Zipporah, Metallest of Mothers, or, "Doing the Right Thing"

Source

   

     Hello, and welcome back to Women of the Bible. Today, we'll be talking about Zipporah. Zipporah, like many women in the Bible, is only included because of who she was married to. In this case, Moses. However, unlike other women (*cough, cough, Sarah*), Zipporah distinguishes herself in her own way. She does something important--the right thing.
     For starters, Zipporah is a little unique in the "wives of the Bible" sense. First off, she's a foreigner. Her family is from Midian, and her father is the high priest there (Exodus 2:15-16). While this sounds like a Romeo and Juliet type scenario, "chosen one of Israel falls for pagan priest's daughter", it's anything but. Midian, the people, were descended from Abraham, just like the Israelites. Midian was Abraham's  son by his second wife, Keturah, after Sarah died (Gen 25:1-4). As such, the Midians were close in religion to the Israelites. She is a foreigner, but she's not so much a foreigner that Moses shouldn't marry her.

Pictured: early eHarmony

     Zipporah met Moses at a well (a rather common meeting place for future spouses in ancient Israel....). He was taking a rest from his flight from Egypt and stepped in when he saw some shepherds giving Zipporah and her sisters hassle. He chases the shepherds away and helps Zipporah and co. water their sheep. Jethro, Zipporah's dad, invites Moses to stay for awhile, and Zipporah and Moses marry and have a son, Gershom. (Exodus 2:15-22). After this, Moses sets out to win son-in-law of the year award by working with Jethro's family until he gets his calling to go back to Egypt.
     Zipporah's part comes when she, Moses, and their sons are on their way back to Egypt to free the Israelites from the Egyptians (Exodus 4). It all goes a bit sideways in verse 24; the family is staying at an inn somewhere, and God shows up and attempts to murder one of the males in the party; "And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him."
     This bit is confusing due to a couple reasons. 1) It's never explicitly stated why God is on the warpath. 2) It's not explicitly stated which male he wants to kill. 3) There is no explicit solution, though the seeming solution is a bit odd. It could be interpreted that God wished to kill Moses, but it could also be said God wanted to kill one of his sons.

(source)

     In any case, the seeming solution is this; without missing a beat, Zipporah picked up a rock and circumcised their son, threw the foreskin at Moses' feet and scolded him. After that, God left them alone. (4:25-26). The implication of this solution is that, because of Moses' neglect of getting his son circumcised, God was going to punish him either with his own death, or with the death of his son. But why is circumcision such a big deal? It is part of the law, but the law was not given until after Moses and the Israelites were out of Egypt. The importance comes from Abraham. As covered by Genesis 17, God made a covenant--a promise--with Abraham. The upsides for Abraham were many. He would be the father of many nations, he would receive a new, meaningful name, the land of Canaan would forever be the possession of Abraham and his descendants. This is also when Sarah was given her new name and the promise of bearing a line of kings. The promise, in which YHWH promises the be the God of Abraham's descendants forever, has only one requirement, (Gen 17:9-14):

"As for you, you must keep my covenant, you and your descendants after you for the generations to come. This is my covenant with you and your descendants after you, the covenant you are to keep: Every male among you shall be circumcised.You are to undergo circumcision, and it will be the sign of the covenant between me and you. For the generations to come every male among you who is eight days old must be circumcised, including those born in your household or bought with money from a foreigner—those who are not your offspring. Whether born in your household or bought with your money, they must be circumcised. My covenant in your flesh is to be an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male, who has not been circumcised in the flesh, will be cut off from his people; he has broken my covenant."

     To sum up, the promise only applies if Abraham and his descendants keep their side of the bargain; all males must be circumcised when they are 8 days old, included adopted kids. No circumcision equals no promise. No protection. No birthright. Suffice to say, it's a big deal. For whatever reason, Moses did not circumcise his son. He doomed his son to a life cut off from the people and covenant of God. Perhaps it was because he was raised as an Egyptian and did not think it was important. Maybe it slipped his mind. His reasons don't matter, because, ultimately, the result is the same--a death sentence. Notice who the covenant was made about and concerning; Abraham concerning his male descendants. Circumcision is a male responsibility. It is a matter of fatherhood and heritage. Moses shirked his duty. 

     However, thanks to Zipporah, his foreigner wife, the day was saved. Zipporah knew enough to solve the problem; immediately, she circumcised her son. She says to Moses, "Surely a bloody husband art thou to me" after throwing the foreskin at his feet. The implication here is that Moses was unwilling to do what should have been done; a life was on the line, and still, he would not act. Zipporah knew what should be done and did it. Perhaps, being descended from Abraham and daughter of a priest, she saw the importance of circumcision when her Egyptian-raised husband did not. 

     Regardless, as a mom, she's pretty metal; she performed a successful surgery on her son under immense pressure with a stinkin' rock. 

Pictured, Zipporah and son (link)

The lesson to be learned from her story is this: anyone can act to save a life. If you know something is wrong, fix it before it becomes a big deal. Another lesson is this; a woman is just as responsible for doing the right thing as her husband is. As long as the right thing gets done, it doesn't matter by whom.

   
     

Sarah, Wife of Abraham: Matriarch?

Hello again!
It's been a bit of a break, but I'm happy to be back, and I hope you are, too. Today marks the kick-off of a new series, Women of the Bible. Now, this is a rather typical writing topic, especially for a young, married, religious woman. However, I hope to bring something new to the table. For starters, I'll be writing about these ladies from an Israelite standpoint, which will add another layer to what we already know. Also, unlike most writings I've read on the topic, I don't intend to sugarcoat, ignore, or minimize things in the name of having a "role model". With that being said, let's get into Sarah! [Disclaimer: It's about to get a little sarcastic and a little crude. There's a lot of sexual shenanigans going on in the story of Sarah, and I cover and critique it in this article.]

     Sarah is a bit of an interesting lady. She's commonly cited as the Matriarch of the Christian/Jewish/Israelite religion(s) because of her relationship to Abraham. Now, this is a theme we're going to run into a lot with this Bible women series; most of the women are only important because of their relationship to someone else rather than a skill or trait they themselves possess. I believe Sarah fits into this category.

     For her full story, check out Genesis 11:29-24. I'm not interested in a huge summary, but we can paint it in broad strokes. In no particular order: Sarah was originally named Sarai, and she was married to a fellow named Abram, who was also her brother (more on that later). Abram was picked by YHWH to be the progenitor of his people, the future Israelites. Sarah, however, was barren. Along their travels, YHWH gave Sarah and Abraham their new names. Abraham gave Sarah to two different men as a sex slave. He got her back. They continued to not have children. Sarah gave Abraham her servant as a sex slave. Abraham had a kid with said slave. Sarah got jealous and had the servant and her kid banished. Then, after laughing at God's promise and lying about it, she had a son, Isaac. Abraham tried to sacrifice Isaac, but was stopped by God. She lived to be 127 and died. Well hmmm. Her life sounds a lot more exciting when you put it like that.
   
     For the record, I've never liked Sarah. I never saw what was so good about her or what example she was supposed to be for us. She's a brother-marrying, willing-to-commit-adultery-at-the-behest-of-said-brother, jealous, manipulative, spiteful and faithless woman. More than an "example", I believe her life is an anti-example. An example of how things can go wrong. Let's dive into it.

Incest
     We'll start with the incest accusations, since I'm sure that's the most surprising thing in the above list. Alright, so, Abraham was the son of a man named Terah (Genesis 11:27). A few verses later, Sarai is introduced simply as Abram's wife (11:31). However, when you read the whole story close enough, something interesting emerges. As mentioned above, Abraham gave Sarah up to two different men during their lives together. Both men were rules--a Pharaoh and a King, respectively--and both times, Abraham was afraid he would be killed if he did not give Sarah to them. Both times, to avoid inciting these men, Sarah was identified as Abraham's sister. Now, when I was a Christian child, I was always told this was a clever ruse on the part of Abraham. However, it's an odd lie to tell twice. Probably because it wasn't a lie at all. Sarah was Abraham's sister. In Genesis 20, Abraham was pulling ye olde bait-and-switch again with Sarah and the King Abimelech. After finding out the truth, Abimelech confronts Abraham. Abraham defends himself in 20:11-12 (emphasis mine), "Because I thought, surely the fear of God is not in this place; and they will slay me for my wife's sake. And yet, indeed she is my sister; she is the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and she became my wife." Straight from the horse's mouth; the two share a father; therefore, they are half siblings.
     From an Israelite standpoint, that relationship is wrong. The Law clearly states that half-sibling incest is a no-no. From Leviticus 18:9, "The nakedness of thy sister, the daughter of thy father, or daughter of thy mother, whether she be born at home, or born abroad, even  their nakedness thou shalt not uncover." No wiggle room there. The relationship between Sarah and Abraham was not a good one. The only saving grace they have is that the Law had not been laid down yet. If the two had been born at a later date, they would have been "cast out" as "abominations"--cut off from their people (Lev. 28-29).

Analysis
     Though they can hardly be blamed for doing something they didn't know was wrong, the Law is an eternal thing. A punishment would not be right, but at the same time, I think the Law has de jure as well as de facto punishments. I think a lot of the problems between Sarah and Abraham started with their sibling relationship. It's a sort of built-in punishment of sorts. More below.

"Here ya go, one bonafide sister, as promised."

Sex Slavery/"Why Women Shouldn't Do Everything Their Husbands Say"
     Second accusation; Abraham gave Sarah up to sex slavery on two different accounts. The first time was in Egypt. Abraham had moved his household south due to a famine (Gen. 12:10). As they travel, Abraham starts to get paranoid. He realizes Sarah is beautiful, and he fears the Egyptians will kill him in order to possess Sarah (12:11-12). So, he begs Sarah to say she is his sister rather than his wife in order to save him. Sarah complies (12:13). They settle down, and word of Sarah's beauty spreads. Soon enough, the servants of Pharaoh come to fetch her. In exchange, Pharaoh gives Abraham "sheep, oxen, he asses, menservants, maidservants, she asses, and camels" (12:16). Luckily for both Sarah and Abraham, God struck Pharaoh's house with plagues until he realized something was up and discovered Sarah was Abraham's wife. Sarah was returned, and she and Abraham were kicked out of Egypt (12:17-20).
    The second time was some years later. Apparently, Sarah was still a foxy lady, and Abimelech, the king of Gerar, took Sarah. Abraham, in the meanwhile, was sitting somewhere in the background, assuring everyone that she was his sister (Gen. 20:2). Luckily, once again, God steps in, and gives Abimelech a frightening dream that reveals the truth before Abimelech actually had sex with her (20:4-6). Abimelech returns Sarah to Abraham and gives Abraham some presents.

If you look really close, you can see the familial resemblance.

Analysis
     Revisiting what I said above about de facto punishment, let's look at this. Not once, but twice, Abraham gives Sarah to another man. Why? To save his own skin. Not even to save his own skin, actually, but because he was afraid for his own skin.  To save himself, he was willing to give up his wife (/sister) to adultery, rape, and whatever else these kings thought up. I bring up their double relationship again for a reason. Not only did he have responsibility to Sarah as his wife; she was his sister, too. What if it had gone off? He gave her to Pharaoh and got goods in exchange, went home, and Terah asks, "uh, hey, where's Sarah?" "Uh, well. You know. I gave her to the Pharaoh. To be his concubine. He gave me some really cool stuff in exchange, though! Check out them camels!" ........let that thought stew for a minute. He did not protest, did not fight, and did not try to find another way. Those are not the actions of a holy man; they are the actions of a weak and cowardly man. He was not being a good husband or brother.
     But! We're not here to learn about Abraham; we're here to learn about Sarah! Yes. Let's look at this again. Abraham asks her to claim sisterhood to him in both Egypt and Gerar. He explains to her the reason, "I don't want to die, so say you're my sister so (they'll just rape you) and leave me alone". And she went along with it. "But!" you may cry, "God had their backs! It worked out alright in the end, didn't it?!". Yeah, He had their backs--because He'd previously promised them their future. He's not going to cut out of the bargain because Abraham is a doofus. And, the way He dealt with it--plagues, nightmares, scoldings--shows that what Abraham and Sarah did was not the right thing. Lying and tricksy adultery is not right. Sarah had the chance to stop it. She could have said, at any point, that she was Abraham's wife, and God would have had their backs. Instead, she kept quiet, and because of her, plagues and curses were visited on two houses of duped rulers.
    Back to the de facto punishment line of thinking. Consider: would Abraham ever have pulled that "sister" card if Sarah had not been, in fact, his sister? I don't think so. He said it himself, "But she IS my sister" by way to explain away his lying. Their one mistake led into other mistakes. The lesson to learn here, besides not marrying your sibling, is that doing the right thing is everyone's responsibility. Abraham was wrong, and because Sarah did what he said, she experienced some unpleasantness (I doubt she was cheerful and excited to be a concubine), and two houses were cursed. Not to mention, in the future, their son, Isaac, pulls the same trick with his wife! (Gen 26:) Lead by example, I guess.

No Babies=More Adultery+Jealousy
    This next section explores the side of Sarah I like to call "the spiteful/faithless harpy". One of the problems plaguing (heh...."plaguing"....ahem) Sarah and Abraham's relationship from the get-go was Sarah's barren womb (Gen. 11:30). Considering the close relationship of Sarah and Abraham, it's no wonder they were having troubles having a kid (de facto punishment, again). When Abraham was told by God that he would be the father of a huge people, things started to sour in the S&A household. Sarah felt guilty for not being able to give Abraham a kid. Rather than waiting, trusting, working on the whole "please-stop-giving-me-to-rulers" thing, Sarah decides the best course of action is to have Abraham sleep with her slave, Hagar, (Gen. 16:2) and poach any resulting kids for her own.
     Abraham, being stupid (or maybe thinking he owes his wife on the whole "make-me-sleep-with-someone-else" bit), agrees. He sleeps with Hagar, and Hagar gets pregnant. Sarah then goes all Jerry Springer on Hagar and chases her out of the encampment. Abraham does not step in (Gen. 16:6). However, Hagar meets with an angel who tells her to go back and raise her son. She is told ,"And he will be a wild man; his hand will be against every man, and every man's hand against him...." (Gen. 16:12). Not the best news for an expectant mother, but in this situation, who could grow up as anything else? Later on, when Sarah gives birth to Isaac, she catches Ishmael, Hagar's son, "mocking" Isaac. (Gen. 21:9). Sarah appeals to Abraham about the matter, and Hagar and Ishmael are given a bottle of water and some bread and kicked out into the wilderness (21:14). Hagar wanders, lost, until the water runs out. She leaves Ishmael under a bush because she can't bear to see him die, but, at the last minute, God shows up, tells her where to find a well, and looks after Ishmael. He grows up to become an archer and marry an Egyptian (21:15-21).

And that's the LAST time you make fun of your brother!

Analysis
     This is another part of the story that has always rubbed me the wrong way. Neither Sarah nor Abraham did what was right. If Abraham had been faithful (as in the religious way. Obviously, neither one of them is maritally faithful), he would have refused to sleep with Hagar because he believed God's promise. If Sarah had been faithful, she never would have suggested such a twisted arrangement to begin with. As in the previous stories, we see that nothing good comes out of doing wrong. Sarah's actions lead to jealousy, manipulation, and attempted murder. She had no idea God would protect Hagar and Ishmael. She didn't care. They would have died in the desert for her pettiness if God had not stepped in. Abraham suffers as well. He sees Ishmael as his son, but he listens to his wife and sends him away (Granted, God also told him it would be okay), but he nonetheless suffers. He never gets to see his son again.
     Looking at long-term consequences, many people believe Ishmael to be the progenitor of the Muslim people and ancestor of Muhammad. He only existed thanks to Sarah's fecklessness. So, who is responsible for the fighting in the middle east, as well as centuries of strife and bloodshed? Sarah.

Thanks, Sarah!

Further Faithlessness: Laugh and Lie
    We're drawing near to the end of our tale. Abraham and Sarah live to a ripe old age of 100 or so, and Sarah still has not had a child. The couple is visited by a mysterious trio who tell Abraham that he and Sarah will be parents shortly. Sarah, who is sitting in the tent, laughs. Gen. 18:13-15 holds the following exchange,

"And the Lord said unto Abraham, 'Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son.' Then Sarah denied, saying, 'I laughed not'; for she was afraid. And he said, 'Nay; but thou didst laugh'."    

     Though Sarah lived her life following what God told Abraham, moving from point A to B, and though she was saved on two occasions by His intercession, she does not believe Him when he re-gives His promise. When confronted, she lies about it. Not really surprising, considering her track record.

Analysis  
     There's not much to say about this one. It doesn't really connect to others except for the common thread of faithlessness. It does show that Sarah, at least, did not learn from her experiences. She had many decades to realize that God wouldn't let her family down not matter what, but she did not learn that lesson.

Summary
Sarah is definitely an important figure in the Bible and to our history. However, she is not important for any positive qualities she may have possessed. From the beginning of her story to the end, all she makes is mistakes. It's hard to find one good thing she did. She married her brother, was willing to trick others into adultery, invited her husband to commit adultery, abused her husband's baby-mama, attempted to have said baby-mama and baby (though, to be fair, he was older than 13 at the time) exiled to their doom, and, after all that, did not trust that God would pull through for her. Yes, she had faith in her husband, but that lead her to deceiving and seducing. She is, by definition, our matriarch, but she is not a role model by any stretch of the term. The lessons to learn, I suppose, are these. A) The story of Abraham and Sarah is probably not what you grew up learning; nevertheless, it is important. B) Keep a hold of your sexuality. If it gets out of control, it can and will cause huge and long-lasting problems. C) Keep faith in God; he won't let you down, even if you screw up big time.

Announcement: Upcoming Series, Women of the Bible: Facts and Opinions

(Link)

I'm happy to announce the next series to come from this blog! I'll be writing on the more and lesser-known women from the Bible from an Israelite perspective. I'll cover truths and fictions, impact on Israelitism, and what their stories mean today (for both men and women); for many of the stories, I'll be focusing on marriage dynamics. Expect factual learning mixed with critique, analysis, and some snarkiness (no general milquetoast writings from me, you can be assured). Below, in no particular order, you'll find a list of the women I'm planning to cover. The list will be updated as things develop.

Old Testament
Sarah/Hagar
Zipporah
Leah/Rachel
Ruth/Naomi
Deborah/Jael
Lot's wife/daughters
Tamar
Rahab
Hannah
Esther
Jezebel
New Testament (Undecided here, too. I'm not as well-versed in these ladies and their doings)
Mary/Martha
Mary
Salome/her mom

Update: November

Well, things have been getting rather busy around here in the last few weeks. I just finished up my series on the fall holidays, and it may be a small bit before a new post comes out. Mostly because I'm not sure where to go next (ha). I'm expecting to write some posts about the Song of Solomon, maybe one on skirts/dressing norms, and a few general-type posts as they come to mind. If you'd like to see a post on anything in particular/if you have any questions you'd like answered, please, leave a comment on this post, and I'll do my best!

Celebrating Sukkot

[Note: Sorry this post is so late in coming! I've had a busy couple of weeks. I really wanted to get this out in the weekend of Sukkot, but, you know what they say about, "the best-laid plans of mice and men"....Anyhow, I hope you enjoy the post!]

Following along in our "Fall Holiday" series, we have our last holiday post for the year; Sukkot, also called the Feast of Tabernacles. Sukkot is the last Israelite holiday on the calendar--(some of us celebrate Hanukkah, but it's not a mandatory holiday like those of Leviticus 23)--and, speaking honestly, Sukkot's the most fun. Sukkot has the least restrictions and most pro-party rules of any Israelite holiday.

Bigger Sukkot gatherings may look something like this (Link)

Let's take a look at what the Bible has to say (Lev 23:33-44, removing a few for brevity and clarity, marked with "..."):

     "And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, The fifteenth day of this seventh month shall be the feast of tabernacles for seven days unto the Lord. On the first day shall be an holy convocation: ye shall do no servile work therein....on the eighth day shall be an holy convocation unto you...it is a solemn assembly; and ye shall do no servile work therein....Beside the sabbaths of the Lord, and beside your gifts, and beside all your vows, and beside all your freewill offerings, which ye give unto the Lord.Also in the fifteenth day of the seventh month, when ye have gathered in the fruit of the land, ye shall keep a feast unto the Lord seven days: on the first day shall be a sabbath, and on the eighth day shall be a sabbath. And ye shall take you on the first day the boughs of goodly trees, branches of palm trees, and the boughs of thick trees, and willows of the brook; and ye shall rejoice before the Lord your God seven days. And ye shall keep it a feast unto the Lord seven days in the year. It shall be a statute for ever in your generations: ye shall celebrate it in the seventh month.Ye shall dwell in booths seven days; all that are Israelites born shall dwell in booths: That your generations may know that I made the children of Israel to dwell in booths, when I brought them out of the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God. And Moses declared unto the children of Israel the feasts of the Lord."

    To summarize, from day 15 of the seventh month for seven days, the Feast of Tabernacles is to be celebrated. Starting on the 15th, we must "dwell" in "booths" for seven days. The 8th day is an extra Sabbath, and so is the first day. We are supposed to feast, and use branches to "rejoice before the Lord". It's a happy holiday. It's a harvest holiday. 

    The booths rule comes to commemorate the 40 years the Israelites spent wandering in the desert after they were freed from Egypt. In that way, it's both happy and solemn. After all, the Israelites were only in the desert thanks to their cowardice and fecklessness (see Numbers 32 for the whole story). However, the remembrance is also happy; after all, God still protected the Israelites and took care of them during this time, and they were headed to the Promised Land (albeit for the second time...). 

     We celebrate Sukkot by doing exactly what is outlined above. I took off of work for the first and eighth days (being Wednesday, 10/8 and Wednesday, 10/15, respectively). Sven and I set up our tent in our backyard and slept there every night. We feasted and celebrated during the days (waving branches, dancing, singing, etc etc.). In addition, we got to have a little extra fun. My sister, who attends the University of Kansas, came out to stay with us from Friday to Monday. For us, this meant extra fun; for her, it meant fulfillment of the "feasting" part as well as the "convocation" part (college students poorness and, surprisingly enough, it's hard to find other Israelites where she is).

Pictured: Feasting, Family, and general Festivity

     There were good bits and bad bits of this holiday, as there typically are in any 7-day span of time. One of the worst things was the weather. Where we live, it tends to be very, very, very dry. Drought dry. Since it's so dry and flat, it also tends to be warm. We (foolishly) counted on this when making our initial Sukkot plans. Our yard it flat, and there's a  nice secluded corner of the backyard where the ground is shielded on two sides by the house. This is where we first set up our tent. It was shielded from the wind and (rather annoying) streetlights, as well as from any prying eyes there might be. This worked out well. The first night. It was balmy; the full moon lit up the yard with its gentle glow. There was a slight breeze. We packed our tent with a sleeping bag and two quilts, and we were as toasty as bugs in rugs. The second night, the storms hit. Unfortunately for us, the spot we'd picked for our tent also happens to be the only spot in our yard that floods when it rains. That first rainy night, we spent about an hour debating; should we move the tent? Was it raining hard enough? Could we somehow divert the water? What would we do if the tent flooded? And, gosh darn, wasn't it hard to talk over all this thunder? (We were in the tent at the time) When the storm finally broke (for about an hour, around midnight) we moved our bedding into the back of our (covered) truck, and pulled the truck into the driveway. We slept in the truck that night and moved the tent the next day. Lesson learned; plan for all weather, not just the weather you typically have.

Like this. But at night. And windy. Very windy. (link)

     After that, the weather continued to be terrible. Windy, rainy, and dropping into the (windy and rainy) forties at night. My sister, who did not have a tent, slept in the truck while she was here, but we were in the tent. The wind and water pelting against a rain fly can be surprisingly loud. Needless to say, I showed up to my job a little sleepy and frazzled more than once during the week. Thankfully, we did not have another flooding problem, though we were worried about the wind carrying the tent away on the last night, so we set it up in our basement and slept down there. This is my fourth Sukkot, and, I have to say, the weather has been the worst. My first Sukkot, the temperatures were freezing, and Sven and I were sleeping in my truck (read: "metal tin can that acts as a refrigerator in cold temps), but we wore (really) warm clothes, swaddled ourselves in (really) tick  and it was okay. Last year was simply gorgeous; we went out-of-state to visit some Israelite friends/relatives, and it was maybe 60 degrees each night. This time was just bad. However, the good bits were more than good enough to outweigh the bad.

Pictured: A bad place to set up a tent.

     For one, though I don't like to brag (cough cough), Sven and I are really good cooks. For this week, we have an obligation to pull out all the stops and cook delicious, filling, several course meals every night (that's what we take it to mean, anyway. Let's put the "feast" into "Feastday" and all that....)

Tasty and special Sukkot Salmon

 All-in-all, it was a great time. People sometimes ask, "Don't you miss Christmas/Easter/Halloween?", and the answer is no. For starters, my family was never huge on Easter/Halloween, and my dad very often pointed out the pagan nature of Christmas. The holidays I celebrate now have more meaning, are actually a part of my religion, and they're just better. I'd trade one day of presents for a week of camping, feasting, and hanging out with family any day. In addition to all this, they're fun in a new way because they're something I've done most with myself or with Sven from the very beginning. We get to celebrate our way. We don't have someone else telling us how to do or what to do. We look at the Bible, make sure we do what it says, and we can add our own bits on the way. For example, Sukkot is a time for board/card/etc games for us. I'm not exactly sure why. We don't love board games. We don't really play them normally, but when we get to be with family, it just seems fitting. So, when my sister was here, we played several nights' worth of paper telephone and the forehead-guess-who-I-am game. Another thing we decided was certain dishes to be cooked by our family every Sukkot in the future. One of which being 호떡 ("Hottoek", a type of Korean snack I'm sure I filled you in on in my Korean food post). We finally found a recipe online, and we were able to make them. The hot, gooey, sweet treats seem like a perfect fit for a fall holiday. So, we decided from hereafter, we shall always make 호떡 on the first day of Sukkot.

Pictured: Pure Happiness

To finish off this post; what should you take away? 1) When camping in the fall, always keep tabs on the weather forecast and plan accordingly. 2) Don't let small troubles get in the way of doing the right thing/having fun. 3) If you believe in it, read your Bible. Read it closely. There's more there than what meets the eye, and it can open up a whole new world for you. Happy fall!

A Guide to Yom Kippur: The Day of Atonement

The Day of Atonement is the most serious holiday in the Israelite calendar. Though it only lasts for one day, it is the most restrictive and strict.

The requirements are as follows (From Leviticus 23:26-32, KJV):
And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Also on the tenth day of this seventh month there shall be a day of atonement: it shall be an holy convocation unto you; and ye shall afflict your souls, and offer an offering made by fire unto the Lord. And ye shall do no work in that same day: for it is a day of atonement, to make an atonement for you before the Lord your God. For whatsoever soul it be that shall not be afflicted in that same day, he shall be cut off from among his people. And whatsoever soul it be that doeth any work in that same day, the same soul will I destroy from among his people.Ye shall do no manner of work: it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations in all your dwellings. It shall be unto you a sabbath of rest, and ye shall afflict your souls: in the ninth day of the month at even, from even unto even, shall ye celebrate your sabbath.

     As shown by the "cut off from your people" and "destroy your soul" threats, this is not a holiday to mess around with. To break it all down,
1) It is a holy convocation--convocation meaning "meeting"; Israelites should be with other Israelites on this day.
2) Make an offering of fire--offerings are to be made at the Temple by Levites--no Levites+no Temple=no offering. Also, sin offerings were made moot by Yeshua.
3) Do no manner work--on other holidays and normal Sabbaths, the language is different. "No servile work" is the phrase used; most people take this to mean one's everyday job (work you're paid for), and household chores, like cleaning. The day of atonement is more serious; no work at all.
4) Make atonement--dedicate time to praying, reflecting, and figuring out how to improve.
5) Afflict yourself--there's a little argument on this, I think, but after a sermon some years ago, I take it to mean complete fasting during the 24 hour period. No food and no water.

   We celebrated (if that's the right word for it) the Day of Atonement last Friday, October 3rd. The holiday technically started the night before at 7:24. This year marked the third Day of Atonement I've celebrated, and the second I've celebrated with Sven. Last year, it fell on a weekend, so I didn't have any work schedule to work around. This year, I asked off of work ahead of time and also cleared up my schedule Thursday evening so we could properly prepare.
     Preparations differ between families and groups. Some believe that nothing extra should be done in advance; no extra eating, drinking, or cleaning. Sven and I fall on the other end of the spectrum. Thursday night, we sped through the house, cleaning up anything that would annoy or impede us the following day. Between cleaning, we drank copious amounts of water and cooked large portions of a very balanced and filling meal.

Shown: What we Consume on the Day of Atonement

     Our philosophy is this; no matter how much eating and drinking you do in preparation of the Day of Atonement, going without any food or water for 24 stinks. It stinks no matter what. The soul afflicting is just going to happen if you don't feed or hydrate yourself. However, there are levels of stinkage one can experience. We'd rather not be spending the whole day whining, "I'm so hungry. My mouth is so dry. Oh my gosh, etc etc" when we are supposed to be praying, atoning, and generally not be distracted by growling tummies. The other reason for it is this: going without water makes one lightheaded. Though we aren't running about, lifting heavy things, or elsewise working on that day, we do stand up and move around. Even with water gorging the night before, headrushes, dizziness, and general headachey-ness is a given. Last year, when I was living alone, towards the end of the day, I stood up from my bed to walk to my living room and collapsed in my hallway. It wasn't anything serious, but I was very lucky I fell onto a floor rather than onto some furniture. To sum up: We definitely suffer, and we don't want the holiday to be dangerous.

    Honestly, what makes the Atonement hard is the tricky nit-noi things. Teeth cannot brushed without water. Medicine is something you eat. So planning ahead is a must as far as getting what needs to be done completed before the sun goes down. If the preparations are completed properly, everything else goes smoothly.

     As far as this year is concerned, our day was rather relaxed. Our preparations the day before paid off. We slept in on Friday, did our atoning after waking, and spent the day quietly; reading the Bible, chatting, and watching appropriate Youtube videos. I wasn't really bothered much by the fasting aspect, though I was definitely ready for a glass of water when the sun went down on Friday. Sven was more bothered (probably because he's a bigger person?), but, all in all, we came out of the holiday feeling refreshed and clean, and that's really the whole point.

Expect a post (or posts) soon concerning Sukkot, the Feast of Tabernacles! It began last night at sundown, and though it hasn't been long, we've already tried some fun new recipes (feasting is a must during this holiday) and we have some exciting things planned for the week ahead. Happy fall feasts, everyone!

Feast of Trumpets, Yom Teruah: Fall Holidays Pt. II

Last week, I wrote an introduction to Israelite time-keeping and the fall holidays.
This Wednesday, the 23rd, we celebrated the Feast of Trumpets.

As feasts go, Trumpets is pretty low-impact.

From Leviticus 23:23-25:
The Lord said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites: ‘On the first day of the seventh month you are to have a day of Sabbath rest, a sacred assembly commemorated with trumpet blasts. Do no regular work...’”

On that day, we read the story of Joshua and Jericho, as trumpets play largely into the tale. We took it easy at home--we didn't clean or lift anything heavy. And, as our shofar arrived in the mail that day, we spend about a half hour figuring out how to make it sound like anything other than a dying rabbit.

This is what our shofar looks like--link for product page

Our shofar is a very common ram's horn shofar. They're small, light, and, most importantly for us, cheap. Because they are shorter, it's harder to get a nice sound out of them. They tend to sound higher and a little more "shrieky". I think it has something to do with needing more air/force to make the horn reverberate.

The nicer/easier to use horns are kudu horns. They're about three times and long, and they are spiral-shaped. They don't take as much air to make a sound, and the sound is more mellow.

This is a Kudu

This is a Kudu shofar

After about half an hour, each of us was able to coax out a vaguely trumpety-sound, and the horn was starting to smell, so we called it good.

But, why was the horn smelling? Though sellers of shofars usually clean the horns for you--polish them nicely, cut a smooth mouth-hole, and scrub out the insides, it's very hard to get them 100% clean. Renewed by our soggy breath, the shofar was starting to smell like, well, a dead animal.

Sven looked into it, and we've been applying various cleaning techniques for the last few days to ready it for more practice and the upcoming holidays. Techniques have included--soaking it in vinegar, drying it, and soaking it again in soap and water; soaking it in soap and water and scrubbing out the inside; and packing it full of baking powder for a day, adding hot water and salt, and soaking for another day. With the treatments, it now mostly smells like bone--how a dog's chew toy smells after a small while of vigorous chewing. It's not the best smell in the world, but it's not the worst, either.

I don't have much more to share, so I'll leave you with this video; enjoy the sound of a skilled shofar player :)

Israelites and the Moon: Introducing you to Israelite Timekeeping and the Fall Holidays

 
Towards the beginning of the life of this blog, I alluded to the fact that Israelites celebrate different holidays than other people. For this year, I plan on writing a series on how I celebrate the fall holidays as a modern, American Israelite, living far away from other Israelites. But, prior to that, some introduction is in order!

Before kicking off the blog series on our Fall Holidays, some explanation of Israelite calenders is necessary. Currently, in the U.S.A., we use the Gregorian Calender for our year-measuring. This is the calendar with 365 days, leap years every four years, 12 months, etc etc etc. Each week has seven days. The days begin and end at midnight. The system uses daylight savings to change our timed-days to fit the actual daylight-day better. If you're curious about how this system came about, I suggest looking around the internet; I'm wanting to avoid a history lesson today. In short--it came about as a conglomeration of many different calendars in collusion with the Industrial Revolution in the Western World. Now that we have that addressed:

     The Israelite calendar is completely different. To start--the year does not have a set number of days. Only after the year is complete will the number of days be countable. There are 12 or 13 months in each year, depending on the year. Unlike the Gregorian Calendar, the leap years are not regular or perfectly predictable. The number of days in a month is also not set. We measure our months based on the moon. Now, most cultures originally based their months on the moon. [English Lesson: Our word "month" comes from "moonth", as did the word for month in many different cultures]. However, as time went on, the months were changed to be more rigid and predictable. Israelite time-measuring is more fluid than rigid--it follows the rhythms of the earth/Universe.

     For starters, the Israelite month begins and ends at the new moon. Once the new moon is spotted, the previous month ceases, and the new month begins. In the Israelite community, there is a bit of contention as to what moon actually begins the month. There are two viewpoints on this--one side believes the New Moon (being the dark moon--when no light is seen) is when the month beings. The other side believes when the moon comes back--a phenomenon known as "the Sliver Moon"--the new month begins. There are good arguments for both sides. I'm firmly on the New Moon side (also called the "conjunction").
[If you are interested in learning more about the Sliver vs. Conjunction argument, I highly suggest you check out 119 Ministries--they're pro-Conjunction, but they lay out the evidence for both sides fairly well.]

    The Israelite year begins in the spring. Our first month is called Aviv/Abib (also called Nisan), and usually starts sometime in March on the Gregorian calendar. Aviv is the month that opens up the year for a leap-month. The word Aviv means different things; it is the name of the first month; it means "spring", and it is also the word for a certain ripeness of barley--a spring-time ripeness. Green, full, but not yet fully dried.

Link

The month of Aviv can only begin if the barley is also aviv. If the barley is not yet aviv, spring has not begun, and the year is not over. Instead, another month is added to the year, making 13 months total, and the following month, when the barley is aviv, the new year begins. Philosophically, the year begins when the seasons "begin" again. Winter, all over the world, is associated with death. Spring, conversely, is associated with new life. Our calender fits this philosophy. The old year dies in the winter and is born in spring.

     Our days are, similarly, measured differently than the days of the Gregorian calendar. The Gregorian Calendar revolves around unchanging units of time; a second is such and such long, a minute is sixty seconds, sixty minutes in an hour, 24 hours in a day, and so on. Though nifty, this system is not entirely accurate to how the world actually works--it is too rigid--and that is why leap days and daylight savings are utilized to keep the days more or less the same.
     The Israelite calendar is fluid; it flows around the changes of the seasons. As before stated, and as you probably are aware, a Gregorian day begins and ends at midnight. Israelite days, however, begin and end at sundown. Once the sun has set, the old day is done, and the new day has begun. Because of this system, daylight savings--jumping ahead or back in time--is not needed. The day follows the sunlight. In the winter, days begin earlier, as the sun sets earlier. In the summer, days end later, as the sun sets later. Our hours, accordingly, are different. They are not always the same length from day to day. Noon is when the sun is the highest, rather than when our clock says so, for example. It can be a little difficult to get used to, but once you get in the groove, it's easy.

Ya know, like how people used to use these suckers.

     These distinctions are important for a number of reasons, but, they are most important for the keeping of the holidays ("Holy-days", see?). Similarly to how the holidays of Christian America tend to occur on the same day each year (Christmas on the 25th of December, for instance...[but, why not Easter? Hrrrm, I suggest you look into that, dear reader]), Israelite holidays fall on the same day of the Israelite calendar each year. In order to celebrate properly, one must know the correct day upon which to celebrate.
     The trouble comes in when one is an American, working a job based on the Gregorian calendar, but religiously following the Israelite calendar, like I am. For example, "The Feast of Atonement", also known as "Yom Kippur", is one of the more rigid holidays. On this day, you must not drink any water or eat any food. You must do no manner of work at all. Anyone who violates this day will be "cut off" from Israel (link). In short, it is not a holiday to play around with. Last year, Atonement fell on a Gregorian weekend. It was very easy celebrate the holiday. This year, Atonement falls on a weekday, beginning on the sunset of October 2nd. Therefore, I will have to be absent from work on October 3rd. You can see where the problems arise.

     The holidays fall mostly into two clusters--the spring Feasts of Passover, Unleavened Bread, and First Fruits in the spring, Pentecost in the summer, and Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles in the fall. Both the spring and the fall have 8-day celebrations (Unleavened Bread and Tabernacles, respectively). At the beginning and end of each of these 8-day celebrations are additional Sabbaths--days upon which no work must be done. Keeping track of the calendar is very important to avoid violating these Sabbaths.

Link

Upcoming, starting next week, are my favorite holidays--the fall feasts. I plan on writing a more in-depth post on each of the holidays as they come as well as how I celebrate them. However, an Overview is in order!

Feast of Trumpets/Yom Teruah
Kicking off the fall feasts is the loudest holiday of the Israelite year. We celebrate by blowing horns. All day. The horns typically blown by your average Israelite are called "shofars". They are made of a ram's horn. We don't currently own a shofar--we have one ordered and are hoping for it to arrive in time! If not, you'll see how we work around this on the day of. This year's Feast of Trumpets will begin this Tuesday night, the 23rd, at sundown, and continue until the sundown of the 24th.

Day of Atonement/Yom Kippur
Atonement, the solemnest day of the year, involves abstaining from food and water from sundown to sundown and meditating over/atoning for your sins. I'll be writing about how to make Atonement bearable once it rolls around. This year, it will begin on the sundown of October 2nd and end on October 3rd.

Feast of Tabernacles/Sukkot
This is my, and many Israelites', favorite holiday. For the week of this feast, (October 7-15 this year), we all must "dwell" in tabernacles, or, tents! Because this is a longer holiday, Israelites often travel to meet in large groups for some or all of this feast. It is a celebration of the harvest, and there is feasting every night, branch-waving, dancing, and general celebration. Whereas Atonement is a solemn holiday, Sukkot is celebratory and happy.

Thanks for reading, and stay posted for the Fall Holiday posts!
Feast of Trumpets
Atonement
Feast of Tabernacles
Any questions? Leave a comment below!

Being a Stranger in a Strange Land: How to Food [in South Korea]

Today, we're going to talk about a lighter subject--how to be a good Israelite while being in another country. In the summer of 2012, Sven and I spent 7 weeks in South Korea. It was part of a study-abroad program offered by our university. The program worked like this; three weeks of teaching English to Korean university students followed by four weeks of taking classes. The teaching/learning load was not heavy--six hours of classes a day with Fridays off. So, naturally, a large part of the whole thing was experiencing the country and culture of South Korea.

Link

     I'd have to say that the most important thing to remember while being an Israelite abroad is that your religion is not something you leave at home. It sounds simple. However, when faced with "being a stranger in a strange land", the stress can make one more lax when it comes to things that are important at home.

     For us, food was, without a doubt, the most difficult aspect of our travel. At home, it is quite easy to avoid eating things we don't want to eat. In a foreign country, it becomes harder. As I wrote in an earlier post, unclean food additives are oftentimes found in the most unlikely of places. Being knowledgeable about the ingredients and being able to read the labels goes a long way to avoiding unclean foods. Obviously, the biggest challenge of travelling across the world is the language barrier.

     The first step to maintaining your way is to educate yourself. The second is to strap in for the long hall. We knew before heading out on our trip that it would be difficult; research told us that shellfish and pork are very popular meats in Korea, and that flavorings made with one or the other were often included in the most innocuous dishes. Nutrition labels might not contain all of the ingredients, and they'd probably be written in Hangul, which I could barely read at the time. We developed strategies to combat this--eat simple foods, avoid known problem foods, and call upon our resources (Korean friends) when in doubt. But, as they say, the battle plans only last until the first shot is fired. Things went quite differently than we had expected.

     The first problem we met with was poverty. Due to miscommunication and bad information, Sven and I found ourselves arrived in South Korea with only $100 to our names. We had been told that we would have our plane tickets refunded by the program when we arrived--about $3,000 total. We'd been counting on that money to see us through the seven weeks. Upon our arrival, we discovered we would not be paid until our teaching was done. I had brought $100 as a small safety net for any emergency we might meet. After we paid our bus fare to travel the 2 hours it took to go from the airport to Dankook University, we had $74.

Less than this. For two people. For three weeks. (Link)

    Now, the school provided one meal a day for the people in its program. We had been told it would be our choice of breakfast, lunch, or dinner, and had planned on mainly utilizing this offer for lunches. This information also proved to be false. We would be given breakfast every day only. Neither Sven nor I are big breakfast eaters. This was a setback. It became more of a setback when we discovered what a typical Korean breakfast consists of. Rice is always served, as is kimchi (pickled spicy cabbage, usually, though the breakfast kimchi was made with radishes). The only beverage offered was water. Sides included seaweed, beef soup, chicken nuggets, potato salad, bean sprout salad, and sauteed vegetables. Not too bad. However, sides also included squid soup, shrimp soup, pork nuggets, sauteed vegetables with "seafood" sausage, and oyster soup. There was a set meal every day, and it was not labeled. We had more than a few mishaps.

For example, this soup--delicious meal, or deadly poison??

    For example, the above soup was bought from the small "restaurant" in the dorm--cheap alternates to the cafeteria. In the beginning, we often bought our dinners there--things like 오므라이스 (omurice=omelet+rice) and 김밥 (kimbap=seaweed+rice, a sushi-like food). The soup above was chosen randomly from the menu. I ate a bite or so, and thought it was alright. Sven took one bite and said, "Something is wrong with this". Upon stirring, we found clams (with shell!) in the bottom of the bowl. The food was returned, an explanation (mimed for the cooks) was given, and we went to bed hungry that night.

     We quickly developed a rapport with the food staff--I often used the phrases, "돼지 고기 있어요?" "새우 고기 있어요?" (Literally, and badly, "Is there pork meat?" "Is there shrimp meat?"). And some of the nicer ones would warn us away from dishes containing these things by shaking their heads at breakfast or by making the "X" sign with their fore-arms, indicating we shouldn't eat it. Some of our new friends in the program would help as well when a dish was more mysterious, "I think these are the pork nuggets", etc etc. However, we could not always depend on the goodheartedness of our fellow men. We went hungry on more than one occasion due to the language barrier. One memorable time included a dinner of kimbap we fed to a local cat when a new-to-us cook included ham after assuring us there was none.

To be fair, ham is usually included in this dish. (Link for pic)

     The "going hungry" demonstrates the second part of Travelling While Israelite; we had to stick to our guns. We only had money for one meal a day. We would share whatever was bought between ourselves to save money. If the meal had something unclean in it, it had to be thrown away, and we couldn't afford to buy something else. Now, I'm not going to try to say something like, "It really didn't matter; we were happy with our Holiness". It mattered. It stunk. We were perpetually hungry. We both lost a lot of weight in the first few weeks.

Praise the Lord for THESE (link)

    To try to avoid the whole "starvation" things, once we found a food that was reliably clean, we stuck to it. Pictured above is a "Samgak kimbap"--a triangular rice cake. They're about the size of a person's palm. We were told that the ingredients of these could be told by the color of their label. Red meant kimchi-filled, for example. We latched onto the tuna and mayonnaise ones. They tasted just like tuna sandwiches. Now, remember, we were poor. We would split one of these for lunch. One. For two of us. That boiled down to about three bites each. Three and a half bites if we nibbled rather than chomped.

Did I mention tuna sandwiches? This was dinner one night. The best part was that each package contained TWO sandwiches.

    Luckily for us, the drinks were very cheap, and each floor had water spigots. If we couldn't eat, we'd share our juice, tighten our belts, and do our best to fill up with water. Happily for us and our health, the starving time did not last forever. A beautiful, wonderful, patient, savior friend of mine came to the rescue. She led us to a bank where I could withdraw from my American account and receive Korean Won! Still, we spent sparingly--it was my college fund I was pulling from.

    After the three weeks, we received our plane refunds. Finally, we could travel, shop, and eat!

Pictured: Over 1,000,000 Korean Won, also, the face of Happiness

     At first, we were very cautious. We ate only at places where the ingredients were already-known and guaranteed. 

Shabu-Shabu, for example, provides choice of spicy, seafood, or vegetable broth and beef, chicken, pork, seafood, or special beef for the meal.

The best fried chicken I have ever eaten in my life. From a small hole-in the wall Chicken-and-Beer place (possibly called Bodram? Or advertising a place called Bodram). Very common food combo in S. Korea.

    Things were definitely looking up. Our change of fortune did not guarantee perfect experience, however. For example, once when ordering bulgogi ("Fire meat"--a tasty teriyaki-like beef meal), we were instead presented with the "more special" bulgogi-plus-squid dish. I am ashamed to say, but our perseverance did not win out that day. We picked out the squid and my Korean friend who was along with us happily ate it while we ate the beef. If given the choice to do that over, I would have caused a stink and asked for plain old bulgogi. Oh well.

     Part of the experience that eventually allowed for more branching out was more education. I was taking beginner's Korean (three hours a day!), and was learning more and more how to ask questions and get information. It became easier to peruse menus and find edible options. We still relied on the help of others--our first night in the Chicken-and-Beer place, we randomly ordered a stir fry dish. Sensing our general lost-puppy American-ness, our kind server showed us a picture of that dish on his phone. Stuttering in my still-developing Korean, I asked for, "no no, not that. Chicken. Just chicken." and lo and behold, we were given the glorious meal pictured above. We continued to eat at that restaurant at least once a week, always trying to talk a little more each time to that server. The same went for the lady who was the proprietor of the Shabu Shabu place.

    With more knowledge and experience, finding food became almost easy. As the days went by, we experienced less and less culinary hiccups. When we traveled around, I carried a notebook with me where I had written helpful phrases in Korean, as well as the Korean names for typical food items.  As we became more experienced, the notebook became more full. By the time we left, we were comfortable ordering food, knew our way around a menu, and were quite well-fed. 

Though scary at first, being a stranger in a strange land was ultimately not that terrible. There were ups and downs. We were sometimes hungry and miserable, but we learned, eventually, How to Food in a Foreign Place.

Lessons Learned:

1) Research beforehand

2) Stick to your guns

3) Continue learning

4) Ask others for help

Alternate Viewpoints: The Case Against Headcoverings

Hello all,
This is a blog post I've been waiting years to write, it feels like. Ever since I've been an Israelite, I've felt very strongly against this topic, and my viewpoint is definitely an opposing one. This post is, of sorts, a response and sequel piece to the Part I of what Israelites look like and the following piece on tzitzit. In the aforementioned posts, pictures of Israelites were shown, and a piece of their common garb was explained. This headcovering post comes in relation to something else you may have noticed Israelite women having in common: many wear scarves on their heads, covering most or all of their hair. Now, I'd like to say something like, "I don't mean to step on any toes here", but that simply wouldn't be true. I want to step on toes, I just hope that people aren't too upset by it. It's a topic that deserves looking into, and, ultimately, I think, a way of thinking that needs to be challenged.

Pictured: an example of what I'm writing about. To avoid contention, this picture is of myself rather than any of my acquaintances. I'd like it to be noted that I was not wearing this for religious reasons; I was doing a hair treatment.

    To be up front, I am get very emotional about this topic for a couple of reasons:

1. I think it's wrong
2. I think it's sexist
3. I think most of the women who cover their heads haven't looked into it enough, or they'd realize point 1; It's wrong.

[In being up front, I mean that my language may take on a contentious or aggressive tone. To be clear, I feel aggressive to the topic and tradition, not the people who practice it. My female friends and relatives on the whole cover their heads. I don't mean to offend people, but their sensibilities.]

 

     It may be shocking for people with familiarity to Israelites to hear a woman use the word "sexist". The Israelite women I've met pride themselves on being meek when it comes to issues of sex. Especially in the realm of wives, Israelite women tend to give up their sense of self once they are married. They see it as the role of a wife to submit to a husband and to avoid challenging the status quo. I do not follow in this line of thinking. I am, I suppose, what could be called an Israelite Feminist. I am also a Masculist; I do not believe women are better than men. I do not believe men are better than women. Rather, I believe that both sexes depend on  and need each other in order to experience happy and fulfilled lives. Therefore, we cannot marginalize or oppress one sex when their is no call for it. I do want to note that my argument against headcovering does not come from this thought, but from the Bible, as it should.

A Person's Ownership of Self

   To start, let's address the idea that an Israelite woman should submit to her husband. This idea, indeed, comes from the Bible, though I think it is misinterpreted by modern Israelites. One such verse is Ephesians 5:22, "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord." (Other verses saying much the same thing include Colossians 3:18, Titus 2:5, 1 Peter 3:1, and so on. If you're curious, type "wives obey husbands" into google for more verses). Israelite women take this verse as commanding them to obey their husbands in every point--do we not obey God thusly? God should be obeyed immediately, without question, always. No one (by this I mean religious people) disputes this point. If we are to obey husbands as we obey God, we should also obey them immediately, without question, always.

However, the question follows; what if a husband is ungodly?
     If an Israelite woman is married to a non-Israelite man, or a man with a different understanding of the Law, should she obey him if  he commands her to eat pork? To feed it to her children? If told to do so by her husband, should a woman work on the Sabbath? Or commit murder? Let the questions ruminate for a while.

    The answer: OF COURSE NOT. The law of God supersedes the commands of man, always. Acts 5:29 reads as follows, "But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men..." Therefore, if a man commands his wife to do something against the law of God, she should not obey. Every individual person is responsible for their own actions and their own obedience to God. 

   The points to take from this section: wives should obey husbands, assuming the husbands do not command their wives to do anything that would contradict the Law of God. However, as it would seem, wives must still obey husbands in any other nit-noi thing he should require of her. If he says "jump", while jumping, she should ask, "how high?". This is where many Israelite women stand on this verse--"jump" leads to "how high?". 

     What is often ignored is the companion verse to Ephesians 5:22, being Ephesians 5:25, "Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it". Husbands must love their wives. They must treat their wives as Yeshua treated the church. This is a commandment. Yeshua did not make ridiculous demands of the church to suit his own ego. Yeshua did not micromanage the church on the every day aspect. Rather, he kept the church in line in regards to the proper following of the Law, forgave its past misdemeanors, and ultimately died for it. 

     Ephesians 5:25 is followed by Ephesians 5:28, which restates in greater detail, "So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself." A man should love his wife as he loves himself. Indeed, he should put his wife before himself, her needs before his, as Yeshua did for the church. He put the church's need for redemption over his own desire to live. 

     Conclusion: A man should love his wife more than himself; he should care for her; he should lead her in her following of the law; he should forgive her when necessary, and he should serve as a role model. In short, husbands should not be tyrants. If a husband acts like a tyrant, he is acting contrariwise to the law and to his duties as a husband.

The Origin of the Head Covering: Letters from Paul

      By now, you may be wondering, what does all that have to do with headcovering? The answer: Everything. The idea that women should cover their heads depends on the arguments above. Let's get into the actual head covering now.
      The idea behind women covering their heads come largely from First Corinthians. Some background on this book is given in Sven's article on long hair on men. To sum it up, this book is a letter written by Paul to the Corinthians in regards to specific problems they were experiencing in their church/churches. Corinth was known to be a sexually-loose city, and many of their issues revolve around issues of prostitution, adultery, and general wantonness. It should be noted, before we begin, that this command by Paul is only issued once--in his letter to Corinth. 

     In 1 Corinthians 11:5-6, Paul writes, " But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered." The modern version of that would be as follows, "Every woman who prays or prophesies without a headcovering shames herself; that action is the same as being bald. If she won't cover her head [while doing those things], she should be shaved. But if she doesn't want to be shaved, she should cover her head [while doing those things]". 

     Okay. So, Paul says women should pray and prophesy with their heads covered. Unless they're okay with being bald, in which case, they should just be bald. The key word in the above verses is "if". If a women prays/prophesies uncovered, she might as well be bald. If being bald would shame her, she should cover her head. If. What if she doesn't mind being bald? My point is this; the verse is not an ultimate command, "ALL MARRIED WOMEN MUST COVER THEIR HAIR, THUS SAYETH THE LORD", as Israelite women tend to take it. It's an if-than statement. Women who pray/prophesy should cover their heads while doing so unless they're bald and okay with it.  

     Nowhere in the verse does it say all women, at all times, must cover their hair. Nowhere does it specify married women. The word translated as "woman" comes from the Greek, "gunh", which can be used to mean "wife", but also "woman" "a woman of any age--virgin, married, widow". In short, it means a female of the human species. In Greek, there was not a separate word for "woman" or "wife", rather, the world used, "gunh" means "female", and context is used to determine the status of that woman (link). 

   Where we are now on that command: a woman should cover her head when she prays of prophesies unless she's okay with being bald/already bald.

   Assuming a woman likes her hair and would like to hold on to it rather than shave it, the counter might be made, "But if we're meant to cover our head while we pray, shouldn't we pray all the time? 1 Thessalonians 5:17 says so! Therefore, our heads should be covered with a headcovering always!" (The verse in question is, "Pray without ceasing."). 

    I refute the question thusly; yes, we are told to pray without ceasing. If we were required to wear a headcovering every time we prayed.....how would we bathe? How would we wash our hair if it must always be wrapped in a cloth? What if, while bathing, our house caught on fire and we were forced to flee? Could we not pray until we had secured a length of cloth with which to bind up our hair? What if you were  person lost in the jungle for many years, without resources or clothing--would you not be allowed to pray while you didn't have a cloth with which to wrap your hair? The line of questions may seem silly, but think about it. Does a female's relationship and communication with God rely upon her having cloth to wrap around her hair? No. No and no. A piece of cloth is not required in order for a woman to talk to God, nor is it required to prophesy. 

   Note: I did not say the action of covering one's head is not required. I said a piece of cloth is not required. (and, we're still working on the assumption the woman in question doesn't want to be bald)

     Conclusion: a head covering is required when a woman prays or prophesies only if she would rather not be bald.

The Real Reason for Covering

    To figure out what can be used as a head covering while praying or prophesying for women who don't want to be bald, we need to return once more to the Bible to look at the context. The reasoning given in 1 Corinthians 11:7 is summarized as follows: women should cover their heads while praying and prophesying because while a man is the glory of God, a woman is the glory of man. We know the order of creation from Genesis; God made Adam from dust and His breath, and Eve came from Adam's rib. So, to avoid giving too much credit to men, while women pray and prophesy, they should cover their heads. Fair enough. We were made second. We were made from another creation rather than scratch. The act of covering is showing a recognition of that fact. 

So, what is the covering? It is a show of recognition of one's place. It is an act of humility. It is showing deference to God. It is not cloth. Cloth could be used, sure. Cloth is effective at covering stuff. But, it is not required. A person is able to worship God with nothing but their body--God is not a capitalist--he doesn't make us buy things. What can be used to show the deference suggested? Well, a hand. A piece of wood. A leaf. A hat. A book. It is the act that is important, not the item.

     

     Conclusion: A woman should cover her head in deference for God, and a covering can be anything that works for that purpose.

A Return to the Idea of Husbands; Deciphering Paul

Another popular reason Israelite women give for wearing their head coverings at all times is that they are "showing respect" for their husbands. As we learned in the Ownership of Self section, no husband has the right to demand a head covering from his wife unless it is in accordance to the law. As we learned in The Origin of the Head Covering, a head covering is not required by God. As we learned in The Real Reason for Covering, the covering is not any one physical item. Therefore, there is no basis whatsoever for a man to require his wife to cover up her hair. However, these women are mostly doing it out of their own volition; their husbands have not asked, but the wives have offered. Let's study the basis behind why a wife might do this.

   Like requirement for praying and prophesying, the idea that a woman should cover her hair for her husband comes from Corinthians 11. This idea comes from verses 7-10:
"For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man. For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels."

    In this section, Paul is explaining his statement in verse 5--that a woman is shamed by praying/prophesying uncovered. He is not adding another rule; he is explaining the original one. He explains a woman should cover her head as she was not the original human creation; she was made second to be a partner to the man.      The confusion comes in when people assume Paul is making an addition rule rather than adding information. The point of focus is usually the "woman is the glory of the man". They tie this in with verse 15, " But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering". Mistakenly, they twist these two together into the following thought; if a woman's glory is her hair, and women are the glory of men, then a woman's hair is the glory of the man. If a woman is to cover her head because she is the glory of the man, and her hair is the same as herself, then she should cover her hair rather than her head.

     This is a mistaken way of thinking for many reasons: 

1. The verses about glory and man are support for his original statement rather than stand-alone rules.
2. Paul says a woman is the glory of a man--Not that a woman's glory is the glory of a man.
3. Paul specifically states that a woman should cover her head, not her hair.
4. If Paul had meant hair, he would have said hair. He's straight forward enough in the rest of the chapter.
5. When we understand the terms "woman" to mean "woman" rather than "wife", and "man" to mean "man" rather than "husband", the connection between an individual woman's hair or head and an individual man's glory is broken. Paul is referring to womankind and mankind. Women are a glory to men. Plural.

     Conclusion: Hair is not the issue Paul is talking about, nor is the role of husband or wife. A woman's hair is her glory, but her glory only matters so long as she would like to have it and prays and prophesies accordingly.

"A Man's Glory"

    Ignoring the previous revelation of man and woman vs. husband and wife, when Israelites confuse the issue, they believe a woman's hair is tied in with her husband's glory. Let's observe this thought, as well. Their logic is as follows; because it is a man's glory, it should be hidden. Men should be humble, therefore, their glory should be hidden from all but themselves. 

     By definition, glory is "very great praise, honor, or distinction bestowed by common consent; renown" or "something that is a source of honor, fame, or admiration; a distinguished ornament or an object of pride". To be "glory" or "gloried", a thing must be known. If a woman's hair were to be covered, it would be literally impossible for it to be the glory of her husband. The only way for it to be a glory is if it were a "distinguished ornament of pride" or a "source of fame". Covered and hidden hair is none of these things.

     An example from the Bible that proves this logic is Proverbs 20:29, "The glory of young men is their strength, gray hair the splendor of the old." Strength can be hidden, but in Israel, it was not. Historical Israelites were a war-like people. The men were expected to go to war whenever necessary and to fight for their lives, people, and country. They did not hide their strength. The splendor of the old is their gray hair. Gray hair can be covered, but it was not. In Leviticus 19:32 (ESV), we are told, "You shall stand up before the gray head and honor the face of an old man..." If the splendor of the old was hidden, how would we know whom to stand up for? Obviously, the glory of man was not hidden, nor was their splendor. Indeed, it was a source of respect. If a woman's hair was a man's glory, it should not be hidden; it should be a source of respect.

Conclusion: Even if Paul were speaking of husbands and wives, and even if a wife's glory was tied in with a husband's, by definition, glory must be known of and recognized; therefore, hidden hair is no one's glory.

The Argument of Modesty

Another common argument for a woman covering her hair is that of modesty. It is often linked to the (wrongful) idea of husbands and wives and glory discussed above. A wife should be modest, and should cover her glory. Ignoring the point made above about glory for a moment, let's study the rules of modesty.

     In 1 Timothy, 2:9-10, we learn women should, "...adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God." Timothy states women should be noticed for their good deeds rather than their fancy clothing or jewelry. Fair enough, but we still don't have a definition for what makes apparel "modest". 1 Peter 5:5 exhorts for us to "...be clothed in humility..." but that is more about action than clothing. Other verses on the subject say much the same. For all my studying, I could not find one solid list on what exactly "modest" clothing is. Rather, it seemed to be about attitude. 

     The closest thing I could find to a list of what counted as "modest" comes from Isaiah chapter 47. In this chapter, a promise is made about the downfall of Babylon, "Come down, and sit in the dust, O virgin daughter of Babylon, sit on the ground: there is no throne, O daughter of the Chaldeans: for thou shalt no more be called tender and delicate. Take the millstones, and grind meal: uncover thy locks, make bare the leg, uncover the thigh, pass over the rivers. Thy nakedness shall be uncovered, yea, thy shame shall be seen: I will take vengeance, and I will not meet thee as a man." The women of Babylon are given a curse, of sorts. They are told to show their hair, bare their legs, uncover their thighs. They are told their "nakedness" will be uncovered, to their shame. So, does hair count as part of their nakedness? Paul would not say so.

     As stated in 1 Corinthians 11:15, a woman's hair is her glory, given to her as a covering. Note, "a covering". Hair is not nakedness; indeed, it is a type of covering. So, in Isaiah, the nakedness of the women comes from their legs and thighs. The work translated nakedness comes from "dexr" (English equivalent of Hebrew word) pronounced "er-vah", meaning "nudity, especially the pudenda" (link). "Pudenda" is a word referring to the genitals, especially those of a woman (link). The curse upon these women isn't for their hair to be seen, but their genitals and thighs. [Note: The word leg and locks in this verse are both originally a type of clothes...rather than talking about body parts, those refer to types of clothing. Only the "thigh" and "nakedness" refer to body parts].

     As far as modesty laws, all we know is that the thighs and genitals are right out. 

     Let us observe a moment where a woman's hair is revealed around Yeshua and how he reacts. In John 12:3, Mary, sister of Lazarus and Martha, pours "very costly" perfume on the feet of Yeshua and proceeds to wipe his feet with her hair. Her hair, specifically, the hair of her head. Now, if modesty rules equated the hair to nakedness, Yeshua would likely have fainted with shock. What she did would be the equivalent of a pleasant-smelling naked lap dance. Even if Yeshua understood her true intent, the disciples, who were in the room, would have been outraged. A single woman, in a household of men, revealing her nakedness and wiping it on the feet of the son of GOD?!!!! But, because hair and nakedness have nothing to do with each other, nothing of the sort happens. Yeshua is not shocked. The disciples are not outraged. In fact, the only complaint made is that the perfume she bought was too expensive and the money would have been better spent on the poor (John 12:4-5). 

     Another argument Israelite women use is that men are attracted to a woman's hair, and women should cover it to avoid being "tempting". "A woman's hair should be private, for her husband," they say, "so I cover it so that only my husband can experience it". For one, this has no Biblical basis; it's tied up in the whole "glory" thing we've already spoken about. For two, if the goal of covering one's hair to avoid being attractive to men, then, while the woman has her hair covered, her husband should not find her attractive. Talk to any Israelite man with a wife who covers her hair, and you will quickly find it is not the case. They say proudly, "Our women are so modest and beautiful; they always cover their hair and never wear anything but a skirt" (don't get me started on skirts. We'll go there on another day). First off, if the goal is to be modest, should the husbands be feeling prideful? Should they not find their wives homely, bland, even repulsive? But, they are prideful, and they do not feel repulsed or apathetic to their wives' looks.

    Let us consider other cultures that preach a woman should cover her hair or body to avoid inciting the lust of men. Islamic nations and India come to mind. In many Islamic nations, it is illegal for a woman to be seen by anyone not a relative. The Afghani burqa, for example, is designed to cover every female aspect of the body but the eyes, and, sometimes, even the eyes are screened off. How successful is this measure in repressing the sexuality of men? 

Surely this is enough to quench the lusts of men?

Let's talk about the sexual crime rate in Afghanistan. According to Younis Payan, deputy of the United Nations Population Fund in Afghanistan, 25% of women living in Afghanistan face sexual violence (link). That's one out of every four women. Their burqas did not save them. In India, 20% of men admit to raping their wives or significant others. Their saris and modest clothes did not save them from the violence of men (link).

     That is because, in life, and according to the Bible, as spoken by Yeshua, no woman is responsible for a man's lust. A man's lust is his sole responsibility. Yeshua says, "But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart." (Matthew 5:28). The women is not responsible; the woman has not committed adultery. The man has. Because, as demonstrated by India and Afghanistan, (and many more countries), changing a woman's clothes won't stop men from being attracted to them. 

    When an Israelite woman covers her hair to "avoid tempting men", she is taking the blame for something that has nothing to do with her. She is trying to control something she has no power over. Her head covering, at the end of the day, will not help her avoid inciting lust, but, also, that isn't her problem.

Conclusion: Modesty is more about attitude than specific clothing, and hair has absolutely nothing to do with modesty, and thus need not be covered. If a man feels lusty towards a woman, it is his fault, and nothing she did excuses his feelings or actions.

The History Argument

The last argument I've heard for women wearing head coverings is that we should act as the ancient Israelites did. Historic Israelite clothing for women included some sort of cloth head covering. Some laws and punishments, such as that of the possibly unfaithful wife, include a step of taking a woman's veil off.

     However, this only evidences that women did wear veils, not that all women must wear veils. But, for this, our final refutation, we're going to do some comparative and backwards-working logic. In 1 Corinthians 11:4, we are informed, "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head." Using the logic of pro-head-covering, a women should have her head covered at all times, to allow her to pray and because ancient Israelite women wore head coverings. If the logic here was true, men, dishonored by covering their heads during prayer, should absolutely never cover their heads in any way. 

     But, when we look to the past, not only did Israelite women wear head coverings as part of their daily outfits, so did Israelite men. They wore helmets in war, cloth "veils" for the everyday, High Priests of the temple were even required to wear a certain type of head covering!

Representation of typical Israelite garb

     The clothing of the time and region was cultural rather than religious. Middle eastern men continue to dress this way to this day. It's because it makes sense to their climate. When it is hot outside, having some protection from the sun on one's head is a matter of common sense. Looking to the past and copying what they did without question will not solve our problems. Yes, Israelite woman wore head coverings. So did men. They also regularly fell into idolatry and sacrificed their own children. Context is needed before judgement is made.

Conclusion: The historical garb of the Israelites had more to do with common culture and ethnicity than with religion. Women in ancient Israel wore head coverings, but that does not mean we should do so.

So.....Why?

As I hope to have established, their is no basis for women wearing headcoverings all day every day as a way of life. There is no Biblical basis, modesty basis, historical basis, or husband-obeying basis. Why do more people not realize this?
     The answer is simple. 

     It is a tradition of men. "For laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men" (Mark 7:8). Because "other people" cover their hair for modesty--Jews, Muslims, Amish, Mennonites, some Hindus--we feel pressure to define modesty in the same way. We forget to look to the Bible and God's law to find the truth.
     It is a symptom of sexism. Many of the Israelites have come out of Christian churches. Christian churches hold on to the idea that women are somehow "less than". After all, did not Eve tempt Adam and bring sin into the world? (They ignore that God blamed Adam for that). Was not Mary Magdalene a prostitute? (No. She wasn't. There is no scriptural support for this, though that would have made her hair lapdance even more scandalous). This feeling is carried over in the men and women who become Israelites, and they latch onto the barest excuse to oppress women, citing holiness, ignoring what is plain to see, with a little legwork.

Final Conclusion

Dear Israelite sisters, you can cover your hair as much and as strictly as you like on an everyday basis. But, I want you to know, and to be free in the knowledge, that there is no reason for you to. Your husband is not a reason. Your modesty is not a reason. Your holiness is not a reason. The only reason to do this is because you want to. 

Also, knowing what you do now, please, stop saying you cover your hair for God. He doesn't want that; He doesn't require it; He doesn't ask for it. Stop saying you do it to honor your husband. It doesn't honor him, if anything, it hides a source of honest pride. Believe in yourself and be secure and happy in your body. Your hair is not an excuse for anyone to do a wrong; you will be tempting or not no matter what you do or what you cover. 

Yes, be known for your works, but do not keep yourself from enjoying life. The point of being Israelites is that we are answerable only to God; His yoke is easy and His burden is light.
Thank you.