29 September 2022
Surely you knew someone would ask what prerogatives women had in the Bible times. I'll outline it. There are two primary issues: the house and the children. Naturally, life support was the whole point.
For the nomads in tents, the woman was in charge of putting up the tent, usually chose and prepared the site, etc. If they had servants, she would supervise. She remained in charge of the whole facility. For more sedentary living, a man built the house for his woman. He didn't need one if he wasn't married, and built one only when he was betrothed. It wasn't hers, per se, but it was for her, and she ran the place. Of course, in tribal feudal settings, the women in an extended family household all worked together under some kind of matriarch.
Children were quite literally the woman's property for the first decade of life. Until weaning, the child was totally hers. The husband may or may not get very involved with the children, depending on things like his business and whether he was inclined to do so. Women typically kept children away from the men to protect the male prerogatives. However, at around age 9, the child became a part of the wider community. At age 12, boys were apprenticed to men to learn their adult profession. Girls began preparing for marriage and typically were paired off just a few years later.
No woman would be caught addressing socially any male in public who wasn't part of her extended family, or was strongly connected to that family. However, Solomon's social promotion of his mother was not out of line. There was a strong women's community working behind the scenes, and Bathsheba was the matriarch in control of the palace facilities. In the New Testament, since churches were organized like extended family households, women who served (deaconesses) held a similar position, coordinating life support within the church and between churches, when appropriate.
A woman's input was critical to male decision-making on things not relegated to her management. However, men were taught to regard a woman's input in context. She would naturally be more concerned with outcomes for the children and feathering the nest. So, men would take that into account and still have to decide how much that mattered.
Over at Jack's blog, you'll find comments from a certain "deti" that often include a warning I must support: In our current American context in particular, and in western societies in general, it is exceedingly rare to find a woman these days who would embrace the biblical image of womanhood (much less would she tolerate the biblical image of manhood). Broadly speaking, you should simply plan on being celibate if you are a real Covenant man. God can still do miracles, and such women do exist, and some can be moved there with sufficient work. Just don't count on it.
Mainstream churches in general, particularly the leadership, remain hostile to this vision of biblical marriage. I'm not saying marriages don't happen, but this strong Covenant adherence is simply not part of their teaching. Thus, the vast majority of church girls have no idea what the Bible says about them, and nobody in their lives encourages them to take that path. Indeed, almost everyone is encouraging quite the opposite.
Yes, I'm saying that women are the main problem. They've been placed on the pedestal, given protection for every whim, and their heads filled with garbage culture and abominable mythology. God help us.
This document is public domain; spread the message.