It’s A Woman’s World Now!

(Jeremiah 31:22)
Post 303

So is God afraid that women will figure out how to rule the world against his designed plan for men in reflection of God the Father? Is He concerned that humanity will figure out how to live without his protective oversight, and discover they can do it even better? Let’s explore what God the Father “might already know” and have to say about such a significantly world changing age:

“…for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man” Jeremiah 31:22b.

In the above second half of this study verse, the LORD seems to take the credit for not only the new circumstances in which these women are not repenting from their wicked ways (mentioned below in the first half), but the results too.

“How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter?...” Jeremiah 31:22a.

But in analyzing the wording more accurately, the lower case connecting; “for” (because) is not referencing the LORD taking possession of the cause of her lack of repentance, as if he designed the circumstances for that purpose, but that the daughters are using the God-designed new conditions of liberation as a “because” reason for not returning. The LORD is asking:

“How long will you abuse my new Grace to women?” - Read it again:

“How long wilt thou go about, O thou backsliding daughter? for the LORD hath created a new thing in the earth, A woman shall compass a man” Jeremiah 31:22.

Suddenly we see the Typology; the period of grace granted to the Church at the coming of Christ who by doing so, took away the guilt of our sins against God’s law by faith, and justifies us before the Father without the law through faith (Isaiah 53:5-6, Romans 4:23-25). We have been liberated!
But this new liberating grace from God's law is wrongly used to excuse running even wilder as Christians because there is now no correcting chastisement from the LORD as there was before (Jeremiah 2:35 [Oh how I want to explain v.36, but we must continue]).
So we see that God is the one, in his designed plan and timing, who has granted unhappy women, feeling oppressed by him (Jeremiah 6:10), a chance to rule the world in her liberation, like a girl at college (paid for by daddy), without a Father “constantly lording over her to cramp her style” (*1). Among other things (like I Kings 12:1-19 as the historically undesirable example of the option), it’s His way of showing his daughters and humanity that he is not an oppressor. Any chastisement or oppression she (the daughter of God) gets after being liberated by the maturity of Christ’s Age, is brought on by her own bad choices at “school”:

“I will not punish your daughters when they commit whoredom, nor your spouses when they commit adultery: for themselves are separated with whores, and they sacrifice with harlots: therefore the people that do not understand shall fall” Hosea 4:14.

“Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see (by experience) that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts” Jeremiah 2:19.

So go to it ladies; Rule the world.
* * *

BUT. There are a few things that you should know before you dive in with God’s blessing:
With the new liberty comes new responsibility... and with responsibility comes accountability. It just goes with the territory. It’s a law of nature:

“But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her” Numbers 30:9.

It might seem to the emotionally defensive, liberated woman, that this passage is placing sexist, harsh, and unjustified punishment on “single-again” women, who, for a variety of reasons-- both her fault and not-- have found themselves finally free from “the oppression of men.” But although you might get this impression by the “divorced woman” as having been “too difficult to live with” and so “deserving what she gets” from a man’s point of view; no such impression can be taken with the widow, who even a man recognizes, had nothing to do with how she ended up on her own. This is a passage that speaks on the universal law of accountability of self-authority, male or female:

“If a man vow a vow unto the LORD, or swear an oath to bind his soul with a bond; he shall not break his word, he shall do according to all that proceedeth out of his mouth” Numbers 30:2.

Beyond declaring the great burden of accountability on women now in independent leadership roles the same as on men in those roles, these verses have no other rightfully useable meaning or significance outside the surrounding passage; where we see that unlike the irrevocable bond of a man’s word (that neither he nor she is protected from); the woman once had at least a husband or father as a “check-and-balance” protection from any of her own foolish or rash vows:

If a woman also vow a vow unto the LORD, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth; and her father hear her vow…” Numbers 30:3-4a (husbands likewise as fathers in vv.6-7a).

And the passage goes on in great specific detail describing all the various conditions in which a woman has this extra protection of a male authority who can disavow her vow, whether she is virgin or married, as long as she is under a divinely protective authority. (See also a very important Leviticus 22:12-13 caveat that holds great significance of hope for a specific kind of woman in repentance after failure-- the impetus of our study verse: Return--, but it is not listed here because of the “Independent Self-Authority Spirit” context of the liberated women in this passage included with the male responsibility role; Numbers 30:9 stuffed in between :1&16).
The failed protections of an unwise authority (of simple indifference or henpecked) are also important to note as; such “in house” liberation is not protection (Numbers 30:4b,7b) anymore than being on her own. But that is neither here nor there when it comes to our topic of independent single-again women now in their own authority.

What needs to be understood for the sake of wise female leadership such as; Deborah (Judges 4:4-9) and Hilkiah (II Chronicles 34:22-28) and Anna (Luke 2:36-38), is the extra layer of divine protection that, unlike these examples, independent women give up to assume the self-governing role, and why they didn’t seem to receive it when it should have been theirs.
That last bit becomes quite complex when a woman under Divine authority becomes independent-minded and her husband or father wants to protect her from her own vows she stubbornly wishes to keep (I Samuel 15:23a). Suddenly he is seen as an oppressor if he doesn’t hold his peace, and she is as if she were widowed or divorced while maintaining the illusion of remaining under authority and the protection of God. The illusion publicly places both God and her male authority in the Numbers 30:13-14 category, though their peace is against their will. Now what are they to do in light of Numbers 30:15? By silent approval, to keep her happy, her vow becomes his burden.
The independent woman under authority has become the oppressor by accusing him of oppression! She holds the law hostage by using herself as the item of negotiation to get what she wants. The more attractive she can make herself to the law the greater her power over the law. The very nature of the law is to govern that which needs governing, so she becomes more attractively lawless and the law yearns to guide and protect her all the more… to a point!

“To whom shall I speak, and give warning, that they may hear? Behold, their ear is uncircumcised, and they cannot hearken: behold, the word of the LORD is unto them a reproach; they have no delight in it. Therefore I am full of the fury of the LORD; I am weary with holding in: I will pour it out (on everyone)…For I will stretch out my hand upon the inhabitants of the land, saith the LORD” Jeremiah 6:10-12.

* * *

Was the “actual” old way really that bad?
In the old “oppressive system under men” designed by God; Men and women-- whether single or married-- could both make vows whenever it pleased them; they both had that universal liberty of equality. But under the divine additional protection/authority of husband or father, a woman had an additional safeguard if she would accept it; he could, if he saw necessary, on the day he hears of it, relieve her soul of her burdensome vow:

But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth (of it); not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the LORD shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her” Numbers 30:5 (likewise husbands in vv.8,12 with the distinctions of “none affect” and “void”).

Why? Is this male suppression in action? Hardly:
First: because it is the divine power of grace in the name of Christ-- granted by God unto stable male authority-- to remove self-imposed oppressive bondage for those divinely-created emotional creatures under their care.
Second: it’s because women are prone to emotionalism by design. And making a seriously consequential vow in an emotionally charged state is extremely hazardous! God designed and knows all these details about the genders and so grants the logical and stable male authority in her life (representing God the Father) to extend grace when she needs it and is submissive enough to receive it against her strong emotions (human perceptions). He has no such extension for himself and must use extra caution and soundness of mind when making a vow, because what he/He vows, he/He must do.

“When thou shalt vow a vow unto the LORD thy God, thou shalt not slack to pay it: for the LORD thy God will surely require it of thee; and it would be sin in thee (if you don’t). But if thou shalt forbear (transliterated: choose not) to vow (in the first place), it shall be no sin in thee” Deuteronomy 23:21-22. (also v.23, Psalm 50:14, 76:11, 116:14,18, Proverbs 7:14, Jonah 2:9, etc.).

“When thou vowest a vow unto God, defer not to pay it; for he hath no pleasure in fools: pay that which thou hast vowed. Better it is that thou shouldest not vow, than that thou shouldest vow and not pay. Suffer not thy mouth to cause thy flesh to sin; neither say thou before the angel, that it was an error: wherefore should God be angry at thy voice, and destroy the work of thine hands?” Ecclesiastes 5:4-6.

(Sorry guys, you have no husband or father authority to make void your vow. The consequence is the failure of your industry because the concept of payment relates to income. God is just balancing your books).

“LORD, who shall abide in thy tabernacle? (168; covering, dwelling)… He that sweareth (even) to his own hurt, and(/but) changeth not” Psalm 15:1,4b.

A man may make a foolish or rash vow, or even a vow in ignorance of all the facts. But a vow is a vow and he is obligated to keep it once he makes it (Judges 11:30-31< 34-35), it just goes with the territory of authority. So, if a woman is on her own outside the protection of Devine authority; if she is her own authority-- emotionally driven or not-- when she makes a vow it is likewise binding. The same goes for an emotionally driven man. This is VERY dangerous ground:

“And Jephthah vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, Then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the Children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD’s, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering” Judges 11:30-31.

This seems to be such a horrifically rash blunder-- like Moses striking the rock-- that it deserves an entire study of its own (Jephthah’s Prophetic Vow *2) to explore all that God intends by including this in scripture, but for our present point let’s just comprehend here that Jephthah was thinking perhaps of his beloved dog, or maybe about the many various pets in his home in general, or even a particular obnoxious pet of his daughter’s that “always” springs out the door first whenever it is opened. Whatever he was imagining as a certainty, a human being was clearly not what he had in mind when he made his emotional vow in the state of anxiety. But he had no “husband/Father” figure of Divine authority to protect him from his own vow when it didn’t turn out the way he imagined:

“And Jephthah came to Mizpeh unto his house, and, behold, his daughter came out to meet him with timbrels and with dances: and she was his only child; beside her he had neither son nor daughter. And it came to pass, when he saw her, that he rent his clothes, and said, Alas, my daughter! Thou hast brought me very low, and thou art one of them that troubleth me: for I have opened my mouth unto the LORD, and I cannot go back” Judges 11:34-35.

Why would a woman voluntarily give up such a protection, when even Jephthah’s daughter didn’t?

“And she said unto him, My father, if thou hast opened thy mouth unto the LORD, do to me according to that which hath proceeded out of thy mouth; forasmuch as the LORD hath taken vengeance for thee of thine enemies, even of the children of Ammon” Judges 11:36.

Are you telling me that your “Man made” troubles are greater than hers? There is a principle here that even at its worst application is preferable over stubbornness or rebellion (I Samuel 15:23+ Job 2:9-10). Let me offer a single possibility among countless others: What if Jephthah’s daughter was going to die of horribly painful cancer beginning in two months anyway? What good would bitter rebellion in self-preservation have done her then but to grant her a bad name and terrible suffering before her inevitable death? Even though Jephthah’s vow was clearly rash, If you knew all the facts as God knows them you would agree that God was not wrong in designing her to come out of the house first. But you don’t… and that’s the point.
But enough of that complexity for now, we need to stay on target.
* * *

Here is the point to consider:
Nobody said a man would always get it right; he is human. But so are women! And when emotionally charged women are in power like men, they neither have protection from their own emotionally driven vows, nor the additional power of protecting those emotionally driven ladies under them. If you think men have failed their jobs and you have paid the heavy price; consider that women-- by design-- can only provide, in every way, less protection not more. Not only can’t they protect you from your emotionalism; but you aren’t even protected from theirs, because they have rejected that available additional protection in the emotional desire to be equal with unprotected-- but emotionally stable-- men! The solution is not to cast out the man and take over, but in lovingly submissive humility to help the man become a better/more Christ-like protector by being a better/more church-like protectoree.

“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;” Ephesians 5:24-25.

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church” Ephesians 5:31-32.

Combine the above verse with I Timothy 3:16 and we discover the great mystery of godliness in mankind vs. the Revelation 17:5 mystery of the great whore. The mystery in both examples is in the union of specific male and female entities with respectively very different results!

A man’s soul is moved beyond words by a woman who offers herself as a protectoree… But what that man’s soul is moved to DO depends on who his God/god is. Choose your man/authority carefully!

“The eyes of the LORD run to and fro throughout the whole earth, to shew himself strong in the behalf of them whose heart is perfect toward him…” II Chronicles 16:9a.
Vs.
“Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:” I Peter 5:8.

NOBODY but a fool imagines that a woman who offers herself to a lion will be treated with tender care. But women do it all the time! and now today, mothers give their prepubescent daughters videos like Beauty and the Beast as if they are intentionally driving their daughter to the lion, in their own Mercedes, after dropping daddy off at the bar to sit silently alone on a stool and drown his burden of sorrows at the destruction of his daughter’s soul.

But That’s Not All: Use the same care of choice when rejecting your man as you should in choosing him.
After you choose the right lord, the next obligation is to have a perfect heart toward him. God will not fail to perform his vow if you will perform yours. But he has also made an alternate vow tailored to the self-centered wife:

“…Herein (; as to your perfect heart) thou hast done foolishly: therefore from henceforth thou shalt have wars” II Chronicles 16:9b.

What kind of wars are we talking about?
Let’s finally explore some very specific examples in the next few Posts regarding; “The American Virgin Daughters of God.”
* * * * * * *

(*1) College:
The Typology of College is amazingly accurate to this use, and full of valuable comparisons. As Christ and Satan came to earth at nearly the same time (Revelation 12:10&12) Liberty at this specifically vulnerable time of a young woman’s life (New Testament humanity) and the demonic kingdom of the Beast, that began with Rome-- where by emotion she earnestly wants to attend with her friends for the purpose of finding both fun and success-- combine to be the perfect setting for her destruction. Daddy (God the Father of the Old Testament) is left behind while in her New Testament liberty she ventures out on her own in the confidence of finally being of age.
The act of young independence is not a crime or sin; it is in fact a designed stage of maturity, as scripture (Isaiah 28:9-10) and the Typology of life shows. Going to college is not technically a crime or sin either, though it really is not a good recommendation in general, because of the great hazards of soul and body every student will face in that Daniel’s den of lions.
But the state of the young woman’s mind and foundation of self-control, taught by her father in her adolescence under his law, are the factors that will determine her success or failure in the new environment of every beautiful and stimulating temptation sold as liberty from oppression.
In such an environment morality is not even graded, It has nothing to do with this place or the new importance of filling her mind with interesting intellectual information that is. Here, Morality is something juvenile of the past that now needs to be shed in her evolution of becoming a woman while she turns her mind and heart to things she’s told “her Daddy knows nothing about.”

(*2) Jephthah’s Prophetic Vow: Not yet Posted.

[November 19,2013: For my reply to the first posted comment below, please see Post 306 "Two Replies" (http://when-did-reason-die.blogspot.com/2013/11/two-replies.html).]
*