"Women are Property" Part II: Men Respond

[This is Part II of the "Women are Property" response series: to read Part I, follow this link.]

Meet the Interviewees

Aconite: Aconite recently earned his masters degree. He currently works in county government. Aconite grew up in a Christian family, but he sees himself more of a Christian-Agnostic.
Columbine: Columbine was raised in a Roman Catholic household, though neither of his parents are very religious. As he grew up, he decided to learn more about other religions and began studying them throughout high school and college. This led to his current agnostic faith.

Rafflesia: Rafflesia, though an atheist for most of his life, converted to Israelitism early in college. He lives with his wife and is currently working towards his Master's degree.

Stapelia*: Stapelia has been an Israelite since his later years of college. He lives with his wife and son and works as a teacher.

[* Stapelia listened to about half of the podcast and was not able to answer all of the questions.]

(Source)

The Interview

How do you identify yourself, religiously?

Aconite: Uh.....I dunno. Been thinking about that one a lot lately. Agnostic with leanings towards the Christian faith? Been working on figuring out this one the last couple months, so difficult for me to really explain.

Columbine: Agnostic.

Rafflesia: I identify as an Israelite.

Stapelia: I believe in Jesus; I believe the words he said. Ergo, I and My Father are 1, I do not say anything unless My Father gives it to me to say, and also where His Father says I do not change -in Malachi 3:6. I call myself a Hebrew, but what that means is I believe the whole Bible and I do not see any contradictions or replacements. “A whole Bible Believer.”

What is your relationship status?

Aconite: Single.

Columbine: Monogamous dating.

Rafflesia: I am married.

Stapelia: I am married.

What, if any, questions do you have before we commence the interview?

Aconite: When they say Hebrew, are they talking about Jews in general? Or are they specifically talking about Semitic Israelites.

Me: Not Jews. It's a term of...ethnicity? I suppose you could call it. Denomination. To Israelitism. In the "modern" usage of "we are Hebrews". In the context of the past, they mean the tribes of Israel.
Stapelia:  Does anyone who has answered these questions or who will read these interviews really know what their culture is, and how culture affects personality? Does anyone have the ability to look at what they believe, why they believe it, and whether they believe it because that is what they were raised in, or because they have truly examined it?

(Source)

What is your general reaction to what you listened to?

Aconite: The podcasters should definitely give definitions for certain terms as they are hard to follow. The one that bothered me the most was the continual use of "the American mind." At the beginning, it seemed as they were using this as a euphemism for materialism, but later it became a construct for, essentially, the modern world views that they disagreed with. Difficult to follow what they're talking about when a euphemism that has a moving target for a meaning is used almost every minute of the discussion.

Columbine: I don’t really understand how someone can voluntarily place themselves in a “lesser” position, like being a spouse’s property. I had strong female role models growing up, including my mother and godmother, who are twins. The idea of females acting strictly as servants to men is strange to me.

Rafflesia: On an emotional level, disgust, anger, and a deep sadness. On an intellectual level, bafflement and offense on a personal and professional level.

Stapelia: I think they said a lot of things about Eastern vs. Western culture which seemed pertinent to me, and also they came with a lot of verses. I think this is the best path, because if you are not saying your own opinion, but simply quoting the word, then you can not actually be refuted. Also, I have not done all the Biblical and etymological research into all the words to really be able to discern the original meaning. That being said, my general reaction is that I like when people support their arguments from the Word. Oh, and that Naysayers are often not Naydoers, the ones who hate often are on the outside looking in, instead of being on the inside and speaking out.

Do you believe women are unable to understand men, and therefore unable to judge their actions?

Aconite: I don't understand women, but does that mean I cannot judge an action? We're told not to judge lest we be judged, but I think that this is not meant as, "do not condemn actions." Women may not understand men, but if the man is not following what they say they believe and acting on it, it would seem to me that their actions can be judged by their peers, male or female. Women may not understand men's motivations and vice versa, but the actions themselves can be good or bad and should be judged as such. The assessment that women should not judge men's actions reminds me of a geography class that I had in which a professor mentioned we cannot judge cultures. I called BS on it then, as I do now, because there are inherently wrong acts. If it is culturally sound to kill a child because the child was born a sex not to the parents' liking, shouldn't all people condemn that act?

Columbine: I think women can understand men as well as any given person can understand another person.

Rafflesia: I believe that it couldn't be any further from the truth. Women are no less mentally capable than men. They are just as capable of understanding and judging men as other men are. The same as men are capable of judging, understanding, and assessing women. The assertion that women shouldn't stop and consider whether or not men are actually correct or just, and merely accept it, is absolutely absurd and frankly, unconscionable.

Stapelia: I think this is pretty darn likely. I know that as a man I really struggle to understand women, and even the understanding I do (think) I have is probably at most, at MOST maybe 75% valid. But, anyone can take the Law of God and judge anyone else’s action against it. Look at what this person did, then compare it to the examples given from the Word.

(Source)

React to the statement, “women are a possession”.

Aconite: I will say that Ephesians 5 is a good place to look if a man believes his wife is nothing more than property. In my mind, being called to love your wife in the same manner that Christ loved the church is a far higher calling than simple obedience. And if a man loves his wife in the manner Christ loved the church, wouldn't the woman WANT to be obedient, as we are asked to be obedient to God? This is ultimately where I think problems come from when considering women property. The men forget/don't care what their duty is to their wife.

Columbine: It’s a silly concept. We are all people, and born as equals.

Rafflesia: Such a mass of reactions. Where to start? First off, the idea is simply incorrect on many levels. The logic employed is deeply flawed, and I find it almost insulting that somebody could speak as though said logic was undeniable considering its absurdity. An emotional reaction is revulsion, sadness (particularly because it has been supported by women), and to be honest, quite a lot of rage.

Stapelia: This is a true statement. I saw a very good teaching from Matthew Van Der Els entitled “The Place of a Woman.” ... He was explaining about in the ancient near east women had rights, and also how they were the most valuable possession a man had, the thing they cherished the most of all their things. Consider this: If Shalomo (a made up person) was sleeping in his house, woke up, and it was fully engulfed, he only gets to take one thing at all from all of what he has, what will he save? If he is a real man, he will save his wife as everything else is consumed. That is a harsh example, but serves to illustrate how a wife is the most valued possession a man can have in this world. Consider the Proverb in 18:22, "He who finds a wife finds a good thing, and favor from the Lord. "
Also, this goes to the whole Eastern v Western understanding. We are really messed up in the USA with our understanding of humans as property because of ye olde southern slavery--this was in the Roman style, not the Eastern style. Slaves had rights under the Biblical Law. Women are a possession but not in the “Dredd Scott Case” sense of the word.

How do sex slaves, like Bilhah and Zilpah, prevent “the lust of the world”?

Aconite: I must be missing something, because as far as I can tell, they do not. If anything, I would venture to guess it would worsen it.

Columbine: They don't.

Rafflesia: They are the ultimate embodiment of lust. Now, don't twist that. They are not the embodiment of lust in that they are the most lustful beings in existence. No, they are the embodiment of lust because their mere existence shows the unbridled lust of men. The idea that a man sleeping with multiple women is somehow some barrier to lust is so patently insane it is laughable. If a man desires to sleep with more than one woman, it is because he is not only lustful, but he is also incapable of controlling it.

Stapelia: I am in the tribe of Napthali, so Bilhah is my ancient mother. I think this goes to the understanding again of East vs. West. Is a Biblical concubine the same thing as a modern sex slave chained up in Bangkok or deceived and smuggled from Eastern Europe to some underground brothel in NYC? I do not think so. I know that there are some things I don’t understand about concubines, like the whole deal with the Levite in the end of the book of Judges. He had a concubine with him. This Levite is also a pattern for Jesus, so what is that all about? These women were given to Jacob by his wives so that the wives could claim the children of the concubines as their own. If I had to guess, maybe a concubine is like a common-law wife? To prevent the lust of the world, I think I am starting to feel sorry for Jacob, he has the Nagging wife whom he loves pestering him about babies, and he responds, “Am I in the place of God, who has withheld from you the fruit of the womb?” Gen. 30:2. I think this coitus was a burden, a job for him. I doubt he looked at his household servants with a lecherous eye and did a secret dance when she said “do her, and give me children.” Also, remember this whole children-with-servants situation was thrust upon him by his wives.

How do you define “love”?

Aconite: Christ's love for the church was agape; in other words, a selfless love. I would tend to believe this needs to be the overall guiding love for marriage; however, if there is no eros in the relationship, there will almost definitely be problems. I have never met a couple who did not still have eros in the relationship and managed to actually show their love for one another. It would seem to me it is a requirement in some manner to have a fulfilling marriage that is good for both man and woman. Additionally, man and woman were created as sexual creatures. If we were to not have eros in our marriages, it would seem that God would not have made this a part of humanity, but it is supposed to be good. The sexual nature, when in purity, is part of what God gave to us.

Columbine: Mutual respect, devotion, and understanding. There are many types of love- romantic love, familial love, friendly love, etc.

Rafflesia: In relation to people, love is a deep, selfless feeling of care, affection, and utter devotion to another person. With friends, it typically stops there. With spouses/etc/ it goes deeper. To love a spouse is a special thing. It certainly involves a feeling of responsibility and duty to that spouse. However, that is the base level. You care for them not because you're "supposed" to, but because they are your partner in life. Man, it is so complex. Breaking it down into such structured lines of "duty, obligation, yada yada yada" is ridiculous. People experience love in so many ways. Brain chemistry, personality type, etc. In the case of God to his people, the love is completely selfless, and utterly undeserved on our end.

Stapelia: I define love as a perpetual commitment, a decision to face all things with this person, no matter what. With others, you can reach the point where you just cut ties and walk away, but to the person you love ,this is not even an entertainable option. The only option is to keep going and work together. That is an unromantic definition, but when all the things are going well, that is when all the Western notions about romance come into play.

(Source)

Does love create crippling, unmanly weakness in men?

Aconite: No. Is this a trick question? To me, it's not a weakness.

Columbine:  As a man, I think I would be weaker without love in my life. It provides support.

Rafflesia: Love is a strengthening force. It is not only the greatest motivator in the world--consider loving God, after all--but also a massive support system.

Stapelia: Not in this man.

React “the American woman is the enemy of a man”.

Aconite:  I guess what I would say is that women are not the enemy of men...Great men exist because women don't settle for simply ‘good enough’. What I find that motivates me to do better, is a woman who is not content with simply backing up her husband, but a woman who desires to help people in general.

Columbine: Who is “the American woman”? This sounds like a broad, scare-tactic-y phrase. It reminds me of something like “Muslims are the enemy of the West”. It’s bizarre.

Rafflesia: First off, this idea that there is such a thing as a single defined "American woman" is absurd. There is so much variation in American women that it's a completely moot point. My wife is an American, and is also a woman who follows the Law. She is in no way an enemy to me, and is the exact opposite of an "effeminizing" force. The root problem is this idea that we are supposed to have a "Hebrew culture". The people in the Bible were often HORRIBLE people. There is a reason that God scattered them. They were a stubborn, evil, idolatrous, lustful people. Yeshua left to bring the message to Gentiles for a reason. The culture of the ancient Israelites, or "Hebrews" as they continually call them, is not one to emulate.

Stapelia: “American woman, stay away from me-eeee. Mama let me bee-eee.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkqfpkTTy2w A vast majority of American women are the enemy of a man today. The women whom walked across the plains with their husbands en-route to Oregon, maybe giving birth on the trail? They were not the enemy of a man. “The Real Housewives of X” and all their ilk, yes they are the enemy of a man. Maybe Tupac said it best when he said “fake hair fake nails fake eyes too, so you bound to (mess) with fake guys too” etc.

From this podcast, what is a “Biblical” marriage?

Aconite: Any time a woman is married off by her father (with or without her consent) and irrespective of the suitor's status (married/unmarried). Woman is to be a broodmare and a homemaker and remember her place as property. That seems like it sums up what they were saying. Blunt enough?

Columbine: A woman serving a man and bearing his heirs.

Rafflesia: A "Biblical" marriage is one that has a man married to multiple women. Said women apparently live in different houses--something that was not the case historically, but that's another issue--, or theoretically in different tents. The man works the land (something that ignores the way the people of Jerusalem lived). The man sees his wives in very small doses (also ignoring that women worked the fields as well), and is not affectionate with them. They do not have conversations long enough to broach deeper topics, and she does not consider or judge him in any way. She merely has sex with him, raises his children, feeds him, and does what he tells her to.

Stapelia: I don’t remember what they said specifically about it.
 A Biblical marriage is on that is sanctified by The Most High, in His model. It is based on mutual dedication, and on WORK. Not on warm and fuzzy feelings. Look at the fruit to see if it is Biblical. Do they have children? Are they well-behaved? Does this person have an Ashley-whatever account? Do they keep the Laws of the Lord in their home? A Biblical marriage is one where the husband loves the wife and the wife submits to the husband, à la Eph. 5:33.

From this podcast, what makes a man? What makes a woman?

Aconite: Man - property owner, makes money. Woman - property, broodmare, homemaker.Oh, and whenever I say homemaker, I am including child-rearer in that.

Columbine: A man is God’s creation. A woman is a man’s servant made from his rib.

Rafflesia: According to this, a woman is a meek being that does not question her husband. She listens to him in all things, she serves him as her "master", she has sex with him when he wishes, and she bears his children. According to this, a man is someone who tells his wives what to do, does not love them, has sex with multiple women, but works the land and provides women the physical things they need to survive. He owns many things, including women.

What, in your opinion, makes a good marriage?

Aconite: Agape and eros, with agape being dominant. Ephesians 5.

Columbine: Mutual respect and understanding, similar life goals, honest communication, and sensible financial planning.

Rafflesia: First off, it requires there only be two members. A good marriage is one based on communication and support. They must both love each other entirely, and support them completely. When issues arise, both members of the marriage consult each other, talk it out, and then make an adult decision with how to proceed. The man ultimately has the decision to make in steering his family, but he holds his wife in enough respect and esteem to consider her. In a good marriage, the sex is entirely consensual, and actually enjoyable for both members. It isn't subject to the whims of only one member.

Stapelia: A good marriage will be in the form and spirit of Genesis 3:16-19. “...And your desire is for your husband, and he does rule over you. And to the man He said, “because you have listened to the voice of your wife, and have eaten of the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘Do not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground because of you, in toil you are to eat of it all the days of your life, and the ground shall bring forth thorns and thistles for you, and you shall eat the plants of the field. By the sweat of your face you are to eat bread until you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken. For dust you are, and to dust you return.” The wife will desire her husband, and hearken to him. The husband will provide for the wife and family, and earn bread by his labors.

(Source)

(If married) how does your marriage work?

Rafflesia: Well, considering I have an extremely healthy marriage, it follows the guidelines I just laid out.

Stapelia: My wife is a piece of my body, just like Eve was taken from Adam’s ribs. So, I take care of her and myself, and I listen when we make decisions, but ultimately, I make decisions. When your body is talking to you, you listen, but sometimes you have to do the hard thing. Consider fasting, or physical training. That is the unromantic nuts and bolts, in general, my marriage works where we have lots of fun with each other, eat delicious foods, and have the occasional adventures.

How do you think this makes Israelites appear to non-Israelites?/ How does this make you feel about this religious sect?

Aconite: That's not fair. I don't like to generalize. Plus, I know you and Sven....so.....[it] Seems like another religious sect that I would not fit in as I do not share the interpretations that they have of the Bible.They also seemed very standoffish about their beliefs, which, I suppose indicates that they actually believe it rather than just say they believe it.

Columbine: As a non-Israelite, this is very bizarre. I understand that these people do not represent all Christians or all Israelites, but this fits the crazy Christian stereotype perfectly.

Rafflesia: I imagine it makes non-Israelites recoil from the religion in a massive way. It makes us appear like ignorant barbarians, misogynists, and due to their logical failures, it makes us appear like utter morons.

Stapelia: I hope it makes them think Israelites tag their beliefs to the Word, and not to the mores of US and now increasingly global society. Compared to the increasingly liberal example shown to us today by the “Churches” of America, a Biblical perspective is a breath of fresh air. However, Jesus did say that the world will hate you for His name’s sake, so if they get more hate from the world because of the beliefs they have and hold, good.

Any closing thoughts/comments?

Rafflesia: My closing thought: If you know somebody who is living in this situation, please try to help them see the errors of their ways. Please, I implore you, cut any and all ties with these people and do everything in your power to prevent others from going down that path.

Stapelia: Anyone reading this should know that no one at Straitway is in a plural marriage**. Oh, and P.S.,  what about that long-running show about the Mormons in the plural marriage? “Big Love” maybe?--where they ended up moving to Las Vegas? What do Christians and Americans think about that? Have any of your readers watched that show? Did they watch it, or did they curse the tv and turn it off? My wife just told me there is another one called “sister wives”--where is all the outcry about those shows, where are the response articles written about that?

[**From my research, there are no plural-marriage families on Straitway currently, but it seems the members plan to move in that direction very soon. ]

(Source)

Conclusion

Women are not property. Women are people. Though relationships convey a sense of "ownership" on both sexes, a woman cannot be thrown away like a tissue, or broken like a cup. A woman, though "valuable", is not a "thing".
Telling a man to have sex with multiple women does not protect him (or them) from the lusts of the world.
If a way promotes jealousy, favoritism, and abuse, it is not a good way.
Marriage is not required for salvation.

Studying the Bible is very important. Studying thoroughly is more so. (A bonus! Lady Israelite's study tips!) When looking into what we are meant to do, "They did it!" is not enough reason to apply an action to ourselves. Ask yourself, "Were they told to do it? Who told them? How did it work out for them?". Compare the Old Testament and the New Testament. Look into the grammar and words used. Look into the context; is it allegorical, or literal? Study your history, and study it well. Use several sources.

Thank you for reading this series. I hope it made you angry. If you're the religious type, I hope it made you open your Bible and study. Feel free to leave your own reactions in the comments. Similarly to the "Women React" segment, I will post full transcripts of the interviews and link them here. There was a lot of editing done to keep this post short, so I suggest you check them out!

Full Transcripts: Stapelia, Rafflesia, Columbine, Aconite