Another short clip. A three minute minute video examining the philosophy of Anna Howard Shaw one of the great champions of the Woman’s Suffrage Movement.
This last Thanksgiving I was visiting with my in-laws. During that visit I made this statement to my sister-in-law “Yes mam, I am a proud sexist!” Why would I say such a thing? Isn’t being a sexist inconsistent with Christian values?
Before I explain why I made that statement in front of many family members let me first give a little background on my wife and her family. My mother and father in-law are really good salt of the earth people who are kind and generous. Truly they have treated me far better than my first wife’s parents ever did and I actually get along with them very well. They really do not look for confrontation and for the most part try to stay out of my marriage to their daughter.
And just for those Christian’s and others who are concerned about the phrase I just used “first wife” – I divorced her for a specific type of fornication which was adultery and God allows this(see Matthew 19:9 and also my article “If We Treated Divorce Like Killing” for an exhaustive study on Biblical divorce).
In regard to my in-laws, as kind and as loving as my mother and father in-law are – they are feminists. Don’t get me wrong, they are not drooling at the mouth, man-hating feminists and they would not even call themselves feminists. They certainly would never march in a feminist parade. My in-laws just believe in equality for men and women, partnership marriage and my mother in-law told me she taught her daughters to and I quote “be independent and not need a man”. Their father worked in a factory but he wanted better for his daughters and he encouraged them to get a higher education and have successful careers like their mother who was an accountant.
My wife and her sister are actually on different sides of their parents on this issue. My wife’s sister is more feministic than her parents and my wife is less feministic than her parents. My wife will at least tell people she believes in male headship in the home and she tries to a certain degree to fight her own feminist tendencies. But it is extremely difficult for my wife because of the combination that she is very intelligent, strong willed and she was raised by parents who instilled feminist principles in her. So there are days when she full on gives into the dark side and goes full blown feminist on me. Those are the days when she says “you can’t tell me what to do – you are not my father”. Other days I can tell she is truly trying and waging a war against the dark side in her that she knows in her heart conflicts with the Bible and what God wants for her.
On the other hand, my wife’s sister is a completely different story. She fully embraces her dark side (aka feminist tendencies). Her sister is also a Christian and is actually very involved in her church. She believes in partnership marriage and that her husband does not have any more say in the marriage than she does. For a very brief time when she was on the verge of her second divorce she tried to embrace submission in order to save that marriage. But in the end the marriage still died and he divorced her.
In the beginning of her third marriage she was very submissive to her husband, but about a year or so into that marriage she returned to her old ways and fully embraced her feminist attitudes of the past. My sister-in-law believes in the Christian feminist doctrine of “mutual submission” between a husband and wife. One of her favorite Bible verses is Ephesians 5:21 which states “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” She uses that verse to try and explain away the next three verses in Ephesians chapter five.
Now if you are wondering how I – Mr. Biblical Gender Roles himself, ended up marrying into a feminist family that is a longer story for another day. To that end I will just say this. There is an old saying that “You learn more from your mistakes than from your successes” and that is especially true when it comes to choosing who you marry. And yes it was a mistake that I chose to marry into a feminist family.
But God used my mistake for his glory. Let’s say I had never married into a feminist family and had a feminist wife. What if I married into a traditional, conservative Christian family and found a woman that completely embraced Biblical gender roles? What if I had little conflicts with her because our world values just meshed up? If that had happened then this site probably would have never existed.
But God used my mistake as the inspiration for this site that I started back in April of 2014. And that mistake I made of marrying a feminist woman raised in a feminist household lead to this ministry reaching over 3 million people who have made more than 5 million views on this site by the end of 2017.
So with all that said as a background on my in-laws here is why I made the statement “Yes mam, I am a proud sexist!”
We were sitting around the family room as we usually do after we eat dinner together for the holiday. We usually just make small talk about how all the family members are doing and generally avoid political or religious topics as my in-laws are not very religious people and they don’t normally discuss politics. But every now and then my sister-in-law who is a bit feisty will say something or I might make a joke about something. We both know where we stand on things.
So my sister-in-law brings a situation to my attention. Her husband was not there because he had to work. She asked me about a disagreement she and her husband had about their kids. He has a son from a previous marriage that is 17 and she has two daughters from her second marriage that are 14 and 16. I won’t go into the details here but I will just summarize it by saying she thought he was not protective enough of his son and allowed him too much freedom. I told her I agreed with her husband and that I allowed my sons at that age to have almost full freedom except for my four rules. No girls in their bedrooms, no drugs and no drinking in my house or on my property and if they drove one of my vehicles in an intoxicated state I would ask for the keys and they would not drive it again.
I also added that my sister in-law needed to support her husband even if she disagreed with him.
So she turned it on me. She said “will you do the same with your daughter who will soon be turning 16?” I told her “no I will not” to which she replied “That is not fair! You can’t treat your daughters differently than your sons” and then her 14 year old daughter replied “that is sexist!” So here we have a room with my sister-in-law, my mother and father-in-law and my five children along with my wife and I – and I have just been called on the carpet by my sister-in-law and her 14 year old daughter.
My response was “Yes mam, I am a proud sexist! I fully believe that women need added protection from their fathers until they are married to their husbands. Sons when they become men don’t need the protection of their fathers but daughters do.”
My sister-in-law’s only response was “Well admitting it is the first step.” What she meant was that she thought I was admitting to doing something wrong. Many Christians would say no Christian should say what I said and that no Christian should be proud to be a sexist. In this article we will explore if such a condemnation of sexism matches up with the Bible.
The Birth of “Sexism”
For 2000 years Christians were proud of their Holy Scriptures that are commonly referred to as the Bible. But about 150 years ago Christians began to start apologizing for things in the Bible. It began with Christians apologizing for the Bible allowing and regulating the practice of slavery. Eventually with the rise of feminism which was built off the abolitionist movement Christians began to apologize for the “unfair” treatment of women by the Bible.
In the 1960’s during the rise of Second Wave Feminism a new word was coined. This new word, “sexism”, was as actually built using the fight against racism as a model.
Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines “Sexism” as:
“1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex”
Now some may contend that sexism always existed – it just did not receive an official label until the mid-1960’s. But we need to realize that along with this new label “Sexism” came a new set of morals not previously recognized in human history.
Is Discrimination Always Wrong?
Since the creation of mankind women were in fact discriminated against. But here is a truth that every Christian must realize – discrimination is not always wrong. To discriminate against someone is to treat someone differently based on certain demographic characteristics.
For instance we don’t allow people put in prison to vote. That is a form of discrimination. We don’t allow children to vote and we allow parents to make decisions for their minor children. This another form of discrimination (age discrimination). We also only give welfare assistance to people who make under a certain amount of money – if you make over that amount you won’t get assistance. That is discrimination on the basis of how much you money you earn. There are many college scholarships that are only available to you if you are an African American – that again is a form of discrimination based on race.
The point is, we as a society have made judgements as to what types of discrimination are moral and just and what types of discrimination are immoral and unjust. The question for us as Christians is – does the Bible agree with American standards of what is just and or unjust discrimination?
Is Stereotyping Always Wrong?
Stereotypes are another example of something that is not always wrong. Stereotyping is simply recognizing patterns of human behavior or social norms. If you were to open a small market store in the middle of a Hispanic neighborhood than it would be silly for you not to have in stock food that Hispanics typically eat. If you were to open your store in a predominantly Chinese area it would be equally silly for you to not stock up on foods that Chinese people typically eat. In fact in the business world – if you do not stereotype your customer base you will go out of business.
The New Anti-Sexist Movement Was Used to Condemn Historic Social Norms
This new “Anti-Sexist” movement contended that that women could no longer be seen as house keepers and mothers. In the 1950’s and 1960’s it was extremely common for employers to choose men over women for open positions. The reasoning went that men were providers to families and women belonged in the home. Only if there were no men contending for a position and it needed to be filled would a woman have any chance of getting that position. Even then some positions would be closed to women no matter what.
But under these newly defined social morals of Second Wave Feminism, if a business chose to hire men over women that was now classified as an immoral form of discrimination and labeled with the new term “sexist” or “sexual discrimination”. In the same way if a person was to contend that a woman’s place was in the home as it had been since the beginning of human civilization – this would be called immoral stereotyping.
The New Feminist Formula –> Sexism = Misogyny
So if you felt as the vast majority of people up to that point had felt that women did not belong in politics, the military or most other occupations outside the home you were now labeled with this new term “Sexist”. And the term “Sexist” was equated to “Misogynist” which means “a hater of women”.
It really was a masterful PR campaign by feminist groups. If you dared to believe in the historic views of the roles of men and women in society you were now labeled a hater of women.
This tied into the larger egalitarian movement. If you believed any class of human beings should rightly have any less rights or privileges than another you were now a “hater” of that group of people. You were “dehumanizing” that group of people. This thought pattern of the 1960’s would eventually lead us to open immigration policies and to legalizing gay marriage and criminalizing any form of discrimination against homosexual and transgender people because to be human is to have equal rights and opportunities with all other humans.
Christians Who Are Ashamed of Their Own Bible
It is very common for Christians today to apologize for the Bible treating men and women differently because to do so is now considered “sexist”. The most common way people make “apology tours” for the Bible is to say something like “God did not condone everything in the Bible”. Others say “God just went along with the cultural customs of the times even though he did not really approve of things like patriarchy, slavery, polygamy or genocide”.
While it is true that God did not condone everything that occurred in the Bible whatever he gave commands to do or to allow he did in fact CONDONE. God does not command or allow sin in his law. Not Ever. The real truth that so many Christians run from and cower at is that God did in fact command or allow patriarchy (Genesis 3:16, Ephesians 5:22-24, I Peter 3:1-6), slavery (Leviticus 25:39-46), polygamy (Exodus 21:10-11, II Samuel 12:8) and genocide (Deuteronomy 20:16–18, I Samuel 15:2-3). I encourage you to read each of the passages I just listed to confirm what I have just said.
And on this subject of sexism, God does in fact make statements and commands in the Bible through his Prophets and Apostles that are considered today to be the very definition of “sexist”.
10 Sexist Biblical Statements or Commands
1. Only Men are Made in God’s Image, Not Women
“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.”
I Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)
2. Women Were Made for Men, Not Men for Women
“Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.”
I Corinthians 11:9 (KJV)
3. Women Were Executed for Lying about the Loss of their Virginity, Men were Not
“20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: 21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.”
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 (KJV)
4. Women Ruling a Nation Are No Better than Children Ruling a Nation
“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)
5. Wives Are Regarded as the Property of Their Husbands
“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)
6. Women Are Commanded to Submit to Their Husbands
“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)
7. Women Can Have their Decisions Overridden by their Fathers and Husbands
“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…
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 30:5 & 8(KJV)
8. Women are Called Weaker Than Men
“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)
9. Women Are Forbidden From Teaching Men or Taking Authority Over Men
“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)
10. A Woman’s Place Is in The Home
“4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 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)
The Choice Every Christian Is Faced With
If this is the first time you as a Christian have read these Scripture passages showing that God did in fact commanded or allow things like patriarchy, slavery, polygamy and genocide and also the 10 passages where God made sexist statements and commands your head is probably spinning.
You are faced with a moral dilemma.
You must either condemn God or condemn the American culture you have been raised in. Before you make your decision I highly recommend you read Job chapters 38 to 40. These three chapters are some of the most humbling chapters in all the Bible. Simply put, they put us as human beings in our place.
In Job chapter 40 God says this to Job:
“1 Moreover the Lord answered Job, and said, 2 Shall he that contendeth with the Almighty instruct him? he that reproveth God, let him answer it.
3 Then Job answered the Lord, and said,4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? I will lay mine hand upon my mouth. 5 Once have I spoken; but I will not answer: yea, twice; but I will proceed no further.
6 Then answered the Lord unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said,7 Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. 8 Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous?”
Job 40:1-8 (KJV)
Before you make your decision let me try to help give a little relief in that decision process.
On the subject of slavery, God only allowed slavery under a particular set of circumstances and it was not based on viewing one race as subservient to all races as the slavery of Africans in the Americas was. For more on this huge topic of slavery see my previous article “Why Christians shouldn’t be ashamed of Slavery in the Bible”.
Also on the subject of genocide I want you to think about this more. In the book of Joshua we read:
“17 And the city shall be accursed, even it, and all that are therein, to the Lord: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent…
21 And they utterly destroyed all that was in the city, both man and woman, young and old, and ox, and sheep, and ass, with the edge of the sword.”
Joshua 6:17 & 21 (KJV)
Literally God commanded through Joshua that every man, woman and child was to be killed in that city with the exception of Rahab and her family who helped the Israelite spies. This was a command to commit genocide against these people.
But before we so quickly condemn the Israelite people and God for his commands to them let us remember that the United States dropped atomic bombs on Nagasaki and Hiroshima for the good of the American nation. The United States indiscriminately killed over 75,000 people at Nagasaki and over 150,000 people at Hiroshima. This included men, women and children. This included pregnant women and infants.
During war sometimes it is necessary to utterly wipe out those in an enemy territory but like slavery this is a much larger discussion for a separate article that I will write in the future (justified war and its tactics).
But this still leaves things like patriarchy, polygamy and sexism which God commanded in the case of patriarchy and sexism and then polygamy which he allowed. For those who may be able to swallow patriarchy but not polygamy I encourage you to read my previous article “Was polygamy a sin in the Old Testament that God overlooked?” I will give you a sneak preview of that with the conclusion I show in that article based on the Scriptures. Polygamy was NOT a sin God overlooked – God cannot overlook sin nor can he allow for it. So those Christians who condemn polygamy as allowed in the Bible are assaulting the righteousness and justice of God in order to appease their own hatred of the practice of polygamy.
The Bible shows us that feminism’s assertion that Sexism = Misogyny is false.
The Bible shows that God honored women like Sara (Hebrews 11:11) and Rahab (Hebrews 11:31) and that he used women as Prophetesses like Deborah and Hulda in his service. But none of these women challenged his design and order that women were made for men and that God called only men to be Priests in the Old Testament and then Bishops and Pastors in the New Testament.
The fact is Jesus was sexist in how he chose his twelve disciples. If a modern Christian feminist were following Jesus around back then they would have said “he had twelve slots to fill and he could not find one woman to fill any of those slots! What a sexist!”
God was even a sexist in finding Judas’s replacement. He chose another man (Matthias) to replace Judas as the twelfth disciple (Acts 1:16-26) to which the Christian feminist would say “come on God – you had an opportunity to correct your sexist hiring practices and you went and did it again!”
The truth is that God tells us to honor our mothers (Exodus 20:12). God tells us to honor our wives (I Peter 3:7). But what really throws of “Sexism” propaganda pushers is that God actually calls men to honor their wives for their weakness in comparison to men! This means we don’t mock or belittle women for being weaker, softer and gentler than us as men but instead we honor them for it. We honor women, not for trying to compete with men, but for humbly assuming the supporting role God has given them in his creation as wives and mothers. We honor widows and other women who choose to serve in the church in ways which do not conflict with his rules for men and women in the Church (I Timothy 5:3).
Should we as Christians be ashamed of the fact that God tells us he made men to be his image bearers and women to be help meets to his image bearers by being in subjection to them? Should we be ashamed of the fact that God says a woman’s place is in the home bearing children, caring for them and caring for the needs of her home?
Jesus Christ made this statement that should send shivers up the spines of those who seek to apologize for the Bible’s Sexist treatment of women:
“38 Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels.”
Mark 8:38 (KJV)
Now many Christians will immediately respond – “Well Jesus was not speaking in any of those 10 Scriptures you quoted so he was not talking about being ashamed of those words!”
Well my feminist Christian friends let me educate you on some other things that Christ said.
“But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God.” Matthew 4:4 (KJV)
“17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)
Jesus Christ is the very Word of God (John 1:1). He spoke his Word through his Prophets before him and he spoke his Word through his Apostles after him. That is why Paul could make the following statement given to him by God:
“All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness”
2 Timothy 3:16 (KJV)
The Scriptures are clear on this matter. The Bible teaches us that it is not misogyny(hatred of women) to be a sexist and it shows us that God is in fact a sexist while at the same time loving the women he created. If we are ashamed of the Bible teaching sexism then we are ashamed of God himself who authored every word of the Bible. And if we are ashamed of God he will be ashamed of us at his coming. This is why as I said to my in-laws during a thanksgiving family get together that “I am a proud sexist”.
I am a proud sexist because I am proud of my God and his Word.
And on a closing side note – God used that discussion for me to have an opening to share the truth of God’s Word with my 14 year old niece. She came to my house during the break between Christmas and New Years to spend time with my wife (her aunt). She and I get along well and we joke with each other all the time. Despite what occurred earlier during thanksgiving my niece does have a lot of respect for me and she knows that I know the Bible very well.
She made another joke while she was at my house when talking to my wife and she said something like “that’s just because Uncle Larry is a sexist”. I was able to take that opportunity and to talk with her. I explained to her that when I said that earlier I meant it and it was not a joke to me. I explained to her that being a sexist from a Biblical perspective means believing that men and women should be treated differently because men and women have different roles to play in God’s design. I was able to have a quick Bible study with her where I took her through Genesis 1, Genesis 2, I Corinthians 11 and Ephesians 5. I opened a world to her that she never knew existed. She had never heard why God created men and women and why God created marriage. She had never heard that God created women for men or that God created marriage to be a picture of the relationship of God to his people.
It was a lot for her to take in and her first response was the typical response you would expect from a 14 year old girl raised by a feminist mother – “but that’s not fair! Why would God do that? Men are not perfect like Christ and they will abuse their power over women.” She added “plus women are usually smarter than men”.
This is what our children have been raised with. A society that teaches them God is unfair to women, men abuse women and women are smarter than men and women should be in charge of the home.
This is spiritual war we must wage for the hearts and minds of our young people.
“3 For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh: 4 (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty through God to the pulling down of strong holds;) 5 Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ;”
2 Corinthians 10:3-5 (KJV)
With the revelations of famous men acting badly toward women and the rise of the MeToo# movement we are having a national conversation about the causes of sexual harassment. Some have made a startling accusation that it is the “toxic” system of Christian values which is at the root of this evil behavior. The sad part is many Christians in America have been so indoctrinated by feminism that they would not even recognize that Christian values are being attacked.
In an article he wrote for Inc.com entitled “Yes, We Can Defeat Sexual Harassment in the Workplace. Here Are 6 Powerful Ways to Do It” Marcel Schwantes says the fight against sexual harassment is “about deconstructing false values embedded in toxic systemic thinking”:
“Both men and women of good conscience are fearlessly acknowledging the elephant in the room — the disturbing, age-old trend of men in power taking advantage of their status to prey on women (and other men) working below them.
Therefore, the fight is just as much about deconstructing false values embedded in toxic systemic thinking, and the thinking of sick minds. In the BBC article, Eden King exposes a root cause of sexual harassment: “A belief that women are inferior to men, the belief that men should have power over women,” and, she adds, a belief that “men should be aggressors and women should be gatekeepers.” The process of shifting mindsets doesn’t start in training rooms. King says it should begin in the earliest days of childhood education and development.”
Do Christians believe in “toxic” and “false” values that lead to sexual harassment?
Eden King lists these 4 values that she believes are false and Marcel Schwantes calls “toxic” ways of thinking that actually lead to the sexual harassment of women:
- “A belief that women are inferior to men”
- “the belief that men should have power over women”
- “men should be aggressors”
- “women should be gatekeepers”
So let’s now examine each of these beliefs as to their whether they are true or false and whether they lead to sexual harassment or actually would help to prevent it.
“A belief that women are inferior to men”
“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)
Women are equal to men in their humanity as we all have the blood of Adam (both men and women). But women are not equal to men in strength and many other attributes. Women were designed to be weaker than men so that they would need men as mankind needs God. Believing women are inferior to men does not mean we do not honor women. But as the Scriptures tell us we give honor to women as the weaker vessels God designed them to be.
So, this first supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God. This means this value that has been held by civilizations even without the Bible for thousands of years is actually a TRUE value and a righteous value. Accepting this truth has not lead most men to prey on women, but rather it leads men to protect women.
“the belief that men should have power over women”
“3 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…
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”
I Corinthians 11:3 & 10 (KJV)
The Bible tells that God’s order in this world is God the father is the head of Christ, Christ is the head of man and man is the head of woman and that woman should have a sign of authority or a sign that there is a power over her head which is man.
Again, this second supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God. This means this value that has been held by civilizations even without the Bible for thousands of years is actually a TRUE value and a righteous value. Accepting this truth has not lead most men to prey on women, but rather it leads men to desire to lead women.
“men should be aggressors”
“Blessed be the Lord my strength which teacheth my hands to war, and my fingers to fight”
Psalm 144:1 (KJV)
“10 When thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God hath delivered them into thine hands, and thou hast taken them captive, 11 And seest among the captives a beautiful woman, and hast a desire unto her, that thou wouldest have her to thy wife; 12 Then thou shalt bring her home to thine house, and she shall shave her head, and pare her nails;
13 And she shall put the raiment of her captivity from off her, and shall remain in thine house, and bewail her father and her mother a full month: and after that thou shalt go in unto her, and be her husband, and she shall be thy wife.”
Deuteronomy 21:10-14 (KJV)
This third supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God. The Bible tells us that God has made men aggressive by nature. Man’s aggressive nature when it is used for sinful purposes can cause great destruction and evil. But when man channels his aggressive nature toward godly purposes this helps him to accomplish great things – including taking a wife.
Accepting this truth that men are aggressors or initiators in life is not something that should cause men to harass women or otherwise act badly toward them. Instead this truth that men are aggressors should lead men to channel their aggression into their work so they can be successful in their business endeavors to be able to provide a home for a future wife. It should also cause them to aggressively seek out a godly woman who wants to fulfill her God given purpose as a wife and mother.
“women should be gatekeepers”
“20 But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:
21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
22 If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, 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 22:20-22 (KJV)
Finally, this fourth supposed “false value” is not false based on the Word of God. The Bible tells us that God has in fact assigned the role of gatekeeper to women regarding their sexual purity. In the Scriptures if a woman lost her virginity before marriage it could relegate her to a life of celibacy and if she hid the loss of her virginity it could cost her life.
While we are no longer under the civil penalties of the Old Testament law – the moral law remains. God has given women a serious and lifelong task to protect their bodies and keep them only for their future or current husbands. Her husband is the only one that she may and in fact must allow through the gate to access the pleasures of her body.
Accepting this truth that women are tasked by God to be gatekeepers of their sexual purity does not excuse men from acting badly toward woman. But this is why God created woman’s sexual nature to be so different than man’s. Men are designed by God to be primarily physically driven toward sex and only secondarily relationally driven. Because of this a man can very easily have sex with a woman regardless of their relational status. But God in his perfect design of woman for man created her with a relational sexual nature that causes her to only desire to give herself to one man and one man only – her husband. She is literally built with a self-protection mechanism that protects her for her man.
I could not agree more with Marcel Schwantes that returning to values would help to greatly reduce sexual harassment in the workplace. However, I completely disagree with him as to what values we need to return to. The values he and Eden King calls “false” and places as the root of the evils of sexual harassment are in fact the values that could greatly reduce the sexual harassment of women if we as a society returned them.
The “values” Schwantes and King believe we should return to do not find their basis in the Word of God, but rather in Second Wave Feminism and the Sexual Revolution which brought us these destructive changes to society:
- Women leaving their gatekeeper role and engaging in extramarital sex
- Women seeking higher education while delaying marriage
- Women putting off having children even after marriage
- Women having financial independence from men
- Women rebelling against their subordinate role in marriage and society
The truth is, it is not Biblical values that have lead us to the sexual harassment crisis our culture finds itself in today, but rather it is the values of Second Wave Feminism and the Sexual Revolution which are the true root of the problem.
Modern America teaches women that they should judge their own worth by how intelligent they are, how educated they are, how independent they are and by how successful they are in their career.
These new standards of a woman’s worth are a radical shift from the standards by which women have historically judged their own worth. Consider the table below which illustrates stark contrasts between how women judged their own worth before the 1960’s and the new standards after the 1960’s.
The measure of a woman before and after the 1960’s
|Potential for having children(age/health)||Education Level(College/University)|
|Cooking/Home Keeping Skills||Career/Income Potential|
We can make two primary observations about the differences between these two lists.
The first observation is that before the 1960’s a woman’s sense of self worth was very much tied to what she had to offer a future or current husband. After the 1950’s women were taught to stop centering their sense of worth on what they had to offer a future or current husband and to concentrate more on what they wanted for themselves regardless of how attractive or unattractive such pursuits or qualities made them to men.
The second observation we can make from these two lists is that the modern list for what woman are told should give them their sense of worth is identical to what men historically have been told should give them their sense of worth.
In other words, women today are told that they must compare themselves to men to have any sense of worth. So for example, if a woman has a submissive spirit this is not seen as a quality adding to her worth, but rather one that takes away from her worth. If a woman does not speak her mind whenever she has a disagreement but rather holds her tongue and shows deference to men this quality is not seen as a worthy one, but one that takes away from her worth.
And if a woman has no desire for a higher education or career ambitions, but rather seeks to find a man and serve him by bearing his children and caring for his home this women is viewed today as the most worthless of all.
Recently I received a heart felt plea as comment to my blog from a woman who stated she has recently become a believer in Christ. She said that as she reads the Scriptures I present on this blog on why God made woman she has found herself feeling depressed and worthless by the Biblical view of womanhood.
It actually is easy for me to understand why she might feel worthless after comparing herself to Biblical standards for what should give a woman her sense of worth because they are so different than our modern standards. It is like studying for one test, only to be given a completely different test.
The name she wrote under is Adrienne.
“As a new believer who is desperately trying to pull myself out of the pit of feminism, I find myself becoming depressed reading some of the articles and comments on biblicalgenderroles.com. I had bought into all the lies about marriage being an equal partnership. The whole “we are a team” as opposed to the master/ servant relationship it really is. I completely understand that everything (including men and women) is made for God’s pleasure.
I struggle with the knowledge that everything I am is made for my husband’s pleasure. Kinda makes one feel worthless as a person. I feel like I am not allowed to have my own tastes or preferences in anything. Should I even bother having an opinion or should I ask my husband what my opinion is?
It also kind of makes me feel like God hates women. After all, there are no women in heaven, and probably never will be. The Godhead is male, the angels are male and from what I understand there will be no marriage or children in heaven/eternity so there will be no need for gender. The pastors I have talked to about this tell me either:
- all women will be turned into men at the final judgement.
- women have no souls/ no need for salvation and when we die we just cease to exist like the animals.
They said God only created us as women b/c He had to for reproductive purposes not b/c He wanted to. This all hurts and I have no idea what is biblical or not. I just started reading the bible and have not made it past exodus yet. How do I find joy in my role as a woman if I feel like I am nothing to God or anyone else?”
My Response to Adrienne and other women who feel worthless in God’s sight
Adrienne, I could summarize your concerns as a new believer with this statement:
“Why does the Bible make me feel worthless as a woman?”
The first reason that you feel “worthless”(or have low self-esteem) when looking at the Biblical view of womanhood is because you still have a faulty view of what gives a woman or people in general their worth. The Bible tells us as Christians that we have been preprogrammed with faulty ways of thinking by both our sin natures as well as the cultures and families we were brought up in.
When we begin our walk with God we must recognize this daily and seek to unlearn what our sin natures, cultures and families have taught us and renew our minds with what is good, acceptable and perfect according to the will of God which is found in his Word.
“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.”
Romans 12:2 (KJV)
Women definitely have souls
I know in past centuries there were some who threw around such rumors as a church doctrine that teaches women do not have souls. But the Bible supports no such notion. I am unaware of any Pastors or churches today that preach such nonsense. I would be very curious to know who you spoke with or at least their denomination.
The Scriptures show us definitive proof that women have souls and here is just one example from Mary, the woman who God chose to give flesh to his Son Jesus Christ:
“46 And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, 47 And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour.”
Luke 1:46-47 (KJV)
So yes there will be women in heaven and women in hell just as there will be men in heaven and men in hell. Every soul goes to one of these two destinations.
Did God just create women for procreative purposes?
While the pursuit of motherhood for women is definitely honored and even commanded in the Scriptures (“be fruitful and multiply“– Genesis 1:28) that is not the only reason God made woman. In fact God could have made men as asexually reproducing beings as other organisms on earth are. He did not need to create a different type of human being for humans to reproduce.
Instead God created woman for a much more glorious purpose which we will explain next.
Equal personhood does NOT mean equal opportunity
One of the falsehoods we have been taught in American society is that if a certain class of people does not have equal rights or privileges with other classes of people then they are said to be treated as “less than human” or not as persons.
You will find no support for such a definition of personhood in the Scriptures. In fact the Scriptures routinely show different rights for people based on various classes. Free women had more rights than slave women. Indentured servants had more rights than slaves but less rights than free men. Free men had more rights than free women, indentured male and female servants, male slaves, or female slaves.
In other words, in God’s view, our personhood is NOT determined by our social class or the rights we have or do not have.
But now let’s bring this back to men and women.
Every human being is given a soul by God which inhabits our “vessel” which is the word the Scriptures often use to speak to our bodies. God made two types of vessels, one that is classified as the “weaker vessel” (I Peter 3:5) and thus the other by comparison is the stronger vessel. The souls of women inhabit the weaker vessel and the souls of men inhabit the stronger vessel.
But then we must understand that God did not arbitrarily make one vessel weaker than the other. He made one vessel stronger and one vessel weaker for a glorious purpose. The scriptures tell us that God made man to be his image bearer – to bring God glory by imaging him:
“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)
This passage of Scripture, which is part of a divinely inspired commentary on the Genesis account, tells us that God created man to bring him glory by imaging him. God then created woman from man to glorify man.
But how does a woman fully bring glory to man as God intended in his purpose in creating her? We will answer that question in our next section.
How does a woman bring glory to her husband and thereby bring glory to God?
The scriptures reveal to us the full and glorious purpose for which God designed woman (and man) in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians:
“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.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 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.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”
Ephesians 5:22-29 (KJV)
Again just as with I Corinthians 11, we have here in Ephesians chapter 5 divine commentary from God regarding the Genesis creation account. God did not create women as soulless creatures simply for procreative purposes but rather he created them for man to be able to fully image God. Man needed someone to love as God loves mankind by leading them, protecting them and providing for them. This is why we God made woman “the weaker vessel” (I Peter 3:7) because just as mankind is weaker than God and needs him for all these things, so too woman was designed to be weaker than man and need him for these things.
So how does a woman glorify her husband as God intended her too? By modeling what God desires from his Church in honoring, reverencing, submitting to and serving her husband as the Church is to serve Christ.
What is the measure of a woman’s worth by God’s standards?
As I said at the beginning of this post, God’s standard’s for what gives a woman her sense of worth and what our culture says gives a woman her sense of worth are two very different things.
The Scriptures tell us that a virtuous woman is worth more than rubies:
“Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.”
Proverbs 31:10 (KJV)
In another passage the Scriptures tell us that a virtuous woman is her husband’s crown:
“A virtuous woman is a crown to her husband: but she that maketh ashamed is as rottenness in his bones.”
Proverbs 12:4 (KJV)
Are rubies not of great worth? Is a crown not of great worth? We know these things are of great worth. But how does a woman make herself worth more than rubies to her future or present husband?
Seven ways a woman makes herself of great worth in God’s View
Do you as a woman want to be of great worth to your future or current husband? If you reject the world’s definition of the worth of a woman and follow God’s definition you will have great worth both to God and to your husband.
Below are seven ways a woman can be a ruby and a crown in the eyes of God and her husband:
- She happily seeks to play her part in modeling the Church’s subordinate role to Christ. (Ephesians 5:22-33)
- She happily seeks to marry, bear children, and keep the house for her husband. (I Timothy 5:14)
- She happily seeks to be obedient to and submissive to her husband. (Titus 2:5, I Peter 3:1-6, Ephesians 5:22-24)
- She happily seeks to reverence her husband and never bring any shame to him or God by her behavior(Proverbs 12:4,I Timothy 5:14,Titus 2:5)
- She demonstrates her prudence and wisdom by being discreet and kind in when and how she shares her advice with her husband. (Proverbs 11:22, Proverbs 19:14, Proverbs 31:26, Titus 2:5)
- She makes both her inner person and her outer person beautiful to please her husband (Psalm 45:11, I Peter 3:3-6)
- She happily sees that God not only gave her to her husband to care for his children and his home, but also to bring him pleasure with her body and she never denies him a drink from the well which is her body. (Proverbs 5:15-19)
Is a wife allowed to have different opinions and tastes than her husband?
Adrienne, you asked “I feel like I am not allowed to have my own tastes or preferences in anything. Should I even bother having an opinion or should I ask my husband what my opinion is?”
Absolutely as a wife you are allowed to have your own opinions and “tastes” by which I think you mean preferences. In fact the Scriptures say these two things are part of what makes a woman of great worth to her husband:
“House and riches are the inheritance of fathers: and a prudent wife is from the Lord.”
Proverbs 19:14 (KJV)
“She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness.”
Proverbs 31:26 (KJV)
So the Scriptures tell us that a prudent and wise wife are of great value to a man. What is prudence? Prudence is planning for the future. A wife who has things planned out for the needs of her home whether it be clothing needs or food needs or the other needs of the children is of great value to a man. And wisdom is not just knowledge, but knowing how to use that knowledge in a right way. This is also of great value to a man.
So yes you are absolutely allowed to have opinions and preferences and these can be beneficial to your future or current husband. But the key concept to understand is that you are not allowed to express your opinions and preferences in any way you want or at any time you want and you need to accept the fact that your husband may not always follow your opinions.
Let me give a few examples to better illustrate this.
The President of the United States has a chief of staff. The President delegates certain powers and responsibilities to the chief of staff to run the White House and represent the President publicly. A good chief of staff certainly has his own opinions and preferences as to how the President should do certain things but he keeps those differences private and always shares them in a respectful and reverent way with the President. If the President says “this is the way it will be”, then the chief of staff submits to that direction.
But from the outside world’s perspective – the chief of staff is always in lock step with his President. One other thing about what makes a good chief of staff to a President. The chief of staff realizes he is there to serve the President and not vice versa. He realizes that he is there to help implement the President’s agenda – but never to set it.
This is the way a wife is to be toward her husband in regard to her opinions and preferences. When she shares opinions and preferences with her husband she needs to ask herself “I am sharing this opinion or preference to help further his agenda or my own?”
For example – your husband may set these agenda items for your marriage and your family:
- He wants to have regular sexual relations with you at least 3 times a week.
- He wants the children to clean their rooms on a daily basis.
- He wants the children to do their homework on a daily basis.
- He wants to have certain budget priorities for the family.
I could come up with a much larger list but you get my point. Now as a wife you could privately meet with him and share your opinion on how to best meet his agenda goals. For instance in the sexual arena you could share your sexual preferences to help him better please you and thus have more sexual pleasure in the bedroom. You could say maybe mornings work better than evenings sometimes for sex. All of this is meant to further his agenda for you both to have a good sex life together as a couple and not simply to further some agenda that you have. Maybe he wants oral sex – but you would prefer that he bathe before you do that. You could share things like this with him in a private setting in a respectful manner.
In regard to the children – you could share your opinions on how to best implement his agenda items that they clean their rooms and do their homework. The same goes for the budget.
One last thing in regard to your opinions and this would even apply to my chief of staff example with the President. Sometimes a President will not accept the recommendation of his chief of staff. Sometimes he may even accept the recommendation of another advisor over his chief of staff. In this same way you must accept that your husband will not always accept and act on your opinion or your preferences.
Your husband may actually take someone else’s advice against yours as his wife and you need to accept that and be OK with that.
A lot of Christian wives get offended by this. But you need to realize as a Christian wife that if you are angered by your husband taking someone else’s advice over yours this comes from a place of pride. You are one of his advisers, but not his only adviser as so many wives falsely see themselves.
The other thing to remember is that contrary to false teachings today you are not the Holy Spirit for your husband and your opinions, like his are not inerrant. To put it bluntly, it is possible for a man to have a wife who is stupid in certain areas or a wife to have a husband that is stupid in certain areas. But the chain of command remains. I don’t get to say because my boss does something stupid that I no longer have to listen to him or respect him as my boss. In the same way the chain of command in a family is not dependent on the husband’s intellect. A wife must always submit to and obey her husband unless he asks her to directly sin against God.
I hope that if you are a Christian woman like Adrienne reading this that you will realize God has glorious plan in creating you as a woman. You are not some soulless creature only made to procreate for mankind. You were created to bring glory to God by bringing glory to man. You are an indispensable part in helping to model the relationship of the Church to Christ with your future or current husband.
You need to come to reject the lies of this world. You need to unlearn what the world has taught you gives women their worth and renew your mind according to God’s view of you – not this evil world’s view.
This world will tell you to compete with your future or current husband for power and equality rather than placing yourself in subjection to him so that you can fulfill the purpose for which God made you.
And here is the secret the world won’t tell you that I have heard from so many women through this blog and other ways. You need to realize that the woman God designed you to be, the nature that he gave to Eve is buried within you. For someone women there is a little rubble to clear to get to it and for others there is a mountain of rubble to clear. Some of the rubble simply comes from the corrupting influence of sin or to say it another way – some of the rubble you were simply born with. But other parts of the rubble may have come from the corrupt teachings of our culture, or your parents or even your own bad life experiences.
Either way – you have to recognize this spiritual rubble and clear it away to see the woman that God truly designed you to be. You need to clear that rock away from the ruby God meant you to be and then you will make yourself of great worth to God and your future or current husband.
The sign above was posted in Detroit in 1942 to oppose a new federal housing project being built for African Americans. Most Christian Americans will agree that slavery was an original sin of America’s founders. But what about the founder’s restriction limiting citizenship to “free white persons” via the Naturalization Act of 1790? Was this a second sin by America’s founders?
The founder’s restriction of American citizenship to “free white persons” is part an ideology called “Ethno-Nationalism”. Ethno-Nationalists believe that nations are built on three things which are common language, common culture and common ethnicity.
When America was founded the vast majority of its citizens were of British decent (English, Welsh or Scottish) with a minority being from other mostly white northern European nations. The new American British culture would come to set the tone for America. Even when a large amount of German immigrants would arrive in the 19th century they quickly assimilated to the American British culture that had been established.
Victor Davis Hanson in his article for the National Review – “America: History’s Exception” writes:
“The history of nations is mostly characterized by ethnic and racial uniformity, not diversity. Most national boundaries reflected linguistic, religious, and ethnic homogeneity. Until the late 20th century, diversity was considered a liability, not a strength…
Countries, ancient and modern, that have tried to unite diverse tribes have usually fared poorly. The Italian Roman Republic lasted about 500 years. In contrast, the multiracial Roman Empire that after the Edict of Caracalla in AD 212 made all its diverse peoples equal citizens endured little more than two (often violent) centuries.” 
So ethno-nationalism has been what has knit nations together for the history of mankind. America even started as an Ethno-nationalist nation. It was not until after the Civil War that American let go of its ethno-nationalist heritage and began its journey into multiracialism and eventually multiculturalism. America’s motto “e pluribus unum” or as it translates to English “out of many one” was also transformed. The founders used this phrase to refer to the 13 colonies becoming one nation. Multiracialists change it for their purposes to mean that America would be a nation that was centered on multiracialism and multiculturalism.
Most Americans feel America has lost its identity
On March 5th 2017, Matt Sedensky in an article for the Associated Press wrote:
“Add one more to the list of things dividing left and right in this country: We can’t even agree what it means to be an American.
A new survey from The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research finds Republicans are far more likely to cite a culture grounded in Christian beliefs and the traditions of early European immigrants as essential to U.S. identity.
Democrats are more apt to point to the country’s history of mixing of people from around the globe and a tradition of offering refuge to the persecuted.
While there’s disagreement on what makes up the American identity, 7 in 10 people – regardless of party – say the country is losing that identity…
Patrick Miller, a political science professor at the University of Kansas who studies partisanship and polling, said the results reflect long-standing differences in the U.S. between one camp’s desire for openness and diversity and another’s vision of the country grounded in the white, English-speaking, Protestant traditions of its early settlers.” 
Some Christians openly rejoice that America has transformed from its Ethno-nationalist roots into a multiracial multicultural country. Many Christian’s believe the world needs to unite and leave old divisions of race, ethnic groups and even national boundaries to the dustbin of history.
But other Christians remain silently saddened as they see the America of George Washington slip away.
The Language of Race Discussions
We have gone from one extreme in our societies to another. In times past, racial and ethnic hatred were common and generally accepted in day to day language. In the days of America’s founding it was common for whites to degrade and insult Native Americans and Blacks. In fact, to defend these groups in any way and condemn such hateful speech was rare.
But now over the past several decades in America a new hatred has arisen. The only acceptable discussion of race in America is that Whites should be ashamed of their past treatment of various races and that White privilege and prejudice is still holding back minorities like Blacks, Native Americans and Hispanics. A new oppressed minority are Muslims. If you were to talk about how Whites still oppress and hold back all these groups and all the evils those of European decent have brought on the world you will be praised. You will be applauded. You will be loved.
But any speech about race today that is NOT speaking about White oppression against various races is condemned as racist and evil. For instance, even to ask the question I did in a previous post – “Is Self-Segregation a Sin in the Bible?” is called racist. To question government forced integration is to be called evil and racist. People lose jobs not just because of racial slurs – but even for questioning racial integration and affirmative action policies.
In fact, we are told that race does not really exist and even to consider the possibility that race actually exists is irrational and racist. The debate is closed and may not be discussed.
And finally on this topic of the language of race relations I am going to make something abundantly clear that I made in other previous posts on this discussion of race.
I do NOT support White hate groups like the KKK, Neo Nazis or other White supremacist groups. In my previous article “We must denounce White, Black, Antifa and Muslim Terrorism” I denounced the actions of the KKK and Neo Nazis from a Christian perspective as not only hateful but actually as forms of domestic terrorism. I showed in previous posts that there is no allowance in the Christian faith for hating someone because of their racial or ethnic origin.
I put the above statement in red so that no one can try and twist or malign the honest discussion I am about to have about race and ethno-nationalism from a Biblical perspective into saying I support White hate groups like the KKK, Neo-Nazis or other such groups.
Denying the reality of race will not end racial hatred or racial atrocities
Even a small child knows that race exists. When an adopted Black child asks his White adoptive parents “Mommy and Daddy – why do I look so different from you?” he is recognizing what we all know to be true – race exists and it is about far more than skin color differences. The child recognizes the different facial features between himself and his parents.
The difference between races is even more than facial features, hair and skin colors – in other words it is more than skin deep. While most of the scientific community is trying to erase the concept of races from modern science teachings there is one group of scientists who simply cannot ignore what they see under the skin and they are forensic anthropologists.
“Forensic anthropologists, experts in skeletons that do work for law enforcement agencies, say they are extremely accurate at deciphering the signs that identify a dead person’s bones as African, Caucasian, Asian or American Indian.
“We produce as much accuracy in race as we do with sex and age,” says George W. Gill, a forensic anthropologist at the University of Wyoming and one of the eight anthropologists who are suing the federal government in the Kennewick case.”
Think CSI, Bones and other crime shows on TV. When they find a body in a burned out building and all they have to go on is the skeleton. Forensic experts can ascertain with a great degree of certainty whether a person is of Caucasian, African or Asian descent. And as far as Native Americans go – Native Americans really are just a particular Asian variant.
The fact is there are three major variations of human beings – Caucasians, Africans and Asians. We can call them “people groups” instead of “race” as some forensic anthropologists want to do. But the fact cannot be denied that there are three distinct and discernable major variations of human beings.
But the key word is “variation”. Just because my major variation type, people group or race is Caucasian and yours is African or Asian does not make any of us less human. It does not give any of us the right to rule over the other.
We don’t have to pretend or try to erase or minimize race from our vocabulary and thought processes to combat racial hatred.
One other word I will use often in this post is “ethnicity”. Now today in order to go along with trying to wipe out racial distinctions from our vocabularies people are saying “ethnicity” has nothing to do with race but only groups of people with shared traditions and values or perhaps national origin. The fact is for all of human history ethnicity has been associated with common heredity as well as common traditions and values and national origin. You cannot erase heredity as a historical component of ethnicity even though we are trying to do that today in nations.
So, when I use the term “ethnicity” I am using it to refer to minor human variation groups. Northern Europeans could be classified as a minor variation of the major Caucasian variation group. Englishmen would be a further subset or minor variation group of the Northern European variant group. Arabs are a West Asian and North African Caucasian variant group. Nigerians would be a minor variation of the major African variant group as compared to Kenyans being another. Chinese would be a minor variation of the major Asian variant group compared to Filipinos.
So now you will understand what I mean when I say race or ethnicity.
The Christian case against Ethno-Nationalism
Most Christian Americans and for that matter most Christians today around the world believe that ethno-nationalism is the same as racial hatred and the Bible condemns all hatred except hatred of sin:
“Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.”
Proverbs 10:12 (KJV)
So some Christians will stop right there and say the case is closed. Ethno-nationalism is racial hatred and all hatred except for hatred of sin is condemned in the Bible therefore Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and Christians should condemn it or so they say.
Some Christians will go a bit further in explaining why Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and incompatible with the Christian way of life. The following Bible passages are cited as proof that Christians should be opposed to ethno-nationalism:
“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)
“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;”
Revelation 5:9 (KJV)
“13 But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ.14 For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us;
15 Having abolished in his flesh the enmity, even the law of commandments contained in ordinances; for to make in himself of twain one new man, so making peace; 16 And that he might reconcile both unto God in one body by the cross, having slain the enmity thereby:”
Ephesians 2:13-16 (KJV)
So the argument from Christians who believe these passages condemn the practice and ideology of ethno-nationalism goes somewhat like this:
Christ came to save all men regardless of their ethnic background. But he came not only to save all races and ethnicities – but he came to knock down the boundaries or as Ephesians 2:14 says “the middle wall of partition” between them. Since Christ made no distinction in his saving of all men from all races and ethnicities then so too we as Christians should erase all racial preferences or distinctions between races in our own personal lives – this is what we are told as Christians we must do.
Some Christians will even argue that the primary reason that Christ gave himself up on the cross was to promote racial diversity and harmony and John Piper is one of those Christians. John Piper is a nationwide respected Evangelical Pastor and Christian author and I think he represents well the modern Christian arguments against ethno-nationalism.
You won’t find the term “ethno-nationalism” in his book but you will instead find the synonym “ethnocentrism” all over his book “Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian” like this example where he references it:
“This will mean a new global family made up of believers in Christ from every ethnic group on the planet. And it will mean that those who love that vision will work toward local manifestations of that ethnic diversity. Jesus is the end of ethnocentrism—globally and locally. Not color but faith in Christ is the mark of the kingdom.”
[4, p. 119]
In the following excerpt, instead of saying Christ came to end ethnocentrism, John Piper frames it differently by saying Christ came to bring ethnic diversity. In fact, John Piper says Christ literally died on the cross for ethnic diversity when he writes:
“…this aim of ethnic diversity and harmony in the people of God (the one priesthood and kingdom) was pursued by God at infinite cost. The cost of diversity was the blood and life of the Son of God. This is not an overstatement. Consider the wording of Revelation 5:9 very closely: “You were slain, and by your blood you ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation.” God paid the infinite price of his own Son’s life to obtain a priesthood of believers and a kingdom of fellow rulers from every race and every ethnic group on earth. Think on it. He paid this price particularly. It was for this particular people. He ransomed people “from the nations.” The issue of racial and ethnic diversity and harmony in the church is not small, because the price God paid precisely for it was not small. It was infinite.” [4, p. 141]
John Piper then concludes that it is part of our sacred duty as Christians to pursue racial diversity in all areas of our lives:
“And if it cost the Father and the Son such a price, should we expect that it will cost us nothing? That it will be easy? That the Devil, who hates the glory of God and despises the aims of the cross, will relent without a battle? No. To join God in pursuing racial diversity and racial harmony will be costly. So costly that many simply try for a while and then give up and walk away from the effort to easier things.
But if you love God—if you live to spread a passion for his supremacy in all things for the joy of all peoples through Jesus Christ—you will trust him and seek his help and pursue with your life what cost Jesus his.” [4, p. 142]
As part of his belief that God has called Christians to pursue racial diversity John Piper and his wife adopted an African American girl knowing it would trouble some of his southern relatives. He also has placed racial diversity as a hiring criterion for all ministries he oversees at his Church because he believes all local churches should do their best to reflect the racial diversity of the world-wide body of Christ.
So that is the total Christian case against Ethno-nationalism in a nutshell. According to its opponents, Ethno-nationalism comes from a position of racial and ethnic hatred and part of the reason Christ came and died on the cross was to promote racial and ethnic harmony and remove the barriers between races and ethnicities.
In fact some Christians would even go as far as rejecting not only ethno-nationalism – but even nationalism itself. There are many Christians that would build on John Piper’s theology and state that Christ promoted multicultural globalism. After all we are all “one in Christ” and if we are one there is no place for national boundaries anymore.
The Christian Case for Ethno-nationalism
We have just explored the reasoning by many Christians today for their belief that Ethno-nationalism is a sin against God and that God wants all Christians in every sphere of their life(which would include family, church and society) to promote and implement policies of racial and ethnic diversity.
But now I will present the case that Ethno-nationalism is not a sin against God. In fact I will show from the Scriptures that God not only allows Ethno-nationalism but in fact he was the architect of it!
I know that may sound shocking to many Christians but that is because of the sad fact that as much as we push education in our modern society – most Christians have never read the entire Bible. They just read a few portions here and there or they listen to their Pastor or read books by Christian men like John Piper.
Don’t get me wrong. I think it is great for us to listen to preachers on the radio – I do from time to time. It is great to go to church each week and here the Gospel and the doctrines of Scripture preached by a Pastor on Sundays. I have also read many Christian books by many Christian authors. But each of us must study the Scriptures for ourselves as well and remember that no Pastor or teacher (and that includes me) perfectly understands or interprets the Bible. We are all flawed men and affected by our culture and upbringing.
No culture is perfect. Sometimes cultures and governments actually get things right and enforce God’s laws and policies. Where governments do push godly polices we as Christians should support and promote such polices.
So the question is this – is John Piper and the host of Christians he represents in America and around the world right in siding with our current cultural emphasis on multiracialism and multiculturalism or are Christians like me who side with the ethno-nationalist policies of our founders as well as all nations before the modern times right?
In other words, have nations since the flood acted against God’s will in protecting their racial homogeneity?
With that said here is the case I make from the Scriptures in support of Ethno-nationalism.
The great omission of Christians who oppose ethno-nationalism
The first argument against John Pipers position is found his same book “Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian” where he writes:
“First, that God is the God of the nations means that God created all the nations. More specifically, he created all the people in those nations in his own image. This is not Paul’s explicit focus in Romans 3:29–30, but it is implied in what he says here.
He makes this focus explicit in Acts 17:26: “He made from one man every nation [Greek ethnos] of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” Notice two things from this text. First, God is the maker of ethnic groups. “God made from one man every nation.” Ethnic groups do not come about by meaningless, random genetic change. They come about by God’s design and purpose. The text says plainly, “God made every ethnos.”
Also, God made all the ethnic groups from one human ancestor. Paul says, “He made from one man every ethnos.” This has a special wallop when you ponder why he chose to say just this to these Athenians on the Areopagus. The Athenians were fond of boasting that they were autochthones, which means that they sprang from their native soil and were not immigrants from some other place or people group.
Paul chooses to confront this ethnic pride head-on. God made all the ethnic groups—Athenians and barbarians—and he made them out of one common stock. So you Athenians are cut from the same cloth as those despised barbarians.” [4, p. 153]
So, what is the argument within his own words against his larger position against ethno-nationalism and for the promotion of racial diversity in societies?
The key is in the passage he cites from Acts 17:26. John Piper makes the same omission that most anti-ethno-nationalist Christians make. Let’s look at this passage he cites in its entirety:
“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 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 critical phrase he left off (and those who support his position always leave off) is “and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation”.
Yes, God made every “ethnos”- every human variation type from one man and that was Adam. That is an absolute Biblical truth. But the second Biblical truth found in this same verse is that God also determined the bounds of their habitation. This is a reference back to a passage in the Old Testament book of Deuteronomy.
“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)
In Deuteronomy 32 we read about “the days of old” when God “separated the sons of Adam”. Now you will need to follow the bouncing ball just a couple more times to see the complete truth of the Scriptures. The event where God “separated the sons of Adam” is a reference to what God did at the tower of Babel as recorded in the book of Genesis.
The Biblical Story of Babel
The Biblical account of the tower of Babel is given to us in the book of Genesis:
“And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.
2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there. 3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter. 4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.
5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded. 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. 9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lord scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.”
Genesis 11:1-9 (KJV)
Genesis 11 is not the only part of the Bible to speak of what God did at the Babel event.
The book of Deuteronomy gives us more detail on the Babel event:
“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)
The phrase “the number of the children of Israel” found in Deuteronomy 32:8 refers to this passage of Scripture:
“And all the souls that came out of the loins of Jacob were seventy souls: for Joseph was in Egypt already.”
Exodus 1:5 (KJV)
So Deuteronomy chapter 32 tells us God did not just divide men by language but he also separated them into nations and sent them where the nations originally started across the world and Exodus 1:5 shows us he divided them into 70 groups and then in Genesis chapter 10 we read more detail on the nations and their ancestry.
When did the Babel dispersion event occur?
Bible scholars have debated this for centuries. The debate centers around a man name Peleg and his life as a reference for when Babel occurred. The Scriptures say this about Peleg:
“And unto Eber were born two sons: the name of one was Peleg; for in his days was the earth divided; and his brother’s name was Joktan.”
Genesis 10:25 (KJV)
Arch Bishop Ussher who made his famous chronology based on Biblical events and their given timings in relation to one another placed the Babel event just before Peleg was born because Peleg means “divided”. This would mean roughly only 105 years after the flood the tower of Babel was built and God divided the people.
But if we move closer to Peleg’s death which would still be in his lifetime that would add 235 years to the Babel period. Some scholars believe there would not have been a sufficient population to build the tower as well as fulfill later Biblical events if the division happen only a 100 years after the flood making it much more likely that the Babel event probably occurred around 300 years after the flood.
It is possible if the Babel event happened 300 years after the flood that there could have been anywhere from 500,000 to has high as one million people at Babel when God separated them into nations and sent them on their way to the ends of the earth. So I would put my guess in the middle and say there might have been 700,000 people at Babel when God divided the nations.
How did God scatter the people at Babel?
Most people think God scattered the people in only one way and that was by language. The Genesis 11 account does allude to God dividing the people by giving them different languages. But as we previously have shown from Genesis 10, Deuteronomy 32:7-8 and Acts 17:24-26 not only did God divide the world by language – but he also divided the world into nations. God is literally the creator of the concept of nations.
So God sent 70 groups of people out and then split them into the various nations inhabiting the world. If he divided the people evenly we are talking about God sending out 70 groups of 10,000 people to start the first nations of the earth and then each of those groups would have divided once in their new homelands into various family and tribal groups which formed ancient cities and towns.
God divided the world by Ethnic Groups
But God did something even more interesting. He divided men into major heredity groups (races) both by nations and continents. Why don’t we find ancient nations in Africa with people who have Asian characteristics? Why don’t we find people with African characteristics in the Americas before European slave traders brought them? Why don’t we find people with Caucasian characteristics in Asia before modern times? It is because God “separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people” (Deuteronomy 32:8).
In fact the only area of the world we find any mixture of races at all in ancient times was in the Middle East because it was the cross roads of the known world.
Some Christians would try and argue that the 70 groups of humans that God sent out from Babel all looked the same and that only through isolated breeding over thousands of years did distinctive East Asian, Central Asian, African, European, Australian and Native American characteristics form. That might sound fine to secularists and evolutionists but I do not buy that as a Bible believing Christian.
I do not buy into Darwin’s evolution of races. I believe God put in Adam the DNA for every distinctive characteristic of every major and minor human variation type and the Bible tells us that Adam and Eve had many sons and daughters. I believe Adam carried the human DNA for every skin color variation and every hair, eye, nose and lip variation that would ever be. And John Piper actually agrees with me on this point when he wrote in the excerpt I quoted above:
“Ethnic groups do not come about by meaningless, random genetic change. They come about by God’s design and purpose. The text says plainly, “God made every ethnos.”
I believe Adam and Eve gave birth to children that had Asian characteristics, Caucasian characteristics and African characteristics. These were the three major human variant types – they did not evolve over thousands of years – but were there from the first men.
God made sure in his divine sovereignty that Noah and his wife would carry the distinctive DNA for all human variation types which most likely means that Noah and his wife as well as their parents were biracial couples which would make his three sons biracial and perhaps their wives were biracial as well.
And no I don’t buy into the theory that Ham was the father of the black race and that God cursed the black race. So if you think I am saying that please save your breath – I am not. I believe Ham, Shem and Japheth where biracial children who were the product of their biracial parents and grandparents. Just as the Ark carried every type of animal, bird and reptile so too it carried every human variation type in Noah’s three sons and their wives DNA.
Also I don’t believe Adam was white but rather he was most likely a middle brown of sorts somewhat like a middle easterner. But whatever he looked like it does not matter because he carried in him the DNA for every human variation that would ever exist.
Where is the proof that God separated nations by Race?
Some people might be screaming at this article right now saying “Ok you have proven that God separated the world by languages and nations but the Bible says nothing about race!” Well actually it does and John Piper has actually helped me to prove this point with this statement from his excerpt I previously gave:
“He makes this focus explicit in Acts 17:26: “He made from one man every nation [Greek ethnos] of mankind to live on all the face of the earth.” Notice two things from this text. First, God is the maker of ethnic groups.”
The Greek word for nation is ethnos from which we get our word ethnicity. It referred not only to a group of people with shared traditions and values but also with shared blood lines (common heredity). This is why I and others who are being faithful to understanding what nations were before our modern era maintain that one of the critical foundational pieces of nations that God created was common heredity or ethnos.
Acts 17:26 serves not as a defense of the concept of multicultural and multiracial nations, as John Piper and other modern Christians suggest, but rather it serves as a fatal blow to their position and a solid rock to support the idea that God not only approves of ethno-nationalism but he actually invented it!
So yes it is absolutely right to say as John Piper did that God created every human being from one man and he created every ethnicity of man. Amen and Amen. But it is also right to say that the same God who created all of us from one man and every ethnicity from one man also separated the sons of that one man by ethnicity into nations. We cannot affirm the first truth while leaving the second truth out.
Not only does the Bible clearly state that God separated the world by ethnicity into nations but world history proves it.
Why don’t we find large mixtures of races in nations before modern times? The answer is simple. It is because as the Scriptures state God created the “ethnos” and “separated” and set “the bounds of their habitation”.
That means the original inhabitants of China were sent their by God. The original inhabitants of the Americas were sent there by God. The original inhabitants of India were sent there by God. The same goes for Africa, and Europe and Australia.
So up to this point we have established from the Scriptures that it was God who separated the sons of Adam at Babel and determined where they were to go on earth. He sent 70 different groups of people out from Babel – some not too far Babel and others he would send to the other side of the planet in what would later become known as the Americas.
While the Scriptures don’t specifically describe the racial characteristics of these groups that God scattered we know from history that the major racial types were primarily clustered by continental areas and since the Scriptures tell us God sent them there we can rightly say God divided the world not only by language and nations but also by major and minor racial categories.
But then the question becomes why? Why did God scatter the people at Babel? It appears that before the flood the concept of nations did not really exist. The world was not divided by language, racial characteristics or national boundaries. So why after the flood did God divide the world in the ways we have discussed?
Why did God scatter the people at Babel?
There are positive and negative reasons God scattered the people at Babel. God loves variety. He ordained that there would be 12 tribes of Israel and 12 disciples. Each of the Tribes of Israel were unique as each of the 12 Apostles were unique. He used 4 different men to write the Gospel from four different viewpoints.
Now God could have had every variety of man in one big worldwide order with all the major and minor variations of man that he knew he created all intermarrying and living in one interracial utopia with one culture. But this was not what he wanted. He wanted man to fill the earth and to spread across from one side of the planet to the other. He wanted a variety of different languages and ethnicities and nations to form.
But the people at Babel forgot God and forgot his command that he gave to Noah:
“And you, be ye fruitful, and multiply; bring forth abundantly in the earth, and multiply therein.”
Genesis 9:7 (KJV)
God wanted Noah’s decedents to not only have lots of children but he also wanted them to spread out across the earth and fill the earth. Instead the decedents of Noah turned against God’s command and purposefully sought to keep themselves together.
Often times one sin leads to an even greater sin and this is what happened at Babel.
There is a sinful ideology that absolutely grew like an infectious disease after Noah’s descendants decided to stay together at Babel over several centuries. That sinful ideology was secular humanism.
Secular humanism is the Spirit of Babel and the Spirit of Babel is secular humanism – they are one and the same.
And do you know what feeds the Spirit of Babel and causes it grow? When mankind unites in the name of mankind across racial, ethnic and national boundaries under anything except obedience to and the worship of God.
“And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.”
Genesis 11:4 (KJV)
The people did not want to make a name for God – they wanted to make a name for mankind. Listen to this definition of Humanism from dictionary.com which so perfectly fits the people at Babel:
“a variety of ethical theory and practice that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.” 
In Genesis 11:6 God tells us there would be no limit to what mankind could do if they remained united:
“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.”
So, God was saying there were no limits to the sin man could commit when the world unites and this is why he wanted men separated by language, culture and race in various places throughout the world.
America played with humanism and brought about the new Babel
The fact is that while many of the founding fathers were godly men they also dabbled in secular humanism as well. They thought they could “Christianize” humanism. Humanist philosophy began to grow in America and be influenced more by European thinkers. Atheism, egalitarianism, multiracialism, feminism and eventually multiculturalism took over until the values of America barely resembled those of her founders.
America started off as a Christian ethno-nationalist nation of northern European decent and in just over century it transformed into a secular humanist multiracial multicultural “melting pot”. America would go on to be instrumental in bringing the world together to form the new Babel “that emphasizes reason, scientific inquiry, and human fulfillment in the natural world and often rejects the importance of belief in God.”
Truly the new uniting of the world with America at its center has resulted in evils that would be unimaginable a century ago. The most powerful human sphere of authority God ever established – that of the husband and father has been almost completely neutered as a result of efforts to appease feminists and meet the demand of a secular society for greater equality for all its members. Infanticide in the form of abortion is the law of the land resulting in the deaths of millions of children each year.
Divorce is rampant and cohabitation is fully accepted. Full acceptance of homosexuality and transgenderism is mandated by law. God has been chased out of our schools and secularism is fully entrenched. Laziness is subsidized through social programs. Most of the Churches in the western world (including America) have bought into the social Gospel.
Integration schemes are continually tried to force different ethnicities to unite. Governments seize money from the rich and middle classes in their futile attempt to end poverty in all nations as well as redistribute wealth between different ethnic groups.
The fatal mistake Christian Diversity Advocates make
I am going to quote you a few passages of Scripture that point out a critical truth of the Scriptures that Christian diversity advocates make.
“34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage: 35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:”
Luke 20:34-35 (KJV)
You might be scratching your head now saying “what does marriage have to do with ethno-nationalism?” It is not marriage that I want you to notice but instead look at two key phrases Christ says here. Those phrases are “this world” and “that world”.
We live in “this world” not “that world”. Even Christ said his kingdom was not yet of “this world”:
“Jesus answered, My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence.”
John 18:36 (KJV)
Now he did say that one day he would come to rule and establish his kingdom here on earth:
“26 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in the clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then shall he send his angels, and shall gather together his elect from the four winds, from the uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven.”
Mark 13:26-27 (KJV)
And in the book of Revelation it says that Christ will rule over the nations with a rod of iron:
“13 And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God. 14 And the armies which were in heaven followed him upon white horses, clothed in fine linen, white and clean. 15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God. 16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.”
Revelation 19:13-16 (KJV)
What is my point? The fatal mistake diversity advocates like John Piper and other Christians who attack the concept of ethno-nationalism make is that they think they can bring about “that world” before Christ comes.
Only God himself can cancel his Babel policy that he made for mankind. Only when Christ returns to rule over this earth can the nations of the earth unite without returning to evil spirit of Babel.
Did Christ die to promote racial diversity?
My Bible does not tell me that Christ died to bring “racial diversity” in this world “globally and locally” but rather it tells me “Christ died for our sins” (1 Corinthians 15:3).
Absolutely it makes no difference what our race, ethnicity, gender or social status is – Christ saves us all just the same. And praise be to God he has saved and will continue to save men and women from “every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation” (Revelation 5:9).
Christ gave this great commission to his Church:
“And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature.”
Mark 16:15 (KJV)
Christ didn’t say “go promote racial diversity and get rid of ethno-nationalism” he said to go into the world and preach the Gospel. He did not call us to bring about his earthly kingdom – he will do that himself one day. When I read John Piper’s statements about Christ dying for racial diversity it very much reminded me of when Christian feminists say Christ died to abolish the sin of patriarchy and bring about gender equality.
For now, we are to live in “this world” while looking forward to “that world”. No Christian should actively seek to work against or cancel out God’s Babel policy in this time and this world. Only Christ can do that one day when he returns to reign.
How should we as Christians respond to living in the new Babel?
First, we need to realize that we live in this sin cursed world and that ethno-nationalism can create an environment that when unchecked by Christian principles can lead to sinful racial pride, racial hate and bigotry. History shows this time and time again. But do we think God did not know that when he instituted ethno-nationalism at the tower of Babel? Of course, he did. But he knew an even greater sin of humanism and secularism would occur if men stayed together. Yes, nations would be sinful on their own – but if all the ethnos of the world united together under anything less that Jesus Christ himself as King it would spell complete rebellion against God. And that is what we see today.
This is another area where John Piper and others get it completely wrong. Christ was condemning the sinful racial pride, hatred and bigotry of Israel but he was not condemning the policy of ethno-nationalism which he himself established in Israel as he had for all nations at Babel.
So, as we are forced to live in this new Babel we must always be personally checking ourselves against attitudes of sinful racial pride, racial hatred and racial bigotry. We must also guard against sinful national pride, national hatred and national bigotry.
But I want you to notice a word I always put out in front of pride and that is “sinful”. Pride is not always sinful in the same way that hate and anger are not always sinful. Sometimes pride is actually holy and just in the same way that hate and anger can be holy and just.
“Children’s children are the crown of old men; and the glory of children are their fathers.”
Proverbs 17:6 (KJV)
For parents to be proud of their children’s accomplishments if not sinful. If that pride in their children’s accomplishments leads to them degrading other’s people’s children because they have not had the same accomplishments then it becomes sin. In the same way, it is not wrong for anyone to glory in the accomplishments of their father or forefathers or even those of their same kindred or ethnicity.
When an American wins at the Olympics it is not wrong for us as Americans to be proud of our fellow American that won.
Some will point to this verse to say Christians should not regard themselves as citizens of any nation whether it be America or any other:
“20 For our citizenship is in heaven, from which also we eagerly wait for a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ; 21 who will transform the body of our humble state into conformity with the body of His glory, by the exertion of the power that He has even to subject all things to Himself.”
Philippians 3:20-21 (NASB)
But these Christians are making that same error I pointed out earlier of confusing “this world” with “that world”. We eagerly await the transformation of our bodies into glorified bodies in heaven – but we are not there yet. For now, we live in this world and we are in fact citizens of whatever nation God has placed us in.
What should our attitude as Christians be toward racial diversity?
There are two extremes on this issue of racial diversity. One extreme of ages past taught that we as Christians are forbidden from any interaction with people of other races and ethnicities. The Bible does not support such a notion and this passage of Scripture directly contradicts that:
“11 But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. 12 For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. 13 And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation.”
Galatians 2:11-13 (KJV)
We don’t have to be ashamed to associate with people of other ethnicities, especially brothers in Christ. Churches should not forbid various ethnicities from coming to them. They should be open to all ethnicities because it is not the job of the church to protect its racial homogeneity.
But then we have the other extreme. While it is not the job of the Church to protect its racial homogeneity, it is also NOT the job of the Church to vigorously promote and encourage racial diversity.
What about parents and their children? Is it a sin for a parent to prefer their child marry someone of their own ethnicity? The answer is no. We see examples of parents being very protective of making sure their children married within their ethnicity:
“2 And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: 3 And I will make thee swear by the Lord, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: 4 But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac.”
Genesis 24:2-4 (KJV)
Again, as I said in the previous post – interracial marriage is not a sin in and of itself. But it is also not a sin for parents to prefer their children marry within their own ethnicity.
And finally, on the subject of national policy. We as American Christians live in a nation where we can vote and we have a say in government policies and since we as the people have say in the direction our nation goes we must oppose policies that continually run contrary to God’s Babel policy.
What that means is we as Christians should vote against any local, state or federal policies which seek to weaken the nation’s sovereignty and identity and give that sovereignty to the United Nations or other international groups.
We must vote against any local, state or federal policies which seek to strengthen the spirit of Babel in our society by forcing racial and ethnic integration such as bussing schemes and housing schemes. We as Christians should vote against affirmative action schemes and any legislation which would impose racial diversity quotas on centers of education or businesses. If we as Christians were ever presented with government proposals to limit immigration by ethnicity as we did before the 1960’s we should support such efforts.
Christians should absolutely support a ban on immigration from all Muslim nations not only to protect ourselves from terrorism but to protect our ethnic and cultural identity. Christians should oppose building permits for new mosques in their neighborhoods.
It’s not about just about protecting Whites from the attacks of racial diversity pushers in America, it is about working to weaken or stop the spirit of Babel which is so prevalent throughout the world today and trying to return to God’s Babel’s policy where he “separated the sons of Adam”.
I hold no hatred for those who are not of my racial and ethnic kindred and I also hold no illusions about America remaining a majority white nation. I am not angry at Black, Hispanic or Asian Americans.
I am saddened at the behavior of my own kindred – those of British decent, those of northern European decent. They embraced humanism, egalitarianism, multiracialism and feminism and in the process gave away the nation their ancestors fought and died for. White men gave up their duty to protect the racial homogeneity of their nation both by engaging in slavery of the African people as well as allowing the slaves to stay after had they had been freed against the wishes of Abraham Lincoln who wanted to send them back to Africa.
White men in America gave up their leadership of their families and this nation when they allowed women to leave the home, pursue their own career interests and have less children. They again failed to protect their racial homogeneity with the removal of all ethnic limits on immigration in the 1960s.
The spirit of Babel may not be stoppable and it may simply hearken the end of days. But until Christ returns to establish his kingdom in this world we as Christians have no right to throw out God’s Babel policy nor should we embrace the evil spirit of Babel in our world.
 V. Davis, “America: History’s Exception,” National Review, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/436347/america-melting-pot-immigrant-culture-made-country-great.
 M. Sedensky, “AP-NORC Poll: Political divide over American identity,” Associated Press, 2017. [Online]. Available: http://www.apnorc.org/news-media/Pages/AP-NORC-Poll-Divided-Americans-fret-country-losing-identity.aspx
 W. Lawson, “Anthropologists Disagree About Race and Bones,” ABC News, 2000. [Online]. Available: http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98485&page=1.
 J. Piper, Bloodlines: Race, Cross, and the Christian, Crossway, 2011.
 “Humanism,” Dictionary.com, [Online]. Available: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/humanism.
I recently received an email from a woman asking for Scriptural proof that that God does not want women to be treated as second class citizens. She could have sent this email to a lot of Christian sites and they may have sent her back Scriptures that they believe support the idea that women should be treated completely equal with men.
The most common Scripture passage used to try and say the Bible supports equal rights for women is found in the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Galatians:
“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)
The advocates for woman’s rights hail this verse saying that it teaches that God intends for there to be absolutely no distinction and thus completely equal rights between men and women. But is this passage from Galatians God’s complete revelation on the subject of gender? We will explore the answer to that question later in this article.
I have changed the name of the woman who wrote me to Lauren in order protect her anonymity as she gave me her real name in the email. What follows are several statements from her in the email and my response to her showing her from the Bible what God’s Word says on this issue.
“I am raising daughters that have been in an environment that teaches them that women are second class… Do you know any podcast, bible verses, bible studies, websites, etc that can guide them back to trusting the Bible as God’s word and that the verses are not intending women to be second class citizens?”
First, we need to define what treating someone like a “second class citizen” is. In common language usage today treating someone like a second-class citizen would be to show disdain for them or mistreat them in some way. If we were talking about treating with disdain or hatred we can easily show that Biblically speaking this is wrong. We are to be kind to all people no matter what their race, gender or ethnicity is. We are also to treat others as we would want to be treated as Christ exhorted us in what has become known as “The Golden Rule”:
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12 (KJV)
But often times this rule that we should treat others as we would want to be treated is vastly abused by many to cancel out entire sections of the Scriptures.
I get people writing me all the time saying “You only believe the way you do because you are a man and it is advantageous to you to believe in Biblical Gender Roles. If you were a woman you would not so easily believe in such things.” You know what my response is to such assertions? I tell them if I was a woman like my mother or my daughter or many other godly women I knew growing up I would absolutely believe the way I do about Biblical Gender Roles. I don’t believe in Biblical Gender Roles because it is advantageous to me as a man – I believe in Biblical Gender Roles because that it is what the Bible teaches.
Trust me, it is not easy living counter to the culture you live in. It is also not as easy as women think to be a man especially in this day when masculinity is attacked and women no longer respect men. Marriage has become more of a battlefield today than it ever was thanks to feminism poisoning the minds of women. Many men have just given up and given the reigns to their wife and they do whatever she says and whatever makes her happy. That is taking the easy and cowardly way out.
Returning back to the subject of women being treated as second-class citizens – we are not talking about mistreating women in the sense of treating them with disdain, dishonor or unkindness by Biblical standards.
The key phrase in my last statement is “by Biblical standards”. Our culture has a whole different set of standards by which women are said to be treated with disdain, dishonor and in an inhumane way. Before I speak to this let me give a dictionary definition of a “second class citizen” according to https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/second-class_citizen:
“A person belonging to a social or political group whose rights and opportunities are inferior to those of the dominant group in a society.”
So, if one social group of people has inferior rights and opportunities to that of some other dominant group than they are said to be treated as second class citizens.
American and Western culture in general have devised a new standard of treating someone as “less than a person” or treating someone in “an inhumane way”. The standard is equal rights. If a culture has different classes of people with different classes of rights then they are said to be treating those people with hatred, disdain and in an inhumane manner. No one is allowed to question this modern definition of treating someone in an inhumane way.
In fact, in America we have sacrificed the doctrines of our Christian faith as well as our marriages and many other things on the altar to our false god of equality. It is ok if we worship the Christian god too, as long as our service to the god of equality comes first.
So now the question then becomes does the Bible advocate for women to be treated as second class citizens to men according to the dictionary definition I just gave?
The answer simply put is YES. The Bible does in fact advocate for women to be treated as second class citizens to men if “second class citizen” simply means they are to have less rights and opportunities than men.
In fact, women occupy the second of three social classes of humanity that God designed.
The Three Social Classes Ordained by God
Contrary to modern Western and American ideals about equality God’s original design of mankind features a social order with three classes of people.
God’s First-Class Citizen – Man as God’s Image Bearer
“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)
There are a great number of Christian theologians that misread this famous Biblical account of the creation of man and woman. This passage does NOT teach that God created “them” (male and female) in his image. It clearly states “in the image of God created he HIM”. Many Christian teachers (even non-feminist teachers) have tried to argue that because “man” can refer to mankind that this can mean “So God created mankind in his own image”. That is absolutely true that sometimes “man” (or Adam as it is in the original Hebrew) can refer to an individual man or mankind in general. The problem with this interpretation in this particular passage is found in the second phrase with the word “him” which is a translation of the Hebrew phrase “eth haa-‘adam” which literally means “this same man”.
So in Genesis 1:27 the Scriptures are telling us “God created Adam in his own image, in the image of God created he this same Adam. Male and Female created he them.”
This passage tells us two very important truths. God created man (male human beings) in his image and also that he created women as well. It does not say he created women in his image, only that he created women.
And if there was any doubt as to the correct interpretation of this passage God gave the Apostle Paul this divine commentary on Genesis account:
“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.” I Corinthians 11:7 (KJV)
God’s Second-Class Citizen – Woman the helper to man
“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.” – Genesis 2:18 (KJV)
In Genesis chapter 2 we see that God did not want Adam to be alone and so he created a helper for him. Now a helper can be one in authority (like a manager who helps his workers), a helper can be an equal partner or a helper can be a subordinate. So which kind of helper did not create Eve to be? The Genesis account tells us that Adam named her type “woman” and later he even gave her personal name which was Eve. This was a sign that she would be a subordinate helper, not an authority helper nor an equal partner. Throughout the Old Testament this is maintained when we see that men ruled over women and that husbands could override any decision of their wives and fathers could override any decision of their daughters (Numbers 30).
Multiple New Testament passages confirm that woman was designed by God to be a subordinate helper to man.
“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; 2 While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.” I Peter 3:1-2 (KJV)
“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)
God designed woman to be man’s subordinate helper in many ways. She helps him by bearing and caring for his home and his children (1 Timothy 5:14). She helps him by being a faithful companion (Proverbs 31:11, Malachi 2:14). She helps him by bringing him sexual pleasure (Proverbs 5:15-19). But another way she helps her husband is simply by being “the weaker vessel” (1 Timothy 5:14) and needing his leadership, provision and protection. A man cannot fully image God as he was designed to do without being a husband and father and woman helps him in this way to fulfill image God to his fullest capability.
So, if you are asking “Why did God make women to be second class citizens?” the answer is found in a passage we just stated above:
“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)
Not only was man made to image God and thus bring glory to him but marriage between a man and woman was made by God to model the relationship between God and his people. So, by fully embracing their status as second-class citizens to men women help men to fully image God and also model the relationship between God and his people.
To our equality obsessed world this makes no sense but this is why we as Christians are called to honor women for being the second-class citizens God designed them to be (I Peter 3:7).
Let me put this another way. God could have made a partner for man that was his equal in every way. In fact, God could have created man as a hermaphrodite (with both sexes) and then humans could have just chosen any other human as partners. They could have equally broken up the division of having children, caring for the home, leading, providing and protecting. If what I just said sounds familiar it is because this is exactly what our culture does today. We promote homosexuality and gender equality – both ideologies which are in direct contradiction to God’s Word and his design.
But if humans existed in pair bonded relationships as equals this would not have properly modeled the relationship of God to his people. Only if there were two genders with one dependent on the other for their leadership, provision and protection could the relationship of God to his people be properly modeled.
God’s Third-Class Citizen – Children as God’s inheritance to man
“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 127:3-5 (KJV)
While man does not create life in exactly the same way God does – God wanted man to have a taste of his ability to create life and in this way, he blessed man with the ability to father children.
Children help both men and women to fulfill their God given God given roles by having someone who needs their care and support. Children help men to exercise their father role in the way God is father to his children.
Summary of God’s three ordained social classes
Now let’s summarize the three classes and how they relate to one another. Men are to be the image bearers of God. One of the ways a man images God is by loving his wife as Christ loved his Church. Another way a man images God is by loving his children as God loves his children. Women are to show respect and deference toward men in general and specific obedience and submission toward their father and later their husband. Children are to show respect and deference to adult men and women and they are specifically to obey and honor their father and mother. This is God’s original creation design and order of humanity.
A fourth social class allowed by God because of Sin
Sin’s entrance into the world resulted in crime, laziness, poverty and war. These four human conditions would necessitate that God allow for a fourth class of citizen which is that of a slave.
“If a countryman of yours becomes so poor with regard to you that he sells himself to you, you shall not subject him to a slave’s service. He shall be with you as a hired man, as if he were a sojourner; he shall serve with you until the year of jubilee. He shall then go out from you, he and his sons with him, and shall go back to his family, that he may return to the property of his forefathers. For they are My servants whom I brought out from the land of Egypt; they are not to be sold in a slave sale. You shall not rule over him with severity, but are to revere your God. As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.” Leviticus 25:39-46 (NASB)
While God allowed for slavery he also specifically gave rules regarding the humane treatment of slaves and the conditions under which slavery may occur. The version of slavery that occurred in North and South America neither met the conditions allowed for slavery or the treatment of slaves. See my article “Why Christians should not be ashamed of Slavery in the Bible” for more on this subject.
Is a woman’s second-class status only applicable if she is married or living with her father?
Some might think by the passages I mentioned previously that a woman’s second-class status only applies to her if she is married or perhaps is still a young woman living at home with her father. Such thinking is flawed and does not take into account the entire witness of the Scriptures. Yes, God allows and even praises celibacy in both women and men (I Corinthians 7). However, celibacy is God’s exception to his first command to mankind to “be fruitful and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) and to keep this command men and women must marry, have sex and have children.
Even if a woman feels called by God to celibacy in his service this does not remove her second-class status. Paul’s divine commentary on the Genesis account of the creation of man and woman makes this clear.
“3 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. 4 Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonoureth his head.
5 But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoureth her head: for that is even all one as if she were shaven. 6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered.
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.
10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels.”
I Corinthians 11:3-10 (KJV)
This is one of the most controversial and most un-preached passages in modern churches today. Why? Because it blows away our entire “equality based society”. Men and women are equal in their humanity because woman was taken from man. However, Paul explains why women were to wear head coverings in worship services – because they were to reflect the order of God’s creation. Notice there is no mention in this passage of marriage or the relationship between a husband and wife. Instead this speaks to the social order between men and women in general. This is why women regardless of their marital status are to wear a sign of authority on their head when they come to worship.
“We attended home church and was told that women are to be submissive to their husbands, and not speak in the church.”
If you had church services in your home (as many churches do) then your husband would be right in teaching that you and your daughters should remain silent and simply listen during the spiritual instruction given by the men. This is actually very clearly taught in the Scriptures.
“11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. 13 For Adam was first formed, then Eve.” 1 Timothy 2:11-13 (KJV)
Now does these mean women can never speak in their home because it is also used for church services? No. Paul even commands that elder women are to teach younger women in the Lord when he writes:
“3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.” Titus 2:1-5 (KJV)
So, it is perfectly Biblical for elder women in the Lord to conduct women’s Bible studies in their home or maintain blogs online with other women as long as this occurs under the authority of their husbands. The women teaching should teach what is in accordance with their husband’s teachings and the women attending should do so with their husband’s permission.
“Some of the men in the church were not very caring and loving husbands and they did not honor their wives. Last year I realized that my efforts to be a proverbs 31 wife has led me to have a relationship that is not what I consider to be what God wants. My husband is verbally abusive, self-centered, and has neglected his role as Father and Husband.”
Who determines if a husband is acting in a caring or loving way toward his wife or honoring his wife? I can tell you who does not determine this. Neither his wife nor his children. Ultimately it is God himself who judges whether your husband is caring and loving to you and honoring you in the way God expects of him. And how does he determine God’s will in these areas? By examining the Scriptures and how God loves his wife.
Now this is not to say that men should not listen to the counsel of other men whether it be their fathers or their pastors or other spiritually mature men in the Lord. The Scriptures tell us “Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.” (Proverbs 11:14). Also, men should hear their wife’s concerns but men must weigh their wife’s concerns by the Word of God. Is what she is asking for within the commands or example of God’s love toward his wife? Maybe. But is it also possible that how a wife feels her husband should care for her and love her is not warranted or commanded by the Scriptures? Could she actually be selfishly ambitious for a type of love that God does not entitle her to?
For instance, what is verbally abusive? If a man simply raises his voice to his wife is that verbally abusive? You won’t find that anywhere in the Scriptures. If a man calls his wife foolish for acting or talking in a certain way is that verbally abusive? No – in fact we have the example of one of the most righteous men in the Bible doing just that with his wife and the Scriptures tell us he did not sin in doing so (Job 2:10).
“As my daughters are growing up they are rejecting this unfair situation and are questioning the Bible. They see how there are many verses that are not in favor of women and that we are not as entitled as men… My daughters are losing interest in the Bible as they feel how can God want us to be treated unfairly and they also think that because men wrote the Bible that their sin and attitude about women is revealed in their writing.”
If I had a dime for every woman that wrote me over the past few years saying something like this “Thanks for confirming for me from the Bible why I never want to be a Christian” or “Thanks for helping me to leave the Christian faith your gender role teachings” I would be a wealthy man. The Atheist emails are especially humorous with their “I love your site – keep up the good preaching! You will convert everyone to atheists like me.”
I have had others write me things like “Please stop teaching these gender role doctrines. The Gospel is the most important thing people need to believe but people will never come to hear the Gospel if they first hear these gender role doctrines. Let them discover these passages on their own and decide for themselves what they believe. Stop putting a stumbling block for people coming to Christ.”
What are all these complaints really saying? They are saying that Christians need to leave behind anything in the Bible that conflicts with our modern culture. We need to teach people what makes them feel good and things that match the values of our culture or so we are told. A lot of big churches today do just that. Even many small churches do this. The sad fact is only a small percentage of Christian Churches today follow Paul’s example when he stated in Acts 20:27 “for I did not shrink from declaring to you the whole counsel of God.”
The fact is the doctrines of Biblical gender roles are part of “the whole counsel of God”. Pastors and Christian teachers do exactly what the Apostle Paul warned them NOT to do:
“1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge the quick and the dead at his appearing and his kingdom; 2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. 3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears; 4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.” 2 Timothy 4:1-4 (KJV)
What do most Pastors and Christian teachers do today? They teach only what their congregation’s itching ears want to hear. They have conformed themselves to the pattern of this world and the culture we live instead of transforming their minds and seeing the sin that the lays before them in our culture as the Bible exhorts us to do:
“And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.” Romans 12:2 (KJV)
We need to pray for preachers who will once again not be afraid to preach “Thus saith the Lord”.
But Christ didn’t treat women as second-class citizens!
The truth is that there are many Christian Pastors and teachers today that “preacheth another Jesus” (II Corinthians 11:4). The Christ they preach is a feminized Christ who is not Lord of all, but one who bows the knee to the false god of equality.
Some online articles try and point to the fact that Jesus broke some social norms of his age when it came to interactions with women and that somehow shows he was a feminist or rejected patriarchy as I have shown the Bible clearly supports.
Their supposed evidence for this is that Jesus encouraged women to sit and listen to him rather than doing house work while he taught (Luke 10:38-42), he spoke to a Samaritan woman (John 4:6-30) or that he had women followers who came along with his disciples.
None of these actions by Christ prove one iota that Christ did not in fact treat women as second-class citizens to men. What it proves is that he believed the men had had gone too far in forbidding women to hear the teaching of God’s Word (which many did).
Did Christ have even one of his twelve Apostles whom he commissioned to build his Church be a woman? No, he did not. Did Christ one time tell women they should be social equals with men? No, he did not. Did he tell women not to submit to their husbands? No, he did not.
But the biggest problem with saying Jesus Christ believed in treating women completely equal with men is the fact that his Word says otherwise! Remember that what the Prophets before Christ and the Apostles after Christ wrote came directly from God. Some Christians falsely believe that the words Christ spoke while he walked among men are more authoritative then the words he gave to his Apostles after he ascended to heaven. To attack the teachings of the Apostles like Peter and Paul regarding gender roles is to attack Christ himself who gave them his Word.
We have shown that those who use Paul’s statement that “there is neither male nor female“ in Galatians 3:28 and Christ’s actions in teaching women have built a false platform of support of equal rights for women. When we examine the whole counsel of God as found in the entirety of the Scriptures we see this is not the case.
If you are a Christian woman who feels as Lauren and her daughters do toward your husband, father or just men in general this is what you need to do. You need to heed the words of the Apostle James where he wrote:
“13 Who is wise and understanding among you? Let them show it by their good life, by deeds done in the humility that comes from wisdom. 14 But if you harbor bitter envy and selfish ambition in your hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth. 15 Such “wisdom” does not come down from heaven but is earthly, unspiritual, demonic. 16 For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find disorder and every evil practice.” James 3:13-16 (NIV)
As a woman who feels the way Lauren and her daughters do – you need to recognize your feelings for what they are when measured against the Word of God. If you desire anything God did not intend for you to have that is by definition selfish ambition. If you are desire the status that someone else has that is envy.
If you as a woman desire to be a first-class citizen – meaning to have all the rights and privileges of a man, then you have selfish ambition and envy in your heart. You need to get down on your knees and pray the prayer of David in Psalm 51:10 where he prays “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me.” You need to fully embrace your position as the weaker vessel and your place in God’s design.
If you are a father, husband or teachers of God’s Word you must have the courage to stand firm against the evil attitudes and ambitions in the women of our age.
“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”
I Corinthians 16:13 (NASB)
The first sin woman ever committed in the Garden of Eden was not accepting the limits God had placed upon her. She wanted equality. The first sin man committed was in knowingly abdicating his authority over his wife and following her in her sinful desire rather than rebuking her sin.
The scriptures show us that woman was deceived by her sinful desire for equality:
“1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the Lord God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?
2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.
4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
6 And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.”
Genesis 3:1-6 (KJV)
Later in divine commentary given to him by God, the Apostle Paul gives us further detail on the Genesis account:
“And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.”
1 Timothy 2:14 (KJV)
So what Paul is telling us is that Eve was deceived by her desire for equality while Adam went into the sin fully knowing what he was doing. His sin was not a desire for equality with God, but rather a failure to live out his role by leading his wife and rebuking her sinful request to him. God tells us man’s first sin when he states:
“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;”
Genesis 3:17 (KJV)
Many years later the righteous man Job would do with his wife what Adam should have done with Eve when Job’s wife enticed him to sin against God as Eve enticed Adam to sin to against God:
“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 did not follow his wife’s sinful request – but instead he rebuked his wife as God would later rebuke his wife Israel (Hosea 2:2-23) and Christ would later rebuke his wife the Church (Revelation chapters 2 & 3).
God warns Adam just as he would later warn Cain
In Genesis 4 we read of God’s warning to Cain regarding his sin nature:
“If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him.”
Genesis 4:7 (KJV)
When God speaks of “his desire” he is speaking of Cain’s sinful nature. His sin nature wanted to control his actions and make him sin against God. But God told him instead of letting his sin nature rule over him, he must rule over his sin nature.
This exact same phrase is used by God regarding a woman and her relationship to her husband:
“16 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)
In this case sin’s desire is replaced by the woman’s desire toward her husband. What we find in Genesis chapters 3 and 4 is that man must fight against two powerful forces that desire to control him and would have him sin against God. He must rule both over his own sinful nature as well as the sinful nature of his wife.
“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)
A woman’s sinful desire causes her not only to seek equality with man – but also to usurp authority over man thus reversing the created design of God in regard to the two genders.
After 6000 years woman and man return to their original sins
Men and women have sinned against God in many ways since that fateful day in the Garden of Eden around 6000 years ago. And women have rebelled against their authority in man for all that time in many different ways.
But while man sinned against God in many ways since that day in the Garden there was one command that for the most part man followed:
“thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” Genesis 3:16 (KJV)
Men for all of human history up until the mid-19th century followed God’s command for them to rule over women. Sometimes they did so in harsh and imperfect ways, but for the most part they did not fail to exercise this mandate. Men were fully cognizant of a woman’s sinful desire for equality with man as she sinfully desired equality with God in Eden. Men, for the most part, were cognizant of a woman’s sinful desire to control man and men kept women in their place even when they sought to rebel.
But around the mid-19th century an equality cult was born. It was this equality cult, or egalitarianism as it is now called, which gave rise to the birth of feminism. The equality movement taught that if one person did not have the same rights and privileges as another then this was treating that person in an inhumane and unjust manner. Feminism seized on this principle applying it specifically to women calling the inequality of women to men an injustice. The Bible was even twisted and mangled to support this false notion of injustice.
Just as Eve reached for that forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden women were once against reaching for the forbidden fruit of equality. But men having stood their ground against this sinful inclination in women for 6000 years relented and they once again did what God condemn Adam for. They abdicated their mandate to rule over women and “hearkened unto the voice” of women.
This movement cast aside the patriarchal family structure that had served mankind since creation itself. This feminist movement eventually infected the Church and attacked the very foundations of God’s design of the genders and of his divine institution of marriage.
The result of the equality cult and his spawn of feminism has been the downfall marriage and the family over the last century. God’s institution of marriage is routinely mocked by couples engaging in casual sex. Divorce is rampant and couples living sin together is the norm. Children having two moms and dads is now the way of life.
But as Christian Churches and as Christian men and women we can return to God and his will and design for our genders if we so choose and he will heal our land if we do so.
“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.”
2 Chronicles 7:14 (KJV)
Returning to Biblical Gender Roles
In order to return to living by Biblical gender roles we must return to “the book” as a young Israelite King did.
“10 And Shaphan the scribe shewed the king, saying, Hilkiah the priest hath delivered me a book. And Shaphan read it before the king. 11 And it came to pass, when the king had heard the words of the book of the law, that he rent his clothes. 12 And the king commanded Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam the son of Shaphan, and Achbor the son of Michaiah, and Shaphan the scribe, and Asahiah a servant of the king’s, saying, 13 Go ye, enquire of the Lord for me, and for the people, and for all Judah, concerning the words of this book that is found: for great is the wrath of the Lord that is kindled against us, because our fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.”
2 Kings 22:10-13 (KJV)
The “book” alluded to in the story above is the Word of God. Like young Josiah said of his ancestors, our American “fathers have not hearkened unto the words of this book, to do according unto all that which is written concerning us.” Our Ancestors starting in the mid-19th century began to lose their way when they followed the false teachings of egalitarianism and feminism.
Now we must return to the teachings of “this book” if God is to heal our land, our churches, our families and our marriages. This is the primary mission of this site – BiblicalGenderRoles.com.
With that being said we will start with the divine commentary on the Genesis account as given by the Apostle Paul:
“3 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…
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. 10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels. 11 Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord. ”
I Corinthians 11:3 & 7-11 (KJV)
This passage teaches four critical Biblical principles if we are to understand God’s design of man and woman in this world.
Biblical Gender Principle #1 – Man was made to image God
Man is “the image and glory of God” meaning he is God’s direct image bearer and he was made to bring glory to God by playing out the image of God.
So what does this mean? It means the masculine traits given to men before the fall and those masculine traits which are honored by God are things that men should freely and abundantly exercise to the best of their ability. Man’s desire to lead, provide and protect. His competitive nature, his desire to build, his desire for respect and his desire for beauty and pleasure all come from God. Man’s desire for all these things is not simply for himself, but ultimately it is so that he will fulfill the purpose of his design which was to be God’s direct image bearer.
Women today complain that men just don’t act like men anymore and you know what – they are right! But it is men, not women that must decide for themselves that they will act like men.
“Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith, act like men, be strong.”
1 Corinthians 16:13 (NASB)
It is men who must decide to take back their mantle of responsibility. Will they work hard and provide for their families or will they be deadbeats? Will they love their wives and children by leading them, correcting them, teaching them, providing for them and protecting them as God does for his people or will they abuse their families and abdicate their responsibilities? Will men follow the mandate to rule over their wives or will they let their wives rule over them? Will they image God or not? These are the choices men must make for themselves.
Biblical Gender Principle #2 – Woman was made to help man image God
There are many Christians on both sides of the aisle that teach that men need women to help them be what God intended them to be. But most of these Christians do so from the false premise that woman by nature is spiritually and morally stronger than man and they in essence teach that men need their wives to act as a mother figure to them to help them to fully image God as a husband and father.
Christian Feminists and Egalitarians on the left make no secret of their belief that men need women to keep them in line. They have no problem with women usurping authority over their husbands wherever a woman feels her husband is wrong.
But there are many Christian groups which on the surface seem to oppose women usurping authority over men but then they encourage feminine usurping through the back door. Focus on the Family is a good example of this. In one statement they will say they believe in male headship and that women should submit to their husbands. But then they completely undermine Biblical patriarchy by teaching women they may usurp authority over their husbands by “placing boundaries” on their husbands. Women placing boundaries on their husbands is just another way of saying women can correct and discipline their husbands as a mother would correct and discipline her son.
In a way the teachings of groups like Focus on the Family, that supposedly support Biblical male headship yet subtly undermine it, are more dangerous than that of Christian feminist groups because they are mixing their heresy with some truths from God’s Word.
So how should a woman help her husband?
From a Biblical perspective a woman helps a man image God not by being his mother and teacher but instead by giving her husband the respect she gave her own father and seeing her husband as her teacher. Only when a woman rids herself of all pride realizing that every part of her God given physical and mental design was meant to serve and bless her husband can she help him image God.
It is when a woman expresses her respect for her husband, her need for his leadership and guidance and when she fully submits her mind and body to his will making herself one with him in this way that she fully helps him to image God.
Woman was made in man’s image to bring him glory and by doing so she brings God glory. God made woman the “weaker vessel” (I Peter 3:7) so that she would need man as mankind needs God. Woman was made from man (I Corinthians 11:8) so that she would share in common with man a human nature. In their common human traits men and women both reflect the nature of God but woman’s nature deviates from God’s nature in her distinctively feminine traits. Every attribute of a woman’s feminine nature was given to her not as a reflection of God’s image, but rather as a way to help man fully reflect God’s image by being an object upon which man can fully play out his role as the image bearer of God.
Biblical Gender Principle #3 – Only through marriage can man and woman fully live out their design
Men and Women are given a natural pull and complementary needs toward one another so that they will play out the roles given them by God. This is why I Corinthians 11:11 tells us “Nevertheless neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” – meaning that God made men and women interdependent on one another. Many liberal Christians and those who reject Biblical principles will not have a problem with this third principle. They like that men and women need each other. It sounds nice. But what they don’t like is WHY the Bible teaches here that men and women need each other.
“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.
25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 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.
28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30 For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 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 5:22-33 (KJV)
It is “for this cause” (vs 31), the cause of fully playing out the roles that God has given to men and women that we enter into marriage. Ephesians 5 shows us that God made man the image bearer and woman for man to play out his role as the image bearer in marriage. In God’s divine institution of marriage man plays the role of God and woman plays the role of mankind.
Men “need” women as objects upon which to play out their God given image traits. On the other hand – every need of the God given feminine nature (before the corruption of Eden) is given to a woman to help man play out his God given attributes.
In other words the reason God gave women a desire to be beautiful was not for themselves but it was because men desire beauty. Women were not given sexual desire for themselves, or the ability to derive sexual pleasure for themselves. They were given sexual desire and the ability to experience sexual pleasure to please their husbands for whom they were made. A woman was not given the desire to bear and nurture children for herself, but rather she was given these desires to please her husband and help him fully play out his God given image as both husband and father.
In summary regarding this third principle – there are some things God has given us to do that we cannot do without cooperation with someone else. It is only through God’s divine institution of marriage that men and women can fully play out the design for their genders. Man cannot fully image God without becoming a husband and father and woman cannot fully live out her role as the being created specifically for man without finding a man to serve as his wife and mother to his children.
Biblical Gender Principle #4 – Celibacy is God’s exception to his design for two genders
In the rare case of celibacy, God allows in his sovereignty for some men and women not to fully play out the roles he designed for each gender.
God’s rule – “Be fruitful, and multiply” (Genesis 1:28) is that man plays out his image and that woman is the object upon which man plays out his image. His exception to this rule is that he has given some the “gift” of celibacy (I Corinthians 7:7) so he does not put in them the independency upon the opposite sex referenced in I Corinthians 11:11. This gift is given for service to God. But we must remember this is the exception to God’s design and not the norm of his design for man and woman.
Unfortunately our American ancestors have returned us to the original sins committed by Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. Eve sought an equality that was not hers to have and Adam abdicated his responsibility to rule over his wife and followed her sinful request. But like young King Josiah – we too can return to God’s ways if we return to the teachings of “the book” – the Word of God. It starts with us as men and women as individuals returning to God’s Word and then with husbands teaching their wives and fathers teaching their children. When our families are rebuilt on the Word of God then we can take back our Churches for God and eventually our nation for God.
I made a minor change in my text to reflect the earth is 6000 years old by Biblical chronology, not 7000 as I originally put.
See this excellent article on the subject of the age of the earth: