Was Feminism A Christian Idea?

Satanic Feminism Part 3

I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor.

The Apostle Paul in 1 Timothy 2:12-14

(Note, this series overlaps with my series on Equality, which I refer to at times in this series)

So far in our Satanic Feminism series we have looked at how the wicked wanted the West to change, and at part of the history of how they initiated this change. In doing so we took a brief look at the philosophical roots of the feminist movement, and where its inspiration about came equality from. I think from what we have established so far, you have to conclude that feminism was not inspired by Christianity, or by a faithful reading of the Scriptures. There is simply no scriptural grounds for such an ideology suggested by any of the history we have examined so far.

However, this needs to be argued more explicitly because one mistake a lot of modern conservatives or Christians make is seeing equality, and even early feminism, as an intrinsically Christian or biblical idea. This is exemplified in many arguments I have heard about feminism from conservative commentators all the way down to random conservatives on social media. It is one of those arguments that is parroted often without being examined. You may have even heard this kind of argument before: first wave feminism is good, second feminism is less reasonable, and third wave feminism, or intersectional feminism, has just gone beyond the pale. Here[1] is one version of this argument, and here[2] is another.

The justification for this line of reasoning is the argument that the first wave of feminism was just seeking to right a societal wrong, and successive forms of feminism took the ideas further, to the point of absurdity in its most recent forms. The underlying basis for this argument is that most people assume that equality is a good idea, and because first wave feminism has famously been associated with egalitarian impulses, like suffrage, many people are keen to affirm it, even if they realize it has gone too far in the end. Indeed, someone made this point to me on the day I originally began to write this, and I have heard it many times before and since.

To support this position a lot of conservatives like to note not just that first wave feminism was connected to suffrage, but also that it had a large evangelical presence in its ranks. It is important to recognize that we have grown up in the culture that was created by that movement. Most people, even most Christians, just assume that feminism was a noble cause at the start focused on a so-called benign force like equality, and it has just been hijacked by a world that has gone crazy. But there are some really big problems with this position.

First, this position assumes the Bible is concerned with advocating for equality. But it is not, as has been established in previous articles. Second, it assumes the move for equality has been good for the West, when it has not, it has slowly eroded every single one of the most important aspects of our society, the nation (people), the Church and the family. Third, it ignores all of the evidence that there were Satanic influences, indeed a Satanic foundation, behind the feminist movement from the beginning. This is not just my conclusion as a Baptist preacher, this has been historically documented by Per Faxneld in his work Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Women in Nineteenth-Century Culture.[3]  We discussed this in depth in part one and two  of this series.  

My contention in this series is very simple: feminism is not Christian, it is intrinsically anti-Christian and has been Satanic from the beginning. This is certain both in a theological and a historical sense, and we are seeing the fruits of its aims bearing themselves out in our society today, especially in the effect feminism has had on the family. In this article I want to address the first assumption in some detail, leaving number two and three for later pieces which will expand on the details and evidence of the first two articles in this Satanic Feminism series.  

While I have written about what the Bible says about equality in more detail elsewhere, let me give a simple example here from Jesus’ teaching, from the gospel of Matthew;  

“1 For the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house who went out early in the morning to hire laborers for his vineyard. 2 After agreeing with the laborers for a denarius a day, he sent them into his vineyard. 3 And going out about the third hour he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, 4 and to them he said, ‘You go into the vineyard too, and whatever is right I will give you.’ 5 So they went. Going out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour, he did the same. 6 And about the eleventh hour he went out and found others standing. And he said to them, ‘Why do you stand here idle all day?’ 7 They said to him, ‘Because no one has hired us.’ He said to them, ‘You go into the vineyard too.’ 8 And when evening came, the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the laborers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last, up to the first.’ 9 And when those hired about the eleventh hour came, each of them received a denarius. 10 Now when those hired first came, they thought they would receive more, but each of them also received a denarius. 11 And on receiving it they grumbled at the master of the house, 12 saying, ‘These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.’ 13 But he replied to one of them, ‘Friend, I am doing you no wrong. Did you not agree with me for a denarius? 14 Take what belongs to you and go. I choose to give to this last worker as I give to you. 15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?’ 16 So the last will be first, and the first last” (Matthew 20:1-16).

Now some might see this and right away think: well bad choice of passage to make your point, look what the workers say in verse 12, “These last worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the day and the scorching heat.” Ha! See, Jesus has made them equal, and yes they are complaining about that, but the passage definitely teaches equality sir!! But does it really? What is the point of the passage?

Jesus is talking about who gets access to the kingdom. The Jewish leaders that Jesus is dealing with think they and the Jews they lead are God’s only people, because they have followed him from time immemorial, but here comes these new disciples and all these other people, and Jesus appears to be favouring them. Indeed, Jesus gives the workers who came in the last hour the same pay as those who had been there all day. This is not equality, because they are being paid the same sum for different amounts of work. These workers are annoyed because they have been treated unequally and felt that their work is being undervalued. Being made equal in pay to someone who had done less work is not equality. It is the master doing as he sees fit.

In other words, the early workers are complaining that Jesus does not treat people equally. Jesus, in return, challenges them about his grace: “15 Am I not allowed to do what I choose with what belongs to me? Or do you begrudge my generosity?” Jesus is saying what many Bible passages say; that God gives as he sees fit, and the conclusion of the parable seals the point: “So the last will be first, and the first last.” Jesus is not saying that all will be equal, but the exact opposite, some will be treated better than others, and many of those who are last will be shocked that they are.

The main point of this parable is quite simple: Jesus, who is God, does as he sees fit. It is not our place to question the Master. 

The Bible is filled with many examples of how spiritual equality does not exist. There are sheep and goats, wolves and shepherds, snakes, foxes and doves, and even among the unsaved some will be beaten with few blows and some with many when they face judgement (Luke 12:41-49). David may consider his friend his equal, but by stating this he is admitting that he does not consider others to be (Ps. 55:12-15). Material equality does not exist, because we will always have the poor. Equality amongst people is simply not a biblical idea. As with this parable, there are many other passages which rebuke the idea. You must twist these words, “the last will be first, and the first last” violently to make them about equality. They are referring to a reversal, not an equalization. And if equality does not even apply to the final perfect state, how can it apply now, when we see all around us it does not exist?

When you recognize that equality is not a biblical position you recognize that the scriptures cannot have been the driving force for feminism. Feminism is, in reality, inherently about power and domination not equality, but it frames itself as a quest for equality, and is understood by many, whether progressive or conservative, to be as such. But even if it were truly about equality the Scriptures cannot be the impetus for this movement, because the scriptures are not concerned with equality. This becomes especially clear when you look at the explicit teaching on this issue from the Bible.

Feminism says women should lead society, the Bible says a society led by women is cursed, Isaiah 3:12 - “12 My people—infants are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, your guides mislead you and they have swallowed up the course of your paths.”

Feminism says the home should not have a head, and if it does, it need not be the man. The Bible says, “22 And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. 23 Then the man said, “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man” (Genesis 2:22-23). In the ancient world, where this was written, naming is a sign of authority and pre-eminence. The one who leads, the one who has authority, is the one who can name. But if that is not clear enough, then the Bible also says is, “5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord” (1 Peter 3:5-6).

Feminism says women should teach and assume authority over men, the Bible says, “11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:11-12). Or Paul’s last work, “2 You then, my child, be strengthened by the grace that is in Christ Jesus, 2 and what you have heard from me in the presence of many witnesses entrust to faithful men, who will be able to teach others also” (2 Timothy 2:1-2).  

Feminism says that gender is a construct and that men and women are interchangeable, and some say that marriage is an oppressive institution. Jesus tells us, “4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?” (Matthew 19:4-5). The Bible not only affirms the goodness of marriage, and the reality of the male and female genders, it also highlights gender differences. For example, 1 Corinthians 16:13 – “13 Be watchful, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” Or Jeremiah 48:41 – “…The cities shall be taken and the strongholds seized. The heart of the warriors of Moab shall be in that day like the heart of a woman in her birth pains…”

So, not only is the Bible not concerned with equality it also rejects the pillars of feminism at every point. Someone might respond and say, but feminism is about justice, is the Bible against justice? No, the Bible taught the West to defend the weak, and to do what is right. The Bible defined what justice meant in the West for centuries, and still effects our understanding of fairness, openness and equity today. Feminism undermines those Scriptures, and therefore is a force for wickedness because it redefines justice…indeed, that is what all social justice is, a redefinition of justice. Justice needs no qualifier, only application.  

That someone can read these passages we have looked and say that the Bible is consistent with feminism is completely against reason. In fact, even some of the first wave, or so-called evangelical, feminists saw how these passages conflicted with their ideology. Which is embarrassing, because modern “evangelical” feminists say the Bible is consistent with their ideology, whereas the original “evangelical” feminists confidently said that it was not. Rather than face this, and conform their version of Christianity to the Bible’s teachings, they simply decided to brush this teaching aside,

While woman's subordination is taught as a Scriptural doctrine, the most devout and learned biblical scholars of the present day admit that the Bible has suffered many interpolations in the course of the centuries. Some of these have doubtless occurred through efforts to render certain passages clearer, while others have been forged with direct intention to deceive. Disraeli says that the early English editions contain 6,000 errors, which were constantly introduced, and passages interpolated for sectarian purposes, or to sustain new creeds. Sometimes, indeed, they were added for the purpose of destroying all Scriptural authority by the suppression of texts. The Church Union says of the present translation, that there are more than 7,000 variations from the received Hebrew text, and more than 150,000 from the received Greek text…

…Amid this vast discrepancy in regard to the truth of the Scriptures themselves; with no Hebrew manuscript older than the twelfth century; with no Greek one older than the fourth; with the acknowledgment by scholars of 7,000 errors in the Old Testament, and 150,000 in the New; with assurance that these interpolations and changes have been made by men in the interest of creeds, we may well believe that the portions of the Bible quoted against woman's equality are but interpolations of an unscrupulous priesthood, for the purpose of holding her in subjection to man.[4]

The source of this quote is The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement written by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and other famous feminists. There are several false assumptions and leaps of logic in these two paragraphs, which we may deal with in another article. But for today’s purpose, I just want you to observe that this early feminist is outright rejecting the Bible’s teaching on male and female distinctiveness. They are not seeking to uphold it in anyway, and therefore one should ask: Was this really a movement that was precipitated by Christianity?

Remember this comes from the period of feminism sometimes referred to as evangelical feminism, but the spirit of this argument is very much this: “Did God really say?” Sound familiar? This is not an argument seeking to uphold the Christian faith, but rather undermine and subvert it. So is another tactic that is often used to navigate around these passages.

Some, who would say they are for the maintenance of Christian truth, have offered a different argument to passages such as those above. This argument is that these passages simply reflect the culture of their day, and we have grown beyond them. After all this is true of other cultural aspects of scripture is it not? We don’t all greet each other with a kiss when we enter into church do we, so why could this not be the case on this issue regarding gender roles? But to say Paul did not allow women to teach because it reflected the culture of his day is demonstrably incorrect, as feminists themselves declare. Again, we read in The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement:

“In Rome she had not only secured remarkable personal and property rights, but she officiated as priestess in the most holy offices of religion. Not only as Vestal Virgin did she guard the Sacred Fire, upon whose preservation the welfare of Rome was held to depend, but at the end of every consular period women officiated in private worship and sacrifice to the Bono Dea, with mystic ceremonies which no man's presence was suffered to profane…All Pagandom recognized a female priesthood, some making their national safety to depend upon them, like Rome; sybils wrote the Books of Fate, and oracles where women presided were consulted by many nations”[5] (emphasis mine).

This quote makes an embarrassment of the idea that female religious leaders were not allowed to teach in the New Testament era, or even the ancient era. This is patently absurd, ahistorical, and even the Bible itself flatly contradicts this idea. Let me show you some examples, both scriptural and contextual to the era of the scriptures.

The first comes from the Old Testament. We read in 1 Kings 16:29-33 –

“29 In the thirty-eighth year of Asa king of Judah, Ahab the son of Omri began to reign over Israel, and Ahab the son of Omri reigned over Israel in Samaria twenty-two years. 30 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the Lord, more than all who were before him. 31 And as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, he took for his wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Sidonians, and went and served Baal and worshiped him. 32 He erected an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria. 33 And Ahab made an Asherah. Ahab did more to provoke the Lord, the God of Israel, to anger than all the kings of Israel who were before him.”

Now you may wonder why I included this example. Well, Jezebel is in effect a cultic priestess/prophetess, as well as a Queen of Israel. This was not an unheard of role in the ancient world. “Best known is Um-Astarte, the mother of King Eshmun-Ezer II of Sidon (about 500 BCE, KAI 14.15), who was priestess of Astarte.”[6] I just disagree that she is the best known. Though not officially referred to as priestesses Jezebel is more famous, and Olympias the wife of Philip II of Macedon and mother of Alexander is certainly nearly as famous as Jezebel. We read about Olympias that,

A few nights after their wedding, Philip witnessed Olympias sleeping with snakes, presumably due to her being a devoted worshipper to a snake cult for Dionysus. Regardless, after this incident Philip lost affection for her. Plutarch notes that Philip did not sleep with her after that “because he feared that some spells and enchantments might be practiced upon him by her, or because he shrank from her embraces in the conviction that she was the partner of a superior being” (Plutarch, Lives, 464, John Dryden).[7]

Olympias may not have had the official title of priestess, but like Jezebel she was one in effect. Serpents were a continual theme in ancient fertility cults, associated with many gods, including Asherah, which is relevant also to Jezebel, who encouraged Asherah worship in Israel. Sending religiously trained and astute women into the harems of foreign kings, was one way in which members of these royal households could influence other nations. An ancient form of foreign policy if you will. Hence the proscriptions for Israelite men from marrying such women. They were dangerous to the righteous standard of the land. We see many examples of kings marrying such women and falling into idolatry, Solomon being probably the most famous example.  

This did not just effect those in power, either. We read in Numbers 25:1-3 –

“25 While Israel lived in Shittim, the people began to whore with the daughters of Moab. 2 These invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. 3 So Israel yoked himself to Baal of Peor. And the anger of the Lord was kindled against Israel.”

The idea that women could take the initiative or lead in pagan religion is attested to both within the Bible and outside the Bible in various cultures of the era. In some places female priests were rarer, in others they were more common, and to some degree there is debate. Regarding the biblical era Dijkstra notes, “Only in texts from around Carthage priestesses occur frequently. A high-priestess (rb khnt) and even a female head of the priesthood (rb khnm KAI 95) are mentioned, but perhaps this was a development outside the West Semitic religious context.”[8] However, this is debateable, as we read in the scriptures, which were situated in Semitic lands, many references to both male and female cult prostitutes, for example,

Job 36:13-14 – “13 The godless in heart cherish anger; they do not cry for help when he binds them. 14 They die in youth, and their life ends among the cult prostitutes.”

Hosea 4:14 – “14 I will not punish your daughters when they play the whore, nor your brides when they commit adultery; for the men themselves go aside with prostitutes and sacrifice with cult prostitutes, and a people without understanding shall come to ruin.”  

Scholars can tend to favour extra-biblical sources over biblical sources, viewing the Bible as more polemical than factual. But this attitude is often proven wrong by subsequent discoveries. These women, and men, were acting in a priestly role, they were “ordained female cult officials.”[9]

“We know that the fertility cult persisted in ancient Israel by its frequent condemnation by the prophets. Throughout the ancient world it venerated the agricultural goddess of fertility, known in different locations by various names as Aphrodite, Asherah, Ishtar, Astarte, etc…

…It was thought that the fertility of humans, crops and cattle was the result of the sexual union of the gods, the sacred marriage or hieros gamos. The blessings of their union were communicated through its ritual reenactment by the worshipper and a temple prostitute. The Bible associates these male and female prostitutes, called “holy ones” (qādēsh and qedēshah), with the goddess Asherah.”[10]

It is obvious the Jezebel was incredibly skilled in her role, because the writer of 1 Kings 16 notes that Ahab fell into not just worshipping the man made religion of Jeroboam, but after his marriage to Jezebel he became a devotee of the Phoenician god Baal (sometimes a specific deity, sometimes a general term for many chief deities, as Baal means ‘Lord’), and made an Asherah. An Asherah is both a deity, and a totem pole or sacred tree.[11] Worship of this deity would involve sacred grove and sex rituals not unlike this description of proto-feminist cultic worship in Europe again from The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement:

“Freedom for the peasants was found alone at night. Known as the Birds of the Night, Foxes and Birds of Prey, it was only at these night assemblages they enjoyed the least happiness or security. Here, with wives and daughters, they met together to talk, of their gross outrages. Out of these foul wrongs grew the sacrifice of the "Black Mass," with woman as officiating priestess, in which the rites of the Church were travestied in solemn mockery, and defiance cast at that heaven which seemed to permit the priest and lord alike to trample upon all the sacred rights of womanhood in the names of religion and law. During this mocking service a true sacrifice of wheat was offered to the Spirit of the Earth who made wheat to grow, and loosened birds bore aloft to the God of Freedom the sighs and prayers of the serfs asking that their descendants might be free. We can not do otherwise than regard this sacrifice as the most acceptable offering made in that day of moral degradation, a sacrifice and prayer more holy than all the ceremonials of the Church.”[12]

This “sacred grove” worship was common in ancient Israel. Isaiah 57:4-5 – “Are you not children of transgression, the offspring of deceit, 5 you who burn with lust among the oaks, under every green tree…” Or Jeremiah 2:20, “For long ago I broke your yoke and burst your bonds; but you said, ‘I will not serve.’ Yes, on every high hill and under every green tree you bowed down like a whore.” It was explicitly forbidden for Israel to copy this practice of the ancient pagans; Deuteronomy 12:2, “You shall surely destroy all the places where the nations whom you shall dispossess served their gods, on the high mountains and on the hills and under every green tree.” And Deuteronomy 16:21, “You shall not plant any tree as an Asherah beside the altar of the Lord your God that you shall make.”

Of course, it was not the precise same thing, because these rituals are separated by culture, language and specific intent, but in essence these proto-feminists were reviving ancient Satanic/pagan practices with their own cultural spin on them. This was a form of worship that was highly dependent on female priests, whether in the ancient or modern world.  

The matriarchal nature of this religion of Asherah is incredibly clear,

“The loss of goddesses was the price Israel had to pay for its worship of one God. Especially for Israelite women this loss must have been painful. Hitherto goddesses played a key role with regard to the—in those days—all-important issue of fertility of women as well as the protection of mother and child during pregnancy. It must have been far from easy for women to entrust even these specific tasks to the one God YHWH-El.”[13]

So much for there being no concept of women in significant roles in religion in the ancient world. The ancient world was very patriarchal in many ways, but the picture is more complex. There were often strong undercurrents of matriarchal religious ideology, and in some places it could even rise to dominance. Even where it was not dominant, women like Jezebel and Olympias could wield significant influence and power.

And wield power Jezebel did. She had incredible influence over the religion of ancient Samaria, 1 Kings 18:3,19 –

“3 And Ahab called Obadiah, who was over the household. (Now Obadiah feared the Lord greatly, 4 and when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord, Obadiah took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave and fed them with bread and water.)…19 Now therefore send and gather all Israel to me at Mount Carmel, and the 450 prophets of Baal and the 400 prophets of Asherah, who eat at Jezebel's table.”

Jezebel was clearly the head of Samaria’s religious institution in all but name in Ahab’s regime. She had power to disband and really dismember the godly prophets, and replace them with a rather large circle of loyal prophets who dined not with Ahab, but with her. In modern parlance we would say that clearly Jezebel wore the pants in that relationship. In her role as “head priestess/prophetess” and Queen she shows that she absolutely dominated the Kingdom of Samaria for a time. 1 Kings 21:25-26 – “25 (There was none who sold himself to do what was evil in the sight of the Lord like Ahab, whom Jezebel his wife incited. 26 He acted very abominably in going after idols, as the Amorites had done, whom the Lord cast out before the people of Israel.)”

When people say that the culture of the day, and by that I mean the era of the Scriptures, which granted is a very large window, did not empower women, they are certainly correct in some contexts, and definitely wrong in others. Women did not hold raw power as much as men, Jezebel is a rarity in this respect. But women DID hold religious power, often and even in other areas they did have a power of their own. It was more underhanded, and less direct, but no less real. I mean Olympias did get her son on the throne after all. As noted, this woman was remarkably similar to Jezebel; a powerful sorcerer priestess-like woman who even made Philip of Macedon nervous.

Here is a powerful account of Asherah, which highlights several things; the power of a female deity, the nature of how women can overrule their husbands, and the fact that even ancient patriarchal cultures recognized the reality of matriarchal power. This account is about Baal and his consort Anat desiring authority from El for Baal to have his own palace, and their approach to Asherah to help him get it:

“After a while Asherah asks the couple for the reason of their visit accompanied with such costly presents. Anat is the one who replies. Her husband Baal has no palace of his own, he has to make do with quarters in the palace of his father-in-law El, a situation that has to be changed, because every real god is supposed to have his own palace. Already earlier Anat had begged El directly for a palace for Baal but apparently without lasting succes. Now she is requesting her mother to intercede for Baal with her father El. It is surely remarkable that in Ilimalik's representation of the divine world male deities were the formal rulers, but goddesses determined the real course of events!...

…With a formal phrase attested more than once she praises his intellectual, not his physical prowess. At the same time Asherah affirms that she has ruled out her husband as king of the gods. Apparently she regards her son-in-law Baal as the candidate to replace him. El does not protest. Asherah succeeds in convincing El to give his permission for the building of a palace for Baal. Apparently she has a decisive influence on major decisions of her husband, the king of the gods. Later on in the myth of Baal Asherah determines El's choice of a successor for Baal, in the same way as the biblical Bathsheba does for her son Solomon (1 Kgs 1)…

…It is likely that this too reflects the situation on earth where queens, especially queen-mothers, often influenced the political choices of their royal husbands and in many cases decided who would be the next on the throne…

…The word of queen-mother Asherah is followed blindly. The author of the myth, Ilimalik, apparently wants to describe her as the real power behind the ageing king of the universe.”[14]

This account of the power and direction of Asherah is every bit as subversive as anything written by one of Faxneld’s 19^th Century satanic feminists. This could also be an inspiration for an episode of Everybody Loves Raymond, where the main character Ray is constantly torn between following the lead of his wife or the whim of his mother. But more importantly it shows that the archetypal husband-dominating woman, Jezebel, was not an anomaly in the ancient world, she was a common reoccurrence. Note this comment by Jezebel to her husband Ahab in the Scriptures, and how it shows who was really in charge,

“5 But Jezebel his wife came to him and said to him, “Why is your spirit so vexed that you eat no food?” 6 And he said to her, “Because I spoke to Naboth the Jezreelite and said to him, ‘Give me your vineyard for money, or else, if it please you, I will give you another vineyard for it.’ And he answered, ‘I will not give you my vineyard.’” 7 And Jezebel his wife said to him, “Do you now govern Israel? Arise and eat bread and let your heart be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite” (1 Kings 21:5-7).

Here Jezebel shows us who the true power was in Israel, her, not her husband. It is surely not a coincidence that Jezebel was an advocate of a god like Asherah, because in the Canaanite mythology, Asherah had come to dominate the creator God, El, just as Jezebel had dominated Ahab, and also just as she had introduced Aherah and Baal to replace and dominate Yahweh, or El Shaddai. This is a clear example of Satanic Feminist subversion, by Faxneld’s definition is his book.     

There is a reason Jezebel is seen as an archetype of feminist religious power. She represented a reality in some parts of the Ancient Near East that is picked up by modern feminists. In condemning Asherah worship and Jezebel and women like her, the Bible is explicitly condemning what we would later call feminism, or women leading men. To unleash Asherah (or Ishtar, or Aphrodite, or Astarte etc., etc.) worship on a society was to unleash feminism on a society and the chaos that causes.

So, we can see that the Bible, and surrounding cultures, acknowledge the reality of women being powerful in both religion and statecraft, and the Bible challenges it directly. But there is another example of this in the New Testament, and it is a woman also called Jezebel.

We read in Revelation 2:18-21 –

“18 And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write: ‘The words of the Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and whose feet are like burnished bronze. 19 “‘I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. 20 But I have this against you, that you tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing my servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols. 21 I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality.  

The similarities between this Jezebel here, and the Jezebel of Old Testament fame, have led some to believe that this not a similar woman called Jezebel, but a Jezebel-like woman, that is a woman with a Jezebel spirit. She is teaching pagan cultic rituals, not dissimilar to the practices of Baal or Ashtaroth, and leading these people into deep and horrible sin.

But notice Jesus’ rebuke. He is angry that they “tolerate that woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess and is teaching and seducing” his servants. Some might skip right to the third element of this rebuke, the “seduction to sexual immorality” for the crux of this rebuke. But there are three elements of the rebuke: 1) That she calls herself a prophetess, 2) that she is teaching, 3) and that she is seducing them to practice sexual immorality and eat in pagan food rituals.

This is important to note, because the first two things Jesus has against this woman, are that she is “assuming authority and teaching”. This should sound familiar, because Paul says in 1 Timothy 2:11-12 – “11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” Paul does not permit a woman to teach or “assume”/“exercise” authority over a man. Jezebel is presuming to do exactly what Paul had said that women should not do.

I need to pause here and acknowledge that there are female prophets in the Bible, from Deborah, to Anna, to Phillip’s daughters, we see women exercising this empowered gift of the Holy Spirit in different parts of the Scripture. Prophecy and teaching can overlap in Scripture, but they are not the same gift. Just because someone prophesies does not mean they are a teacher and vice versa. Prophecy is often an ecstatic gift, where the Holy Spirit overcomes a person and speaks through them in a foretelling or forthtelling way. And no one, man or woman, has the right to say God is limited in who he can speak through in this way. It is clear in scripture he will speak through men, women, children, angels, donkeys and more, at his discretion. It is also clear from Genesis 2 onwards that he expects men to exercise authority and teach, not women.

Jezebel had at least doubly broken the prohibition Paul made in this passage. It is interesting when you hear preachers seek to explain away 1 Timothy 2:11-12, I cannot remember ever hearing one of them connect their explanation to this passage in Revelation 2. Paul wrote this letter to Timothy who was in Ephesus, which is one of the brother churches of Thyatira, where Jezebel had entrenched herself as the pagan priestess of this church. The culture here would not have been very different to the culture in Ephesus. The kinds of gods worshipped, the religious practices and the way people lived would have been roughly the same. And there is no doubt that they would have known about this letter from Paul. He founded the Ephesian church and it likely had a patriarchate role in these seven churches. So, the relevance of this Revelation passage to the Timothy passage is striking, and more so for the deliberate avoidance you see among scholars and teachers of this passage.

It is especially striking when you notice that Jezebel has not just doubly broken this proscription, but triply. She presumed authority where she should not have. She is teaching when she should not be as well. But what is the third transgression? She was being sexually immoral and idolatrous in precisely the way Paul said women should not, and in the way that ancient sex cults like Asherah, or Aphrodite encouraged them to be.  

Note, 1 Timothy 2:13-15 – “13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.” How was the woman deceived? She partook of the fruit to gain access to the divine mysteries that were offered to her by the serpent: the forbidden knowledge. Some in Church history saw this as talking about sexual sin[15],[16] though it is not taken this way so often anymore. But it is idolatry, Eve looked to the devil over God, and to herself over God as well. This is idolatry, which is spiritual adultery. But note that Paul says a woman will be saved via “childbearing - if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”

This can only be taken one of two ways. Either Paul is saying that women will be saved by their works of having children, added to by faith, love, holiness and self-control. In this reading the apostle of saved-by-faith-not-works would be saying women are saved by their works. This does not fit with what we know about Paul. Or, the better reading is really very simple; the faith filled Christian woman is one who is focused on motherhood, they are the kind of mother whose faith, love, holiness and self-control are evident and they are protected or ‘saved’ from the devil's schemes as a result (cf. 1 Tim. 5:9-13 which boldters this reading). In other words, he is saying that a Christian woman looks like a woman who does not seek to rule over men, but who learns submissively, and is faithfully focused on motherhood. Radical right? Only in the last 170 years. But note, this is the exact opposite of Jezebel.

Jesus is telling us that Jezebel is presuming authority, is seeking to teach men, and is seducing his “servants to practice sexual immorality and to eat food sacrificed to idols.” Eve was the first woman to eat in honour of a false idol. She was the first Satanic Feminist in this sense. And this is why Per Faxneld is showing us in his book Satanic Feminism that the inherent foundation of feminism is to seek to make what Eve did in the garden an act of liberation - she can have authority, she can teach, she is a sexually promiscuous agent – when really it is an act of enslavement to a false deity.

The passages in Timothy and Revelation we have just looked at are very clear, and very simple to understand, as are all the others on this topic. But in a post Satanic Feminist inversion of the world’s order they appear to many to be much harder to understand. Not because they are not clear, but because they rub up against our modern and post-modern beliefs about how things should be on the gender front. There is no end to the propaganda about the equality of men and women, and that men and women are interchangeable, and can do all of the same things. How many movies do we see with a 140 pound wringing wet woman dominating in combat five or six special forces trained soldiers in a few deft moves? It is absurd. The propaganda is strong with our modern society on this issue, and it clouds how many modern people think about these issues and can cause people to just assume the Bible is presenting an outdated view.

But the Bible is showing us that women teaching in a religious context is not a modern idea, it is an ancient idea, the most ancient false religious idea really. It finds its basis in the Serpent approaching the woman, whom he deceived, and not the man. Why? Because good generals always attack at the most vulnerable point in the lines, and the Devil is a superb general. It is simply ahistorical, and unbiblical to say that the scriptures just said women could not teach because of the culture of their day. The culture of their day, and many before and many after are rich with examples of female priesthoods. One of the ancient symbols of Asherah was a woman standing or sitting near a tree with a serpent[17], sound familiar? This idea is ancient.

Let’s look at another example which relates directly to our passages so far. The letters in Revelation 2 to 3 were given to seven churches, including the one we have looked at, Thyatira, and the first one addressed, probably the oldest and most influential of the churches in that region, Ephesus. This is important, because we read in Acts 19 that Paul’s ministry in Ephesus was having an incredible effect on the Cult of Artemis:

“23 About that time there arose no little disturbance concerning the Way. 24 For a man named Demetrius, a silversmith, who made silver shrines of Artemis, brought no little business to the craftsmen. 25 These he gathered together, with the workmen in similar trades, and said, ‘Men, you know that from this business we have our wealth. 26 And you see and hear that not only in Ephesus but in almost all of Asia this Paul has persuaded and turned away a great many people, saying that gods made with hands are not gods. 27 And there is danger not only that this trade of ours may come into disrepute but also that the temple of the great goddess Artemis may be counted as nothing, and that she may even be deposed from her magnificence, she whom all Asia and the world worship’” 28 When they heard this they were enraged and were crying out, “Great is Artemis of the Ephesians!” (Acts 19:23-28).

Paul’s ministry was so successful that he was drawing Greeks in Asia Minor away from worship of idols like Artemis. The reason this is relevant to our discussion is because Paul wrote his letter to Timothy in Ephesus (1 Tim. 1:3). As mentioned above, the Church of Thyatira would have been influenced by this letter, and others written by Paul, and the background of these letters is being written in a culture which had no problem with women being involved in cultic religious practices. For example, we read this about the cult of Artemis:   

“The Arkteia festival was celebrated every four years and involved a procession from the shrine of Artemis Brauronia on the acropolis of Athens, 24.5 km WNW of the sanctuary. At the isolated sanctuary of Artemis at Brauron, young Athenian girls approaching marriageable age formed groups consecrated for a time to Artemis as arktoi, she-bears, and spent their time in sacred dances, wearing honey-colored saffron robes, running races and making sacrifice…The goddess Artemis was a danger to be propitiated by women during child-birth and of the newborn: to her were dedicated the clothes of women who had successfully borne a child;. The garments of women who died in childbirth were dedicated to Iphigeneia at Brauron.”[18]

A female deity, attended to by priestesses, not priests, and propitiated by women seeking her in the moment of giving birth? You cannot get more matriarchal than this. And in some ritual practices of the worship of Artemis, we can see how far this matriarchy went: Artemis,

“recalls the Cretan ‘Lady of the Wild Things’, apparently the supreme Nymph-goddess of archaic totem societies; and the ritual bath in which Actaeon surprised her, like the horned hinds of her chariot…and the quails of Ortygia…, seems more appropriate to the nymph than the maiden. Actaeon was, it seems, a sacred king of the pre-Hellenic stag cult, torn to pieces at the end of his reign of fifty months, namely half a Great Year; his co-king, or tanist, reigning for the remainder. The nymph properly took her bath after, not before, the murder. There are numerous parallels to this ritual custom in Irish and Welsh myth, and as late as the first century AD a man dressed in a stag’s skin was periodically chased and killed on the Acadian Mount Lycaeum (Plutarch: Greek Questions 39).”[19]

To say, as many do, that Paul was simply encouraging women to stay silent, so that the Church would not appear scandalous before the culture of the day in Ephesus is ridiculous on many levels.

Firstly, the Greeks of Asian Minor, really in any era, had no problem with women playing a leading role in religious rites and practice, as long as the particular cult and god/goddess called for it. There was a diversity of gods, with a diversity of religious rites, and a new cult which allowed women to teach would not have cause many Greeks to even think twice about it, especially worshippers of Artemis, who were willing to submit to rights performed by young female priestesses. Secondly, Paul did not limit the Church to only doing things which would not offend the Greeks, or Jews. His encouragement for masters to treat their slaves like brothers in Christ would have been jarring for the Roman and Greek culture of the era. This was an era where slaves’ bodies were the repository for anything their masters wished them to be. Thirdly, Paul tells us directly that his reason is theological, not cultural.

Paul tells us,

“11 Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:11-14).

His reasons track back to Genesis 2 and 3, and consider the order of creation and the fact that the woman was deceived, not the man. I think this is a big point for Paul. Because he makes a similar case elsewhere:

“11 I wish you would bear with me in a little foolishness. Do bear with me! 2 For I feel a divine jealousy for you, since I betrothed you to one husband, to present you as a pure virgin to Christ. 3 But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4 For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. 5 Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles. 6 Even if I am unskilled in speaking, I am not so in knowledge; indeed, in every way we have made this plain to you in all things…

…12 And what I do I will continue to do, in order to undermine the claim of those who would like to claim that in their boasted mission they work on the same terms as we do. 13 For such men are false apostles, deceitful workmen, disguising themselves as apostles of Christ. 14 And no wonder, for even Satan disguises himself as an angel of light. 15 So it is no surprise if his servants, also, disguise themselves as servants of righteousness. Their end will correspond to their deeds” (2 Cor. 11:1-6, 12-15). 

Eve’s deception is an important aspect of Paul’s Christian worldview, which he applies to his theology of what a biblical teacher is, who can teach, and what a false teacher is. His teaching in 1 Timothy about who can teach, and his teaching in 2 Corinthians about how to spot a false teacher are intrinsically dependent on how Satan deceived Eve. These are not incidental or cultural teachings on Paul’s account. They are applications of biblical truth anchored in the proper order taught in the pre-fall and early post-fall world and reinforced all the way through the Bible.

Nowhere does Paul blame the fall on Eve, rather he blames it on Adam (cf. Romans 5). Yet he acknowledges that Eve was the one who was deceived first, so why is she not to blame? Because the man was created first and should have protected the proper order by rebuking the serpent and his wife. Instead, he allowed both the serpent and his wife to dominate him, which caused the fall,

“12 Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— 13 for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law. 14 Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come” (Romans 5:12-14).

The origin of the sinfulness of mankind is traced back to the first man, even though he was not the first to sin. Why? Because the Bible teaches a patriarchal order: God the father – God the son - man – woman – children. This is not my summation, it is Paul’s: 1 Corinthians 11:2-3 – “2 Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. 3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.” We have already addressed this patriarchal order in previous articles, but it needs repeating: this is the Christian perspective. Egalitarianism is an extra-biblical interpolation that denies the correct biblical order.

This is not a minor point, it is not a cultural contextual point. What Paul is doing is very deliberate and important: he is teaching us how to structure our churches, families, and indeed society, in such a way that it limits the damage the evil one can do. No, he is not, and I am not, saying that the devil cannot work very wickedly through men. Of course he can, and he has. But attacking through women who subvert or dominate their men is a particularly successful strategy that the Devil uses. This cannot be denied. It is not a coincidence that the West has become more godless, more pagan, and less honouring of traditional marriage and morals, since it has officially overturned the biblical patriarchal order.

You can accuse me of being hopelessly outdated in my views, but again see what Paul said, “Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you” and then he proceeds to remind them of the correct order he has taught them to maintain in their churches and homes. This order is supported by 1 Corinthians 14, 1 Timothy 2, Ephesians 5 to 6, Colossians 3, and other passages. And it is reiterated often in scripture how much damage can be done if this order is ignored. Paul’s position is clear, and simple to understand.    

However, if you accept that the Bible teaches equality, then you have to say it supports feminism, and you have to find a way to circumnavigate all these texts. Which is precisely what much of the modern Church does, to its own chagrin. There is however a better way to understand them.

The better way to understand them is very simply that they are anti-feminist. This is very different to anti-women. The Bible is pro-women and very uplifting of women. Early Christianity did not explode in massive numbers among women in Rome for no reason. It created a whole new way for them to see themselves, and for society to see them as well. It lifted their bodies to being more than sex objects, or being objectified in slavery, or in ritualistic sex worship, and ancient pornographic art, it honoured their rights to learn directly from their Lord, something which even Judaism did not do to the same degree, and it highlighted just how honourable and necessary motherhood is. So, the Bible’s view is not anti-women, but rather anti-everything that feminism is. Because at its heart, feminism is a destabilizing force. All movements of equality are; whether feminism, or socialism, or Marxism (which is just socialism in its most radical form). Whereas the Bible is inherently supportive of order and hierarchy.

Let’s do a quick thought experiment: what would a completely egalitarian society look like, one where every single individual had the exact same power, the exact same rights, the exact same command, the exact same prestige and influence? It might sound glorious, but then add to this society the known characteristics of human nature. What would you get? Anarchy. Absolute anarchy. Even heaven has a king, and high angels and rulers. An absolutely anarchist state would be hell, as Chaucer says,

“For well you know that men call "honour" the reverence that man gives to man; but in Hell is no honour or reverence. For indeed no more reverence shall be done there to a king than to a knave. As to which God says, by the Prophet Jeremiah: "They that scorn me shall be scorned." "Honour" is also called great lordship; but there no man shall serve another, save to his harm and torment.”[20]

And later again he says,

“And Job, also, says: "Death, without any order." And though it be that God has created all things in right order, and nothing at all without order, but all things are ordered and numbered; yet, nevertheless, they that are damned have no order, nor hold to any order.[21]

There is such thing as the wrong kind of order, tyranny of the authoritarian. But it is not so much about getting a balance, as having the right order, the right patriarchy, the right kind of leadership of both quality and structure.

This is why feminists themselves, honest feminists who are just following their ideology, and not seeking to infuse the Christian religion with its teachings, recognize “the term "Christian feminist" is an oxymoron.”[22]

This is why saying that the Bible is just reflecting the culture of its day, when it comes to gender roles, is inherently dishonest. The Bible presents a consistent vision of gender, with men as leaders, providers and warriors and women as supporters, nurturers, child-bearers, that, in the very least possible timeframe, covers several thousand years of human history, across vastly different cultures, and several different regions of the ancient Near East, and parts of Europe and Africa. If you say it reflects the culture of the day, I say, which culture? There are hundreds to choose from, and thousands of years to choose from as well. This consistent perspective on gender roles remained remarkably consistent right across the Christian world, up until about the middle of the nineteenth century.

What a remarkable coincidence, then, that Christians just started to realize that the Bible had been feminist all along, just in time for the feminist movement to take off. It would be dishonest of me to say that there were not real Christian women who were engaged in the suffragette movement. There were some who even considered fighting for the right to vote and advocating for feminism to be different goals. But it is equally dishonest to say that feminism came out of a fresh understanding of the correct teachings of the Bible, because it didn’t. It was initiated by an external force that sought to tame the Bible and usurp Western civilisation to its agenda. And credit where credit is due, it worked, sadly.  

So, with all that has now been said, we can say unequivocally that feminism was not inspired by Christianity. It is rather the antithesis of Christianity, a competitor, that would see the Church bow to it, as the mythical El once did to Asherah.

List of References

---

[1] McEnany, Kayleigh 2013, “21st Century Feminism: An Embarrassment to My Gender”, Blaze Media, accessed 8/07/2021, https://www.theblaze.com/contributions/21st-century-feminism-an-embarrassment-to-my-gender.

[2]Blaze TV Staff 2017, “Allie: I'm not a feminist, and here's why”, Blaze Media, accessed 8/07/2021,  https://www.theblaze.com/video/allie-im-not-a-feminist-and-heres-why.

[3] Faxneld, Per 2017, Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture, Oxford University Press, New York.

[4] Stanton, Elizabeth Cady (et. al.) 2017, The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement - All 6 Books in One Edition) The Battle for the Equal Rights: 1848-1922, Musaicum Books. Kindle Edition. Chapter 15.

[5] Ibid, chapter 15.

[6] Dijkstra, Meindert 2001, “Women and Religion in the Old Testament”, Only one God? : monotheism in ancient Israel and the veneration of the goddess Asherah, Bob Becking editor. ; London ; New York : Sheffield Academic Press ; p181.

[7] Mutch, Alexa 2017, “Behind every great man there is a great woman”, Women in Antiquity, accessed 8/07/2021, https://womeninantiquity.wordpress.com/2017/04/02/olympias/

[8] Dijkstra, Meindert 2001, “Women and Religion in the Old Testament”, Only one God? : monotheism in ancient Israel and the veneration of the goddess Asherah, Bob Becking editor. ; London ; New York : Sheffield Academic Press ; p181.

[9] Dijkstra, Meindert 2001, “Women and Religion in the Old Testament”, Only one God? : monotheism in ancient Israel and the veneration of the goddess Asherah, Bob Becking editor. London ; New York : Sheffield Academic Press ; p182.

[10] Wilson, Andrew, “The Sexual Interpretation of the Human Fall”. Reprinted from: Unification Theology in Comparative Perspectives, edited by Anthony J. Guerra  - (New York: Unification Theological Seminary, 1988), 51-70; p5.

[11] Korpel, Mario C.A. 2001, “Asherah Outside Israel” Only one God? : monotheism in ancient Israel and the veneration of the goddess Asherah, Bob Becking editor. London ; New York : Sheffield Academic Press ; 2001; p141.

[12] Stanton, Elizabeth Cady (et. al.) 2017, The Complete History of the Suffragette Movement - All 6 Books in One Edition) The Battle for the Equal Rights: 1848-1922, Musaicum Books. Kindle Edition. Chapter 15.

[13] Korpel, Mario C.A. 2001, “Asherah Outside Israel” Only one God? : monotheism in ancient Israel and the veneration of the goddess Asherah, Bob Becking editor. London ; New York : Sheffield Academic Press ; 2001; p146.

[14] Ibid, pp135-136

[15] "And as regards Adam and Eve we must maintain that before the fall they were virgins in Paradise: but after they sinned, and were cast out of Paradise, they were immediately married." - St Jerome (c. 320-420) source: http://www.godrules.net/articles/earlychurch-on-sex.htm

[16] Justin Glenn, “Pandora and Eve: Sex as the Root of All Evil.” The Classical World, Nov., 1977, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Nov., 1977), pp. 179-185, Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press on behalf of the Classical Association of the Atlantic States; p180.

[17] Wilson, Andrew, “The Sexual Interpretation of the Human Fall”. Reprinted from: Unification Theology in Comparative Perspectives, edited by Anthony J. Guerra  - (New York: Unification Theological Seminary, 1988), 51-70; p5.

[18] Brauron, Wikipedia, accessed 8/07/2021, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brauron#Cult_of_Artemis_Brauronia

[19] McLeish, Kenneth 2003, The Greek Myths, Folio Society, Barcelona; pp.87-88.  

[20] Chaucer, Geoffrey, The Canterbury Tales: FREE Hamlet By William Shakespeare (JKL Classics - Active TOC, Active Footnotes ,Illustrated) (p. 478). JKL Classics. Kindle Edition.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Elliot, Cath 2008, “I’m not praying”, The Guardian, accessed 8/07/2021,  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2008/aug/19/gender.religion.