Addressing Feminism, Part 2

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Saturdays
CHR20160109-Feminism-02.mp3 — Downloaded 6170 times

Christogenea Saturdays, January 9th, 2016: Addressing Feminism, Part 2

Tonight we are only going to discuss some basic Biblical principles in comparison with the state of our modern society. We are doing this primarily because we do not know how far we have fallen unless we understand just where we really should be. We cannot even properly recognize feminism until we learn what our God expects from women, from men, and from women in relation to men.

In what I can only call the formerly Christian nations, women today typically walk around half naked. Some of them wear clothing which is so revealing that they may be better off naked. Doing so, they attract much attention to their physical form. But these women actually think that they are properly dressed simply because some fabric is stretched across certain areas of their bodies (I can hear it now, when they say “Well, my nipples are covered...”). Then these women roam about freely, going wheresoever they desire, and they have an expectation that they will never suffer harm.

I am not stating that all women who get raped deserve it. In fact, no woman deserves to be raped. But we as a society are now the victims of our own feminism. In an all-White and Christian society, there are hardly any men who would rape a woman even if she were half naked and out roaming the streets alone. But the standards which we now live with, under which the modern habits of dress and behavior for women have developed, came about not because of Christianity, but in spite of Christianity. They are the result of centuries of so-called progress and freedom in all-White and at least marginally Christian societies which are governed by the rule of law, and where people have it in their hearts to care about the law.

However now, and in all White nations these past 60 years or so, since the delegation of legal equality to the non-White races, we have a society crawling with non-White beasts, and they rape White women and children with alarming frequency, every time they get an opportunity to do so. So we have a negro problem, and we think that the negro was raised with our values because they are, after all, “Americans”, or “British” or “Germans”. Collectively, in America alone they tend to rape on the average of a hundred or so White women each day, and that figure represents the official statistics which are known to grossly under-represent the actual reality.

Today, in Europe, after a century of these rather liberal ethics which have come to dominate society, the non-White muslim hordes are allowed to come and dwell among Whites. It is customary for them when they see a half-naked woman, to rape her. They actually believe that half-naked women are free to rape, and that they do so justifiably. That is how the negro also thinks, but for different reasons. They act as they do because they do not have the White man's law written in their hearts, and they actually despise the White man's law. They prefer to live by the law of the jungle, where the strongest take whatsoever they desire. White men and women do not understand this because they are blinded by their own liberal egalitarian stupidity.

Women think they have a right to walk around half naked, and most modern men think they should defend that right. Actually, most modern men, having been raised on five or six decades of Jewish pornography, would rather see their women half naked anyway. This is the feminist society which we live in today. Just like the ancient pagans, men and women alike have come to worship the female form.

Many women don't even realize what they are doing when they get dressed in the morning. Recently I had an inquiry from a woman about hair covering. Of course I will not mention her name here. But that same woman has pictures of herself on a social media page, wearing a push-up bra and showing all of her cleavage. Hair covering should obviously be the least of her worries. However we see a lot of so-called “Christian Identity” women in social media doing that same thing.

As a man, there is no woman that I cannot rape if I so desired. Not one. Of course, in this feminist society where so many of the men are now so girlish that the women are starting to think that they are tough, women might be disillusioned into thinking they can defend themselves against a man, but no woman is going to be able to defend herself against a truly masculine man. Perhaps we can call that illusion the Amazon syndrome. In reality, unless a woman is lucky enough to be able to reach her sidearm before a predatory man reaches her, she is never going to be able to defend herself. Today very few women are fortunate enough to have a sidearm.

So as a man, the only things that protect women from me are my Christian ethics, and my respect for the law and for my fellow men, along with my respect for myself and my love for my own wife. Most White men still have those same values, so most women are safe most of the time. But now, having been programmed by modern society to accept all races and religions as equal, many women continue to feel safe in situations where they certainly are not safe, and most White men do not even care or notice.

There was a Daily Mail headline this week which reported that women in Cologne, Germany were being publicly groped between the thighs by Africans and Arabs. The New York Times reported that these “reports of attacks on women in Germany heighten tension over migrants”. However back in July local German governments were telling German women to cover themselves in order to “appease Syrian 'refugees'”, as the New Observer Online had reported. German authorities are now concerned that the sexual assaults of German women in Cologne are being orchestrated by organized gangs of aliens. It is no wonder that they all seem to be ignorant of the ongoing rape of British children at the hands of Pakistani and Arab gangs which has been ongoing for many years now, but nothing is done about that either. Germany hasn't seen anything yet, as Sweden and Norway have suffered from the Arab rape of White women at epidemic levels for several years. Germany is bound to that same fate. But fortunately for the Arabs, both the huns and the vikings have all been turned into emasculated little girls through the power of Jewish liberalism. So the Arabs can come to Europe and rape whoever they want.

The liberal and Jewish media sells unsuspecting Whites on the idea that these aliens will conform to European laws and values where 'they' will be just like 'us', and that too is a deception which recent history easily refutes, but which Whites continue to blindingly accept. But that is not all. On the other hand, outspoken feminist advocates in Europe are currently blaming “men” for the attacks on women, ignoring the fact that the attacks are only being perpetrated by males of the non-White races.

The truth is this: the White nations of Europe, which are predominantly descended from the ancient Israelites and related nations of Scripture, are being punished by Yahweh their God for their disobedience. These Arab and negro bastards are just one form of this punishment.

While Christian society in this age of Jewish liberalism has turned a blind eye to women who, buying their clothes from the Jewish merchants, now walk around half naked, it is not at all Christian or moral to walk around freely in such a manner. Rather, Christian women are commanded to “adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shame-facedness and sobriety”, as we may read in 1 Timothy chapter 2.

Here we are going to read what the Law of Yahweh our God says about rape. That may help us put the problem into at least some Biblical perspective.

From Deuteronomy chapter 22: “22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. 23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city [where people would have heard her cries]; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. 25 But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die: 26 But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter: 27 For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her. [where since there are no witnesses, it must be taken for granted that she cried]

So we see that in ancient times, rape was a problem whenever women were left alone, and even the Israelites needed laws punishing the culprits among themselves. But these laws are not necessarily for the sake of the individual woman alone. Rather, they are for the sake of the woman's husband, or betrothed soon-to-be-husband, because he has been deprived of the wife's chastity and virginity. The next law concerning rape in that same chapter helps to substantiate this assertion.

From Deuteronomy chapter 22: “28 If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found; 29 Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.”

Think about that. Would you let your teenage daughter run around at night with her friends, especially since she will probably be wearing spandex pants, or tight jeans, or short shorts and a skimpy top, when the first man who rapes her gets to keep her as a wife for fifty dollars? It was dangerous, in the ancient world, for a woman to be out in the fields or in the cities alone, and they typically wore far more clothing back then.

The lesson behind these laws punishing rape is that women were not left alone and vulnerable in the ancient world. At least, not without great risk. So it should be with Christians today, if we truly cared about our women. It is arrogant not to care.

Most modern Whites would protest the assertion, but we live in a feminist society. The liberty to wear alluring clothing is a sign of the dominance of women over men, and it is not at all Christian. Women who insist on wearing alluring clothing are feminists, and the men who encourage them are no better. Today most men defend that liberty, and they do not realize it, but they are also feminists. Christians shall suffer for this liberty, because it is no liberty at all. As the apostle Peter warns in 2 Peter chapter 2, speaking of those natural brute beasts who infiltrate and corrupt Christian assemblies: “18 For when they speak great swelling words of vanity, they allure through the lusts of the flesh, through much wantonness, those that were clean escaped from them who live in error. 19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.”

In ancient Greek society, as well as in the ancient Hebrew society, women in most of the city-states had very few “rights”. They were at all times and throughout their entire lives kept under the control and the protection of their fathers, husbands, brothers or other next-of-kin male relatives, if none of their immediate male family members survived. In this respect ancient Germanic society treated women the same as Greeks and Hebrews. Women had no role whatsoever in politics: not in Greece, not in Rome, not among the Hebrews, Egyptians, nor anywhere else in White society. Women, at least those with husbands of substance, did not work. Such women generally kept to their houses and managed their husbands' households.

One of the few exceptions to this in the Greek and Mesopotamian societies were temple-servants, pagan temple priestesses (who actually only interfaced with the public on behalf of the men who ran the temples), and pagan temple prostitutes, which were often male as well as female.

Rome was a little more liberal, allowing women property rights beyond those of the Greeks, and rights to maintain certain property after a divorce. Ancient Sparta was also a little more liberal than Athens or most other Greek states, mostly because the highly militarized society kept men out of the house and off with the army, leaving many chores to the women which, traditionally, men were more accustomed to perform. But Sparta was forever in a state of war, and its necessarily liberal attitudes towards women did not save it in the end. In the United States and Great Britain, the Second World War took many women out of their homes and put them in factories, so that the men could fight the war. The Spartan society was much the same, 2,500 years sooner.

On the Greek and Hebrew estates, as we saw in the first segment of our discussion of feminism where we had read from Proverbs chapter 31, it was the wives who managed the household responsibilities, oversaw the servants or slaves, if there were any, gathered the food, did the gardening and cooking, made the clothing, and whatever other chores needed to be done to maintain the family. Women with less affluent husbands worked outside the home, but they worked assisting their husbands at their vocations, and not for some factory owner across town.

The introduction of women into the workplace introduces lust and the sexual pursuit of women into the workplace. Men will naturally compete for the attention of the woman, and constantly try to win her favor. Without a husband around, the woman becomes a target for every immoral man, supervisor or co-worker, who will seek to find some way to corrupt her throughout the entire duration of each and every day. There is no having a woman in the workplace without the constant lure of infidelity and enticement of adultery.

As for travel, throughout the ancient world wealthier women, and especially maidens, never left home without a male escort. But less fortunate women often went to the markets or did other necessary chores without escorts. Often the poorer women would travel in groups to minimize the danger. This is because women were frequently seized and sold into slavery, even as sex slaves, or taken off to the estates of men who thought they may make attractive concubines. The ancient pagan world was also a world of the law of the fittest, or as we may say, the law of the jungle, where might made right. The opening pages of the Histories of Herodotus attribute the problems of the world of his time to the propensity first of the Phoenicians, and then of Greeks and others, to kidnap unattended women from the shores of the neighboring tribes.

We are currently reverting to that type of society. There have long been reports of the thousands of White Eastern European women every year who are lured to Palestine and kidnapped into sex slavery by the Jews. There also tens of thousands of missing children in the West every year, and nobody searches the basements of synagogues.

Our modern society is artificial. Our confidence that our women may walk around in short skirts or spandex pants and not be raped or molested is an illusion. Only Christian values prevented such things in the past, even among our own people. Today, however, we are taxed into poverty to pay for a police state imagining that it will protect us and buy us peace. Christians have abandoned their God and their values, and the cost of maintaining such a society without those values is not even apparent to them.

Christian women should not be half-naked, and they should not even be out roaming about by themselves. The story of our first sin is a parable warning us of this very thing, where the serpent had found the woman in the garden alone, and took advantage of her.

In Genesis chapter 2 we read: “18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.”

This episode is a parable which teaches man that none of the other beasts are ever suitable for a wife, except that creature which Yahweh makes specifically for that purpose, which is flesh of his own flesh and bone of his own bone: that a man's wife must therefore be of his same race. Of course, it also must be understood that the same law also applies to women. The account continues:

“21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; 22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. 23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. 24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. 25 And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

So we see that the woman was created for the benefit of the man, to be a help-mate unto him. This is the natural role of women in accordance with the Creation of God. The woman who rejects this role, rejects God. So in 1 Corinthians chapter 11 Paul of Tarsus informs his readers likewise: “8 For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” But in Genesis chapter 3 we read of the serpent's temptation of the woman, and the woman is apparently alone. Later, after the woman in turn convinces her husband to sin, the man attempts to lay the blame on the woman, and the man is punished accordingly. In truth, because the woman was made for the benefit of the man, so the man was actually responsible for the woman's actions from the beginning, and he should not have left her alone.

So the serpent found the woman naked, and while she was not ashamed, after she was deceived and seduced both her and her husband realized that they should keep on some clothing: in their sin they were ashamed. So it is today, and there are half-naked women constantly being shamed by wandering serpents, and it is time they restored their clothing. Ultimately, whatever women remain will be back under the control and protection of their husbands, as Christian women should be.

In Genesis chapter 3 the woman is scolded by God for her error: “16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” Some women read this as a punishment, that the woman would be ruled over by her husband, but that is not the case. Rather, the woman had ventured from the original order of Creation, where she was to be a help-mate to her husband, and allowed the serpent to persuade her into sin while she was apart from her husband. The commandment of Yahweh God in Genesis chapter 3 insists that the woman return to the natural order for which she was created, and be subject to her husband. The man's punishment was introduced with the words “because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife”, whereby we see that the man should have taken the lead, and stayed on the Godly path, rather than submitting to his wife and following in her sin.

So in turn, man must be subject to God, and therefore Christian men must be subject to Christ. Paul makes an analogy of this in 2 Corinthians chapter 11 where he wrote “2 For I am jealous over you with godly jealousy: for I have espoused you to one husband, that I may present you as a chaste virgin to Christ. 3 But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ.” The Christian assembly without Christ is just as likely to be deceived as Eve was apart from her husband. So Paul warns in Ephesians chapter 5: “22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”, and then Paul also says “28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 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.”

Just as a wife must be subject to her husband, a man must be subject to Christ, and this is the natural order of God's creation which Adam and Eve had disregarded at the beginning, so Eve was corrupted by the devil. However the man must have as much care for his wife as Christ had for the assembly. The children of Israel collectively as a nation being the bride of Christ, in essence Christ was willing to go so far as to die for His Own wife, which is the analogy which Paul is making in that chapter. Yet no man can be compelled to die for a wife where he has no expectation that she will be obedient to his wishes. Christ died for His people Israel so that every knee must ultimately bow to Him, and the husband should have the same expectation of his own family: that the wife he is willing to sacrifice his own life for must subject herself to him in turn. This is the natural order of the creation of God, and to depart from it is rebellion. The proof is all around us, that the consequences are the same as they were back in Genesis chapter 3.

Paul used the analogy of the seduction of Eve on another occasion, in 1 Corinthians chapter 7, where he advised that men and their wives should not be apart from one another, and he wrote: “2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband. 3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. [This verse is a euphemism describing the sexual obligation.] 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. [The husband should submit himself consensually to a willingly subject wife.] 5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

So women should not wander about alone, and especially having no shame of their nakedness. It is an invitation to being seduced by serpents, or raped by the beasts, and that is just punishment for rebelling against the natural order of society as it was created by God. The sin of Genesis chapter 3 is now being repeated daily throughout all White nations, and our end is worse than our beginning.

Paul was not alone among New Testament writers demanding that wives be subject to their husbands. The apostle Peter had written in chapter 3 of his first epistle: “1 Likewise the wives being subject to their own husbands, in order that if some [meaning some husbands] then disobey the Word, through the conduct of the wives they shall have advantage without the Word, 2 observing in fear your pure conduct, 3 of which the dress must not be outward with braids of hair and applications of gold or putting on of garments, 4 but the hidden man of the heart with the incorruptibility of the gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious before Yahweh. 5 For thusly at one time also the holy women who have hope in Yahweh had dressed themselves being subject to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah had obeyed Abraham calling him master, whose children you have been born to do good and not fearing any terror. 7 The men likewise, living together in accordance with the knowledge that with the feminine is the weaker vessel, imparting honor as they are also fellow-heirs of the favor of life, for your prayers not to be hindered.” So a good and modest Christian woman can influence her husband to be a good Christian as well, thereby being a benefit to the larger community, and like Paul, Peter also admonishes men to treat their women with love and respect in return for their submission.

Feminism is not new: it dates to before the creation of Adam. The elevation of the female form to an ideal of worship in the ancient world was one manifestation of feminism. In the modern world, the age of modern feminism was also accompanied by the elevation of the female form to an ideal of worship, but now it has been packaged as art and entertainment, rather than in some pagan religious cult. The result is nevertheless the same.

We can see that feminism took root in the society of ancient Israel, and the people were to be punished for it harshly. This is apparent in Isaiah chapter 3, in a judgment upon Jerusalem where Yahweh said through the prophet: “16 Moreover the LORD saith, Because the daughters of Zion are haughty, and walk with stretched forth necks and wanton eyes, walking and mincing as they go, and making a tinkling with their feet: [attracting sexual attention to themselves] 17 Therefore the Lord will smite with a scab the crown of the head of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will discover their secret parts. 18 In that day the Lord will take away the bravery of their tinkling ornaments about their feet, and their cauls, and their round tires like the moon, 19 The chains, and the bracelets, and the mufflers, 20 The bonnets, and the ornaments of the legs, and the headbands, and the tablets, and the earrings, 21 The rings, and nose jewels, 22 The changeable suits of apparel, and the mantles, and the wimples, and the crisping pins, 23 The glasses, and the fine linen, and the hoods, and the vails. 24 And it shall come to pass, that instead of sweet smell there shall be stink; and instead of a girdle a rent; and instead of well set hair baldness; and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and burning instead of beauty. 25 Thy men shall fall by the sword, and thy mighty in the war. 26 And her gates shall lament and mourn; and she being desolate [a reference to women who are without children, as we see in the verses which follow] shall sit upon the ground.”

Contrast the extravagant jewelry of these women with the Christian admonition of Paul where he said “that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array...” Women also adorn themselves with jewelry and expensive garments and extravagantly arranged hair, in order to attract sexual attention to themselves. This is a form of feminism, and it is not Christian. The Christian woman can exude a Godly beauty in modesty and simplicity.

The very next verse following what we have just cited from Isaiah is in Isaiah chapter 4, however just because the chapter changes, does not mean that the subject changes, and it says: “1 And in that day [referring to the day of judgment mentioned at the end of chapter 3] seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. 2 In that day shall the branch of the LORD be beautiful and glorious, and the fruit of the earth shall be excellent and comely for them that are escaped of Israel. 3 And it shall come to pass, that he that is left in Zion, and he that remaineth in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, even every one that is written among the living in Jerusalem: 4 When the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning.”

That “spirit of burning” forebodes a time of great trial. Clifton Emahiser, in his Watchman's Teaching Letters beginning with number 199 in November of 2014, wrote on this passage from Isaiah at length. What we see here, is the repentance and recovery from a feminist and race-mixing society. Among Godly women, we often see it portrayed in Scripture that it is a reproach for a woman not to have children. Here in Isaiah, it is prophesied that we shall reach a time where repentant women are so desperate to have childern, that they will be willing to share a husband with six other women in order to do so. Of course, it is a result of war that there are not sufficient men for all of them.

There are many other passages in Scripture and in the laws of God which inform us of the standing which women are expected to have in a Godly society. Like we had described of the ancient Greeks and Hebrews alike, it was not even customary that women could own, never mind inherit, any real property. In fact, it was usually forbidden. But in the Book of Numbers, in certain cases this was recognized as an injustice, so women were permitted to inherit their father's property, but only in cases where there were no sons. Where there were sons, the women could expect to be cared for by the sons. When a man died, the eldest son customarily inherited the bulk of the family estate, as sometimes portions went to other sons, and the eldest son would also look after his mother and unmarried sisters. That is why, for example, it was important for Tamar to have a son from Judah, so that she would be looked after in her old age. So in Numbers chapter 26 we read in the reckoning of the sons of Manasseh: “33 And Zelophehad the son of Hepher had no sons, but daughters: and the names of the daughters of Zelophehad were Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.”

Then in chapter 27 of that same book we see this account: “1 Then came the daughters of Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of Manasseh the son of Joseph: and these are the names of his daughters; Mahlah, Noah, and Hoglah, and Milcah, and Tirzah. 2 And they stood before Moses, and before Eleazar the priest, and before the princes and all the congregation, by the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, saying, 3 Our father died in the wilderness, and he was not in the company of them that gathered themselves together against the LORD in the company of Korah; but died in his own sin, and had no sons. 4 Why should the name of our father be done away from among his family, because he hath no son? Give unto us therefore a possession among the brethren of our father. 5 And Moses brought their cause before the LORD. 6 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, 7 The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father's brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. 8 And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. 9 And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. 10 And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father's brethren. 11 And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgment, as the LORD commanded Moses.” If the law was not made for the daughters of Zelophedad, they being unmarried would have been forced into whoredom, or to be concubines, having no other way to support themselves.

But restrictions on this sort of inheritance were also set in place, to ensure that the property inherited by daughters did not fall into the hands of another tribe even when the daughters had married. This concern is raised in Numbers chapter 36: “1 And the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near, and spake before Moses, and before the princes, the chief fathers of the children of Israel; 2 And they said, The LORD commanded my lord to give the land for an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel: and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of Zelophehad our brother unto his daughters. 3 And if they be married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then shall their inheritance be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and shall be put to the inheritance of the tribe whereunto they are received: so shall it be taken from the lot of our inheritance....” The concern which they had raised is then answered in this manner: “5 And Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying, The tribe of the sons of Joseph hath said well. 6 This is the thing which the LORD doth command concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, Let them marry to whom they think best [since there is no father or brother to decide for them]; only to the family of the tribe of their father shall they marry. 7 So shall not the inheritance of the children of Israel remove from tribe to tribe: for every one of the children of Israel shall keep himself to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. 8 And every daughter, that possesseth an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel, shall be wife unto one of the family of the tribe of her father, that the children of Israel may enjoy every man the inheritance of his fathers. 9 Neither shall the inheritance remove from one tribe to another tribe; but every one of the tribes of the children of Israel shall keep himself to his own inheritance.” So a woman may inherit the property of her father, but if she marries outside of her own tribe it customarily became the property of her husband, and therefore she forfeits that inheritance because it must stay within the tribe.

In addition to the need for a special law so that women without male siblings could enjoy and support themselves from the property owned by their deceased fathers, by the law of God the legal standing of women in society was so restricted that they could not even make contracts or promises without the blessings of a father or husband. We read this in Numbers chapter 30: “1 And Moses spake unto the heads of the tribes concerning the children of Israel, saying, This is the thing which the LORD hath commanded. 2 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. [Men have a right to make agreements or contracts on their own, and shall be held to them when they do.] 3 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; 4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. [That silence is a recognized form of agreement is a subject of law and diplomacy from Roman times.] 5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; 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. [So the father has a right to veto any contract or promise made by any of his daughters.] 6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. [If the husband is silent, his silence is a form of consent, and Yahweh God holds the woman responsible for her vow.] 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the LORD shall forgive her. [So a husband has a right to veto any promise or contract made by his wife.] 9 But every vow of a widow, and of her that is divorced, wherewith they have bound their souls, shall stand against her. 10 And if she vowed in her husband's house, or bound her soul by a bond with an oath; 11 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her, and disallowed her not: then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 12 But if her husband hath utterly made them void on the day he heard them; then whatsoever proceeded out of her lips concerning her vows, or concerning the bond of her soul, shall not stand: her husband hath made them void; and the LORD shall forgive her. [This reiterates what we have seen above, and the fact that a husband should have such an authority over his wife is from God.] 13 Every vow, and every binding oath to afflict the soul, her husband may establish it, or her husband may make it void. [The husband has full control over the vows of the wife, whether or not they may stand.] 14 But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day; then he establisheth all her vows, or all her bonds, which are upon her: he confirmeth them, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them. 15 But if he shall any ways make them void after that he hath heard them; then he shall bear her iniquity. [Silence is agreement, and the husband cannot go back and change his mind later.] 16 These are the statutes, which the LORD commanded Moses, between a man and his wife, between the father and his daughter, being yet in her youth in her father's house.”

So the husband is responsible for his wife, and the father is responsible for his daughter. Adam was responsible for Eve, and when he left her alone, she was corrupted by his enemies. Yahweh God did not let him get away with blaming the woman, even though he tried. Today's men are to blame for the rise of feminism, just as much as the any of the women.

Now society is so far gone that women cannot be forced into subjection by husbands or fathers. All such a woman needs to do is call a lawyer, and he will use the weight of society to ensure that the woman remains “liberated”.

But a Christian woman should recognize this: that the will of God seeks her to be a good Christian wife, and a good Christian wife is subject to her husband. The circumstances of our society are not an excuse to disregard the will of God. A Christian woman should want to satisfy God, and knowing the ideal which Scripture outlines, voluntarily seek to conform herself to that ideal, to the greatest extent possible.

On the other hand, a woman should know that men are not going to risk their own lives to defend feminist women. There is no compulsion for men to do such a thing, and no reward in it for them if they ventured.

If a feminist woman wants help, when the Arab and negro hordes come to rape her ass, perhaps she should call that same lawyer she would use against her husband, to see if he would help her. We can love all of those of our own race, but how much empathy should we have for sinners?

All Christians, men and women, must reject the feminist society. But in order to do that, first they must be able to recognize it. To recognize it, they should look to the model of the family as it is organized in Scripture and do their best to conform themselves to it. There should be no other schematic for Christians to follow.

This concludes our presentation this evening, but we are not finished with this series on feminism. In the weeks ahead, we hope to discuss the origin of Protestant feminism, which, so far as we can find, seems to have started with a woman named Margaret Fell in the mid-17th century at the founding of the Society of Friends, generally known as the Quakers.

She wrote an essay in the 1660's, I believe it was, twisting Paul's words in 2 Corinthians chapter 14 to assert that Christian women should speak in church, the exact opposite of Paul's intended meaning. So doing this we shall reiterate some of our opinions on women speaking in public.

We will also discuss the feminism of Victorian England, where women first got the political and economic advantage over men that we are experiencing today, and the Jewish role in the advancement of feminism. There are already some excellent articles written on those topics, so we will be citing them.

We also hope to discuss marriage at length, and even endeavor to define what marriage really is from a purely Christian Biblical perspective. When we do that, we also hope to discuss some of the benefits of having a family which operates in accordance with the design of our God.

CHR20160109-Feminism-02.odt — Downloaded 556 times