Friday, February 15, 2008

The Curse of Women Rulers

History is in the making this election year. For the first time in history, a woman is running for the office of President of the United States. Some(namely, the feminists) are cheering for joy, thinking that it's "about time a woman had this opportunity". Others are mourning over the fact that a woman is running for this position, and are wondering what in the world our nation is coming to. But what does God Almighty have to say about all this? Is His Word neutral on this subject, is He for women being in leadership positions, or does He oppose women as rulers?

Let's have God's holy and inspired Word speak for itself. First of all, the Bible is quite clear in its teachings that the woman is not to be the head of the home-her husband is to be in loving authority over the household, leading it with servanthood and care. The wife is to joyfully, willingly and lovingly submit to her husband's leadership, and is to respect the fact that God has wisely ordained that the man be the leader of the home and its inhabitants(Ephes. 5:22-24, Titus 2:5, Col. 3:18, 1 Peter 3:1,6). Likewise, women are not to be in leadership positions in the church. The offices of pastor, elder, bishop, preacher, etc. are all to belong to men-not women. 1 Timothy 2:11-12 says, "Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence." 1 Corinthians 14:34-36 teaches this as well: "Let your women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church." From the Lord's teachings that the leadership of the family and church is to be male, I think it becomes clear that the leadership of cities, states, nations, provinces, businesses, etc. is also to be male. For, if women are not allowed to be leaders of households and churches, what makes us think that it would be fine for them to be in leadership over cities or even nations-which are made up of families and churches? The Lord does not merely leave us to our own guesses or opinions on this subject, though! Rather, He provides for us solid evidence in the Scriptures that reveals it is clearly wrong for women to be rulers.

First, we must remember that 1 Timothy 2:12 says that women are not permitted to have authority over men. Therefore, it goes without saying that women are not to rule over cities, businesses, states, nations, etc., for men are persent in each of these. The Lord goes on to reveal in His Word that not only is it sinful for women to be rulers, but that the nation which has women rulers is under a curse of judgement from God Almighty. In Isaiah 3, we discover that Israel had fallen into disobedience. The people of Israel were not obeying God, and their lifestyles were not in accordance with His design. Because of their wicked disobedience, they were under a curse from God, and were thus experiencing His judgment, wrath and displeasure. Isaiah 3:12 tells us what part of this curse was: "As for My people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them." When a nation has women rulers(whether ruling over the cities and states, churches, or the nation as a whole), it is a clear sign that that nation is under a direct curse from God, for women rulers are a sign of judgment. The feminists would like us all to believe that women being in positions of power and leadership is a sign of progress, and is a wonderful thing that should have happened long ago. However, God has shown us that any nation with women in leadership positions is under judgment from Him. Therefore, women rulers are a punishment for that nation's disobedience to God and His Word.

In light of this passage from Isaiah, it becomes clear that America is already under a curse from God. We may not yet have a woman ruling over the nation as a whole, but countless women are already ruling over businesses, cities, states, government systems, etc. America, rather than following after God and His Word, has been duped by feminism and has fallen prey to its satanical lies. Rather than holding up God's Word as its standard, America has ceaselessly praised the lies of feminism and other worldly, God-hating philosophies. America is no longer the nation its founders designed it to be-a nation founded on Biblical principles. We are now a nation based on humanistic, feministic and evolutionary teachings. We've relentlessly disobeyed God-a God of justice. Because of this, we are now facing the consequences of our disobedience. America is now under a curse from God, and part of that curse is that women are ruling over us.

But there is hope still! We brought this curse upon ourselves because of our disobedience. But 2 Chronicles 7:14-15 says, "If my people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn form their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land." If we want this curse to be lifted, then we must turn from our error and disobedience, and instead embrace God's design for the family, church and nation. It is only then that we will be forgiven and will have this curse lifted from us.


  1. "America is no longer the nation its founders designed it to be-a nation founded on Biblical principles. We are now a nation based on humanistic, feministic and evolutionary teachings."

    "The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abraham Lincoln

    "Lighthouses are more helpful then churches" - Benjamin Franklin

    "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!" - John Adams.

    A nation designed on Biblical principles?

  2. Dear Rebekah,

    Thank you so much for your astute observations! I do agree that feminism is an effort to overthrow God's natural order, but I have to say that, with some women, it's an unconscious effort. There are militant, man-hating feminists out there, to be sure, but a lot of these women actually think they are liberators, trail-blazers, and equalizers, which is what's so sad for me.

    I guess -because I was once on the road to that mindset -it's easy for me to have compassion for these women -to have empathy for their "revolutionary" attitudes toward the world. Everybody needs something to believe in, and when intelligent, articulate, passionate, compassionate women aren't taught the godly paradigm for family life... they're sold a bill of goods. I do have such a heart for these women, I really do.

    They need the truth proclaimed to them boldly, to be sure, but the Lord has laid it on my heart to -above all -love these women, who do not have the infinite blessings of the life that girls like you (and me) are privileged to lead.

    Keep searching the Scriptures, and keep researching history! I'm sure the Lord is grooming you to be a *fine* young woman -I'm also sure many have seen the evidence of His work in your life already!


    Ps. An interesting article on this topic:

  3. Um, the idea that the founding fathers created a biblically based nation is entirely untrue. Yes, many of them were Christians. But, they also knew that the entire reason for people coming to this country was to escape persecution and government sanctioned religion. They did everything in their power to keep religion out of the creation of this country. The word God is used, but it refers to the God of Nature, not the Christian God. And, yes, as I said some were Christians, in a way. Some were staunchly religious. But, they put their religion aside.

    In the year 1800 records indicate that fewer than 10% of Americans claimed to belong to any congregation.

    The Treaty of Tripoli is a document all Christians, who like to claim our founding fathers wanted/created a Christian, biblical nation, should read. And study, and understand. The treaty starts:

    "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

    For starters, why don't you visit this page, then visit sites dedicated to the references listed at the bottom:

    I am not a fan of Hilary, but it has nothing to do with her being a female. I think the country could do much worse than elect her. She could be the best PERSON for the job and the sooner people get over race and gender issues the better off we'll be. Then maybe we could move on to getting over religious issues.

  4. Hey Rebekah, (this is Monika)

    I wondered why you hadn't posted something for a bit. Is everything ok with you?

    I just wanted to observe about the verses you quoted, the Timothy verse, taken in context, does just simply refer to a woman holding church office. The whole Timothy books are Paul teaching Timothy how to be a minister, I believe, and thus they are especially about church life. It would be taking it too much out of context to construct a whole philosophy of women never leading men off of it. The verse could even be taken too far even in its proper context, and one could go just crazy trying to make sure a woman never taught a man anything, even in something as small as a unbelieving visitor being greeted and talked to by any woman there before the service. This easily is applied to marriage too. So is Pastor Steve wrong to talk at church about how he's learned from his wife? Gasp! She's been teaching him then! But this is silly, we both know they believe in headship and male leadership, ect. I don't want to make straw men here, or say you would say things like this, my point is just that one can make a case for things like this from that verse too. I mean, the verse says women are not allowed to teach men, period, right? But when you look at the context, it just simply means - women are not to hold public church office and that's all.

    About the Isaiah verse, now that would seem to support your position, however, isn't it a little strange that children would literally be oppressing the nation of Israel at the time? Perhaps the verse means rather that immature and effeminate men are leading? To be honest, I don't really understand this verse, but the latter meaning seems to make a bit more sense, since I don't remember many women and no children oppressing or dominating Israel in any Bible story.

    About women rulers always being a sign of God's judgement on a nation, isn't it strange that Jesus talked about a woman ruler, the queen of Sheba, rising up in judgement on the Israel of His day? He portrays her as someone who recognised wisdom, as she did in King Solomon, and His implication is that she would recognise the even greater wisdom in Himself, and see the folly of those who rejected Him. This lady doesn't sound like a curse on anything. (Matthew 12:42) And the Ethiopian convert in Acts who served Queen Candace (Acts 8:27-39) - there is no indication that he is living in sin by being under the authority of a woman, and when a convert encounters Jesus or an apostle in the Bible, it is a consistent pattern that any dominating sin they are in is addressed and they are freed from it, such as the adulterous woman, the lame man at the pool of Bethsada, ect.

    Well, I hope you are doing well, and not too busy. See you tomorrow, Lord Willing!


  5. Hello, everyone! Thank you so much for your comments and input! Every single comment from my readers is always welcomed. I wanted to pop in really quickly to inform you all that I will be responding to all of your comments and questions shortly. I am currently fixing ro go with my family to the movies, but wanted to let you know that I will be responding in full asap. I wanted to inform you all of this, for I didn't want you to think I was ignoring you! :)


  6. I was reading back over my post, and I realized I made a mistake! I didn't mean to say that these women *aren't* liberators or trail blazers or revolutionaries. Many of them are all of those things, and do good for the countries that they live in. When I expressed sadness, it was because many of these women have done so at the cost of their families, and at the cost of God's pattern for family life. The "truth" that I spoke of was the value of the family life that many of these women neglect in their quest for political prowess and social change.

    I hope I didn't come off sounding condescending to these intellectual, well-intentioned women. That was not my intent!


  7. Hey Rebekah,

    YOu did a fabulous job writing this! I agree one hundred percent. Yes, try sending it to LAF...I have thought of doing that sometimes!

    Oh, what movie did you see?

  8. Dear Rebekah,

    I wanted to complement you on your post. I totally agree with you. Keep up the good work.

  9. Hi, Jasmine!! :) Thank you so much for your comments. I have to say that I was so excited to see that you had accessed my blog! :) It was such a joy to "meet" you over on Mrs. MacDonald's blog. :) I hope you continue to read my blog and to leave your comments!!

    Thank you so much for your kind words, dear sister! You're such an encouragement to me; I feel so blessed to have met such a likeminded sister in Christ! Your words of kindness and encouragement truly were a blessing to receive! :)

    I couldn't agree with you more. My heart aches for these women! They've been taught that the feminist lifestyle is what will bring them joy, fulfillment and completeness. But, as they get older, they just find themselves becoming more and more depressed, unfulfilled, incomplete, unhappy, etc., because they haven't followed the Lord's recipe for womanhood. True joy and happiness only comes from the Lord and from following and obeying His Word. These feminists have been taught that if they want true joy, then they must be like men, etc. That's just so sad! I, too, have a heart for these women. I've seen how the feminist philosophy destroys them and their joy and outlook on life. Feminism has never been and will never be pro-woman! Rather, it is a hateful philosophy that has destroyed the lives of countless women(and countless families, as well!). That's such a tragedy! I pray that the Lord will somehow use this blog of mine and my articles to change the lives of women who have bought into the lies of feminism. May He receive all glory, praise and honor!

    May the Lord richly bless you and your family!!

    In Christ alone,

    P.S. Thank you so much for sending me that link! I will definitely go check out that article.

  10. Ella,

    Hi! :) Aw, thank you so much!! Your kind comment truly strengthened and encouraged me so much!!! :) You're such a blessing, Ella!

    I did submit it to LAF. I probably won't know for a few days if they will publish it or not, but I'm so excited about this opportunity!! :) Thank you again so much for your sweet encouragement!

    May the Lord richly bless you!

    P.S. We saw a Dave Christiano Christian Films movie entitled Me & You, Us Forever. It was completely family friendly which was nice! :)

    Thank you so much! Because my beliefs are so counter-cultural, I sometimes get persecuted in word form. So, I wanted to thank you very much for taking the time to comment, and to give me that encouragement. :)

    The Lord's richest blessings to you!
    Dave and Perplexity,

    Time has run away from me today, so I will be respoding in full to your comments tomorrow. Thank you for your input! :)

  11. I wanted to add, the founding fathers of America were more involved with freemasonry than christianity. I've enjoyed reading your blog and it has encourged me in my faith but too many Christians have become caught up in making America a 'christian nation' when it never was and i hope never will be a theocracy. Each person needs to be able to choose what they believe, God gave us that free will. I want America to turn to God, but not because of the government, but because people have chosen God.

  12. This comment has been removed by the author.

  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

  14. Though the history of freemasonry has been *greatly* exaggerated in modern American circles, Caitlin and others have a point. There is a great attempt among Evangelicals to glorify historical political figures by "Christianizing" them (Abraham Lincoln and Thomas Jefferson come to mind). But you all have to admit that there are also many quotes that would lead us to believe that these were men of faith (especially by John Adams -I love the book by that title, by the way)

    I would say that these men were still operating from a Biblical worldview during the construction of our country, in the same way that (sadly), many Christians operate from a humanist worldview today. It is difficult *not* to be impacted by the culture at large, and these men absolutely were!

    I don't think it's possible to construct a lasting constitution *without* Biblical principals, since the Lord created both man and law, and our God is a God of logic and order. People don't run around murdering one another because it would cause socioeconomic calamity; people shouldn't steal because it would cause economic strife; people shouldn't lie (slander, plagiarize) because it's confusing; those are our laws, and it's no accident that the Lord's moral law is so similar.

    It reminds me of that CS Lewis book (The Case for Christianity, I think) where he talks about in Romans, Chapter 1, when Paul says that the law is written on our hearts? CS Lewis isn't the best theologian, granted, but he illustrates his point much better than I could. :)

    No, our founding father's didn't want a national church (Jefferson said that that should be a state matter), probably because of the Puritans' persecution in England, but we're talking about *principals* here.

    Thank you for your kind words, Rebekah! Keep posting! I look forward to seeing your answers to these questions! It was nice "meeting" you, too.

  15. Hi Rebekah,

    No fan of Hilary here and that is not becasue she is a woman just becasue she is a socialist.

    Do you know who killed more people than Hitler? Take a guess.

    It is Colombus. The one who discovered America. He quoted Psalms in support.

    Like Perplexity said, the reason why people came to America was to escape religious persecution. I would highly encourage you to read more on wikipedia on all these. And you are quoting a specific blessing given to nation of Israel as something given to America.

    Israel is NOT the church. And we can't say that the promises given to them belong to us.


  16. Hi, Caitlin!

    I'm so happy to meet other young ladies who know what masonry is, and know that it's wrong! So many people my age haven't a clue what masonry is, and why it's bad.

    I've heard the claim that George Washington, for one, was a mason. But, he himself said in a letter to a friend that he hadn't attended one of their meetings in 30 years. Also, he was an honorary member. In other words, it wasn't his idea to become a mason-he wasn't looking to become one. Rather, the masons desired for this well-known man(and future president) to be a part of their group. The masons like to spread the fact that they had ushered him in as a member. For 1, they want famous people to be a part of their group. And secondly, masons are probably wanting to attempt to brainwash people into thinking that this nation was not built on Biblical principles. To make a long story short, I believe that he was indeed an honorary member, but obviously this wasn't a big part of his life, or anything that interested him.


  17. Caitlin,

    I wanted to let you know about a book that I think would really be a blessing to you. It's entitled George Washington's Sacred Fire and it's by Peter A. Lillback. I have not yet read this book myself, but look forward to doing so. It's around 1200 pages long, and the author conducted 15 years of extensive research before writing it. It covers Pres. Washington's involvement in masonry, his faith, etc. etc. I highly encourage you(and all the other readers and commenters here) to get a copy of it! It's available through

    God bless!

    P.S. Thank you so much for your kind words about my blog. :) I hope it continues to encourage and strengthen you!

  18. I agree with you, Jasmine! :) Thank you so much for your input.

    Hi, Dave! Thank you for your comment! I always enjoy meeting new readers of my blog, so I want to say welcome, and let you know that I hope that you continue to read my blog(and comment)!

    First of all, I hate to say it, sir, but it's quite possible that you've come across some of the politically-correct revisionist history that is so rampant today. Either that, or these quotes were taken out of context, or they are being misunderstood. If you want to learn about the faith of George Washington, John Adams, etc. etc, then I suggest you read "Christiany and the Constitution" by Mr. John Eidsmoe. This book shows(through the quotes, diaries, etc. of our Founding Fathers) that those who founded our nation were indeed either Christians(the majority of them), or people who had very high respect for Christianity(which the others were, who were not Christians themselves). The Founding Fathers covered in this outstanding and enlightening book are: John Witherspoon, James Madison, George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, Gouverneur Morris, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, John Adams, Patrick Henry, Roger Sherman, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. This book also delves into the Christian truths and teachings behind the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. I highly encourage you and the rest of the readers here to read this book. I also suggest you read George Washington's Sacred Fire by Mr. Lillback, as well as John Adams by David McCullough.

    As to the quotes you mentioned, I want to point a few things out. First of all, Abraham Lincoln was a very, very humble man. And if you read this quote, it's quite evident what he's saying, and what he's saying in no way disproves the fact that this nation was founded on Biblical principles. In this quote, he's basically saying that he wasn't the one who wrote the Bible. He's also saying that he is not in the profession of Christianity(i.e. he's not a pastor, preacher, missionary, etc., but is rather in the office of politics). He's also saying that he couldn't give assent(approval) to the long, complicated statements about Christianity. That's like me saying that I could never approve the 1689 London Baptist Confession of Faith. Obviously, I would need to study the only standard: God's Word, deeply, before I could give assent to this confession. Pres. Lincoln is saying the same sort of thing. He can't automatically approve the long discussions and statements. Bottom line: he's a very humble man and is saying that he cannot give assent to the long statements of the Christian dogma, for the Bible is not his book. He didn't write it, he doesn't know all that it says and teaches, for it is not his book. He's not as learned and educated in the field of theology, so he feels like he cannot give assent to all of these long and complicated statements. He feels uncomfortable and inadequate to approve or disapprove these long statements, for he is not in the professtion of Christianity-he doesn't have all the knowledge that some theology professor may have. He doesn't want to put himself on par with those whose profession is Christianity, for the Bible was not written by him, he doesn't know fully all that it holds(none of us do!), and so therefore he feels that he's not qualified to answer these long statements. He feels ill-equipped as a layman who doesn't know all there is to know about the Bible(for he didn't write it) to be able to give assent to the long and difficult statements of Christianity. This quote by no means lessens the fact that this country was founded on Biblical principles! Rather, it shows us clearly what a humble, Christ-like man Abraham Lincoln was. The third comment he makes in this quote proves what it is that he's speaking about in the rest of the quote.

    As to the Benjamin Franklin quote, this one(rightly understood) in no way whatsoever disproves the documented fact that this country was founded on Biblical teachings. It sounds like this quote was taken out of context. For, today, lighthouses would indeed be more helpful than most of the churches we have today!! Obviously the same was true for the 18 century as well. The churches we have today are just attempting to make everyone feel good, to make everyone stay positive, etc. etc. Rather than teaching what the Bible teaches: that we're sinful, vile, wicked wretched sinners desperately in need of a Savior! The kind of churches we have today(for the mostpart; obviously there are still some good, sound churches out there still today) are no help whatsoever-they're actually a detriment to the Christian faith. They're making people feel good and positive, and when they feel this way, they'll feel no need for a Savior! Secondly, far too many churches today are a lot like the world, and thus God's Word is being blasphemed by unbelievers because of the actions and lifestyles of "Christians". We're sending a message to the lost world that all that Christianity stuff is a bunch of nonsense, and that God has no power to change people, for we're living just like the world is. This is the horrible reality that we have today with so many of our churches. This obviously is nothing new, though. It has gone on in other centuries as well(perhaps not on as large of a scale as what we're experiencing today), and clearly had gone on in the 18th century. That's very likely what Mr. Franklin was referring to, for whole multitudes of other comments from him praise the Christian religion, etc.

    As to the John Adam quote, I find it quite interesting, and very relevant to our own day in age. Notice that Mr. Adams says: "Abuses of grief". Today, in countless churches, emotionalism has reached an all-time high. People everywhere are "making decisions for Christ" during an emotional high(i.e. during youth camp, an emotional service, etc.). Their later lives, though, only go on to prove that their experience wasn't real. They weren't truly saved that day when they "said a prayer in the midst of an emotional high". If any of those decisions that occur then really are true and accurate, then their lives will reflect that. But, sadly, all too often, the fact is that they truly didn't get saved then. So many churches today(you can see them on practically any church channel on tv) use and abuse a person's emotions in order to get more numbers on the membership, more baptisms, etc., so that they can appear as a "productive and powerful church". Many churches just play on a person's emotions. And this is wrong! I, myself was a witness to this a couple years ago when I went to summer camp with the youth group of our old church. Each worship service there was nothing but an emotional high. Many teens made committments, decisions, etc. Many had confessed that they had been saved there. Some indeed were, for their lives took a completely different change. But you know what happened to the majority of the teens there who supposedly made a "decision for Christ"? They were still the ones who wore the skimpiest outfits to youth group, they were still the ones who were serial dating, etc. etc. Nothing had changed! What had occured at camp was nothing but a play on emotions! And this is quite likely what Mr. Adams is referring to in this quote when he speaks on the "abuses of grief."

    Thank you, sir, for your thought-provoking comment. I hope you continue to come back to my blog, and please know that your input is always welcome!


    P.S. Sorry for the length of this! :/

  19. Dear Rebekah,

    You are obviously a very well-read young woman! I *love* McCullough's John Adams (have you read 1776?) Another book I read that you might enjoy is "The Real Lincoln," which uncovers a lot of the truth behind the Civil War, and behind Abraham Lincoln!

    I think it's important, though, to read source documents when studying history, and not to trust (at least not without deeper research) history books -either from an evangelical standpoint or a humanist standpoint -without reading source documents in context. That's why I love authors like McCullough!

    I would say to others here that, whether or not the founding fathers held the same religious beliefs that we do (which, I believe a lot of them did), or whether or not our nation was founded on Biblical principles (which I believe it was), it is Rebekah's responsibility -as it is any Christian's responsibility -to evaluate the time's according to God's WORD!

    Yes, the first American settlers were here to escape religious persecution from a state church (one, I might add, that elevated the pope and the state's word above the Word of God), but settlers like William Bradford escaped to come here and found a Christian nation.

  20. Hi, Sue! Thank you so much for your comment. It's always such a joy for me when new people visit my blog and comment. :) I sincerely hope you continue to come back and submit your input!

    I'm so happy to know that there's someone else out there that has seen the light regarding the clear fact that Hillary's a socialist. :)

    I suppose when you speak in your comment on the promise given to Israel, you're referring to the 2 Chronicles passage I quoted? I'm not completely sure, as your comment wasn't totally clear. But, I'll respond to your comment as if this was the passage you were referring to. :) In my study Bible, this verse is cross-referenced directly with James 4:10,"Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up." So, clearly, the promise given to Christians(the Church) in this verse, is quite similar to that which was addressed to the Jews in 2 Chronicles. Likewise, Psalm 33:12a says,"Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord." So, if our nation were to go back to making its God the Lord, then we would be blessed, and the curse of women rulers, etc. would be lifted from us.

    Thank you again for your comment! :) I hope you continue to access my blog, and please feel free to leave a comment at any time!


    P.S. I will look into what you said about Columbus. Thank you for sharing that with me. However, even if he did do that, that does not disqualify the fact that this nation was founded on Biblical principles.

    Hi, Jasmine! :)

    Yes, I read a LOT! ;) I've loved reading ever since I was really little, and I always have my nose in a book! In my opinion, that's one of the very best ways to get an in-depth education-simply by reading many, many books. I've actually not read all of the John Adams book yet, but yes, I have read 1776. I read it last year in school(I'm homeschooled). Elizabeth Botkin had told me that she highly recommended "John Adams", so I just had to get it! :) That book about Abraham Lincoln sounds great! I look forward to reading it; thank you for letting me know about it. If there are any other books that you could recommend, please let me know! I'm always looking for new books to read.

    I completely agree with what you said about reading and studying the source documents. That's why I love "Christianity and the Constitution" so much, and why I can't wait to read "George Washington's Sacred Fire".

    Thank you so much for your great comments, Jasmine! Keep them coming. :)

    Blessings to you, dear sister in Christ!


    Hi, Monika! :) How's your week been so far? I hope all is well with you and your family!

    Thank you for your concern! Yes, my family and I are doing just fine. This past week, though, has been extremely busy for all of us!!

    I agree that this Timothy verse is speaking on women not holding church office. But we need to understand that it says that women are not to have authority over men. If they're not to have authority over men in the family or church, then what makes us think that they can have authority over cities, nations,etc., when they're comprised of families and churches? That was my point.

    First of all, just because there are no Bible stories about children opressing and women ruling Israel(which there may be, we may just not know about them) doesn't mean that this verse in Israel isn't to be taken literally. Every single historical event that happened in Israel from the beginning through the time of Christ is not recorded in the Bible. So, just because there's no story about women ruling or children oppressing Israel, doesn't mean it didn't happen. Secondly, here in America, children are often seen as opressors(by the radical feminists, etc.). They're seen as things that just steal all your fun time, and instead load you with responsibility. Isaiah 3:12 could definitely be said of our nation today, for what happened to Israel in this verse, is exactly happening to us! Thirdly, what you said about this verse maybe describing immature and effeminate men, is possible. But the fact that they describe these men(if it is in fact men that this verse is referring to) as women, clearly shows us that it's a curse for women to be in leadership positions and to be in rule over men, etc. If women as rulers wasn't a curse, then they would not have described these men as women! The verse simply would say that effeminate men were ruling Isreal. So, the fact still stands that women rulers are a sign as judgment.

    Just because the Queen of Sheba was a very wise woman, doesn't mean that she wasn't a curse on that nation. A female ruler is a sign of judgment-even if that ruler seems good and wise in our eyes. Take Margaret Thatcher for instance. She was a very wise and good ruler of England. But the fact that she was a woman ruler meant that she was a curse on that country. There are countless women who might make great presidents of the USA. But, that doesn't mean they should be in that position! No matter how good they might be, they would still be a curse on our country, for women rulers are a sign of judgment from God Almighty. The success that Margaret Thatcher had while in rule over England doesn't mean that she had the Lord's approval! For it's clear that she did not, for God does not approve of women being in leadership roles and positions.

    As to what you said about Candace, I went to the passage you quoted to see what my study Bible had to say on the subject. As to Candace, it says this: "Probably not a name of someone, but rather an official title(like Pharoah or Caeser) given to the queen mothers in that land." "Queen mother" is a term for a queen consort(a queen consort is the title given to the wife of a reigning king) who has outlived her husband and is the mother of the living ruler. In other words, "Candace" was not a ruling woman, but rather the mother of the current ruler.

    Thanks for your great comment, Monika! :) Your input is always welcome(and I must say, that I'm very impressed with your extensive knowledge of the Scriptures; keep up the great work!:))!

    Have a great weekend, and I hope to see you Sunday!



    Hello! I've seen your comments over on Anna S.'s blog, and I'm so glad you've come over to mine! :) You're always welcome, and I hope you continue to come back and to leave your input!

    The Founding Fathers did indeed create a Biblically based nation. Solid proof of this can be found in the outstanding book, "Christianity and the Constitution" by Mr. John Eidsmoe. Now, this is certainly not to say that they created a nation where they forced all of the inhabitants there to belong to the Christian religion. That would be rediculous to say! But they did, for a fact, found a Biblically based nation. There's a multitude of proof for that fact. They did not set their religion aside as they founded this country. Their Christianity and what God's Word taught were the most important things in their lives, and they desired to begin a nation based on the truths and standards found in the Bible. Just because they formed a nation built on Biblical principles, does not mean that they forced their religion down the throats of others. They did indeed believe strongly in religious freedom. But they began this nation on Biblical principles nonetheless. Secondly, the God of Nature is the Christian God! There is only 1 true God. The term "Creator" is used in the Declaration of Independence. As you can see, the Creator, and God of Nature are one in the same: the Creator is the God of Nature, for He created it! The Creator and God of Nature is the Christian God.

    As to the info you shared on the denominations, this number of 10% doesn't disqualify the fact that the Founding Fathers were Christians(most of them) or very high respectors of Christianity(the rest of them). In fact, "Christianity and the Constitution" points out that of the 55 delegates to the Constitutional Convention(including Alexander Hamilton, Roger Sherman, George Washington, James Madison, etc.), 28 were Episcopalians, 8 were Presbyterians, 7 were Congregationalists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Dutch Reformed, and 2 were Methodists. Only 2 claimed to be Roman Catholics, and only 3 were Deists.

    As to the Treaty of Tripoli, "Christianity and the Constitution" says this: "The Treaty was translated into English sometime in January or February 1797, probably by an Algerian court official. The U.S. official in charge of signing in Algeirs, Joel Barlow, did not know Arabic, but signed his name to a statement, 'The following is a literal translation of the writing in Arabic on the following page.' Barlow's 'translation' removed many cultural and religious references and in some instances changed the meaning to give the Dey of Algiers more authority and enforcement than was intended.(Perplexity and anyone else interested: I'd be happy to e-mail you an example of the misinterpretations, if you're interested. The book I'm quoting from gives a big example, so due to space and time, I'm not typing it here right now.)" Perplexity, the part you quoted of the Treaty is Article 11. "Christianity and the Constitution" goes on to say: "Translation interpretation is possibly the source of confusion on Article 11. There is evidence that Article 11 was actually not part of the Treaty of Tripoli.(Once again, I'd be happy to e-mail you proof of this truth, if you'd like; I'm not including it here, for it would take up too much space.)"

    The fact that women rulers are a sign of judgment is not some sort of truth designed to put down women. Quite the contrary! The Lord Jesus Christ raised women up! Women are just not fit to be rulers-that's not the role that was given to them, by their all-wise God. That role was given to men, not to descriminate against women, but simply because men are given one set of roles, and women another. I have to say that your last remark saddened me, and I feel sorry for you. Please don't take offense at that. I can tell that you don't have the love and assurance from God in your life, and for that reason, I have to admit that I feel sorry for you. But once again, please don't take offense at my saying that!!

    Thank you, Perplexity, for leaving your comment! I want you and all my other readers to always know that their comments are ALWAYS welcome. Everyone's input is welcome and appreciated.

    Have a wonderful weekend!! I hope to see you around my blog again soon! :)


    When I said that this nation was founded on Biblical principles, all of you seem to think that I'm referring only to the Founding Fathers. I assure you that this isn't the case! To really know whether or not this nation was founded as a Christian one, we must travel back to the 17th century, when the Pilgrims and those that settled Jamestown came to this country. Why did they come? To excape religious persecution, and to begin a nation based solely on God's holy and inspired Word. Of the Pilgrims, Noah Webster writes some 2 centuries after their arrival: "Finally, let us not forget the religious character of our origin. Our fathers were brought hither by their high veneration for the Christian religion. They journeyed by its light, and labored in its hope. They sought to incorporate its principles with the elements of their society, and to diffuse its influence through all their institutions, civil, political, or literary. Let us cherish these sentiments, and extend this influence still more widely; in the full conviction, that that is the happiest society which partakes in the highest degree of the mild and peaceful spirit of Christianity."

  21. Well, said Rebekah!

    And of course (since you asked :) I'm obligated to recommend "The War Between the States," a Civil War textbook, and "Original Intent" (I suggest, though, reading "Original Intent's" source document in a little more detail than the author presents in his book :)

    You have a blessed day. :)

  22. Hi Rebekah,

    Thanks for your response. I might dialogue more, but this whole thread is getting long and I don't feel very well. Thanks for your encouraging spirit, though. I must say, you started a very interesting conversation.

    I think I've been getting sick this week, but I'm not sure. Our family is doing ok, thanks for asking. Hope yours is still doing fine. :)


  23. Jasmine,

    Hi! Thank you so much for telling me about those books! They sound really great; I look forward to reading them! Thank you for your tip for that one book; I'll keep that in mind! If you ever have anymore to recommend, please let me know!!

    Have a blessed weekend!

    I'm so sorry to hear that you're not feeling well!! I sure hope you start getting better soon.

    Yes, please do feel free to dialogue more at anytime! Your comments are always welcome.

    I hope you see you at church tomorrow!


  24. Hellary has no business running for president.

  25. I live in New zealand where Helen Clark is prime minister. Although I don't like her as prime minister, along with a lot of Christians, I love that my pastor always reminds us to pray for her. I'm American - in that i grew up in America and have citizenship and can vote in the upcoming elections - and I just wanted to add that whoever becomes president, including if Clinton becomes pres, it is our responsibility to pray for our leaders. I detest when people go around bashing leaders and saying mean things - even if they are true - because God tells us not to. He tells us to pray for them. Mrs. W, you may not like Hilary Clinton, but what good does it to call her Hellary? Pray for her, I don't know if i agree with 'the curse of women rulers' but I think we can all agree that if she does become president, we have a responsibility to pray that she makes good and right choices.

  26. Mrs. W.,

    How true! I completely agree.

    Thank you for your comment! :)


    I definitely agree with you! It's Biblically wrong for a woman to be a ruler, but we are required to pray for our leaders, whether they be women or men. Whether we agree with their every decision or not, it's our responsibility to pray heartily for them.

    I don't think Hillary would be able to make any decisions that are right in our eyes or in the light of the Holy Scriptures, but miracles do still exist, and so therefore, we need to pray that she is able to! :)

    As to Mrs. W.'s comment, it's possible that that was a typo; I'm not really sure.

    Thank you, as always, for your input! :)

    Many blessings throught Christ,

  27. Wow, hot topic!

    Rebekah, have you read "Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood" by Piper and Grudem?

  28. Hi, Kathleen! :)

    Yes, it definitely is a hot topic!

    No, I've not read that book before, but I'd like to.

  29. Hi Rebekah,

    Well, I should probably have posted this before if I was going to, but I guess I'll still reply, since I finally am feeling better. I think I did get your point about women not being allowed to rule in the government as well as church. I'm sorry if I didn't make that clear. Maybe this will make more sense -

    You are using a particular kind of reasoning called inductive reasoning with regards to that Timothy verse. Maybe you already know about it, but just in case, a good example of it would be if every cow you had ever seen was black, and you concluded that all cows everywhere were black. Or if after observing that every year you had lived through you had a birthday, concluding that every year you would have another birthday. I'm sure you get the concept, because we use it every day of our lives, I just wanted to demonstrate 'cause logic is fun to talk about. :) Obviously, inductive reasoning can lead to true conclusions or it can lead to very untrue ones! So anyway...

    The Timothy verse says that women are not to hold public church office. Again, if we say that the verse means that women are never to spiritually lead or teach men in any situation, then we run into all kinds of practical difficulties,(not least many Bible stories where women help men spiritually) and act like we believe women are spiritually lesser than men. So, it's simply this - women are not to be pastors or elders, in which positions they would be publicly teaching and leading men. This fits within the context of Paul's letters, which are about church life.

    Now, you said that since the verse tells women not to teach or lead men in church, that implies that God must not want them teaching or leading in the goverment, public office, and I assume the general public spere, such as in the mainstream workforce, ect, or anywhere, really. This is inductive reasoning that you are applying to the text. (I.E. God doesn't want women doing this here, so He must not want them doing anything like that anywhere else. Even if He doesn't explicitly say it.) It may be true, but it may also not be. And it is not part of the text itself.

    One more thing - in your assertion that since nations and such are made up out of families and churches, which women may not rule over, it would be wrong for women to rule over them ... This isn't the whole truth, is it? What about singles, orphans, widows, ect? What about people who don't belong to churches? Even if this was strictly true, I think you are using a logical fallacy, called the Part-To Whole Fallacy. It basically says that the whole of something will neccessarily have the same nature and traits of its different parts. Thus, nations have the same nature and characteristics of families and churches. But this is not true, they are different affairs entirely. And while Christians passionately disagree about the ways they should interact with the government, I think it should be clear that goverment is an entirely different entity than church or family.

    Well, I hope you see that I do understand what you're saying. (If indeed I do.) Sorry this had to take so long.

    And about the Isaiah verse, I agree it can be referring to literal events where women and children are ruling. I just don't see irrefutable proof that that was so in the Bible. And I do believe that it takes more than one verse to establish a certain doctrinal position, especially one that is so debatable and unclear. (BTW, I thought of the same thing you did, about the effeminate men. Don't know if I'd agree, but don't know quite what to say either.)

    And that is so interesting about Candace! I wonder if that note was right.

    Well, I wrote a book here, but I thought it might clarify some things. Hope so.


  30. Thank you for your comment, Monika!

    It's quite evidant that you're a very well educated young woman! :)

    The fact that women are not to lead men spiritually(meaning, in the church) does not mean that they are spiritually inferior, as I'm sure you well know! Many people have that wrong notion.

    I was in no way attempting to say that nations, cities, etc. are completely the same as families and churches in every way. That's of course not true! What I was teaching Biblically was that because women are not allowed to lead households(which are the building blocks of society!) or churches, it goes without saying that women are not to lead nations, cities, etc. which are all made up of families and churches. I agree that nations are not made up of solely churches and families, but the plain and simple truth that they are made up(in a large part) by families and churches, refutes the idea that it's ok for women to lead these other such spheres. The Creation account makes it quiet clear that men are to be the leaders-not women! This principle did not begin with Paul's NT letters; it began in the Garden of Eden at Creation! Also(it slipped my mind to make this point in my article), Proverbs 31:23 says, "Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land." As you well know, this verse is referring to the husband of the godly woman recorded in Proverbs 31. This verse makes it crystal clear that the godly woman is not the one known in the gates, sitting among the elders(leaders) of the land! Her husband is the one who is leading in the gates-not her! This is yet another passage of Scripture where the Lord reveals His will clearly: that women are not to lead in the public sphere.

    Simply because something is taught in the Bible only 1 time does not mean that we are to get rid of it, or not build a doctrine on it! The command to not be unequally yoked appears in the Scriptures only once(2 Corin. 6:14), but I can assure you that it would anger the Lord greatly if we said, "Because that command is only there once, I'm going to disregard it". He would say, "Oh no you won't!" and would punish us for our disobedience. Also, I have to say, Monika, that Isaiah 3:12 is really quite clear in what it teaches.

    Bottom line: We have to take the principles that He has blessed us with in His Word, and apply them to every part of life. And when we do so, it becomes clear that women are not to be in leadership positions. We are to then take that principle, and apply it to every sphere-home, church, and public.

    I assure you that the Candace note was indeed accurate. The man who wrote it has years and years of very extensive research of Hebrew as well as Greek, and is far more educated in the original texts of Scripture than I will ever be!

    Monika, I want to sincerely thank you for your great questions! You are truly an amazingly bright young woman! :)

    May the Lord richly bless you and your family,

    P.S. I'm glad you came back to leave this comment! Everyone is always encouraged to leave their comments on a post, no matter how old it may be! :)

  31. There is a difference between CHURCH and STATE. Do not forget that. Even the founding fathers realized the need for separation between church and state.

    Also, the verses from 2 Chronicles you quoted are meant for the nation of Israel, not America and not Christians. You must consider the context in which it is written. The same with the verse you quoted from Isaiah. God was speaking to the nation of Israel, not America. America never even existed at that time.

    You must be very, very careful when using Scripture to prove a personal point of yours. Do not remove the verse from its context to make it fit your viewpoint or your own personal belief. Do not claim it to be "biblical" in doing so either.

    Take the time to re-read Romans 13, especially the first half of that chapter. It speaks of "being in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God."

    Whatever sex or race a person is who has been placed in a governing position is of no consequence, for that person has been placed there by God. And as such, we are "to be in subjection to the governing authorities."

    As far as the other comments left in regard to "American being founded as a Christain nation"....America was NOT founded as a Christian nation. People came to this country to escape religious persecution (from the Anglican church as well as the Catholic church). The founding fathers knew the importance of forming a nation free from religious oppression and therefore founded a nation where no government would dictate what or how a person should worship.

    Since you enjoy history, take a look at Thomas Jefferson a little closer. Ever hear of the Jeffersonian Bible? Thomas Jefferson was an atheist. He created his own "bible" where the words "Jesus" and "God" were removed. And yet, he was one of our founding fathers.

    Our founding fathers consisted of Quakers, Atheists, Anglicans, Episcopalians, Agnostics, etc. Yet they all understood the importance of Separation Of Church And State.

  32. Hello, USA! Thank you for your comment.

    I'm unsure as to why you are speaking on the separation of church and state, when that subject was not being referred to anywhere in my article.

    As to the 2 Chronicles verse, I'm going to point out to you what I did to Sue: In my study Bible, this verse is cross-referenced directly with James 4:10,"Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and He will lift you up." So, clearly, the promise given to Christians(the Church) in this verse, is quite similar to that which was addressed to the Jews in 2 Chronicles(or else they obviously would not be directly cross referenced to each other). Likewise, Psalm 33:12a says,"Blessed is that nation whose God is the Lord." So, if our nation were to go back to making its God the Lord, then we would be blessed, and the curse of women rulers, etc. would be lifted from us. Also, yes, the verse in Isaiah does speak to Israel. But we must remember 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Also, what makes us think that women rulers aren't a curse on other nations as well? Anytime a nation is in direct disobedience to Christ, there comes punishment, judgment, and a curse.

    Never did I say that if a woman was our President, that we would need to be in direct disobedience to her as our leader, simply because of her gender! Now, we would be called on to disobey whatever leader we have if they put into law something that would require Christians to do that which is unBiblical. In such an instance, we would be called on to obey God rather than man(Acts 5:29), and be like Daniel was. I fully agree that all leaders are planned out by God. The Bible teaches in numerous passages that God has planned out every single thing in history before the foundation of the earth. But that doesn't mean that women being in leadership postitions somehow isn't a sin, for many numerous passages of Scripture point out rather clearly that it is!

    I agree wholeheartedly with you when you said: "People came to this country to escape religious persecution (from the Anglican church as well as the Catholic church). The founding fathers knew the importance of forming a nation free from religious oppression and therefore founded a nation where no government would dictate what or how a person should worship." But that in NO way refutes the documented fact that this nation was founded by Christian men, and was founded on Biblical principles.

    I do enjoy history very much, and I know for a fact, without a shadow of a doubt that Thomas Jefferson was NOT an atheist. He wasn't a Christian, but he was not an atheist(I have ample proof of this fact, so if you'd like to read some of it, just let me know, and I'd be happy to e-mail it to you).

    To better understand the Founding Fathers' beliefs on the seperation of church and state, I would recommend that you read Christianity and the Constitution. It's an outstanding and well documented book, that I'm sure you would enjoy reading.

    Thank you again for your input! I sincerely hope that you continue to access my blog and leave your comments! They're always welcome.

    May the Lord richly bless you,

  33. Hey there,

    Well, I feel like I've pretty well explained myself by now, and I am still really busy, so I will most likely let this thread go now, unless I think of something else to say.

    But one thing - doesn't the Bible have that "no unequal yoking" thing all through itself? Like the times God commands the Israelites not to marry pagans? (The principle still holds today.) Or in Psalm 1 where it talks about how the wise not going along with the ungodly? (I believe that that the verse you mentioned may refer to very deep friendship as well as marriage.)

    The thing with me is that I could talk on blogs for hours! So I try to keep it down, but there is always something that I just have to say. :P

    I don't know if I am particularly well educated or bright, but thank you for saying so. *blush, blush*


  34. "Her husband is known in the gates, when he sits among the elders of the land." As you well know, this verse is referring to the husband of the godly woman recorded in Proverbs 31. This verse makes it crystal clear that the godly woman is not the one known in the gates, sitting among the elders(leaders) of the land! Her husband is the one who is leading in the gates-not her! This is yet another passage of Scripture where the Lord reveals His will clearly: that women are not to lead in the public sphere.

    The above verse doens't have anything to do with whether or not the Bible supports women leaders. Just becuase her husband is well known at the gates doesn't mean that he is a leader and she is not. This verse is saying that a Godly woman publicly encourages and builds up her husband. The Proverbs 31 woman's focus is on her husband and his success but that is not to say that she didn't have successes and pursuits of her own. Whose to say that she isn't known at the gates. This verse is about her support of her husband and the reasons why he calls her blessed.

  35. I thought I was done, but I ran into this link that has an interesting discussion of the Isaiah verse.


  36. Rebekah,
    If the United States is founded on Biblical Principles why is Good Friday not a statutory holiday? I found that out this week from an American co-worker.

    Just wondering.

  37. Hilary Clinton is not the first woman to run for president. Victoria Claflin Woodhull was nominated and ran in 1872 and Belva Ann Lockwood was nominated and ran in 1884 and 1888. There are several others as well. See here:

  38. You words sadden me, my dear sister. Deborah, Lydia, Priscilla, Elizabeth 1, and several other women ALL had authority over men.

    "Likewise, women are not to be in leadership positions in the church. The offices of pastor, elder, bishop, preacher, etc. are all to belong to men-not women"

    This is especially amusing, because of one simple fact: God NEVER meant for there to be hierarchal authority in the church!! This is secular, sinful thinking. Christ is the One and only authority of His church. Leaders are meant to guide, teach, and influence, NOT rule or control. Christians are not to have authority over other Christians.

    Oh and btw, in the passage "I do not suffer a woman to have authority", the Greek word Paul used for "authority" actually meant "dominance" or "control". Paul was, in fact, telling women (or one woman) never to DOMINATE a man, NOT to refrain from ever practicing authority over a man, period.

    Rebekah, please read "Who is your Covering?" by Frank Viola. It blows away all myths about hierarchal authority and "intermidiaries" for God in the church.

    And Mrs. W, please calm down and refrain from using unChristian terms like "Hellary". There's no need to lash out at a woman you feel threatened by.

  39. In regards to my last post: Rebekah, I hope you didn't see my words as an invitation or desire for debate. Honestly, the labeling of female rulers as a curse makes me heartsick and I can't tell you how much I've debated and torn my spiritual flesh on this topic before. I've fought till I was bloody about my stone-hard convictions on this matter and I have no wish to do so anymore. So, Rebekah, you may disagree all you like and I hope you consider my words, but please don't argue with me. I have more strength than ever in my convictions, but I'm weary of arguing even in friendly manner. From the moment I posted my comments here, I got a knot in my stomach fearing a lengthy debate and knew I wouldn't be at peace until I said this.

    If you would like to speak to me further on this topic, please email me privately via my profile. I'd be more than happy to speak to you there.


  40. What about the judge Deborah, whom God called to lead?

    Gene Bridges has a detailed exegesis of the Isaiah passage that argues that the text does not support the position that women involved in high level government positions is a sign of a wicked nation. He concludes:
    "It's not about the gender of who is sitting on the throne, it's about the power behind the throne, namely the wives, mothers, and counselors of those men. Men ruled, but the women in their lives corrupted them. It tells us (a) to watch who we marry and to whom we listen, and (b) gives us a good reason to "leave your father and mother and cleave to your wife, if the problem is your wicked mother or grandmother, and it speaks to the tremendous influence (and responsibility) women have over the men in their lives, both sons and husbands. Men, listen to the godly women in your lives and take their wise counsel to heart! Men, stand up to the ungodly women in your lives and and rebuke them!"


  41. Sarah Palin may be God's choice for our time. God used a women in the old testament named Deborah to lead and rule Israel when no man could be found. Pray that God will have mercy on our sinful nation during these evil times. Ron
    Deborah & Jael - Women of the Bible

    Judges Chapters 4 -5
    After the death of Joshua, the man who had lead the Israelites into the land of Canaan, God raised up judges to lead and rule Israel.

    The first Judges God used were Othniel, Ehud and Shamgar (Judges 3). And then came Deborah.

    Deborah lead the nation of Israel. Who said women cannot lead? Here is one of the many women God Himself called and used. She was very much respected. Her leadership qualities were unquestionable. She was also a prophet and married women might also like to note that she was married (Judges 4). Marriage was never designed to hinder the ministry of women but rather to aid it.

    Deborah's duties and ministry was similar to all the other judges of Israel and even went a bit more.

    She was the leader of the Nation.

    She helped to settle their disputes.

    She was also a prophetess who gave the nation direction from God

    She was respected by all the people.

    She was called by God.

    The land had peace for forty years due to her ministry. (Judges 4 and 5)

    If Deborah was under our dispensation she would have occupied the office of a pastor, prophet, and teacher.

    It is the calling and gifts of God on a persons life that brings them into the ministry of the Lord. Your sex has nothing to do with it. As you dedicate yourself to the lord and seek His face you will be prepared to fulfill His will for your life.

    Deborah told Barak, the head solider in Israel, to attack Sisera, the commander of the enemy forces against Israel. Barak was afraid to do this and insisted that Deborah come with him. He knew that Deborah's presence would guarantee victory. Such was the respect and confidence of Israel in Deborah. She was a woman of God and all recognized it.

    Women should never look down on themselves. Deborah did not allow the fact that she was a woman hinder her ministry. She was the first (and only) woman Judge of Israel. Despite the fact that she lived in a time when men seemed to dominate everything she did not allow this to hinder her.

    Deborah was not proud nor did she hold an unspoken grudge against men. This is the wrong attitude that some women take today. Remember Rachel. Hurt or bitterness in your heart will destroy you and hinder your ministry.

    The woman lib and feminist movements that are sweeping the world today are doing much more harm than good because they sow the seeds of discord. They bring women to stand against men. This is not of God.

    It is a godly attitude that will promote you. All human beings will respect and heed to your ministry once they see the love and character of God flowing out from you. Women of God please take note.

    Barak did not kill Sisera but Jael did. Deborah had prophesied that this is what would happen.


    What Jael did might look barbaric to us now but it was an act of courage,determination and fulfillment of God's will (Judges 5:24-27).
    The act of Jael in our generation would be similar to Christian ministry. Jael destroyed the enemy. Today we do not fight against flesh and blood like the Israelites did in their time but rather we wrestle against forces of darkness. Our weapons today are not physical but spiritual (2 Corinthians 10: 2-6).

    We intercede with prayer and use the gifts of the Holy Spirit to fight and win over satan. There is no reason why you as a women should not be engaged in this. Women might be weaker than men physically but not spiritually.

    Deborah's reign brought forty years of peace to Israel (Judges 5:31). Forty years is a long time. A whole generation had peace because of the godly behavior of one woman. Now its your time.


Hi!! Thank you so much for visiting my blog! Please come back often. Thank you for your comment as well; your input is always most welcome! Even if you disagree with something, I encourage you to leave a comment; I just ask that you do so in a loving and Christ-like manner.

God bless you!

~Rebekah S.