When Conflict Brings You Closer

A few days ago, my 9 year old said to me, "M (her friend) and I started fighting a lot, but then we just talked and found out what we needed, and now it's like we're closer." 

My jaw dropped.  

This experience of conflict bringing two people closer is something that is fairly new to me, and I was so blessed to hear that my daughter has already known this joy.   

Yes, I've been parenting this way for years- Focus on relationships.  Find mutually agreeable solutions.  People get along really well in our house because we approach conflict as a problem to solve together.  That was all life changing stuff that has brought a lot of peace to our home as I learned to implement these ideas with my kids.  

But I had not experienced the depth of what it means to have conflict with a peer, outside of a child/parent dyad, truly bring a deeper intimacy to a relationship until I met my fiance, Daniel.  We don't fight, but as two different people with different perspectives, ways of doing things and triggers from our pasts, we do experience conflict.  Every single time, we come out of the encounter with a deeper love and a greater appreciation of how safe we are with each other.  

As this relationship has challenged, shaped, and freed me, I've gently tested out healthy conflict on other relationships and found out that other generally emotionally healthy people actually want to hear what I have to say, validate my feelings, share their perspective, and allow me to validate them.  When the conversation is over, we haven't just solved a practical problem or said some perfunctory apologies for some hurtful words, we've actually each held a piece of the other person's soul, handled it gently and considered it's shapes and textures with wonder. 

When Daniel and I hit a new depth of intimacy, we call it "Leveling Up," so with that term in mind, I've identified 3 different levels of moving towards conflict kindling intimacy. 

Level One: Common Courtesy

This your run of the mill workplace human resources seminar on not being a total asshole.  

Other people have needs and ideas.  Respect them.  Don't interrupt, take turns with the office supplies, refill the paper in the photo copy machine, and don't leave coffee spills in the kitchen for Linda to clean up.

And if you need something, just say so kindly.  Don't yell at people or leave passive aggressive notes on your co-worker's computer monitor. 

At home, pick up your socks, tell your spouse when you're going to be late, and discuss the budget before buying a boat.

Some of us are blown away that this stuff needs to be said and if you've ever managed people, you wonder why they didn't learn these very basic aspects of common courtesy as children.

However, most people were told as children to show respect, punished for leaving messes for others, yelled at for not taking turns, force to share, shamed for not considering the feelings of others.  

So why didn't the lessons stick? 

That leads to level two.... 

Level Two:  Peaceful Conflict Resolution

People are motivated by one of two things- fear or love. 

Some people take the rules and shame of their childhoods and learn to be afraid to do anything that doesn't appear to be caring about other people's needs, wants and feelings.  

Others decide they will never be afraid again, and demand that everyone care for their needs, wants and feelings with no regard to the impact that has on others. 

Of course many of us are somewhere in the middle, muddling along, trying to figure out that balance of personal boundaries and sacrifice. truly loving others and wanting to meet their needs, but not sure how to get our own met as well.  

As children, if we learn the Common Courtesy of level one as simply *actions* that one takes to avoid conflict, avoid punishment, or avoid the withdrawal of love, then the behaviors are coming from a place of fear.  

There's no room for growth because fear activates a primal part of our brain that just desperately wants to survive, so even as adults, our brains are still wired to see conflict as a threat to survival (even emotional survival).   

What I wanted to do differently with my children, and believe I've succeeded pretty well, is to let their actions naturally bloom from a place of love, safety and feelings of abundance.

Rather than try to teach lessons about behavior, I have tried to focus on seeing behavior as a communication about a need and I meet the need.  When the need is met, they feel loved and feel open to the possibilities of ways to behave that are more in line with their natural empathy, kindness and compassion. 

When two children have competing needs, creating a conflict, I try to find ways to meet the needs of both, and they learn over time that both their needs and those of other people are important, and they eventually learn how to find solutions without my help. 

The same concept applies to marriage, friendships, workplace relationships and even with casual acquaintances.  If you love yourself enough to know you are worth having your needs met, and you love others enough to care about their needs, you can start learning how to get creative with mutually agreeable solutions. 

I've lived in this place for years, and it's a peaceful place to be.  Peaceful conflict resolution is one of the core aspects of egalitarianism.  A marriage does not need a leader to make a final decision if both people are willing to work together towards the common goal of the needs of both being met.  If two children can do it, two adults can do it.

But something was missing, and that's why the name of this blog is Becoming Echad, not We've Achieved Echad.  I knew I was still on a journey of growth (and always will be), both personally and in my relationships. 

Level 3: Emotional Intimacy Kindled by Conflict

I started getting glimpses of emotional intimacy in my relationships with my children, in moments where our souls touched, there was no barrier between us, and I could see so purely and clearly the core of who they are.  

Sometimes resolving a conflict is just a practical matter of distributing belongings or making everyone comfortable.  

They both want the same toy? Set a timer, find a similar toy for one, put a second matching toy on the shopping list, distract one, feed them both and they'll forget about it.... lots of options. 

But sometimes seeking to meet a child's need sends me down a path with twists and turns and a glorious waterfall at the end, shimmering with all their hopes and dreams.  Along the way, a wolf or two jumps out and I get to know their fears.  Those are the moments that I love parenting the most. 

So I knew this thing people called Emotional Intimacy was real and not just some mumbo jumbo made up by people who couldn't accomplish anything practical with their time. 

I also knew I didn't have it in any other relationships, and with my children of course, it couldn't hold the same level of mutuality as I saw could be possible with another adult.  

I had people I could talk to about emotional things, sure.  People who care for me and I care for them.

Feeling safe to tell someone about your trauma, painful feelings and weaknesses is absolutely one very important aspect of emotional intimacy, and finding a handful of those people, even if it's in an anonymous meeting, is very important. 

However, at an even deeper level, there is something particularly soul binding about having conflict with another person, and the relationship still maintaining that safety.  When the tension rises, but you both breathe deep and relax.  When you choose your words carefully, but still speak your truth.  When you start to cut the other person off, but you listen carefully instead, because you know without a doubt you'll have your turn and be heard.  When you can both express, not just your needs, but what fuels those needs.  When the other person knows before you do which trauma is nipping at your heals and making you yelp in pain and confusion, and when they chase it away and wrap you up in a warm blanket.  When you have this with someone, it creates a connection that I truly believe is what the Bible is talking about when it speaks of oneness and unity all throughout. 

Am I saying that you should try to create conflict?  No.  

I am saying conflict naturally arises, but it doesn't have to damage a relationship.  Quite the opposite, it can be something that heals, grows, and deepens a relationship. 

If you haven't experienced conflict deepening emotional intimacy in your relationships, I encourage you to continue on your healing journey, keep seeking out healthy relationships, and the next time a conflict arises, be open to the possibility that it could be a good thing.  Treat it as an opportunity, and maybe you'll have a beautiful outcome.

Your Husband Shall Rule Over You: The Consequence or the Goal?

Again today someone told me that they believe that men have authority over women because of Genesis 3:16.

To the woman He said, I will greatly increase your suffering and your childbearing; in pain shall you bear children. Yet your craving shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you."

My standard response to this has become, "Is this a consequence or a goal?"

Is this something the believing couple should strive to institute in their marriage? Or is it the reality of living in a fallen sinful world?

If this is a command and a goal for believers to aim towards in their marriages, then it should look like the Hebrew word which is translated as "rule."

The word for rule is the Hebrew word "mâshal," which means:


1) to rule, have dominion, reign

1a) (Qal) to rule, have dominion

1b) (Hiphil)

1b1) to cause to rule

1b2) to exercise dominion



This is not the benevolent, loving leadership of a godly man that is often held up as the ideal. 

This is not "most of the time we work together to make decisions, but if we can't come to an agreement, the husband decides."

This is not initiating Bible studies and taking a leading role in managing the finances. 

This is not what Yeshua was describing when he said, "Do unto others as you would have them to do you," or "The first shall be last and the last shall be first," or when Paul said specifically of husbands that they should "love their wives as their own bodies."   

This is rule, dominion, reigning like a king.


This clearly isn't a word to describe how a believing husband is to treat his wife, but it IS a word that describes how unbelieving men have treated women in almost every culture all throughout history.  

Men ruling over women has been the norm.  This is what pagan men do.  This is what men in their worst moments of pride, greed, and lust do.  Certainly not men with the Ruach guiding their actions. 

Genesis 3:16 is descriptive, not prescriptive.  Which means that God was describing the reality of Adam and Eve's new life in a fallen sinful world, not prescribing a command of how things should be.

We can compare this consequence to the other consequences and see the same holds true for these as well. 

The consequence for the man is that he would have to toil the earth for his food.  

Thorns and thistles it shall sprout for you, and you shall eat the herb of the field.  by the seat of your brow shall you eat bread until you return to the ground from which you were taken: For you are dust, and to dust shall you return. 

Is this a goal?  A command?

Should a man try to toil as hard as he possibly can?  Is he sinning if he lightens his load by inventing shovels, plows, and tractors?  Is he trying to skirt the will of God by working in an air conditioned building.  

Quite the opposite.  God often blessed the work of the righteous with an increase in their flocks and herds, and the money to hire servants resulting in less actual physical labor for themselves. 

When Adam and Eve sinned, they broke echad.  They broke the oneness and unity that they had between themselves and God, between each other, and even broke something in their relationship to the earth.

The reality of living in a fallen, sinful world is that we will experience pain, we will have to work for our food, and the relationship of echad that a husband and a wife are supposed to have will often be broken. 

But our goal for our marriages should be for the man to "cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh."  

When a man and woman both seek righteousness by looking to him to lead them, God can bless their marriage with unity, healing some of the brokenness in the fallen world. 

Echad and Subordinationism

At the top of this blog, I have two verses: Deut. 6:4 "Hear Oh Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is one," and Genesis 2:24 "For this reason a man shall leave his father and his  mother, and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh."

In this post I'm going to explore the relationship between these two verses and the reason I chose them for this blog, and some other related concepts.

The reason I chose these two verses to represent this blog is because I believe they say something important about the nature of God, the nature of marriage, and how marriage is to be a picture of God's relationship with the church.  These beliefs are not just based on these two verses, but based on an examination of the whole of Scripture, which is what this blog is all about.  These two verses nicely sum up the relationship

Deut. 6:4 or the Shema, is a verse that is the foundation to the understanding of God's nature in Judaism. It is the belief in the absolute oneness of God.    

The word translated "one" is the Hebrew word "echad."

The reason that some Jews reject Christianity is because they reject the concept of the Trinity.  They say that God said he is one, not multiple beings wrapped into one.  They say that the word "echad" is often used in the Bible to denote absolute oneness.

For example:
Exodus 9:7 "not one of the cattle of the Israelites."
2 Samuel 13:30 "Absolam has slain all of the king's sons, there is not one of them left."    
See God as One vs. the Trinity for more on the Jewish rejection of the Trinity.

Christians counter that there are other places in the Bible where the word echad is used for two being one, such as Gen. 2:24, "the two shall be one (echad) flesh."  Therefore, they say, the verse supports the concept of the Trinity.

The Trinity is based on various degrees of subordinationism.  The doctrine of subordinationism is the belief that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are subordinate in nature and being to God.  It is the belief that they are ontologically inferior to God.

In most Christian churches, subordinationism is considered heresy, but some Christians still believe that Jesus is subordinate to God in function, yet equal in being. 

Subordinationism leads to the idea that God can be one way in the Old Testament, with a character and a set of laws that are different from Jesus in the New Testament, who has a different character and frees us from God's laws.

Subordinationism leads to a rejection of the Torah by Christians who believe that Jesus came to free them from God's laws.

Subordinationism leads to a rejection of the Messiah by Jews who can't reconcile a God of absolute oneness with a God who has aspects of his being who each reject the foundation of the other's character.    

As a TOBY, I believe that Yeshua (Jesus) was God's spirit in a human body (John 1:1-14). God is one AND he came to earth in a physical form AND he has a spiritual form who dwells within us (Ephesians 1:13).  The God who gave us his commands for how we will live when we love him, is the same God who came in human form to provide us a means of grace for when we fall short (Hebrews 13:8, Malachi 3:6, Revelation 22:13, Isaiah 41:4).  He is both the Mark we strive to hit and the Way we get there. 

God is Echad.  Husband and wife are to be Echad.  Man and woman were one before God separated them and made them two. Marriage is a picture of the two becoming one again, just as the church is to be in unity with God, and will be in the end.

Is it a perfect picture?  No.  No metaphor ever is.  Right from the beginning God gave Adam and Eve individual free will.  When they chose unity with the serpent and each other over unity with God, the result was the fall.  The result was a continual trend of disunity either with God or within the marriage that continues today.  We get to chose whether we want to live out the picture of unity (Echad) or the picture of the fall (unity with each other, without God) or the results of the fall (Patriarchy).   

Does this mean husband and wife will always agree  if they are seeking unity?  No, of course not.  But if we are both seeking to be in unity with God, then we will move closer to unity with each other.  Which is why hierarchical authority in marriage is not only unBiblical, but impractical in a marriage of believers.  If husband and wife are not in unity, they need to go back to God and pray for him to show one of them, maybe both, what he wants them to do. 

Prayer is seeking God's will.  Knowing God's will and acting on it out of obligation or fear is compliance.  Knowing God's will and acting on it out of love and trust is obedience.  Being so in tune with God's will that it is as if his Spirit is working through us- that's the kind of unity I believe he wants with the church.  That's the kind of unity with God and with each other, that husband and wife can seek to show the world, as a picture of God's desired relationship with the church.

DId Your Theology Come From Plato?

"The belief that women must be subject to the authority of men does not have its origin in the Bible. In other words, it is not properly called “biblical” at all. Rather, it has its origin in the human philosophy of Plato. This philosophy was incorporated into Christian theology by St. Augustine, a Roman Catholic Bishop of the 4th Century A.D.. It was carried into the Protestant Reformation by John Calvin, and today it remains alive through the work of the “Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood” and other similar organizations."

That's the conclusion of Bob Edwards in his post The Council on Bibliclal Manhood and Womanhood: Examining the origins of their beliefs and calling for repentance.

I haven't read all the source material that he uses, and I'd like to.  I think this is a very important thing to study from a TOBY perspective.  After all, many TOBYs have realized that a lot of church teachings do not come from the Bible or from Jewish thought, but from Greek/Roman thought.  Why would teachings about marriage and gender roles have escaped that influence?   

TOBY- Torah Observant Beliver in Yeshua

I've decided to start using the acronym TOBY on this blog.  I am a Torah Observant Believer in Yeshua, which means that I believe that God gave us his instructions for how to live in the first 5 books of the Bible (the Torah) and I follow them to the best of my knowledge and ability.  I also believe that Jesus (Yeshua) is the Messiah and Savior.

There are other terms, such as Messianic and Hebrew Roots and many others, but I'm just not fond of them for various reasons though I don't think there's anything wrong with using them.  I have sometimes called myself Messianic in groups where I am more known, but since it seems that it originally was a term used for Jewish converts to Christianity, I don't want to have it be confusing for anyone.    

Why I Appreciate Help, but Don't Appreciate Chivalry

I just read two different articles on the topic of chivalry.  This one from Matt Walsh and this one from The Time Warp Wife.  I've only ever read a few posts from either site, but I've greatly enjoyed and shared some of those from Matt Walsh's blog.  So this response is not written in an argumentative or debating spirit.  Just as dialogue for anyone who thinks that maybe those of us who object to chivalry actually *do* have a reason for it and would like to know what it is.   


So here are my thoughts on chivalry.  

I appreciate respect, generosity and help. I just don't appreciate it in the form of benign sexism. If a man holds a door open for me, I say "Thank you!" Much more so if I'm carrying something heavy or wrangling kids. But I choose to assume that he's doing it because he's a kind, respectful *person* helping another *person.* If he tells me he's doing it because I'm a woman and he's a man, I lose some respect for him. Because those are the same kind of men who tend to have beliefs about submission and leadership and what jobs women should hold, with which I strongly disagree, and because I know they do not respect me as a full human being since I'm a woman. I can still think they are great people in other ways, and I can still have relationships with them, and I probably won't even tell them my beliefs on the topic (unless they ask), but I cannot respect them as much as I respect a man who is a courteous man just because he is a courteous man, without gender qualifiers about to whom he is courteous.

I have heard many times, and I just read in the comments of both articles, about women who get angry about men being courteous to them.  Women who "don't allow it" or "punish" men for it.  The Time Warp Wife starts out by apologizing to men for women making it seem like we don't want their respect and kindness. 

The thing is- I have never actually met one of these women.  I don't doubt the stories of those who claim they've been berated by women for holding the door open, but I wonder if there is more to the story.  Were they really being berated for holding the door open?  Or were they being berated for some sexist comment or attitude that accompanied the act?  

Even Matt Walsh says:

 "...men who forgo chivalry often do so because they’re afraid that being gentlemen might seem “offensive” to some women. Meanwhile, only a small fraction of women actually report being offended by chivalrous deeds."

Exactly.  Most people are not offended by common courtesy.  What IS offensive, however, is the attitude behind *some* acts of apparent courtesy. 

It comes down to intention.  I'm not going to grill the random stranger in the store on his intention when he opens the door for me.  I simply accept the kind gesture, say thank you and move on with my life without giving it another thought.  But I do want to know the intentions of the men my daughters will marry.  The intentions and attitudes that are *behind* the actions of opening the door make a huge difference when the topic changes to "Who is the head of the house?" or "Should women work?"  The same men who believe they should open the door because they are stronger and the woman is weaker, are often the same ones who believe they should make the final decisions in marriage for the same reason.  That's a problem for the woman seeking an egalitarian partnership. 


Matt discusses the history of chivalry, saying:

"Knights could use their strength and wealth to dominate and oppress, but they were called to utilize it in the opposite direction. They were called to do with their power what Christ did with His. They were called to love in the manner described by Paul in Ephesians 5. That’s chivalry. We might not wear suits of armor anymore (unfortunately), but there’s nothing suddenly irrelevant or unnecessary about the spirit of chivalry."

What he fails to mention is that during the same time period, women were not allowed to be land owners, receive as much education as men or have the same rights as merchants.  One of those chivalrous knights could woo the lady to marry him (or just buy her as a teenager from her father), and then he essentially owned her.  He could expect sex as his right and the term marital rape was unheard of.  He could legally hit her.  If she resisted these social customs, she might be determined to be a witch and burned at the stake.  Chivarly did nothing to prevent or remedy any of this.

To compare Ephesians 5 to chivalry, really cheapens the message of Ephesians.  The whole book is about unity, working together, and everyone striving to have a heart for what God wants, which then translates into us all wanting the same thing.

Chivalry was probably a much needed concept for knights who were going into war where rape and pillage was common place.  It's a very base starting point for not acting like a savage animal.  It's hardly a goal worth striving for if you're already a man who's not raping women and beating your wife.      


Matt says:

"Chivalry calls for the strongest to serve and honor the weakest, realizing that the other option is for the strongest to dominate and abuse the weakest.... In the mean time, as a routine matter, chivalry is still essential. Men should carry bags, and hold doors, and pull out chairs, and offer seats to women, not because women are incapable of standing or opening their own doors, but because of what these acts represent — what they say. And what they say is simple: “I am bigger and stronger than you, but I will use my strength to honor you and protect you. I will not hurt you. I will not take advantage of you. I will humble myself before you and serve you.”

And a wise commenter on his blog named Jason responds in part:

"And it is here that we get to the heart of the problem of chivalry. Chivalry defines who is strong and who is weak by gender and age. You may see yourself as saying (later in your post) “I am bigger and stronger than you…” but let’s change the adjectives while retaining the same meaning “You are smaller and weaker than I am…” What if someone did something for you based on this rationale? How would that make you feel? Can you see how someone may take offense to this?"

Yes, how *would* a man respond to the same rationale thrown his way?

Let's try it out....

Women, I'm calling for us as the gender with higher emotional IQs to serve and honor the less emotionally capable.  We should rescue men from awkward social situations, mediate between our husbands and their bosses, and intervene when we see two random men communicating to each other to make sure they do it in a healthy way.  Not because men are incapable of navigating social situations or solving their own problems or conversing in healthy ways, but because of what these acts represent- what they say.  And what they say is simple: "I am more emotionally intelligent than you, but I will use this intelligence to honor and protect you.  I will not belittle you.  I will not manipulate you.  I will humble myself before you and serve you."

Now, I'm sure not a single man will find that at all offensive, right?   

(For the record, I do not believe that women are innately more emotionally intelligent, I'm just making a point.)


 Finally, Matt uses the Titanic to illustrate this point:

"If we adopt an “every man and woman for him/herself” then no woman will ever escape a sinking ship again. The men could quite easily shove the women aside, jump on the lifeboats, and get outta Dodge."

The problem is that chivalry sets up a dynamic in which all the women on those lifeboats will die anyway.  Why?  Because when you always have someone doing the heavy lifting for you, you get weak.  When you always have someone running to your rescue, you become dependent.  When you always have someone protecting you, you never learn to protect yourself.  When women never have to be strong or protect themselves or learn skills that might save their lives while they sit on that lifeboat for weeks waiting for more men to rescue them, they are always helpless and beholden to a man.  This creates the very dynamic both Matt and I would like to avoid.  One where "...just the physically strongest survive. Women can only be slaves in a world like that, as history has proven many times."

I can't think of a single shred of objective criteria one could use to say women were better off socially, educationally, financially, or better protected physically during the era of chivalry than they are in more equal societies today.  Or that they were not much closer to the status of slaves then, then they are now.   

Is it exaggerating to say that chivalry goes hand in hand with patriarchy?   Even the Time Warp Wife can't discuss chivalry without starting her blog post with a story about a woman who's husband is the leader of their home and the woman is happy to obey him.  Of course, she's talking about a much more benign version of patriarchy than what existed in the days of knights on white horses, but it's still damaging.  And Matt can't help but refer to "physical superiority" as if greater strength equals being a superior human being.  It makes me chuckle at the mental image of a man who spends his days in an office pushing papers, feeling good about using his superior physical strength to help a woman carry her groceries to her car, not knowing that the woman is a Marine in civilian clothing.  There are just too many exceptions like that to go about your day constantly judging others' abilities by gender, and expect not to routinely insult people.
 
Both benign versions of patriarchy promotes the typical false black and white dichotomy.

EITHER it's every man/woman for him/herself.
OR we turn to prescribed gender based roles to tell us how to support and protect one another.

Fortunately, there is an option C.

Galatians 5:22-23 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. 

Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

 Ephesians 4:1-6 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. ² Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. ³ Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. ⁴ There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; ⁵ one Lord, one faith, one baptism; ⁶ one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

There are no gender qualifiers on who should exhibit the fruits of the spirit, and even our enemies should receive our prayers and good works.  So I'm not condemning courtesy, kindness, generosity, or helpfulness. Those are all good things, of which the world desperately needs more.  I'm just saying it's important to examine our intentions.  It should be the intention of us all to help those in need, not to show off the areas in which we excel (or those in which we assume we are excel, whether or not that is the reality).  It should be the intention of all of us to unify the body of believers by building each other up, not to divide the body of believers by gender.         





 


 

Excellent Teaching by Pastor Dave Ward "The Church, The Truth and Women in Ministry"

He's not Messianic and I don't know how much of his other teaching I would agree with, but this sermon is excellent.  I think it's especially poignant that he refers to himself as a "recovering chauvinist."  This is not a man who was raised to believe that women should be in ministry.  He came to this conclusion after a year of studying every verse in the Bible on women, studying the original languages, referring to lexicons, learning history, and seeking out those more knowledgeable in theology and Bible study than himself.

Think: The Church, The Truth & Women in Ministry from Central Wesleyan Church on Vimeo.

Differences Between Men and Women

When I was five years old, a scorpion ran through my classroom and went right under my teacher's chair.  Her robust body flew backwards along with the chair, her neat grey hair suddenly bounded out of place, and her Pentecostal length skirt landed inside out on top of the pile of indignity into which she'd been instantly transformed.  She screamed at the top of her lungs for her husband, the church Pastor and school principal, to come rescue her.  He rushed fearlessly into the room, helped her up and heroically crushed the threat.

The girls in the class all squealed and shuddered and started looking around for the next creepy crawly thing that might appear from the cracks in the walls and attack. 

The boys all ran to see the squished scorpion, pumped up with excitement and thrilled to be free of reading lessons.

I was reminded once again (yes at 5 this was already a reminder, not new information), about the differences between boys and girls.

Except, I really wanted to see that awesome looking scorpion, and thought the whole thing was hilarious.  

But what I wanted or could do or how I thought was never noticed as being any different from the rest of my designated group.  I was a girl and there are certain things girls just do and don't do, think and don't think, are and aren't. 

Stereotypes. 

We encounter them every day, in a million different ways.

I've heard people say things like, "It's not WRONG to say that in general men are physically stronger than women. It's not putting women down, we still have our own strengths in other ways.  But that is just a fact."   Depending on the conversation, I might still want to clarify what type of strength they are talking about (upper body vs. lower or speed vs. endurance), but I would normally just agree that yes, in general, men are physically stronger than women.

There are a lot of stereotypes that are true *in general* when looking at one large population of people versus another.

Men are physically stronger than women.
African Americans don't get sunburned as easily as other races.
Americans are overweight compared to people in other countries.

This information is interesting trivia, and good for historical records of what different groups of people are like, and even useful to society in some ways.   For example, when I was doing market research for a store I considered opening, I looked at reports that told how much different races spent on clothes, on average, annually, per household.  Asians spent the most on clothes, but because my town has a very small Asian population, it made more sense for me to base my projected sales off the money spent on clothes by the average White and Hispanic households.

So, why do I object when people bring this kind of research and stereotypes into conversations about Biblical gender roles and marriage? 

One reason is that the biggest flaw in some of these studies is that even the ones that can objectively tell us that there IS a difference, cannot tell us WHY the difference exists.  It's the age old nature vs. nurture argument that will simply never be settled during our time on this earth.  We can have our opinions and I certainly have mine, but ultimately, without a large control group of babies completely uninfluenced by human interaction, we will never be able to parse out which behaviors are innate to gender and which behaviors are learned from parents and culture.

On the other hand, some of the studies CAN be done in a way that both objectively determines the facts and explains the reasons.

For example, a study might show that men can do X number of pullups and women can do Y number of pullups, because men have greater upper body strength, because of higher testosterone levels.  That's awesome!

And that's entirely useless information to almost any individual. 

Which is why I object to stereotypes and even scientific studies being used as proof for those differences between men and women that "we just all 'know' to be true, but for some crazy reason Egalitarians won't admit."

The only way I've ever seen this information used, is in a damaging way, thanks to this one little word, said or implied:

Therefore.

African Americans don't get sunburned, therefore God designed them to work outside, therefore slavery is justified.
Americans are overweight, therefore we should limit their freedom of choice by making laws controlling the free market and telling restaurants what they can and cannot sell.

Are these good uses of the original premises?

Once a friend of mine was afraid that I would be offended, because she let it slip that women in the country in which she used to live sat around and talked more than the men did.  That was a stereotype about the differences between men and women that she was just sure would be information to which I would object.

In reality, it didn't even cross my mind that this was anything more than passing information about the culture relevant to the story she was telling me.  Group generalities can be useful information.

But if you're going to go on to use that generality as proof that is the "just the way God made men and women differently," and say or imply that anyone who falls outside of those generalities is sinning.... well, I have a lot more scorpion stories for you.  Not just mine, but the stories of many men and women who don't fit the mold.  

Just as it would be insulting and illogical to say that slavery was justified because African Americans don't get sunburned,

Just as it would be insulting and illogical to say that American's should be required by law to stop at one Big Mac,

Just as it would be insulting and illogical to walk up to a random Asian person and ask where to buy designer clothes,

So it is also insulting and illogical to assume that any individual woman you know can't do a certain number of pullups,

Or worse, that because she can't do as many pullups as her husband that this somehow proves hierarchy and gender roles in the Bible,

Or worse, that if she can, in fact, do more pullups than her husband that she is obviously not happy in her Biblical role and trying to take over her husband's (supposedly Biblical) job of protecting the family.

It's also insulting and illogical to assume a man can't be emotionally available, 

Or worse, that if he can, he must be gay, 

Or worse, that if he's not emotionally available that it's a good thing rather than some aspect of himself that needs healing.   

Pull ups and physical strength might seem like a trite example, but insert the stereotype of your choice.

Men are more logical and women are more emotional.

Men are more aggressive and women are more nurturing.

Women talk more than men.

Women's hormones affect their thinking more than men's hormones affect their thinking.

Women are better at relational skills.

Men are better at spatial skills.

Even IF any of those things can be proven objectively and scientifically, even IF that proof removes the slightest doubt about those findings being influenced by nurture, there is still the big, blinking, neon sign that says "generally" or "usually."

Meaning that it is just a red herring to the two important questions:

Does the Bible actually say this and more importantly, does it command that this is the way God says we should be?

Does this information help THIS man and THIS woman live in echad/unity with each other and with God?

If the answer to those is no, than leave the stereotypes and studies to the sociologists and anthropologists, and leave them out of discussions about Biblical gender roles and marriage.  

Review of the movie Brave

********CONTAINS SPOILERS******

The gist of the story is that Scottish princess Merida is supposed to marry a man from one of the other 3 clans.  They all gather to compete for her hand in a contest of strength and weapons proficiency.  The final test is archery and Merida breaks tradition by competing for her own hand and besting all 3 of the contenders with her superior archery skills.  Her mother, however, is very angry about this and they have an argument.  Merida runs off into the woods where she finds a witch's cottage.  She asks the witch to give her a spell that will change her mother.  The witch puts a potion into a cake which Merida gives her mother.  When her mother eats the cake, she turns into a bear. 

This is especially disastrous because Merida's father lost his leg in a fight with a bear and has been hunting it ever since.  So Merida tries to hide her mother from her father while searching for a way to reverse the spell.  The whole experience brings mother and daughter closer, and it all ends in a battle where Merida stands between her father and mother to protect her mother (the father believes its the bear who took his leg), and they all work together to kill the real bear.  The spell is broken and Merida's parents and the other clans accept that she will not marry one of the other men unless they win her heart. 

There were a lot of great things about this movie:

A strong female character- physically, mentally, emotionally
A moral to the story- mother and daughter both learn to listen to each other and gain greater respect and understanding for each other
It doesn't revolve around marriage/love- even though it was the attempt to arrange her marriage that sparked the rest of the story, most of the story is about her growing up and her relationship with her mother.  In the end she it is left open as to whether or not she will ever marry one of those men or at all.  (Not that there is anything wrong with stories about marriage and love, just that it has become a tired old storyline and little girls need to see there are other things to life). 

 
There was one thing that I was disappointed about however.

All the men in the movie were bumbling idiots.

The three men she was supposed to choose from for a husband were dorky and weak.  Even her father who was a king and a brave warrior was clearly whipped by his overbearing wife, right down to saying the cliche "Yes, dear."

This is disappointing for two reasons.  First of all, it's insulting to men.  I don't mind the occasional goofy character (male or female) in a movie. After all, it's that variety of personalities that keeps things interesting, and it can be especially fun when it's overly exaggerated for a kids' movie.  But this movie had 3 female characters and about 100 male characters (most of them warriors from the other clans), and not one of the men was intelligent.  I see this trend too often in sitcoms and movies that try to give women a more prominent, intelligent, strong role.  They swing too far the other way and make all the male characters weak, wimpy and stupid.  

The other reason it bothers me is that it is insulting to women too.  It implies that women could not be the brave, strong, intelligent characters in the story if there was a man to fill that role.  For example, Merida was an excellent shot with a bow, but the three men she was competing against weren't much competition either.  She wasn't interested in marrying any of them, but it leaves you wondering if one of them had been a Prince Charming might she have fallen for him?  

I've only seen two animated movies that did a decent job of portraying strong female AND male characters, and those are Tangled and Mulan.  The men in those movies were strong, handsome, intelligent characters, and that didn't detract at all from Rapunzel and Mulan being strong, brave and intelligent in their own rights.  Of course, they ended up getting married, which was fine for those stories.  Brave could have been better, though, if there had been a strong male character, and the story was STILL about Merida and her growth and relationship with her mother.  She could have still chosen not to get married, at least not right now.  At the very least, her father could have been a stronger character.

Overall, I gave it 3.5 stars.  It lost a star for it's lack of strong male characters.  It lost half a star for the witchcraft, which I don't like being portrayed so cavalierly, but at least it showed in the end that witchcraft was not the solution.    




  

Manhood and Womanhood Before (after) Sin Part 3

John Piper titled this sermon Manhood and Womanhood Before Sin.  In the beginning of this sermon he said,
"The other reason I think this is a good question (i.e., God's intention for manhood and womanhood before sin) is that in the New Testament Jesus and Paul, when they use the Old Testament to answer questions about how man and woman should relate to each other, go back to what things were supposed to be like before the fall. They don't take the messed up relationships of Genesis 3 and make them normative. They come back to Genesis 2 and talk about how it should have been from the beginning."

He makes a valid point that both Paul and Jesus refer back to Genesis 2:24 when speaking of marriage.  The rest of the sermon focuses on events that occurred after sin, which according to his own statement this messed up relationship of Genesis 3 should not be taken as normative.   This means that his entire argument hinges on what we have explored in the last two posts-  man was made first (maybe) and God only gave his instructions to man (probably not.)  Even though there is nothing *in the text* to indicate that either of these statements, if they are even true, have any significance to the intended relationship between man and woman, this is what complementarians use as their foundation for "biblical" marriage roles. 


The Man is Interrogated First  

Piper says:



"Make no mistake: God does hold the woman accountable for her actions. She is a personal, morally accountable being in the very image of God. And what man does or fails to do relieves her of no personal, individual responsibility to know and to obey God. But in their relationship to each other God looks to the man and says, "Have you been the moral and spiritual leader you ought to have been?" 

Is that what God said?


In Genesis 3:9-11 God asks some pretty straight forward questions:

Where are you?
Who told you that you are naked?
Did you eat of the tree that I commanded you not to?


Basic, clear, personal questions.  No hint of anything about leadership or any responsibility for Eve's actions.


Why did God talk to Adam first?  I don't know, because it doesn't say!.  Maybe he flipped a cosmic coin.

Does it matter who God spoke to first?  I think if it did, he would say so. 

  Let's assume for a minute that Piper is correct and the order in which God spoke to Adam and Eve has some meaning.  

God goes on to deliver the serpent's consequences before Eve's and Eve's before Adam's.  

God continues to show no discernible pattern throughout the Bible, and here is one example:

In Luke 1:27 an angel comes to Mary to tell her that she will give birth to Jesus.
In Mathew 1:18-1:20 an angel tells Joseph about the baby, after Mary is already pregnant.

Manhood and Womanhood Before Sin Part 2

The Man is Given the Moral Pattern

In this sectioin, Piper claims that Adam was given the instructions for how to behave in the garden (Genesis 2:16), because he had a "primary responsiblity" for their actions.  He says that God trusted Adam to pass these instructions on to Eve.

In my last post, I raised the strong possibility that Adam was a man/woman being that was separated into man and woman distinctly in Chapter 3.  If this is true, than God did, in fact, give both man and woman the instructions in verse 16.  Let's assume for the sake of argument that God only gave these instructions to Adam and that Eve was created after that.  Does this have significance?

Piper claims that this indicated Adam's "primary responsibility (not the only, but the primary responsibility) to receive and teach and be accountable for the moral pattern of life in the garden of Eden."

What does that mean?  Really?  In practical terms?  Some patriarchs believe this and take it to an interesting extreme.  They go so far as to believe that as long as a woman obeys her husband, she is off the hook with God for anything they do, because it is *entirely* the man's responsibility to make wise decisions.  Obviously, this is not true, as we see later that Eve bore consequences as well as Adam.  Complementarians see this logic and try to find a middle ground- Adam is only *mostly* responsible.  But what does that mean?  If someone has a good (or any) argument from a complementarian source on this I would love to see it, because I have yet to find one.  I have seen multiple proof-texted arguments that attempt to show that Adam *does* bear most of the responsibility, but none that show what that means in practical terms.  If Adam bears 51% of the responsibility and Eve bears 49%, is she 2% less dead than him at the end of the day?

Romans 6:23
"For the wages of sin [is] death; but the gift of God [is] eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord."
         

So, did God tell Eve the instructions?


I believe he did, whether they were formed at the same time or not.


Genesis 3:8 
"And they heard the voice of the LORD God walking in the garden in the cool of the day:"  

I'm just speculating here, because the text doesn't actually say, but do you think this was a new occurrence?  Do you think God just happened to show up that day after leaving them alone since the day of creation?  Or maybe this was a regular thing, for him to walk and talk with Adam and Eve.  I don't imagine that the one sentence of instruction was all he told them either.  They both got to WALK and TALK with God, getting to know his character, and learning his instructions for life.

But the text doesn't actually say, so let's look at the rest of the Bible.  Who does God speak to when he gives his instructions.

Exodus 6:6
Exodus 14:2
Exodus 27:20
Exodus 30:21

These are just a few of the examples of God speaking to "the children of Israel."  He didn't call the men together and speak to them so they could tell their wives.  He spoke to everyone.




  

Manhood and Womanhood Before Sin

This post is in response to Manhood and Womanhood Before Sin by John Piper.  It was written in 1989, but conveys some beliefs that are still quite popular among complementarians.  In this post, I'm only addressing his first argument.        

The Man was Created First- Or Was He? 

Genesis 1:26-27
"And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.  So God created man in his image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."

Scholars have offered several explanations for the placement of this creation account, since it is before Eve's apparent creation from Adam's rib.  The Talmud offers this explanation:


Midrash Rabbah 8:1:

Rabbi Yirmeyah ben El'azar said: The Blessed Holiness created the first human being with both genders, as it is written, "Male and female [God] created them" {Genesis 1:27}.
Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachman [agreed and] said: The Blessed Holiness created the first human being double-faced [with two fronts of the body], and then sawed them apart and made backs for them, a back for one and a back for the other.
Other scholars objected: It is written "[God] took one of his ribs" {Genesis 1:21}! [The word understood as "rib" is tsela- see Hebrew text below]
[Rabbi Shmuel] answered: It means "one of the two sides [of the double being]". As Scripture says, "For the tsela of the Sanctuary..." -- where the translation of tsela is "side".

This is the most likely explanation.  The word used for man in Genesis 1 is Adam, which is used for humankind.  It is not until Genesis 2:23, after the man/woman Adam was separated, that the word "iysh" is used for the first time to distinguish man from "ishshah" (woman).  In addition, we are created in the image of God, and God is Echad or plural One, with the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  This explains how a man and a woman are to "become one flesh."  In the beginning, they were literally one flesh, and marriage should be a picture of that unity.  

1 Timothy 2:23
"For Adam was first formed, then Eve." 

Does this contradict the explanation of the man/woman Adam?  No, I don't think so.  Adam got to keep the body that was formed first before Eve got her newly formed body.  Paul's purpose in stating this was to refute a teaching that was circulating that woman was the originator of man. 

1 Timothy 2:12 
"I most certainly do not grant authority to a woman to teach that she is the originator of a man." 



But let's just say that John Piper is correct and Adam was, in fact, formed first.

He claims, "Now God wants to say something more about the relationship between man and woman. And what he wants to say is that when it comes to their differing responsibilities, there is a "firstness" of responsibility that falls to the man."

There is nothing in the text to indicate that the purpose of this passage is to show us anything about who has more responsibility before God.  This is entirely his opinion.  All the Bible does is state the facts of who was created first (if Adam was indeed created first), but does not say why or that it has any meaning at all.  He acknowledges that other teachers have pointed out that the animals were created before humans, so if being created first automatically implied a position of leadership, the animals should lead the humans.

He brushes this off by pointing out that "When the Hebrew people gave a special responsibility to the "firstborn" in the family, it never entered their minds that this responsibility would be nullified if the father happened to own cattle before he had sons."  Of course not.  Because being firstborn doesn't necessarily mean God will call you to be the leader.  If you're an animal, you just might get sacrificed.  If you're a human, there are special blessings and inheritances for the firstborn, however example after example shows that doesn't mean much when it comes to who God calls to leadership.  

Abel and Cain
Noah's son Shem was the forefather of Jesus, even though Japeth was the oldest (Gen 10:21).
Jacob and Esau
Joseph and his brothers
Manasseh and Ephraim
And so on...

Mark 10:31
"But many who are first will be last, and the last first."

What do the Hebrew word pictures say?

According to Dr. Frank Seekins in Hebrew Word Pictures, the word for Father is ab or Alef Bet.  "The word picture tells us that a father is the leader [first] or the strength of the family." (pg. 14)

 The word for Mother is em or Alef Mem.  "The word picture tells us that a mother is the strong [or first] water... the life giver."  (pg. 62) 


So there is strong evidence to indicate that man was not, in fact, formed first, rather Adam was a man/woman being who was later separated.  Whether this is true or not is irrelevant to challenging the complementarian argument, however, because there is nothing IN the text to indicate that being created first has any significance.  Certainly, if woman had been created first, patriarchs would have believed that indicated something as well.  They would have said, "Of course the woman couldn't manage on her own!  That's why God created man, because the poor helpless woman was lost on her own until God created the man to rescue her."  Can't you just hear it now?    

The Redeemers and their Counterparts

In both of the previous posts was the story of Esther and Mordacai. First, Mordacai was Esther's kinsman redeemer, by raising her as his own child when her parents died. Then Esther became a kinswoman redeemer for Mordacai and all of the Israelites. Though the name of God is never mentioned in the book of Esther, we can still see how they were both following His instructions. Mordacai obeyed God's command to be a kinsman redeemer to his uncle's daughter. Esther fasted and prayed and asked Mordacai and some other Jews to do the same, so that she could discern God's will in the situation. Both people were seeking to know God's will, or to be in unity with him, and they worked together in order for God to use them to do amazing things.

In the story of Moses and Miriam, Miriam acted as a kinswoman redeemer to baby Moses. While the Bible does not tell of Miriam seeking God's will in this case, Exodus 15:20 says the Miriam was a prophetess, so we know that she heard from God. She acted as a kinswoman redeemer to baby Moses who would later act as a kinsman redeemer to all the people of Israel including his family. God used Miriam to protect Moses, so that Moses could live and God could later use him to lead all of the Israelites out of bondage.

In 1 Samuel 25, Abigail's husband Nabal hardened his heart when Abigail told him what she had done for him and all of their family and servants.

"But in the morning, when the wine had gone out of Nabal, his wife told him these things, and his heart died within him so that he became as a stone." verse 37

God responded by killing Nabal. After he died, David heard about it and asked Abigail to be his wife. David thanked God for using Abigail in the way that He did.

When David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, "Blessed be the LORD, who has pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal and has kept back His servant from evil. The LORD has also returned the evildoing of Nabal on his own head." verse 39

David recognized that Abigail had listened to the voice of God and that God had used her to be a voice of reason to David.

"Then David said to Abigail, "Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, who sent you this day to meet me, and blessed be your discernment, and blessed be you, who have kept me this day from bloodshed and from avenging myself by my own hand." verse 33

David and Abigail found unity in listening to God's instructions.


Sarah is not mentioned in the passage that tells of Abraham being a kinsman redeemer for Lot, so I will discuss Abraham and Sarah in another post. They deserve a whole post of their own anyway as there are some beautiful pictures of unity found in their story.

Boaz and Ruth and Deborah and Barak deserve their own posts as well.

Kinswoman Redeemer

In the last post, I explored who a kinsperson redeemer is and what he or she does. S/he is a near relative, who takes responsibility for redeeming a person from bondage or danger, possibly risking his/her own life in the process. S/he takes responsibility for an orphaned child and avenges the death of a loved one. Only in the case of marrying a relative's widow, of course, must the kinsman redeemer be a man.

In this post I will explore the stories of kinswoman redeemers.

In Exodus 2:1-9 is the story of baby Moses being placed in the river reeds and his sister Miriam watching over him until the Pharaoh's daughter finds him and adopts him. While Moses was not an orphan, due to the circumstances his parents were unable to care for him. Miriam took on the role of the kinswoman redeemer, being the closest relative who took responsibility for his life and watched over him until he was safe and was restored to his family.

In 1 Samuel 25 is the story of Nabal, Abigail and David. David sent his servants to request provisions from Nabal, but Nabal refused. So David took 400 men and prepared to fight Nabal. One of Nabal's servants told Nabal's wife Abigail what had happened and told her that David's men had been good to them while they worked in the fields. So Abigail gathered up bread, wine, figs, meat, raisins and grain and headed towards David's camp. She met them on the road, as they were coming towards her home, prepared for battle. Abigail interceded for her husband and begged David to put the blame on her. She begged him to take the gift she was offering as payment for her husband's folly.

When Abigail saw David, she hurried and dismounted from her donkey, and fell on her face before David and bowed herself to the ground. She fell at his feet and said, "On me [fn]alone, my lord, be the blame. And please let your maidservant speak [fn]to you, and listen to the words of your maidservant. "Please do not let my lord [fn]pay attention to this [fn]worthless man, Nabal, for as his name is, so is he. [fn]Nabal is his name and folly is with him; but I your maidservant did not see the young men of my lord whom you sent. "Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD lives, and as your soul lives, since the LORD has restrained you from [fn]shedding blood, and from [fn]avenging yourself by your own hand, now then let your enemies and those who seek evil against my lord, be as Nabal. "Now let this [fn]gift which your maidservant has brought to my lord be given to the young men who [fn]accompany my lord. "Please forgive the transgression of your maidservant; for the LORD will certainly make for my lord an enduring house, because my lord is fighting the battles of the LORD, and evil will not be found in you all your days."
1 Samuel 25:22-28


She was completely innocent of the original transgression, knowing nothing of it until her servant told her. She then took it upon herself to redeem her husband and save his life as well as the lives of all their family and servants. Not only did she pay his debt, she asked that the blame be put onto her and asked that David forgive *her* transgression. That is a beautiful picture of our ultimate Redeemer, Yeshua.

In Judges 4 and 5 is the story of the prophetess and judge Deborah. The Israelites were being ruled by the king of Canaan and God told Deborah that he would hand the Canaanites over to her. She and Barak went into battle, Jael killed Sisera, and the Israelites were free again. In this case, Deborah was a kinswoman redeemer for all of the Israelites, including her family. She went into battle to rescue her family and people from bondage.

In the book of Esther, Mordaci told Esther that there was a decree that all of the Jews would be killed and reminded her that it included herself and her family. Esther 4:14
Esther risked her life to come before the king unsummoned so that she could invite him to a banquet. Esther 4:11 and 5:2
At the banquet he offered her anything she wanted and she asked only that the lives of her people and herself be spared. Esther 7:3-4
Esther risked her life to rescue the Jews, including her own family, from death. A true kinswoman redeemer.

In the next post, I will explore the unity presented in these stories.

The Kinsman Redeemer

This last week I have been studying the "kinsman redeemer" picture in the Bible. The word "kinsman" in English indicates that it is a man and several commentaries specify that the kinsman redeemer is a "male relative." I had heard that before and never thought to question it, as it didn't seem like a relevant point to me, however earlier this week it was brought to my attention that it IS a very relevant point to those with a patriarchal mindset.

So rather than focusing on my original study of how the picture of the kinsman redeemer points to Yeshua, I decided to look to see if there was a picture of unity within the picture of the kinsman redeemer. Unity between the man and the person he was redeeming and of course, the most important aspect, unity between man and God. In other words, how does the picture of the kinsman redeemer reflect the relationship between Yeshua and believers?


Here is what I found:


There are three instances of the kinsman redeemer that are discussed the most often. These are Abraham's redemption of Lot, Mordecai redemption of Esther, and Boaz's redemption of Ruth. Of these, the story of Boaz and Ruth is the one that is focused on the most, as it offers a more complete picture of how the redemption process worked when a man was marrying his deceased relative's widow. Each of these stories has something unique to share, as they are a different aspect of the kinsman redeemer and they help tell the story of who the kinsman redeemer is and what he does.

It's important to note that the word kinsman redeemer is not used in the story of Abraham and Lot. The first time it is ever used is many chapters later in Genesis. However, we can see from the context that Abraham was in fact Lot's closest relative and that he redeemed or rescued Lot and his family. Gen 14:12-16

A kinsman redeemer is one who fights and risks his own life, to rescue his family from bondage or danger.

Mordecai is a redeemer of a different sort. He takes in his orphaned cousin, Esther, and raises her as his own daughter. Esther 2:7

A kinsman redeemer is one who takes responsibility for a child who is not his own.

Boaz marries Ruth after her husband died. He was not the closest relative, but the man who was the closest relative choose not to marry Ruth.

A kinsman redeemer is one who marries his family member's widow, in order to protect her and continue the family line.

Those three men portray three different types of kinsman redeemers, and we can see from their examples what a kinsman redeemer does. There are also several other verses that explain who the kinsman redeemer can be as well.

"Now if the means of a stranger or of a sojourner with you becomes sufficient, and a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to him as to sell himself to a stranger who is sojourning with you, or to the descendants of a stranger's family, then he shall have redemption right after he has been sold. One of his brothers may redeem him, or his uncle, or his uncle's son, may redeem him, or one of his blood relatives from his family may redeem him; or if he prospers, he may redeem himself." Leviticus 25:47-49

So the kinsman redeemer can be a brother, an uncle, a cousin, or a blood relative. According to the Blue Letter Bible, the Hebrew word for blood relative is she'er and means:

1) flesh, food, body, near kin, near kinswoman
a) flesh
1) as food
2) for physical power (fig)
b) flesh relation, blood relation
c) self

It is translated in the following ways: flesh 7, near kinswoman 2, food 1, near 1, nigh 1, near kin 1, kin 1, body 1, kinsman 1

The two places in which it is translated to mean "kinswoman" undeniably mean woman as they are speaking of "your father's sister" and "your mother's sister." Leviticus 18:12-13

The word for kinsman that is used throughout the book of Ruth and in over 100 other places in the Bible, often referring to God, is the Hebrew word ga'al.

Ga'al means:

1) to redeem, act as kinsman-redeemer, avenge, revenge, ransom, do the part of a kinsman
a) (Qal)
1) to act as kinsman, do the part of next of kin, act as kinsman-redeemer
a) by marrying brother's widow to beget a child for him, to redeem from slavery, to redeem land, to exact vengeance
2) to redeem (by payment)
3) to redeem (with God as subject)
a) individuals from death
b) Israel from Egyptian bondage
c) Israel from exile
b) (Niphal)
1) to redeem oneself
2) to be redeemed



What is interesting about this word is that it is a verb, yet it is translated into a noun in English. This word is about the action of avenging or redeeming, not about the one doing the action.

Numbers 35:19, Deut 19:6 and Joshua 20 all use the word ga'al when speaking of the kinsman redeemer as well.


"Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man." Gen 9:6

In English, this avenger is clearly male, however the Hebrew word used is adam which means:

1) man, mankind
a) man, human being
b) man, mankind (much more frequently intended sense in OT)
c) Adam, first man

as opposed to ish which is used specifically for male and ishah which is specifically female.

After studying this, I have to challenge the use of the translated word "kinsman." This kinsman can also be a kinswoman, so the more appropriate word would be kins-person or close relative.

Now we know who a kins person is- a close relative- and what he or she does- redeems property or people, rescues others from danger or bondage, avenges the death of a relative, and protects relatives. I was curious if there are any examples of a kinswoman redeemer in the Bible.

This study will be broken into 3 parts. This is the first part and it explored who the kinsperson redeemer is and what this person does. The next part will explore kinswoman redeemers. The third part will explore unity.