Male Chauvinism in The Scriptures


The whole question of sexism in the bible is a hot topic that my dear lady wife has prodded me about for a long time now. It got to a pitch several weeks ago, at which point I committed to write this paper on the subject. I hope that I am not facing a divorce upon its publication!!

I think a few definitions are required here before I start this potentially troublesome quest:

Misogyny: ‘Feelings of hating women, or the belief that men are much better than women.’ – Cambridge Dictionary

Male Chauvinism: ‘The belief that women are naturally less important, intelligent, or able than men.’ – Cambridge Dictionary

Sexism: ‘Prejudice or discrimination based on sex or gender, especially against women and girls.’ - Britannica Dictionary

In discussing this with my wife, we used the term ‘misogyny’ to start with. However, after some thought, even she thought the view of ‘hating’ women was a bit strong in a biblical context so she preferred I write about ‘male chauvinism’ instead. On balance I think the word ‘sexism’ probably fits the bill best. However, let us see how my study of relevant scriptures might develop my thinking on the subject. The scriptures have largely been selected on the basis of those that seem to come under the scrutiny of the feminists, of this politically correct world in which we currently live, to accuse the bible of gender discrimination.

Adam and Eve

Well, we might as well start at the beginning which set the seal on everything that was to follow. So, first off, we have God creating Adam in His own image. In describing the creation of the two genders there is no such direct reference to the female, so Eve was not created in God’s image:

27 And God created the man in His own image; in the image of God He created him. He created them male and female. (Genesis 1 GLT)

In the creation of Adam reprise in the following chapter, we have God’s creation of Adam from the dust of the ground, i.e. from an inanimate medium:

7 And Jehovah God formed the man [out of] dust from the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2 GLT)

God’s creation of woman, however, was not from ‘scratch’ but was based on Adam’s pre-existing DNA profile, so arguably woman was created in the image of man:

21 And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh underneath.
22 And Jehovah God formed the rib which He had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man.
23 And the man said, This now at last [is] bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called Woman, because this has been taken out of man. (Genesis 2 GLT)

But why did God create Eve? Well, He believed that Adam would need a suitable companion, a helper:

18 And Jehovah God said, [It is] not good, the man being alone. I will make a helper suited to him. (Genesis 2 GLT)

The Holy Spirit is also described as God’s helper:

26 But the helper, the holy spirit, which the Father will send in my name, that one will teach you all things and bring back to your minds all the things I told you. (John 14 NWT)

What is the significance of this comparison? Well God already had a family structure in which the Holy Spirit is His wife and helper:
Understanding 11 - The Holy Spirit is God's Wife!. So, God was creating a physical family on the Earth to mirror His spiritual family in the heavens. It is therefore important to realise, in this comparison, that the wife is the husband’s helper thereby demonstrating a clear line of authority emanating from the husband to the wife. However, this also needs to be seen in its proper context; it is deemed that the married couple should enjoy a committed, intimate and loving relationship:

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2 KJV)

In Paul’s first letter to the congregation at Corinth we have all these matters confirmed. I am sure that the feminists would pick up on the odd verse from this for adverse criticism, but I think a more balanced view is to be gained by reading and understanding the full set:

7 For a man indeed ought not to cover [his] head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
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.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on [her] head because of the angels.
11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.
12 For as the woman [is] of the man, even so [is] the man also by the woman; but all things of God. (1 Corinthians 11 KJV)

Ditto his letter to the congregation at Ephesus. I think the final verse of this set says it all to me; perhaps if folk concentrated on this, more than their position in society, we would not be living in such a troubled world:

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; (Ephesians 5 KJV)

And again, in his letter to the Colossians, Paul clearly means this:

18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
19 Husbands, love [your] wives, and be not bitter against them. (Colossians 3 KJV)

As does Peter:

5 For after this manner aforetime the holy women also, who hoped in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection to their own husbands:
6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose children ye now are, if ye do well, and are not put in fear by any terror.
7 Ye husbands, in like manner, dwell with [your wives] according to knowledge, giving honor unto the woman, as unto the weaker vessel, as being also joint-heirs of the grace of life; to the end that your prayers be not hindered. (1 Peter 3 ASV)

Check out the following link to get the full story on man’s God-given, but abused, authority:
Understanding 25a - Men Women Love and Power.

So, why was God so angry with Adam, Eve and Lucifer at their joint fall? Well, we are looking at multiple cases of disobeying God’s commandment, adultery, homo sexual and other unauthorised behaviour. First off, the Lord’s Witnesses believe that the serpent did not just entice Eve to partake of the forbidden fruit physically but also symbolically in that Satan impregnated Eve to produce her first-born son, Cain. The gory details are covered in:
Understanding 314 - The Gory Detail of Original Sin and the Origin of the Nephilim - Satan was the father of Cain and he or a demonic son of his was Arba the father of Anak. In carrying out this act, Eve was committing adultery as was Satan, who was the head of the 1st Holy Spirit thereby representing God’s own wife!

Since Adam and Eve were effectively one flesh, Satan also performed an act of homosexual rape on Adam by proxy. But it gets worse! Eve then entices Adam to partake of the physical forbidden fruit thereby breaking the line of authority from God to Adam to herself. Both Adam and Eve were guilty of breaking this line, Eve for seducing Adam to partake of the fruit and Adam for breaking the one commandment that God had given him. Consequently, God insisted that the husband will have jurisdiction over his wife and that both Adam and Eve and their progeny were to suffer the consequences of this line of authority (chain of command) failure. And we have not looked back since:

16 Unto the woman He said: 'I will greatly multiply thy pain and thy travail; in pain thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.'
17 And unto Adam He said: 'Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying: Thou shalt not eat of it; cursed is the ground for thy sake; in toil shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. (Genesis 3 JPS)

This line of authority theme is repeated in the New Testament by Paul. I do not think I have any further comments to make on this; if this is the chain of command demanded by God then so be it:

3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman [is] the man; and the head of Christ [is] God. (1 Corinthians 11 KJV)

And reiterated in his letter to Titus:

4 that they might train the young women to be lovers of husbands, lovers of children,
5 discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, subject to [their] own husbands, so that the Word of God may not be blasphemed, (Titus 2 GLT)

Paul, in his first letter to Timothy, seems to have a rather harsher view of authority. I, for one, certainly value my wife’s opinion on some matters. God also has His helper after all:

11 Let a woman learn in quietness with all subjection.
12 But I permit not a woman to teach, nor to have dominion over a man, but to be in quietness.
13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve; (1 Timothy 2 ASV)

Peter seems to have a somewhat similar view to mine in that a faithful wife can help an errant husband back onto the correct path:

1 Likewise, ye wives, [be] in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; (1 Peter 3 KJV)

And I am sure you feminists will love this one from the Book of Esther no less:

22 For he sent letters into all the king's provinces, into every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language, that every man should bear rule in his own house, and that [it] should be published according to the language of every people. (Esther 1 KJV)

This sense of the authority of the men over their households can be seen in many areas of life in Old Testament times. One of these was the making of a vow by a daughter or wife to God. This had to be sanctioned by the father or husband respectively:

3 Also when a woman voweth a vow unto Jehovah, and bindeth herself by a bond, being in her father's house, in her youth,
4 and her father heareth her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father holdeth his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth, none of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and Jehovah will forgive her, because her father disallowed her.
6 And if she be [married] to a husband, while her vows are upon her, or the rash utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul,
7 and her husband hear it, and hold his peace at her in the day that he heareth it; then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand.
8 But if her husband disallow her in the day that he heareth it, then he shall make void her vow which is upon her, and the rash utterance of her lips, wherewith she hath bound her soul: and Jehovah will forgive her. (Numbers 30 ASV)

And to close off this section, I make no apology for quoting a lengthy scripture from the Book of Proverbs extolling the virtues of a good wife and mother and homemaker. Perhaps this does not impress the feminists among you, but these qualities are not to be understated or under-valued:

10 A woman of valour who can find? for her price is far above rubies.
11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, and he hath no lack of gain.
12 She doeth him good and not evil all the days of her life.
13 She seeketh wool and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.
14 She is like the merchant-ships; she bringeth her food from afar.
15 She riseth also while it is yet night, and giveth food to her household, and a portion to her maidens.
16 She considereth a field, and buyeth it; with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.
17 She girdeth her loins with strength, and maketh strong her arms.
18 She perceiveth that her merchandise is good; her lamp goeth not out by night.
19 She layeth her hands to the distaff, and her hands hold the spindle.
20 She stretcheth out her hand to the poor; yea, she reacheth forth her hands to the needy.
21 She is not afraid of the snow for her household; for all her household are clothed with scarlet.
22 She maketh for herself coverlets; her clothing is fine linen and purple.
23 Her husband is known in the gates, when he sitteth among the elders of the land.
24 She maketh linen garments and selleth them; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.
25 Strength and dignity are her clothing; and she laugheth at the time to come.
26 She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and the law of kindness is on her tongue.
27 She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness.
28 Her children rise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her:
29 'Many daughters have done valiantly, but thou excellest them all.'
30 Grace is deceitful, and beauty is vain; but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised.
31 Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her works praise her in the gates. (Proverbs 31 JPS)


It was clearly the practice under the Law for a father to leave his inheritance to his sons before his daughters. This is made clear in the Law that the first-born son will gain the largest portion of his father’s inheritance regardless of other considerations:

15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, [both] the beloved and the hated; and [if] the firstborn son be hers that was hated:
16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit [that] which he hath, [that] he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, [which is indeed] the firstborn:
17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated [for] the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he [is] the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn [is] his. (Deuteronomy 21 KJV)

This is also evidenced by the fact that God gave this advice to Moses for the daughters of Zelophehad who died without sons:

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. (Numbers 27 KJV)

This was, later on, effected by Joshua:

2 So [the lot] was for the rest of the children of Manasseh according to their families: for the children of Abiezer, and for the children of Helek, and for the children of Asriel, and for the children of Shechem, and for the children of Hepher, and for the children of Shemida: these were the male children of Manasseh the son of Joseph according to their families.
3 But Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters: Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah.
4 And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, Jehovah commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brethren: therefore according to the commandment of Jehovah he gave them an inheritance among the brethren of their father.
5 And there fell ten parts to Manasseh, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which is beyond the Jordan;
6 because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance among his sons. And the land of Gilead belonged unto the rest of the sons of Manasseh. (Joshua 17 ASV)

However, even in this case, if the daughters were to marry within their tribe of birth, their inheritance would effectively pass to their husbands:

8 And any daughter that possesses an inheritance from any tribe of the sons of Israel to one of the family of the tribe of her father [is] to become a wife of the family of the tribe of her father, so that the sons of Israel may each possess the inheritance of his father. (Numbers 36 GLT)

There is one exception in scripture to this rule of inheritance. Job’s replacement children for those that he lost are a significant case in point. There are two interesting points here in that Job’s new daughters were named whereas his new sons were not and the daughters were expressly given an inheritance along with their brothers:

13 He had also seven sons and three daughters.
14 And he called the name of the first, Jemima; and the name of the second, Kezia; and the name of the third, Kerenhappuch.
15 And in all the land were no women found [so] fair as the daughters of Job: and their father gave them inheritance among their brethren. (Job 42 KJV)

What are we to read into this? For a broader view see my earlier paper on
Job. For the purposes of this paper, however, it is made clear that this was the exception to the rule of sons primarily receiving the father’s inheritance.

The main tenet of inheritance is that it is the males rather than the daughters that receive the bulk of the father’s household assets. This stems right back to the line of authority laid down from Adam to Eve as observed in my earlier section.

In general, the Laws of inheritance were based on the fact that, in biblical times, a man owned his household. An example of this may be found in the following scripture where an errant wife may be sent out from her husband’s house, NB. not ‘their’ house:

1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give [it] in her hand, and send her out of his house. (Deuteronomy 24 KJV)

Things are very different today, for good reason. If we go back to the previous section, let us look at the punishments that were meted out to Adam and Eve respectively. Man’s work is to be made hard and women’s childbirth was to be made painful. This set the scene early on in man’s development in that women looked after the children and the home whereas man went out to work to provide the home and wherewithal for his household to survive. It is only in relatively recent times that women have been able to pursue careers of their own and thereby provide for themselves within or without a marital home. Whether this is a good thing or not, I am not sure but I think feminists today need to take account of the very different life in biblical times.

One early example of this more modern approach to sharing the household is to be found in the New Testament. Let us look at the case of Aquila and Priscilla, his wife:

2 And found a certain Jew named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife Priscilla; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart from Rome:) and came unto them. (Acts 18 KJV)

3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: (Romans 16 KJV)

19 The churches of Asia salute you. Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the church that is in their house. (1 Corinthians 16 KJV)

As we trace the account of Aquila and Priscilla, we find that they are partners in helping Paul with his ministry. More so in that Priscilla’s name appears before Aquila’s in the later scriptures thereby implying the wife’s greater role in the church. The upshot here is that the house in which they live and worship is described equitably as ‘theirs’ not solely Aquila’s.

The Creation of Eve

Let us have a closer look at the creation of Eve. As told above, Eve was made from one of Adam’s ribs:

21 And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall on the man, and he slept. And He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh underneath.
22 And Jehovah God formed the rib which He had taken from the man into a woman, and brought her to the man.
23 And the man said, This now at last [is] bone from my bones, and flesh from my flesh. For this shall be called Woman, because this has been taken out of man. (Genesis 2 GLT)

Mankind has 24 ribs. It would seem unlikely that at his creation, Adam had 25 ribs which would have made him somewhat lopsided. So, ‘rib’ is not literal but symbolic. Now mankind has 23 pairs of chromosomes including 1 pair of sex chromosomes: So, the symbolic substitution might run that a rib stands for a pair of chromosomes. On his creation Adam had 24 pairs of chromosomes, including both an XX and XY pair, so both he (and his Creator) had both male and female attributes. In creating Eve, God removed the XX sex chromosome pair from Adam and used it to create a female version of Adam, and in the process left Adam only with the XY sex chromosome pair. Ribs had to be symbolic rather than literal in biblical times since chromosomes were not discovered until the 19th century. So, the bible was not intended to be decoded before the 19th century. This understanding thereby gives further meaning to the concept of one flesh:

24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. (Genesis 2 KJV)

When a man and a woman become as one, together they symbolise the originally created Adam in the image of God. Meanwhile God is always referred to as a male so, whilst He maintains the attributes of both genders, the male dominates over the female which helps explain that trait throughout the bible in describing the relationship between men and women.

For the full story of this please read
U657 - The Transsexual Dilemma: Are there any female spirits trapped inside male brains (people in need of a sex change)? and Male and Female.

An additional point worth making in this context is that the bible, through its two testaments, represents the masculine order of the Law in the OT compared with the feminine love and mercy in the NT. The Law must come before love and mercy so that it can establish the ground rules for a society’s behaviour. I have covered this, amongst other things, in an earlier paper:
Right Hand of God.


The valuation placed on the different gender and age of a person by the Israelite priesthood could certainly be taken to be chauvinistic in character:

2 'Speak unto the sons of Israel, and thou hast said unto them, When a man maketh a wonderful vow, by thy valuation the persons {are} Jehovah's.
3 When thy valuation hath been of the male from a son of twenty years even unto a son of sixty years, then hath been thy valuation fifty shekels of silver by the shekel of the sanctuary.
4 And if it {is} a female -- then hath thy valuation been thirty shekels;
5 and if from a son of five years even unto a son of twenty years -- then hath thy valuation been of the male twenty shekels, and for the female, ten shekels;
6 and if from a son of a month even unto a son of five years -- then hath thy valuation been of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy valuation {is} three shekels of silver;
7 and if from a son of sixty years and above -- if a male, then hath thy valuation been fifteen shekels, and for a female, ten shekels.
8 'And if he is poorer than thy valuation, then he hath presented himself before the priest, and the priest hath valued him; according to that which the hand of him who is vowing doth reach doth the priest value him. (Leviticus 27 YLT)

Here we see that the valuation for a male in his prime is significantly greater than that for a female in her prime or an infant, child or older person. This valuation would seem to be related to the provision of sacred service to God’s temple and therefore is arguably related to a current or future wage for that category of person. In today’s society of equal pay for equal work, this would appear to be an anathema. In biblical times I am sure that men’s work would have been seen to be of more value than women’s, children’s or the aged’s since, I think, it must have represented that physical labour was valued most highly. Since men have at least 10% more muscle mass than the equivalent woman (, they are clearly more suited to manual work than women as is our common everyday experience. The opportunity for more intellectual work in those times must have been close to non-existent compared to today’s work environment.


Why am I writing this section? Whilst there are numerous scriptures of the Law that denounce illegitimate sexual practices against both genders (check out my earlier papers on
Fleshly Desire and Nakedness), there does seem to be a significant number of additional laws applying specifically to female virginity. Let us have a look at some of these and try to determine the true rationale behind them.

For starters it was decreed, in the Law, that a High Priest should not marry any female who was not a proven virgin:

13 And he shall take a wife in her virginity.
14 A widow, or a divorced woman, or profane, [or] an harlot, these shall he not take: but he shall take a virgin of his own people to wife. (Leviticus 21 KJV)

Next, we have a lengthy set of regulations for the circumstances in which a man accuses his new wife of not being a virgin prior to their wedding night. Apart from any other considerations in the detail, the matter of whether a bride be a virgin or not was of massive importance to God and His people. No such stricture appears relevant to the males of the species, presumably because polygamy was an accepted custom. The loss of a female's virginity, prior to becoming a bride, was a capital offense so was to be taken extremely seriously:

13 If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,
14 and lay shameful things to her charge, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity;
15 then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate;
16 and the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;
17 and, lo, he hath laid shameful things [to her charge], saying, I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city.
18 And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him;
19 and they shall fine him a hundred [shekels] of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.
20 But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel;
21 then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death with stones, because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the harlot in her father's house: so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee. (Deuteronomy 22 ASV)

I have to say that I have a couple of queries in regard to the whole question of the 'tokens of virginity' in the above scripture. Firstly, there is question of the reliability of the signs of blood since it is not only first sex that can break the hymen. The following web-site nicely addresses this question by effectively clarifying that 'tokens' is a plural and therefore we will be looking for evidence that the wife was not a virgin from more sources than just the breakage of the hymen: But this also raised the question in my mind as to what function the hymen actually has. According to the following website, we do not know: Consequently, I am left surmising that the sole purpose of the hymen was a God-given one to aid the proving of a maid's virginity. If I am correct in that view, then this adds even more emphasis to the importance to God of a bride's virginity!

Having ascertained that there are frequent references to a maiden’s virginity, largely throughout the Old Testament Law, we can now perhaps, discover why this should be the case when we reference the Book of Revelation:

3 and they sing as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four living creatures and the elders: and no man could learn the song save the hundred and forty and four thousand, [even] they that had been purchased out of the earth.
4 These are they that were not defiled with women; for they are virgins. These [are] they that follow the Lamb whithersoever he goeth. These were purchased from among men, [to be] the firstfruits unto God and unto the Lamb. (Revelation 14 ASV)

These verses describe the 144,000 1NC Saints that are to become Jesus’ bride (check out my earlier paper on
Jewish Weddings). They should be virgins in the sense that, once they have been baptised into the True Christian Church of their era, they do not taint that baptism afterwards by joining or worshipping with a false church or religion. This is another example of the physical Old Testament acting as a precursor for the spiritual New Testament. Here the Old Testament is impressing upon us the importance of remaining in a physical virginal state prior to our wedding day; the New Testament is telling us the greater spiritual significance of that state for the Saints. This is not the full story on these verses from Revelation but it is sufficient for the purposes of this paper. The Lords' Witnesses’ Understanding 206 - Two Groups of 144,000 standing on mount Zion describes these verses in more detail although it is still an unfinished piece of work.

This profile of the 1NC Saints being Christ’s bride was earlier preached by Paul to his congregation at Corinth. Interestingly he compares them to Eve lest they should be deceived by false teachings from Satan:

2 For I am jealous [over] you with a jealousy of God. For I have promised you to one Man, to present [you] a pure virgin to Christ.
3 But I fear lest by any means, as the serpent deceived Eve in his craftiness, so your thoughts should be corrupted from the purity which [is due] to Christ. (2 Corinthians 11 GLT)

And then we have the not unimportant virgin birth of Jesus. His conception was not to be tainted by the 'hand' of man; another indication of the importance attached to the female virgin state:

14 So, The Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold! The virgin will conceive and will bring forth a son; and she shall call His name Immanuel. (Isaiah 7 GLT)

23 "Behold! The virgin will conceive in [her] womb and will bear a son, and they will call His name Emmanuel" (which translated is, God with us). [Isa. 7:14] (Matthew 1 GLT)


Rape and Pre-Marital Sex

In the case of rape (and thereby the enforced adultery) of a betrothed virgin the punishment meted out to the rapist presumably could offend no feminist, or anyone else for that matter:

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: (Deuteronomy 22 KJV)

25וְאִם-בַּשָּׂדֶה יִמְצָא הָאִישׁ, אֶת-הַנַּעֲרָ הַמְאֹרָשָׂה, וְהֶחֱזִיק-בָּהּ הָאִישׁ, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ:  וּמֵת, הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר-שָׁכַב עִמָּהּ--לְבַדּוֹ.  (Deuteronomy 22 WLC)

The word ‘force’ is a good translation of the Hebrew word ‘
וְהֶחֱזִיק’ so I think we are in no doubt that we are talking about a case of rape in the above scripture.

However, another example is when a man takes another man’s unmarried daughter. Confusingly a different Hebrew word is used ‘
וּתְפָשָׂהּ’ translated here correctly as ‘lay hold’. This does not sound as forceful as the previous verse but I think we may still be talking about rape, albeit without the added crime of adultery:

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; (KJV)
28כִּי-יִמְצָא אִישׁ, נַעֲרָ בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אֹרָשָׂה, וּתְפָשָׂהּ, וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ; וְנִמְצָאוּ.  (WLC)

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. (Deuteronomy 22 KJV)
29וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ, לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָ--חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף; וְלוֹ-תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה, תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ--לֹא-יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָהּ, כָּל-יָמָיו. (Deuteronomy 22 WLC)

There are several points to comment upon in this second scripture. Firstly, the rapist must pay the father for his daughter. So, this one verse brings in both the household ownership and valuation concepts that we have already commented on. This is effectively the dowry which the rapist must pay and must take her to wife. This does still sound like rape since the damsel was described as humbled. In taking her to wife the rapist must look after her for the rest of her life; quite an onerous responsibility for his crime, I think.

I must confess to having several problems, however, with this scripture. Firstly, what does the daughter have to say in all this? Also, what if they were not ‘found’? No crime would have been reported and the girl would either become with child or would be found not to be a virgin on an eventual betrothal, both of which were capital offences for her. I am beginning to think that this may not have been a clear case of rape after all but an error of judgement on both of their parts? It may be that the laying hold was describing more of a moment of passion and the humbling of the damsel was describing her shame in the matter?

I think the following verses throw more light on the subject. Here we have a clear case of sex before marriage with the man effectively seducing the virgin. Here the Hebrew word ‘
יְפַתֶּה’ is used for which the English word ‘entice’ is a good translation. I think this must represent the same case as the previous scripture after all. In this case the seducer must also take the virgin to wife. However, in this iteration, the virgin’s father may refuse the marriage, perhaps after consulting with his daughter and her wishes.

16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. (KJV)
16וְכִי-יְפַתֶּה אִישׁ, בְּתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא-אֹרָשָׂה--וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ:  מָהֹר יִמְהָרֶנָּה לּוֹ, לְאִשָּׁה.  (WLC)

17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. (Exodus 22 KJV)
17אִם-מָאֵן יְמָאֵן אָבִיהָ, לְתִתָּהּ לוֹ--כֶּסֶף יִשְׁקֹל, כְּמֹהַר הַבְּתוּלֹת. (Exodus 22 WLC)

I think the last two examples must be iterations of the same law with the second iteration enabling father (and daughter I would expect) to refuse the marriage if that is their wish. In that case the dowry would still be paid.

Anyway, at least I am trying to find an accurate explanation to these scriptures in the knowledge that there are numerous other commentaries on them out there that, in my opinion, do not comfortably fit the scriptures. However, there are clearly those feminists out there that are not interested in understanding God’s Word but merely have their own agenda and will happily support Satan in his work!

In the same context as we discussed virginity above, I think this topic of pre-marital sex also relates to the spiritual meaning in that a Saint will be forgiven if he originally comes from a sinful life and/or an alien religion so long as he maintains his faith in Christ going forward after his baptism.


One hot topic that the feminists of this world would no doubt condemn is that of the practice of polygamy as described in the Bible:

19 And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one [was] Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. (Genesis 4 KJV)

Wives had a hierarchy among them whereby secondary wives were described as concubines, but were nonetheless true wives in a polygamous marriage:

6 But unto the sons of the concubines, which Abraham had, Abraham gave gifts, and sent them away from Isaac his son, while he yet lived, eastward, unto the east country. (Genesis 25 KJV)

13 And David took [him] more concubines and wives out of Jerusalem, after he was come from Hebron: and there were yet sons and daughters born to David. (2 Samuel 5 KJV)

21 And Rehoboam loved Maachah the daughter of Absalom above all his wives and his concubines: (for he took eighteen wives, and threescore concubines; and begat twenty and eight sons, and threescore daughters.) (2 Chronicles 11 KJV)

And then we have the extreme case of the ‘wise(?)’ King Solomon with his thousand wives and concubines. Hardly a ringing endorsement for polygamy from God:

1 Now king Solomon loved many foreign women, together with the daughter of Pharaoh, women of the Moabites, Ammonites, Edomites, Sidonians, and Hittites;
2 of the nations concerning which Jehovah said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go among them, neither shall they come among you; for surely they will turn away your heart after their gods: Solomon clave unto these in love.
3 And he had seven hundred wives, princesses, and three hundred concubines; and his wives turned away his heart. (1 Kings 11 ASV)

And then we find this vitriolic comment from King Solomon himself; well, I guess his many and varied experiences of women would place him appropriately to make such a statement:

26 And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart [is] snares and nets, [and] her hands [as] bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her. (Ecclesiastes 7 KJV)

I do not intend to write further on this topic since I have already covered it in depth in my earlier paper:
Holy Matrimony. The scriptures clearly tell me that polygamy is allowed by scripture whilst not necessarily being recommended. God’s allowing polygamy is His further indicating the line of authority He expects an earthly family to adopt. I am sure the feminist position would not accept this marital structure whilst no doubt totally supporting a lesbian marriage (check out: Unholy Matrimony). Whether today’s politically correct lobby like it or not, this is in direct opposition to God’s view on marriage and is, as we have seen, one cause of why mankind is in the mess he is in today! Mankind needs the rule of law and the requisite line of authority to live sustainably.

Notwithstanding that God’s law allows polygamy, Paul recommended that church ministers should only have one wife. In doing this, however, he also recognised the need for the line of authority discussed previously in regards to the church and the ministers’ own households:

2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;
3 Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous;
4 One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;
5 (For if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he take care of the church of God?) (1 Timothy 3 KJV)


When God asked Moses to take a census of the children of Israel, this comprised only male adults over the age of 20 years. Rather than this being a merely chauvinistic action, God wanted Moses to establish the strength of Israel’s fighting army for battle. Things are pretty much the same today except that secular governments generally expect 18-year-old males to sacrifice themselves for queen and country. There are very few countries that expect women to get directly involved in the field of battle:

2 Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, after their families, by the house of their fathers, with the number of [their] names, every male by their polls;
3 From twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: thou and Aaron shall number them by their armies. (Numbers 1 KJV)

In their battle against the Midianites, the Israelite victors were given the spoils of war in the form of the female virgin survivors:

18 And you shall keep alive for yourselves all the female children who have not known a man by lying with a male. (Numbers 31 GLT)

Now while the feminists among you will take the worst possible chauvinistic meaning from this, let us take it in the context in which this command was given. Firstly, every Midianite male, including all their kings, were killed in battle:

7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.
8 And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; [namely], Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. (Numbers 31 KJV)

But this was not enough for Moses who insisted that all the captives be killed due to the Midianites previous crimes against Israel (the interested reader just might want to check out my earlier
Punishment and Vengeance paper?):

15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?
16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.
17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (Numbers 31 KJV)

This, clearly, was with the exception of the young female virgins. Rather than chauvinistic, one might argue that the males, virgins or not, got the short end of this particular straw through Moses’ feminist demand! And before you jump to any conclusions about the probable treatment of the surviving female virgins, they were all purified alongside the Israelite men of war so there was clearly no intention to abuse them in any dishonourable way:

19 And do ye abide without the camp seven days: whosoever hath killed any person, and whosoever hath touched any slain, purify [both] yourselves and your captives on the third day, and on the seventh day. (Numbers 31 KJV)

The above account is a specific case of God’s general law of the results of Israelite battles with the alien nations about them. Whilst women were to be taken as the spoils of war, all the males were to be killed:

12 And if it will make no peace with thee, but will make war against thee, then thou shalt besiege it:
13 And when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword:
14 But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, [even] all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee. (Deuteronomy 20 KJV)

Arguably more feminist than chauvinist? And, in similar vein, we have God’s anger against Babylon for which He sets the Medes on a war footing against them. Death to the males and rape of the women! Certainly, a difference in treatment based on gender, but is this chauvinism? But war is like this today so I do not think this behaviour is a purely biblical dictate. Anyway, if the Babylonians were dishing out the punishment, they would be raping the men and the women!!

15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through; and every one that is joined [unto them] shall fall by the sword.
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives ravished.
17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them, which shall not regard silver; and [as for] gold, they shall not delight in it.
18 [Their] bows also shall dash the young men to pieces; and they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb; their eye shall not spare children. (Isaiah 13 KJV)

More of the same although I would have to admit this is even more graphically described against children and pregnant women. Again, arguably demonstrating God’s extreme anger with His people in Samaria:

16 Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. (Hosea 13 KJV)

On a slightly different tack, God would appear to insult His enemies by describing them as women and therefore presumably unable to fight. Is this really an insult to women or just a statement that His enemy's weakened state represents the reality that women are the physically weaker sex:

13 Behold, thy people in the midst of thee are women; the gates of thy land are set wide open unto thine enemies: the fire hath devoured thy bars. (Nahum 3 ASV)

God’s Wife and Harlotry

As previously explained in my earlier paper
Jewish Weddings, God and Jesus will take a spiritual or a physical wife. Feminists will take a politically correct position on all the scriptures that reflect this if it suits their desires. One such example is Jesus’ parable that portrays Him as a bridegroom and the 1NC Saints as 10 virgins:

1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom. (Matthew 25 KJV)

The really sad thing here is that the whole point of this parable is completely lost on the feminists. Instead of attempting to understand the message contained in that parable, which frankly is not a particularly cryptic one, they merely fall back on their political agenda thereby demonstrating a total lack of interest in scriptural truth:

13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
15 For this people's heart is waxed gross, and [their] ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with [their] eyes, and hear with [their] ears, and should understand with [their] heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. (Matthew 13 KJV)

There are numerous examples of nations or organisations being described as harlots in the scriptures. Looking at the Merriam Webster dictionary definition of the word ‘harlot’ we interestingly find: ‘a person who has sex with someone in exchange for money: prostitute.’ The use of the ungendered word ‘person’ is interesting in that it acknowledges that prostitutes can be of either gender. The bible also acknowledges this, but for males it is largely in the sacred sense by committing idolatry, not in the secular sense of money being exchanged for a man’s sexual favours:

16 and thou take of their daughters unto thy sons, and their daughters play the harlot after their gods, and make thy sons play the harlot after their gods. (Exodus 34 ASV)

Its more frequent use is that of the female gender. One example would be the nation of Nineveh, that God saved in Jonah’s day as a result of their repentance only to find that, sometime later on, they went back to their bad old ways:

7 And he caused [it] to be proclaimed and published through Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste any thing: let them not feed, nor drink water:
8 But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and cry mightily unto God: yea, let them turn every one from his evil way, and from the violence that [is] in their hands.
9 Who can tell [if] God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?
10 And God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God repented of the evil, that he had said that he would do unto them; and he did [it] not. (Jonah 3 KJV)

And then:

4 because of the many harlotries of the well favored harlot, the mistress of sorceries who sells nations by her harlotries, and families by her sorceries.
5 Behold, I [am] against you, declares Jehovah of Hosts, and I will uncover your skirts over your face, and I will cause the nations to see your nakedness, and the kingdoms your shame.
6 And I will cast filth on you and will disgrace you. And I will set you as a spectacle.
7 And it shall be [that] all those who look on you shall flee from you and shall say, Nineveh is laid waste; who shall weep for her? From where shall I seek comforters for you? (Nahum 3 GLT)

And then we have the classic case of God referring to His nation wife, Israel, as a virgin. This virgin will turn back to again become a faithful people who He then describes disparagingly as a woman that will encompass men in battle thereby harking back to the similar point made in the War section above:

21 Set thee up waymarks, make thee guide-posts; set thy heart toward the highway, even the way by which thou wentest: turn again, O virgin of Israel, turn again to these thy cities.
22 How long wilt thou go hither and thither, O thou backsliding daughter? for Jehovah hath created a new thing in the earth: a woman shall encompass a man. (Jeremiah 31 ASV)

And more of the same from Isaiah:

4 You no longer shall be called Forsaken; nor shall your land any longer be called Desolate. But you shall be called, My Delight [is] in Her; and your land, Married. For Jehovah delights in you, and your land is married.
5 For [as] a young man marries a virgin, [so] shall your sons marry you. And [as] a bridegroom rejoices over the bride, [so] your God shall rejoice over you. (Isaiah 62 GLT)

And then we have a highly graphical parable of Samaria and Jerusalem described as twin harlots:

2 Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother:
3 and they played the harlot in Egypt; they played the harlot in their youth; there were their breasts pressed, and there was handled the bosom of their virginity.
4 And the names of them were Oholah the elder, and Oholibah her sister: and they became mine, and they bare sons and daughters. And as for their names, Samaria is Oholah, and Jerusalem Oholibah. (Ezekiel 23 ASV)

So why does God treat nations like an unfaithful wife or harlot? Well, I think we have effectively already answered that question above. God is a male spirit (
Right Hand of God and Male and Female papers) and treats the nations as potential wives (Jewish Weddings paper) and therefore as potential female harlots when they prove to be unfaithful or ungrateful to Him.

But there is no harlot to match the First True Christian Church of the Roman Catholics. The corruptor of the 1NC Saints, Jesus’ own wife:

4 And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour, and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls, having a golden cup in her hand full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:
6 And I saw the woman drunken with the blood of the saints, and with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus: and when I saw her, I wondered with great admiration. (Revelation 17 KJV)

However, the Bible’s accounts of real live female prostitutes are not all bad news. Take the case of Rahab as a prime example. If you protect God’s people, they will look after you regardless of how you earn your living:

25 And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel [even] unto this day; because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho. (Joshua 6 KJV)


Miriam and Aaron both spoke out against Moses’ marrying of an Ethiopian woman:

1 And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman. (Numbers 12 KJV)

God was angry that a couple of ‘mere’ prophets should have spoken out against Moses, His chosen one. In demonstration of His anger, Miriam became leprous, whilst Aaron was given no such direct punishment:

9 And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them; and he departed.
10 And the cloud departed from off the tabernacle; and, behold, Miriam [became] leprous, [white] as snow: and Aaron looked upon Miriam, and, behold, [she was] leprous. (Numbers 12 KJV)

Regardless of this apparently chauvinistic treatment from Jehovah, He relented and cured her after seven days:

13 And Moses cried unto the LORD, saying, Heal her now, O God, I beseech thee.
14 And the LORD said unto Moses, If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed seven days? let her be shut out from the camp seven days, and after that let her be received in [again].
15 And Miriam was shut out from the camp seven days: and the people journeyed not till Miriam was brought in [again]. (Numbers 12 KJV)

One cannot be definitive in determining the rationale in the difference in treatment of Miriam compared with that of Aaron. There are several possible explanations:

  1. God is chauvinistic.
  2. Miriam was the main instigator of the complaint against Moses since verse 1 above does uniquely place Miriam before Aaron. Frankly this does sound more like the sort of complaint a woman would make does it not (says the chauvinistic JLW!)?
  3. Aaron, as the head priest, was higher in status than Miriam so possibly this gave him preferential treatment.
  4. Whilst Miriam received the direct punishment, this clearly pained both Aaron and Moses so neither were untouched by God’s treatment of Miriam.
  5. God’s relenting of His punishment on Miriam ensured that it was but short-lived but, nonetheless it does raise the question of different treatment of the two genders in this matter.

You choose; unsurprisingly I will go with option 2.

Again, in the matter of punishment, the daughters of a priest are to be burnt for their harlotry (see previous section).

9 And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. (Leviticus 21 KJV)

Likewise, the unmarried daughter, of any man, who is found to have had illicit sex, treated as harlotry again, will be stoned:

20 But if this thing be true, [and the tokens of] virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. (Deuteronomy 22 KJV)

The question has fairly been asked as to the punishment for similar lewd behaviour from the sons of priests and other fathers. There are many instances of items in the Law of Moses where, if a man has illicit sex, he will certainly be punished severely or will have to take appropriate responsibility for his actions (see the section on Rape and Pre-Marital Sex above). 

Generally, I think it fair to argue that harlotry is a largely female trait against men’s weakness when it comes to
Fleshly Desire. This was apparent straight from the off when Eve offered the forbidden fruit to Adam. Notwithstanding this view, make no mistake, the unrighteous of both genders will not make it into the Kingdom for illicit sexual activity without the appropriate contrition:

9 Or do you not know that unjust ones will not inherit [the] kingdom of God? Do not be led astray, neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexuals, (1 Corinthians 6 GLT)


In the matter of cleanliness, I have read much debate about why God required twice as long for a new mother to regain her cleanliness from the birth of a baby girl compared with that of a boy. Frankly I am not convinced by any of the numerous arguments that I have seen. Perhaps the only reason that this is in the scriptures at all was to cause the latter-day feminists to find a reason to shun God’s word rather than just accept that His wisdom is greater than ours:

2 Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days; according to the days of the separation for her infirmity shall she be unclean.
3 And in the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised.
4 And she shall then continue in the blood of her purifying three and thirty days; she shall touch no hallowed thing, nor come into the sanctuary, until the days of her purifying be fulfilled.
5 But if she bear a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks, as in her separation: and she shall continue in the blood of her purifying threescore and six days. (Leviticus 12 KJV)

Noteworthy Women in the Bible

Whilst the menfolk generally tended to play the key roles in the Bible accounts, there were some notable exceptions to this rule. The vast majority of God’s prophets were male; these women were rare prophetesses:

4 And Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lapidoth, she judged Israel at that time. (Judges 4 KJV)

14 So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college;) and they communed with her. (2 Kings 22 KJV)

36 And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser: she was of a great age, and had lived with an husband seven years from her virginity; (Luke 2 KJV)

So, what is one to make of this? I think the rule of authority previously established still stands, since men make up the majority of high-status positions in biblical times. However, I think this does show that God recognises and enables the potential power and leadership qualities that some women are able to exert.

God is Love

Regardless of the reader’s views of the above material, there is one over-arching truth that we all should bear in mind. God loves us all, regardless of our gender. Paul reminds us of this, telling us that we all share in Abraham’s inheritance:

28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye [be] Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise. (Galatians 3 KJV)

He only wants the best for all of us, but there are many lessons we must learn to become His true children. This life and its many aspects, including the provision of two genders, provides us with the experience we need to love the life that God ultimately intends for us all. We are His sons and His daughters:

6 I will say to the north: 'Give up,' and to the south: 'Keep not back, bring My sons from far, and My daughters from the end of the earth; (Isaiah 43 JPS)

18 "And I will be a Father to you, and you will be sons" and daughters to Me, says [the] Lord Almighty. [2 Sam. 7:8, 14; Isa. 43:6] (2 Corinthians 6 GLT)

As well as God’s love for us we are also reminded that there needs to be love between us all. Below I provide a selection of the most telling scriptures regarding the love of our God. I do not think any further explanation is required:

3 Because thy lovingkindness [is] better than life, my lips shall praise thee. (Psalms 63 KJV)

26 Oh give thanks unto the God of heaven; For his lovingkindness [endureth] for ever. (Psalms 136 ASV)

22 [It is of] Jehovah's lovingkindnesses that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. (Lamentations 3 ASV)

10 For the mountains may depart, and the hills be removed; but my lovingkindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall my covenant of peace be removed, saith Jehovah that hath mercy on thee. (Isaiah 54 ASV)

3 Jehovah has appeared to me from far away, [saying], Yes, I have loved you with an everlasting love! On account of this, with loving kindness I have drawn you. (Jeremiah 31 GLT)

17 Jehovah thy God is in the midst of thee, a mighty one who will save; he will rejoice over thee with joy; he will rest in his love; he will joy over thee with singing. (Zephaniah 3 ASV)

16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3 KJV)

4 but God, being rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved us,
5 even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace have ye been saved), (Ephesians 2 ASV)

17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through faith; to the end that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,
18 may be strong to apprehend with all the saints what is the breadth and length and height and depth,
19 and to know the love of Christ which passeth knowledge, that ye may be filled unto all the fulness of God. (Ephesians 3 ASV)

34 A new commandment I give unto you, That ye love one another; as I have loved you, that ye also love one another. (John 13 KJV)

9 As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in my love. (John 15 KJV)

12 This is my commandment, That ye love one another, as I have loved you.
13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends. (John 15 KJV)

1 Behold what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and [such] we are. For this cause the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. (1 John 3 ASV)

5 And the hope does not put [us] to shame, because the love of God has been poured out in our hearts through [the] Holy Spirit given to us; (Romans 5 GLT)

8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5 KJV)

37 But in all these things we more than conquer through Him loving us.
38 For I am persuaded that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come,
39 nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus, our Lord. (Romans 8 GLT)

5 And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God, and into the patient waiting for Christ. (2 Thessalonians 3 KJV)

7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son [to be] the propitiation for our sins.
11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us. (1 John 4 KJV)

16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love; and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him. (1 John 4 KJV)

13 But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love. (1 Corinthians 13 ASV)

14 And above all these, love, which is [the] bond of perfectness. (Colossians 3 GLT)

And By The Way

And here is one of my all-time favourites. If I had my way this should be a rule adopted everywhere, not just in church. Women’s incessant chatter does my head in, particularly when I am working out in the gym, ideally breathless, when the two ladies next to me are chatting away nineteen to the dozen. I wish I knew how they can do that when exercising full tilt. Just kidding girls (LOL):

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (1 Corinthians 14 KJV)


  1. Adam was made in God’s image; Eve was made from a chromosomal alteration to Adam’s DNA and therefore was an altered image of Adam and one step removed from Adam’s creation by God.
  2. Eve was created to be Adam’s helper in the same way that the Holy Spirit is God’s helper thereby mirroring God’s family structure.
  3. Whilst this puts man in charge of his household the other ingredient is that the man should cherish his wife.
  4. Adam’s fall was caused due to multiple breakages of God’s Laws. The key point is that the line of authority from God to Adam to Eve had been broken hence God’s insistence that this be strongly upheld going forward. Without that line of authority chaos would reign as per Satan’s intent for mankind and the world as we observe it today.
  5. This line of authority places man as the head of his household but in the knowledge that a good wife runs that household on his behalf. This did not change from the Old to the New Testament.
  6. To support this line, the bulk of a man’s estate was to be inherited by his sons except where he only had unmarried daughters. Even in that latter case, when those daughters married within their tribe, that inheritance then passed to their husbands. Job’s ‘replacement’ daughters were the notable exception to this Law.
  7. In biblical times, men earned a physical living from the land to pay for the upkeep of their households while the women were the homemakers. An exception to this was Aquila and Priscilla who were a married couple that jointly ran a church in ‘their’ house, mirroring the different working environment that we find in today’s world.
  8. God has both male and female attributes but it is the male that dominates. Adam was in God’s image until the creation of Eve which separated the feminine from the masculine in mankind. These gender attributes of God can be seen by comparing the Old and New Testaments where the masculine strength of the Law was overlaid with feminine love and mercy.
  9. Whilst the Old Testament valuation of a person, based on gender and age, would today be taken to be politically incorrect, it was based on the value to the priesthood in terms of the price of manual labour which was the only type of work available in biblical times.
  10. The virginity of the female gender is massively important in the Law of the Old Testament. This is because the physical virginity of the Old Testament is a precursor to the spiritual virginity described in the New Testament.
  11. Following on from physical virginity in the Old Testament we then have the question of how to deal with pre-marital sex. This would seem to have been dealt with in a reasonable manner whereby the male instigator would be required to marry the maiden and pay a dowry subject to the family’s wishes. 
  12. Polygamy was allowed in biblical times in that a man could have more than one wife. It would be hypocritical of God not to allow this since He is married to 144,000 angels in the Holy Spirit. Whilst allowed for mankind, it does not seem to come highly recommended. Indeed, Paul advises us not to marry at all or to have only one wife.
  13. God’s asking Moses to take a census of the adult males of Israel was not a male chauvinistic action. He wanted it confirmed what the fighting strength of the Israelite army was at that point in time since, then and now, it is the males of the species that occupy the front lines on the battlefield.
  14. When the Israelites won a battle, the soldiers were allowed to take young enemy virgin females as captives. This is seized upon by our feminist friends as sexist. However, they seem to disregard the fact that these captives were taken into the ranks of the Israelites and treated well whilst all the enemy males were killed. Doesn’t sound too chauvinistic to me!
  15. God adopted Israel as His physical wife on Earth. He consequently considered a faithful wife as a virgin and unfaithful wives or nations that prayed to foreign gods to be harlots. Whilst individual harlots can be male or female, the Bible only considers the males to be prostitutes in regards to their worship of foreign gods rather than the ‘sex for money’ profile solely associated with female prostitution. Rahab is an example of a female prostitute who protected God’s people and so, despite her unsavoury profession, found favour in God’s eyes. At the other extreme, the mother of all harlots is the Roman Catholic church.
  16. There is the apparently chauvinistic treatment by God of Miriam compared with that of Aaron for criticising Moses for taking an Ethiopian wife. My conclusion is that Miriam was the major protagonist in this matter compared with Aaron, her brother. Her treatment therefore was unrelated to her gender.
  17. Cleanliness from the birth of a daughter takes twice as long as that for the birth of a son. Is this male chauvinism? You decide.
  18. Notwithstanding the line of authority rule coming down from a mainly male hierarchy, God recognised the leadership qualities of some members of the fairer sex.
  19. Love and mercy must overlay the line of authority in the Law to maintain a fully sustainable society containing both genders.
  20. Oh yes ladies, and let’s keep the noise down in church (and elsewhere). LOL.



So, what can we conclude from all this? I think it is clear that gender is of massive importance to our God for good reason. It demonstrates the importance of the Old Testament masculine rule of Law and acknowledges the New Testament feminine love and mercy that needs to overlay that Law, but without replacing it. Consequently, gender shows us all our place in God's creation and that we all will have value in His Kingdom.

It is noteworthy that, despite his jealousy, Satan did not attack Adam until Eve has been created. He carried out that attack through Eve to deliberately disrupt the rule of Law that he knew was of great importance to God. So, it is not only mankind, but also the angels, that need to be shown their place in God's creation and accept it as part of God's wisdom. This rule of law will be restored in the Kingdom of God to come.

It is therefore arguable that, yes, God is a male chauvinist in that He recognises that the male needs to dominate. But this is with good reason and needs to be balanced out with the feminine side of our natures. Amen.

​​Date of Publication: 28th July 2022.

Jewish Lords' Witness