When Jesus Says "Judge Not," Does That Mean We are Not to Comment on Wrong Theology?

There are some bad pastors and priests who are teaching un-Biblical theology these days.  But as for the real orthodox church to stand up and judge any of them?  Forget it.  In our PC society, culture does not give us a pass to judge anybody—especially not to judge someone who calls themselves “Christian.”  But the fact is, our society is morally going down the wrong road.  And they say, when the “fruit” is bad, we need to look at the “root”—and in America, the root is the real Christian church, which has mutually taken a muzzled condition these days.  Christians who really know Scripture need to speak up.  

So I think there is a frank lack of courage for mature Christians to judge wonky “Christians.”  Our Bible has some crucial things to say about the subject of "judging."  Why crucial?  Because bad pastors lead people to hell.  Would we not yell “fire,” even if we were the only one who knew there definitely was a fire; or would we be reluctant because we might offend or inconvenience somebody? Our mature people spiritually should speak up, even though the world believes that the worst thing we could do would be to say, “you’re wrong”—because they believe that everyone “has their own truth.”  Has this post-modernism culture bled that much into the orthodox church to make us so timid?  Are we that fearful to express The Truth as we know is contained in Scripture? 

Todd Friel, speaker and writer for NRB TV’s “Wretched” program, cites an interesting case of a German pastor by the name of Latzel who was not afraid to speak The Truth boldly and without compromise.  His standing on the Bible did not come without cost—as you’ll see, the German culture (as ours) believes that much of gospel Truth is bigoted, hateful, and, ironically, “un-Christian.”  

Pastor Latzel, by speaking the truth, has been attacked in the media, investigated by the local government, even condemned by fellow pastors.  Seventy of them, behind a banner calling for “diversity,” denounced him.  The public prosecutor investigated him for hate speech.  The officers of the city of Bremen has condemned him.  His crime in all of this?  He quotes the Bible, showing the Scriptural error of other religions, and attacks the spirit of compromise that he sees infecting society.  The latest controversy that he faces today is, “do Christians and Muslims worship the same God?”  Our German pastor, Latzel, says that Allah, as portrayed in the Qur’an, and our Christian God, are not the same.  The biggest difference, only one among many, is our God has a Son—Jesus Christ.  Muslims assert that that is an infidel’s statement, insisting that  Allah-god did not have a son.  Allah and the Christian God are not the same God just because of that.  So in Germany, as here, society calls itself “Christian,” but won’t stand up against the cultural winds. 

This kind of clash has been going around a long time.  Check out the words of Charles Spurgeon, great gospel preacher of the 1800s, who would be a Latzel fan today for sure:

“It makes me indignant when I hear another gospel put before the people with enticing words, by men who would gladly make merchandise of souls; and I marvel at those who would have soft words for such deceivers.  I would to God we had all more of such decision, for the lack of it is delivering our religious life of its backbone and substituting for honest manliness a mass of the tremulous jelly of mutual flattery.”

The irony here is that German pastors are judging Latzel for his crime of judging others.  (Did you read that twice?  It has the taint of hypocrisy, does it not?).  It seems that you can’t call people in Scriptural error, but it’s a “free for all” to judge the Christian—telling him he’s in error.  Latzel has estimated that over 80% of pastors in the national German state church are not born again (whoops, used another hateful phrase).  They make their own doctrine—selectively ignoring the Bible when they feel like it doesn’t say what they want. 

The Bible has many sections that make modern society uncomfortable.  American pastors know how to handle “uncomfortable” sections of the Bible—they simply avoid preaching on them.  They play games with words in TV interviews, too, when one rarely comes around--to avoid the core argument.  They play God, ignoring "embarrassing" Scripture in their sermons.  I hardly ever run into a pastor nowadays whose sermon delivery consists of going through a a book of Scripture, verse by verse.  Most pastors deliver sermons by topic.  It’s too bad, because going “by the book” means the pastor will have to cover certain controversial passages.  (Such as what Paul has to say about women’ roles.  I have a blog on that, by the way).

Now, there are some knowledgeable folk out there who are saying  ”Wait a minute, didn’t Jesus say “Judge not?”  My answer is, True, but let’s look at the context of His Words.  Let’s give the whole phrase, not just the first two words.  From Matthew 7:1-5:

“Judge not, that you be not judged. ² For with what judgment you judge, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured back to you. ³ And why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but do not consider the plank in your own eye? ⁴ Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye’; and look, a plank is in your own eye? ⁵ Hypocrite! First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye

As you can see, Jesus is indicating poor motives for much judging.  And He hates hypocrisy.  But He does not rule out all judging:  I’ve got five reasons for stating that:

1.        1.  In the same passage, Jesus judges some people to be “dogs” and “swine.”  You say, “What?  Where?”  Oh, yeah, I forgot to give you verse 6 of Matthew 7.  Here it is:

⁶ “Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces.

This has to do with the timing of when it is a good idea (or a bad idea) to give out the gospel of God’s love.  Some people will sneer at God’s love—they are the “dogs,” etc—so for them, you just, for now, give the story of God’s judgment seat, and the reality of sin and hell.  Maybe you can dislodge a little misplaced confidence.  

2.   In John 7:24, Jesus told us to “judge with righteous judgment.”  I hope you believe, as I do, that Jesus, being God, cannot contradict Himself.  In the face of this clear statement permitting judging, we must look again at Matthew 7 to figure out what He is really saying there.

3.   Scripture tells us that, as saints, Christians will judge the world (I Corinthians 6:2).  There are many verses that instruct us who, what, and how we are to judge.  An example is Romans 16:17:

 Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them

“Note those” implies judging.  Does God want us to sin?  Did the rules change?  No.

      4.  Jesus was very judgmental when He called some Pharisees “sons of hell,” “blind guides,” “hypocrites,” and “whitewashed tombs” (Matthew 23:15, 16, 27).  If we want to be Christ-like, and if we detect clear error in another person's words, that is affecting people’s eternal lives dangerously, shouldn’t we get fervent as He did about stopping that?  Are we allowed to care, to speak up about it—or should we just lie back and say, “well, evidently this works for them.”  That’s uncaring.

5.    Never judging is entirely impractical.  You could not even order food from a menu if all judging is a sin.

So those are five Scriptural reasons for judging, wisely.

Well, then, what are the rules?  What is Matthew 7 really saying?  

First, understand that there are levels of importance in theology.  We have to believe in the Apostle’s Creed, for instance, to have a shot at being a Christian.  Here it is:

“I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.He suffered under Pontius Pilate,was crucified, died, and was buried; he descended to hades. The third day he rose again from the dead.  He ascended to heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From there he will come to judge the living and the dead.  I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic*(i.e., true universal) church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body,  and the life everlasting. Amen.”

Beyond those major doctrines, there are still many theological differences as there are denominations—but really, the church is split apart on mostly minor points.  So there are points of difference that won’t send anybody to hell.  The point I am making is, it’s not a great idea to judge another pastor or priest on a minor point.  But--fire away if they call themselves “Christian” and waffle on any of the major requirements of the Apostles Creed.  Because then they are not really Christian.  They are deceiving people, possibly sending unwitting people to hell.  Consider Matthew 7:15:

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.   

You have to exercise judgment to obey His commands as to which people to beware of, right?

So, what was Jesus saying in Matthew 7?  Possibly these things:

1.        Don’t nitpick people to death.  Yes, we’re talking again about the minor points.  Look carefully at Jesus’ words in Matthew 7:  “…why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye…”

2.       Only judge others after you have judged yourself using the same standard.  Again from Matthew 7:

First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.

3.       Do not judge with a self-righteous attitude.  Jesus called people “hypocrite” in Matthew 7—why?  Because they judged without seeing their own flaws.  There’s a lot of that going around. 

I would urge all of us to mature in the Word, and know when to speak up.  No reason for timidity today, especially since our freedom to proclaim the gospel may be soon taken away from us. Let us consider right motives for judging.  Here are a few:

1.        We judge because we love God and want to obey His commands.  Consider  His command in Jude 1:3: 

…contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all delivered to the saints.

 Remember, a crime against God is the greatest crime there is.  Messing with God’s theology, messing with His Book, can win you a spot in hell.  Look at Revelation  22:19, almost the last words in the Bible, so they’re important:

 ^…and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the Book of Life, from the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.

2.        We judge because we love the truth.  John Calvin once said that a dog will attack somebody who attacks his master.  Our master is God, who gives us Truth.  Are we as smart as dogs?  Don’t we love Him and His truth as much?  Paul even named names of those who disappointed him.  To quote again Charles Spurgeon:

“He who does not hate the false does not love the true; and he to who it is all the same whether it be God’s Word or man’s, is himself unrenewed at heart. ..I beg the Lord to give back to the churches such a love to His truth that they may discern the spirits, and cast out those which are not of God.”

3.       We judge because we love people.  People who follow false teaching don’t grow spiritually, and may end up in hell.  If we sincerely believe we have the Truth, can we stand by and say nothing?

4.       We judge because we love false teachers.  Even if they’re an enemy of good, Jesus commands us to love them too.  Don’t we love them enough to say, “you’re doing it wrong, you’re sending people astray, and you must give account on your own on judgment day if you keep doing this.”  Consider Matthew 5:44-45:

I say to you, love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you, ⁴⁵ that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. 

I pray we get all this right, and pray and speak boldly for His truth.  Who knows how much time we have left to speak His Word freely?

Acknowledgement:  Todd Friel, writer, speaker, "Wretched" TV

Is the God of the Old Testament Different from the God of the New Testament?

Is The God of the Old Testament Different From the God of the 

New Testament?

If we were to take a poll on this question, even among people who claim to be Christian, I suspect they would answer “yes.”  The reason, I think, is emotional.  They think God in the Old Testament is mean-spirited and bloody, and they don’t want that kind of God judging them in the last day.  They would prefer Jesus doing the judging, since He was a healer, wasn’t afraid to be with sinners, and defended the common people against the evil Pharisees.  The good guy, right?  

But we’re here to study Scripture, not just emotional response.  Scripture is God’s voice of unchanging truth to us.  It contains the rules.  Listen to it.  We begin with the truth that God doesn’t change, James 1:17:

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning.

So, God doesn’t change, or “evolve,” from Old to New Testaments.

Yes, it is true that He has covenants by which He deals with different people in different promises.  But it is an oversimplification to argue that the Covenant of Law in the Old Testament means He dealt harshly with sin, while the Covenant of Grace in the New Testament "says" that He ignores sin if you accept Jesus.  Life is not that simple; as I have argued in another series of blogs (Escaping Hell—Faith or Works, or Both?).  It is necessary to obey Christ’s commands (which go well beyond the Ten Commandments) to continue as saved.  You must abide in Christ, as was presented in John 15:1-10.  So God doesn’t ignore sin like some might hope, in the New Testament.  On the other hand, He can be forgiving in the Old Testament—and in the New.  He can send you to Hell for unrepented sin—in the New Testament as in the Old.  As Paul argues (Romans 4), Abraham, an obviously Old Testament guy, was saved by staying close to God through faith in His commands through trials.  Same rule as the New Testament. 

Many people have these countervailing feelings, I’ll call them “biases,” about the Old and New Testament.  Let me try to balance both of them out.  We'll see the forgiving, loving God in the Old Testament, and the harshness toward people with unrepentant sin in the New Testament.  We’ll start by looking at God’s mercy in the Old Testament.  Let’s begin with Numbers 14:18-19, where Moses is interceding for the sinful people of Israel: 

‘The Lord is longsuffering and abundant in mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression; but He by no means clears the guilty…¹⁹ Pardon the iniquity of this people, I pray, according to the greatness of Your mercy, just as You have forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now.”

If you read the Pentateuch (first 5 books of the Old Testament) carefully, the children of Israel traveling in the desert had one miracle after another shown to them (the plagues, the Passover, Pharaoh’s army washed out, manna, etc  etc).  Yet they still didn’t trust God or Moses for leadership.   God redeemed them, even though they didn’t deserve it. But they had to do their part of the work; they had to rely on Him--and Isn’t that the same story in the New Testament?  Jesus was completely innocent, yet He was killed by Gentiles and Jews.  Yet His redemption, and heaven, are available!  Yet there are conditions--which most people have missed.

Consider Ezekiel 18:20-24, another Old Testament passage:

The soul who sins shall die. The son shall not bear the guilt of the father, nor the father bear the guilt of the son….²¹ “But if a wicked man turns from all his sins which he has committed, keeps all My statutes, and does what is lawful and right, he shall surely live; he shall not die. ²² None of the transgressions which he has committed shall be remembered against him; because of the righteousness which he has done, he shall live. ²³ Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God, “and not that he should turn from his ways and live? ²⁴ “But when a righteous man turns away from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and does according to all the abominations that the wicked man does, shall he live? All the righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; because of the unfaithfulness of which he is guilty and the sin which he has committed, because of them he shall die.

These verses explain, first of all, that God does not carry a grudge against a sinful man’s son or his grandson.  The sins that the father unfortunately taught his son, the son tends to copy. But God holds against them individually.  Secondly, God loves repentance (v. 21:  “turns from”).  If you repent, and live righteously, He will forgive you and forget your earlier sin.  This theme of repentance is repeated in the New Testament.  But if you were first righteous, then became set in sin, He forgets the earlier days too--that means Hell for that person.  (Keep in mind when you read:  “live” means heaven, “die” is Hell.)  And this theme is repeated in the New Testament, where we are urged to continue abiding in Him and not fall away.  Falling away, failing to abide, means Hell (John 15:1-10).  The words from this Old Testament passage that I want to inspire you with are in v. 23:  “Do I have any pleasure at all that the wicked should die?” says the Lord God.  God does not love to send people to hell.  But the majority go there because they are disobedient or care nothing for God or His commandments (Matthew 7:13-14).

You must read this self-description of God.  You can see that He is merciful in Exodus 34:5-10, the Old Testament:

Now the Lord descended in the cloud and stood with him (ed., Moses) there, and proclaimed the name of the Lord. ⁶ And the Lord passed before him and proclaimed, “The Lord, the Lord God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness and truth, ⁷ keeping mercy for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children to the third and the fourth generation.” ⁸ So Moses made haste and bowed his head toward the earth, and worshiped.⁹ Then he said, “If now I have found grace in Your sight, O Lord, let my Lord, I pray, go among us, even though we are a stiff-necked people; and pardon our iniquity and our sin, and take us as Your inheritance.”  And He said: “Behold, I make a covenant. Before all your people I will do marvels such as have not been done in all the earth

Isn’t it great that God calls Himself “merciful, longsuffering, and abounding in goodness?”  Thank you God!  Now keep in mind, these blessed words happened immediately after their sin of Israel making a golden calf idol.  Yet God here proclaimed His longsuffering mercy.  Don’t get the idea that God ignored their sin; notice the phrase, "by no means clearing the guilty."  Soon after this, He set a plague against the guilty ones--but He also set up a tabernacle of meeting where He showed Himself to Moses, and renewed His Covenant with the Jews.  

So….I hope I balanced out your image of God that you may have felt was a  “Grudge God” in the Old Testament. 

So let’s balance things out in the New Testament now.  Was Jesus all-forgiving in the New Testament?  Was He as nonjudgmental as it seems, since we like to remember when He forgave the woman in adultery, and entertained sinners?  And when He scoffed at the law, as defined by the Pharisees?  Here I would like to quote David Limbaugh, author of Jesus on Trial, about the Gospel of Mark:

Jesus tells people to repent.  He tells people to quit their jobs and follow him.  He tells a demon to shut up.  After He heals a leper, He swears him to silence, too.  Then He picks a fight with Sunday School teachers, He tells His mom He’s busy, He rebukes the wind, He kills two thousand pigs, “he offends people but doesn’t go to sensitivity training.”  He calls people hypocrites (ed, this is spoken to regular people, not just the scribes or Pharisees), and seems to call Peter Satan.  He curses and kills a tree, He tells people they’re going to hell, and He rebukes the disciples for falling asleep on Him.  

Not exactly the view of Him in your mind, I suspect.  Upon careful reading of all the Gospels, you’ll see that Jesus had a lot to say about hell--a subject we avoid.  In Matthew 6:15, He told people God would not forgive them if they didn’t forgive people.  In Luke 16, He tells of a man is on his way to hell, with no reason explicitly given for it.  One can only surmise it was because he, a rich man, repeatedly ignored a poor man in his daily path, begging for bread (for further proof of that idea, see James 2:15-17). In Matthew 11:23, He pronounces judgment on an entire city (Capernaum) because they did not believe in Him.  He predicts their judgment will be worse than Sodom (which reeked of rapist homosexuals).  In Matthew 5:30, He recommends that we take extreme measures to prevent sinning, lest we go to hell.  In Matthew 23 He calls scribes and Pharisees hypocrites, a brood of vipers, and sons of hell.   He asks them, “How can you escape the condemnation of hell?” 

Lest you think His harsh judgmental words were for the scribes and Pharisees only, He has an extensive argument stretching over three chapters (John 6-8) that begins by telling all the Jewish people they must eat his flesh and drink His blood.  He tells his brothers that the world hated Him because “I testify of it that its works are evil.”  A rather cynical view of people.   He tells all those listening that “none of you keeps the law.”  He tells them that “He who sent Me is true, whom you do not know.”  He tells them “I go to Him who sent me…and where I am you cannot come.”  He tells all of them “you do not know where I come from and where I am going….You know neither Me nor My Father….you will seek me, and will die in your sin….You are from beneath…you are of this world..you do not believe that I am He…you seek to kill Me, because My word has no place in you.  …you do not hear, because you are not of God…you have not known Him…And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you…you are not able to listen to My word.  I speak what I have seen with My Father, and you do what you have seen with your father… You are of your father the devil.

I hope you’re as surprised as I was, when I first really read those words.  Jesus the bare-knuckler.

I’m not being sarcastic when I say, in faith, that He is The Master Teacher, and knew the right evangelistic skills. He wasn’t just blowing them off, out of anger.  His approach, I suspect, is:  He forces them to make a decision about Him—do you believe I am God, no matter what I say?  Do you believe that I hate sin so much that I am willing to use harsh language to wake people up?  Or am I going to make you so angry that you’ll rage within, “I hate you!”-- and reveal your own condemnation to yourself?  No lukewarm preaching here.  No one skids blissfully to hell on ignorance (such as is happening in today's "preaching").  If you were for Him, you were a hated lunatic, just like He was made to be.  He was killed because He was too radical for them. Yet He and His followers evangelized thousands and turned the world upside down--so His "tough love" method worked.  What does that say for us, and our evangelistic methods?  His method of talking about sin and hell definitely would not work in seeker-friendly churches.

These three chapters in John 6-8 also have His discussion with the adulterous woman.  The woman was repentant, so Jesus forgave her.  But, a lot of people forget, He also said, “Go, and sin no more.”  And He scoffed at the Pharisee “laws” because they were not God’s laws, but man’s laws--“supplements” to God’s law—often a burden.  Such as their not wanting Jesus to heal people on the Sabbath.

Thus, Jesus is no milquetoast, and He doesn’t display the PC words for today—“tolerant and nonjudgmental.”  

Now I hope I balanced the New Testament like I did with the Old.  Thus, since the "rough" Jesus is also God, this is the same God, with the same qualities—love and a hatred of sin—occupying both Testaments.  Judgment and hell hang over each of us from the day of our accountability.  God provided a way of redemption for you, to get rid of the penalty and power of sin.  In careful Scripture reading, especially the Master Teacher in the Gospels, with an eye to getting a comprehensive view, you can find your way to heaven.  Good luck—keep in mind, few people are interested.  They just assume they’re “good enough.”  Let Matthew 7:13-14 ring in your ears, and try to make it ring in their ears:

  “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. ¹⁴ Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.  

Yes, the New Testament tells us that few find their way to heaven.  Be one of the few.

Acknowledgement:  David Limbaugh, Jesus on Trial

The Most Ignored Doctrine in the Bible

I would like to take four sections of Scripture and analyze them together, since they are all on the same subject—namely, the woman’s role in the family and in the church.  A hot topic, for sure.  Scripture is crystal clear on several points, but churches and families are not being taught this by their pastors.  The question is, Why?

First, let’s look at I Corinthians 11:3-8:

But I want you to know that the head of every man is Christ, the head of woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. ⁴ Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered, dishonors his head. ⁵ But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for that is one and the same as if her head were shaved. ⁶ For if a woman is not covered, let her also be shorn. But if it is shameful for a woman to be shorn or shaved, let her be covered. ⁷ For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. ⁸ For man is not from woman, but woman from man.

Here are the facts clearly taught regarding the role of women from these verses: 

1.       Verse 3  “the head of woman is man.” This says the man is the head of the home.  This is affirmed by v. 7, where the man does not cover his head, but she does, since covering is a sign of an umbrella of protection--from him. V. 5 says that women could lead in a prayer, or prophesy in church, in their weekly meetings.  The earliest church had services which encouraged congregation participation—someone could lead in a song, another could lead in a prayer of intercession, protection, etc; another could speak in a tongue—and another could “prophesy.”  Prophecy is not just foretelling the future; it’s also, as Vine puts it in his Expository Dictionary, “telling forth the divine counsels”—i.e., as I Corinthians 14:3 says, speaking “edification and exhortation and comfort.”  These two gifts, prayer and prophecy, had great meaning in the early church—but the prophetic gift has fallen into disuse, along with congregational participation. Vv 5-7  says that a woman should have her head covered in service.  This is because she is the “glory of man.”  It was important enough that if she didn’t do it, it was “shameful,” it “dishonors her head,” or as bad as if she shaved off all her hair.    

My question is, have you ever heard a sermon pointing out the obvious facts in these verses?  I doubt not; they seem weird when first looked upon. Have you ever been to a church where the women covered their heads?  I’ve visited a Mennonite church (so said the online yellow pages), but they hired a Baptist pastor and only one very old woman was covered.    I’ve been to a Plymouth Brethren church, which only had maybe five women covered, and covering wasn’t stressed in sermons.  They realized that head coverings were a symbol of women's acknowledgement of this truth.  So the way they avoided controversy was by assuming that women obeyed the truth of this Scripture and did not need a head covering to show that fact. But many women, even in this Plymouth Brethren church, refused to cover, perhaps had no idea what the covering was for, and "followed" their man like the average woman in secular society.

Next, let’s go to I Corinthians 14:33-37:

For God is not the author of confusion but of peace, as in all the churches of the saints. ³⁴ Let your  women keep silent in the churches, for they are not permitted to speak; but they are to be submissive, as the law also says. ³⁵ And if they want to learn something, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is shameful for women to speak in church. ³⁶ Or did the word of God come originally from you? Or was it you only that it reached? ³⁷ If anyone thinks himself to be a prophet or spiritual, let him acknowledge that the things which I write to you are the commandments of the Lord.

          V. 34 gives the women’s role: “they are to be submissive,”  as is also taught in Ephesians 5:22-23a: 

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord.  For the husband is head of the wife…” 
This confirms #1 in I Corinthians 11 above

V. 34-35  “Let your women keep silent in the churches…”  Yet we saw above that women could pray or prophesy in church.  What this verse means, then is that in accordance with submissiveness, women were not to be teachers or take on any speaking sermons, or leadership role.  Again, there’s that word “shame” if she disrespects that.  

    V. 36-37  Paul’s tough words here suggests that the Corinthian church was in violation of this; he considers it a challenge to his getting inspiration from God.  He took that very seriously.  I think his opening sentence in v. 33 about “confusion” has to do with this—confusion is what happens  when these rules are violated. 

Now, are THESE verses being preached on for their obvious meaning?  Again, I suspect, No.  It is another Scriptural command, is it not?  I've heard people call Paul a "sexist guy."  But Paul wrote what God inspired.  So, is God a "sexist" God?  Don't ask me to be around if anyone is making accusations like that to our loving, sovereign God.

Next,   I Timothy 2:9-14:

In like manner also, that the women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with propriety and moderation, not with braided hair or gold or pearls or costly clothing, ¹⁰ but, which is proper for women professing godliness, with good works. ¹¹ Let a woman learn in silence with all submission. ¹² And I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence. ¹³ For Adam was formed first, then Eve. ¹⁴ And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.

V. 9-10 The women are urged to be “modest” in their apparel, with “propriety” (another version reads “discreetness”).  This suggests not rousing up lustfulness in men.  (Hey, I'm not saying women are at fault in rape.)  Not using “gold or pearls or costly clothing” suggests that they are expressing that their thoughts in life are sober and God-fearing, not gaudy or worldly. So the men hopefully could look at them for their spiritual beauty, instead of being attracted by worldly lust. Unfortunately, it’s true that if a church or youth leader were to teach about sober-minded clothing to teenage girls (along with these other verses on submission to men), the keening and whining would be big and the youth group would be small.  You’ve got to be “sexy,” says the modern young women. Youth group leaders should do everything they can to disabuse that thought and train the opposite. 

V. 11-12 She is to “learn in silence with all submission,” and “I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence” confirms our earlier discussions.  Paul (or, really, God, right?) is driving home this point several times. 

V. 14 The fact that Adam was not deceived doesn’t actually speak well of him, I think. By the way, I'm not suggesting that his being un-deceived means he didn't sin; future verses make heavy consequences on him for his sin.  Lucifer convinced Eve to doubt God’s goodness, as well as hinting that God was a liar, a great sin for her to think that (see Genesis 3).  If you say, “she should have never believed a serpent, or snake,” keep in mind that the serpent wasn’t cursed to crawl until later.  Keep in mind that all this was brand new, and she didn't know what capabilities God had created each creature with--maybe some creatures He created could talk.  Satan might have looked like an elegant upraised shining light when speaking with her.  What I’m saying is, she had “excuses.”  But Adam fell just because Eve talked him into it.  It wasn’t deception.  Maybe he just did it because he wanted to please her more than pleasing God.  But that was a sin too.  He lost his immortality as she did.  In fact, HE gets chief blame elsewhere in Scripture for this event (see Romans 5).  

Finally, let’s look at I Peter 3:1-6: 

Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, ² when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. ³ Do not let your adornment be merely outward—arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel— ⁴ rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God. ⁵ For in this manner, in former times, the holy women who trusted in God also adorned themselves, being submissive to their own husbands, ⁶ as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, whose daughters you are if you do good and are not afraid with any terror.

V. 1-2  One side reason given for submitting to husbands:  it’s an evangelistic effort to win an unbelieving husband to Christ.  But this idea is a huge “turn-off” to so many women; but that reaction suggests how far we are from the spirit of sacrifice that real Christianity demands.  I might add that you could oftentimes avoid this fate if you obey another Scripture that says not to marry an unsaved person.

V 1-2 Wives are to “be submissive,” be in “chaste conduct,” (no flirting) and “accompanied by fear.” This is NOT fear of the husband; it is a fear of God's judgment on sin, enough to cause her to submit herself to His commands.  I have a blog on “Fear of God” that point out that this attitude is beneficial to the possessor. 

V. 3  Again, Scripture is against mere outward adornment, “arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel.”  Instead, be God’s adornment, the “hidden person of the heart…beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God.”  Being submissive to husbands, and the beauty you show because you are gentle, was an adornment to God.

Sarah was given as an example of proper womanhood, calling her husband “lord.”  I’m not saying we should do THAT, but the woman’s mind should have the same vibe. 

Finally, for the last Scripture point, let's look at Titus 2:1-5:

But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.

And, in similar vein, I Timothy 5:14:

Therefore I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house, give no opportunity to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

You can see the emphasis I am placing.  I have more to say on that later in this paper.

Note that in all of the Scriptures above, which are all focusing on the teaching on the role of women at home or at church, emphasizes submissiveness, being at home raising the children, being under husband's headship—that quality is stressed every single time. Thus it is a crystal clear commandment of God.  But, in all honesty, it is almost never stressed in sermons, or else watered down beyond all efficacy.  (John MacArthur does a good job, though, in his Youtube sermon, "Willful Submission of a Christian Wife"--beware, it's an hour long.)  This subject is without question the most ignored important doctrine today.   

If men or women read their Bible with the intent to obey it, it would be clear to them as well, so they too are at fault when they casually ignore it.  The symptoms of this disease?  Confusion over leadership at home.  This results in fights over leadership, and marriage is stressful.  A family with two heads (especially working heads) doesn’t work in a situation, let's say,  where the decision is extremely important to both, and they differ in opinion.  The result?  As every current study shows, divorces are the same high percentages in “Christian” homes as they are in pagan homes.  Yet we should all know,  God hates divorce (Malachi 2:16)—and provided narrow guidelines where it was allowed.   Divorce is never the best solution; it is only allowed.

So here’s what I’m saying in response to this elephant in the room that nobody sees:  Do you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible?  That phrase means, every and all words are as if written by God—it is written exactly as how He intended it.  Now you could argue that Scripture has been changed over the years due to flawed copying, but examples from the Dead Sea Scrolls and others show that only a few occasional, minor, un-damaging changes have happened. 

If you do believe in God-breathed inspiration, then you can’t accuse Paul as being a sexist for writing what he did, because the words he wrote came directly from God.  It wasn’t like a dream, where God gave him the general idea and let him fill in the rest—and then he did so crudely.  We’re saying, every meaning was really from God. 

So, you say, OK, based on these “rules,” then God is a sexist.  We're so culturally past submission, you say.  If you believe that God, or Paul, wrote every Scripture as biased males, then you don’t really believe in the all-goodness of God.  His commands are for one purpose:  For everybody to live our lives to the fullest.  As Jesus said in John 10:10:

I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly

This is certainly what God, who loves you beyond your mother, your husband, even you, could ever love you, wants.   Would you reject that intense love?  You say you want to live your own life as a female, make your decisions based on your perspective?  This “revolution of independence” is not new. Any such independence is a movement away from God, in this subject.

Here’s a little different argument you may have.  You believe that the Bible has many truths, but many indefensible culturalisms (like its position on womanhood).  But you say that relationship to men has evolved beyond that ugly culture, so you will choose which Bible verses are proper to live by, and which are better for you to ignore.  In response, I say this:  First, you are denying that the Bible is God’s Word for all time.  Secondly, for you to pick and choose your verses that are "culturally relevant," that means you are judging God.  You are a better judge of what’s moral than God?  

It is amazing to me that so many people claim they believe the Bible, but in a critical situation, they cave in to self-will.  I Will decide this one, they say, since this one is important, and the solution seems obvious--never mind what Scripture commands.  But this is sin; this is doing the same thing Eve did, doubting the goodness of God.    Consider I John 2:3-4:

Now by this we know that we know Him, if we keep His commandments. ⁴ He who says, “I know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him.

The role of women outlined here is clear--and it is a commandment of God.  So does I John 2:4 apply to you? But are you aware what the Scripture says about the eternal destination of those who continually live a lie, and do not embrace the truth?

To get back to the question I posed at the very beginning:  Why don’t pastors preach on this?  Why do pastors refuse to stand with Scripture—and don't encourage men to step up and act like leaders at home?  I have a theory as to the reason.  The theory is surrounded by greed, covetousness, and self-gratification.  This whole thing started with women going to work and making some serious money.  From 1950 to 1990, according to the 1996 Green Book, Bureau of Labor Statistics, the percentage of working mothers with children under 6 achieved its greatest growth—it quintupled—from 12% of all working age women to a horrendously high 60%.  To me, that means that 60% of mothers have walked away from their main job, supporting and bonding with the kids, in favor of making more money for the family to spend.  I realize I’m stomping on some nervous threads here, but let’s get it all out:  They’re saying, “I have money!  Now, let’s buy, buy!  Yes, enjoy life more, and we'll give the little ones toys and entertainment, not empathy or closeness when they need us.  Yes, Possessions are more important."

If you’re thinking, well, since there are unemployment males, the women have to pitch in to support the family--but that doesn't explain this huge move.  The unemployment rate is a roller coaster, up and down, for the 1950-2006 period—between 3% and 7.5%.  That certainly does not explain why the women-with-small children chart is straight up, no pauses or backing up.  It's not like women are supporting the men, getting jobs when they're off, then dropping that gig when husbands get back to the grindstone.  If that were the case, both charts would be acting like a roller coaster—but no, it's straight up.  They get caught in the greed of wanting the extra money all the time, and the kids are left behind.

For another slice of data, please observe the chart below.  What do we draw from it?  Women are contributing more to family income.  But is this good?  Consider: The wives have more "skin in the game;" so, they could simply feel that that entitles them to make their desires known on important decisions, whether conflicting with their husband or not--again, ignoring Scripture.

If you’re thinking, that chart does not represent serious labor; that could be minimum hours a week, just some pin money added, on average, not a real sacrifice for wives—the chart below proves that idea wrong.  In 1974, wives contributed 25% of family income; that's not "pin money," that's a significant percentage—and a significant sacrifice to family time and their well-being.  As of 2012, the wives contribute 37% of family income. Yet a greater sacrifice to family support.   Scripturally, in the interest of real family, this is going the wrong way.

Do the husbands want to fight this upward trend ?  Apparently not.  Look on the following chart.  The yellow bars (the men's participation) are in a steady drop. The women rose, then flattened--almost like they're re-thinking whether this was a good idea. Now, it looks like both charts are down.  It looks like the men are willing to stop fighting with the women, give up and drop out of the rat race and let the wives be the primary breadwinner, and she's not sure if she likes how all this is turning out.. 

   

Of course, the reason for this trade-off from men to women might be talent.  I have no problem giving the women that.  But that great talent should be used at home.  Maybe we could get more home-schooling.  It's getting downright dangerous to be in school.  Home schooling wouldn't be so bad, considering how bulliness, rebellion, and anti-learning kids are becoming socially.  They're so poorly trained in school, that they fail in college and lose their Christian faith among all the immorality.  

Or, it could be “men dropouts.”  The weed.  Shame on them. 

If you ask me, either possible reason for this trade-off is not God's plan.  If the women were to go home, we’d have better kids.  Secondly, if they went home, then jobs would suddenly be screaming for people, so more men could work, and the lack of men in the labor force means they could demand a raise in their average pay.  Of course, their total family incomes would decline, but not as much as you think (especially after taxes). With one person at home, they wouldn’t have to spend as much—they wouldn’t need a second car, they would spend less on child care, less on clothing and eating out, less on paying Uncle Sam.  They might be forced to spend less on vacations and fancy possessions; they might want to spend more time looking at discounts.  They might even do a lot more things around the house as a family, like dinners together.  What’s wrong with family talks at dinner,  family games, reading the Bible together?  It’s certainly less expensive.  Throw out the multiple phone pads, multiple TVs and computers.  “Together” is socially beneficial.  Have one computer in the house, in a major traffic area, if you ask me.  If a child wants to do his homework from it, he can put on silencers—or the TV watchers can.  Anyway, less porn results.  Let the kids develop normal thoughts about people of the opposite sex. 

You’re not going to argue here, to tell me that the trends in kids and young marrieds are terrific, so you want to defend the status quo rat race.  You’re not going to tell me that “money buys me happiness” when divorces, child suicides are at all time highs.  You’ve got to take the long view on this, and  train everybody to endure the peer pressure for an upstanding lifestyle. 

Getting back to my original theme, God really does know what’s best for you, ladies.  Forget the grab for more dollars—grab for the husband.  Submit.  Yeah, he might be churlish and make lots of dumb mistakes.  But that’s where you can ask God to fight for you, rather than nagging the husband.   God won’t kill him, like you want on some days (there is virtue in patience), but God is very effective in answering prayers of righteous women.  Oh--and righteous men.

May God help us to obey ALL His commandments.