Category: Traditions Of Men

Kill The Girls And Make Them Die

9/16/2014

First, I will summarize an article published yesterday (9.15.14) by Debra Saunders for Jewish World Review. It seems five of San Francisco’s mayoral supervisors have co-authored a bill to make San Francisco the first city to oppose bans on sex selective abortions. Mayor Ed Lee is expected to sign the measure.

In a phone interview with Supervisor David Chiu, he told Saunders: "There is no evidence that sex-selective abortions are happening in the United States. The legislative bans are based on racial stereotypes. We shouldn't be passing laws that could potentially cause doctors to not provide care or consider turning women into authorities for these laws."

Saunders states: No evidence? In 2011, Sunita Puri — then a University of California, San Francisco medical resident — published a study on sex-selective abortion; 65 Indian immigrant women participated in the study, and 24 said they had sought abortions because they were carrying girls. Common sense tells you it is happening among native and immigrant families — and among all ethnicities.

Puri talked to immigrant women who had aborted girls because their husband or mother-in-law wanted a male heir. Some feared a daughter eventually would grow up to bring shame on the families. Women who delivered girls were subject to verbal and physical abuse.

Journalist Mara Hvistendahl, author of "Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls, and the Consequences of a World Full of Men," estimates that sex-selective abortions have "claimed over 160 million potential women and girls — in Asia alone."

My questions:

Why is it that even women believe having a female child is somehow degrading?

Why does one of the most liberal cities in America, with four of the co authors of this bill opposing sex based abortions, being women, support a law that devalues, dehumanizes, and literally destroys other women?

How is it that you can support the right to abort a child, but become morally incensed over the thought of killing it because its sex doesn’t suit you?

Do you see the problem here? Do you see the inconsistencies? Do you see the double heart?

It is beyond me that this same mentality permeates the hearts and minds of some who claim to believe in the Elohim of the Scriptures, using Him and His word to enforce injustices toward women. The idea that women are somehow less human, less valuable, less important than men breeds the very same poison toward women that Saunders writes about. Shame on us!

PERSPECTIVE

9/15/2014

I spent some time this weekend with my eldest son. Both my boys are pretty amazing, but then I am their mom and absolutely biased! My marriage to their father did not make it. What does Scripture say? Hardness of heart . . . on both our parts. Working through my part has been irritating, frustrating, and absolutely humbling for many years. Would that a level of maturity could have been attained earlier, but sadly, no.

The difficulties of our relationship affected the boys. This weekend, I sat and listened for the first time to some of those issues from my oldest son's perspective. He was in a place to share and I was in a place to receive. Interesting how something looks through another's eyes, emotions, and maturity. I am reminded of the tale of the blind men who are each led to a different part of an elephant and told to describe the part they are able to feel. Each perspective is correct as far as it goes - one says of the tail that an elephant is like a rope or cable, another of the leg that it is like a strong tree trunk, etc.

Part of what the Father is doing with me right now is opening up perspectives. As I continue to 'see' my spiritual roots from YHVH's perspective as opposed to say, mine or tradition's or bad teaching, I pray that my eyes are being opened, my heart being broken, my ears hearing what HE has to say to me about me in order to become truly HIS. Am I able to let go of my limited perspective(s) and make more whole evaluations based on allowing different perspectives to be brought together to create the big picture?

How I behave in any given situation has as many perspectives as people it affects. That is sobering! I have behaved badly. I have also behaved well. Sometimes the good behavior is seen as inappropriate because of perspective and vice versa. The only perspective that matters really, is YHVH's. Humbling myself before Him and others if necessary, by confessing my bad, apologizing and asking forgiveness is His perspective. May I be able to see it more and more, do it more and more, become mature in His ways and leave behind my limited perspective.

Separate But Equal

7/30/2014

Really?

Some may bristle with my comparisons today and that is ok. Bristling means to me that I am about to find out something about myself. Usually, it’s because I am holding onto a need to be right. Once in a great while, a very great while, it is because I am coming up against something that is not good. I pray that today’s post causes a bristling against something that is not good.

Separate but equal. The same but different. You can have input (as a woman), but I (as the man) have the final say. Hmm. I have heard these phrases used in church settings to cut the sharp edge of genderism, to placate a woman who is having problems being casted as second class. Problem is that these terms have been repeatedly used in other situations where people were considered second class.

I will never forget the shockwave that went through me as I watched the movie, The Help, the first time.There is a scene where Hilly (a white affluent female in 1960’s Mississippi) is having an outside toilet installed for her black maid. She says something to the effect: “Now isn’t this nice? Your own bathroom. Separate but equal.”

WoW! I thought. That’s me in church. This is where the bristling may occur. How can I compare women in church to the problem of black suppression? Easy. In my last post (read through it if you haven’t), you will see that church has for the last 2000 years portrayed women as subhuman or at best less than. This is exactly how black people were treated in this country for years. Do you think for a minute that being told they were equal when everything about them had to be separate, when everything about them was seen as inferior, when they were not considered capable of thinking for themselves, made them believe it? Of course not. Human beings are human beings created in the image of YHVH, regardless of their skin color, their eye shape, or their sex.

Domination over another human being is not scriptural. It is part of what we have inherited from the church fathers where women are concerned. It may seem unrelated but when a people group is singled out as needing to be controlled or dominated in the sense that they cannot function without being told what to do or even worse, do not have the right to function without being told what to do (given permission/covering) by the powers that be, we will end up with an abused/hated group of people - all justified with Scripture! The Jews did it to the Samaritans, Hitler did it to the Jews, Muslims do it to the world, and church leaders do it to women - and also men who cannot further their agenda.

Where in Scripture is injustice ever tolerated? Where in Scripture are we told 1/2 of humanity is to be accused, abused, and berated? “ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” Um. I may be missing something here, but does that include men and women? Ahhh, but what about Paul? Yes, what about Paul?

and the band plays on . . . .

If you tell a big enough lie often enough . . .

7/24/2014

I have spent the first few postings on this predicament trying to discover what is meant by the Hebrew term ezer k’negdo. I want to know what it means to me as a woman. What was I brought into creation for?

My struggle is largely the part of me that will not accept that I am nothing more to YHVH than a slave laborer and baby maker; that my purpose must always remain inferior to that of a man. I know there are women out there who say they have not been treated like this. I am happy for you. The traditional church has definitely made some headway with respect to women and how they are viewed and this is good. I am not convinced, however, that the roots of the misogyny tree have been pulled up and cast into the fire. These roots go deep and their fruit is still in evidence today. We are subjected to it by misguided men whom I have watched disrespect women by walking out on them when they speak, using them sexually and when it goes south, blaming the ‘Jezebel’, and banging their chests like Tarzan and yelling, “You will not usurp my authority!”

From the text in Genesis, various other places in Scripture, and from many early to late Jewish writings, the intent and position of the woman is shown to be one of equality and honor. (Clearly, some Jewish writings and prayers do denigrate women, but by and large, that is not the case.) Yeshua, himself was especially attentive to women and related to them as he related to anyone else. Did the culture cause problems for women? Definitely! Was it ok with YHVH for women to be treated as property? No. Is our culture any different? Has context been sacrificed for a doctrine that says men are somehow better than and more capable than women?

What follows is not nice. But it must be brought to light if we are to understand where this way of thinking came from and why it persists today. I will start close to Yeshua’s day and move forward to today. Please, google and discover that I am not making this up. (See author's comments in purple)

160-225 CE: Church Father Tertullian: “You [woman] are the devil’s gateway: you are the unsealer of that (forbidden) tree: you are the first deserter of the divine law: you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not valiant enough to attack. You destroyed so easily God’s image, man. On account of your desert—that is, death—even the Son of God had to die.” So Yeshua, who died for all, died more for women and less for men?

150-215 CE: St. Clement of Alexandria (Greek Father of the Church) : "Every woman should be filled with shame by the thought that she is a woman...the consciousness of their own nature must evoke feelings of shame"

347-407 CE: St. John Chrysostom (Bishop of Constantinople) : "It does not profit a man to marry. For what is a woman but an enemy of friendship, an inescapable punishment, a necessary evil, a natural temptation, a domestic danger, delectable mischief, a fault in nature, painted with beautiful colors?...The whole of her body is nothing less than phlegm, blood, bile, rheum and the fluid of digested food ... If you consider what is stored up behind those lovely eyes, the angle of the nose, the mouth and the cheeks you will agree that the well-proportioned body is only a whitened sepulchre."

347-420 CE: St. Jerome (well known scholar) : "Woman is the root of all evil.

354–430 CE: St. Augustine (Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Hippo) : "I don't see what sort of help woman was created to provide man with, if one excludes procreation. If woman is not given to man for help in bearing children, for what help could she be? To till the earth together? If help were needed for that, man would have been a better help for man. The same goes for comfort in solitude. How much more pleasure is it for life and conversation when two friends live together than when a man and a woman cohabitate?" Augustine’s arrogance basically says that if YHVH were really smart he would not have created woman as his helper.

480 - 524 CE: Boethius (Christian Philosopher) : "Woman is a temple built upon a sewer.”

540-604 CE: Pope Gregory: "Woman is slow in understanding and her unstable and naive mind renders her by way of natural weakness to the necessity of a strong hand in her husband. Her 'use' is two fold; sex and motherhood."

1200-1280 CE: St. Albertus Magnus (Doctor of the Church) : "Woman is less qualified [than man] for moral behavior.
"Woman is a misbegotten man and has a faulty and defective nature in comparison to his"

1225-1274 CE: Thomas Acquinas: "Woman was made only to assist with procreation."

1483-1586 CE: Martin Luther: "Women should remain at home, sit still, keep house and bear and bring up children"

"If a woman grows weary and at last dies from childbearing, it matters not. Let her die from bearing, she is there to do it."

"the wife should stay at home and look after the affairs of the household as one who has been deprived of the ability of administering those affairs that are outside and concern the state…."

"There is no gown or garment that worse becomes a woman than when she would be wise." Martin Luther’s vitriol against women is second only to his anti semitism.

1509 -1564 CE: John Calvin: "All women are born that they may acknowledge themselves as inferior to the male."

1703-1791 CE: John Wesley, founder of Methodist movement (1703-1791), letter to his wife, July 15, 1774: . . .of what importance is your character to mankind, if you was buried just now Or if you had never lived, what loss would it be to the cause of God.

1992 CE: Pat Robertson, Southern Baptist leader, fundraising letter July 1992: The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.

1999 CE: James Fowler, Women in the Church, 1999: The Holiness of God is not evidenced in women when they are brash, brassy, boisterous, brazen, head-strong, strong-willed, loud-mouthed, overly-talkative, having to have the last word, challenging, controlling, manipulative, critical, conceited, arrogant, aggressive, assertive, strident, interruptive, undisciplined, insubordinate, disruptive, dominating, domineering, or clamoring for power. This is character unbecoming to ANY believer, not just women! Rather, women accept God’s holy order and character by being humbly and unobtrusively respectful and receptive in functional subordination to God, church leadership, and husbands.

This is where we are and it is not ok, beloved.

k'negdo = like opposite of him = pure contradiction

7/21/2014

The word "neged" comes from the verbal root "nagad" meaning "to be face to face." This verb is always used in the causative form where it would literally be translated as "to make to be face to face" and also means "to tell." The noun form, "neged" is often used for something that is face to face with something else such as in Genesis 21:16 (min-neged) where Hagar went and sat down "opposite to" her son but a distance away.

neged = in front of; in sight of; opposite to - from nagad; to be conspicuous; tell

Used 370 x. translated as: answered (3), another (1), certainly told (1), confess (1), confront* (1), declare (46), declared (13), declares (6), declaring (4), denounce (2), describe (1), disclosed (1), display (1), explain (3), fully reported (1), give evidence (1), indeed tell (1), inform (3), informed (1), informs (2), know (1), known (1), made known (4), make...known (1), messenger (2), related (2), remind (1), report (2), reported (10), reported* (1), show (2), shown (2), surely report (1), surely tell (1), tell (101), telling (2), tells (3), told (131), told plainly (1), uttered (1).

This root - nun/gimel/dalet - relays two nuances that are ignored in the traditional church view of the woman. First, the woman is brought out of the man to face him, to be in front of him in a way that he cannot dismiss, one with equal footing, and second to denote one who speaks, tells, declares, explains, informs.

The prefix "ke" in the word “k'negdo" means like, as, corresponding to, and the suffix "o" means "of him." Putting all of this together, ezer k'negdo is translated literally: "a helper like one opposite of him."

Sorry to seem to be beating this horse, but let's look again at "very good" becoming "not good". Remember, the Adam (humankind) had been created in the image of YHVH and something happened that made it necessary to separate the single entity of the Adam into the manifestations of man and woman or ezer k'negdo as defined above.

Question: Was it possible that Adam was shutting out this part of him and in order for it to be fully realized, YHVH had to bring it out to face him, to make it impossible for him to ignore? Once again, this is not about sex as much as it is about relationship.

Let's say for a minute that they had to be separated to fulfill the mandate to procreate, which is one of the teachings used to put woman in her place. Where in the text does it say this? Yes, they are commanded to be fruitful and multiply, but that is not the stated FUNCTION as defined by the term ezer k'negdo. She is brought out for the role of ezer k'negdo. The fact that she is physiologically capable of bearing children is a side issue at this point. YHVH did not say, "I will make you a child bearer", He said, "I will make you someone corresponding to, yet opposite, with ability to inform."

Please, don't take this to mean I am against women bearing children. I think this is one of the most amazing things about being woman. No man could ever know the conflicting emotions of having another human being growing inside you, the pain of birthing and the wonder of seeing the fruit of your womb the first time! BUT!!!! The life and purpose of woman cannot be summed up in the ability to bear children. I am not trying to discount the different aspects of womanhood, I am simply trying to get back to the original intent (the Truth) of what YHVH had in mind when He separated the woman out of the man. And that means seeing what He said and not what years of misinterpretation make it mean.

Before we move out into Genesis three, I will share a little of where the idea that woman is subordinate came from. Also look at the difference between subordination and submission.

until next time . . .

EZER

7/17/2014

EZER
Maybe I am asking the wrong question, but it is a question I would like answered. In light of the textual meaning of ezer k'negdo, it seems an entirely appropriate question. It may not be a question addressed in the commentaries and that is ok. It is my question and maybe there is an answer.

What has happened to move “very good” to “not good”? Woman has not been separated from the adam (human) at this time. What has Adam done or not done that makes it “not good” for him to be alone/unseparated? To make it necessary for him to have an ezer-kenegdo = a helper corresponding to as well as opposite or opposed to him?

Creation at this point in time was not in self destruction mode, and YHVH changes not, so what brought about this change from very good to not good? To have dominion over all the earth is Adam’s mandate. That includes what is already in existence as sin as well as nachash (literally: shining one - translated into English as serpent.). What was nachash doing in the garden? Was this something Adam was supposed to have taken care of and didn’t, thereby bringing “not good” into the mix? Is it possible he is ignoring the part of him that would address this problem? Is this why the separation has to happen? This would certainly support the function defined for woman as ezer kenegdo - we will start with ezer.

ezer comes from the root azar (St. 5826/TWOT 1598) which initially meant to surround or encompass and defend. It shows up mostly in military situations. In Ez. 30:8 we see this verb used in connection with soldiers rushing to aid each other during battle. The main usage occurs where God is doing the helping as in 2 Chron. 12:18.

These are the listed actions that are ezer. The word implies one who is much capable or who has superior military strength and can also be trusted in the same way YHVH is trusted. The Scriptural sense of ezer is a fellow warrior, someone you need to help insure your survival, a comrade in arms, a trusted partner. The separated man and woman become a unique partnership of counterbalances that are at the same time individual entities and one flesh. The word ezer is used 21 times in the Tenach. 2 times it is used in Genesis in relation to the first woman. 3 times it is used in a military context and 16 times it is used of God. In the last two instances, the help discussed is vital and powerful. Of course, we make the connection of these attributes with YHVH when HE is described as ezer, but have not rightly applied the same to the woman. WHY?

If first usage determines the way a word is used in following passages and ezer is defined as a subordinate helper to the man when first used in Genesis, then this meaning would have to hold true for the later places this word is used of YHVH as helper. Is there anyone who holds to the doctrine of subservience of the woman who would agree that YHVH in the role of helper to man is subservient to man? There are just too many problems with this way of thinking for me to see it as viable.

coming soon - k'negdo

CONUNDRUM

7/3/2014

This post is the first of several looking at the doctrine of female submission. I have been told I am a glutton for punishment. It's probably true, otherwise, why would I be taking on this subject? I am going to try, to the best of my ability, to look at what Scripture says, and not what I have been told and/or taught it says. Please, bear with me. I do not claim to have it all figured out, but I do know from personal experience that there are enough problems and contradictions with this way of thinking to warrant a serious re-thinking of it. Let’s try real hard not to impose post creation paradigms to this. Just for the sake of humoring me, let’s pretend that all we have is what we are told in the first two chapters of Genesis. Here we go . . .

During the week of creation, YHVH separated. He separated the water from the water, the water from the land, and the light from the dark. YHVH finishes His creation work and pronounces it “very good.” He gave instruction to the Adam to cultivate the land, and to keep (shamar - to watch, preserve and guard over) the garden, and to not eat of a specific tree. In Gen 2:18 YHVH says, “It is not good for the Adam (humankind) to be alone.” What is meant by this? He was not “alone”. Adam had one-on-one intimate contact with YHVH. Adam had relationship with the Creator and they fellowshipped together. This word (alone) in the Hebrew is from the root 'bad' and means separation; a part. Hmmm. Interesting.

What most seem to dismiss is that the Adam was man/woman unseparated (Gen. 2:23). The “man/woman” became man and woman only when they were separated. Did YHVH make a mistake in creating one being with both attributes? The text says He created this being “in our image.” Based on this, what can we understand? The Adam (complete humankind) was created in the image of YHVH and included in the Adam was the possibility of separating the Adam into different manifestations - man and woman. I believe it can be logically observed from the text that when YHVH said it is not good for the Adam to be alone that it could also mean - it is not good for the Adam to be unseparated.

Just as YHVH has different manifestations in his Echad (oneness), he created the man in this likeness. The different manifestations of YHVH include His physical manifestation in Yeshua and the manifestation of His Ruach (Spirit) which dwells within His children. This is NOT three gods in one, it is One God with different manifestations.* I believe that at the time of the separating of the man/woman, there was a prophetic inkling of the possibility of YHVH separating Himself into humankind as The Messiah and a short time later as a way of putting His Spirit within us.

Did the separating make one manifestation less than the other? Are not both manifestations still the Image of YHVH? The idea of creation establishing a hierarchical order for men and women simply cannot be supported if we believe that Adam, literally humankind, inclusive of man and woman, was created in YHVH’s image. Either they both are the image of YHVH and as such equal bearers of that image or YHVH lied.

More to come . . .

*Semantics. Could be, but one of the things I am coming to terms with is the way language is used and abused. The three gods/persons-in-one concept is not Scriptural in relation to YHVH.

TRUTH or CONSEQUENCES

6/27/2014

I think I have mentioned this before. I am a live-in caregiver for my aunt, my dad’s sister. I love her dearly, but anyone who has done this job knows it comes with many challenges. A group of ladies meet here every friday for “bible study”. This is actually a misnomer as we do not actually study the bible. We get books and read them chapter by chapter and gather from week to week to discuss the material in the books.

We are presently reading Philip Yancy’s The Jesus You Never Knew. Throughout my time with my aunt, I have participated in these studies and have formed some interesting friendships with these lovely ladies. I appreciate that the ladies who come allow me to interject an ‘Hebraic’ understanding and yet I do not see that it has made much of an impact.

Case in point is the chapter we went through today. Chapter 9 titled: Death: the final week, dealing with the week just preceding Yeshua’s death on the stake. Sometimes, it is such a struggle. I mean the writing is from a totally ‘christian’ perspective without so much as a shred of context that has anything to do with why or how the events unfolded as they did.

There are speculation and opinion and statements made that cram the events into a “christian” paradigm which did not exist until the 4th century. Until that time followers of Yeshua were known as followers of The Way - a sect of Judaism that was recognized as Judaism. Now, there were leaders who didn’t like The Way, but never was there a question that those who believed that Yeshua was their Messiah were anything but Jewish in their practice and belief. Similarly today, we have Baptists and Methodists and Pentecostals, and although they have differences in the way they practice their belief, not one of these groups would state that the others were not christian.

I commented that the waving of palm branches at the triumphal entry into Jerusalem was not, nor has it ever been a Pesach tradition. It was customarily done at the Feast of Tabernacles and is laid out in Lev. 23:40. The people waving branches just before Yeshua’s death were under the impression that the kingdom of YHVH was being ushered in and Yeshua was the Messiah/King/Anointed One who was to rule; the time when YHVH would once again “tabernacle” among His people, a thoroughly “Jewish” concept!

Uncomfortable silence. Furtive glances back and forth. Here she goes again. One of the women said she did not know this and thought it was interesting. One wondered why the author would come from any other perspective than a christian one since he was a christian writing to christians. I open my mouth again. Why would you not want to see these events in the light of their original context instead of trying to force it into a paradigm established three to four hundred years after the fact?!?!

All the doors are shut, now. You can just hear the wheels turning - I like it the way I like it and am NOT going to listen to this. I am familiar with this place. I know that the Father uses me in a way that provides people with an opportunity to do the right thing.

Years ago, I was led to put together a challenge to a large Denver area school district. It dealt with the psychological teaching methods being used which had been proven to be damaging to the adults subjected to them let alone foisting them onto unsuspecting children. In the car on my way to the hearing, I heard the Ruach say, “This isn’t going to change anything.” In my calm and gentle way - NOT - I pounded on the steering wheel and asked rather rudely, “Then what am I doing it for?” The answer I got was to forever change the issue I had with the way Abba has chosen to use me. He said, “Because they will not ever be able to say again - I didn’t know.” From this point forward, they are not being led down the proverbial primrose path without knowledge. They now know that what they are doing is causing damage and they will be held accountable for their participation, if not by the “law”, most certainly by YHVH. The end result of this encounter was a letter from the district stating that they understood the potential risks but were not going to change anything because what they were doing was not against the law.

I will continue to allow the Father to speak through me, even though it means uncomfortable silences and eye rolling and even rejection. I remember how hard it was to come to terms with the fact that a lot of what I believed was a lie, but it never occurred to me to reject Truth to stay in the lie. This is what I struggle with: when the agenda of a school district is more important than the children’s lives, when your comfort level in what you currently believe is more important than the Truth. . .

the new tower of babel in reverse

6/23/2014

DECONSTRUCTION:

A linguistic theory that applies to techniques for reading texts developed by Jacques Derrida, Paul de Man, and others; these techniques in turn are connected to a set of philosophical claims about language and meaning. The term has been used to describe what happens when texts are allowed to mean whatever a person wants them to mean. That is to say that a word or phrase can have as many definitions as the number of people reading it, thus making the word or phrase meaning-less.

We have seen what culture does to language in our lifetime. Certain terms have morphed into something not remotely resembling their original intent. A few days ago, I visited a website and scrolled down to read some comments. Now, I do not do this very often as it tends to make me cranky, and I suppose this case turned out to be pretty normal, as far as the crankiness goes, because here I am blogging about it!

apostasy: wikipedia: from the Greek word apostasia ("ἀποστασία") meaning defection, departure, revolt or rebellion. It has been described as "a willful falling away from, or rebellion against. "Apostasy is a theological category describing those who have voluntarily and consciously abandoned their faith in the God of the covenant, who manifests himself most completely in Jesus Christ."[3] Another way of saying this is: falling away from the Truth.

The posted comment stated: Apostasy is the mass rejection of christianity. Maybe I am nitpicking, but I think the things we say, how we say them, and the reasons we say them are critical. The power of life and death is in the tongue. Too many Scriptures dealing with this to list. The message is clear. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

The definition of apostasy is not mass rejection of christianity. It is the falling away from the Truth. In order to fall away from the Truth, you have to have known it. "christianity" is a religion. You can be a “christian” and have a relationship with the One True Living God, but you can also be a "christian" and not have one. Yeshua was not a christian and neither was Peter, John or Paul. As Believers in Messiah, we are the body of Messiah. It is not, nor has it ever been the world/enemy against christians. It is about The Lie masquerading as Truth to deceive if it were possible, even the elect, the body of Messiah.

The Bridge or the River

5/17/2014

A while back, the under shepherd of our little congregation used this picture to emphasize a point he was making. I have been thinking about it ever since. Look at it carefully. It is a picture of a bridge and river. It is real and has not been photoshopped.

In 1998 Hurricane Mitch ravaged Central America. 5,600 people died in the storm and more than 12,300 were injured. Over 150 bridges in Honduras were destroyed but the Choluteca Bridge was engineered and constructed so well it survived intact. The Japanese company that built the Choluteca Bridge was so proud of their workmanship they put a photo of the bridge on their company brochure. The storm was so severe it actually shifted the river, which now flows around the bridge instead of under it. It is a very sturdy bridge to nowhere, without any useful function. A ton of applications could be made, but I will go the way I am led.

For years, I have studied to determine my purpose and function as a woman of YHVH according to Scripture. It is not meant to be disrespectful, although to some it seems that way. I am not trying to be a feminist, although I am often labeled so. It is not my intent to argue or convince anyone. I just want to know the truth. Am I, as a woman of Yah, bound to interpretation of Scripture that cannot sustain itself? Is the call on my life any less important than that of a man? And yet . . . I have often been confined to certain spheres of influence. I don’t mind these at all, but to say that because I am a woman I cannot exercise my influence beyond a specific point is unscriptural, unsupported from Jewish history, and doesn’t fit with Yeshua’s ministry. Contradictions within the very passages used to support this doctrine abound and must be reconciled for YHVH is not the author of confusion.

All ancient literature is read with an understanding of its original context, language, and type. The Scriptures must be read this way as well, if we are to get any kind of understanding of what it is trying to tell us. Lifting sentences or passages out of their defining context to support what it does not say is to violate the intent of the author - in this case - YHVH. Scripture must be read with an understanding of when it was written and what it was addressing for that time if we are to correctly apply it to our lives today.

This is an ongoing issue for me. I will continue to elaborate as I am led and hopefully bring some light into a situation that causes frustration for not only women, but men as well. Will we be the unmoving bridge of doctrine and tenets of faith with limited function as proscribed by tradition OR will we be the River of Life that flows unimpeded according to the will of the Father as He established in His word?