Patriarchy

Doug Wilson Is a Complementarian Masquerading as a Biblical Patriarchist

/ biblicalgenderroles / 4 Comments

The unfortunate reality is that there are many Christian teachers out there who claim to embrace Biblical patriarchy, when in fact they are simply complementarians in sheep’s clothing.   Doug Wilson is one of those teachers who claims to be a believer in Biblical Patriarchy but essentially, he is a Complementarian when it comes to marriage. I am not saying complementarians are evil people. I used to be one. And I am not saying Doug Wilson is a bad person, or even questioning whether he is a genuine Bible believing Christian – because I believe he is a good Christian man. But what I am saying is this. If you want to learn about the true and historic Christian views of biblical gender roles which are encapsulated in Biblical Patriarchy – do not use the writings of Doug Wilson as your source of what true Biblical Patriarchists believe.

But before I get into why I believe Doug Wilson is a counterfeit Biblical Patriarchist, I first want to review with you the three systems of Biblical interpretation we see in Christianity today as it relates to gender roles.

Biblical Patriarchy is a belief system which reflects the historic Christian view of biblical teachings regarding gender roles.  Is derived from a natural and literal reading of the Biblical texts of both the Old and New Testaments.  This natural and literal reading reveals that God has designed the family unit as a patriarchy or literally “father ruled” institution.  The children obey their parents, and the wife obeys her husband as her earthly lord as the church obeys Christ.   Also, Biblical Patriarchy accepts the Biblical teachings that men are to rule over women not just in the home, but also in the church and civil society. 

Egalitarianism (otherwise known as Christian Feminism) is a philosophy which fully embraces everything secular humanism teaches, minus the atheism.  Because of this, Egalitarians reject much of the Bible’s teachings on patriarchal order and they claim that Christ came to redeem us from the “evils of patriarchy”.   Many Christian Egalitarians are honest in the fact that they reject the concept of Biblical inerrancy knowing their belief system is incompatible with a belief in Biblical inerrancy.  Some attempt to say they still believe in Biblical inerrancy, but to do so they have to utterly mangle many texts in the Bible from their clear and natural readings.

Egalitarians believe women should have equal rights with men, that that they should be able to be pastors and teachers of men in churches and that they should be able to hold authority over men in civil offices.  They believe that marriage is an equal partnership between a man and woman, not a patriarchy.

In my previous article, “The Complementarian Counterfeit”, I stated the following about Complementarianism:

“Complementarianism was started as a reaction to the false teachings of egalitarianism.  The term “Complementarian” was coined by the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) in 1988…

John Piper explains that complementarianism was designed to take the “middle ground” between what he and other Christian leaders saw as “two kinds of errors” in the churches…

In the complementarian view, a husband may only lead his wife by example or suggestions to her, but he may never lead her by commanding her or seeking to control her through coercive methods.  And it is precisely because of the denial that male domination of woman is God’s command, that complementarianism teaches a hollow and weak form of male headship and female submission in the home.

When it comes to the doctrines of the Bible concerning gender roles, there is no “middle ground” and no room for compromise with egalitarianism.   Complementarianism is a counterfeit doctrine of male headship and female submission.”

The “two errors” which pastors like John Piper meant to address with their new “Complementarian” approach to the Scriptures were Egalitarianism and Biblical Patriarchy.  In other words, John Piper and many conservative Bible preaching pastors had come to the position that the historic Christian view of gender roles which Biblical Patriarchy espoused, was in error.  That Christians had misunderstood the Bible’s teachings on gender roles for 2000 years and Complementarians finally got it right in 1988.

But the truth is that Complementarianism was simply a new way of interpreting the Bible to make it better placate our post-feminist society without fully going over to Egalitarianism.  Oh, for sure Piper and many other big complementarian evangelical preachers will claim that they oppose feminism.  But when you really drill down into it, they embrace a great deal of feminist values.  And the truth is they believe they had to.  For them to stay faithful to what the Bible actually teaches and what Biblical patriarchy espouses would have cost them dearly in terms of the membership and offerings.

And now that I have shown you the distinctions between egalitarianism, complementarianism and Biblical patriarchy I can now get to the heart of the matter regarding Doug Wilson.

Why Doug Wilson is a Counterfeit Biblical Patriarchist

In the Scriptures, God has established three main spheres of human authority and those are the family, the church and civil government.  And God has granted the authorities in each of these spheres the power and responsibility to discipline those under their authority.  

The methods of discipline which God allows are different for each sphere of authority.  God grants civil government the power to not only use corporal punishment, but also the power to use capital punishment (Deuteronomy 25:1-3, Romans 13:4).  God does not grant the power of corporal punishment or capital punishment to the church, but rather the church has the power of excommunication (1 Corinthians 5).  God does not grant the power of capital punishment to the family, but he does allow corporal punishment within the family sphere of authority.

Many Christians, including Doug Wilson, would not disagree with parents disciplining their children, either through corporal punishment or other non-physical means.   In fact, Doug Wilson encourages parents to spank their children as long as it done in a loving manner.  In his article “Loving Little Ones 1” [Loving Little Ones 1 | Blog & Mablog (dougwils.com) ]Wilson writes:

“Discipline is corrective, and it is applied for the sake of the one receiving it. It is not punitive, and it is not rendered for the sake of the one giving it.

When you are spanking a child, you are either being selfish or you are being selfless—one or the other. You are doing it because you are exasperated, frustrated, beside yourself, and frazzled, or you are doing it as a fragrant offering to the God of your fathers.”

But then we come to an article written by Doug Wilson that was recently sent to me by one of my readers.  The article is entitled “And Now a Brief Word for the Wife Beaters”.  Below is an excerpt from that article:

“I am far from denying the biblical truth that a rod is for the back of fools (Prov. 26:3Open in Logos Bible Software (if available)). Nor do I deny that a woman could be numbered among such fools. But such a woman would be far gone in her folly, and the only fool bigger than that would be the guy who married her. So before we beat her for her uppity rebellions, I would suggest we flog him for being such an idiot. If he were to object that this is mean-spirited and unjust, I would reply that it sounds to me that he has been influenced by the spirit of egalitarianism. Must be one of those new softie men.

Since the difficulty was apparently found in my #11, let us discuss that for a moment.

“The Bible does not teach husbands to enforce the requirement that was given to their wives. Since true submission is a matter of the heart, rendered by grace through faith, a husband does not have the capacity to make this happen. His first task is therefore to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He is to lead by example.”

The key words here are enforce and make. No mortal can force such a thing. It does not come from right-handed power.”

Wilson makes it clear in the article above that he is completely opposed to a husband disciplining his wife in any way, whether it be physically or non-physically.  He denies that a husband has the right to seek to compel his wife’s submission to him by any means and that he may only lead by example. 

He is teaching exactly what Complementarianism teaches, that the husband is a figure head leader to his wife.  As true believers in Biblical patriarchy, we would agree that husbands should lead by example.  But husbands are also compelled by God to lead by disciplining their wives as well. 

In Ephesians 5:25 the Bible commands husbands to love their wives “even as Christ also loved the church” and Christ said to his churches in Revelation 3:19 “As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent”.    A man that does not rebuke and chasten his wife is not loving his wife as Christ loves his church.  That is clear teaching of the Scriptures.  And that is why Christian husbands who ascribed to the teachings of the Bible for centuries had disciplined their wives both physically and non-physically.  

The Bible may not mandate physical discipline for wives, but it does mandate that a husband use some form of discipline with his wife.  And no Biblical principle or command would disallow a husband from physically disciplining his wife.

We have clearly established from Doug Wilson’s own words that he believes husbands do not have the power to compel the obedience of their wives and that they may only lead by example.  A person who may only lead by example is not an authority at all, but rather they are just a figure head.  Therefore, Wilson has reduced husbands to mere figure head leaders of their wives and not real authorities over them.  And this teaching that a wife’s submission to her husband is voluntary, and may not be compelled from her husband, is a core tenant of complementarianism.  

The Scriptures tell us that wives are to regard their husbands as their earthly lords (1 Peter 3:5-6) and to submit to them “as unto the Lord…in everything” (Ephesians 5:22-24).   There is no other human authority where God commands those under them to submit to them “as unto the Lord” except the husband.  The husband’s authority over his wife is far greater than that of a father’s authority over his children because the husband’s authority is lifelong and he also has sexual authority over his wife.   

The husband’s authority, unlike that of civil authorities and church authorities, is a very personal authority.  No other authority has such control over the personal day to day decisions of another human being.  No other authority has such control over another person’s body.   And that is why the true Biblical teaching of a husband’s authority over his wife is so threatening and scary to Americans and other Westerners who fully ascribe to individualism.

If you talk to Biblical Patriarchists online or in person you will find that a core doctrine they believe in is that of the husband’s responsibility to discipline his wife.  Some might not believe a husband has the God given authority to spank his wife, but they believe that husbands have the right and responsibility to discipline their wives in some form or fashion. 

Doug Wilson, and other complementarians, have taken the husband from being the greatest human authority God ever established (aside from Christ himself) to making the husband the weakest authority.  And in truth, the husband is not really an authority at all, but merely a figure head leader.

I am sure Doug Wilson is a good Christian man just like John Piper is.  But while he may be a good Christian man, Doug Wilson in fact a counterfeit Biblical Patriarchist.

For more on the Biblical case for and historic precedent of wife spanking (aka Domestic Discipline) I would encourage you to read these articles I wrote on the subject:

The Biblical Case for Domestic Discipline

A 19th Century Suffragette View of Domestic Discipline

19th Century Judicial Precedents Regarding Domestic Discipline

Are Biblical Gender Roles a “broken system” that God wants torn down?

/ biblicalgenderroles / 2 Comments

“Christ didn’t die to make our garbage nicer garbage. He died to overcome it, to take it away. There are many broken and imperfect systems in scripture and throughout the world, and patriarchy is one of them. God isn’t in the process of making broken systems nicer. Christ didn’t die so that we can ultimately have kinder injustices. God is tearing down broken systems.”  This was the opinion expressed by Kelly Ladd Bishop in an article she wrote for the Huffington Post entitled “The Foolishness of So-Called Biblical Gender Roles”.

You might think this was an attack on my blog by the title but it was actually against some other groups that hold to similar (but not identical) beliefs in Biblical Gender Roles.

Bishop made these statements as well:

“Taking an unjust system and making it nicer is foolishness.

However, this is exactly what many evangelical groups are doing with patriarchy.

Patriarchy, at its core, is a system of injustice, where women are not fully autonomous, but are under the authority of men…

Besides the exegetical problems with teaching a gender hierarchy, which are plentiful, the basic idea that God ordains a gender hierarchy is completely counter to God’s character, and the entire message of redemption in scripture.”

“gender hierarchy is completely counter to God’s character”? Really? I think Bishop and I must be reading different Bibles. No the actual problem is that she reads the Bible through her own feminist lenses. What that means whenever she comes across a passage that places men over women it must be a mistake.  It was part of a sinful culture that God just overlooked. God was just going along with the crowd.

The God of the Bible is not a God who tolerates sin. No mam.

God is not silent on the issue of Biblical Gender Roles, he is not implicit but rather he is very explicit on the subject.

“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… Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.” – I Corinthians 11:3 & 9 (KJV)

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 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. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing…

Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.” – Ephesians 5:22-24 & 33 (KJV)

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.” – Colossians 3:18 (KJV)

“That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” – Titus 2:4-5(KJV)

“Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives…

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: 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 3:1 & 5-6 (KJV)

It looks like to me and these other Bible believing groups she attacks that Bishop’s assertion that “gender hierarchy is completely counter to God’s character” does not have a Scriptural leg to stand on.

Gender hierarchy is about God displaying a wonderful symbol of the relationship between God and his people.  In the Old Testament this was pictured in God’s relationship with Israel, and in the New Testament it is pictured in the relationship of Christ to his Church.

Kelly Bishop – you are right that “Christ didn’t die to make our garbage nicer garbage. He died to overcome it, to take it away.” He died to so that you and other Christian feminists could put away the garbage of your selfish ambition and rebellion against his design for your life.

Was polygamy a sin in the Old Testament that God overlooked?

/ biblicalgenderroles / 24 Comments

Was polygamy a sin God overlooked in the Old Testament but he finally got rid of in the New Testament?  A broader question might be “Does God regulate and authorize behavior he thinks is sinful?”

If you have read many posts on this blog – you will know that I believe based on the Word of God(the whole Bible, not just the New Testament) that God never regulates or authorizes something he believes to be sinful, and therefore polygamy was not(and I would still argue today it is still not sinful when practiced Biblically).

Ever since I was a young man I have always been fascinated by three subjects – theology, history and human nature.  Specifically I wanted to understand what parts of our human nature(and even more specifically our male and female natures) are by the design of God, and which ones come from our sin nature corrupting of the God’s original design.

So question that needs answering is – “Is man’s natural instinct to be drawn to multiple women a corruption of his nature or part of his original design by God? ”

Most Pastors and theologians since the time Augustine(who brought Christian asceticism into the Church) have promoted a belief that this is part of man’s sinful nature, and not the nature he was originally designed with in the garden of Eden.  They argue that man was originally made by God with a monogamous nature, and only because of sin did polygamy enter the picture.

I have held this position on Biblical polygamy for 20 years(and no I am not a practicing polygamist) .  It always bothered me when I was a young man growing up in Baptist Churches(which I still love and attend ) when the Pastor would come to a passage about polygamy and say something like “This was a sin God overlooked in ancient times, but he finally got rid of it in the New Testament”.  This just bugged me! Since when does the God of the Bible regulate and authorize a behavior he believes to be sinful?  I have always believed that the God of the Bible can never authorize or regulate sinful behavior and I always will.

Recently I had a little debate about this issue in another forum with a Christian woman when we were discussing the subject of men looking at women.  Her name was Lucy.  This is part of the conversation where switch to the topic of polygamy:

Lucy started by quoting a statement I am made:

“men are naturally polygynous as God designed them.” Can you please provide verse and chapter for us? It seems to me that if that were true, anything but polygamy would be cruel for men and that decans, pastors, etc, should not have to be the husband of only one wife.”

This was my response:

Lucy – I would be happy to respond with Bible passages that support the concept that men are naturally polygynous as designed by God.

God allows and regulates polygamy in Moses law

If a man takes a second wife, he cannot deny the first wife food, clothing or sex. He must continue being a husband to her as well, even if he has more romantic attachment to his second wife.

“If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.” – Exodus 21:10-11

A man could not take his wife’s sister as a rival wife while his wife lived:
“Neither shalt thou take a wife to her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the other in her life time.” – Leviticus 18:18

If a man had two wives, and he did was not romantically attracted to or did not get along with one as good as the other, he still had to acknowledge the rights of her son if he was firstborn:

“15 If a man have two wives, one beloved, and another hated, and they have born him children, both the beloved and the hated; and if the firstborn son be hers that was hated:

16 Then it shall be, when he maketh his sons to inherit that which he hath, that he may not make the son of the beloved firstborn before the son of the hated, which is indeed the firstborn:

17 But he shall acknowledge the son of the hated for the firstborn, by giving him a double portion of all that he hath: for he is the beginning of his strength; the right of the firstborn is his.” – Deuteronomy 21:15-17

Leah was blessed by God for giving her husband one of her hand maids as a wife:

“9 When Leah saw that she had left bearing, she took Zilpah her maid, and gave her Jacob to wife…17 And God hearkened unto Leah, and she conceived, and bare Jacob the fifth son.

18 And Leah said, God hath given me my hire, because I have given my maiden to my husband: and she called his name Issachar.
Genesis 30:9 & 17-18

Lucy – many Christians because this does not meet with their preconceived notion that God always intended for men to be in monogamous marriages will say that that God only “allowed polygamy, but it was still sinful”.

The God of the Bible does NOT all sin – EVER. What he allows, he approves of – to say anything less is to question the holiness of God.

Now does God sometimes change his laws?

Yes. For instance God allowed the sons and daughters of Adam and Eve to marry(what we would call incest) and this practice was not condemned until later in the Mosaic law.

There was no sin Jacob marrying two sisters(Leah and Rachel) even though he was tricked. God had not yet forbid a man from marrying sisters.

God never condemned polygamy, but rather he regulated it which means he approved of it.

Some will try to point to Deuteronomy 17:15-17 where God says that a King shall not “multiply wives to himself” to say God was condemning polygamy. The problem with that interpretation is that the same man – Moses that wrote that wrote regulations on polygamy! So he certainly was not contradicting himself. Instead what he was saying is that king is not to “horde wives” – much in the way King Solomon did with having 1000 wives! King Solomon abused the concept of polygamy and his heart was indeed lead astray.

As to your point that it would be cruel then to make men have only one wife – you are right that it does make things difficult for polygynous men living a world that has now confined men to monogamous marriage.

However even in Biblical times not all men were able to marry more than one wife, and many did not have any wife at all.  This is because male slaves and servants could only have a wife if their master allowed them to. Also poor men often did not marry because fathers would not give their daughters to a man that could not pay a bride price and could not care for their daughters. This left many women that needed husbands and this is why wealthier men had many wives.

So while most men are polygynous in their nature, that does not mean all men should were able to act on that polygynous nature by taking multiple wives.

Lucy replied:

“I’m so disappointed to hear you’re back in the Old T. You have mistaken an allowance in ancient times for “men are designed that way,” but the Bible presents monogamy as God’s ideal for marriage.

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [not wives], and they will become one flesh [not fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singularis used.

In the New Testament, 1 Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6 give “the husband of one wife” in a list of qualifications for spiritual leadership.

While these qualifications are specifically for positions of spiritual leadership, they should apply equally to all Christians. Should not all Christians be “above reproach…temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money” (1 Timothy 3:2-4)? If we are called to be holy (1 Peter 1:16), and if these standards are holy for elders and deacons, then they are holy for all.

Also, note how Ephesians 5:22-33 speaks of the relationship between husbands and wives. “Husband” is always singular. “Wife” is always singular.

In the above verse, If polygamy were allowable,the entire illustration of Christ’s relationship with His body (the church) and the husband-wife relationship falls apart.

Even going back to Adam and Eve, polygamy was not God’s original intent. God seems to have allowed polygamy to solve a problem in brutal times, but it is not the ideal. I can certainly find no proof God designed men that way.

This was my response to Lucy:

Lucy, as Christians we can sometimes be disappointed or surprised by what our fellow brethren believe. I am always disappointed when I find my Christian brethren believing God tossed the Old Testament in the garbage can when he gave us the New Testament and that is not the case at all.

You are absolutely right that Biblically speaking we are no longer under the Law, but under grace- Praise God!

“For sin shall not have dominion over you: for ye are not under the law, but under grace.” – Romans 6:14 (KJV)

But what “law” is Paul speaking of? He is speaking of the cleanliness law, civil law, the sacrificial law, the priestly law that Moses gave to Israel as a theocracy.  The Scriptures tell us in Hebrews 8:13 that the old covenant has been replaced with the New – praise God!

In Galatians 3:24-25 the Apostle Paul tells us that the law (the sacrificial part of the law, the civil and the priestly law) was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ – but now that Christ is come we are no longer under that school master – again praise God!

That means we don’t have to stone people who commit adultery, or stone rebellious kids.  We don’t have to make sacrifices to cover our sins.  We don’t have to follow the cleanliness laws anymore.  We don’t have to stay away from certain meats, or practice the festivals.

But this does not mean that God’s moral law – contained with the Law of Moses is also obsolete. For instance while Moses law may prescribe death for someone committing murder – we are not required anymore to do that – as that is part of the civil laws of Israel that have been made obsolete.  But is murder still sin? Is it still a violation of God’s moral law? Yes.

Paul said this about the moral law contained in Moses Law:

“Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31(KJV)

“What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet…Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” – Romans 7:7 & 12

Over 350 times Jesus or his Apostles quote from the Old Testament – we don’t have New Testament without the Old Testament. We can learn many things about the character of God, as well as us as his creations through the Old Testament.  I hope and pray you and other believers will find a greater appreciation for the Old Testament as it is just as much the Word of God as the New Testament is.

Now on to the issue of polygamy – or to be more specific polygyny (a man having more than one wife).  Lucy you are absolutely right that God says they will become “one flesh” (Genesis 2:24).  He does not say “one fleshes” as you correctly point out. You know why? Because a man has an individual marriage with each one of his wives.  If a man and all his wives were one together that would be something called “Polyamory” where multiple live together and sleep with one another.  Wives could sleep with wives, or sleep with their husband.  In fact you could have several men, and several women in a polymorous relationship.  But that is NOT what polygyny is.

Polygyny is where a man has more than one marriage. He has several marriages.  But he has a separate and distinct relationship with each of his wives, and God points out in Exodus 21:10-11 he has a separate and distinct duty to provide food, clothing and to become ONE FLESH (have sex) with each of his wives.

Apparently God who inspired Moses to write about marriage being one flesh, and speaking of a husband and wife in the singular – saw no contradiction between that and a man having more than one wife.

Is the “husband of one wife” requirement (I Timothy 3:2, 12 and Titus 1:6) for a Pastor speaking of monogamy or divorce? I would argue based the qualifications of widows who could be supported by (and became servants of) the church that Paul was speaking of a Pastor or Deacon not having been divorced from his first wife:

“Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man.” – I Timothy 5:9 (KJV)

But let’s say you were right (which I don’t think you are), that Paul was forbidding polygamy by Pastors and Deacons.  If he was, then by forbidding it to Pastors and Deacons, he was acknowledging that Christians were actively practicing polygamy.  Why when he wrote so much about marriage and divorce, and he even forbid believers from marrying non-believers, why did he not just go ahead and tell believers “you cannot marry more one wife anymore(as God had previously allowed you too)”?”

As to Ephesians 5, I love that God designed marriage to a model of his relationship with his people.  In the Old Testament he pictures himself as a husband to his wife Israel, and in the New Testament he pictures marriage as the relationship between Christ and his Church. Beautiful!

However I respectfully disagree with you that polygyny destroys this beautiful model of Christ and his Church. In the New Testament the Church is often referred to in the singular, but other times it is referred to in the plural (churches).    Just as God referred to Israel as his wife (singular), he also referred to Israel as his wives (plural) when speaking of Israel and Judah in the book of Ezekiel:

“Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother…And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and THEY were mine, and THEY bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah.”  – Ezekial 23:2 & 4

In the same way while Christ often refers to his Church in the singular in the New Testament, he also refers to his Church in the plural much the same way God referred to Israel and Judah when he speaks of the 7 Churches in the book of Revelation.  He speaks to all but one of their unfaithfulness in different areas.  It appears that Christ has a separate and distinct relationship with each of his churches – does this somehow hurt the concept of Christ and his Church being a model for marriage – I think not.

When Christ speaks to his Church in the singular, it is in much the same way that a man with many wives would speak to his family (including all his wives) which is also what the Church is compared to in this passage:

“But if I tarry long, that thou mayest know how thou oughtest to behave thyself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth.”  – I Timothy 3:15

I say all this to say, from the OT to NT the concept of a man being married to more than one wife, and having a distinct relationship with each of his wives does not break the model of what God intended marriage to be. A man can be one flesh with each of his wives, as God is one with each of his churches.

As far as your assertion that God creating only one man and one woman (Adam and Eve) in the garden means that was his model for marriage, are you then saying that brothers and sisters marrying was his model for marriage? Because Adam and Eve’s children had to marry one another.  The fact is that God could have created two sets of couples so that incest would not have to occur just as he could have created more wives for Adam. He chose not to. But again I draw your attention to the fact that the same God who created Adam and Eve also gave Moses commands allowing men to take more than one wife – if that were a violation of his model he would not have allowed it.

I hope this helps clarify my position.

 

10 ways to know if you are sacrificing your faith for your wife

/ biblicalgenderroles / 8 Comments

In our last post, “What does it mean for a husband to love his wife as Christ loves the Church”, I showed that God calls on us as husbands to sacrifice ourselves as Christ did for his Church. I also gave some examples of how a husband should be willing to sacrifice himself for his wife.

I don’t claim that the examples I gave are an exhaustive list of ways a husband can sacrifice himself for his wife. However, our egalitarian Christian friends who reject the Biblical teachings of male headship over women attempt to use this Biblical command that husbands are to sacrifice themselves for their wives in order to convince men that they must give up their faith.

Give up their faith?

Our egalitarian friends might say “who said anything about giving up their faith? We are Christians too after all. We are not asking Christian men and women to give up their belief in Jesus Christ or the Gospel, we just asking them to give up their belief in an outdated Patriarchal system.”

First of all let me point out that that contrary to what many egalitarians and non-Christians teach, there are actually many devout Christian women of all ages who believe in male headship. They don’t all believe this because it is what their parents did, or how they were taught in church. They believe because of their own heart felt convictions after reading many passages in the Bible.

While the Gospel is one of the most important doctrines in Christianity, it is not the ONLY important doctrine in the Bible. The doctrines of the Trinity (that nature of God), Creation, the Church, and also of marriage and parenting are very important doctrines.

The totality of these doctrines, forms the essence of our faith. For Christians who believe that the Bible not only contains the Word of God – but it is the very Word of God, we cannot take scissors out and cut out all the sections of the Bible that clearly show God’s design, and command of male headship over woman.

Egalitarianism’s rejection of Biblical Inerrancy

Many Christians and non-Christians do not understand the concept of progressive revelation. When I say “progressive” I don’t mean “liberal”. “Progressive” refers to the fact that God revealed his law in stages. His moral law never changes but there were temporary civil, sacrificial and cleanliness laws he had for his people before Israel became a nation and after Israel became a nation.

The New Testament tells us that when God gave us the New Covenant of Grace under Christ, the Old Covenant God made with Israel as a nation was made obsolete. But that does not mean there is not much moral law in the Old Testament that is carried forward into the New Testament. Over 350 verses in the New Testament are quotes from the Old Testament. So while we are no longer under the civil, sacrificial or cleanliness laws of the Old Testament, God carried forward his moral law in the New Testament. This is not “cherry picky” this proper Biblical hermeneutics.

What that means for our egalitarian friends is – they can throw all kinds of obscure Old Testament civil, sacrificial or cleanliness laws at those of who still follow and accept God’s design of male headship. But it won’t work, because we understand that we are only under God’s unchanging moral. Part of his unchanged moral law is the headship of man over woman that is not only brought forward under the new law of Christ, but it is elaborated on and expanded upon.

This brings us to the New Testament itself – often times egalitarians attempt to point to the lack of specific language about the roles of husbands and wives in the Gospels. They say Jesus did not teach gender roles. What they miss is the fact that Jesus gave his Apostles authority to write his Word and his commands. He told them that whatever they bound on earth would be bound in heaven, and whatever they loosed on earth would be loosed in heaven.

So when the Apostles Paul and Peter wrote very specifically on male headship, it was as if Jesus Christ himself said it in the Gospels. This is why egalitarianism’s very foundation is built on the rejection of Biblical inerrancy. Once you reject Biblical inerrancy, you can then makeup any version of Christianity you want or any version of the Gospel you want because you decide what parts of the Bible you will listen to, and which ones you will not.

True sacrificial love for your wife and following Christ are not contradictory things

As a Christian husband you must understand that while God calls you to sacrifice yourself for your wife, he never calls you to sacrifice you faith for her or anyone else.

Christ said this in the Gospels:

“He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.” – Matthew 10:37 KJV

This principle teaches us that we cannot put anyone, not even our wife, before our faith.

So as Christian husbands, our relationship with our wife sits firmly between our call to sacrifice ourselves for her needs and our call to put Christ and his commands before the wishes and desires of our wife.

So we know that if anyone – our friends, a counselor, other Christians or even our wife calls us to sacrifice something that we believe is inherent to our faith then we know it is not a true sacrifice but rather them calling us to reject our faith.

Two guiding principles for knowing when to sacrifice yourself for your wife and when to sacrifice for your faith

Principle 1 – Christ always comes first

With the principle that Christ and his commands come first – then anything our wife (or anyone else for that matter) asks us to do whether in our marriage or outside of marriage, must pass the test of God’s Word.

Principle 2 – You are called to be the head of your wife, as Christ is the head of the Church

The principle of male headship is found from the Old Testament to the New Testament and the best example is found in Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:

“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. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” – Ephesians 5:23-24 KJV

10 ways to know whether you are sacrificing your faith for your wife

With our two guiding principles, following Christ’s commands, and following his specific command that men are to be the head of their home we now apply this to our decision making process with how we handle various issues in our marriage.

Question 1

Are you going against your own judgement in setting your family budget in order to please your wife?

Question 2

Have you gone into debt against your own judgement in order to not upset your wife?

Question 3

Do you allow your wife to spend money without any oversight or accountability in order to not upset her?

Question 4

Are you going against your own judgement in how to discipline your children in order to please your wife?

Question 5

Are you setting rules, or not setting rules for your children against your own judgement in order to please your wife?

Question 6

Are you allowing your wife to speak disrespectfully to you – especially in front of your children or other people?

Question 7

Are you allowing your wife to contradict your application of the Scriptures, your teachings to your children, your rules for their behavior with your children?

Question 8

Are you allowing your wife to routinely deny your sexual advances without legitimate medical or psychological issues? Or do you allow your wife to misuse her God given role as the “gatekeeper” of her sexuality to defraud you of your God given right to her body?

Question 9

Are you allowing your wife to put her career ahead of her duty to you as her husband, her children and her home?

Question 10

If your wife is a stay at home mom, are you overlooking laziness on her part? Does your wife spend her days watching TV, on the phone all day with family or friends, going shopping, or surfing the web while neglecting her home by failing to cook, clean, do laundry and properly care for her children? Do you overlook all this in order to avoid confronting her or upsetting her?

If you answered yes to any of these questions…

If you answered yes to any of these questions then you are sacrificing your God ordered headship and your faith in order to appease your wife or appease those around you in our modern American culture that has rejected God’s law and his design for marriage.

You have chosen appeasement to man over obedience to God.

The sacrifice most men today don’t want to make

Many good Christian men today, have chosen to sacrifice what they know is right – that God has called them to lead their homes, in order to maintain peace in their home. They know if they take any kind of leadership in their homes their wife will buck it, perhaps deny sex to them, or in a worst case scenario their wife will threaten to divorce them and take their children.

You can choose to change, you can choose to lead

“…stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.” – I Corinthians 16:13 KJV

You can choose Christian man, to be the man that God intended you to be.

What to do once you have made the decision to lead

Christian husband – I am not in any way saying here that you should go home, march in and tell your wife off for all the ways she may have done things that are mentioned in the questions above.

The very first thing you need to do is pray. You then need to examine yourself. Look at ways you may have sinned against your wife.

Look over these posts I wrote about knowing your wife, and honoring your wife. If you are asking your wife to follow your leadership, then you ought to be willing to follow God’s leadership – which says you need to know your wife, and honor your wife.

When you speak to her, do so in a respectful way. Confess any wrongs you may have done toward her. Tell her that after prayerful consideration and reading the Scriptures, God has shown you that you have not been the head of the home that he has called you to be.

You can then explain to your wife about what you taking the leadership of your home will look like, and the changes that will affect her.

Realize it might take some adjusting for her, and if she accepts this with a good attitude give her that grace.

What if she refuses to accept your decision to lead your home?

However, you must be prepared for the very real possibility that even if you approach your wife in a gentle and respectful manner about this issue of leadership, she may reject what you are going to do.  Let’s face it in choosing to obey God’s order that you lead your home, you have decided to go against the norms of our culture and take whatever will be thrown at you for following your faith.

In a follow up post I will address how to handle if your wife refuses to accept your decision to lead your home. But let me say this ahead of time, you need to lead whether she chooses to follow or not.

What does it mean for a husband to love his wife as Christ loves the Church?

/ biblicalgenderroles / 2 Comments

God tells us as Christian husbands that we are to love our wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. This is both a beautiful picture and at the same an intimidating proposition for any Christian husband. God tells us that our relationship with our wife is much more than just any human relationship. Marriage is a symbol, of the relationship between God and his people, and as such, we as men have the awesome and solemn responsibility of modeling God’s attributes toward his people in our relationship with our wife.

The Apostle Paul, writing under the inspiration of God states:

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” – Ephesians 5:25 (KJV)

Not only does Paul tell us as husbands to love our wives as Christ loved the Church, but he follows that statement with the greatest example of Christ’s love for his church, that he “gave himself up for it”.

I would venture to guess that most Christians and even many non-Christians would wholeheartedly embrace this statement of the Apostle Paul. Feminists and egalitarians love this teaching (although they hate the previous statements about submission).

How to did Christ give himself up for his Church?

A lot of people think the only way Christ “gave himself up” for the Church was in dying on the cross for our sins and while I would agree that was the greatest way he “gave himself up”, it was certainly not the only way he did.

“Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:  Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:  But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:  And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

Philippians 2:5-8(KJV)

Christ as part of his sacrifice for us confined himself to an earthly body. While he was still fully God and at the same time fully man, he chose not to use all his powers. Christ not only sacrificed himself on the cross, but he also sacrificed himself every day for 33 years by confining himself to mortal human form. Jesus Christ, being the very God who created the universe, humbled himself to the point that he washed his Apostles feet.

Why did Christ give himself up for his Church?

This is a question that many Christians fail to ask, or they will give it a simple answer. Many might answer “He died to pay for our sins” and leave it at that. While it is true that Christ gave himself up for our sins that is not the ONLY reason he gave himself up.

Paul tells us not only that Christ gave himself up for the Church, but he tells us why he did it:

“that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.” – Ephesian 5:26-27(KJV)

Christ did not sacrifice himself only to give us eternal life in heaven when we die. He did this also to sanctify his Church, or to make her holy. He washes her and cleanses her through his word.

When Christ died on the cross he gave us positional sanctification – this makes it as though we never sinned when we die and face judgement – God will only see Christ’s righteousness when he looks at us. But that does not mean he wants us to keep sinning in the here and now because he has purchased our salvation. Instead he wants us to fight against our sin nature and live holy and righteous lives even in these sin cursed bodies, something we can only do through submission to his word and his will, and only with the help of his Holy Spirit – this is called progressive sanctification.

How a Christian husband can love his wife the way Christ loves his Church

So now that we understand how Christ loved the Church – by giving himself up for her, and also why he loved the Church – to make her holy we can practically apply these truths to how a husband can “give himself up” for his wife.

A man sacrifices himself when he marries a woman

I had a friend from high school who dated many women but always ended up breaking up with them. Years later when we were in our thirties, I asked him why he had stopped dating, and he said he realized the reason he kept breaking up with all those women was because he did not want to make the sacrifices that marriage demanded.  He had many hobbies and he was on bowling leagues, baseball leagues and enjoyed his job and being with his friends and family. He felt that he would have to give up a lot of that if he were to get married and would have to sacrifice the things he wanted to do for his wife and kids.

While I might not agree with his selfish reasons for not getting married, I appreciated my friend’s honesty. Many men think they can get married and nothing will change, they can continue with all the same activities they did before they were married, but marriage takes time, sacrifice and work.

With marriage we gain companionship but with these blessings comes responsibility and obligation to sacrifice ourselves for our wives.

Five examples of a husband sacrificing or “giving himself up” for his wife

Here are some real life scenarios where you may be called to sacrifice yourself as a husband:

  1. Your wife has been caring for a sick child all day and the house is a wreck and no dinner is made when you get home from work. You would need to sacrifice yourself for her by making dinner and taking care of the other kids.
  2. Your wife is sick – you will need to sacrifice yourself for her by taking care of the kids, dinner, laundry and all the other things she does, in addition to caring for her physical needs. In addition to these other sacrifices, you will also need to sacrifice you sexual needs for her greater physical needs at this time.
  3. Your wife experiences the death of a close friend or loved one, and this causes a great deal of emotional stress on her. You may need to help out more around the house while she is experiencing this emotional pain, and you will need to sacrifice your sexual needs for her greater emotional needs during this time.
  4. You’re getting ready to plan your hunting trip, taking the calendar and talking with your wife about the week you are thinking of going. She tells you that a church in the area is having a woman’s conference and she really would like to go. You sacrifice yourself by either canceling or rescheduling your hunting trip so that your wife can have her greater spiritual needs met.
  5. You are shopping for new furniture and you have given your wife the budget she has to spend. You see a set you would like, she compares it with a set she would like (and you really don’t like her set), but you sacrifice you preference for furniture for hers, knowing that she as the manager of your home needs to feel comfortable the type of furniture that goes in your home.

Conclusion

In this post we discussed the Biblical principle that God wants us as husbands to love our wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself up for her. He gave himself up not only to pay for the sins of his Church, but also to make her holy and blameless. As husbands, God expects us to emulate Christ’s sacrificial love for his Church in how we love our wives. God expects us as husbands to sacrifice our own needs for the needs of our wife.

Now that we have discussed the Biblical foundation for a husband loving his wife sacrificially as Christ loves his Church, in my next post we will look at principles for Christian husbands to know whether they are sacrificing themselves or their faith for their wife in any given situation.

Is Christian marriage a master – servant relationship?

/ biblicalgenderroles / 8 Comments

masterservant

The obvious answer to this question is absolutely not! Right? Marriage is a loving relationship of two equal partner’s right? This what we are told time and time again, even in many Christian marriage books. Even in some more conservative Christian marriage books that teach about male headship, they always seem to qualify a man’s headship role over woman in marriage, by saying something like “this is not a master and servant relationship, but simply an order of priority”.

But the Bible speaks very differently on this matter than what our modern society accepts.

The Bible states that the husband is the “head” of his wife:

22 Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24 But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.”

Ephesians 5:22-24 NASB

Ephesians 5 tells us that marriage is to be a picture of the relationship of Christ and the Church. The husband is to model Christ in his love, leadership, provision and protection of his wife and the wife is to model the Church in her serving of her husband, and she is to be “subject” to him in “everything”.

One could argue easily from Ephesians chapter 5 that the relationship between Christ and the Church is in fact a master-servant relationship, rather than a partnership of equals. How could anyone argue that Christ and his Church are equal partners from this or any other passage?

But the Bible even doubles down on this idea that the husband-wife relationship is indeed a master-servant relationship in I Peter chapter 3:

“In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. 3 Your adornment must not be merely external—braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewelry, or putting on dresses; 4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. 5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; 6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.”

I Peter 3:1-6 NASB

The Bible in I Peter tells women that they ought to model to their submission to their husbands on Sarah’s behavior with Abraham when she called him “lord”. The English word translated here as “lord” is a translation of the Greek word “Kurios”.

According to Thayer & Smith’s Bible dictionary the definition of Kurios is:

“he to whom a person or thing belongs, about which he has power of deciding; master, lord

  1. the possessor and disposer of a thing

    1. the owner; one who has control of the person, the master

    2. in the state: the sovereign, prince, chief, the Roman emperor

  2. is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master

  3. this title is given to: God, the Messiah”

The word Kurios most often is translated as “Lord” with a capital “L” indicating a direct reference to God. But in many other places it is often translated as “Master”.

In the Old Testament a husband of a wife was referred to in many places as her “baal” which literally meant “Lord” or “Master” or “Owner”. This same word was even used as the master of owners of slaves.

Proverbs 31:10-11 & 23 & 27-29 NASB

10 An excellent wife, who can find?

For her worth is far above jewels.

11 The heart of her husband [BAAL (Master/Owner)] trusts in her,

And he will have no lack of gain…

23 Her husband [BAAL (Master/Owner)] is known in the gates,

When he sits among the elders of the land…

27 She looks well to the ways of her household,

And does not eat the bread of idleness.

28 Her children rise up and bless her;

Her husband [BAAL (Master/Owner)] also, and he praises her, saying:

29 “Many daughters have done nobly,

But you excel them all.”

What does the Master-Servant aspect of marriage mean for husbands and wives?

I don’t know how any person could look at the Scriptures and see anything less than a Master-Servant relationship between a husband and wife, as opposed to a partnership of two equals. But if you are a woman reading this, before your think I am advocating for men walking all over their wives as selfish dictators let me draw your attention to a word I just used – “LESS”.

Biblically speaking the relationship between a man and his wife is no less than a master-servant relationship, but it is in fact much more than that. A master is not commanded to love each of his servants as his own body as husbands are told to love their wives in Ephesians chapter 5. A master is not commanded to honor his servants and live with them according to knowledge, as a husband is commanded to do with his wife in I Peter chapter 3. A master is not commanded to have sex with his servant as he is commanded to have sex with his wife in I Corinthians 7:5 and Exodus 21:10.

This Biblical truth that marriage is indeed a master-servant relationship can be abused, and many men throughout history have done just that. But when we understand that this is just one aspect of marriage, and not the totality of how marriage works, this can make marriages stronger.

If you are a wife reading this, you might wonder how such a teaching, that your husband is your master, and you are his servant can make your marriage stronger. It makes it stronger because it removes the contention in marriage. It removes the competition. You each have your role to play. Your husband leads, and you follow.

But shouldn’t husbands serve their wives as Christ served his disciples?

There is no doubt that a husband ought to exercise the servant leadership that Christ did. A man ought to be humble enough to serve his wife by helping with making dinner or helping with the kids when she gets overwhelmed. Really this what a good boss, or master does when his employees (or servants) are overrun, he steps in to make up the difference.

But while Christ washed the feet of his disciples, Christ did not spend the majority of his time serving plates of food and washing feet. He spent the majority of his time teaching and leading, as a man should do.

Conclusion

While a husband ought to be humble enough to serve his wife and family where he sees needs arise, his primary concern should be that of leading, providing for and protecting his family. The dominate trait of a wife should be that of a servant. She is not tasked with leading the home, so all of her efforts can focus on serving the needs of her husband, her children and her home.

Obviously the economic reality of some families today sometimes means that a wife may have to serve her husband and family by working outside the home. But this does not change the core principle that a husband is called to lead, and wife is called to serve.

Peace truly comes through living the way our creator designed us to.

The biological case for Polygyny and marriage of young women Part 2

/ biblicalgenderroles / 7 Comments

Polygyny

My first post on this subject, “The biological case for Polygyny and marriage of young women” sparked a lot of interest, and most of it was negative as I would expect. Most people have a hard time stepping outside their cultural norms and value systems and looking at things from a wider historical perspective – so the negative responses I received did not offend me or shock me.

What I wanted to do here is answer some of the objections and questions that people raised, as well as clarify some things I was trying to communicate in the first post.

In the first article in this series, I proved that men marrying younger women, and even multiple younger women (polygyny) in past civilizations was not wrong and it was not immoral even though our modern culture frowns on these practices today.

It is not wrong (present tense) in some cultures outside the United States that still practice it today (older men marrying younger women) as they are brought up in a culture expecting to be married at a young age.

Believe it or not there are still many states where the age of marriage with the consent of the parents is as young as 14. According to one study almost 9 percent of marriages in the United States are by those under the age of 18[1].  Out of those 9 percent of “child marriages” as they are classified – 1 out of 9 is age 14 while the remainder are between 15 and 17 years of age.

But what I was trying to say in the last article, and it somewhat got lost, is that even though we are living in a monogamous society, and an equal opportunity for both genders society, this does not change man’s biology.

All men, are biologically capable of impregnating 20 or 30 women in one month. A woman on the other hand, is biologically wired for monogamy, even if she has sex with 20 men in one month, she can only be impregnated by one man at a time. Yes I know there are rare exceptions where a woman has dropped two eggs and had pregnancies from two different men but this is not her design, this is not the norm of how a woman’s body operates.

Man’s biological capacity for polygyny, is not only located in his reproductive organs, but also in his brain. Even though Western men are living within the constraints of a monogamous society, they are still drawn to a variety of women. But in our society men are taught to hide and subdue this natural polygamous mental wiring, because they are taught that they should only desire one woman. There are of course expectations, where some men have a very low sex drive, and some men have no sex drive at all so they will not desire multiple women – but again these are exceptions and not the norm.

The key word is “capacity”

A word I continuously used in my first post, and I continue to use in this post is “capacity”. For instance all men and women (unless they are born with some rare medical condition) have the biological capacity for having sex. But just because they have the capacity for sex, does not mean they will actually ever have sex in their lifetime.

In the same way while all men throughout history have had the biological capacity for polygyny, it does not mean they were able to act on it, or even if given the choice, many did not act on it.

Someone might say, “Well we all have the capacity for sin too, but just because we have the capacity for something does not make it right”. I would agree wholeheartedly with this statement.

If we did not have examples of some of the greatest heroes of the Bible like Abraham, Gideon, David and many others who were practicing polygynists I might agree that man’s capacity for polygyny could be a sinful capacity.

If we did not have the Old Testament regulations specifically allowing men to take other wives through various means I might agree that man’s capacity for polygyny could be a sinful capacity.

If God himself did not say to King David that he had given King Saul’s “wives” into David’s “bosom” (II Samuel 12:8) I might agree that man’s capacity for polygyny could be a sinful capacity.

If God did not picture himself as a polygynous husband with two wives (Ezekiel 23) I might agree that man’s capacity for polygyny could be a sinful capacity.

If God did not have the names of the sons of Jacob, a product of a polygynous relationship with 4 different wives inscribed on his Holy City for all eternity (Revelation 21:12), I might agree that man’s capacity for polygyny could be a sinful capacity.

What about the 50/50 ratio between men and women – wouldn’t polygyny take away wives from other men?

The first problem with this train of thought it is that it assumes there has always been a ratio of 1 to 1 for men and women throughout history. We do not know that in the beginning God did not have more women than men born so as to populate the world faster.

Secondly, for arguments sake, let’s say that for all of human history since the dawn of creation there has always been a 1 to 1 ratio between men and women. Let’s go back to my key word “capacity”. Just because man has the capacity for sex, does not mean that all men are going to get married. Just because man has the capacity for polygyny does mean all men throughout history have been able to act on their capacity for polygyny.

Many men could not marry, either because they were slaves or servants (who could only marry if their master allowed them to), or they were in poverty and poor men generally were not able to marry. You usually had to show a father you had the ability to care for his daughter, before you could marry her. Some men would later fall into poverty after marriage, in which case they would have to sell their children as slaves so they would be cared for.

So my point is, there were a lot more eligible women for marriage, then eligible men, which made it possible for many men to have polygynous marriages.

But that brings us to modern times. In our modern America a man does not have to have the means to care for a woman to marry her. In fact it is very common for poor men and women to marry each other and not long afterwards go on public assistance, especially after they have children.

But even in our day, there are still many more eligible women for marriage than eligible men. The reasons are very different than they once were. Now many men don’t won’t want to marry, and our free sex society allows men to follow their polygynous urges without any sort of marital commitment so that is what men do now(they whore around instead of getting married). This is of course just many of the reasons men run from marriage today.

“In 2011, the Pew Research Center found that 51 percent of Americans were married, compared to 72 percent in 1960.”

Huffington Post – “Marriage Rate Declines To Historic Low, Study Finds”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/22/marriage-rate_n_3625222.html

This leaves a lot of women looking for men who are willing to enter a committed relationship and get married. There are many intelligent and economically well off men that would gladly take on multiple wives as our Biblical forefathers did if our society allowed.

There is no “one-flesh” mutuality in a marriage when a man marries a much younger woman or has more than one wife.

There is a sense in which marriage is a mutual thing.

“In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, and man is not independent of woman”

I Corinthians 11:11(HCSB)

Man needs woman, and woman needs man, we mutually need one another.

However that is where the mutuality of man and woman ends, and the differences between man and woman begins.

A man and woman do not need to be the same age, or the same maturity to be married. As long as the man is in a position to lead and protect his wife, she can be much younger, and much less mature.

Contrary to what modern America teaches, marriage is not a partnership of equals, but a patriarchy.

In the same passage above where Paul talks about men and women needing each other, he also talks about why woman was made:

“A man, in fact, should not cover his head, because he is God’s image and glory, but woman is man’s glory.  For man did not come from woman, but woman came from man. 9 And man was not created for woman, but woman for man.”

I Corinthians 11:7-9(HSCB)

“Now as the church submits to Christ, so wives are to submit to their husbands in everything.”

Ephesians 5:24(HSCB)

What does “one flesh” mean in the Bible?

““Haven’t you read,” He replied, “that He who created them in the beginning made them male and female,” and He also said:

“For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?

So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, man must not separate.”

Matthew 19:4-6(HSCB)

“Don’t you know that anyone joined to a prostitute is one body with her? For Scripture says, The two will become one flesh.”

I Corinthians 6:16(HSCB)

So what the Scriptures tell us is, a man can become “one flesh” with his wife, and a man can become “one flesh” with a prostitute. What is the only two things those two relationships have in common? Sex.

This tells us that the primary meaning of “one flesh” when it comes to the relationship of a man and woman refers to their sexual relationship.

The sex act is the binding symbol of the union between a man and woman. In Biblical times, a marriage was not sealed until a man had sex with a woman, which then bound them together by law. I am not saying that there is not an emotional connection that often occurs between a man and a woman as a result of sex, we know this can and often does occur.  I am also not arguing that in marriage there is not more to the one flesh concept than just the sexual reference.

Is there a secondary meaning to “one flesh” in regard to marriage?  Yes. Christ shows us this in the Gospel of Mark:

6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.

Mark 10:6-8 (KJV)

So the Bible refers to “one flesh” in regard to a man and woman in two ways.  We are told that a man can become one flesh with a prostitute and we are also told that in marriage that a man and woman are no longer two, but one referring to the spiritual, intellectual and emotional union of a man and his wife.

But here is the issue – in our current culture Christian teachers primarily emphasize the second way one flesh is used(one in spirit and mind) and they place little to no emphasis on the most literal meaning of a couple becoming one flesh which is the sexual aspect of it.

But how can a man become “one flesh” with more than one wife?

But how can a man be “one” with more than one wife? Would that not make them many? If this was an intimate relationship of many people with one another, then that would be a polyamorous relationship which is different than polygynous relationship.

In a polyamorous relationship there can be multiple men and women all married to one another.  So you could have three men and two women or one man and three women.  They all consider each other’s spouses in every sense of the word.  Of course we know that such a relationship is a wicked perversion of God’s design for marriage.  A woman must always be married to one spouse and that spouse must be a man who is called her husband according to Romans 7:2-3.

In a polygynous relationship, a husband has a separate and distinct relationship with each of his wives(the wives are not married to each other – they are married to him). He is a husband to each of them, just as God pictured himself as a husband to two wives in Ezekiel 23.

I understand that may be a difficult concept to understand but this is all based in the Word of God. You may struggle with this concept in this life but if you are a Christian when you get to heaven you can ask Jacob – whose sons from his polygynous relationships with 4 different woman are inscribed on the city of God for all eternity (the twelve tribes of Israel).

I encourage the reader to look at my series on “Why Polygamy is not unBiblical” to understand this better.

References:

[1]Yann Le Strat, Caroline Dubertret, Bernard Le Foll (2011), Child Marriage in the United States and Its Association With Mental Health in Women, http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/128/3/524

Does the Bible allow for a woman to be President of the United States?

/ biblicalgenderroles / 11 Comments

WomenForPresident

Why were there no female priests in Israel and no female Apostles? Why were there no female queens appointed by God to rule over Israel? Was it just cultural sexism or was the lack of women ruling over men based on the what these people understood and accepted about God’s design of gender roles?

Moving forward to our modern culture, does the Bible allow for a woman to President of the United States?

A brief history of Women seeking America’s highest office

Contrary to popular belief, Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton are not the first women in American history to seek America’s highest office. In 1884, Belva Lockwood, an activist for voting rights for women and for African Americans campaigned for president.

In 1872 and 1892, Victoria Woodhull ran for President of the United States the first time from the Equal Rights Party, and the second time from the Humanitarian Party.

Many other women since then have either run for President from very small parties, or have sought the nominations of the Republican or Democratic parties.

What does the Bible say about a woman being President?

Obviously there was no such thing as a President in Biblical times, so the Bible would not specifically mention it. But the Bible does teach Patriarchy (male leadership over women).

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in the Home:

“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(KJV)

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in the Church:

“This is a true saying, if a man desire the office of a bishop, he desireth a good work. A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous; One that ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection with all gravity;”

I Timothy 3:1-4(KJV)

The Bible tells us Man is to lead Woman in Society:

“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)

Other Biblical facts that go against women in leadership positions over men

Christian Feminists have spent the last century attempting to explain away the clear teachings of God’s Word that I have mentioned above. In addition there are many more facts they cannot overcome.

Never in Israel’s history was there ever a female high priest, or female priest period.

Never in Israel’s history did God appoint a female Queen to rule over Israel.

None of the Apostles were women (you would think if God believed in gender equality, he could have carved out at least one slot out of 12 right?)

There is not one recorded instance of a female Pastor in the New Testament.

While I would agree with my feminist Christian friends that the absence of something does not necessarily forbid that thing, it certainly makes for a stronger case when we have verses that clearly say that man is the head of woman, the husband is the head of the wife, and in the church a Bishop is “a man” who is “the husband of one wife” and one that “ruleth well his own house”.

But what about women leaders in the Bible?

This is the primary weapon that Christian feminists have used to assault the patriarchal system that is clearly taught from Old Testament and into the New Testament. Below I will mention each one of these women who are raised as an objection to the Bible’s teaching on Patriarchy in society, the church and the home. Then I will mention a brief note on each explaining her role.

Miriam – prophet. – It never specifically says she exercised authority over men.

Deborah – prophet; judge; led the army of Israel into battle with Barak, their commander. She was a spiritual and moral leader. She did not seek to lead with Barak, he begged her to. She shamed him by telling him God would hand their enemies into the hands of a “woman”. It is interesting the Bible says she sat under a tree, and not at the city Gates as leaders typically did.

Hulda – prophet during the reign of Josiah. She served at a time when Israel had forsaken God, one of their darkest hours. Josiah sought to restore worship and the Word of God and sent messengers to her to seek the will of God.

Anna – a widow who became a prophet and pronounced Jesus to be the redeemer of Israel

Lydia – business woman in the Philippian Church, but the Bible never refers to her as a leader or a Pastor.

Priscilla – helped Paul while he was establishing churches at Corinth and Ephesus; with her husband Aquila, corrected Apollo’s preaching and helped him to learn of the new way in Christ.

Junias – contrary to feminist teachings, she was not an Apostle, but she was honored by the Apostles for her work in the Lord.

Phoebe – a servant in the Church at Cenchrea, She was not a deacon as feminists assert.

Let’s address the Deborah and the Hulda in the room

Only two of the 8 women mentioned often by Christian feminists truly exercised spiritual leadership over men.

The time periods when Deborah and Hulda were prophets were times of great moral and spiritual decay for Israel. Men were no longer exercising moral or spiritual leadership as we can see in Barak’s refusal to go to war without Deborah by his side.

Let me be blunt – God called women into spiritual leadership roles, as an exception to his design, in order to shame the men into bringing the nation back to God, and into exercising their God given responsibility to lead in the church, the home and in the nation.

In no way does the Bible EVER paint women in leadership roles as a positive thing, but it is something God uses to shame the men into action.

“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.”

Isaiah 3:12(KJV)

God is allowed to make exceptions to his own rules

God made these exceptions to his own design at limited and specific times:

  1. God allowed a donkey to speak to a Balaam in Numbers chapter 22.
  2. God tells the prophet Isaiah to go and prophesy naked for 3 years in Isaiah chapter 20.
  3. God tells the prophet Hosea to go marry a prostitute (something clearly forbidden for priests) in Hosea chapter 1.
  4. God took Enoch (in Genesis 5) and Elijah (2 Kings 2) directly to heaven without them first experiencing physical death.

My point is – God can and does make exceptions to his design at various times. But unless God actually directly commands an exception to his design, as in the case with Deborah and Hulda, we have no right to deviate from his design of patriarchy in the home, the church or society at large.

What God says women are to do

Christian feminists spend so much time looking for exceptions to God’s design that they stumble and fall over God’s clear direction to women, as to the normal way a Christian woman should live her life.

God says his normal design is for women is to be helpmeets to men and this is how women are commanded to live:

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

I Timothy 5:14(KJV)

“The aged women… That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:3-5(KJV)

The Bible is crystal clear here in regards to God’s design for women. Young women are to marry, have children and manage their homes for their husbands. They are to be obedient to their husbands, to love their husbands and children and to be discreet. When women are older they are then to teach the younger women how to be good Christian wives and mothers.

The Bible does not forbid women from spiritually leading other women, as long as that leadership does not contradict with a churches authority, or a husband’s or father’s authority.

This would allow for Christian women’s conferences, for Christian women to teach ladies Sunday school classes, and for women to write books or blogs as long they are not exercising spiritual or physical authority over men.

I have given all this Biblical evidence, and answered the false arguments of Christian feminists to say this – a Christian woman has no business running for or assuming the office of President of the United States. In fact a Christian woman has no business being in a leadership position over men, whether it is in the home, the church or society at large. God says “the head of the woman is the man” we would do well to follow his design.

But do we need to submit to female leaders in Government as Christians?

“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.”

Romans 13:1(KJV)

God tells us that rulers, good or bad, are allowed to come to power by his will. We are commanded to pay taxes and be subject to our rulers. That includes if they are women. If a woman run’s for President, that is something between her husband and her, and between God and her. We can and should teach God’s design, but at the end of the day, we each have a personal responsibility before God.

Would I vote for a female President?

Depending on the situation, yes. The reason is if the female candidate comes closer to Christian positions than the male candidate, I must support the lesser of the two evils. For instance if the female candidate is pro-life and the male candidate is pro-choice, I will most likely vote for the female candidate unless she is way off in some other way.

Update 10/13/2016

The 2016 Election and the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump

I originally wrote this article back in 2014 long before Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton became the candidates representing our two major political parties here in the United States.

As I write this update to this article today our nation is faced with a huge choice coming in less than a month.  This article has spiked on google as Christians search out the truth of how they should vote.

Is the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman the only reason I as a Christian man am not voting for Hillary Clinton? No.

But in the world of politics we often have to choose the lesser of the two evils.

The prophet Daniel served under Kings that lead sinful and immoral lives and as long as they did not ask him to sin against his God he served them faithfully.  The point is sometimes we don’t get a simple choice between a godly person and an ungodly person in politics.  Sometimes the choice is between two ungodly and sinful people and I believe that is the choice we are being presented with in this 2016 Presidential election.

I would have considered voting for Hillary, despite her being a woman which is a violation of God’s design if she did not have these things on her record:

  1. She is a proponent of abortion and especially the heinous partial birth abortion.
  2. She is for forcing Christian businesses and other faith based organizations to violate their religious beliefs by making them provide contraceptives through their insurance.
  3. She is for forcing Christian businesses and other faith based organizations to violate their religious beliefs by making them accept and participate in gay marriage(bakers, photographers, wedding planners, county clerks and judges).
  4. She is for going after churches that endorse conservative Christian candidates and who call out liberal candidates as unchristian.
  5. She believes in legalized theft of private property through the government seizing the private property of some(money) and simply redistributing it to others.  It is one thing to take taxes to pay for basic government services – that is a Biblical concept.  It is another when you take what one man has rightfully earned and simply give it to another man who has done nothing to earn it.
  6. She does not believe that a nation has the right to defend its borders, language, culture and economy.  One of the first duties of government is to defend it’s nation from all outside threats whether they be military(including terrorists), cultural or economic threats.

Hillary Clinton has many other flaws including being a liar and a corrupt politician. Is Donald Trump a liar too? Yes he has been caught in many lies. So perhaps on this issue of lying they may be equally flawed.

Donald Trump despite his flaws(and they are many) is a candidate whose positions on the issues of our time comes far closer to a Biblical perspective than does Hillary Clinton’s.

These are the reasons I will be voting for Donald Trump in the next month:

  1. He proposes that we strike the IRS provision put in by Lyndon Johnson in 1954(Section 501(c)(3)) that punishes Church leaders for making political endorsements or criticizing political candidates by removing their status as non-profit organizations.  This was a major violation of the first amendment right to free speech as well as freedom of religion and it must be struck down.
  2. While he has been careful on the issue of gay rights and gay marriage in his statements, if he appoints any of the judges on his list of judges these judges will bring a screeching halt to the gay rights movement assault on religious liberty.
  3. Speaking of judges – these same judges that Donald Trump has pledged to appoint to our various levels of Federal courts will uphold private property rights(another Biblical concept) as well.
  4. He has taken a pro-life position and is against partial birth abortions.
  5. He believes one of the most important duties of government is to protect the nation from outside harm whether it be cultural, economic or military threats including terrorism.

I am glad that God has allowed us in this election cycle to be able to vote for a man in keeping with his design that men should rule over women. I am glad that the male candidate is closer to the Bible in his positions than the woman so we will not have to go against God’s design in voting for a female president.

Other related articles:

How a Christian wife should handle a controlling husband

You were made for him