Monday, January 14, 2019

Mother Strong Bond of the Family: Father Physical Strenth of the Home

 The written language of Hebrew (Paleo-Hebrew) is incorrectly interpreted and referenced [by many] to prove that patriarchy is divinely mandated by God and is  not a result of The Fall.

One basis for this claim, as any student of ancient Hebrew quickly learns, is that many consider Hebrew to be a pure language--the original language spoken by the world population before the languages were confused at Babel. Such a claim is spurious at best. But is nevertheless used to refute the argument that patriarchy influenced the evolution of the Hebrew language (because in many ways, Hebrew, like all languages, is a patriocentric/androcentric (male-centered) language.


Patriocentric scholars often find acceptance of their views because few "regular folks" feel qualified to challenge the experts. But, it does not take much digging to expose the errors in complementarian reasoning and scholarship, errors which are bottle-fed, spoon-fed, force-fed, and literally crammed down the throats of God's people from cradle to grave.

This is wrong. And it is time to stand up to such scholars and expose their "wisdom" for the foolishness it is.

A good place to put the boot to patriarchal reasoning is at the beginning of the Hebrew alphabet, where the Paleo-Hebrew letter "A" was symbolized by an ox, which represented "strength." This was applied to both parents in the first commandment that came with a promise--the one about honoring both mother and father. The first letter in the spelling for both parents [in the Paleo-Hebrew] is the ox.

Both parents represent strength.

The command to honor both parents equally is not an either/or proposition, and elevating one over the other has resulted in weakening and warping the family unit and the polarization of women--pitting women against women as well as men against women.

This must stop.

A Lesson in Hebrew


In ancient Hebrew (Paleo-Hebrew), the first letter of the alphabet is the symbol for the ox, which represents strength. All things being equal, in the Paleo-Hebrew, the first letters of the words mother and father begin with the symbol of the ox--symbolizing the letter "A" (for AB [father] and AM/EM [mother]). Both parents, as symbolized by the ox, are strong. Both are the strength of something. 

The Paleo-Hebrew letters that form the word "Ab," [Father] are Aleph and Bet "אָב," which literally translate as, "Strong house" or strength of the house.

Complementarian scholars point to this as iron-clad proof of God-ordained male headship over women.

This writer agrees that "Strength of the House," is a great translation of these two letters...and they are [or should be] literally true... but in the physical sense only. Might does not make right, and physical strength does not denote God ordained leadership.

Physical protector? We certainly hope so, as all the world, throughout all history, has experienced the havoc produced by an unrestrained sense of entitlement coupled with superior physical strength. God has called his men to submit their strength to him in humility, love, and the task of renewing their minds through his Word, which foretold the sin of dominance [especially over physically weaker women] that would be a horrific consequence of The Fall. The sin of dominance is not a blessing or promotion to men but rather part of the overall curse sin introduced into a perfect creation.

MIGHT does not make RIGHT

 
 The Paleo-Hebrew letters, Aleph and Mem "אֵם") form the word "AM/EM" for "Mother." They literally translate as "Strong Water" (bond or glue), meaning the strong bond of the family. The symbol of the the ox (meaning "strength") applies to mothers as well as fathers.

He is the strength of the house and she is the glue of the family.

Many scholars disregard the strength of the mother while emphasizing the strength of the father. This has unduly influenced Christians to regulate the mother to a lesser position in the Christian family. Whether the father lives in the home or not, holding families together  with a strong, loving, emotional bond is every-bit as important as keeping the family together by protecting them physically. When either parent is missing from the home, the entire family can suffer catastrophically.


Which is more important, "אָב", the strength of the home or, "אֵם", the strong bond of the family? Without both, everyone suffers. Likewise, when, "אָב", the Strength of the Home marginalizes the importance of, "אֵם", and subjugates the Strong Bond of the Family, everyone suffers. 

This article addresses intrinsic, God-given, strengths and gifts--not roles. Roles are artificial mandates, whereas gifts are bestowed by God. Facts are facts. Men generally have more physical strength than women, and women are generally more empathetic and emotionally responsive than men--without such, family bonding would be difficult if not impossible. Of course there are exceptions to every rule. There are physically strong and capable women as well as incredibly nurturing and empathetic men.

So, how much is nature and how much is nurture? Who knows? Everyone, regardless of sex, is influenced by both, but to deny that men in greater numbers than women gravitate towards and excel in pursuits of physical strength and that women in greater numbers than men gravitate towards and excel in pursuit of relationship and communication, would be ignoring not only the obvious but statistics as well.

Women and men are not the same, but they are equal counterparts. And nowhere in scripture do we read of mandated restrictive roles.

Nature and nurture arguments aside (I devote an entire chapter on this in my book),  the Paleo-Hebrew symbols for Mother and Father, show that it takes a functionally equal family partnership between the physical Strength of the Home and the emotional Bond of the Family to create and maintain a loving and safe environment that is optimal for raising children. This writer was a stay-at-home-mom--by choice--not by mandate. There is no such biblical mandate for women, and mothers are the glue of the family whether they hold jobs outside the home or not. It is wrong to criticize or condemn working mothers.

 Positioned side-by-side, Ab and Am/pronounced Em [as portrayed in the Paleo-Hebrew] creates a perfect picture of equality.

Physical strength, is not a "role." It is simply  a physical fact. Men possess physical strength in greater numbers than women. The strength to Bind people together in their hearts as family, is not a "role" either. It is a God-given gift--which women tend to possess in greater numbers than men.

There is no place in Christian lives for acting  out "roles," unless one is playing a role in a movie, TV, or stage production. In God, we live and move and have our beings...not live and move and play our roles

Playing roles is affected and forced. Through playing "roles," love is warped and morphed by unbiblical teachings about authority and submission into a mere [sometimes bizarre and dangerous] caricature of what it should be. If we are unsure about what love should look like, read 1 Corinthians chapter 13, or just take Jesus' advice about loving others as ourselves. That was his only rule.

It screams to be said, at this point, that men who would be God (CBMW), view women as innately hostile, controlling, and unloving. This is the complementarian "Evil Woman" doctrine first posited by Susan T. Foh in her 1975 book, What is a Woman's Desire?. According to Foh's teaching, women must be strictly and strongly kept under subjection (controlled) or the "Amazon warrior" in them will rise up, prevail, and destroy all life as we know it. Foh's view is the one promoted on the CBMW website and is part of the Danver's Statement that began the complementarian movement in 1987.

Yikes! Such strength ascribed to weak, foolish woman. She must be a fearful creature indeed.

Back to Ab and Am/Em, If a Hebrew instructor is complementarian, one of the first things his students learn is that the word for "father," [composed of two letters that mean strength of the home] translates into leader of the home. This is incorrect of course, and it is rarely if ever pointed out that the Hebrew letters forming the word, mother are a perfect parallel to those that form the word for father. Mothers and fathers are equal counter-parts, and we see that portrayed so beautifully in the strength of the ox  which is portrayed in the first letters of the words for both mother and father.

Bible usage and  mistranslation of  "אֵם" (Am/Em mother)
The word "אֵם" (Am/Em), is consistently translated in our English Bibles as "mother," except for one verse, where it is deliberately mistranslated. We find that in Ezekiel 21:21, where the word, mother, is translated as "parting."

What a radical departure from common usage.

Likely, this was done because the word, mother [in Ezekiel 21:21], is used in close association with the word, "head," [often associated with "leader"]. Now, that simply could not be tolerated--even if the verse is just describing the head (parting or "mother") of two ways. Sadly, most English Bibles are in agreement with the mistranslation of this verse and read: "...for the king of Babylon stood at the parting [mother] H517 of the way, at the head of the two ways...."

The decision, on the part of translators, to change the word mother to "parting," can only be ascribed to misogyny--the inordinate hatred and fear of women, because the verse correctly reads, "For the King of Babylon stood at the mother of the way, at the head of two ways..."

Can't have a mother described as a head of anything. That simply will not do. Correctly translating Ezekiel 21:21, would have been far too threatening to fragile egos.

Isn't it good to know that Paleo-Hebrew [when correctly translated] proves that absolute and functional equality is divinely mandated by God--and not roles?

Scholars who deliberately load the language against women, are not above giving false definitions and interpretations to the biblical words Christians base their faith upon. Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God, and men who would be God, would change HIS Words and stoop even to stealing our faith. 

No comments:

Post a Comment