Feminists nullify the Word of God for the sake of their traditions...

(Tim) After twenty-five years of listening to, and reading, feminists who purport both to be Christians and to honor Scripture, a few years ago I stopped. Their scholarship was so bad, non-sequiturs so constant, lies so bald-faced, and impiety so obvious, I couldn't bear it any more--keeping up with them was too caustic to my heart.

A few minutes ago, though, one of our readers mentioned some faithless comments being made by a certain feminist (who will remain unnamed) under a post she had made on her blog, and I was curious. A few minutes later I found the blog and the comments my friend had mentioned. They were awful.

Before leaving, I clipped this text to show the sort of arguments these people make...

The feminist writer is responding to a commenter who has made the point that the following text from Isaiah demonstrates that "the rule of women (over men is) God's judgment against Israel." Pretty obvious. So how does a feminist trash this text?

Well, first the text itself from Isaiah, followed by the feminist's guidance leading the commenter astray and confusing the direction of his path:

Woe to the wicked! It will go badly with him, For what he deserves will be done to him. O My people! Their oppressors are children, And women rule over them. O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray, And confuse the direction of your paths. (Isaiah 3:11,12).

In assessing the observation that Isaiah “saw the rule of women as God’s judgment against Israel (Isa. 3:12),” we need to understand WHY this was seen in such a light.

Fundamentally, it is a picture of the total breakdown of ordered society (by the standards of society in the ancient near east). Reference is also made in Isa. 3:4 to boys and children in official governing positions. As the commentator of my NIV Study Bible succinctly notes, “In the Near East, neither the rule of the young nor that of women was looked on with favor.” Indeed, it was the perspective of the entire near east—including that of the pagan and idolatrous nations—that government by women or young people was an indication of extreme political instability and social disarray. By definition, patriarchal culture is ruled by men. When men do not rule in such cultures, it is an indication that the social structures are disintegrating. This is precisely the situation described by the prophet Isaiah in chapter 3. The allusion to boys and children and women ruling is a telling metaphor (they were not actually ruling) of the ruinous state of anarchy that the prophet was predicting for the nation of Israel.

What this feminist has written, here, is in direct opposition to God and His Word. The "government by women" that God put His people under was not a curse because it "was an indication of extreme political instability and social disarray" "by the standards of society in the ancient near east."

Rather, it was a curse because it was contrary to the order of Creation God Himself decreed.

Comments

These provocative posts often promote other questions in my mind, so forgive me of this segway, but what would America be like if Clinton was our president? This certainly would be a forceful example of a woman ruling over all men.

Consider Margaret Thatcher as UK Prime Minister between 1979 and 1990. Although the British situation isn't the American one, obviously, a possible compare & contrast (Hillary in theory v Margaret Thatcher in practice), could be enlightening.

Tim,

What always amazes me about these religious feminists is that they just keep begging the questions. Even if we were to grant the interpretation offered here, we are still left with the question:

Why is the rule of women seen as, "a picture of the total breakdown of ordered society."? Don't they still have to answer the question about why the rule of women is bad if, in their books, it is supposed to be a good thing?

Kamilla

Add new comment