The Emasculators
How Women Rob Men of their Manhood
As we prepare to launch into the topic of birth control, we felt the need to pause and address the issue of effeminacy, a root cause condition underlying this issue, as well as several others we will be covering in our series on The Seven Deadly Sins of American Christianity. Chapters I, II, III, and IV of the present eBook, The (Ef)feminization of the Church: How American Christianity Lost Its Way by Losing Its Manhood, can be found here, here, here, and here.
Madam and Steve
In the beginning, God made man and woman with perfectly complimentary strengths and called this arrangement “very good,” a match literally made in heaven (Genesis 1:31, 2:18). Say what you will about the somewhat clunky term “complementarianism,” which has fallen on hard times of late, but it does convey at least this much: Men and women, though different, make quite the fit when acting true to form.1
When sin entered the picture, however, one of its first casualties was the natural harmony that exists between the sexes.2 As Paul underscores in Romans 1, when humans reject God as their Creator, gender roles are invariably upended. What once was effortlessly compatible becomes hopelessly incongruous. What once was a beautiful testimony becomes a bad joke.
For example, when confronted with the absurdity of so-called same-sex “marriage,” we conservative Christians, ever the witty lot, are keen to point out that “God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.” But the gender dysphoria that sin produces is actually far worse than that, creating a veritable “Madam and Steve” scenario, a complete, 180 degree gender role reversal that impacts both sexes to their core. How else would one describe a situation in which wayward women lead the way into sin while mediocre men follow along blithely to their destruction (Proverbs 7)?
Thus far in this series we have focused on effeminacy in prominent Biblical men. But this is by no means the whole story. After all, Adam had his Eve, Samson his Delilah, David his Bathsheba, and Solomon his foreign wives. Clearly, these women played integral roles in facilitating their partners’ downfalls. Effeminacy is never a solo crime. We are all its perpetrators, as well as its victims.
So what part do women play in fostering male effeminacy? And can women be effeminate too? Here, we will propose a new term for describing masculine women and illustrate this concept using insightful vignettes from the lives of four Biblical women: Miriam, Jezebel, and Deborah and Jael.
The emasculate woman
Before getting into the Biblical case studies, we have to establish what the role of women in effeminacy is not. In the course of doing this, we will repurpose an existing but underutilized term that encapsulates the idea we are attempting to convey.
Contrary to the claims of some,3 the Bible does not support the notion that women can be effeminate. This is because, properly understood, effeminacy is only applicable to men who act like women, not to women who act like men.4 Indeed, to claim that women can be effeminate is to lend credence to the very gender-bending category errors that got us all into this mess in the first place. Scripture never encourages women to “man up,” and even in instances where women may be called in a general sense to be courageous (1 Corinthians 16:13), they are expected to do so in distinctively feminine ways.5
The female counterpart to the soft, effeminate man, then, is not the soft, feminine woman, for that is precisely God’s design for the “fairer sex.” Rather, the female counterpart to effeminacy is the hardened, masculine woman who refuses to function in her natural, God-given capacities. Scripture consistently and unequivocally condemns such unnatural blending of the sexes as a grossly disordered evil (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10).
The Apostle Paul powerfully captures the two-way dynamic of male-female gender role swaps, placing humanity’s rejection of proper sexual categories downstream of its rejection of God Himself (Romans 1:24–27, emphasis mine):
“Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever! Amen.
For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
Womanly men and manly women; both alike are an abomination to the Lord (Leviticus 20:13; cf. Proverbs 17:15). As with men who “go soft,” women who “go hard,” adopting male traits in exchange for their God-ordained female traits, severely distort their innate, feminine constitution and blaspheme the God who made them in His image (Genesis 1:27).
And this brings us to a glaring gap in our terminology in these discussions, namely, the absence of an appropriate, agreed upon term for the masculine woman, the linguistic counterpart to the effeminate man.
Etymologically, the word “effeminate” is derived from the assimilated form of the Latin prefix ex (i.e., “ef”), meaning “out,” and femina, meaning “female.”6 Interestingly, there is related English word that shares an almost identical derivation, only it is based on a modification of the opposite gender: “emasculate,” from the assimilated form of ex (i.e., “em”) and masculus, “male,” which combined mean “to deprive of the male functions, deprive of virility or procreative power.”7 Although in its verb form “emasculate” denotes something adjacent to “effeminate,” namely, a literal or figurative neutering of male traits, if we use this word as an adjective, and tweak the pronunciation a tad, then, voilà, we have found our term: emasculate (i-ˈma-skyə-lət): having male qualities untypical of a woman: not womanly in appearance or manner.8
Using the term “emasculate,” rather than “effeminate,” to describe the masculine woman has at least four benefits:
As mentioned above, “emasculate” is the linguistic equivalent of “effeminate,” and so constitutes a formally appropriate designation.
It can function as a term of art for the concept of the “manly woman” while avoiding the informality and derogatory connotations of slang terms like “tomboy” and the various epithets associated with lesbianism.9
The adjective form of “emasculate” already exists, thus avoiding the need for coining a neologism.
Some might claim that since the adjective form of “emasculate” can be used of men as a synonym for “effeminate,”10 it is an inappropriate term for women. However, “emasculate” is nearly always used in its verb form (i.e., “to castrate”), and since male emasculation is a primary calling card of the masculine woman, the adjective form of “emasculate” is an especially fitting label for such individuals.
With this terminology in mind, let’s turn now to some prominent examples of the emasculate woman in the scriptures to find out how this phenomenon works in practical terms.
Mary, Mary, quite contrary
Have you ever found yourself griping about your boss, political leaders, or other authority figures in your life? Of course you have.11
The fact is, when things are going well, our leaders appear to us to be stable geniuses,12 but when things are going poorly, utter nincompoops. “Is this the best we can do? Even I could do a better job at running this place. Who does this guy think he is? He’s no better than the rest of us.”13
The forty years of desert wandering were not particularly pleasant ones for the Israelites. The people were out of sorts and unsettled (Numbers 9:15–23) and the surrounding environs were, shall we say, less than hospitable (Deuteronomy 8:15). These were trying circumstances, even for the saintliest of God’s people (Deuteronomy 8:2).
It’s no wonder, then, that the people frequently complained about their leaders during this period (Exodus 5:20, 21, 14:11, 12, 15:23, 24 16:2, 3, 17:1–3, 32:1; Numbers 11:1, 14:2–4, 10, 16:41, 42, 17:5, 10, 20:2–5, 21:4, 5). Indeed, at times even the leaders complained about their leaders (Numbers 12:1, 2; Numbers 16:1–14). And the leader at the top of the chain, receiving the brunt of these criticisms, was none other than Moses himself.14
You have to feel for Moses. His was often a most unenviable task. Can you imagine dealing with over two million “hangry”15 people all at once (Exodus 16:2, 3)? To get some idea of what that would be like, think of waiting on 200,000 parties of ten at Cracker Barrel during a Sunday after church lunch rush with an empty kitchen and legions of high-strung Karens requesting to speak with your manager (Exodus 16:2, 3).
One of the few ways one could possibly make a predicament like this worse would be to toss in a good old-fashioned family feud. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened to Moses when his elder siblings Miriam and Aaron decided it was finally time to take their little brother down a notch or two (Numbers 12):
“Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married, for he had married a Cushite woman. And they said, ‘Has the LORD indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us also?’ And the LORD heard it. Now the man Moses was very meek, more than all people who were on the face of the earth. And suddenly the LORD said to Moses and to Aaron and Miriam, ‘Come out, you three, to the tent of meeting.’ And the three of them came out. And the LORD came down in a pillar of cloud and stood at the entrance of the tent and called Aaron and Miriam, and they both came forward. And He said, ‘Hear My words: If there is a prophet among you, I the LORD make Myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. Not so with My servant Moses. He is faithful in all My house. With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the LORD. Why then were you not afraid to speak against My servant Moses?’ And the anger of the LORD was kindled against them, and He departed.
When the cloud removed from over the tent, behold, Miriam was leprous, like snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous. And Aaron said to Moses, ‘Oh, my lord, do not punish us because we have done foolishly and have sinned. Let her not be as one dead, whose flesh is half eaten away when he comes out of his mother’s womb.’ And Moses cried to the LORD, ‘O God, please heal her—please.’ But the LORD said to Moses, ‘If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be shamed seven days? Let her be shut outside the camp seven days, and after that she may be brought in again.’ So Miriam was shut outside the camp seven days, and the people did not set out on the march till Miriam was brought in again. After that the people set out from Hazeroth, and camped in the wilderness of Paran.”
Quite the unforgettable episode, and one that God would use as an object lesson in subsequent warnings to His rebellious people (Deuteronomy 24:8, 9).
But did you notice something interesting about how God chose to mete out His punishment? Although it was “Miriam and Aaron” who “spoke against Moses” (Numbers 12:1) and “the anger of the LORD was kindled against them” (verse 9, emphasis mine), God afflicted Miriam alone with leprosy, and not Aaron.
Why is that?
It may be that Miriam was the primary agitator, since she is mentioned first among the complainers (Numbers 12:1). But if that were the case then we would expect Aaron to receive a less severe punishment compared to Miriam’s, rather than no punishment at all.
There is likely something else going on here, something that would not have escaped the notice of the initial eyewitnesses of this story, living as they did in a thoroughly patriarchal society. Although Miriam was a recognized prophetess (Exodus 15:20), Moses and Aaron’s older sister (ibid.), a prominent member of the Exodus generation (Numbers 20:1), and one of the women whom God used to save Moses’ very life in infancy (Exodus 2:1–10), her challenge to Moses’ authority was out of line in a manner that Aaron’s insubordination could not touch since she, as a woman, presumed to speak out against God’s chosen man (Exodus 3, 4).
And yes, it does matter that Moses was God’s chosen man, the male leader whom God had chosen as His highest ranking spokesperson at that hour of Israel’s history. Although this may come across as terribly “sexist” to the modern American mind, God uniformly reserves positions of authority in the civil and ecclesiastical realms for men and men alone. Israel was ruled by kings, not queens16 (1 and 2 Samuel; 1 and 2 Kings; 1 and 2 Chronicles), its clergy run by priests, not priestesses (Exodus 28:1, 29:9; Numbers 18:7; etc.).
This is not merely an outdated, Bronze age cultural vestige, for Christ Himself appointed only male Apostles (Matthew 10:2–4; Mark 3:14–19; Luke 6:13–16; Acts 1:12–26), who in turn expressly forbade women from teaching and exercising authority in the Church (1 Timothy 2:12).17 Although women do exercise authority as parents within the realm of the family, the wife’s authority must always be exercised under the headship of her husband (Ephesians 5:22–24; Titus 2:5).
Like it or not, there is simply no getting around this set up, since it is built into the very fabric of creation (Matthew 19:4, 5; Mark 10:6, 7; 1 Corinthians 11:3, 7–9). When we reject this order, we reject the Creator who ordered it (Genesis 1, 2; 1 Corinthians 14:26–40) and invite the chaos that ensues.
Yes, Miriam prophesied (Exodus 15:20, 21; Numbers 12:2, 6), but not on a level approaching that of Moses, the greatest prophet Israel had known prior to the coming of Messiah (Deuteronomy 18:15, 18, 19, 34:10–12). The fact that she dared to question Moses’ God-given authority in God’s very hearing (Numbers 12:2; cf. Numbers 11:1) was nothing less than an audacious slap in God’s face. For her grave insolence, God publicly disgraced Miriam as a father would shame his rebellious daughter (Numbers 12:14, 15).
As is typical of the emasculate woman, Miriam had grown too big for her own sandals, and when she got out of line, God put her in her place. No, not “barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen,”18 though these are all perfectly wonderful things in and of themselves. Rather, God placed Miriam firmly back into her proper created station, her noble, glorious female lane (Titus 2:3–5, etc.) which she, like all fallen women, was wont to transgress (Genesis 3:16; Jude 1:6).
In doing so, God was not picking on Miriam, much less women in general. The Bible consistently treats insubordination—whether of children against parents (Exodus 20:12; Deuteronomy 21:18–21; Ephesians 6:1–3), women against men (Deuteronomy 25:11, 12; Ephesians 5:22), or men and women against God and His appointed authorities (Numbers 16; Romans 13:1, 2; 1 Timothy 6:1; Jude 8–10)—with the utmost seriousness. And it’s no wonder why, for if everyone suddenly abandoned all deference to authority and embraced a kind of anarcho-tyranny, what exactly would that leave us with? Utter lawlessness, that’s what (2 Thessalonians 2:7). Just ask Satan and his minions, the ultimate examples of unhinged, non serviam rebellion (Matthew 25:41).
Contrast Miriam’s flippant attitude toward authority on this occasion with that of her New Testament namesake, Mary,19 the mother of Jesus, whose humble submission to God’s authoritative announcement remains an exemplar of godly womanhood for all generations (Luke 1:35, 36, 38):
“And the angel [Gabriel] answered her [i.e., Mary], ‘The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you; therefore the child to be born will be called holy—the Son of God.’ […] And Mary said, ‘Behold, I am the servant of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.’ And the angel departed from her.”
In response to these awesome developments, Mary, like Miriam before her, would later burst forth into Spirit-inspired prophetic verse, proclaiming the mighty acts of God (Luke 1:46–55; cf. Acts 1:14, 2:4, 11). Mary understood her place in the great chain of being. She knew the buck stopped with God. And so, when confronted with a bewildering revelation from God’s appointed messenger, she submitted to it “promptly and sincerely,” to borrow a phrase from Calvin.20
When women chafe under the godly male leaders that God has placed over them, refusing to submit to them for their own good, they flail futilely against the very means of their fruitfulness in God (1 Timothy 2:11–15):
“A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love, and holiness with propriety.”
These may not be politically correct words, but they are correct. Miriam’s story is a reminder to all of us, both men and women, that rebellion against God’s good design for authority and submission among the sexes is as degrading of human dignity as leprosy is of the human body.
Is there any hope for those of us who, for a time, go the way of lady folly (Proverbs 9)? The account of Miriam’s leprosy indicates, however subtly, that the answer is “Yes.” As the preacher once noted, “The end of a matter is better than its beginning” (Ecclesiastes 7:8).
Let’s not overlook the fact that this narrative concludes with Miriam quietly resuming fellowship with God and His people after her seven-day exile outside the camp (Numbers 12:15). Apparently, God healed Miriam of her uncleanness just as He had earlier healed Moses of his temporary case of leprosy (Exodus 4:6, 7). But make no mistake about it, God did not heal Miriam because she deserved it, but rather because He heard Moses’ intercessory cry for healing on her behalf (Numbers 12:15; cf. Exodus 32:30–35, Deuteronomy 9:25–29).21 In other words, for Moses’ sake, because of his great humility (Numbers 12:3) and faithfulness in all God’s house (Hebrews 3:5), God was pleased to have mercy on his sister.
Sound familiar, Christian?
If you have been kicking against the goads of the rightful authorities that God has placed in your life, especially the good men that God has set over you women, then resolve today to cease your grumbling and instead cry out to the only mediator that God will hear on your behalf: the man, Christ Jesus (1 Timothy 2:5), in whom the Father was well pleased (Matthew 3:17, 12:18, 17:5; Mark 1:11, 9:7; Luke 3:22). “Therefore He [i.e., Jesus] is able to save completely those who come to God through Him, because He always lives to intercede for them” (Hebrews 7:25).
It is perhaps no coincidence that the names “Miriam” and “Mary” can mean two very different things: “sea of bitterness” and “rebellion” on the one hand, and “wished for child” and “beloved” on the other hand.22
I wonder, woman of God, which of these “Marys” describes you?
Come to Jesus Miriam, bitter, storm-tossed sister, and He will give you a new and better name: Mary, the handmaid of the Lord.
That woman Jezebel
At the beginning of the book of Revelation we find the ever timely letters to the seven churches of Asia Minor. These epistles are unique in that they were dictated directly to the Apostle John by Christ Himself. In the letter to the church at Thyatira we find the Lord rebuking this church for its toleration of a certain seductress that He refers to simply as “that woman Jezebel” (Revelation 2:18–23, emphasis mine):
“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.
I know your works, your love and faith and service and patient endurance, and that your latter works exceed the first. 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. I gave her time to repent, but she refuses to repent of her sexual immorality. Behold, I will throw her onto a sickbed, and those who commit adultery with her I will throw into great tribulation, unless they repent of her works, and I will strike her children dead. And all the churches will know that I am He who searches mind and heart, and I will give to each of you according to your works.’”
Let’s pause for a moment to let those words sink in. Jesus judges Christians who refuse to repent of sexual immorality by making them sick, causing them to suffer great trouble, and striking them dead. Is there room in your conception of Jesus for such severe disciplinary measures as these (Luke 12:47, 48; Acts 5:1-11; 1 Corinthians 5:5, 11:29, 30; Hebrews 12:5)? If not, is it really Jesus that you serve, or just a pale imitation?
This question is extremely pertinent to the subject at hand, for at the heart of this woman’s behavior was the sin of idolatry, the worship of a god of her own imagination (Psalm 115:4; Isaiah 37:19; Jeremiah 16:20; Romans 1:21; Galatians 4:8)—or belly, as it were (Philippians 3:19)—rather than the God who is actually there.
We know this in part because the God who really exists, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, has spoken definitively on the subjects of idolatry (e.g., Exodus 20:3–6, 1 John 5:21, etc.) and sexual immorality (e.g., Exodus 20:14, Matthew 5:27–32, etc.), condemning them root and branch. Conveniently, however, the gods of our own making tend to punt on such matters, leaving them up to our personal preferences. Idolatry, therefore, is the necessary logical antecedent of sexual immorality, especially adultery. Unfaithfulness to our spouses is always preceded by unfaithfulness to God.23
Because this “Jezebel” character called herself a Christian prophetess, while at the same time luring those under her spell into unrepentant sexual sin and idolatry, she proved beyond a shadow of a doubt to be a false prophetess and a teacher of rebellion to God’s people (Deuteronomy 13:1–5). Sexual immorality, false worship, and false prophets are a package deal; they are, practically and historically speaking, inseparable.
Perhaps no other person in the Bible demonstrates this truth better than the woman Jezebel herself, the infamous heathen queen to King Ahab, Israel’s most evil ruler (1 Kings 16:30–33, emphasis mine):
“And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD, more than all who were before him. 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. He erected an altar for Baal in the house of Baal, which he built in Samaria. 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.”
As this passage indicates, Jezebel is best known for bringing Baal worship from her native Sidon into the northern kingdom of Israel.24 As one might expect given the pattern we’ve established above, the worship of Baal, a fertility god,25 involved, you guessed it, sexual immorality.26 Ironically, this brand of debased sexual worship served as a fitting symbol for those Israelites who chose to leave their covenant LORD for another lover, as they had done previously at the incident of Baal at Peor (Numbers 25).
So misguided was Jezebel’s zeal to advance the cult of her homeland that she even resorted to persecuting Israel’s true prophets and replacing them with false prophets of Baal (1 Kings 18:1–40; cf. Galatians 1:13, 14). As the prophet Elijah made crystal clear, God’s people were given a stark, either-or choice under the reign of Ahab and Jezebel: Either “go along to get along” by serving Baal or suffer persecution by serving the LORD (1 Kings 18:21). There was no middle ground.
Because of her high rebellion and opposition to all things good and holy, the name “Jezebel” has become synonymous with the emasculate, wantonly wicked woman, for which she serves as the Biblical archetype. This is precisely why Jesus dubbed the troubler of Thyatira (cf. 1 Kings 18:17, 18) “Jezebel,” and it is why we too must call out the “Jezebels” in our churches today.
Feminists are fond of telling us that “well-behaved women seldom make history.”27 In Jezebel’s case they may actually be on to something, for when it came to inappropriately inserting herself in the affairs of men and exacerbating male effeminacy, Jezebel’s track record was truly historic. A case in point is the scandal of Naboth’s vineyard, or “Vineyardgate” as we today might call it (1 Kings 21:1–16):
“Now Naboth the Jezreelite had a vineyard in Jezreel, beside the palace of Ahab king of Samaria. And after this Ahab said to Naboth, ‘Give me your vineyard, that I may have it for a vegetable garden, because it is near my house, and I will give you a better vineyard for it; or, if it seems good to you, I will give you its value in money.’ But Naboth said to Ahab, ‘The Lord forbid that I should give you the inheritance of my fathers.’ And Ahab went into his house vexed and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him, for he had said, ‘I will not give you the inheritance of my fathers.’ And he lay down on his bed and turned away his face and would eat no food.
But Jezebel his wife came to him and said to him, ‘Why is your spirit so vexed that you eat no food?’ 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.’’ 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.’
So she wrote letters in Ahab's name and sealed them with his seal, and she sent the letters to the elders and the leaders who lived with Naboth in his city. And she wrote in the letters, ‘Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth at the head of the people. And set two worthless men opposite him, and let them bring a charge against him, saying, ‘You have cursed God and the king.’ Then take him out and stone him to death.’ And the men of his city, the elders and the leaders who lived in his city, did as Jezebel had sent word to them. As it was written in the letters that she had sent to them, they proclaimed a fast and set Naboth at the head of the people. And the two worthless men came in and sat opposite him. And the worthless men brought a charge against Naboth in the presence of the people, saying, ‘Naboth cursed God and the king.’ So they took him outside the city and stoned him to death with stones. Then they sent to Jezebel, saying, ‘Naboth has been stoned; he is dead.’
As soon as Jezebel heard that Naboth had been stoned and was dead, Jezebel said to Ahab, ‘Arise, take possession of the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, which he refused to give you for money, for Naboth is not alive, but dead.’ And as soon as Ahab heard that Naboth was dead, Ahab arose to go down to the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite, to take possession of it.”
Yes, that Jezebel was a real go-getter—when it came to going to get other people’s property—displaying true initiative—to sin, that is.
Obviously, the feminists have gotten this woman all wrong. Jezebel was a villain par excellence, and no hero. She had precisely zero redeeming qualities and is in no way worthy of emulation, much less celebration. What we have in this women is a cruel, calculating crook with calluses on her heart and ice-cold blood in her veins.
It appears she thought very little of stealing her husband’s rightful authority in order to filch her neighbor’s rightful inheritance, putting Naboth’s descendants at risk of utter destitution (Numbers 27:1–11, Deuteronomy 19:14, etc.). Whereas your garden variety nag would have merely marched into Ahab’s bedroom and yelled something to the effect of “Snap out of it!” or “Quit your moping!” Jezebel, not to be outdone, both indulged her husband’s pity party and transgressed several of God’s commandments in so doing (Exodus 20:13, 15–17).
You go girl. Way to “woman up.”
Clearly, there are all manner of gender inversions occurring in this account: The passive husband pouting like a spoiled child who didn’t get his way; the brash wife brazenly violating conventional norms in her refusal to take “No” for an answer. The whole thing reads like a bad 90s sitcom, complete with the inept husband and his intrepid wife.
It’s obvious who wore the proverbial pants in this relationship. The apostate King Ahab, rendered weak and ineffectual by his unprecedent deep dive into depravity (1 Kings 16:33, 21:25, 26), embodies the hapless mockery of a man that effeminacy produces when given sufficient time and opportunity. It is no wonder, then, that his wife often walked right over him, for as we have noted previously, “behind every feminist is an effeminate enabler.”28
Likewise Jezebel, who played no small role in egging on her husband’s effeminacy, proves the converse of this statement, namely, that “behind every effeminate is an emasculate enabler,” plying her trade at the opposite end of the vicious circle.29
Folks, this is not the way. In fact, it’s all sorts of wrong and we all know it.
The Bible shows us a better way for husbands and wives to relate, and it stands in stark contrast to the disordered disaster that was the forbidden union of Ahab and Jezebel (1 Peter 3:1–7):
“Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, when they see your respectful and pure conduct. Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear30—but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.
Likewise, husbands, live with your wives in an understanding way, showing honor to the woman as the weaker vessel, since they are heirs with you of the grace of life, so that your prayers may not be hindered.”
The world and indeed even the Church have more than their fair share of sassy, assertive women grasping for power wherever the boys seem unwilling or unable to get their acts together and properly exercise it.
Enough of this.
No more “Mess and Moxie” and girls washing their faces.31 The men surely have their issues, as we have gone to great lengths to demonstrate, but women who adopt this tack are only making a bad situation worse.
In the end, Jezebel, whose name means “not exalted,”32 was humiliated for her many presumptions, brought low by a short fall from a high window (2 Kings 9:32, 33). So it will be with every woman who exalts herself beyond her assigned place (Luke 14:7–11).33
May God’s people take note of the sins of Jezebel and turn from them while there is still time (Revelation 2:21). Great testing and tribulation are at hand (Daniel 12:1; Matthew 24:21, 22, 29; 2 Thessalonians 2:1–3; 2 Timothy 3:1, 12, 13; Revelation 7:14; etc.), and Christ’s judgment will not tarry forever (Hebrews 10:35–39):
“Therefore do not throw away your confidence [in the midst of persecution],34 which has a great reward. For you have need of endurance, so that when you have done the will of God you may receive what is promised. For,
‘Yet a little while,
and the coming One will come and will not delay;
but my righteous one shall live by faith,
and if he shrinks back,
my soul has no pleasure in him.’But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who have faith and preserve their souls.”
Amen and amen.
Leading ladies
Let’s not beat around the bush regarding one of the major takeaways from the stories we’ve been examining here. As mentioned previously, both the Bible and nature show us that leadership is unbecoming of women in the spheres of the government and the Church, and even in the home, a wife must only lead her children under the leadership of her husband, the pater familias.
Label that what you will and call us what you may, but at the end of the day, this is just the way it is in the world God created, and no amount of name calling or women’s studies “research” is going to change that. Even those who deny these truths with their mouths often affirm them with their actions.
Having said all this, don’t misunderstand what we are claiming here. It is not that women cannot lead in these arenas, nor even that under certain circumstances they may do a better job leading overall compared to their contemporary male counterparts. The point is that even in such rare instances as these, what we are witnessing are not trailblazers shattering the “glass ceiling,” but rather suboptimal exceptions that prove the rule.
So when we encounter the occasional female leader in the Bible, we must not conclude that such cases are normative in God’s design, nor even that women ought to lead more often but are prevented from doing so by patriarchal systems of oppression. As others have pointed out in recent years, this narrative is a shallow, ideologically-driven reading of history and human nature if ever there was one.35
We can demonstrate this principle paradigmatically with a final Biblical case study that is sometimes misconstrued as a shining example of Biblical “girl power,” when it is anything but: the story of Deborah, Barak, and Jael recorded in Judges 4.
As we have earlier noted,36 the period of the judges was a mostly chaotic, moral and religious free-for-all, a time in which there was no universally recognized king, divine or otherwise, to consolidate power and maintain order in Israel: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Judges 17:6, 21:25).
It should come as no surprise, then, that we should discover in this leadership vacuum two leading ladies assuming national center stage, performing tasks typical of men because the man who ought to have performed them suffered from stage fright, and opted instead for a supporting role (Judges 4):
“And the people of Israel again did what was evil in the sight of the Lord after Ehud died. And the Lord sold them into the hand of Jabin king of Canaan, who reigned in Hazor. The commander of his army was Sisera, who lived in Harosheth-hagoyim. Then the people of Israel cried out to the Lord for help, for he had 900 chariots of iron and he oppressed the people of Israel cruelly for twenty years.
Now Deborah, a prophetess, the wife of Lappidoth, was judging Israel at that time. She used to sit under the palm of Deborah between Ramah and Bethel in the hill country of Ephraim, and the people of Israel came up to her for judgment. She sent and summoned Barak the son of Abinoam from Kedesh-naphtali and said to him, ‘Has not the Lord, the God of Israel, commanded you, ‘Go, gather your men at Mount Tabor, taking 10,000 from the people of Naphtali and the people of Zebulun. And I will draw out Sisera, the general of Jabin's army, to meet you by the river Kishon with his chariots and his troops, and I will give him into your hand’?’ Barak said to her, ‘If you will go with me, I will go, but if you will not go with me, I will not go.’ And she said, ‘I will surely go with you. Nevertheless, the road on which you are going will not lead to your glory, for the Lord will sell Sisera into the hand of a woman.’ Then Deborah arose and went with Barak to Kedesh. And Barak called out Zebulun and Naphtali to Kedesh. And 10,000 men went up at his heels, and Deborah went up with him.
Now Heber the Kenite had separated from the Kenites, the descendants of Hobab the father-in-law of Moses, and had pitched his tent as far away as the oak in Zaanannim, which is near Kedesh.
When Sisera was told that Barak the son of Abinoam had gone up to Mount Tabor, Sisera called out all his chariots, 900 chariots of iron, and all the men who were with him, from Harosheth-hagoyim to the river Kishon. And Deborah said to Barak, ‘Up! For this is the day in which the Lord has given Sisera into your hand. Does not the Lord go out before you?’ So Barak went down from Mount Tabor with 10,000 men following him. And the Lord routed Sisera and all his chariots and all his army before Barak by the edge of the sword. And Sisera got down from his chariot and fled away on foot. And Barak pursued the chariots and the army to Harosheth-hagoyim, and all the army of Sisera fell by the edge of the sword; not a man was left.
But Sisera fled away on foot to the tent of Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, for there was peace between Jabin the king of Hazor and the house of Heber the Kenite. And Jael came out to meet Sisera and said to him, ‘Turn aside, my lord; turn aside to me; do not be afraid.’ So he turned aside to her into the tent, and she covered him with a rug. And he said to her, ‘Please give me a little water to drink, for I am thirsty.’ So she opened a skin of milk and gave him a drink and covered him. And he said to her, ‘Stand at the opening of the tent, and if any man comes and asks you, ‘Is anyone here?’ say, ‘No.’’ But Jael the wife of Heber took a tent peg, and took a hammer in her hand. Then she went softly to him and drove the peg into his temple until it went down into the ground while he was lying fast asleep from weariness. So he died. And behold, as Barak was pursuing Sisera, Jael went out to meet him and said to him, ‘Come, and I will show you the man whom you are seeking.’ So he went in to her tent, and there lay Sisera dead, with the tent peg in his temple.
So on that day God subdued Jabin the king of Canaan before the people of Israel. And the hand of the people of Israel pressed harder and harder against Jabin the king of Canaan, until they destroyed Jabin king of Canaan.”
In context, we see that Sisera’s demise at the hands of Jael had less to do with her combat prowess and more to do with Barak’s cowardice. We mustn't think of Jael as a predecessor of Xena, warrior princess, for though she was responsible for slaying the enemy, she did so by means of feminine cunning rather than masculine strength.
While Deborah and Jael’s willingness to assume risks ordinarily reserved for men is commendable, they would never have been forced into taking such risks in the first place had Barak simply embraced his obligations as a man from the outset. For his dereliction of duty, Barak forfeited the glory that would otherwise have been his to a woman, a fitting judgment for a man who would only obey his marching orders if a woman held his hand to the frontlines.
Some, seeking to impose modern, extra-Biblical ideologies onto the ancient scriptures, seize on this story as proof that “anything boys can do, girls can do better.” Others may even be tempted to claim that the Bible presents Deborah and Jael as examples of what women’s roles can and should look like in an enlightened, egalitarian society. In a purely descriptive sense37 there is of course a grain of truth to this, for societies that seek to eliminate gender uniqueness always produce lackluster men who cede their responsibilities to women.
Far from representing idealized “girlbosses” for Christian women to aspire to, Deborah and Jael show us that God sometimes resorts to stand-up gals to pick up the slack and shame the guys into stepping up to answer the call of God on their lives.
Yes, national leaders have been known to turn to women and children for help from time to time when competent leadership is sorely lacking, but this is a sign of decline, not progress (Isaiah 3:12): “Youths oppress My people, and women rule over them. O My people, your guides mislead you; they turn you from your paths.” For ample evidence of this in our own day, look no further than the likes of “the Squad”38 or Greta “How dare you!” Thunberg.39
When will the gun-shy Baraks in our ranks repent of their indecisiveness and relieve our women of their unseemly combat roles? Has our masculine glory all but departed (1 Samuel 4:21)?
May the glory of both men and women return to its proper post (Proverbs 20:29; 1 Corinthians 11:7) as we all behold the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18, 4:6), the ultimate answer to the effeminate man and emasculate woman alike.
Come, Lord Jesus.
Jesus saves (from effeminacy)
We have examined in detail numerous Biblical examples of what it looks like to fail as man or woman created in the image of God. But what does it look like to be a fully-formed, true-blue, through and through man of God? It is time to shift our focus from the effeminate man and his emasculate accomplice to the ultimate example of masculine virtue: Christ Jesus Himself. We will see that Jesus absolutely shattered the mold of the old man in Adam, ushering in nothing short of a new creation for all men and women who look to Him in obedient faith. This is what we’ve been waiting for. This is what this entire series has been building up to. You will not want to miss out on the next installment of the League of Believers.
Thanks for reading the League of Believers.
We are committed to offering this newsletter in its entirety completely free of cost. If you have not yet subscribed, you can support this free newsletter by becoming a subscriber using the button below.
You can also support this ministry by sharing this newsletter with friends or family that may profit from it.
As always, we would love to hear your feedback, including prayer requests, in the comments section below or through emails to:
garrettpleague@proton.me
Want to print this article or read it on your e-reader device? We’ve got you covered. Click the “Download” button below for an easy-to-print, downloadable PDF file containing this edition of the newsletter.
John Milton’s description of the differences between men and women, as typified in Adam and Eve, is unsurpassed (Paradise Lost, Book 4, lines 288–299:
“Two of far nobler shape erect and tall,
Godlike erect, with native Honour clad
In naked Majestie seemd Lords of all,
And worthie seemd, for in thir looks Divine
The image of thir glorious Maker shon,
Truth, wisdome, Sanctitude severe and pure,
Severe but in true filial freedom plac't;
Whence true autority in men; though both
Not equal, as thir sex not equal seemd;
For contemplation hee and valour formd,
For softness shee and sweet attractive Grace,
Hee for God only, shee for God in him”
For more on this topic, see “The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part I).”
Steven Wedgeworth, “What Is Effeminacy? A Survey of Scripture and History,” Desiring God.
This is not at all to suggest that women cannot succumb to sin in moments of weakness, especially when living in times of decadent ease and prosperity (Amos 4:1):
“Hear this word, you cows of Bashan, who are on the mountain of Samaria, who oppress the poor, who crush the needy, who say to your husbands, ‘Bring, that we may drink!’”
Nor is it to suggest that women play no role in facilitating effeminacy in men, as we will demonstrate here. Though men bear the primary responsibility for effeminacy, women are certainly capable of aiding and abetting it, often in service of their own evil ends (see “The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part I)”).
For example, a brave Christian woman is not supposed to prove her bravery through acts of valor on the battlefield, but rather by submitting to her flawed, perhaps even unbelieving husband, trusting that God will lead him to salvation through her example (1 Peter 3:1). Likewise, a tender, compassionate Christian man (Ephesians 4:32) does not express his tenderness by gently nursing an infant child, but rather by correcting and restoring a sinning brother in a spirit of Christ-like humility (Galatians 6:1).
“Effeminate (adj.),” Online Etymology Dictionary.
“Emasculate (v.),” Online Etymology Dictionary.
This definition is the gender inverse of the first definition under the Merriam-Webster dictionary entry for the adjective form of “effeminate.” For the proper pronunciation of this term, see the entry for the adjective form of “emasculate.”
This sinful behavior should be understood as a particular, though by no means necessary sexual manifestation of emasculacy, which can be defined as the state or quality of being emasculate, just as effeminacy is “the state or quality of being effeminate” (“Effeminacy,” Dictionary.com).
“Emasculate,” Dictionary.com.
Although the Bible warns against badmouthing our leaders (Ecclesiastes 10:20), so common is this human tendency that the scriptures also warn against taking such criticisms to heart when they are aimed at oneself (Ecclesiastes 7:21, 22).
Famously, president Donald Trump once referred to himself as a “stable genius.”
Typically, sentiments like these do not represent a humble, accurate assessment of our leaders, but rather a contemptuous cutting down to size of those whom God has placed over us (Romans 13:1-7). This is one of many reasons why God warned Israel (Deuteronomy 7:7, 9:5), Israel’s kings (Deuteronomy 17:18–20), and all believers against thinking more highly of themselves than they ought to (Romans 12:3).
Of course, as Moses noted, complaints directed at him were ultimately aimed at the God whom he represented (Exodus 16:8):
“And Moses added, ‘The LORD will give you meat to eat this evening and bread to fill you in the morning, for He has heard your grumbling against Him. Who are we? Your grumblings are not against us but against the LORD.’”
“Hangry” is slang term that combines the words “hungry” and “angry” and refers to the cranky mood that people fall into when they are overdue for a meal.
The only queen to rule either the northern kingdom of Israel or the southern kingdom of Judah was Athalia, a murderous usurper who was eventually deposed by Jehoiada the priest to install the rightful heir to the throne, King Joash (2 Kings 11; 2 Chronicles 22, 23).
The Bible permits women to teach children (Deuteronomy 6:7, 11:19) and younger women (Titus 2:4, 5).
This is a common strawman that feminists attack when confronted with arguments in support of traditional women’s roles in the home. Though this framing of the traditional viewpoint is indeed a caricature, we would hasten to add that the Bible does advocate for childrearing and homemaking as profoundly meaningful, deeply fulfilling, and absolutely essential female callings (Genesis 1:28, 9:1, 7; 1 Timothy 2:15; Titus 2:5).
“Mary,” derived from “Maryum,” is the Aramaic equivalent of the Old Testament Hebrew name “Miriam,” or “Myriam.”
John Calvin’s motto was “Cor meum tibi offero, Domine, prompte et sincere,” “My heart I offer to you, O Lord, promptly and sincerely.”
It should be noted that Aaron also repented and implored Moses to pray for Miriam’s healing (Numbers 12:10–12).
“Hebrew word of the week: Miriam,” Jewish Journal; “Miriam,” The Bump; “Mary,” ibid.
Could it be that these two meanings correspond to the attributes of Miriam of the Old Testament and Mary of the New Testament (e.g., Galatians 4:21–27), the former a onetime slave born into bitter bondage and the latter the bearer of the “long-expected Jesus,” the Redeemer on whom the nations set their hope (Isaiah 11:10; Jeremiah 17:3; Luke 2:25, 26; Romans 15:12; Acts 28:20)?
For more on the theme of idolatry as spiritual adultery, see chapter VII “Be Reconciled to God” in Adulterating Marriage.
Israel had already been steeped in idolatry since the time of its founding under King Jeroboam I (1 Kings 12:25–33).
Typically, this took the form of ritual prostitution (“The Worship of Baal,” Bible History).
This saying is attributed to the former Harvard professor and feminist scholar Laurel Thatcher Ulrich. Incidentally, Jezebel is routinely and unironically lauded by modern-day feminists as a symbol of feminine power. Apparently these women have not read of Jezebel’s grisly demise, or, having read it, simply chalked it up to Jehu’s raging misogyny (2 Kings 9:30–37).
See “The testing of Adam” in “The (Ef)feminization of the Church (Part I).”
Instead of encouraging Ahab to follow God and His commandments with all his heart, Jezebel’s paganism served to divide her husband’s heart, just as God had warned concerning intermarriage with foreign women (1 Kings 11:2).
It just so happens that Jezebel is the first woman mentioned in the scripture as wearing makeup, doing herself up just prior to her gruesome execution (2 Kings 9:30–33). Although her appearance is not described, one gets the distinct impression that her makeup was anything but subtle. If Helen of Troy possessed “the face that launched a thousand ships,” then Jezebel’s gaudy visage would likley have sunk each one.
Taken from the titles of Jen Hatmaker’s book Of Mess and Moxie: Wrangling Delight Out of This Wild and Glorious Life and Rachel Hollis’ bestseller Girl, Wash Your Face: Stop Believing the Lies About Who You Are So You Can Become Who You Were Meant to Be. To merely read the titles of these insipid self-help books is to elicit the gag reflex.
“Jezebel,” Nameberry.com.
Alternatively, Jezebel may mean “[the god] Baal exalts” (“Jezebel,” Behind the Name), in which case the interpretation would be the same: Just as Gideon, aka “Jerubbaal” (“contender with Baal” or “let Baal contend”), tore down an altar to Baal (Judges 6:25–32), God will see to it that any proud individual whom Baal supposedly exalts will be toppled over in humiliation like the very idol he or she worships (1 Samuel 5:1–5).
Again, if this claim sounds misogynistic to you, know that it applies equally to men as well as women, for God is no respecter of persons (Deuteronomy 10:17; Acts 10:34; Romans 2:11; Galatians 3:28; etc.). Indeed, Christ taught that “Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted” (Matthew 23:12, emphasis mine), a precept that applies to all people.
For example, contrast King David, who refused to promote himself to the office of king (1 Samuel 24:4–7, 15, 26:7–11, 23, 24), and was therefore promoted by God (Psalm 75:6, 7; 1 Samuel 31; 2 Samuel 2–5), with “King” Adonijah, who “exalted himself, saying, ‘I will be king’” (1 Kings 1:5), only to be humbled before David’s rightful successor, Solomon (1 Kings 1).
Hebrews 10:32–34 makes this context clear.
This argument has been set forth vigorously by Dr. Jordan Peterson, most famously in his book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos.
That is, a sense that describes what “is” as opposed to a prescriptive sense that states what “ought” to be.
“How 4 congresswomen came to be called ‘the Squad,’” Anna North, Vox.
Ironically, even Greta recognizes the impropriety of world leaders looking to school-aged children for advice: “This is all wrong. I shouldn't be up here. I should be back in school on the other side of the ocean. Yet you all come to us young people for hope. How dare you!” “Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit,” NPR.