The scripture mentioned in the title of this post has caused much controversy. This can be expected, because millions across the globe see the scripture as literal, even when Paul clearly indicates this is the not the case.
Are we really to assume that wives should be in subjection to their husbands – in everything? You can imagine the problem here.
It’s quite interesting. I have seen many theologians use the padding of other scriptures to bring more common sense to this issue, such as husbands ought to love their wives properly, and when that’s done, it somehow makes a literal interpretation in the title of this post OKAY because now there is the proper balance and understanding of what Paul truly meant.
I appreciate that effort, and we can find much more common sense in that approach, but if you have to do that, then you’re not really taking every scripture literally because you are justifying one only with the juxtaposition of others. Yes, this is how the Bible often works, but we can make even greater sense out of Paul’s statements by seeing them as non-literal, and this is what Paul originally intended. Paul is speaking spiritually through symbolism and metaphor, and he makes this crystal clear.
When Paul speaks about the marriage of man and wife in Ephesians chapter 5, he sums it up with:
“For this reason a man will leave his mother and father and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh. This is a profound mystery, but I am talking about Christ and the church” (Ephesians: 5:31-32).
Paul is telling us, in not so subtle a way, that his entire discussion on the marriage between “man” and “wife” is really about a deeper mystery, and while he uses the tradition of matrimony to make comparisons, the focus is a much deeper spiritual truth.
In other words, “man” and “wife” are spiritually symbolic terms for a much more important point he wishes to convey to us.
Okay. Fair enough. So what’s this great mystery about Christ and the church?
There is still a gross misunderstanding about what the “church” really is in traditional Christianity. While many understand that the church is not a building (this is one step in the right direction), many are still under the false pretense that the church is talking about a body of believers, or a group of people that get together to praise God. But the greater understanding is that the church is the seat of your soul. The church is both your body and mind that needs to be prepared for the marriage supper of Christ. And yet, what does this mean?
Paul states elsewhere:
“Now I rejoice in my sufferings for your sake, and in my FLESH do I share on behalf of his body, which is the church…” (Col. 1:24).
Now we also get a greater understanding of not only the church, but of Christ. In our fleshly existence is also Christ, and the church that is being built.
Paul also states elsewhere:
“Do you not know that your body [and mind] are temples of the Holy Spirit…” (1 Cor. 6:19).
Rather than think of the church as a body of different people coming together in worship, think of the church as the seat of your soul, your innermost that makes up you, and it needs to be cleansed, and made whole.
Now briefly back to the terms “man” and “wife.”
Remember in Genesis, of which Paul was well versed, it stated the man was created in the image of God, both male and female?
When Paul uses the terms “man” and “wife,” he is not speaking of two different genders, but is keeping company with the author of Genesis which stated that God was both male and female, and we know God is a spirit, not two genders. These two aspects of the divine, both “man” and “wife,” “male” and “female” are within you, just as we can also say God is in you. And it is these two divine aspects of the soul which must come together at the marriage supper which produces the resurrected Christ within you.
So what does Paul mean when he says that wives must be subject to their husbands in everything? We have already established that he’s speaking about Christ and the church, and something that must be done in the mind and body.
The true answer of the wife being in subjugation to the husband means THAT ONE ASPECT OF YOU IS IN SUBJUGATION TO ANOTHER ASPECT OF YOU – IN EVERYTHING! That one aspect of you must be brought into the dominion and control of another aspect of you!
And what might that be?
In Paul’s time, different words were used to understand the physiological and psychological makeup of the first Adam, or human beings. But in this post I am going to use more modern terms that we can all understand for simplification.
We’re going to use the terms conscious and subconscious, and we’re going to see that Paul means the subconscious is subject to the conscious (will and intellect).
Since the conscious and subconscious can still mean different things to different people, let’s further clarify how I will be using them to explain Paul’s teaching.
By the conscious aspect of you, I mean the ego and intellect (the conscious decision maker of your life). By the subconscious aspect of you, I mean the emotional nature, and the storehouse of all your memories, and the part of you which Adam termed the “mother of all living” when he referred to Eve. For it is the subconscious that is truly the mother of all living. Your heart beats, you breathe, and every cell in your body performs a function with an intelligence whether you are consciously aware of or think about or not. But right now I want to focus on the subconscious as the emotion nature to every human being, whether male or female.
Gaskell states that the term “wife” is actually: “A symbol of the emotion nature-united to the mental nature of the lower mind.”
So when speaking of the individual, the man is the mental nature and the woman is the emotional nature. When Paul speaks of the great mystery of marriage, and how it relates to Christ and the church, he is speaking of the mental nature (husband) being united to the emotional nature (wife) in the soul in a way that brings health and healing to the believer and allows the Christ within to be resurrected. This is the great spiritual union of the higher and lower nature in us. In order for this to happen, a certain aspect of you must give up it’s life (the lower ego) in order to allow this holy union of marriage in the mind and body.
So what is Paul really meaning when he states that the wife must obey the husband in everything?
The conscious aspect of us, the decision-maker, comprised of the intellect, always makes the choices and decisions in our lives. The subconscious part of us, the emotion-nature, must be obedient when the intellect and will makes the choice. Yes, the subconscious aspect of us, which is the store-house for all our memories, influences our choices, but it does not make the choice. In the first Adam, the lower mind (intellect) rules the subconscious mind always, which is why Paul states according to the law the wife must be in subjection to the husband in everything.
In the story of the fall, Eve was deceived, but Adam willfully and consciously partook of knowledge of good and evil, and man began his journey to more self-awareness, as his eyes were opened.
Paul is simply stating that the intellect makes the decisions and choices for our lives. Now that we understand that, let’s unveil some more scripture from Ephesians and fully understand this great spiritual mystery that Paul is metaphorically addressing.
“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of the water by the word, that He might present himself her to himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife LOVES HIMSELF” (Ephesians 5:25-29).
Look carefully again at the last part of the scripture that I capitalized: LOVES HIMSELF. Paul had the same wisdom as both the builders of the Oracle at Delphi where was written over the entrance, “KNOW THYSELF” and Shakespeare’s wisdom when he has Polonius in Hamlet state, “TO THINE OWN SELF BE TRUE.”
Paul is using the custom of matrimony to explain a deeper mystery about you, and while matrimony has some correlations, it is not the mystery he is speaking of. He is speaking about the great mystery within the soul, body and mind. And you must truly know yourself in order to understand the greater mysteries of the kingdom.
Going back to our entire Ephesians quote, let’s break it down one at a time. The conscious aspect of you, the decision-maker (the will and intellect), ought to lay itself down and love your emotion nature (which has the potential of the higher emotions within, by sacrificing itself (the ego) by making righteous choices in your lives. In this way, you will guard the subconscious, clearing out the lower emotional nature of it’s carnal propensities, and the subconscious will become without spot or blemish through moral cleansing over time. Since the subconscious is at the obedience of the conscious will, input into the subconscious good things through correct moral decision and action, and the subconscious will in return begin to yield the higher emotions, and in this act, the two will become one in a wonderful new state of being. The mind will no longer be fragmented, but whole, entire. This is the true meaning of salvation.
There is so much more to this teaching, and to complete this process meditation and other practices are needed to clear out the subconscious of it’s trauma and bad memories, and I will be including that in my future book, but in this brief blog post I wanted to address what becomes a potential problem in society today when the scriptures are viewed only through literal interpretations. Paul never meant to say that a wife must obey her husband in everything. He is speaking about the conscious experience of every human being.
The Christ and the church without blemish are to be formed within YOU. As Paul said, “I travail in birth until Christ be formed within you.” It is the same with the church as your soul.
In conclusion, terms like “man” and “wife” have to also be understood beyond the literal meaning in order to get the deeper spiritual truths Paul wishes to impart to us.
See my post on Adam and Eve to learn a little more from the perspective of Genesis.
Blessings!
haha Josh,
there we have it.
Now let’s do some breathing exercises, to bond Ying to Yang.
Imagine the seven main (connected to ‘heaven’) chakras are situated in the back. We breathe in and let the instream of energy flow from the top all the way to the perineum, at the breathe out we let the energy stream flow through the front chalras from the perineum to the forehead (pineal gland).
Afterthat we start another cycle.
Now we are doing the work. Easy, right ? Doing it makes the difference !
Now you’re getting practical, Leo. And thus we begin our journey through the seven churches of Revelation.
Hi Josh,
the above breathing exercise is the outcome of 34 years of searching and experimenting. 30 years got lost by flying over, the last 4 years i have been immersing myself in the mother of things ( Ying ). All my findings are thete, (apart from the bloody doorposts :). The breathe-in feeds all myselfs, the breathe-out directs them all to the unwavering Buddha Eye, cutting of the amygdala hi-jack.
This can be exercised by all giving exactly that what is needed in that moment for each individual. No do’s or donot’s.
I had never read much of the bible but last year my mentor said “Holy Spirit will not let me not encourage you to read Revelation!! You must.” I had been writing my book on east meeting west in me via yoga and meditation healing and connecting me to the power of the real Jesus. Now I am seeing clearly how they are the chakras (churches)…the words are so similar too! I trust my life to guide me to the Truth. What people need to be set free. I have been LOVING your blog posts so much…confirmation and encouragement. Blessings…Namaste
Oh and also– when I specifically contemplated women teaching men (me teaching men!!) I realize I am tempted to over share, to use my ego to push a hidden agenda of being more wise, more emotionally mature even. Yay! My shadow self is being revealed to me! And I can humbly let go and allow more of God’s true energy guide my teaching.
I was 16 in 1975 when the first issue of ms. Magazine came out. I’ve been married like 37 years. My mother was a feminist anti-semite. I’ve been a leader in a. Conservative evangelical church until 911 when it was co-,opted by the mi!itary industrial complex propaganda machine a la Karl Rove. The body must balance out from Hellenistic….holy grail cup is the feminine that was surpressed. Peace and love brothers and sisters.
Louie…
Yes, all ancient scriptures recognized both the divine masculine and feminine principals. Even in the Old Testament the spirit is seen as female. The trick is to recognize the importance of both.
Please provide more info. on your future book!
I rarely visit the site, and would love to be able to keep up to date on the book.
Thanks!
JC…
I am in the process of writing it, and by the end of the summer I plan to have the bulk of it finished, then polishing and editing. Of course many of us know that writing a book, especially on subject matter like the Bible, is a pretty huge undertaking. My biggest challenge is length, and how to condense it into something most people can quickly and easily digest. I will definitely keep readers updated when it’s near completion.
Thank you Josh. Instinctively I know this to be true. The He and She in the Christian teachings still grate against part of me when I read them, even though I know there is a deeper truth. I love how you explain explain it so that I can understand and integrate into my own life.
Joanne…
This is completely understandable. Seeing God as the bearded man in the sky has set many people back on the spiritual path until they learn to think outside the traditional box they have been taught. By the way, I just checked out your website on your method of dog training. Cool stuff 🙂
Thank you Josh, I enjoy keeping up to date with yours as well 🙂
There’s a saying…”before you can begin to think outside of the box, one must first know and understand what’s inside of the box.”
Just popped in my head as I read your comment. Peace to all!!!
Love that saying!!!
Hi Josh,
Wow, I really like this article. As usual, Josh, you have covered the very purpose of the article most comprehensively and very really easy to relate to. You have brought much needed clarity and simplification to this hugely misunderstood scripture!
Just to add, Josh, if I may. Meditation makes the intellect Resolute, makes the conscious mind one-pointed, unwavering in decision making. This is brought about by integration of subconsciousness, which is how the splintered or fragmented mind becomes healed, unified, resulting in increase capacity of conscious mind, or, expansion of human consciousness into a cosmically functioning mind.
Another wonderful scripture in this area of forming Christ-nature within, is: Matthew 16:18
“and upon this rock I will build my church”, meaning, upon the integrated nature of my soul /rock, I will build my church /consciousness, establish the Christ-nature within.
In Ireland here some years ago, a man appeared on a national TV chat-show explaining how he had twelve wives at home. When questioned on this, on the TV program, he replied: it says it in the Bible!
How spiritually ignorant is that! Thus your article, Josh, was much needed so that awareness of esoteric understanding of scripture my grow and flourish globally even more, so that humanity may eventually be freed from this fictional, literal mind-set way of thinking.
Thanks again, Josh, for this really well set out article.
Blessings
Raymond…
Thank you, it was a pleasure writing it. And I enjoyed the insight you added with the scripture from Matthew 16:18. Peter is symbolic of the ego before he is transformed as he denies Christ even on the cross, but Christ promises that change to come, which we see as we progress through the New Testament, and Peter learns to follow Christ’s example. And great points about meditation helping the mind become resolute. A double-minded man is unstable in all his ways is another relevant scripture that comes to mind here. Blessings!
Hi Josh,
Fantastic article! I always learn so much from you.
I anticipate the release of your book and already know I will be sharing it with a LOT of people.
Grace as you continue to write and begin the editing process. I am in the process of writing a book myself, and know what you’re going through! 🙂
I really appreciate the insight you share. Thank you!
Dayna…
I really appreciate the comment.
I am also happy to hear that you are writing a book yourself. Is it also on the subject of spirituality? Always interested in authors on their journey.
No, not completely. The book I’m currently working on is for moms; sharing how to release the guilt that so many of us experience as we raise our children. It does have some spiritual nuggets/tones, but isn’t a “spiritual” book, per se.
I am gathering notes for a 2nd book, which will be on spirituality. An “awakening/removing the veil from our eyes” theme. I’m really looking forward to getting into that one.
The journey has been quite a doozy, to say the least. I’m entering the 5th round of editing, praying this is the final round. 🙂 I’ll be self-publishing, so I’m schooling myself on that entire process as well.
I will say that I have a newfound respect for authors, and really anyone who puts content together in a way that conveys a clear, simple message.
I also find interest in the journey of other authors, and would love hearing more about yours as well.
Dayna…
Your topic is an important one, and it actually has spirituality written all over it. Being a parent is perhaps one of the most spiritual journeys we can embark upon, and the tables are turned both ways, back and forth over and over as both parties (the parent and child) are the beneficiary as far as the learning curve goes both in practical daily life and spiritual life. I have a true daddy’s girl to call my own, as well as a son, and the yearly experience both humbles and enlightens my soul to the grander scheme of life. What a blessing to write about such a subject, and I pray your endeavors teach many.
And as for your second book on spirituality, let me know if I can help in any way on any topic. Blessings.
Thanks for this Josh! I agree 100%! I believe parenting is one of the most spiritual journey’s we have the opportunity to engage in, and I mention this in my book. When I said “no”, I was thinking in the sense of mentioning or expounding on scripture…which I don’t do.
But, yes…it is spiritual in the sense that it teaches spiritual principles. 🙂
Great Josh. This has always been the secret truth that has been suppressed through the ages and has caused so much pain and separation of the genders.
Looking forward to your book to shed enlightenment to the masses. Many blessings!
Thanks Denise!
Josh,
This is again a great article with which I generally agree but there is something in the terms you use to explain it that does not quite resonate with me and I do not exactly know why.
Like the male side, the mind, being the higher part which the emotional nature has to obey. I see the feminine side (creative, emotional, cherishing) as much more sensitive than the unawakened male side, which has to calculate everything and does not believe what cannot be seen, heard or touched. As in the typical mind-oriented scientist who does not want to look at evidence that might disprove whatever conclusion he/she/science has reached at any given moment. Things are changing now in that field but I hope you know what I mean.
So I believe that the Christ can be born when the male and the female side of man (no matter what they are called) have come into complete balance, but not that either side should be obedient to the other because both sides have to be searching for this balance. When you write: ‘The subconscious part of us, the emotion-nature, must be obedient when the intellect and will makes the choice.’, then you might be right but believe me, that intellect and will had better listen very carefully to the advice given by that emotion-nature as you call it first because that is in touch with wisdom (also called intuition) that the mind might not possess. You could also say the mind should be servant to the heart, and not the other way around. Only in that way the mind can and will take the right decisions.
You write: ‘In the story of the fall, Eve was deceived, but Adam willfully and consciously partook of knowledge of good and evil, and man began his journey to more self-awareness, as his eyes were opened.’
Of course you know that I see that differently as well. I do not see Eve as being deceived but as having made a very conscious choice because she saw that eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil would lead to enlightenment. I have written that both in articles and in comments if I remember correctly. The verb that you translate as deceive here is the Hebrew verb hisji which however can also be read as hisi which means to advise. So in that case Eve was not deceived but advised by the serpent and she was the one who consciously made the choice to go in search of enlightenment (haskala, in the story written as the related verb lehaskil) and not Adam. He only ate of the fruit after she had given it to him. Which is why she (and the rest of us women) have always been blamed for ‘the fall’ and everything bad that occurred afterwards. However, as I see it there was no fall at all but a conscious decision to start on a journey of discovery that would lead us through the world of matter and all the experiences it would offer us, and that will finally end in enlightenment.
I do not quite know how all this fits within the message of Paul’s letters though. But I must admit that I do not see the value of symbolic language in letters that are obviously meant to address certain practical matters in the various communities that Paul wrote to. And especially the way he used it in especially the text in your title could be and has been abused in a terrible way throughout the centuries.
Anny…
The terms conscious and subconscious can be highly subjective. And we haven’t even discussed the supraconscious, unconscious, natural ego, spiritual ego, etc. So I completely understand. I tried to leave out terms that might make it confusing and just be as simple as possible.
Think of it it like this: There is an aspect of you that makes choices consciously, and you are aware of the decision. There is also another aspect of you that influences your choices that many times we are unaware of.
For example, a childhood trauma might influence a conscious choice you make later in life, and at the time you are completely unaware that the decision you are making is influenced by that childhood trauma, whereas if you hadn’t experienced the trauma, you would have made an entirely different conscious choice. I am speaking of the subconscious and conscious in action.
But anyway you define it, the conscious (male) aspect makes the decision. The lower emotions must be taken controlled over, and must become subservient to, the conscious mind which, when good choices are made, will input higher spiritual influence into the subconscious. The subconscious is the true powerhouse of life, but it cannot flourish until, as you say, there is a correct balance between the two, where right choices affect the subconscious and the subconscious supports the conscious.
Before the fall, there was no separation between the two. Duality causes many illusions as you are aware of, and one of those illusions is in the mind. This is natural, and we simply must have the wilderness experience for healing, over time. Don’t really think of it as anything dominating the other, because as you suggest, the goal is balance. But we can’t change the fact that the mind works the way it does in the human experience, in duality.
You write: “I do not quite know how all this fits within the message of Paul’s letters though. But I must admit that I do not see the value of symbolic language in letters that are obviously meant to address certain practical matters in the various communities that Paul wrote to.”
Ah, but Anny, Paul is quite the intelligent writer, and a master of analogy, and never speaking directly. We cannot say that Paul was a Gnostic directly, because the term Gnostic and all that it represents developed much later to explain a certain theological way of thinking. And modern scholars lump many different early Christian groups together (that had very different views) and label them all Gnostic. But Paul most definitely had ideas that modern scholars would call Gnostic concepts. Paul believed in the resurrection here and now, not for a later time. The subject is vast, and you can begin to see the links when Gnosticism is studied, especially by the Valentinus camp. This comment would be many posts if we got into all of them. Paul was not only addressing certain theological debates that arose in early circles of Christianity, he was including higher spiritual meanings in each of his writings in disguised, for certain groups who were ready for greater spiritual enlightenment.
About Eve being deceived: Of course there really was no deception, but we’re speaking about the literary aspects of myth here. If we analyze the story carefully, Eve was led into seeing something which looked good, and even though the serpent wasn’t lying to her, the situation did not play out with immediate benefits. However, the fall must happen for self-awareness to evolve. There is no right or wrong with this situation, just the way duality works.
Joshua,
I found an interesting excerpt on the website of Ka Gold Jewelry:
—
Tree of Life vs. Tree of Knowledge
In the Bible there is a description of the Tree of Knowledge (Satan’s creation) and the Tree of Life (God’s original reality). “The Tree of Life is in the garden and the Tree of Knowledge good and evil”. If one tries to draw the Tree of Life upon Satan’s dual Flower of Life he will find it impossible as there is no compatibility between them.
—
Does the Tree of Knowledge symbolizes the intellect? Does Satan/ Lucifer personifies the intellect?
Laurens…
The tree of knowledge is the realm of the ego, yes. Although we have to be careful of the language the website uses calling the tree of knowledge Satan’s creation. I would not word it as such. What the tree of knowledge represents is part of man’s natural progression and return home.
maybe the Chinese idea of neidan can illustrate it a bit from another angle
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neidan
there is a great article on FB, but i have no link, sorry
Leo…
I just finished reading the link in between writing. An interesting practical approach for the return of the individual to unity. There are many other Eastern ideas and practices which are similar. An interesting point that was made in my esoteric studies years ago that I have often thought about was the claim that those who have experienced unity now, can choose after death to reincarnate or not. To be honest, I have sought to work this out intellectually, and have come close to understanding through the Biblical narrative also why this is in fact the case. But I am not quite comfortable yet with my current understanding as it relates to this. But I feel I will have it cracked through the Bible soon, unless I have to admit another conclusion before I am finished. However, as of now, it would seem the scriptures also emphatically teach this.
What I am most interested now is comparing some of Buddhist’s idea of annihilation of of the self vs retaining self-awareness at the end of the journey. There is more than meets the eye in both views.
Hi Josh, a late reply
Quote : ‘ Buddhist’s idea of annihilation of of the self vs retaining self-awareness at the end of the journey ‘
I believe this to be the domain of the ‘sorcerers’, the ones that want to stay behind and teach our fellow-men. I have alway been intrigued how they manage to reincarnate and retain their wisdom. (work-in-progress)
Hi Josh,
You write: “But anyway you define it, the conscious (male) aspect makes the decision. The lower emotions must be taken controlled over, and must become subservient to, the conscious mind which, when good choices are made, will input higher spiritual influence into the subconscious. The subconscious is the true powerhouse of life, but it cannot flourish until, as you say, there is a correct balance between the two, where right choices affect the subconscious and the subconscious supports the conscious.”
I do agree that the conscious male aspect makes the decisions. I would not have said a thing if you had called it spirit, but it is the word mind that is a problem for me in this respect as within other contexts the mind can be quite blind to any reality other than the material one. That is why the use of the word mind in a spiritual context bothers me somehow. It may be completely irrational as English is not even my native language but it is the way I feel.
I do agree with what you write about the emotion-nature but it suddenly hit me that intuition is part of this female side too and I did not see that aspect addressed in your article. But it must have meaning and influence, which is why I feel that, if intuition speaks, the mind should listen to its advice before taking any decisions.
Paul may have been an intelligent writer and a gnostic but I still think that in a letter to a certain community he should have spoken in clear language that all people could understand. Not everyone is intelligent, or interested, enough in order to get what he is talking about when he addresses a certain subject. And I may be wrong of course but I still believe that his letters were meant to guide these communities how to deal with certain problems that had arisen. And in such circumstances you should use clear text and not symbolic wordings which have to be interpreted carefully. If you do so things can be – and have been – taken literally with horrible consequences.
And another thing is that the letters of Paul are part of the New Testament and that these texts have been ‘corrected’, copied, and manipulated many times over, not to mention the translations. So I would not base anything whatever on any of these texts as they probably are not the original texts at all.
As for what you write about Eve: “Eve was led into seeing something which looked good, and even though the serpent wasn’t lying to her, the situation did not play out with immediate benefits.”, you still make her into the passive party. I just cannot agree with that. I believe that she took a conscious decision after listening to the advice the serpent gave her, of course not knowing exactly what she let herself in for but well aware of the fact that this journey would be difficult. She saw that the fruit was good, ‘tov’, 17, which means a bitter phase before gaining the intended goal, the enlightenment. And this interpretation of the literal text should be adopted by the symbolic one as well in my view.
Anny
I understand, Anny. But for me personally I don’t see how “mind” can be left out of any spiritual equation. The mind is still a very spiritual thing. In fact, spirit and matter are two sides of one coin.
About intuition, I’ll quote Gaskell:
“It is the power of answering to the higher rates of atomic vibration on the planes above, and when united with the intellect it fives birth to love and truth. The erroneous theories of the lower mind will not be got rid of until the intiution is recovered by the inner memory, and VOLUNTARY EFFORT IS MADE BY THE LOWER SELF TO RAISE CONSCIOUSNESS TO THE SPIRITUAL UNDERSTANDING.”
Sorry about the caps, it’s just to emphasize that is it the conscious will of the intellect to sacrifice the ego in order to gain more use of intuition, producing true wisdom. Does this make sense?
Josh, I do not see the problem. And the fact that Gaskell, whoever he or she is, says something is not proof of anything for me. It is his or her view and that is fine. But you know that I do not base my views on statements made by any authority since in the past the authorities were the ones who led us astray. I do not mean to say that Gaskell is wrong but only that the fact that he or she says something does not necessarily mean that that is an objective truth. Besides, to be honest, Gaskell’s language is quite incomprehensible for me. It is a language based on science, which I know very little about, and moves in very different fields of knowledge than I base my views on. Besides, we are all searching in our own way and I listen to my heart and my intuition more than to knowledge of the mind (in this case brain),
I do not know why you think that I deny the role of the mind though because I do not. Only, being a woman, I like to point out that the female side of man does have a role in this process too. In daily life we call that listening to your gut feeling before taking a decision.
Is it so difficult to consider that the female side of man might have an equal – though different – role as the male side? Or that the female side might be more than the ego alone? Or, that the ego might be more than the emotional nature alone if intuition is part of it?
Of course you do not have to agree with me at all, and I am only putting forward some options. We do not know the Absolute Truth yet and we would not be able to understand it anyway as long as we are still living in this world of illusion but it does not do any harm to look at things from different points of view. Neither you nor I are in possession of the truth but I do like to present views from another side from time to time.
Anny, you write: “Is it so difficult to consider that the female side of man might have an equal – though different – role as the male side? Or that the female side might be more than the ego alone? Or, that the ego might be more than the emotional nature alone if intuition is part of it?”
I am thinking we have misunderstood each other here, which can easily happen because these subjects are always not so straightforward. In fact I do agree with you, that the female aspect has an equal and different role. Actually, the female side as the mother of all living is the powerhouse of the higher emotions.
And about Gaskell, you are correct in saying no one person is an authority, and I learn every week from reader comments and different perspectives. I do have a great respect for Gaskell. Just like Webster, he did not come up the meanings of symbols, but is responsible for doing the immense work of compiling the meanings of all the symbols taken from the esoteric greats of times past that analyzed the similarities across all the great scriptures.
When one begins to study the similarities in all the great religions now and from the past, it is easy to see the same themes being repeated over and over, and it is simply a matter of semantics. For example, we see correlations in the trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and in the Hindu Trinity of Vishnu, Shiva, and Brahma. The same thing goes for all the words in each scripture.
Thanks Anny, always for your contributions in articles and comments. I have learned a lot from you as well, especially when it comes to numerology.
Hi Josh,
Thanks for your comment. Of course there are many different interpretations possible and I do not mind that at all. I just am a little allergic to people claiming that their view is the right and only one, or even seeming to do so. But undoubtedly I do that myself as well sometimes, especially when I am not feeling too well. But it is good when everyone follows his or her own guidance and presents their findings for others to use in their own search.
You know that I do not use the works of Gaskell, Webster and others, not because I have anything against them, or even because their way of expressing is not very clear to me, but only because I want to find my own path independently from any authority figures whatever.
Anny.
Hi….. You may be interested to google, download and read Neville Goddard the core lectures. There are 5 but they short, I am sure that they will assist you. Blessings…
Josh
Just to add some further insight into this discussion. You write at the very end of your comment to Anny’s good points:
“Eve was led into seeing something which looked good, and even though the serpent wasn’t lying to her, the situation did not play out with immediate benefits. However, the fall must happen for self-awareness to evolve. There is no right or wrong with this situation, just the way duality works”.
Yes, according to Luke 23:28, you’re correct, for it states: “weep not for me but for your women and children”.
At first literal glance interpretation, this would seem as if Jesus was praising the women who turned out to protest against his treatment by the roman soldiers (lower nature in action) and eventual crucifixion — the seeming injustice of it all
But not so!
Rather than praising them, Jesus was admonishing the women for not understanding a major spiritual truth that, this crucifixion event had /has to happen, as you say, Josh! That, in weeping and wailing, the women were in fact displaying deep ignorance of the transformative activity that must take place within. That, regards to reunification with the Father, duality, or fall, is necessary. It’s part of the whole process of re-Membering, of re-establishing direct awareness in Unity consciousness.
Blessings to all.
Raymond…
Wow, I had never noticed this interpretation according to Luke 23:28, and I believe you have nailed it here. Children in scripture are symbolic of what is supposed to be the new state of being evolved by the balance of the masculine and feminine principal, through the fall and subsequent wilderness experience of life. Thanks for this additional comment!
Hi Raymond,
I must say that I am a little surprised about your comment. Or at least in the phrasing of it.
It is of course okay not to agree with my interpretation about Eve as given in my comment to Josh but not in trying to prove it wrong, I think. It is completely clear to me that the ‘fall’ – which I do not see as a fall but as a conscious descent into duality and matter – is necessary in order to gain conscious awareness at the end of the process. All this is of course symbolic.
However, the next thing you do is seemingly take the Bible text you quote very literally and you use it to prove women wrong, extending the meaning to all women as it were (and everything they stand for?) by the interpretation you provide.
First of all you write: “At first literal glance interpretation, this would seem as if Jesus was praising the women who turned out to protest against his treatment by the roman soldiers (lower nature in action) and eventual crucifixion — the seeming injustice of it all. But not so!”.
This is your interpretation, which you are entitled to, but not an absolute truth. Who says that the women were there in order to protest? I always thought that the women who were there were the ones who were his nearest and dearest, and who were there to be with him in his last hours. People like Mary and Mary Magdalen and the others who took care of his funeral, together with Nicodemus. And who were the ones who were present around his resurrection. No male in sight until Mary Magdalene informed them of it. All this is mentioned in other Bible texts which you do not include in your interpretation.
Then you say that Jesus does not praise but admonish the women because they do not understand ‘a major spiritual truth that, this crucifixion event had /has to happen’. I do not believe that this can be true. I never considered either verb in this context but I do not believe that admonishing is a thing Jesus would do, especially to people who do not understand something yet. It is not a loving act. And remember that on the night before Jesus himself felt desperate about this whole process and begged to be released from it, if at all possible. It took a very difficult conscious process before he could surrender to it, and the same will probably be the case for these women.
All in all I find something out of place in these Bible verses in which Jesus prophesies about the future, which will surely involve men just as much as women. It is addressed to the ‘Daughters of Jerusalem’, which more or less suggests that these women were unknown to Jesus. I do not know where to place it but you probably know my opinion of text of the New Testament as such. It is based on scraps of manuscripts that had been copied many times over, including so many ‘corrections’, changes, manipulations etc. that in the end there are more differences between them than there are words in the whole of the New Testament. And that is not my opinion but the conclusion of the scholars who have occupied themselves with these documents. And then of course there is also the matter of the translation of the result of all this which gives widely different outcomes even in the Bibles I possess. Also there there has been manipulation but also different interpretation of the texts. Which is the reason why I base my interpretations on the Hebrew translation of significant words only, and not on whole sentences let alone stories.
Hi Anny
I am disappointed in how you have misrepresented the point I was making to Josh, in the context of his article and the importance of its esoteric unfolding within. That, somehow, I was trying to prove you wrong, Anny, is completely unfounded, when nothing could be further from the truth !
Allow me please insert the full scripture from which I was reading and from which I interpreting. Luke 23:27-28.
“A large crowd of people followed him; among them were some women who were weeping and wailing for him. Jesus turned to them and said, ‘Women of Jerusalem! Don’t cry for me, but for your yourselves and your children’.
In the Bible, “women” is not referring to a physical woman or to physical females. “Women” biblically, as I understand such, is symbolism for the human soul — both the male and female aspect of it in need of integration. An image and likeness dynamic of God intended for spiritual unification and function within the human psyche and its subsequent outward expression through the heart as love.
“Protest” was used in the context, that, the ‘women, meaning, non-gendered souls’ were weeping and wailing over an inevitability into unity consciousness. That Jesus was trying ( I used the word ‘admonishing’ lightheartedly) to make the point to ALL souls that, this ‘crying’ was not necessary, but rather inner action. The point being emphasized by the biblical author, as I see it is: many people follow Jesus intellectually only, in public places while separately paying no attention to their inner moral /spiritual aspect, no awareness to their ‘woman’ or soul aspect. Thus, ‘women’ in this context, is certainly NOT referring to gendered females specifically — to either women or men — but to the eternal soul of each person and it becoming conscious within consciousness as unity consciousness by way of left-side — right-side brain harmonization.
Raymond,
I am sorry that you are disappointed with my comment. Maybe I have to explain something first. Right now I find it increasingly difficult to express what I want to say as my health seems to be deteriorating and I often cannot find the right words or the way to put them in any more. Remember that most of you are writing in your own language but I am not. And even in my own language words fail me more and more, which means that I often cannot look things up in a dictionary.
Of course I know that what you wrote is meant symbolically. So is what I wrote but I agree that that is not obvious.
You chose a (random?) text about women in order to explain your interpretation of the meaning of the female/feminine side of man. I get that. But my point was really, why did you choose this text especially to show the symbolic meaning of this female side of man? The texts I mentioned about the women who attended to Jesus’s burial and who saw him first after his resurrection might have led to a totally different symbolic interpretation.
And even in this instance, it is the literal meaning of the word admonishing that gave rise to your symbolic interpretation. But if you had looked at these women as people who wanted to comfort Jesus in the literal story, then your symbolic interpretation of the text might have been different as well.
I hope that this makes clear what I wanted to say but if not, so be it. I cannot make it any clearer than this at the moment.
Hi Anny
Thank you for this comment.
You write: “But if you had looked at these women as people who wanted to comfort Jesus in the literal story, then your symbolic interpretation of the text might have been different as well”.
This is absolutely true, and I take your point fully that there could have been a different outcome in the scenario you put forward. And yes, Anny you have made everything perfectly clear, and there is absolutely no problem whatsoever.
Can I say, I think your command of the English language is excellent ! It always came across to me as if it were your first language, or certainly on par with your native language. I wish my Dutch was as good as your English !
.
Finally, sincere wishes Anny for your overall health to be totally and fully restored to utter joyful perfection !
Blessings, Ahava Echad !
Thanks, Raymond. I am glad that we got that cleared up.
Blessings to you too.
I am so thankful, Anny, for your constant monitoring the site, with your knowledge and comments. Also being a female, this topic was hard for me to read. Your comments make sense and help me understand. Thank-you.
Robyn
love this site
Glad it has benefited you, Robert!
Man/Adam/Husband=conscious idea.woman/eve/wife=subconscious Idea.Given Tha God Is Not A [Visible] Man..Nb.23:19,but Spirit..Jn4:24.When You Take The Bible Literally It Loses Its Meanings And Purposes..For The Letter Kills But The Spirit Give Life..2cor.3:6/jn6:63.So A natural Man Must Be Careful!Thax Alot For Your Post.Everything In The Bible Is Meant To Instruct Us Spiritually To Take Our Spirit Back To Spiritual World.Our Body Separate At Death And Remain On Earth.(eccl.12:7/gen 3:19).Basic Instruction Before Leaving Earth=abbr BIBLE.
James…
That sums it up.
Hi Joshua,
Firstly I hope Anny feels better soon. Secondly I love the way she scrutinizes everything. It’s important to have someone like Anny in order to make sure nothing is missed. However on this occasion I understand fully what you and also Raymond are trying to convey. The female aspect of the soul can be conveyed differently according to each individual storyline. Here it seems to me at least to be part of the emotional side and that is why the emotions of the women are emphasized. In another storyline say such as the virgin daughters of Lot, they portray a different side. For example: the men of Sodom want to break into Lots house and force the angels into sexual activity but Lot beseeches them not to harm the angels but to take his two virgin daughters instead. On a literal level this is such a barbaric act from both parties but on a spiritual level the angels represent the messages of God which descend into the soul of Lot and take refuge within, he tries to protect them from his outward man who is envious of this and wants to be solely in control. Lot however beseeches them to take his 2 virgin daughters. The virgin daughters represent purity and also the 2 measures of knowledge required to cleanse the mind and soul of the disciple. Christ being the 3rd measure. Where there are 2 or 3 I will be in the midst. The 3 measures of knowledge need a lot more explaining but I am mentioning it only to address how the female side of the soul is used for different aspects and not literally females.
That is why Lot escapes with his daughters but the city is destroyed by fire. In fact Lot does take his daughters in a storyline just after even though it actually occurs before otherwise he would not have been able to escape. The side of Lot which always wants to look back is portrayed by his wife who turns into a pillar of salt, a monument of an unbelieving soul. He is now free and ready to be married or to become one with the Christ within. I recognize that everything I have just written needs lots of breaking down but that will take pages and it seems to me that Joshua and Raymond are better at this than me so I will leave it to them. I take my hat off to anyone who tries to explain the spiritual intention of scripture. It is such a hard thing to do because it comes from different angles and has so many different layers.
Kris…
Your statements are important here. We must remember that the feminine side of divinity is represented symbolically through the Holy Spirit, or Ruach in the Old Testament. Even the Psalmist and writer of Proverbs provides us with the knowledge that this aspect of the Higher Self is feminine in nature through the pronoun. In all esoteric interpretation, the Holy Spirit is that which imparts, through the divine self and Christ (remember in the New Testament there is no Holy Spirit without Christ, as He sends the Holy Spirit) the higher emotions which equate to love and truth. In a sense, this makes the divine feminine the most important aspect as the giver of true life, although this impartation would not be possible except through the male aspect also. In other words, they are both equally important.
As for Anny, yes, she is a very valued contributor here, and more importantly, a friend. As per both roles, she always keeps us on our toes by presenting alternative interpretations which are sometimes missed. This especially comes through in her expertise of numerology, which I find some of the highest quality on the internet, as I have in the past taken her interpretations of numerology and compared them to other interpretations, and hers always nails the heart of the message. She has a way of illuminating the literary aspect of the text through further confirmation of numbers. Anny and I agree on the big picture, but sometimes have conflicting views in the details, which are usually resolved when seeing the big picture again. Sometimes I believe Anny and others rely too heavily on Strong’s Concordance. While going back to the original Hebrew meaning is an excellent start, it doesn’t always convey the esoteric message in full and can still present more of a literal meaning that doesn’t equate spiritually, which can be expected of course. Just because you understand more of the original term doesn’t mean you understand it esoterically.
As for Raymond: I have found that he has a vast knowledge of all sides of the coin, both in comparative religion and the Biblical scripture itself, both esoterically and literally, as it compares esoterically. This is important. Both Raymond and I have similar pasts in respect to traditional doctrine, which is important because we both have been immersed in both sides. This gives the advantage of being able to understand both the literary and esoteric mind, and how it relates to spiritual evolution.
All that being said, I think that we both use terms and intellectual knowledge of symbols that Anny is not accustomed with, and sometimes that causes a disconnect. For example, you have understood what was trying to be said in accordance with the bigger picture, where I felt like some of Anny’s replies missed, not the esoteric interpretation, but what was trying to be said in spite of it. I hope that makes sense. But I can also say that might be a fault of my own for not explaining it properly. As you say, the subject is so vast and language often doesn’t do it justice unless the reader understands at least some of the terms being used. So Anny’s disagreement might have more to do with my terms than understanding the message.
At any rate, Anny will always make me search deeper and continually refine my arguments, which I so appreciate! And I hope I do the same for her!
Thank you for your comment, Kris. Points well taken.
Hi Josh,
By chance I discovered that there were some new comments to this article and to my surprise I saw my name come up. Thanks for the testimonial you give me.
I agree that there are things about which we think differently and that there are elements which I never studied and therefore do not know about. Nor do I intend to study them. However, when you write: “Sometimes I believe Anny and others rely too heavily on Strong’s Concordance.”, then you are mistaken, at least where I am concerned. I never laid eyes on anything Strongs, Gaskell, Webster or others have written as it is my goal to come to my conclusions completely independently, apart from some knowledge I gained from the work of prof. Weinreb in the early nineties, which by now I interpret in a totally different way than he did. I wrote about this approach in my latest article and again explained it in one of my earlier comments on this article!
Thank you for this. This e plantation helps me very much with when Jesus says “Don’t you know God created them male and female.” I would always stop there and read different translations. I was a bit confused at why it always said male and female, I,stead of male or female. In my mind, which could totally be wrong, a more clear statement would clearly differentiate. Male or female, not and. I tried to make my own sense of it. For example, saying “I made blankets orange and brown” gives a different meaning than “I made an orange blanket and a brown blanket.” I could be reachinh, but this helps. I would think scripture would say, ” …..he created a male and a female.”
Thanks.
my 2 cents about the sensitivity on gender stuff
In life a carpenter does not start as carpenter, he/she (there it goes ! Hi Jordan, maybe i will use ITSHE 🙂 ) by trial and error learns to be a carpenter. A scholar does not start being a scholar, it takes practice and time.
Like so, imo, goes for our gender. I was born a male, but Life taught me to become a man. If any unresolved issue related to being a man comes across my emotions will react. And as such give rise for another lesson becoming a man. Some mothers are natural mothers, but I see many inmature mothers. I have never fathered offspring so my stance on being a father is not yet resolved. But I have been in relations that included offspring and I was nursed into that awkward situation of being a second husband to ‘my Mam’, giving me reprieve for expelling ‘my Dad’ out of their life. Because ‘my Mom’ and ‘my Dad’ have to stay together. off topic, sorry for that 🙂
But look at people when they grow older. Women metamorphose into a more manly expression and men grow to be more womanly. How is that possible ? No, no, please no stories about testestoron levels, or dormant ovaries.
To be truthfull i find Anny gets easy offended when the role of woman is hinted at. Not meant to be offensive, just my 2 cents. Normally a boy may take after his father but he is in love with his mother (Oedipus) and so goes for the daughter in relation to father. I remember i was in love with my Mam and I would do anything for her, I was in awe for my Dad. Later in life i found things went totally different. My Mam directed my life in ways that she felt adequate, while my dad gave me the tools to come to terms with life. I too was confused about gender, not in a physical way. I just have love for people, be they man or woman, not gender specific. The moment my Mam died I turned my life around, found the way back to Dad. Now they are both diseased and they are both dear to me. And there are still things to resolve about my youth, but now with a more neutral stance.
My point. Being born a male does not automatically make someone a man, being born a female does make someone automatically a woman. So why take offence ? Why identify with man or woman or LGBT or . . . ? Is this some kind of righteousness ? No, really, it interests me. If I forget to wear a mask, I get yelled at. My stance : it is safe to breathe, their stance you are poisoning me. my stance you keep me from fully and freely breathing life. their stance there is no Life and you want me dead. My stance no, i want you wake up to the truth you are being bamboozled.
The divide between man and woman was the first act of war against Christ. Let’s stop that, please.