statement caused no alarm in your head you need to read it again since the Holy Spirit, who interprets scripture for His servants, is not active in your life. To explain: If Jesus had the DNA from both parents it means Jesus did not have a virgin birth. This man who pastors a huge, uber-mega-sized church in Porter Ranch, California, does not believe in the virgin birth of Jesus. I was nose-to-nose with that lying satanist immediately following the message. He dismissed me and continues to teach the lie. I was obviously not “persuasive” enough in my argument. Perhaps I need to study the argumentation methods of Paul-of-Tarsus vs. Peter / Barnabas a bit more. The real crime is that the satanic preacher of Porter Ranch is allowed to continue teaching that lie, that the people believe the lie, and he undermines the faith, and subsequently the salvation, of the entire congregation.
Domination of Women is a Satanic Lie
Whatever the reason is that caused this modern misogyny of dominating women must stop! If I MUST get nose-to-nose with you then I will, believe me. “Christians” in this country are becoming more and more Muslim by the hour. I truly fear that the illustration found in Romans 11:21 might actually be happening to the Gentile church. If so, count me among the Jews.
It appears from the various blogs and other website based forums I have stumbled upon, that this new oppression of women by those pretending to be “Christian” men is based on the Genesis account of Yahweh’s curse on women after Adam’s disobedience against Yahweh’s command. I do write “Adam’s disobedience” since it was Adam who was given the command and was totally responsible to relay that command to Eve, thereby fulfilling Yahweh’s designed hierarchy of His created order.
Those who disagree must read Genesis 1:28-30 closely. Yahweh tells both Adam and Eve, obviously at separate times, the following only:
1. Be fruitful and multiply
2. Replenish the earth
3. Subdue it and have dominion over the fish, birds and land animals
4. Eat any herb and fruit of fruit trees you wish (no denial – only permission)
Absolutely no mention was given by Yahweh to Eve about NOT eating the tree of knowledge. Yahweh gave that order to Adam and only Adam. Read Genesis 2:16-17 where Yahweh told Adam, before Eve was created, that Adam was not to eat the tree of knowledge. Yahweh never told Eve about the tree of knowledge but she knew about it since she is the one who answered the serpent and not Adam. Modern “man” will still let the woman take charge and answer the accuser instead of stepping-up and taking the lead, which is their created duty.
After Adam acts like a punk-chump-jerk, he allows Eve to take the lead, fails to protect her from disobeying Yahweh, and then joins Eve in the disobedience Adam allowed her to commit in the first place. Wow, what a man. Yahweh has no choice but to punish these disobedient children. The form of that punishment is grossly abused by men since it is so horribly misunderstood. Yahweh told Eve:
‘ishshah, ‘amar, “rabah rabah `itstsabown herown `etseb yalad ben, teshuwqah ‘iysh mashal” (phonetically transliterated Hebrew – Gen. 3:16)
The mechanical translation of that Hebrew statement into English says:
“Mortal woman, I say, ‘increase, increase your worry in pregnancy to painfully create and birth a son, and you will desirously stretch out after a man to rule.”
Nowhere does Yahweh say that a man will “rule over the woman”, which is to say “dominate” her. The very concept that male will rule over female in some dominant fashion cannot be supported anywhere in the Bible. Those who believe they are ordered to dominate women cannot point to Yahweh for those orders. Only the adversary of Yahweh desires to dominate.
Those who claim Genesis 1:28 orders men to dominate women forget one very simple and glaring fact. Eve was told the exact same thing. Therefore, according to the screwed-up male translation of Genesis 1:28, women are ordered to dominate men. And this order happened while creation was perfect and before the failure of Adam to obey Yahweh. Does that mean Yahweh created Adam and Eve to each fight for domination over the other in the perfect earth He just finished? That is neither “good”, “very good”, nor perfection.
The simple answer is “No.” Yahweh did not create strife, contention, argument, anger, bitterness or chaos. Those attributes come from the satanic Adversary, not Yahweh. To claim Genesis 1:28 orders men to dominate women is to call Yahweh a liar and agree with satan.
Men Are Designed To Be Proactive and Lead Courageously
Yahweh says that women will desire a man who will actually rule by taking the lead he was created for instead of letting Eve take the fault and even blaming her. Man will not dominate the woman since man is supposed to love the woman in the exact same way he loves himself and cares for himself. And even more importantly, man is supposed to love the woman in the same way Jesus loves her and is willing to die for her. If you will not take a bullet for her, you do not love her. In Iraq I was willing to take a bullet for people I never knew here in the U.S. How much more willing for someone I love?
The way I read it, Yahweh’s curse to all women is what every woman cries over today and has cried over for centuries. That cry is, “Where are all the good men?!” This is the number one cry of women because men are so stupid. And they prove they are stupid by screwing up the words of Yahweh so they can abuse women on purpose. Even so-called “Christian” men want to abuse women and so they blame Yahweh for giving them the order to do it.
Just like Adam, men still blame Yahweh for giving them the reason that causes disobedience instead of obeying out of love. In Adam, everyone dies. In Jesus, everyone can be made alive.
Woman Was Designed To Help Man
Does any man reading this even know what “help” means? I will tell you what it does NOT mean. “Help” does not mean that you tell the woman to “Get yo’ butt in that kitchen and make me a sammich!” That is called slavery you idiot. A woman is not your slave. She is not an automatic dish washer or sammich-maker. A woman is a child of Jesus, the Words of Yahweh. She will inherit heaven and is 100% equal with all men. All men who believe they are allowed to dominate women will be accused and convicted of abuse.
In order for someone to help someone else, the person needing help has to be doing something. NO ONE can help someone who is doing nothing. If a man is doing nothing and demands the woman “help” him by doing dishes, clean house, or any other task, that man is an idiot. He is stupid. He is an abusive jerk who needs to be punched into reality.
Yo! Man. If you want the woman to help you, then you must be doing something. If you want the woman to help cook then YOU must be cooking first. If you want the woman to help wash dishes, YOU must be washing dishes first. If you want the woman to help do laundry, YOU must be doing laundry first. Do you get the idea yet??
If you still disagree then you need to study what Yahweh told 130 year-old Cain (Gen. 5:3) after he killed his little brother for being obedient. Get that? A 130 year-old man got mad at someone being obedient because he, himself, disobeyed Yahweh. What a putz. Here is what Yahweh told Cain:
‘im! Yatab! se’eth yatab! chatta’ah rabats pethach teshuwqah mashal (phonetically transliterated Hebrew – Gen. 4:7)
The mechanical translation of that Hebrew phrase into English is:
Yo! Do well! Elevate and do well! The consequence of failure is to crouch at an opening and desirously stretch out after ruling.
Yahweh demands obedience, not sacrifice. He demands we “Elevate and do well.” If a man does NOT do well that man will desire to rule over and dominate women instead of loving them in the same way Jesus loves her and will die for her. The fact that men who pretend to be “Christian” choose to dominate women instead of loving them proves they are not “Elevating and doing well.” They are suffering the consequence of failing to obey Yahweh and desire to rule over and dominate women, not love them. Unfortunately, women are suffering from the domination of disobedient, sinful men and not experiencing unconditional love as Jesus wants to give them.
But Yahweh Orders Women to Submit
If you as a male-gendered idiot truly believes that Yahweh orders a women to succumb to your every whim then you have absolutely no idea what submit means. I was military. I know exactly what submit means. I spent many years submitting to authority, some good, some not-so-good, and some downright useless. When that authority became abusive I did NOT submit to it any longer. I visited the JAG office and removed the abusive authority.
If you as a male-gendered idiot want to dominate the woman in your life you have become an abusive authority. Yahweh will crush you because He loves her more than you do. The problem is that the woman may suffer undue stress while you are being crushed. So, mister man, stop being a dominating, disobedient, sinful jerk and learn what Yahweh says about how to treat the woman in your life.
By the way – she actually OWNS you, fella. You are HER property and she gets to tell YOU what to do and if SHE does not want YOU going to hang out with the guys tonight, then you do NOT go hang out with the guys – get it?? What do you mean you don’t believe that she owns you? Go read 1 Corinthians 7:3-4.
Now you tell me… who is supposed to submit to whom?
A Message to Women
Women, your only recourse for these little boys pretending to be men is to pray. Pray, pray, pray – then pray some more. Yahweh gave you Ruwach, the Holy Spirit who is here to help you. The Holy Spirit can change these little boys’ minds as easily as channeling water through a pipe. They are failing to protect you and love you just as Adam failed to protect Eve from being deceived by the serpent. Pray hard!
Adam threw Eve under the bus by allowing her to take the first bite. After she did not fall down dead, Adam must have concluded it would be alright for him to eat it. After all, Yahweh must have been lying just as the serpent said He was. Eve was deceived by the serpent but she was forsaken and abandoned by the love of her life, Adam.
Adam, however, chose to disobey the command he was given straight from the mouth of Yahweh who Adam knew was King. Adam also stood silent as he watched and allowed his wife, Eve, to be spiritually murdered by the serpent. Adam never stepped up to protect her even a little. Adam was the worst man ever and now we all pay the price.
Please, please, please pray for us. I am not immune to being so stupid but at least I know how stupid I can be. These itinerate preacher-boys have NO idea how stupid they really are. What is worse is that they are teaching all other men-boys how to be equally stupid – and worse.
A Final Note to Men
For those of you who believe my translation of Genesis is “all screwed up” and that I “don’t know what I’m talking about” I challenge you to get a Hebrew Dictionary/Lexicon and do the research for yourself. Talk to a Rabbi or two for good measure. The English Bible is not terribly accurate when it comes to information about how Adam treated Eve and the repercussions that followed. This obviously began with King Jimmy (or before – probably before, as in… Nicaea) and no “man” has had the stones to call a bluff that has been around for hundreds or thousands of years.
Why, that would mean hundreds of pastors have been teaching the wrong message for decades and would have to admit their mistake. It would mean Ph.D.’s may appear to not deserve their position or paycheck. Books and magazines would be subject to recall or revision and religious printing companies would lose money and prestige. Televangelists would face ridicule for their massive lies and network stock might fall.
Since they all worship Mammon and not Messiah, since they all teach Tradition and not Truth, it must never change (sic). The temple money-changers are alive and well and living in the pulpits of the U.S.A. I pray that Jesus do the same to them as He did in Jerusalem.
Since we all know men do NOT admit mistakes – or ask directions – change will most likely never happen. The well-established American religious system would rather teach a lie and destroy people than apologize and correct itself.
Hey… preacher-boy… you really want to make a name for yourself? I think I know how you can do just that. But first, you need to become a man.
Where are all the good men???
Adonay Yahweh Elohiym, King Eternal with Supreme Strength, help us all learn the truth.
LikeLike
Loved reading tthis thanks
LikeLike