AND THE CURSE OF 1920
“DESPOTISM OF THE PETTICOAT”
Having thus far primarily addressed this matter of divorce, let us consider a related matter regarding the Curse of 1920 and the proper place of the woman. This matter of the proper place of the woman could be said to be exclusively relative to the church, that in the church she is to remain silent and not exercise authority over or of a man. But this order extends beyond the church. First, we read in 1 Corinthians 11 the order of headship that affects the entirety of mankind. “Christ is the head of every man,” and “every” is “every.” Then it states that “the man is the head of woman,” not “a” woman, but woman in the broad sense. (More on this in the next section.) This stated order then is not just relative to the church, but applies to every man and every woman.
Furthermore, this order, like the order of marriage that Yahshua addressed, is based on that which is “from the beginning” – “he will rule over you.” Since it is from Adam, once again, this order is clearly for all mankind. It is His government for man. Thus, the order we should expect in the church, is the same order we should expect for all mankind. As it has been from the beginning, and as it has been practiced from the beginning, the woman is to be the keeper of the home, is to remain silent in public affairs, and is not to exercise the authority of or over the man.
This is the way America was in its beginning; but starting in the early 1800’s and particularly leading up to 1920, women began demanding equality with the man. This is addressed in the writings on the Curse of 1920. Since the Curse of 1920, there has been an outright attack on this established order of Yahweh. As a result, women have gained more and more authority; and with that place have brought more and more corruption and pain to the world, evidenced by such things as increased divorce rates, the destruction of the family, millions upon millions of babies being murdered, immodesty, immorality, and even homosexuality. Yahweh’s governmental order for man has been defiled, and society, as well as the church, have been blindly going along with it and suffering for it. As one man aptly told me – we adopted women’s suffrage in 1920, and we’ve been suffering ever since!
In past writings I have referred to the statement in Genesis 3:16 regarding the woman in a positive way. It reads – “Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Personally, I prefer the positive. The positive is a good goal, and here is a good goal and example for women – that her desire is to be for her husband; and since she is the weaker vessel, his ruling over her is her protection. This is what I have addressed from this passage in the past. But, there is actually another message here as well.
The Hebrew word used here for “desire” is “teshuqah,” and is used only three times in the entire Bible. Of course it is used here in Genesis 3:16, as well as in Genesis 4:7, and later in Song of Solomon 7:10.
The question we have here in Genesis 3:16 is this: Is the desire that the woman has for her husband a positive desire, or is her desire one of wanting to usurp her husband, to overturn his authority? One could read this passage to mean that her desire is indeed for her husband in a positive way that leads to submission. Or, it could also read that her desire is for the place of her husband, the place of authority that has been given to the man.
It is interesting that the two other places where the Hebrew word “teshuqah” is used reveals both possibilities. On the positive side, Song of Solomon reads – “I am my beloved's, and his desire (teshuqah) is for me.” This is the song of the bride, and her husband’s desire is for her. This is of course the desire that Yahshua has for His bride, and obviously it is quite positive and would support that the desire the woman will have for her husband is good and affords her protection as she submits to him.
But Genesis 4:7 supports, quite frankly even more compellingly, that the desire the woman will have is to usurp her husband, who is Yahweh’s ordained head over her. In Genesis 4:7 we read – “If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire (teshuqah) is for you, but you must master it."
After Yahweh declares this to the woman in Genesis 3, in the very next chapter we find this statement that is remarkably parallel, even using the identical Hebrew word. Note the parallel nature of these two.
“Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.”
“(sin’s) desire is for you, but you must master it."
And in closer examination, we find that not only is the identical Hebrew word for “desire” used (teshuqah), but the identical Hebrew word for “rule over” and “master” is used (mashal). So we have even more stunning parallel:
“Yet your desire (teshuqah) will be for your husband, and he will rule over (mashal) you.”
“(sin’s) desire (teshuqah) is for you, but you must rule over (mashal) it."
The parallel here is unmistakable. The choice for the woman is: be led by your sinful desires and seek to usurp your husband, and he will rule and dominate over you; or, rule over your desires and conquer sin by submitting to your husband, and let him occupy the place of authority wherein Yahweh God has placed him, as it is written – “Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of woman.”
The women’s rights movement and the resulting feminization of society has been a direct product of this curse that the desire of the woman will be for the place of the man, and has thereby been the same great travesty and destruction as it was in the garden! Leading up to 1920, women claimed that if they were given the right to vote, their motherly influence would clean up the problems in politics and there would be no wars. They said that women, if placed in authority, would not sacrifice their children. But what works in the home for the woman, does not transfer to society – she is out of her grace-realm!
Have there indeed been any less wars since women entered into politics? No! And have they indeed refused to sacrifice their children? Quite the contrary, more of their children have been sacrificed since 1920. Not only did war not cease, but the battle grounds of war dramatically increased! And it was not the battle ground of foreign soil that brought their children’s sacrifice, but the battle ground of their own womb! Exceedingly far more children have been sacrificed on the battle grounds of the womb, than on the battle grounds of a foreign enemy. No, the enemy is clearly defined here. It is not a foreigner per se, but the women’s rights movement itself.
We have now had over eighty years of downward transgression since 1920 to prove that those feminist women were more than just wrong, but devastatingly wrong! Hindsight is 20/20! Women did not help society, any more than the Prohibition amendment helped society. Prohibition – passed in the same year as women’s suffrage, and both of which were the results of the concerted efforts of women – was a revealing example of the travesty that would follow in the women’s rights movement. Even as Prohibition increased lawlessness and transgression instead of decreasing it, so women’s rights increased lawlessness and transgression instead of decreasing it. Why is this the case? Because women’s rights is nothing less than the curse from the beginning – the woman’s desire to occupy the place of the man.
The women’s rights movement is appropriately defined by the Susan B. Anthony dollar, issued in commemoration of this movement. This unpopular eleven-sided coin, the number of disorder and disharmony, often called the “Carter quarter,” was a disaster from the beginning, is out of mint, and will soon be taken out of circulation. This is a fitting testimony to precisely what needs to happen to all of Anthony’s ill and troublesome and destructive teachings and works. It is as fitting a testimony as the Wesleyan Methodist Church in Seneca Falls where the first women’s rights convention was held, which is now nothing more than the very sparse and partial remains of a shell. This shell is an equally fitting and even hopeful testimony of Yahweh’s judgment on the movement that began there. Like this building, the results of the women’s rights movement needs to be disassembled.
In the beginning, the woman sought to rule over her husband by eating of the forbidden fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, and giving that fruit to him. It has been no different since the early 1800’s when women gradually began to abandon their place in the home and demand equality with the man, culminating in the Curse of 1920. Once again “Eve” ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil; and sadly and destructively, the man once again took that forbidden fruit eaten by the woman and ate of it himself. He swallowed this entire lie that the woman should have equality with the man; and ever since, America and the world have been corrupted in the order of the original garden of Eden.
But there is yet hope found in Genesis 3:16, despite the ominous warning regarding the “desire” of the woman, which men wholly ignored and thereby got us into this tragic mess. (They alone had the right to vote.) The hope and the promise we see here is that despite the usurping efforts of the woman, the outcome will be that the man will indeed rule over her – “Yet your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you.” Thus, as testified by the Susan B. Anthony dollar and the Wesleyan Methodist Church, the women’s rights movement will fail, and its corrupting fruit will wither and die, and the woman will find her place under the rule of the man.
Even today the women’s rights movement is becoming less and less attractive to women. And, there are men who are speaking out against the feminization of society. In 1979 the Equal Rights Amendment was given a three year extension for ratification, having failed to receive such in the required seven. Between 1979 and 1982 (when the ERA failed), the women’s rights movement began to wane and face greater opposition, while the Republican party grew in strength and opposed it.
The women’s rights movement has utterly failed to produce good results, even as did Prohibition, both of which brought greater excesses of evil; and it is time to annul those ill results, even as Prohibition was annulled. Why? Because the order of Yahweh God is that the man will rule over the woman when she desires his place. This is the hope in Genesis 3:16 – “and he will rule over you”!
Women need to get out of the place of the man – in the leadership of the home, in places of employment, in government, in voting, in defense, and yes, in the church. We need to put the “man” back in policeman, back in fireman, in postman, businessman, clergyman, spokesman, serviceman, chairman, congressman, and even manly! Manhole covers even need to be manhole covers.
We must quit placating this erroneous idea that women began feeding us, particularly after the Civil War. Despite what has been fed to us for the last hundred-plus years, women are not equal to men in the realm of government or employment.
When America’s Declaration of Independence was written, the Preamble’s opening statement that “all men are created equal” was penned with the clear understanding that men are to govern and not women. Our forefathers intentionally delayed the irreconcilable issue of the black man, knowing that it would have to be resolved in time. And following America’s bloodiest war, it was justly reconciled when the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery and the Fifteenth Amendment gave “all men” the right to govern, even as promised, bringing the black man under the invocation of equality.
But never did our forefathers intend that our founding document say “all people,” as feminists wish, but “all men.” And in such regard, never did our forefathers consider as an option the violation of the laws of Almighty God concerning women. Yes, the black man is equal; but no, Almighty God had clearly stated that men are to “rule over” the woman and govern, and not women; and our founding fathers recognized this. These men clearly sought to establish this nation on the divine principles of the Scriptures, and the fallacious Nineteenth Amendment giving women the right to vote clearly violates both the Scriptures and our founding fathers’ wisdom and insight and intentions. John Adams, one of the five members of the committee that drafted the Declaration of Independence, specifically rejected the notion of equal rights for women. (More on this next.)
Our forefathers knew then, and it is true today, that government rests with the man. Women’s rights is a lie fed to us by the women who have been deceived by the serpent, and we’ve eaten it! And we’ve suffered for it! It is a lie that is completely contrary to the government of Yahweh God, and is destroying the family, society, and the church. And frankly, Yahweh has even raised up the “more righteous” Muslims to judge us for it. We need to repent and repeal these errors, even as the sister Eighteenth Amendment, Prohibition, was repealed shortly thereafter.
People can get all emotional about this in a feminine way and object concerning women’s “rights” and the need for employment and personal fulfillment; but the fact is, they continue to resist the government God established “from the beginning,” and the consequences have been destructive. As with Paul, how long will we kick against the goad before Yahweh has to intervene and knock us off our horse? How many more 9-11’s do we need?
And you can object that Yahweh would use the Muslims to judge the western world for its immorality, but this is the same objection the people made when Jeremiah spoke of the enemy of Judah being raised up to judge them. Yahweh has always raised up a nation’s enemy to judge that nation; and considering America’s and Europe’s immorality and rejection of the God whom they once served, they are overdue a judgment. It is a wakeup call to the Curse of 1920.
If you want to know the spirit behind the women’s rights movement, then look at the seductive way in which women dress. Look at their casual dress, at its sensuality, immodesty, and even its masculinity (pants and even clothing that mimic a man’s business wear). Look at their “swim wear,” or what there remains of it. It is complete seductiveness; and both apparel seek to reveal more and more of their naked bodies. This is the spirit of the women’s rights movement – to control the man and cause him to fall in sin. Is it not obvious that the purpose of women’s dress is to cause men to stumble and fall? This is what took place in the original garden in the beginning, and this is what women have been doing since the Curse of 1920. If you give Satan time, he will reveal himself; and clearly he has revealed his motives through the woman, evidenced by her dress, or the lack thereof.
If you want to know the spirit behind the women’s rights movement, then read the letters of John Adams’ “Eve,” Abigail, sent to her husband just weeks before the committee he occupied presented the Declaration of Independence. It is quite fitting and prophetic for Adams’ wife to write these things. As you will see, she is a clear testimony of Adam’s wife, Eve, affording us a déjà vu of the garden of Eden, and a glimpse forward to what would take place in this nation – the woman would offer the forbidden fruit to the man.
Women like to refer to Adams’ Abigail as the forerunner of the women’s rights movement. And so she was. And when you read her disdain for men, for husbands, and her intent to foment “rebellion,” you can plainly see the true spirit of error in this movement. In her letter of March 31, 1776, to John Adams, she extended her forbidden fruit:
I long to hear that you have declared an independency. And, by the way, in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors.
Do not put such unlimited power into the hands of the husbands.
Remember, all men would be tyrants if they could. If particular care and attention is not paid to the ladies, we are determined to foment a rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.
That your sex are naturally tyrannical is a truth so thoroughly established as to admit of no dispute; but such of you as wish to be happy willingly give up -- the harsh tide of master for the more tender and endearing one of friend.
Why, then, not put it out of the power of the vicious and the lawless to use us with cruelty and indignity with impunity?
Men of sense in all ages abhor those customs which treat us only as the (servants) of your sex; regard us then as being placed by Providence under your protection, and in imitation of the Supreme Being make use of that power only for our happiness.
The meat of her sentiments are cleverly placed between the refined pastry of her opening and closing paragraphs. And gratefully, men and women of sense in her day would not listen to such rebellious ideas. It would be another generation or two before her ideas would slowly begin to find place in the hearts of rebellious women.
In her follow-up letter of May 17, 1776, in which she replied to John’s pandering of her rebellious ideas, she stood her ground and wrote in words that are equally eerily prophetic:
I cannot say that I think you are very generous to the ladies; for, whilst you are proclaiming peace and good-will to men, emancipating all nations, you insist upon retaining an absolute power over wives.
But you must remember that arbitrary power is like most other things which are very hard, very liable to be broken; and, notwithstanding all your wise laws and maxims, we have it in our power, not only to free ourselves, but to subdue our masters, and without violence, throw both your natural and legal authority at our feet.
This is the voice of a true feminist, who actually replaced John Adams’ Cabinet; and these are the words you will find oft quoted on feminist websites and in their literature which they applaud and take up as a rebel cause. This is the voice of Adams’ “Eve.” Abigail Adams may have failed to overcome the wisdom of the forefathers to keep governing in the hands of men. And the rebellion of the southern states may have failed in the Civil War. But after that war, rebellion surely found a home in women, and the quest of Adams’ “Eve” was fulfilled. What the forefathers rejected in the beginning, men leading up to 1920 woefully accepted.
Do women consciously know their deeds are destructive? Of course not, any more than Eve knew. Just like Eve, they blindly give themselves over to the serpent, to Satan. And just as Eve would have refused the serpent if she could have foreseen the destructive consequences of her ill actions, no doubt Abigail Adams and the feminists in the 1800’s and early 1900’s would have shrunk back in horror if they could have seen the consequences of their ill actions in women today. The bloody images of millions of aborted babies alone would have caused them to turn pale. If they could have seen the way women dress today, they would have turned away and gone home shamefaced. If they could have seen the spiraling divorce rate and the fractured family of today, they would have run home with tears of thankfulness to embrace their husbands and children. If they could have caught a glimpse of the gays’ and lesbians’ week-long celebrations of Southern Decadence in New Orleans, they would have shrunk back in horror with visions of Sodom and Gomorrah!
The voices of those women would have fallen in shocked silence if they could have seen today. It would have been horror instead of misdirected resolve, and their reply would have been only a startled and shame-faced “O”! Their voices would have been silenced. But their “voice” less the “O” has revealed their own “vice.”
No, Eve did not will to destroy mankind, but she did; and this is what women have done since the early 1800’s to this day. As the weaker vessel, Eve was deceived by Satan; and in like regard, this weaker vessel has continued to this day to be equally deceived by Satan. But it says that the man was not deceived (1 Timothy 2:14). Men, it is time to open your eyes to what is taking place; and in the wisdom of Almighty God followed by our founding fathers, to take your stand against this.
While I do not agree with Adams’ placating response to his “Eve,” his closing reply to her showed the true resolve these men had per the necessity of the man governing the affairs of the home and the nation, and not the woman. In the opening of his concluding sentence, he continued that placating unfortunately characteristic of men, but his true and essential sentiments came out in the end. "We have only the name of masters, and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight."
For the sake of the woman, for the sake of the family, for the sake of mankind, for the sake of Yahweh God’s foreordained order that reverses rebellion, men today must take up this fight and retake their God-given place and rule over the woman. It is the man’s God-given responsibility! Our forefathers did not bend on this matter, nor did they have it in mind to give it up when they wrote the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution; but two generations ago men relinquished that responsibility, and men today must regain it!
The hope for mankind is that men will get wise to this error and rule over this destructiveness of women, and women will see their proper place. Yahshua is the head of “every man,” and the man needs to get wise to how the woman is once again destroying the “good” that Yahweh created, and for many good and valued reasons rule over her. And not only did He give this warning concerning the woman, but He also rebuked the man – “Because you have listened to the voice of (lit.) woman” (Genesis 3:17). This is what brought the curse in 1920 – men listened to the voice of women, and they equally should not have done so!
Because they listened to the voice of women, we have anarchy today whereby Yahshua is displaced as the head of every man. Because they listened to the voice of women, multiplied millions of babies have been and continue to be murdered. Because they listened to the voice of women, the family is being destroyed. Because they listened to the voice of women, immodesty and sensuality and promiscuity is pervasive. Because they listened to the voice of women, genders are confused and homosexuality is pervasive. Because they listened to the voice of women, this nation and the world and the church are in moral decay. Because they listened to the voice of women, our nation’s founding government has been compromised and changed to no longer represent and reflect the government of God.
And because men listened to the voice of women, today we have a political party that embodies in its fullest form all the beliefs and ways of a rebellious woman – the Democrats. They are the house of feminism – complaining, given to excessive self-serving criticism, wanting power for power’s sake, yet refusing to take responsibility and quickly blaming others. They are vicious, poor leaders, and their policies are commitments to failure. They have misplaced compassion, naivety, and concentrate on personal rights. In their own feminism they are shortsighted and act out of emotions, rather than masculine logic. If it was not for the liberal press, they would be ignored and powerless. But like a woman who will not stop talking, the press is their complaining voice.
The Republicans on the other hand are more so masculine; and just like the battle that raged for feminism in 1920 wherein women became the “constant dripping” of the “contentions woman” of Proverbs 19:13 and 27:15, so today the Democrats have become the epitome of the “contentious woman” and are rebellious against the more masculine Republicans. The Democrats repeat the ways of women in the 1920’s, and must equally be stopped.
Women said that if they were allowed to vote and get into politics, they would solve the moral issues that man faced. So where is their promised solution today? Where is their promised remedy? No, they were woefully and destructively wrong! Instead, as with their Prohibition, they brought even more moral decay and vice! It is past time to reverse this, and calls for men to join Adams and “General Washington and all our brave heroes (and) fight!”
Of course those who reject Yahweh’s government and want women to continue to play the usurping “Eve,” will point to excesses or failures of men in filling their rightful governmental place. But just because some men fail to justly implement the government of Yahweh God, does not make the government itself wrong. There can and always will be some men who completely fail, anywhere from excessive abuses to pathetic complacency; but that does not make the government wrong or give reason to alter it. Government has authority to check deficiencies.
Because man is fleshly, everything about him has the potential for abuse and error. Our governments make mistakes. The military makes mistakes, as well as even our court system. Companies make mistakes. Doctors make mistakes, sometimes fatal. Pastors make mistakes. Principles, teachers, scout masters, policemen, all make mistakes. Everything is going to evidence some errors; but these errors do not mean we should get rid of the institutions. Parents make mistakes; so does that mean we should do away with parents? In fact, people make mistakes; so does that mean we get rid of people? No! In every case, errors mean correcting the problems, not abandoning the institution.
So it is with the government of the home, as well as civil. Yes, men will make mistakes; but that does not change the fact that Yahshua “is the head of every man, and the man is the head of woman.” The problem comes when from rebellion and corruption (even when it is popular), we seek to alter that government. And today we indeed see the evidence of that grave error. By altering Yahweh’s government, we have made ourselves out to be wiser than God and become lawless, and have suffered for it and will all the more suffer for it. Women need to return to the home. Their great experiment with solving the world’s ills miserably failed, and only created more problems. It is time for the man to take his God-given place and rule over the woman – “and he will rule over you.”
It is without question that in this earth the natural reflects the spiritual. The list of these would be endless. Yahshua’s parables, our bodies, all creation, the Old Testament laws, and on and on, all contain within them natural evidences that reveal spiritual truths. Man commits adultery in the natural, but as attested in Jeremiah 3:6-9, it is fulfilled in the spiritual when we are not faithful to Yahweh and have relations with the world.
Likewise, when man is committing spiritual sin, it is often revealed and evidenced in natural ways. The two travel the same course, with the spiritual preceding and destining the natural. Rampant homosexuality is undoubtedly a natural symptom of spiritual homosexuality that has taken and is taking place among man, especially per His church.
In this regard, given that men have failed to be the men they are designed to be, but instead have given themselves to the women’s rights movement and even become like them in beliefs and practices, it is in fact inevitable that there would be a natural sin taking place today evidencing our own sin as men.
A transvestite is defined as a person, especially a male, who adopts the dress and behavior of the opposite sex. In the natural we know all too well what they look like, for it is unfortunately too common today, and becoming even more common. I say “unfortunate,” for on the other hand they exist to show us our own sin as men. If our affections for the world instead of for Yahshua is adultery, how have we as men, who are otherwise seen as “straight,” become transvestites?
The answer is obvious when you look at the history of America since the early 1800’s, and especially since the Curse of 1920. Men have become both spiritual and governmental transvestites because we “listened to the voice of woman.” We started thinking like women, behaving like women, governing like women, instead of retaining our God-ordained role as head of the woman under the headship of Yahshua. Today, when you see a transvestite, they are only there because men already became spiritual and governmental transvestites. These natural transvestites are no more guilty of perversion than we who have accepted the feminine ideas that are so widely embraced and practiced today.
People like Rush Limbaugh and other political conservatives aptly speak out against the feminization of America. What he and they are in fact saying is that we are spiritual and governmental transvestites. So next time you see or hear of a transvestite, don’t condemn them, lest you condemn yourself. As Yahshua said:
Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' and behold, the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.
What is more destructive to this nation – the speck of men dressing and behaving in the ways of women, or the log of men thinking and governing in the ways of women? We cannot and need not do anything about natural transvestites (the speck), until we deal with the infinitesimally more destructive problem of spiritual and governmental transvestites (the log).
Christians and others can complain and condemn all they want and try to deal with things that are only symptoms; but until we take a hard look at ourselves and our feminized government and ideas and deal with these, the symptoms will never go away. We must take the log out of our own eye that has completely blinded us to the cause of many of the ills that beset our nation. It is time for men to repent of their own spiritual and governmental transvestite ways and actions, and return to the position and beliefs of the men who built this nation in its beginning.
Men, you were the ones who gave the women the right to vote, and all the rights gained by women up to 1920. You listened to the voice of the woman and gave her all the legal rights for which she asked. Women couldn’t vote, and it was you who became a governmental transvestite and voted like a woman, giving her the rights that belonged solely to you by the will of your Creator. You gave up those sovereign rights, and you need to restore them. But like any problem that is allowed to begin and grow, it is far harder to correct the problem now. But this you must do if you are to save this nation and the garden of mankind!
And let’s be honest here men. Any man who divorces his wife is party to the women’s rights movement. You say – How can this be? Well, what is the foundation to the error of that movement? It is that they violate the divine governmental order that in marriage two become one flesh under the headship of the man. So, when they seek to be equal to the man, they violate the government of headship. But why does that headship even exist? Because of the union of two into one flesh. In that union, the government of headship then comes into order.
Thus, there are two critical parts to that divine order, and if you attack one or the other, you are equally guilty. Those two parts are (1) irrevocable union, and (2) headship. When a woman rebels, as in the case of the women’s rights movement, she is guilty of violating this divine order. But when a man divorces his wife, he is equally guilty of violating this divine order, and thus bears the same offense. Therefore, any man who divorces his wife is a party to the women’s rights movement, because they both attack the same governmental truth; and participation in divorce in effect condones the other. In one’s mind you can separate the two aberrations; but in governmental truth, the two are the same – they both attack the bedrock of two into one flesh under the headship of the man.
If any man is opposed to the women’s rights movement and has divorced his wife, he needs to confess his sin and repent of it, for he is guilty of the same error. Many men and women have committed these sins in total ignorance and did not know what they were doing. Even the women’s rights movement is committed in ignorance. But when the light of truth shines on our actions, we are then responsible to confess our error and change our ways. This, both men and women need to do in regard to transgressing Yahweh’s government of two becoming one flesh under the headship of the man.
One man wrote in a conservative Brussels journal – “I heard one woman who was an ardent feminist in the 1970’s later lament how many families they broke up and destroyed. She was surprised at the reactions, or lack of reactions, from men. ‘We were horrible. Why didn’t you stop us?’”
Why didn’t we stop them in 1970? Why didn’t we stop them in 1920? Why didn’t we stop them in 1848? Because we lacked knowledge and understanding. But today, we do not have that excuse; and today we must stop them. As we read in James 4:17 – “Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin.” By Yahweh’s grace and in accordance with Genesis 3:16, we will stop them! We are men, and we must do so! “Yet your desire will be for (the place of) the man, and he will rule over you.” We need to justly rule, men!
Continue to final page of Divorce, Women, and the Curse of 1920 for DIVINE GOVERNMENTAL ORDER