from a reader...Janeth English has an article up on LCG's website concerning women who work. She starts off by referencing an article by Scott Winnail.
She writes in Ladies Beware:
A few years ago, when I heard a sermon by Dr. Scott Winnail entitled “Raising Daughters, Raising Godly Women,” I was shocked by my reaction to a statement he made. I consider myself a Christian woman who wants to please God, yet I bristled when he said, “Avoid the mistake of telling your daughters and granddaughters that they can be anything they want to be.” In my heart I knew he was right, so why did I have negative feelings about women having any limitations on their career goals? Had I unwittingly bought into some of modern society’s ideas about women? Had I been deceived?
Remember, the COG ministry ALWAYS has the best interest of its women at the top of the list.
The writer continues:
Woman at Work
I was raised by my mother, a single parent of six children; she passed on to me a desire to succeed. As the oldest child and the first in my family of aunts, uncles, and cousins to go to college, I felt the need to do well. I studied hard and completed my college degree with honors. With degree in hand, I felt like the sky was the limit. I wanted all the things society had promised me in return for my hard work—career, money, and position. I also had a family. I thought I could have it all. But my marriage did not last, and then I was a single parent. I rose to middle management in a Fortune 500 company, which I thought was not too shabby for a poor girl from the projects. From time to time I had thought about what careers were appropriate for women, but I thought that Christian women were to reject only the careers that required great physical strength. After all, had not God made men and women equal in intellect?
Dr. Winnail’s statement caused me to reevaluate my attitude about society’s values with respect to women and their goals and expectations. I had been a member of God’s Church for more than 40 years when I heard this sermon, yet I had to conclude that I had nevertheless been deceived. I had not recognized the impact this society had made on my ideas about godly roles for women. It is important that we as Christian women examine some of our attitudes toward societal norms and beware of falling into this trap. Be forewarned that this article may offend you, just as I was initially offended when I heard this aspect of God’s truth.
Ambassador College was first and foremost designed as an educational institution for men. While women were admitted, their ultimate goal was to get trained as a submissive housewife/helpmeet for their husband ministers. The church had no desire to see uppity women trying to run things in the church. The sad thing is that many of the women actually understood the Bible more than their male counterparts and were better leaders than many of the men, but you all know that a women's place is in the kitchen, cleaning the house, or meeting their husbands wrapped in saran wrap after a long day of church visitations.
English continues with this:
One value that has become normal in Western society is that of women working outside the home. This transition has happened within my lifetime. “Among married couple families, two-thirds of mothers are employed (67.3 percent)” (“Breadwinning Mothers Continue to Be the US Norm,” AmericanProgress.org, May 10, 2019). Not only are women working in greater numbers; they are also working longer hours and taking positions previously reserved for men. Most women, like society in general, consider this to be progress.
But how about us? Do we, as Christian women, think it is good when we see women in these “progressive” roles? What is our reaction when we see groundbreaking feats accomplished by the female scientists at the forefront of COVID-19 research? Do we feel that women are making a lot of progress? Are we “adjusting” our thinking to conform to the way the world sees these things?
One effect of women working outside the home is that more women have a source of income independent of their husband’s. While more money coming into the home can have its benefits, it can also be a source of tension. Wives may begin to “assert their independence” and want to be the one to determine how funds are allocated. This brings into question who is in charge. Some say the patriarchal system is inherently abusive and unfair to women and should be thrown out. They use as examples women who have been abused, beaten, or even murdered by their husbands. Clearly, no woman—or man—should remain in a situation that is dangerous or harmful. However, these examples, which do not represent the experience of most women, are deceptively used to incite women’s emotions against male leadership. As a Christian woman, you may feel that you are not trying to be independent of your husband, but do you feel you need to lay aside a secret stash of cash “just in case”? Do you truly desire to have a man rule over you? Western society promotes women’s preeminence, self-sufficiency, and independence—but what does God say?
It all boils down to government. If wayward women work then they are not submitting to their husbands and are usurping his authority and as a result, causes a breakdown in the church governmental structure. After all, the chief prophet, apostle, overseer, or just a plain old jerk of a leader, is the one in charge and you must submit to him!
Most likely, the women reading this article are aware of God’s purpose for women and agree with it, at least in theory. God made women to assist their husbands as helpers (Genesis 2:18). God has placed men in charge of their families and women are to submit to their husbands’ leadership (Ephesians 5:22–28; 1 Timothy 3:4–5). If God designed the family such that the husband is in charge, should not we as women embrace this concept? Christian women offer counsel as part of the decision-making process, but they should not try to manipulate, denigrate, or otherwise undermine a husband’s decisions in order to get their own way, even if they feel that they know best. We submit ourselves to our husbands. We must choose to follow the government God placed in the home so that we can reap the blessings His way brings.
Contrary to what Western society advocates, God has not designed women to be self-sufficient and financially independent. God wants men to provide for their households and support their wives (1 Timothy 5:8). His ideal is for women to be homemakers and manage their households (Titus 2:4–5).
Let us be clear; it is not necessarily wrong for women to work outside the home. We have the example of Lydia, who was an exporter of purple fabrics (Acts 16:14). We have scriptures describing a virtuous woman who has entrepreneurial skills that she uses to benefit her household (Proverbs 31:10–31). We also notice from these scriptures that a woman’s home and family are featured as the most important elements in her endeavors; the bigger issue is women working outside the home in jobs that detract from the well-being of the family when it is not essential that they do so.
We live in Satan’s society, and many women—especially single parents—find it necessary to earn wages. As a single parent, I used my skills and knowledge to provide for my children, and I know there are others who find themselves in the same situation. God will help you just as He helped me.
Remember, He is a Father to the fatherless (Psalm 68:5) and He has compassion on women who have no one to take care of them (Luke 7:12–15). Single women with underage children carry a big burden, being both mother and breadwinner. It is a tiring situation in which many things either go undone or are lacking; I know this from experience. Others of us can show empathy and lighten their burden in small ways, such as baking a casserole to share, transporting their child with yours to and from an activity, or just offering a sympathetic ear, to name a few. For those who find themselves in this situation, God is with you; He will be your Head if you ask Him and seek Him.
Well, lots of COG women could stay home if their husbands stopped sending in every dime they made to the church. Stop the extra tithing, special offerings, and responding to member letter appeals and then women could stay home. Then they can be like your Dear Leaders home where his wife is home all day because you, the members, are paying for her to stay home and clean a house you paid for or hire in the cleaners that some of them have.
English ends with this, ladies beware!
A Place of Honor
Mainstream society promotes many ungodly ideas that target women. They seek to deprive us of the roles God designed specifically for women and deny us the happiness those roles can bring. Sadly, some of these ideas may be deeply rooted in the subconscious; I know they are in mine. We cannot look at women in society, compare ourselves to them, and then feel like we are okay. We have to strive to live up to God’s standards. God wants women to respect and honor their husbands, love their children, be homemakers, and have a humble disposition (1 Peter 3:4).
God will change all hearts in His Kingdom, and women will value their roles and responsibilities. As Christian women, we must examine what we really think about these issues now and bring our ideas into agreement with God. Remember, we will teach women their proper roles—and in order to teach them, we must believe and live them. Forewarned is forearmed. Ladies beware.
49 comments:
I read this article and was thoroughly disgusted. LCG wants their women to mmarry at 18 and have a load of kids by the time they are 25. Barefoot and pregnant. Heaven forbid something happens to the husband and the woman is force to go to work for min. wage, live off food stamps and welfare. No longer are we in LCG, one reason is this one. I remember one Feast a minister actually said that women should never aspire to have a collage degree, and absolutely not a doctorate. Women should never have anyone...ie, a man under her.
What is wrong with this group???
“Do you truly desire to have a man rule over you?”
I’m pretty sure this is part of the curse given to Eve, not the ideal situation.
It goes along with pain in child bearing.
Do you truly desire to have pain in childbearing?
Truth be told, not even most men in COGS can "be anything they want to be."
If you're offered a managerial position which requires people under you to work on Sabbath, you must turn it down. If you have a conscience for them, at least.
May God's Kingdom soon come to allow all people to utilize their full God-given talents, without gender and time restrictions.
What is Winnail's position on the work status of paired "gay men" who attend. Should they both work, or should the submissive one just stay home?
Just a big thank you to the women in my life who are my doctors and nurses, and the caregivers to the sick and elderly outside of the 'Christian' home, who have given their lives for the service of others, while still raising great families and are wonderful wives and with the full support of their caring husbands, for their outside vocations.
I thank you for your love and giving and the hope you give to so many who have no hope or families or partners of their own to care for them. Thank you for your selfless service, God bless you all.
Thank you for exercising the love of God to those of us in need.
LCG should hang their heads in shame.
Is Weston sending a message to the rebellious hussies who dare to take men's jobs at LCG headquarters?
Ms. English's first mistake was in listening to anything "Doctor Scott" Winnail has to say. Sadly, however, he's not the only LCG "Doctor" who seems to forget (or maybe just conveniently overlook) that a woman's ultimate reward from God is no different than that of a man. There's an in-house dentist that seems to be of the same opinion...
We too left LCG and FOUND that it was The Almighty God who called us out of the cult and showed our family how true Jesus Lovers should be. We keep the Sabbaths and Commandments as well as loving our neighbors as ourselves. Making a difference in other's lives in our community. AMAZING how many Examples God gives in His word of Women who really got what being a follower of Christ was all about. We learn to lose the fear of men and women who want to CRUSH you and destroy all that is good in you and instead Fear and Love God with all your heart and soul and your neighbor as yourself. Learn first how to love yourself and rekindle your passion for LIFE and have it more abundantly. Evil people prosper when GOOD Men and Women DO NOTHING to stop it!!!
"Ambassador College was first and foremost designed as an educational institution for men."
You mean WHITE men.
Seems like Janet English delights in her position under Scott Winnail.
She is always kissing up to his COG-wisdom, and all the close collaboration is so provocative.
Seems like LCG ministers are allowed to have their female groupies while they are dictating the moral code others must adhere too.
All the writings of Winnail and English are voided by their public flirting.
Where in the Bible does this say that? As a manager, you are not an owner of a business, which is wrong on the Sabbath. Are you one of those who say it's wrong to tondine out one the Sabbath???
What in the world are you talking about??
No he is sending a message about the male dominance hierarchy that LCG so highly values. Gauranteed the majority of ministers at LCG have a lower IQ than many women I have met. They would love to have their women wear a hajibs and never show bit of skin.
If it’s the same in house dentist I’m thinking of, he covers for a child molester. Steer clear.
LCG assumes that the “godly” family model is some sort of American fantasy 1950’s nuclear family. They aren’t selling it well with so many minster’s wives keeping their husbands balls in their purses. I’m glad my wife and I decided to live up to our God given talents and intellects, instead of trying to make some random ideology based more on fantasy than fact rule our lives.
I could only read so much of this. Suffice it to say that if your church invents a whole new category of sin that is based upon imposing bronze age culture upon only one of the genders, to paraphrase Jeff Foxworthy, "You just might be a programmed robotic cult member!"
Personally, I always enjoyed having a career-orientated wife! I loved that my working wife was a full partner, with whom I could strongly relate as we discussed the events and problems of the day at work when we both came home and were decompressing together. An ACOG is one of the few places one can go in America where a woman of strength and intellect is considered to be undesirable or defective, rather than being a valued asset, and put to work using her talents to make the wold a better place.
Several years ago, on one of the older "dissident" forums, I had really enjoyed discussions with a lady who had been a fellow student at Ambassador College, but whose life experiences had led her to becoming an office manager at a professional firm. Both of my sisters, raised in Herbie's classic WCG, went on to become educated career persons, and yet to also enjoy long-term marriages.
If it were ever to somehow turn out that Armstrongism actually was "God's True Church", their gender doctrine is one more reason why I'd prefer to do a cannon ball into the lake of fire rather than endure a Herbie Rat Millennium!
"We must choose to follow the government God placed in the home.."
This article sent a chill down my spine. The problem is that much of what's being said are code words for something very ugly. The context is a church where rights are taboo. Who has ever heard a sermon or sermonette on rights, or read church articles on the subject? The belief of the ministers, including many members, is that they have all rights while everyone else has non. One visiting minister complained from the pulpit, asking, why do members need so many rights. My first minister believed that only he had the right to make decisions, and if a church member made any personal decision, they were defrauding him. He use to look at me as if I was taking food from babies mouths because I was making my own decisions. That ladies and gentlemen is what's meant by "following God's government," be it in the home or at church. Scratch the surface and it's nothing more than submitting to bully morality.
"Obey God rather than man" is the scripture that's relevant to such a situation.
Btw, it's not only Satan who can portray himself as an angel of light. So can 'gawds' ministers.
The problem is that many women have abandoned their primary role. The role of a woman is to be submissive to men. When I was counseling for marriage in my senior year at AC, a WCG minister told my future wife, that if I decided to chop a hole in our living room floor, she should just arrange the furniture around the hole and be submissive to my decision. He was a godly minister for sure with inspired wisdom. Rod also taught us, that if a wife doesn’t submit she should be SPANKED.
Men, remember, we are the lord and master of our household. A woman should never exercise any authority over a man. The role of a woman is to cook, clean and have children. A woman should never “speak” in church. If she has a question, she should ask her husband. He is the authority over her.
I need to submit this quickly before my wife, daughter or granddaughter find out I wrote this, otherwise I won’t get any dinner tonight and will be sleeping on the sofa.
Jim-AZ
Whilst LCG are more open about how women are to live ALL the other groups are exactly the same. They keep the topic underground more. Yes ALL of them. ALL of them. ALL.
In fact I think in recent years the has been a reprisal of keeping the women down. Expected to be seen to serve the man. I remember in the 80s and 90s men (even ministry) would quite happily get their own refreshments after Church services, but in recent years I've been quite shocked to see men sat at Holy Day pot lucks tables like lumps of lard not moving an inch whilst their wives are rushing about like headless chickens getting EVERYTHING from the food to the drinks for them.
The irony is original RCG (Radio not Restored) men helped alot more than modern day men in the Church. Not the vast majority but some did.
This woman is conflicted in her own statements. After scolding women for wanting to have a voice in how the finances of the household are handled, or wanting to have funds they independently manage, she throws a nod to Proverbs 31. She obviously hasn't studied it in any detail. If she did, she would see that verses 16 and 24 completely blow her thoughts concerning married women making financial decisions out of the water.
Let me help... "She appraises a field and buys it; from her earnings she plants a vineyard." Proverbs 31:16
"She makes linen garments and sells them; she delivers sashes to the merchants." Proverbs 31:24
The very implication of these verses is that this woman has funds at her disposal to do with what she wishes. She looks over a piece of land, buys it, and from her own resources or earnings, she improves that land by planting a vineyard. She makes linen garments and sells them, which would mean that she has the funds to buy the linen, as well as the supplies she needs to make the garments, and she knows her way around the market enough to be able to sell her products. This more than suggests that this woman has a head for business, and she uses it.
When you read Proverbs 31:10-31, you do not get a picture of some woman squelching her own potential or intellect in order to placate the ego of an insecure husband. Instead she uses that intellect and potential to benefit her whole household, including her husband, who trusts her.
"The heart of her husband trusts in her, and he lacks nothing of value." Proverbs 31:11
The above verse is important. Her husband isn't sitting around worrying about her "asserting her independence" or subverting his "authority." Instead, these are two adults who have a relationship built on trust. The husband loves and values his wife's talents and intellect and trusts her to use these things to benefit him, their children, and others she has contact with or influence over.
This woman doesn't need to have a "secret stash." Instead she has her own bank account with funds at her disposal with her husband's full knowledge and blessing. He gives her the freedom she needs to manage the household, which benefits him.
I am not in any way minimizing the value of a mother being able to care for her young children at home, while her husband provides for the family. Caring for a family in that way is a full time job, and should be valued. But that doesn't mean that a woman should never seek an education or learn new skills both for her own benefit and that of her loved ones. Even if a woman spends a season caring for young children at home, those children benefit much more from her intelligence and wisdom, than from ignorance or stupidity.
It also doesn't mean that she should have no input in how the finances of the home are handled, even if her husband is the primary bread winner. Part of providing for a household is to be aware of the needs of those who live in that household, including your mate.
Promoting a mind set that would keep girls ignorant and squelch their desire for an education, or discourage them from learning marketable skills not only denigrates their value and potential as human beings made in the image of God, but also deprives others of the benefit that education or those skills could bring to a marriage and family.
The justification that women were created to be "helpers" to man, so they should limit their own potential to fit that role also misses the mark, and is frankly a perversion of scripture. The Hebrew word for "helper" in Genesis 2:18 is ezer from the root azer, and is used in other passages which refer to God as a help or helper, such as Deuteronomy 33:29, or Psalm 33:20.
The Proverbs 31 woman wore strength and honor. Her husband wasn't intimidated by her talents, but praised her for them. Proverbs 31 women need Proverbs 31 men.
Concerned Sister
Especially in this context it is critical to understand that the Bible is an encultured book. Both the ancient Semitic culture of the Old Testament and the Greco-Roman culture of the New Testament were patriarchal. These societies operated with a culture that prescribed a role for men and a different but allied and, to a great degree, subordinated role for women. The Bible spoke to these people in their language with their concepts. However, this enculturation is not prescriptive for all time. It is not God's eternal moral law. It is up to the contemporary followers of the Bible to adapt the Biblical principles, stripped of ancient cultural biases, to their modern cultural setting. This is a big topic. It has to do with how we understand the Bible. I cannot do it justice. See work of Peter Enns.
A couple of comments related to Biblical enculturation. First, In Genesis 3:16, God speaks of the results of rebellion to Adam and Eve. Specifically to Eve he states, "...yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you." This is punitive. This is not the natural order. And in the aftermath of the rebellion, we see a culture of patriarchalism broadly extant throughout the history of human societies - even being reflected in the Bible.
Second, Jesus was addressing a group of Pharisees, all men of course. He was speaking of their control over women through divorce. And Jesus stated, "It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so." I don't want to alarm anybody but Jesus just said that this piece of the Mosaic legislation was actually contributed by Moses himself - Moses with his ancient Semitic cultural viewpoints. It makes you wonder how much of the Law of Moses was actually the Law of Moses personally with all the cultural baggage that this implies.
It should surprise no one that a small apocalyptic Millerite denomination that has immersed itself in the Old Testament would implement a form of patriarchalism in its social infrastructure. That understood, one must also recognize that the Bible is encultured. Genesis 1 does not speak of quantum mechanics but rather uses the ancient Semitic cosmology. The challenge to us is to parse this with wisdom and midrash.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
Thank you; I should clarify that. I meant managers who have to prepare work schedules for people under them... sometimes requiring them to work on sabbath.
When a girl gets out of High School she has to decide whether she is going to school some more. She has to pick a career. She may not get married. If she doesn't go to school then what? Be a cashier in Walmart? Even if she is married what if they can't have kids for some reason? Stay home and do house work every day? She can't decide to go to college when she's older. Nowadays two people have to have a job to make ends meet. Not every husband makes 100,000 a year plus benefits.
I’m a LCG member. Woman who works and tithes. I have a family. I run my house with the help of my husband who will not make a decision without my consent. We work tougher. He respects me. The household is organized by me and my husband does what is asked of him. Men need direction. Studies prove women are more organized with men being more industrious. Any man that doesn’t let a women organize and take charge of a household is at a LOSS. Only an insecure man needs control.
What I want to know is, are the young girls/women in the church falling for this? Are they being talked out of education? Are these young guys in the church liking this angle?
As usual, Concerned Sister has words of deep wisdom for us. She is an outstanding example showing what a shameful waste of talent it is for women to be suppressed the way Winnail recommends.
Oh and I’m highly educated and make almost as much as my husband. He won’t make any financial decision without my consent.
I agree. I would love to know who she is. She always has the best comments.
Help meet (part 1).
Ge 2:18 The LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” (NIV).
“SUITABLE HELPER. Adam does not find companionship among the animals but will do so in one of his own kind...
“What is the implication of identifying the woman as a “helper suitable” for man? Would it be appropriate to refer to man as a “suitable helper” for woman as well? As always, we must begin with the words. Synchronic analysis (that which is derived from how contemporary authors used a word or phrase) is obstructed because this combination occurs nowhere else. We can look at the word translated “helper” and the word translated “suitable” individually, but in language the meaning of the whole may be more than, or at least different from, the sum of the parts. [Footnote: Many examples could be given in English, consider, e.g. “special effects” or “party whip.” For elements built into one word, consider the word “paralegal”]. In the present case, since the combination occurs nowhere else, we must glean all that we can from the individual parts, even as we realizer the limitations of this information.
“The word “helper” is common enough as a description of someone who comes to the aid of or provides a service for someone. It carries no implication regarding the relationship or relative status of the individual involved. In fact, the noun form of the word found in this verse refers almost exclusively to God as the One who helps his people. If we expand our investigation to verbal forms, we find a continuing predominance of God as the subject, though there are a handful of occurrences where people help people. In the latter category we find people helping their neighbors or relatives (Isa. 41:6), people helping in a political alliance or coalition (Ezra 10:15) and military reinforcements (Josh. 10:4; 2 Sam. 8:5). Nothing suggests subservient status of one helping, in fact, the opposite is more likely. Certainly “helper” cannot be understood as the opposite/complement of “leader.”
Help meet (part 2)
“The second word kenegdo (NIV “suitable”), is more problematic. It is a combination of two prepositions with the appendage of the third masculine singular pronominal suffix. In preposition combinations, as in most compound words, the whole does not equal the sum of the parts. [Footnote: In English we do this more with adverbs than with prepositions, such as “nevertheless” and “furthermore.” We use paired prepositions more than compound prepositions, e.g., “over against,” though we do use compounds such as “into”]. Confidence in assigning meaning can only be achieved when we have sufficient examples of the compound being used in context. Unfortunately, this compound occurs nowhere else. The first preposition ke, is generally used to describe comparison and correspondence. Waltke and O’Connor describe these basic facets to its use: approximation, agreement in kind, and correspondence in identity. It is therefore usually translated “like” or “as.”
“The second element (neged) is predominately used as a preposition, though HALOT considers it a substantive here. Its range of meaning is most similar to what we would find in the English word “opposite,” which can be spatial (e.g., opposite bank) or conceptual thereby being used in contexts that suggest “in opposition to” someone. Obviously, this profile leave so much room that it is useless for giving us direction. As a result of the lack of synchronic information and the ambiguity of the diachronic information, most interpreters find in this phrase whatever they come to it looking for. [Footnote: A Spencer’s attempt to connect the preposition (neged) to a putative form (nagid = “leader”) is an example of the abuse of lexical semantics that occurs when the diachronic approaches are not distinguished from synchronic (Beyond the Curse: Women Called to Ministry [Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1985], 24-26). It is interesting that [R.] Ortlund attempts to use “helper” to prove that man is the leader, and Spencer uses kenegdo to try to prove that woman is the leader].
“The best procedure from a methodological standpoint in this kind of situation is to find something sufficiently vague to cover the territory. As a result, since helping generally has to do with mutual undertaking of a task and the prepositions lead us to understand some level of association, I would choose a translation such as “partner” or “counterpart.” The former better reflects the “helper” part of the combination, while the latter better reflects the compound word. If we could make up words, “counterpartner” would be a great one” (John H. Walton, Genesis, The NIV Application Commentary (NIVAC), Muck, Terry, Gen. Editor, (Grand Rapids, Zondervan Publishing House, 2001), pp.175-77).
Not sure about young guys liking the angle but the old guys definitely approve. Men who expect women to live as a modern geisha girl don't necessarily 'like' women.
Adoption
Ex 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
“The narrator again shows how women play an important leadership role in these matters (Moses’ father disappears from the story, while a great variety of language for woman is used). All five women so far noted are actively engaged on the side of life against a ruler who has shown himself to be capable of considerable brutality. Bucking a male-dominated system, they risk their own lives for the sake of life. As a result, they not only contribute to the prospering of the children of Israel but enable this particular child, destined to become Israel’s leader, to emerge with the best possible preparation for his task. “The courage of women is the beginning of liberation” (Exum, p.82) “What the women do for Moses, God will do for all Israel” (Burns, Exodus, p.25). Daughters are the saviors of sons” (Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, IABC, pp.39-40).
Ac 7:22 And Moses was learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians, and was mighty in words and in deeds.
“Consistent with this creation theme is the role given to the daughter of Pharaoh. A non-Israelite (add Moses’ teachers in Pharaoh’s court, Acts 7:22!) contributes in significant way to God’s activity of life and blessing. In fact, her activity is directly parallel to that of God with Israel (2:23-25; 3:7-8)! She “comes down,” “sees” the child, “hears” its cry, takes pity on him, draws him out of the water, and provides for his daily needs...
“This story of Moses, informed so broadly by creation themes, constitutes a paradigm for Israel’s experience of redemption. As the activities of the princess parallels that of God, so Moses’ experience parallels that of Israel. The etymology given for Moses’ name (based on assonance, not historical understanding) serves this purpose. Just as Moses was safely borne through water and reeds, rescued from the brutality of the Egyptians, and provided with daily sustenance, so also was Israel...
“Finally, we note the extensive use to which this story is put in the News Testament (in contrast to the rest of the Old Testament). Christians have longed observed the close relationship with the infancy narratives in Matthew 2 (see also Acts 7:20; Heb. 11:23; cf. Childs, pp.20-24). The story of Moses functions as a paradigm (or typology) for Matthew’s story of Jesus. A fundamental continuity is seen in the way in which God works in the lives of Moses and Jesus. Also seen is a continuity in human activity, from the senseless murder of children to the faithfulness of human beings. The Old Testament story is seen to be indispensable in providing the proper interpretation of what God is doing in Jesus. Both stories are working within the sphere of creation - the preservation of life and the preparation of leaders. Understanding what God is about in creation provides the necessary theological grounding for the story of redemption. And that work is, as always, quite unobtrusive, not apparent (accept to eyes of faith), but a means in and through which God is at work in the world to bring fullness of life to as many as possible” (Terence E. Fretheim, Exodus, IABC, pp.38, 40-41).
Cp. also the insightful observations, and actions, by Rahab, Hannah and Abigail.
Adoption (part 2)
Ex 2:10 And the child grew, and she brought him unto Pharaoh's daughter, and he became her son. And she called his name Moses: and she said, Because I drew him out of the water.
“The unnamed child is now old enough to leave his unnamed mother... In this single climatic verse, Pharaoh’s daughter now adopts him as her own son, and by implication makes him an Egyptian prince. Moreover, in the act of adoption, she names him Moses (v.10), indicating that he is now fully in her orbit” (Walter Bruggemann, The Book of Exodus, NIB, Vol.1, p.700).
Ac 3:22a For Moses truly said unto the fathers, A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you of your brethren, like unto me
Mt 1:20 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.
Mt 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou [Joseph] shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mt 1:25 And knew her not till she had brought forth her firstborn son: and he called his name JESUS.
“The angel’s address to Joseph as “son of David” reminds us what is at stake in the decision Joseph has just reached: the loss of Jesus’ royal pedigree if he is not officially recognized as Joseph’s son. So, despite his previous decision, he is called to take two decisive actions, first to accept Mary as his wife rather than repudiating her and secondly, to give her son a name, which will confirm his legal recognition of Jesus as his own son and hence as also a “son of David”...
“The pericope concludes triumphantly with the naming of Jesus. Verse 21 has explained the theological significance of the name and the whole chapter so far has set up the problem of legal parentage to which this is the essential answer. Jesus of Nazareth is now securely adopted as the “son of David” ” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICOT, pp.53 & 59).
God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds (Hebrews 1:1-2).
“As the Greek form of the OT name Joshua it was among the commonest Jewish names in the first century... The Hebrew Yejosua‘ is normally taken to mean “Yahweh is salvation,” so that the interpretation in terms of saving from sin derives from the popular Hebrew understanding of the name; the similarity to the Hebrew verb yosia‘ (“he will save”) may have helped with Matthew’s formulation of the meaning of the name in a future verb, “he will save.” But whereas the OT name spoke of God as the saviour, Mary’s son is himself to be the AGENT of salvation; here is scope for profound christological reflection on the part of any of Matthew’s readers who can see behind the common Greek name to its Hebrew origin...” (R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew, NICOT, pp.34 & 53).
Jesus Christ is God’s “help meet”.
Anonymous 1:51
It is odd, after all your research and writing, you mistakenly use the term "help meet." This is a common error. Some confuse these two words with the noun helpmate - I expect because of the similar sound. The phrase "help meet" is a combination of a noun and an adjective and "meet" means, as indicated by you quote from the NIV, suitable.
It is significant that you neglect the Hebrew term "ezer" that is cited by Concerned Sister. You will find that ezer is sometimes used to refer to God, as Concerned Sister points out, and does not relegate the "helper" to secondary status. It implies in my mind teamwork and synergy. God create for Adam someone with whom he an synergize - a being in the image of God just like Adam.
Paul is another issue. 1 Corinthians 11 has been extensively discussed. At one point, Paul uses creation order to support what seems like a cultural practice in contemporary Corinth. If one wants to recruit creation order to form social policy why not consider this from Proverbs:
"The Lord created me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of long ago."
This is a reference to Wisdom. And wisdom is personified as a female. So God created a profound force that is female in character first.
These discussions are complex and a swift cut through data just does not work.
******** Click on my icon for Disclaimer
This post topic reminds me of something a WCG minister in the Baltimore Maryland congregation once said (and, therefore taught) from the pulpit: "What do you do with a rebellious wife? YOU RAPE HER!"
In some ways, it was a profound statement and admission of what Armstrongism was doing to all of us.
Richard
And another point. Before God created Eve and inaugurated human reproductivity and sexuality what was Adam's status? Was he really masculine? Did he have a wee-wee and whatever was it for - just drainage? Did he have any sex drive? Maybe he was not the first man but the first neuter.
At the time Adam was created, hominids with sexuality had been around for millennia. I don't think Eve was an afterthought as suggested in the ancient Semitic theodrama.
********* Click on my icon for Disclaier
LCG and ACOG in general are Fundamentalist and Evangelical adjacent. ACOG absorbed these notions of patriarchy and women's submission from the broader culture.
Recommend to read all below.
Beth Allison Barr - The Making of Biblical Womanhood - especially the chapter on What if Biblical Womanhood Doesn't Come from Paul?
Aimee Byrd - Recovering from Biblical Womanhood
Kristen du Mez - Jesus and John Wayne
Modern women seem to think that men are dangerous and incompetent pitiful creatures. At least in the so-called church of God, men generally didn't have to put up with that "woke" attitude.
I don’t consider I used “help meet” mistakenly. I put it in brackets as this is the translation of the AV, ASV, ERV and JPS Tanakh 1917; I wrongly presumed that a reader would understand.
“Help meet” is not a combination of a noun and an adjective but of a noun and two prepositions - compare “close to” and “near to” as examples.
“The last part of v.18 reads literally, “I will make him for him a helper as in front of him (or according to what is in front of him)” (kenegdo)... it suggests what God creates for Adam will correspond to him...” (Victor P. Hamilton, The Book of Genesis Chapters 1-17, NICOT, p.175).
In regard to “helper” the only “neglect” was not having the transliteration in the post. The post did have these Scriptural references (plus observations):
Isa 41:6a They helped [ya‘zoru] every one his neighbour;
Ezr 10:15b and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite helped them [‘azarum].
Jos 10:4a Come up unto me, and help me [we‘izruni], that we may smite Gibeon:
2Sa 8:5a When the Arameans of Damascus came to help [la‘zor] Hadadezer king of Zobah (NIV).
Of course these discussions are complex, but you have to start somewhere, or you don’t get started.
As an aside, “helper” is a masculine noun.
I'm astonished that the ACOGs didn't advocate female circumcision. The so-called Israelites called to be part of these churches held many of the same attitudes towards women that Muslim Arabs cultivated over the centuries.
Well anon 7:38 if that's true why take any notice of your first minister's controlling spirit? That's his problem and let it remain so.
Men who proclaim 'God's government' usually haven't gotten off first base Christianity behaviour, let alone be godly enough to be considered to be actually doing anything remotely of 'God's government'.
They don't even fully consider what the meaning of 'God's government' encompasses. Like the sons of Aaron and the sons of Eli, prancing about the Tabernacle and Temple, ignoring the warnings of God's power. That's how I see any man proclaiming to be a part of God's Holyness rule.
Agreed, 11:59. HWA and others who thundered about "God's government", meaning themselves and implying that God had anything to do with them, actually ended up trashing God in peoples' minds. It is very difficult in adulthood to shed all of their programming crap and to develop a realistic concept of God once these people have ruined your mind.
11.59 PM
"Why take any notice of your first ministers controlling spirit?"
If it's that simple, this blog would not exist. You seems blind to, or ate ignoring the power that abusive cults have on their members.
I get the feeling that you are blaming the victim/s.
Are you a minister/elder or a ministers wife?
Btw, it was difficult to not notice my first ministers controlling spirit when he demanded a counseling session in which he tried to convince me to let him possess me. Your comment is so naive.
To Banned's credit, there's been an article here dedicated to this minister.
This blog does NOT exist 7:07 to expose bully ministers it exisits to DESTROY the Saturday Sabbath and Holy Day belief. Sabbath services even in WCG only lasted a few hours. You did not live with the Minster did you ?
Why do you allow these men to be more important in your life than your own relationship with God and Jesus Christ?
News Flash, 1:44. Most of us here are mature enough to realize that observant Jews find just as much joy in the sabbath and holy days as Catholics and Protestants experience in Christmas and Easter. They are not inherently bad in and of themselves. One Jewish friend once remarked, "How did you get from here to all of the badness you experienced from our holy days?" I responded to him in the same way in which I will respond to you. They were not the cause of all the evil and damage. It was all of the added baggage from HWA which did the damage. You can make someone hate something so delightful as ice cream by serving it topped with asparagus, okra, persimmons, tobasco sauce, and cod liver oil. Figuratively, that is exactly what HWA did to the Israelite culture from Torah.
I was not born as a physical Jew. However there are a number of personal identity points which I share with Jews. I grew up keeping all of the rituals from Torah. Unfortunately, I feel as if I also experienced my own personal holocaust at the hands of my WCG parents, who mercilessly practiced the principles of the child beating booklet on us, made us into unwilling pariahs amongst our peers, deprived us of proper medical attention, and caused us to live in a constant state of fear through bogus prophecy. As I grew into an adult, I realized that my parents were simply reflecting the ways in which their church had warped them. What had been done to us was being done to them on a different level by those whom they had accepted as their spritual leaders. These warped things did not come about from the sabbath, holy days, and restricting our diet to clean meats. They came from all that HWA added. He took things that arguably came from God, and used them in a way that made them bad and caused great evil in our lives. The splinter groups have continued in this, and have made them even worse!
News Flash, 1:44. Most of us here are mature enough to realize that observant Jews find just as much joy in the sabbath and holy days as Catholics and Protestants experience in Christmas and Easter. They are not inherently bad in and of themselves. One Jewish friend once remarked, "How did you get from here to all of the badness you experienced from our holy days?" I responded to him in the same way in which I will respond to you. They were not the cause of all the evil and damage. It was all of the added baggage from HWA which did the damage. You can make someone hate something so delightful as ice cream by serving it topped with asparagus, okra, persimmons, tobasco sauce, and cod liver oil. Figuratively, that is exactly what HWA did to the Israelite culture from Torah.
I was not born as a physical Jew. However there are a number of personal identity points which I share with Jews. I grew up keeping all of the rituals from Torah. Unfortunately, I feel as if I also experienced my own personal holocaust at the hands of my WCG parents, who mercilessly practiced the principles of the child beating booklet on us, made us into unwilling pariahs amongst our peers, deprived us of proper medical attention, and caused us to live in a constant state of fear through bogus prophecy. As I grew into an adult, I realized that my parents were simply reflecting the ways in which their church had warped them. What had been done to us was being done to them on a different level by those whom they had accepted as their spritual leaders. These warped things did not come about from the sabbath, holy days, and restricting our diet to clean meats. They came from all that HWA added. He took things that arguably came from God, and used them in a way that made them bad and caused great evil in our lives. The splinter groups have continued in this, and have made them even worse!
1.44 AM
Your comment is so divorced from reality, that it's hard to know how to respond. Your weekly "few hours" plus church literature brainwashed and imprisoned members minds with many lies and irrational mindsets. The ministers were so intrusive in our lives that yes, we effectively did live with them. Just like with a meddling, patronizing relative.
Victims of abuse have a right to their emotional reactions, which you are denying them.
It's because of people like yourself that this blog exists.
Again, you come across like a ivory towered, privileged person in a ACOG.
Anon 9:23 wrote:
I was not born as a physical Jew. However there are a number of personal identity points which I share with Jews. I grew up keeping all of the rituals from Torah. Unfortunately, I feel as if I also experienced my own personal holocaust at the hands of my WCG parents
How would someone with WCG parents grow up "keeping all of the rituals from Torah"? This Anon's statement makes no sense. I'm not aware of any Orthodox Jews who fell for HWA's pick-and-choose Torah-lite approach to creating an Old Covenant Christianity. The handful of Jews who came into WCG came from Conservative or Reform backgrounds that were not well-versed in observance of the whole Torah but preferred to pick and choose for modernity's sake, kind of like what HWA himself did. And even most WCG members came to realize that they weren't keeping "all" of the rituals, just the ones their Apostle endorsed for them.
I'm amazed at the stupidity and ignorance from those writing on this blog.
The Bible is very clear about a woman's role. This wretched, evil, and failing society has attempted to change that in the past 50 years.
The 1950's weren't a "fantasy", as some ignoramus stated. It was real, and families were far more stable and nurturing when 95% of the women were homemakers. (The other 5% were too ugly and repulsive to get a husband).
NOT even worthy of a reply!! DUMB and DUMBER!!
Post a Comment