Silly Simple Foolish Women

In 2019 America, the only people you can call foolish, stupid or any other host of “negative labels” is white men.  If you call a woman “foolish” you are a misogynist and if you call an immigrant “illegal” you are a racist and xenophobe.

But the fact is labeling someone based on their behavior is not hatred of an entire class of people.  It is simply calling out wrong behavior.

Just about every time I hear Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez speak on television the following Scripture passage comes to mind:

 “A foolish woman is clamorous: she is simple, and knoweth nothing.”

Proverbs 9:13 (KJV)

And I am willing to bet that even many of AOC’s fellow democrats are having a very similar thought every time she speaks.

But Christians Should Not Call People Fools!

Some Christians may challenge me and say something like “We should  never call anyone foolish.”  Some might even point to the following statement by Jesus Christ to condemn me for calling anyone foolish:

“But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.”

Matthew 5:22 (KJV)

Christ seems to be saying if we calling anyone a fool, we are in danger of going to hell.  But when we study the Bible, we must look at the entirety of the Bible to fully understand the truth of God’s Word.

In the same Gospel of Matthew Jesus called the Pharisees “fools”:

15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

16 Woe unto you, ye blind guides, which say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but whosoever shall swear by the gold of the temple, he is a debtor!

17 Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold?”

Matthew 23:15-17 (KJV)

And now lets look at what Job said to his wife in the Old Testament:

“9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die.

10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.”

Job 2:9-10 (KJV)

Job told his wife she was acting as a foolish woman. And the Scriptures tell us he did not sin with his lips in saying this or anything he said before this.

So, when we tie these passages together with what Christ said what was he actually saying? He was saying that we should never call someone a fool unjustly.  There are certain things that are necessary because we live in a sin cursed world.  One of those things is killing.  Sometimes when we kill it is justified because it is self-defense.   Other times when it is not justified it can be man-slaughter or murder.  And in the same way because of sin, we have sinful foolishness in this world exhibited by both men and women.  And when people act foolish by God’s standards – we are right in calling them out as such.

A Silly Simple Foolish Wife

In a recent podcast I made for BGRLearning.com that goes by this same title “Silly Simple Foolish Women” I take on another foolish woman much like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. But unlike AOC this woman is not a politician and the foolishness she is spouting is not about the political realm, but rather about what she believes is important and not so important in marriage.  You can listen to the first part of this podcast for free here.

The title of the article is “I Didn’t Have Sex With My Husband for Five Months and He Had an Affair”.

The summary of the article is basically this – she continued to push her husband away for months due to stress and just not feeling like having sex.  And then SHOCKER! Her husband admits he had an affair after this denial by his wife because in his words “you hadn’t touched me for almost six months”.

This woman, much like the simpleton OCR, was perplexed by this.  How could the man that loved her do this to her? And she saw no wrong in her denying her husband sex for almost 6 months.

She then makes the following keen observations about her husband:

“If we were having sex, he didn’t give me a hard time about buying myself a new shirt.

If we were having sex, he did things around the house willingly.

If we were having sex, he acted like he liked me more.

If we were having sex, he complimented me, the way I looked and how I mothered.

If we weren’t having sex, that all went away. He said it was because he felt neglected, unhappy and ignored.

It didn’t matter that I did his laundry, put it away for him, made him dinner every night and baked his favorite pie or cookies.

It didn’t matter that I kept the house clean, and took care of all the kids’ appointments and schedules, so he didn’t have to worry about it.

He once told me that he’d rather have the house a mess and no food in the house and a disorganized life, if we were having more sex. Twice a month wasn’t enough for him.

He’d told me that I’d “tricked” him, since I was more sexual when we first started dating and falling in love.

I realized after some time, having sex made him feel more like a man. My “withholding” made him feel less like a man, so he had to go get it from someone else…

He just wanted to feel like a man. But it wasn’t my job to make him feel like a man.

If he couldn’t look at me and see a wife who loved him, birthed his three kids, cared for him, and felt fulfilled and thankful, but who just needed to not feel pressured to give him an orgasm every other night, then I couldn’t make him see all he had.

A woman’s worth goes way beyond how much sex she’s having with her husband. Whether he sees that or not is up to him.”

Can you not feel the condescension toward her husband’s sexual needs dripping from her statements? If you read the entire article you can see that this woman placed very little value on sex in marriage and specifically meeting her husband’s sexual needs.

In fact, it is very clear from her statements that she like many other women does not see sex as a need in marriage.  To her sex is just something you do once in a while when she, the wife, feels like it.

You can very much see that this woman like many women today saw her marriage as revolving around her in direct contradiction to the what the Bible says is the wife’s position in regard to her husband:

 “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

I Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)

She was the one who set what made her valuable as a wife, not her husband and not any other man.

Oh, what a foolish woman.

I can just imagine the next relationship she went into.   Did she tell the guy up front “We will just have sex when I feel like it.  Most of the time I will feel like it once or twice a month and sometimes I may not feel like it for several months.”  Wow I am sure she had a line of men waiting to marry her after divorcing her husband! Now that is a valuable wife!

While it is true that a woman’s worth goes beyond how much sex she is having with husband – how much sex she has with her husband is absolutely a critical factor in in her worth to him.

It is great that she birthed and cared for his three children and cooked and care for the needs of his home.  The Bible tells us that this is something God wants women to do and we as men should value our wives for these things:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)

“Thy wife shall be as a fruitful vine by the sides of thine house: thy children like olive plants round about thy table.”

Psalm 128:3 (KJV)

So yes, dear woman, giving birth to your children, caring for them, cooking for your husband and doing his laundry all have value in God’s eyes and these things should have value in your husband’s eyes.   But these things do not represent all that gives you value to him as a wife. God created you to meet these needs of your husband but he needs these things and something else as well.  He needs sex with you.

But Sex Is NOT a Need!

I can’t tell you how many emails and comments I receive from mostly women (and a few men) with them claiming that sex is not a need for a man and it is just a want.  Their logic usually goes like this “A need is something that you will die from if you don’t get”.   So, in their view, only things like water, food, clothing and shelter are true needs while sex is just a fun thing to do for man.

But the truth is that while no man ever died from not having sex, many marriages have in fact died from lack of regular sexual relations.   This woman’s story with her ex-husband is a perfect illustration of this truth.

And speaking of human needs like food and water, the Bible compares a man’s need for sex to the human desire for water:

 “Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well.”

Proverbs 5:15 (KJV)

Ladies – would you want to wait to have a drink only once or twice a month?

“18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:18-19 (KJV)

We can see from the above passage that God meant for man to drink his fill of his wife’s body.  This is not a “nice to have” once or twice a month thing, but rather a husband is to have full access to wife’s body “at all times”.

Conclusion

From a Christian perspective both this husband and wife were wrong.  The wife’s sin occurred first.  The Scriptures tells us that sex in marriage is a duty that is owed by both the husband and wife toward one another as seen in the following passage:

“2 Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband. 4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.

5 Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.”

I Corinthians 7:2-5 (KJV)

This passage from I Corinthians tells us that sex is both a right and responsibility in marriage and that the only thing “mutual” about when you have sex is when you DO NOT have sex.  You as a couple must agree to short times for prayer and fasting or other such things.  Or perhaps one of you is having surgery or the wife is having a child.  These are all reasonable reasons that couples can mutually agree to forgo relations for a short period. But even then, there are many ways besides vaginal intercourse that a wife can help her husband during these times.

So, the wife in this story sinned against God and her husband by denying him her body.  She acted foolishly and she did not heed God’s warning that regular sexual relations should occur to avoid the temptation to fall into the sin of fornication.

And that is exactly what her husband did.  Her sin placed him in a very tempting position and he gave into that temptation and sinned.  I am not justifying his sin any more than I am justifying her sin.  But the fact is that often one sin can directly lead to another as is seen in this story.

This woman, like many wives today ignorantly saw sex for her husband as just giving her husband “an orgasm every other night”.  But the truth was right in front of her in her own observations of her husband’s behavior toward her when she was giving him regular sexual relations:

“If we were having sex, he didn’t give me a hard time about buying myself a new shirt.

If we were having sex, he did things around the house willingly.

If we were having sex, he acted like he liked me more.

If we were having sex, he complimented me, the way I looked and how I mothered.”

Wow – so you as a wife notice that when you do a certain thing that this certain thing results in your husband letting you buy nice things you want, him helping around the house more, him acting like he likes you more and him complimenting you more.

So instead of doing this certain thing which you saw evoked all these positive behaviors in your husband, you instead held it back.  And you foolishly thought to yourself that you if you denied him this certain thing but baked him his favorite cookies that you should still get the same result?

This behavior on the part of this wife and so many women is well summed up in a famous quote from the movie “As Good as it Gets” staring Jack Nicholson.  In the movie Nicholson’s character is a writer and a woman comes up to him and asks him how he writes women so well.  His response is not only golden but it is utterly true of the vast majority of women today:

“I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.”

And this is exactly what the wife in this story has demonstrated about herself.   She has taken zero accountability for her actions in sexually denying her husband and has placed all the blame at his feet.  And she fails to show any ability to reason that in order to have her husband’s affection regular sexual relations would be required.  Instead she irrationally thought to herself that he should have done all these things for her and valued her apart from her giving him regular sexual relations.

What a SILLY, SIMPLE FOOLISH WOMAN.

So, wives here is your challenge from the Word of God:

“Every wise woman buildeth her house: but the foolish plucketh it down with her hands.”

Proverbs 14:1 (KJV)

Will you be the wise woman who actually sees the importance of regularly giving your body to your husband whenever he desires it and thus reap the rewards that this woman saw when she did? Or will you foolishly and naively think you should be able to have all those things and also never worry about your husband being sexually tempted all the while you are sexually denying him?

Will you be a wise woman or a foolish woman? The choice is yours.

Why Am I Here?

“Why Am I here?” The answer to this question was known from the beginning thousands of years ago when God created man. But then mankind turned against the one true God and turned to false gods and false religions and the truth of our origins was forgotten by much of mankind.  Many philosophers have tried to answer this question apart from the Bible and have failed in their attempts.

One of the most popular Christian books written in the last couple decades, “The Purpose Driven Life” by Rick Warren, sought to answer this question from a Biblical perspective. Like all Christian writers before him, Pastor Warren correctly states that we were created to bring glory to God.

But we must answer the question of HOW God meant for us to bring him glory other wise the answer has no practical guidance for our lives. Every thing God created was made to bring him glory in a unique way.  As men and women we were created by God to bring him glory in very unique and special ways.

In my new 12 part podcast series on BGRLearning.com entitled “His Image Our Purpose” I show that while Rick Warren had good intentions with his book, he actually missed the primary way that God meant for us as men and women to bring him glory.

Click here to go to the free section of BGRLearning.com to hear one of the episodes from this 12 part series.  If you find this to be a blessing you can subscribe to BGRLearning.com to hear all 12 parts of this series along with other new episodes on various other topics from a Biblical perspective that are posted each Saturday.

 

The Root Cause of Antinatalism in America

Within the span of just a few days we have had a congressional representative ask “is it okay to still have children?“ and yesterday we saw Democratic senators blocking a vote to protect infants that survive abortion attempts.  As Christians and as pro-life advocates we speak out against such evil ideologies as we should.  But many Christians and pro-life advocates fail to even recognize, let alone address the root cause of America’s Antinatalism.

Yes, Having Children is a “moral question”

Fox News reported the following about Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’s “legitimate question” that she asked just a few days ago:

“Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said young people have to ask a “legitimate question” in the wake of climate change and mounting student loan debt: “Is it okay to still have children?”

“Our planet is going to face disaster if we don’t turn this ship around,” she said, as she chopped sweet potatoes. “And so it’s basically like, there is a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult and it does lead, I think young people, to have a legitimate question. Ya know, should—is it okay to still have children?

She continued: “Not just financially because people are graduating with 20, 30, 100 thousand dollars of student loan debt so they can’t even afford to have kids in the house, but there’s also just this basic moral question, like, what do we do?””

I actually agree with Miss Ocasio-Cortez that the decision to have children is a “basic moral question”.  And I am glad she framed it that way as a moral question and not a just a “personal decision” as we so often hear. So, here is the answer to Miss Ocasio-Cortez’s question – It is not only “okay to still have children” but it is actually commanded by God:

“And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”

Genesis 1:28 (KJV)

God’s very first command to mankind was to “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth” and until he rescinds that command, we are obliged to obey it.

For young men that means working toward a career that can support a wife and children and as soon as they can support a family seeking out a wife for marriage.

For young women they should be working with their fathers to find godly husbands who can support them and then getting married not long after high school or even dropping out of high school for marriage if their father finds a man earlier and that he approves of.

But whenever we talk about God’s first command and its continuing relevance for our lives today, we must also talk about his exception to that command which is celibacy.

“7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.  9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”

I Corinthians 7:7-9 (KJV)

God gives some people the gift of celibacy for undivided service to him.  Celibacy is not meant as a “get out of marriage free card” as some like to use it.  It is not meant to allow one to live a selfish life free of the responsibilities of marriage and children. It is meant for undivided service to God and is the ONLY exception to God’s command to be fruitful and multiply which means – get married, have sex and have children.

Abortion on Demand is a Natural Consequence of Giving Woman Equal Rights with Men

What I said previously about young women seeking marriage right after high school or even dropping out of high school for marriage may be offensive even to some pro-life people reading this.  But you must understand that God did not command that women have college educations and careers but rather he commanded that they marry and have children:

“I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.”

1 Timothy 5:14 (KJV)

Our society’s push for women’s equality with men and independence from men, whether it be in education, careers or voting has directly led to some very tragic realities that are all but buried by our media and sadly even our churches today.

Before the woman’s rights movement began in the mid 1800’s, divorce rates were 3 percent.

By the time of the passage of Woman’s Suffrage in 1920 the divorce rates had jumped to 13 percent.

In the mid 1980’s divorce rates had peaked at 53 percent.  The only reason they eventually fell to the mid 40 percent range since the 1980’s is because of the wide scale abandonment of marriage.

Today, 60 percent of people ages 18 to 34 are not married. And the majority of this critical age group is not even cohabitating.

Based on all the statistics we know about increased divorce rates and falling marriage rates since the beginning of the woman’s rights movements in the mid-19th century, we must admit the following truth:

Male/female relationships and most importantly the institution of marriage itself has been decimated by the woman’s rights movement in America.

Over 60 million divorces have occurred since the women’s rights movement began pushing for women’s legal and financial independence from men.  And if you are pro-life you probably know that over 60 million abortions have taken place since the 1973 Supreme Court decision in Roe vs. Wade.

Please hear me as a fellow pro-life advocate, you cannot separate abortion from the woman’s rights movement.  Abortion rights were simply the logical consequence of making women equal with men and making women financially and legally independent of men. God never meant for women to be social equals with men anymore than he meant for children to be social equals with their parents.

The Bible tells us God’s social order in the following Scripture passages:

“But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.”

I Corinthians 11:3 (KJV)

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

1 Timothy 2:12 (KJV)

But we in America and Western civilization thought we knew better.  We over turned God’s social order and we have reaped what we have sown.

Abortion leads to Infanticide

Yesterday, we had Democrats blocking the “Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act” as reported by Fox News:

“Senate Democrats on Monday blocked a Republican bill that would have threatened prison time for doctors who don’t try saving the life of infants born alive during failed abortions, leading conservatives to wonder openly whether Democrats were embracing “infanticide” to appeal to left-wing voters.

All prominent Democratic 2020 presidential hopefuls in the Senate voted down the measure, including Bernie Sanders of Vermont, Kamala Harris of California, Cory Booker of New Jersey, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. The final vote was 53-44 to end Democratic delaying tactics — seven votes short of the 60 needed…

The Born-Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act would have required that “any health care practitioner present” at the time of a birth “exercise the same degree of professional skill, care, and diligence to preserve the life and health of the child as a reasonably diligent and conscientious health care practitioner would render to any other child born alive at the same gestational age.””

As a society we have placed women’s rights on such a high pedestal that we are now literally willing to sacrifice the life of not just unborn children, but even those who have been born.  When will we open our eyes to this evil?

Conclusion

We cannot continue to avoid this question.  How did we as a society come to a point where on February 25th, 2019 the United State’s Senate actually blocked a bill protecting infants that are born alive from being allowed to simply die on a table with no help?

The root of this issue started on July 19th, 1848 in Seneca Falls, New York with the first women’s rights convention. After this conference new rights were given to women in divorce making divorce easier and less painful for women which lead to a spike in divorces even before the passage of Woman’s Suffrage in 1920.

Women from 1848 and forward began to rebel against the authority of their fathers and their husbands.  This led to the rejection of courtship and the embrace of the new practice of dating.   Dating led to rampant sex outside of marriage and a jump in out of wedlock births which eventually peaked at what we have today which is a 40 percent out-wedlock birth rate.

This change to woman-centric marriages and relationships also lead to a 53 percent divorce rate at its peak in the 1980’s.  After divorce rates peaked at 53 percent the next generation began rejecting marriage and even dating became dysfunctional to the point that in our current culture 60 percent of people ages 18-34 are not married.

So, we can see the natural progression.

Giving women more rights and control over their lives, bodies and who they married led to more divorce, more sex outside of marriage, more children born out of wedlock, abortion and finally now in 2019 legalized infanticide.

When will we admit the root of all this evil?  When will we admit that overturning God’s design and his social order of men ruling over women was a colossal mistake? How far must we go as a society before we will come to our senses?  Will our civilization have to collapse before we will undo all the rights we have given to women since the Seneca Falls convention in 1848?

John Locke’s Invention of the “Adult” Social Class

John Locke was a 17th century English philosopher who could rightly be called the father of individualism and by extension the modern age.  It is difficult to overstate the influence he had on America’s founding fathers and all of Western civilization.  The following phrase from the Declaration of Independence was basically a summary of Locke’s concepts from his “Two Treatises of Government” published in 1690:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Before John Locke’s individualism took over Western civilization, Patriarchy was the norm of society.  Duty to one’s faith, family and country was paramount and overrode concerns for individual happiness.  People saw themselves more as part of a collective whole, part of their family, part of their tribe, their faith and their nation rather than only as individuals.

The Origins of Locke’s Individualism

Many philosophies throughout history have been born out of a reaction to other philosophies and this was the case with John Locke.  John Locke actually wrote his “Two Treatises of Government” in 1690 in response to Sir Robert Filmer’s “Patriarcha; or the Natural Power of Kings” which was published in 1680. The central thesis of Filmer’s book was that the divine right of Kings was derived from the natural authority of parents with Adam being the first parent and first King of mankind.

So, it would be correct to say that Locke’s Individualism was born out a response to Filmer’s peculiar brand of Paternalism as applied to kings.

But from a Biblical perspective, both Locke and Filmer were wrong.

Kings Are Not Fathers

Filmer was absolutely wrong in saying Adam was the first king of mankind.  Nothing in the Scriptures teaches this concept.

The following passage which was used to try and support the divine right of Kings theory is found in the Apostle Paul’s letter to Romans:

“1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. 2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.

3 For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:

4 For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

5 Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. 6 For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.”

Romans 13:1-6 (KJV)

Filmer and others interpreted this passage to mean that Kings had absolute authority over their subjects as a father has over his children.  In effect, Filmer’s philosophy reduced all the rights of the citizens of a nation to that of children.

But Filmer was wrong in his understanding of Romans 13:1-6.  This passage is speaking of God’s institution of civil government and his purpose for it.  God created civil government to praise and uphold good behavior based on his law and to punish those who break God’s moral law.  God instituted civil government to protect the rights he had given to man, not to infringe upon those rights as so many Kings had done for thousands of years.

The passage above from Roman’s actually tells us why we pay “tribute” or taxes to government.  It is to pay for our government’s protection of our rights and property.  The purpose of taxes is to pay for things like the salaries of our national, state and local leaders as well as our policemen, firemen, courts and our military.  God did not intend for taxes to be for the enrichment of our rulers or the redistribution of wealth between the upper, middle and lower income classes.  The duty of charitable giving to the poor was given to the churches and to individuals through free will giving.  God never assigned this task to his institution of civil government.

How many rulers throughout history terrorized those who did good works? Many.  How many rulers did not look out for the good of their people, but rather for their own selfish greed they stole and pillaged from their own people? Many.  How many rulers violated the sacred rights of husbands and fathers over their wives, their children and their other properties? Far too many.

Jesus gave us the following statement regarding civil government:

“And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar’s, and unto God the things which be God’s.”

Luke 20:25 (KJV)

The civil government does not have God’s absolute and unlimited authority.  No human authority has unlimited power. Christ told us only to give to the civil government what belongs to the civil government.  And when the civil government usurps its authority and steps outside God’s limits on it, we as Christians have not only a right, but a responsibility to practice civil disobedience to such encroachments.  The Apostle Paul speaks to the Christian’s right and responsibility to practice disobedience to government laws which violate God’s law which would include his purpose for and limits upon civil government:

“27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straitly command you that ye should not teach in this name? and, behold, ye have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.

29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.”

Acts 5:27-29 (KJV)

So, as we have seen from the Scriptures, Filmer’s theory of the Divine Right of Kings and kings as fathers to their subjects has no Scriptural merit and actually violates the purposes for which God instituted civil government.

Locke Was Wrong in His Response to Filmer

But as wrong as Filmer was about his theory of kings being like fathers to their subjects, so too Locke was wrong in his approach to Filmer’s arguments.

Locke, instead of centering his attack on the false premise that kings are like fathers, instead chose to center his attack on the authority of fathers so as to limit the authority of kings.

Consider the following statement from John Locke’s “First Treatise of Civil Government” where he addresses the arguments of “our author” speaking to Sir Robert Filmer:

“For had our author set down this command without garbling, as God gave it, and joined mother to father, every reader would have seen, that it had made directly against him; and that it was so far from establishing the monarchical power of the father, that it set up the mother equal with him, and enjoined nothing but what was due in common, to both father and mother: for that is the constant tenor of the scripture, Honour thy father and thy mother…

The rule is, Children, obey your parents; and I do not remember, that I any where read, Children, obey your father, and no more: the scripture joins mother too in that homage, which is due from children; and had there been any text, where the honour or obedience of children had been directed to the father alone, it is not likely that our author, who pretends to build all upon scripture, would have omitted it: nay, the scripture makes the authority of father and mother, in respect of those they have begot, so equal, that in some places it neglects even the priority of order, which is thought due to the father, and the mother”

John Locke made what is perhaps one of the earliest arguments for feminism in this passage by making the father and mother equal in their authority over their children.  Locke actually made a false argument that is easily refuted that the father has no more authority over the children than the mother.  The following passage from the book of Numbers disproves Locke’s assertion of the equal authority of father and mother over their children:

“3 If a woman also vow a vow unto the Lord, and bind herself by a bond, being in her father’s house in her youth; 4 And her father hear her vow, and her bond wherewith she hath bound her soul, and her father shall hold his peace at her; then all her vows shall stand, and every bond wherewith she hath bound her soul shall stand. 5 But if her father disallow her in the day that he heareth; not any of her vows, or of her bonds wherewith she hath bound her soul, shall stand: and the Lord shall forgive her, because her father disallowed her.”

Numbers 30:3-5 (KJV)

The context here is of a young adult woman still under her father’s roof. Nothing here is mentioned of the Mother’s authority to override the young adult daughter’s decisions.  It is only the father that has such authority.

Consider also this passage from the book of Exodus:

“16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.”

Exodus 22:16-17 (KJV)

It is the father which must give permission for marriage and no mention of the mother is made.

The previous two passages prove Locke wrong in his assertion that there are no passages of the Scriptures where “obedience of children had been directed to the father alone”.

Locke goes on to make the following statement about husbands and wives in his “Second Treatise of Civil Government”:

“But the husband and wife, though they have but one common concern, yet having different understandings, will unavoidably sometimes have different wills too; it therefore being necessary that the last determination, i. e. the rule, should be placed somewhere; it naturally falls to the man’s share, as the abler and the stronger. But this reaching but to the things of their common interest and property, leaves the wife in the full and free possession of what by contract is her peculiar right, and gives the husband no more power over her life than she has over his; the power of the husband being so far from that of an absolute monarch, that the wife has in many cases a liberty to separate from him, where natural right, or their contract allows it; whether that contract be made by themselves in the state of nature, or by the customs or laws of the country they live in; and the children upon such separation fall to the father or mother’s lot, as such contract does determine.”

So here is John Locke’s argument about husbands and wives.  Men and women have an equal say over their own lives, but because their wills sometimes are different on certain family matters it is necessary for one to have “the last determination” meaning somebody has to have the tie breaking vote.  So, this falls to man as “the abler and stronger”.  That last statement is one that causes some feminists to dismiss all of Locke’s writings, while many other feminists are willing to overlook Locke’s “sexism” for all the rest of the equality proclamations he makes.

But then he makes this statement which feminists absolutely love that “the husband no more power over her life than she has over his; the power of the husband being so far from that of an absolute monarch”.

So, in his first treatise Locke assaulted the God given authority of the father making his authority equal with the mother when God granted no such thing and now in his second treatise he attacks the God given authority of the husband over his wife.

Locke’s assertion that “the husband no more power over her life than she has over hisis easily disproven by the follow Scripture passage:

“22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 (KJV)

In no other human authority relationship is the one under authority told to submit to the one over them as unto the Lord.  In no other human authority relationship is the one under authority told to be subject to that authority as the church is subject to Christ in EVERYTHING.

Locke was completely wrong in his assertion that “the power of the husband being so far from that of an absolute monarch”.  But rather the truth of the Scriptures is that is a king’s power is so far from that of a husband.

Biblically speaking, the most powerful human authority God ever established was that of a husband over his wife with the second most powerful human authority being that of a father over his children and especially his daughters. 

The civil government or king’s power comes after that of a husband and father Biblically speaking.

Now again we need to understand spheres of authority.  A husband cannot encroach upon the sphere of powers God has given to government in the same way the government cannot encroach in areas God has given to husbands.

A practical example of this would be that I cannot tell my wife to break the speed limit.  That speed limit comes under the authority of civil government.   However, the civil government cannot tell my wife that she may disobey my order to vote for the candidate that I tell her to.

Before we can tie this all together with one more statement from Locke to show how he invented a new social class, we need to look at the social classes God designed.

God’s Original Design of Four Social Classes

When God created humanity, he designed it with three primary social classes.  These three primary social classes were Men, Women and Children.  After the flood, God caused a fourth hybrid social class, the Citizen, to form from his creation of nations.

In the Old Testament we read that God set the man over the woman making him her owner and master.

“Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Genesis 3:16 (KJV)

“6 And if she had at all an husband, when she vowed, or uttered ought out of her lips, wherewith she bound her soul; 7 And her husband heard it, and held his peace at her in the day that he heard it: then her vows shall stand, and her bonds wherewith she bound her soul shall stand. 8 But if her husband disallowed her on the day that he heard it; then he shall make her vow which she vowed, and that which she uttered with her lips, wherewith she bound her soul, of none effect: and the Lord shall forgive her.”

Numbers 30:6-8 (KJV)

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an [literally “owned by”] husband [“an owner”], then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

And contrary to the false teachings of some Christians today, man’s headship over woman was not a result of the fall, but rather it was God’s design from the beginning before sin entered the picture and was meant to picture the relationship between God and his people or Christ and his Church as I showed previously from Ephesians 5:22-24.

The Bible does not get rid of the submission and ownership of wives in the New Testament, but rather it explains it more and calls women to emulate the obedience that Old Testament wives had to their husbands calling them “lord” which can also means “master”:

“5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”

I Peter 3:5-6 (KJV)

So, as we can see from looking at both the Old and New Testaments, God created a definite social class distinction between men and women.  Even young adult daughters could have their decisions overridden by their fathers as I showed previously from Numbers 30:3-5 and Exodus 22:16-17.

Now that we have established the first two social classes God designed, those being Men and Women, now we come to the third social class that God designed which was Children:

“3 Lo, children are an heritage of the Lord: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.”

Psalm 127:3-6 (KJV)

“1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. 2 Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; 3 That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.”

Ephesians 6:1-3 (KJV)

So, as you can see from all the Scriptures presented, God created three primary social classes and those are Men, Women and Children.  Men are the owners of their wives and children.  Children are to obey their father and their mother with the father being the head of the home and having the ultimate veto over all decisions of both his wife and his children as well as his adult daughters.

Together the three social classes of Men, Women and Children form the family unit.  But God wanted to create one more unit of humanity and that was the nation.

God’s Fourth Class of Citizen

The Scriptures tell us that God is the one who caused the spread of humanity across the globe and the first nations to form.

“6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. 7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech. 8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.”

Genesis 11:6-8 (KJV)

“7 Remember the days of old, consider the years of many generations: ask thy father, and he will shew thee; thy elders, and they will tell thee. 8 When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel.”

Deuteronomy 32:7-8 (KJV)

“24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; 25 Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; 26 And hath made of one blood all nations [Greek ethnos] of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;”

Acts 17:24-26 (KJV)

The “number of the children of Israel” from Deuteronomy 32:7-8 refers to the 70 people who went with Jacob to Egypt.  So, what these passages are telling us together is – God separated humanity into 70 different ethnic groups (that is literally what the Greek word for nation means), gave these ethnic groups different languages and sent them across on the face of the earth determining where they would eventually settle.

In causing nations to form, God also caused the social class of citizen to form.  A citizen is a member of a nation, a group with shared ethnicity and shared language.  In the next social class we will discuss, we will see that God had different rules for how citizens and non-citizens could be treated in the theocracy of Israel.

God Allowed a Fifth Social Class Because of War and Poverty

Because of the presence of sin in the world which lead to poverty and wars, God allowed for a fifth social class which was that of a slave.  He did not allow for citizens to enslave their fellow citizens, but only those who were foreigners.  And there were two ways that the Israelite citizens were allowed by God to acquire slaves.

The first way God allowed for slavery was that he allowed the Israelites to buy children from their foreign parents either living in Israel or in the nations around Israel:

“39 And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: 40 But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubile. 41 And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.  42 For they are my servants, which I brought forth out of the land of Egypt: they shall not be sold as bondmen. 43 Thou shalt not rule over him with rigour; but shalt fear thy God.

44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour.”

Leviticus 25:39-46 (KJV)

Standing where we are in 21st century America, we may not be able to fathom why a parent would ever sell their child as a slave.  But the reason in most cases was simple and that was poverty.  If you had four children and your family was starving and by selling one of those four children as a slave you could save the rest of your family this made perfect sense.

This money you would receive would help you and your other children to escape poverty and make sure that all your children were provide for.  Even the child sold as a slave would have to be properly provided for and taken care of by their new master as God’s law demanded.

The second way God allowed slavery was to make prisoners of war slaves for Israel:

But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the Lord thy God hath given thee.”

Deuteronomy 20:14 (KJV)

But God did not allow slavery by kidnapping.  Kidnapping is condemned in the following passage:

“And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.”

Exodus 21:16 (KJV)

The passages I have just cited prove God’s allowance for this fifth social class, that being a slave with restrictions of course.  For more on this subject of slavery from a Biblical perspective see my article entitled “Why Christians shouldn’t be ashamed of Slavery in the Bible”.

The Creation of the Nobility and Royal Social Classes

John Locke was right about the fact that man in his natural state was designed to be free. But he was designed to be free within the limits of God’s law.  And what freedom looks like for God’s social classes of men, women and children is very different.

Far too often though, men have willingly given up their freedom whether it be for security or to be like others around them.  This is exactly what Israel did.  They begged God to let them have a king even after he warned them that kings would encroach upon their freedom.  You see before God allowed kings in Israel, the nation was ruled through prophets and judges.  These prophets and judges did not take away the wealth of the people, or seize their sons and daughters, but rather they taught God’s will and organized the people for common defense.  They settled disputes between families and they judged when people committed crimes. Israel only lost its freedom when God allowed other nations to invade because of the sin of Israel.  But when they would regain their freedom, they were free indeed. The men of Israel were as free as they would ever be before they insisted on having a king so they could be like other nations.

So, before God allowed it, he gave them a warning of what kings would do:

“11 And he said, This will be the manner of the king that shall reign over you: He will take your sons, and appoint them for himself, for his chariots, and to be his horsemen; and some shall run before his chariots. 12 And he will appoint him captains over thousands, and captains over fifties; and will set them to ear his ground, and to reap his harvest, and to make his instruments of war, and instruments of his chariots.

13 And he will take your daughters to be confectionaries, and to be cooks, and to be bakers.

14 And he will take your fields, and your vineyards, and your oliveyards, even the best of them, and give them to his servants.  15 And he will take the tenth of your seed, and of your vineyards, and give to his officers, and to his servants.

16 And he will take your menservants, and your maidservants, and your goodliest young men, and your asses, and put them to his work. 17 He will take the tenth of your sheep: and ye shall be his servants.

18 And ye shall cry out in that day because of your king which ye shall have chosen you; and the Lord will not hear you in that day.”

1 Samuel 8:11-18 (KJV)

Is this not a perfect description of what many kings have done throughout history? Kings and other nobility classes have consistently violated the property rights of men and when a man’s property is taken or violated by the government, his freedom is taken as well.

But the royal and nobility classes of men were never part of God’s original design.  He meant for all men, male human beings, to be equal and free as his image bearers.

He meant for all men to share in the joys of owning all these things which he warns men not to covet of other men:

“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.”

Exodus 20:17 (KJV)

And God actually calls the enjoyment of a man’s labor his gift to him:

“Every man also to whom God hath given riches and wealth, and hath given him power to eat thereof, and to take his portion, and to rejoice in his labour; this is the gift of God.”

Ecclesiastes 5:19 (KJV)

So, God only designed three primary classes of people – Men, Women and Children along with a fourth hybrid class of citizen.  But in 1690 John Locke would take a hammer to God’s social class structure.

Locke’s Invention of the “Adult” Social Class

In his “Second Treatise of Civil Government” Locke makes the following statement regarding the authority of parents over their children:

“The state of nature has a law of nature to govern it, which obliges every one: and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind, who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions

Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them, when they come into the world, and for some time after; but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they art wrapt up in, and supported by, in the weakness of their infancy: age and reason, as they grow up, loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal…

The power, then, that parents have over their children, arises from that duty which is incumbent on them, to take care of their offspring, during the imperfect state of childhood. To inform the mind, and govern the actions of their yet ignorant non-age, till reason shall take its place, and ease them of that trouble, is what the children want, and the parents are bound to; for God having given man an understanding to direct his actions, has allowed him a freedom of will, and liberty of acting, as properly belonging thereunto, within the bounds of that law he is under. But whilst he is in an estate, wherein he has not understanding of his own to direct his will, he is not to have any will of his own to follow: he that understands for him, must will for him too; he must prescribe to his will, and regulate his actions; but when he comes to the estate that made his father a free man, the son is a free man too.”

So, what was Locke saying? He was saying that all fully matured human beings, adult human beings, are in fact equal in their freedom.  The subjection of children to their parents is only temporary until they come to full maturity and then when they are adults, they are all equal and free.   When taken together with Locke’s former statement from this same treatise that the husband has no more power over his wife’s life than she does over his he believed that men and women possess equal rights and equal freedom.

So, Locke, with his invention of this new social class, the Adult, based on the maturity of a human being regardless of their gender, effectively eradicated the former social classes of Men and Women which God created in the Garden of Eden.

The founding fathers took a more limited view of Locke’s equality ideas rejecting his views of equal freedom for women.   In fact, John Adams said that giving women the right to vote and total equality with men would lead to “the Despotism of the Peticoat”, in other words the complete domination of women over men.  He told his wife Abigail Adams, one of America’s early feminists before feminism became very fashionable, that many men were already the subjects of their wives in their homes and were “Masters” in name only.

And John Adams was absolutely right.  Giving women the right to vote and fulfilling the Lockean vision of society did lead to “the Despotism of the Peticoat”.  In most cases, women have complete control of male/female relationships whether they be dating, cohabitation or marriage.  And women have made great strides in the business and political world and have been exhibiting huge amounts of influence to the point that most men are absolutely terrified to stand up to this “Despotism of the Peticoat” that has now been fully realized with the last 50 years.

It took a little more than a century for America to fully dismiss the warnings of John Adams of what would happen if women were given total equality with men, but eventually America did.  And now we have reaped the consequences with the destruction of marriage and the institution of the family.

Practical Application for Christian Male/Female Relationships

Whether it is a father with his daughter or a husband with his wife this modern notion of “I am an adult” is something we as men will be confronted with on a regular basis.  Many Christian men have no idea how to respond to the following types of statements from the women in their families:

A daughter to her father:

“You can’t tell me who I can see or not see or who I can marry, I am an adult!”

“Stop treating like a child! I am an adult! I make my own life decisions!”

“It’s my body, I can do with it as I wish.  I am an adult!”

A wife to her husband:

“You can’t tell me what to do. You are not my father.  I am an adult!”

“Stop treating me like one of our children! I am an adult!”

“It’s my body, I can do with it as I wish.  I am an adult!”

So how do we as Christian men address these “I am an adult” statements that we may hear from our wives and daughters?

Suggestion Response for a Father to his Daughter

“I recognize that you are a fully formed postpubescent human being, or an adult human being, but you are still a woman and I am still a man. The fact that you are an adult does not change the fact that I am your father and God has given me a special responsibility to love you by leading you, protecting you, providing for you, teaching you, correcting you and preparing you for your future husband.  Sometimes protecting you means protecting you from your own bad decisions. I have the very serious and important tasks of helping you to maintain your sexual purity and giving my blessing to the man that I believe God would have you to marry.  So no, I am not treating you like a child, but rather I am treating you like a woman and a daughter according to God’s Word.”

Suggestion Response for a Husband to his Wife

“I recognize that you are a fully formed postpubescent human being, or an adult human being, but you are still a woman and I am still a man. The fact that you are an adult does not change the fact that I am your husband and God has given me a special responsibility to love you by leading you, protecting you, providing for you, teaching you, correcting you and helping you to be the wife God has called you to be to me.  Sometimes protecting you means protecting you from your own bad decisions.  God has given you and your body to me for my use and my pleasure.  He also has commanded that I not deny sexual relations to you as well.   So no, I am not treating you like one of our children, but rather I am treating you like a woman and like a wife according to God’s Word.”

The War on the Citizenship Class

Our modern society is truly looking to eradicate all social classes except that of Adults and Minors – they even want to eradicate the social class of Citizen. This is the battle that has been playing out over immigration policies in America. On one side you have nationalists who want to protect our culture and the sovereignty of our nation and on the other side you have globalists who want to eradicate the concept of nations and the concept of citizenship is actually evil in their view because it treats a citizen different than a non-citizen.

Conclusion

Do I think John Locke was an evil man and that everything he taught was wrong? No.  He and the founders were imperfect men just as all men are imperfect.  But they were absolutely right that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights”.  All men, male human beings, are created equally in God’s image to be his image bearers, but women are not created equal to men.

“For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”

1 Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

Merriam Webster’s online dictionary defines “unalienable” as:

“incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred”

And that really is a perfect description of our God given rights.  The men of America’s past had no right to surrender or transfer their rights to women.  They sinned against God in doing so. And we as Christian men have no right to surrender our God given rights either.  In fact we must fight to reclaim what we have lost.

Each of us has our part to play.   It starts in our marriage. Then in our teaching to our sons and daughters in what it means to be men and women of God.  It means getting out and voting for candidates who support Biblical morality.

It will be a long fight for many decades to come, but it can be won.  It more than a century for America to turn against God’s design in gender roles and social classes and it may take a century or more to return to them.

The questions for Christians reading this are these:

Will you accept what the Bible teaches and reject the false “Adult” social class constructed by John Locke?

Will you return to and accept God’s social order of Men, Women and Children?

Will you stand with those who say it is evil to follow God and his ways and his social classes? Or will you stand with God and serve him?

The choice is yours.

15 And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:15 (KJV)

The Carnage of Woman’s Suffrage

Over the next year, millions of Americans will be celebrating the 100th anniversary of the passage of Woman’s Suffrage. But as Bible believing Christians, should we celebrate something born out of a movement that eventually lead to the deaths of 60 million babies through abortion and the deaths of 60 million marriages through divorce?  Should we be celebrating the breakdown of the family unit and male/female relationships that is a direct result of giving women rights God never intended for them to have?

I will be discussing this topic in the first podcast episode for my show entitled “The BGR Review”.  I am making this episode available in the free section of my new podcast site BRGLearning.com.

Click here to go to BRGLearning.com and listen to this podcast episode for free.

BiblicalGenderRoles Podcasting Is Online!

For the last couple of years I have had several regular readers ask me to start a podcasting ministry.  A lot of people don’t have the time to read but they can listen in the car or as they go about their day.

I am happy to announce that after about about 6 weeks of working on it BGRLearning.com is now online.

BGR Learning is a seperate website that is now the podcasting extension of BiblicalGenderRoles.com. Here you will find many podcast series that are based on teachings that you can read on BiblicalGenderRoles.com.

These are the three formats of podcasts on this site:

Lesson – We have series of lessons that break down larger Biblical topics into smaller parts with podcasts that are 5 to 10 minutes each. Many of these lessons will be based on articles previously written on BiblicalGenderRoles.com.

Dear BGR: In these podcasts I will be answering reader questions about gender roles, marriage and sex from emails and comments that I receive from BiblicalGenderRoles.com and BGRLearning.com.

BGR Reviews: In these podcasts I will be reviewing various blogs and other news sites talking about the current issues of the day.

I have already pre-recorded over 50 episodes. Today I have released 4 podcasts for each subscription.  I will be releasing new podcasts each Saturday. 

Also one of the things I am doing differently is recording smaller podcasts.  Most podcasts will be 5 to 10 minutes long with a few being 20 minutes.  I found this shorter format much easier for me to produce.

And yes I will continue writing for BiblicalGenderRoles.com, but I hope my readers here will be patient as I divide my time between BGRLearning.com and BiblicalGenderRoles.com.

One of the many things I am excited about doing is going back and doing audio versions of many of the most popular posts that I have written here over the several years.

I hope this new audio ministry at BRGLearning.com will be a great blessing to you all.

Click here to visiting BGRLearning.com and register for a subscription to start downloading BiblicalGenderRoles podcasts.

Why God’s Identification as Male Is the Key to Understanding Life’s Meaning

Is the only reason God is identified in the Bible by masculine titles such as Father, Husband, Son and King and not also as Mother, Wife, Daughter and Queen because of the “misogynist” and “patriarchal” times the Bible was written in? Many non-Christians and sadly even professing Christians today would have us belief this.

On the other hand, we have Bible believing conservative Christians who tell us that “Everything created in woman that sets her off from man comes from God and reflects something of him… God is not male and God is not female… And yet God’s self-chosen titles matter”. So, these Bible believing Christians are basically saying God is not masculine or feminine and they don’t understand why he chooses masculine titles or even why he established male headship, just that he did and we must accept it. It is a mystery to them as to why God consistently reveals himself in the masculine sense.

What if I were to tell you that God’s Identification as male in the Bible is not because of the “misogynist” and “patriarchal” times the Bible was written in nor is it a mystery we must just accept. What if I were to tell you that understanding why God identifies as male can actually answer the greatest question any man or woman could ask and that is “Why am I here?

Recently I received an email from one of my readers asking me to tackle this issue. She told me she had people throwing verses at her that seemed to present God in a feminine sense. The people who gave her these verses claimed these passages proved God was both male and female – or that God split the attributes of his nature into male and female human beings so only together do man and woman represent the nature of God.

While writing a response to her concerns I decided to look into a few other conservative Christian sites to see their response to this issue in comparison to my own. I found an article written by Tony Reinke on DesiringGod.org called “Our Mother Who Art In Heaven?”. In this article he was reviewing “The Shack” movie which came out in 2017.

I decided that I would answer this reader’s question by reviewing this “review”. The reason is that while Reinke was right in some of his condemnation of the gender fluid portrayal of God the father in “The Shack” the problem is he really did not go far enough in his explanation of why it was wrong. In fact he and John Piper are both wrong in their position on the nature of God as it relates to gender.

So, I think this will more than answer this reader’s questions and show that even in conservative Bible believing circles there is unfortunately a great degree of ignorance regarding the nature of God.

Reinke starts out his review with the following synopsis of “The Shack”:

“With the recent launch of The Shack movie, we are reminded of a whole mix of theological questions raised by the novel, and the problems of projecting the divine onto a screen. One of the lead characters in the book, for example, is a woman named Papa, who plays the role of God the Father, and her character reignites questions over divine identity and gender language.

I am neither male nor female,” Papa self-discloses in the novel, “even though both genders are derived from my nature. If I choose to appear to you as a man or woman, it’s because I love you. For me to appear to you as a woman and suggest you call me Papa is simply to mix metaphors, to help you keep from falling so easily back into your religious conditioning.”

So now let’s look at Reinke’s response to the issue of God’s nature in relation to gender. He starts off quoting the Words of Christ and then John Piper:

“It’s worth saying from the outset, in the words of Jesus, “God is spirit” (John 4:24). God is not a sexual being, nor is he a biological male. He is spirit. “From eternity,” says John Piper, “God has not had a physical body and, therefore, he doesn’t have male features: facial hair, musculature, male genitals, no Y chromosome, no male hormones. Male is a biological word, and God is not a biological being” (Ask Pastor John, episode 294).”

And here is the first mistake in theology which comes from John Piper and then is repeated by Tony Reinke. Male is not just a “biological word”. Male, in the sense of male human beings, describes a set of both physical and psychological characteristics that are common to men. Here is a list of psychological differences between the typical man and the typical woman:

  1. Men are systemizers and women are empathizers.
  2. Men are logical and duty driven and women are emotional and feelings driven.
  3. Men are physical and women are relational.
  4. Men are competitive and women are cooperative.
  5. Men are aggressive and women are gentle.

I could go on with many more comparisons, but the fact is there is more to male and female than just genitalia and chromosomes. And before the transgender and gender fluid folks say “ya that right!” let me help you here. In Genesis 1:27, the Scriptures tell us “male and female created he them” and God makes the following declaration in the book of Deuteronomy:
“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.”
Deuteronomy 22:5 (KJV)

What that means practically speaking is if you are born in a male “vessel” as the Bible refers to our bodies, then you are required by God to dress and act like a male. If you are born in a female vessel then are you are required by God to dress and act like a female.

In other words, being cisgender is not just “a privilege” as some call it today, but is in fact the command of God.

So, in this case, both sides are wrong. I know for sure that Reinke and Piper both oppose transgenderism but they are wrong in limiting male to simply a biological term. Male describes both biology and nature.

Reinke then goes on to list 26 passages where he says “God’s character and actions are revealed by feminine imagery”.

Let’s take a look at a few of these passages that he mentions:
“As one whom his mother comforteth, so will I comfort you; and ye shall be comforted in Jerusalem.”
Isaiah. 66:13 (KJV)
“I have long time holden my peace; I have been still, and refrained myself: now will I cry like a travailing woman; I will destroy and devour at once.”
Isaiah 42:14 (KJV)
“Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, yet will I not forget thee.”
Isaiah 49:15

What do all these passages have in common? They are metaphors for behavior, not titles for God. And Reinke acknowledges this when he states “But even taken together, the evidence does not warrant us praying to “our Mother who art in heaven” and then he gives his “three compelling reasons” why.

In his first point Reinke states:

“in Scripture we find many masculine titles for God: Lord, Father, King, Judge, Savior, Ruler, Warrior, Shepherd, Husband, and even a handful of metaphorical masculine titles like Rock, Fortress, and Shield. While feminine titles for God — Queen, Lady, Mother, and Daughter — are never used.”

And this is a point I have made several times on this blog. Every title for God in the Bible is a masculine title and never ever feminine title.

His second point is in my opinion is quite silly. He tries to show that with the incarnation of Christ in “biological maleness” that there is a “sharp drop-off with the feminine metaphors for God”. He seems to be saying God became more male after Christ took on a male biological form.

I mean no disrespect to Reinke but this argument really is foolishness. The Trinity did not become more masculine because Christ took on a biological form, but rather Christ took on the form of a man because God ALWAYS had a masculine nature as we will show here in this article.

Now that I have been so hard on Reinke for his second point, I will give him some credit on his third point. For his third point as to why we should not refer to God as “Our Mother in Heaven” he states:

“Third, as theologian John Frame points out, it is not uncommon to see in Scripture feminine imagery intentionally applied to men (as in 2 Samuel 17:8). This makes sense to us, as we often speak of the feminine side of men today, meaning that men can (and should) display qualities often associated with women, like gentleness.

The apostle Paul’s anguish over the growth of his churches was for him like the pain of birthing a child (Galatians 4:19). And Paul’s apostolic gentleness was something like the kindness and patience of a nursing mother (1 Thessalonians 2:7). Obviously, Paul’s maleness is never brought into question by these female metaphors.”

That is a fantastic point about the Apostle Paul comparing himself to a mother in his behavior several times.

The point here is that just because I, the Apostle Paul or God himself uses a metaphor invoking the behavior of a woman does not mean we are saying we are both male and female. It has nothing to do with our identity as men.

But even on his third point Reinke makes this statement that needs correction – “we often speak of the feminine side of men today, meaning that men can (and should) display qualities often associated with women, like gentleness”. While I am not against men being gentle when a situation warrants it – one of the worst parts of our modern society is the teaching that men should be more like women. And sadly, this is even taught in many of our churches today.

Reinke concludes his review with the following statement from John Piper on this subject:

““Everything created in woman that sets her off from man comes from God and reflects something of him,” stresses Piper. “Woman was not modeled after some other god. There is no other god. She was modeled after God. When the Bible says she and he were created in the image of God, it means she is also made after the model of her Creator. So, it is important to say that in his essential divine being, not referring to his incarnate union with humanity, but in his essential, divine essence, God is not male and God is not female. Maleness and femaleness are God’s creation, as biological bearers of masculinity and femininity, both of which are rooted in God” (Ask Pastor John, episode 294).”

There are many false statements made here by Piper and repeated by Reinke. But before I show why they are false I need to show you a passage of Scripture that is not mentioned in this review:
“7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man. 8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man. 9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
I Corinthians 11:7-9 (KJV)

The word “man” in I Corinthians 11:7 is a translation of the Greek word “Aner” which literally means “male human being” while woman is a translation of the word “gune” which literally means “female human being”. Throughout the New Testament aner is translated as “man, men or husband” depending on the context it is used in and gune is translated as “woman, women or wife” depending on the context it is used in.

What this passage is saying is that the male human being is the image and glory of God, but the female human being is the glory of the man. It is a clear comparison and contrasting statement.

In fact, the passage above gives the very reason for which God created man and woman. He created man to image him and thereby bring him glory and he created woman to be the glory of man. The Old Testament tells us that God created the woman for the man as a helper (Genesis 2:18) and it also tells us that a woman is to be her husband’s “crown” or glory (Proverbs 12:4). The New Testament goes further into man’s imaging duties telling us that “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body” (Ephesians 5:23). All of these Scriptures passages and many more confirm for us why God refers to himself in the masculine sense in the Scriptures. It is because the masculine human being is the one who is his image bearer.

John Piper even blatantly denies what I Corinthians 11:7 so clearly states for us in another article he wrote specifically on I Corinthians 11 entitled “Creation, Culture, and Corinthian Prophetesses”.

In that article Piper states:

“Verse 7 tells why a man should not have a sign of authority on his head: “He is the image and glory of God’ but woman is the glory of man.” This is parallel to verse 3 (NAS): “Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman.”
These verses do not necessarily imply that Christ is not woman’s head nor that she is not the image and glory of God. Paul’s point is that man was created by God through Christ and woman was created by God through Christ through man. The point is not to lessen the intimacy of her relation to Christ (she is receiving prophetic revelation!), but to clarify and establish her relation to man.

Man is God’s glory in that he came from God through Christ without coming through woman, and so is to reflect Christ’s true nature as his divine head. Woman is man’s glory in that she came from God through Christ through man, and so is to reflect man’s true nature as her human head.”

Is there anything in this passage that states “Man is God’s glory in that he came from God through Christ without coming through woman”? Absolutely not. These verses do not just “imply” that “she is not the image and glory of God”, they EXPLICILTY state it!

This is why I always chuckle when people act like John Piper is this big traditional gender roles guy. He is NOT. Yes, he teaches male headship, but like most complementarians today he does not teach the REASON for male headship.

God did not just flip a coin and put men in charge of women. He put men in charge of women because the male human being “is the image and glory of God”. And because Piper and most Christian teachers refuse to acknowledge this truth that is staring them in the face – they cannot fully understand the purpose in why God placed men over women.

Now let’s return to the final statement by Piper that Reinke uses in his conclusion. I will take several key statements comparing them with the Scriptures:

Piper states:

“Everything created in woman that sets her off from man comes from God and reflects something of him”

This is FALSE. There is not one Scripture passage that says everything that sets a woman apart from man reflects something of God’s nature. In fact, in I Corinthians 11:9 we are told this truth:
“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”

That means that everything that “sets her off from man” was created in her FOR MAN, not to further reveal the nature of God.

Piper states:

“Woman was not modeled after some other god. There is no other god. She was modeled after God.”

This is what is called a strawman argument. Who said woman was modeled after some other god? The false argument Piper is pushing is woman must be modeled after a god, and therefore since we know there is only one God then woman must be equally modeled after God in the same way man is.
The fact is that woman is NOT modeled after God or man while she does share common attributes with man whom she was taken from and therefore God as well because man was made in the image of God.

I used to say in error “Man is the image of God, and woman is the image of man” but I realized that statement is also theologically incorrect. The Bible never states that woman is the image of God nor does it state she is the image of man. She shares a common human nature with man but she is not his image as her nature is still very different.

Woman was given her core human traits like self-awareness, creativity, the ability to feel emotions, the ability to appreciate beauty and the ability to learn to make her a “help meet” (Genesis 2:18) for man. Man was given these same core human traits and then addition traits of increased strength, competitiveness, aggressiveness and many other traits we understand as masculine for a different purpose.

Man was given his masculine human nature to image God and thereby bring him glory. Woman was given her feminine nature not to be God’s image bearer, but instead to be a HELP to his image bearer. This is the truth of the Word of God.

Piper states:

“When the Bible says she and he were created in the image of God, it means she is also made after the model of her Creator.”

This is FALSE. No passage of the Bible says “she and he were created in the image of God”. Piper like many Christian teachers attempts to build this false argument on the following verse from Genesis:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Genesis 1:27 (KJV)

Does that passage say God created “she and he” or “male and female” in his image? It does not. It states two different things. First, it states that God created “him”, not “them” in his image. Secondly it states that he made “them” – male and female. Nothing here states that the female was made in his image as well. Many of tried to argue that the Hebrew word for man here “adam” means “mankind” and sometimes it does. But not when it is used with speech about a particular man. The Hebrew translated as “he him” literally means “this same man” and it is speaking of particularly of Adam the man.

We then learn from the Apostle Paul giving us divine commentary that it is all male human beings “aner” that are “the image and glory of God”. Mr. Reinke and Mr. Piper need only to accept the clear and explicit teaching of I Corinthians 11:7.

Piper states:

“So, it is important to say that in his essential divine being, not referring to his incarnate union with humanity, but in his essential, divine essence, God is not male and God is not female.”

Again, the statement that “God is not male and God is not female” directly contradicts the reading of I Corinthians 11:7 which Piper chooses to explain away and ignore:
“For a MAN (“aner” – the male human being”) indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he IS the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.”
I Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)

If the male human being is “the image and glory of God” then we can we rightly say God IS male in the sense that the Trinity is imaged in the masculine human nature. Now does that mean God is biologically male? Yes and No. Christ is the God man, but God the Father and God the Holy Spirit are spirit as the Bible tells us:
God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”
John 4:24 (KJV)

Conclusion

God using feminine metaphors to picture his behavior or feelings no more makes him female in his nature than the Apostle Paul using female metaphors for his behavior made him female in his.

There is no conflict in saying that God is spirit and yet God has always possessed a masculine nature even before the incarnation of Christ. God did not become more masculine after Christ took on the form of a man, but rather Christ took on the form of a man because God was always masculine.

To women reading this. The truth that you were made for man and not to image God does not mean God loves you any less than man. The lie you are taught in America and Western civilization is that equality equals humanity.

We are told that if we embrace the truth of God’s Word that woman was not made in God’s image then we are saying women are less human than men, and less valuable to God. This is false. God loves men and women equally and men and women are equally saved by Christ and can both become part of the body of Christ as the Scriptures tell us:
“There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Galatians 3:28 (KJV)

“Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”
I Peter 3:7 (KJV)

The male and female, like marriage itself, is for this world and this time as the Scriptures tell us:
“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.”
Matthew 22:30 (KJV)

But in this world and in this life, God has made “male and female”. If we are born in a male vessel than our life’s mission is to be the image bearer of God. We are to display his masculine attributes throughout our life. If we are born in a woman’s vessel, then we are called to find and dedicate our life to serving a person in a male vessel in marriage. This service of the female vessel to the male vessel was designed by God to picture the relationship between himself and his people.

And what I have just described answers the most important question that we as human beings can ever ask and that is “Why I am here?“. If we not only accept that God identifies as male, but accept why he identifies as male then we as men and woman, can know the meaning of life. But if we do as so much of the world today does and reject the fact that God identifies as male and why he identifies as male then we reject our very purpose for being here.