Biblical Instructions for

Women & Young Ladies


The file below contains:
Instructions for a Godly Young Lady
Teaching Daughters to Blaspheme God
Marriage & Deceit
Sex Education
Women's Empowerment Movements
Feminization of America
The Value of a Woman

First published, 3/94

Instructions for a Godly young lady.

Timothy 2:14 places the woman under the man's protection for her own safety. She is never permitted by God to be on her own. Furthermore, she is required by God to always use her gifts and abilities, no matter how great they might be (even better than her father's or husband's), under the proper authority of a man. (Cf., Pro. 31.)
The requirement by God is that every individual be content where they are and with what they have. First, contentment is a Christian discipline that must be learned, for it comes not naturally, and the Lord teaches contentment through circumstances of life which Divine Providence brings about. (Eph. 1:10.) Second, contentment is contrasted with covetousness. Covetousness on the part of a woman or man is the desire or willingness to compromise or depart from God's word so one can obtain more than God has provided. (Lu. 3:14, Php. 4:11, l Ti. 6:8, Heb. 13:5.)

Additionally, God forbids envy ("...the feeling of displeasure produced by witnessing or hearing of the advan tage or prosperity of others; this evil sense always attaches to this word envy desires to deprive another of what he has, jealousy desires to have the same or the same sort of thing for itself." Vines'). Envy: Titus 3:3, James 4:5, 1 Peter 2:1-3. (Note that envy denies that the Lord is good.) Jealousy: Romans 13:13, 1 Corinthians 3:3, 2 Corinthians 12:20, Galatians 5:19-25, James 3:13ff., & ch 4.
The above applies for both men and women. For a woman, it means she must be content with what God provides her under her proper authority. And neither the man nor woman can look around them in envy or jealousy.

Our responsibility is to fit within the framework wherein we were born, for God chose our parents, station and social status in life. The responsibility for a man is to be "self-sufficient," not from God and proper human authority, but able to establish and support a home on his own under God. The responsibility of the girl and her parents is to see that the one she marries is properly established under God and proper authority.

Consequently, the girl and boy have different lessons to learn in the home: among many other things, the boy must learn to be in Godly authority and "self-sufficient," but the girl must learn to be under Godly authority. Unlike a man, the woman can not work to be on her own, viz., "self-sufficient." When and if she does seek to be "self-sufficient," she leaves herself open to devastating deception. (1 Tim. 2:14.) A widow or orphan, on the other hand, is under the Lord's authority, which is why He makes special provision for them in the Law. For under proper authority, God becomes her protection and provision. (Ex. 22:22, Deut. 14:29, Ps. 146:9, Jer. 7:6. Zech. 7:10, James 1:27, &c.) Note in these passages that only the fatherless and widow are promised protection directly from the Lord. Everyone else, therefore, finds their protection under their proper, God given authority.

If a woman says, "I want more than God provides for me under my proper authority, so I am going to work in order to obtain more regardless of what anyone says," she has yielded to covetousness: she has turned to idolatry. Certainly, it is not wrong to desire more than we have; the sin is the willingness to compromise God's word and will to gain more. Nor is it wrong to work; the sin is when a woman or man "works" apart from proper authority. Note that it is the attitude involved pursuing "things" that creates the difficulty. Though this letter deals particularly with a girl's Godly responsibility to be under a man's authority (father then husband. Upon the death of or divorce from her husband, she can return under her father's authority), it includes boys also. A man's work is sin if he works apart from God's authority. The man's place of authority in the family and in society does not exempt him from being under authority. This is why it is so important that both the girl and the girl's parents thoroughly examine a young man's attitude toward money and authority, e.g., Authority: 1 Samuel 15:23, Money: Luke 12:15, Ephesians 5:3.

The Lord does not take covetousness lightly, Colossians 3:5,...covetousness, which is idolatry... The result of an inordinate desire for better things is the wrath of God upon the children of disobedience. But there is a positive side of freedom from covetousness, viz., prolonged days, Prverbs 28:16.
God determined who would be born a girl and who would be born a boy. Furthermore, God ordained the place of both in the structure of the family and society. The enemy of all godliness is the one who perverted God's order.
The woman and the man can only find rest by submitting to God's order of creation. Rest for a godly woman is willing submission to proper authority, and contentment with where the Lord has placed her and provided for her.(Ruth 1:9.) Rest for God's people in general, women and men, is only found in submitting to God and His order of Creation. (Heb. 4.)

If the prospective husband is not properly submitted under God's authority and proper human authority (parents, &c.), marriage with him will only develop grave and complicated problems. Note the law concerning the seduced maiden. (Ex. 22:16, 17.) If her dad saw that the man was not a proper man, he could, and probably should, forbid the marriage.

The qualifications of a godly husband are given by the Lord, Exodus 18:21, men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness...; 1 Timothy 3:8, ...grave, not doubletongued, not given to much wine, not greedy of filthy lucre; Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience...

Obviously, the rebellious spirit today is exhibited in the mad rush for women to be "on their own." They live, breath and work for freedom from authority so they can pursue their own desires. The "self-sufficient" spirit found in both women and men is the spirit of the anti-Christ at work in the families. (1 John 2:18, 22, 4:3, 2 John 1:7.)
The conclusion to the whole matter is that the primary lesson for any young person to learn is correct submission and response to all authority. Even though Divine Providence may leave a lady "on her own," e.g., orphan or widow, Scripturally, she is primarily responsible to learn how to correctly be under proper authority, not how to make her own way through this world. On the other hand, the young man must learn how to be the proper authority and "on his own" under God.

Sad to say, many times good, well-meaning parents urge their daughters to violate the clear teaching of God's word and be "on their own" and "self-sufficient." There is no Scriptural grounds for such urging. Furthermore, the "self spirit" has resulted in an accepted reversal of Godly roles in even Christian families and in society generally.

Teaching Daughters to Blaspheme God

[As a father of two girls, 9 & 17, I had to rethink several things. I have placed some of the areas of thought in past mailings. This is another point that must be considered by Christians and fathers of young ladies. Of course, the following is presented for consideration assuming a consistent Christian home and with the understanding that all the Bible training in the world will do nothing but bring rebellion unless the young person is a new creation in Christ Jesus, "born again." Our older daughter found it very disheartening that all but three girls she knows her age have either rushed to marry or have started living with boys, and most were from a "Christian" school. Rebellion against the parents' authority that causes a young person to take up an immoral lifestyle, either in or out of his/her parents' house, is an obvious sign of desperately needed genuine conversion.]

Has the Christian community yielded to social pressure, and is it now is teaching its daughters to bring reproach upon the name of the God whereby we are called? Paul is cleartraining up a young lady to be self-sufficient and able to make it on her brings reproach upon God and His Word:
Titus 2:3 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.

Blasphemed to be evil spoken of, reviled, railed at. (Thayer.)

As found in:

And not [rather], (as we be slanderously reported, and as some affirm that we say,) Let us do evil, that good may come? whose damnation is just. (Romans 3:8.)

Let not then your good be evil spoken of: (Romans 14:16.)

Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, [and are] the offscouring of all things unto this day. (1 Corinthians 4:13.)


That the word of God be not blasphemed. That the gospel may not be injuriously spoken of (See Barnes "Mt 9:3",) on account of the inconsistent lives of those who profess to be influenced by it. The idea is, that religion ought to produce the virtues here spoken of, and that when it does not, it will be reproached as being of no value. (Barnes.)

blasphemed" evil spoken of." That no reproach may be cast on the Gospel, through the inconsistencies of its professors (#Tit 2:8,10 Ro 2:24 1Ti 5:14 6:1). "Unless we are virtuous, blasphemy will come through us to the faith" [THEOPHYLACT]. (Jamieson, Fausset, Brown.)

That the word of God be not blasphemed: as for the discharge of their duty towards God, so for the credit and reputation of the gospel, that for their carriage contrary to the rules of nature and morality, as well as of religion, the gospel may not be evil spoken of, as if from that they had learned their ill and indecent behaviour.

We live in a society that has been very effectively "secularized:" the practical applications of God's Word have been almost totally removed and replaced by humanistic, man-centered thinking. The only hope for the future is to rethink every area of life in terms of the Word of God. This is particularly important when we consider that we must prepare a new generation of young people to face the difficult times ahead in what appears to be a developing pagan society. Are we going to raise a generation that trusteth in man or a generation that trusteth in the Lord? If Christians actually believe what they claim, they will act upon and according to the Word of God regardless of what surrounding society thinks, says &/or does.

5 ¶ Thus saith the LORD; Cursed [be] the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD. 6 For he shall be like the heath in the desert, and shall not see when good cometh; but shall inhabit the parched places in the wilderness, [in] a salt land and not inhabited. 7 Blessed [is] the man that trusteth in the LORD, and whose hope the LORD is. 8 For he shall be as a tree planted by the waters, and [that] spreadeth out her roots by the river, and shall not see when heat cometh, but her leaf shall be green; and shall not be careful in the year of drought, neither shall cease from yielding fruit. 9 The heart [is] deceitful above all [things], and desperately wicked: who can know it? 10 I the LORD search the heart, [I] try the reins, even to give every man according to his ways, [and] according to the fruit of his doings. 11 [As] the partridge sitteth [on eggs], and hatcheth [them] not; [so] he that getteth riches, and not by right, shall leave them in the midst of his days, and at his end shall be a fool. (Jer. 5:7-11.)

Every area of life and thought must be reconsidered, starting with the families. Parents, fathers especially, must realign their actions and attitudes toward their children with the Word of God and train them accordingly. I suppose my heart is toward the daughters in a family because we only have daughters.

Unknown to most parents and pastors, they are likely training sincere, Godly Christian young ladies to bring reproach upon the Word of God by urging them to depart from their fathers' homes before marriage. When we train up girls to be self-sufficient, we do it to our own destruction and to the destruction of society. Certainly, it may seem right to the deceitful, desperately wicked heart to urge and train girls to be self-sufficient, but the Word of God searches and tries the reins of the heart. The Lord will return upon all according to their doings. Thus when Christian young people are trained contrary to the Word of God, we can fully expect society in general to blaspheme God.

The training of young women to bring reproach upon the Lord and to provide the enemy with the opportunity to blaspheme the Word of God probably started in earnest with WW II: Men went to the war and women went to the factories. One of our men said that his grandfather told him that he, the grandfather, said at the start of WW II when women went into the factory, "This is the end of America." How right he was.

God created man. Then He created woman to be man's helpmeet. (1 Cor. 11, 1 Tim 2.) Therefore, the goal of both the church and family must be training Christian young ladies to fit within God's creative plan and purpose. Notice Paul's instructions to Titus in Titus 2:3-5 (above).

The Books of Timothy and Titus are known as "Pastoral Epistles." Thus they are instructions to pastors concerning training God's people. Though speaking of young widows, Paul's instructions to Timothy should be noted:

I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully. For some are already turned aside after Satan. (1 Tim 5:14, 15.)

Patric Fairbairn, writing in 1874, said concerning Titus 2:4, 5:

That they school the young women to be lovers of their husbands, lovers of their children; ver. 5, discreet chaste, workers at home, good, submitting themselves to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed ...The word, though originally signifying to make discreet or prudent, came often to be used in the more general sense of schooling, or admonishing, with a view to the possession of certain things; and the reason, probably, why the apostle here used it, instead of some word expressive simply of teaching or instructing, was, that on account of the youth of the parties in question, he contemplated the necessity of a kind of authoritative disciplinary treatment from the older to the younger Christian females... In the epithets themselves, which mark the different characteristics that were to be the objects of the schooling, there is no proper difficulty; they are all such as especially became young women who were disposed to bring their Christianity to bear on the regulation of their conduct in daily life, and through this reflect honour on their Saviour... [After describing the characteristics of vv. 4 & 5, he concludes] In a measure, however, this must be carried back over the whole description; for in any one respect a behaviour contrary to that recommended would more or less have the effect of bringing reproach on God's word. [Pastoral Epistles, by Patrick Fairbairn, originally published by T & T Clark, 1874. Reprint by Klock & Klock, 1980, pp 273, 274.]

Observe submitting themselves to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed. When a single young lady enters into the work place, she must submit herself to the authority other than her father's, and when a married woman enters the work place, she must submit to authority other than her own husband's . And thus she causes the Word of God to be blasphemed. Moreover, those who "hire" her to be under their authority are guilty of bringing reproach upon the Word of God.
If Paul meant what he told Timothy and Titus, and if we are not allowed to do evil that good may come of it, (Romans 3:8) where does this leave Christian ministries, churches and Christian Schools? Do we really believe God's Word? Are we willing to live by His law-word when the cost of such living is more than we planned, and brings hardship?

Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. (Rom. 2:23, 24.)

Thus training of young Christian ladies in behaviour contrary to that commanded by Paul brings reproach on God's Word. Paul's instructions to Titus, contrary to most modern Christian opinions and actions, were not voided by W W II. The training of Christian young ladies for life must fit within the general guidelines given by the Spirit. All of Proverbs 31 easily fits within those general guidelines.

Primarily, young ladies are to be taught proper submission to Godly authority, not how to be self-sufficient. Sadly, because young men are not trained in the home to be Godly, responsible men, women are being forced into self-sufficiency. Thus a young lady's father desperately needs to closely examine her prospective husband.
Therefore, training that does not fit within the Spirit's general guidelines trains daughters to blaspheme the word of God. Paul clearly tells Titus how young ladies are to be trained.

Our point is this: Godly Christian parents, even with the encouragement of Godly pastors, are pressuring young ladies to leave home and become self-sufficient, e.g., "It's time to go to college and learn a `trade,' &c." Obviously, all young ladies who go "on their own" from the pressure of their parents will not go to the devil. But why tempt the Lord? Why give an occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully? (1 Tim. 5:14.) God, in His creation purpose, did not create Eve to be self-sufficient and on her own. Has God's purpose changed since Eve's creation?

There are several things that might cause daughters to feel pressured to leave their father's house, e.g.:

First, not letting them grow up at home. As they get older, parents may be inclined to continue treating them as 12 year olds with the same restrictions and demands. As they get older, they must have more freedom. Either they will have freedom under the Godly authority of their parents, or they will find freedom on their own. Of course, freedom cannot be license to sin. Single young people, especially a young lady, must always have boundaries in order to feel securethat is the way the Lord made us, e.g., this is the way, walk ye in it. Thus when she is urged or even forced out on her own, she establishes her own boundaries, and the word of God is blasphemed.

Second, she is told in words &/or attitudes that it is time to move out. A girl is not a boy. A boy should be trained to be on his own, responsible and self-sufficient under God, but a girl is not so equipped by God. Thus when daughters are told, "You are this age, it's time to move out," they are being forced into something they are not equipped by God to handle.

Certainly, there are Godly single women who have remained so in order to serve the Lord. But their service fits within the guidelines established by the Spirit. We are here considering parents pressuring and training their daughters to be self-sufficient and independent of authority, viz., "on their own." As mentioned above, our corrupt society in which men refuse to be men many times forces young ladies into "self-sufficient" situations. If they are forced into such situations, that is a different story, but they should still be well-prepared to know what to expect, to remain close to the Lord and to be responsive to proper authority.

Fathers (& mothers) may use many reasons to excuse molding their daughters into women who can fit into the "working" world, but they will be hard pressed to justify their actions from the Word of God. Paul did not say that the Spirit's command in Titus 2 is only in effect until the twentieth century.

· Sound the alarm

Recently, the media proclaimed the glories of 500 women going on the Aircraft Carrier Eisenhower where 6,000 men are stationed (pregnancy, said the ship's captain, is no more of a problem than a broken leg. Abortion?). Women are reaching unequaled levels of "equality" with men. Though Bible believing Christians and pastors may be loudly proclaiming the shame of women taking on obviously unBiblical, antiChristian roles in society, the "Women's Lib" movement appears to be gaining great strength. But the problem starts in the "Christian" homesthey have trained and are training their own Christian daughters to bring reproach upon the Word of God.

· Apparel

While on the subject of young ladies, let us consider a word concerning the apparel of a Christian woman. R.J. Rushdoony, in one of his lesson tapes on Deuteronomy, called attention to a statement made by Adam Clarke (1762-1832). Speaking concerning Deut 22:5, Clarke said:

[that which pertaineth unto a man] the instruments or arms of a man. As the word [Hebrew] geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtraouth among the Canaanites bore a striking resembalance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, but where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood literally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and the female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male's attire. Were this to be tolerated in society, it would produce the greatest confusion... [Clarke's Commentary in 6 volumes, Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, New York - Nashville. Vol I, pp 794, 795.1

Thas God speaks clearly against several things in Deut 22:5: 1) women in the military; 2) women in occupations that are generally associated with men, and 3) women who are indistinguishable from men in their dress. When dress is the primary distinction between the sexes, then woman are forbidden to wear men's apparel.
Men and women wearing the same attire alter the order of nature, and show their despite or scorn for God. Women wearing men's apparel in society brings confusion to God's created order. (1 Cor. 14:33.)

Thou that makest thy boast of the law, through breaking the law dishonourest thou God? For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you, as it is written. (Rom. 2:23, 24.)

Obviously, Romans 2 refers to circumcision, but the point is this many who boast of their love for the Word of God are dishonoring God by causing the name of God to be blasphemed in their families and in their churches. Christians cannot condemn the unGodly for blaspheming God when their own actions contrary to the Word of God are what causes the word of God to be blasphemed by the unGodly.

We must rethink every area in terms of the Word of God, starting in our own homes.

First published, 2/92

Marriage & Deceit

"The presupposition of Biblical law is individual responsibility and guilt." (The Institutes of Biblical Law, vol. I, R.J. Rushdony. P 570.) Perjury, willfully telling of a lie, or breaking of an oath or formal promise, was a serious act in Scripture. In the past, Biblical law was an important part of American law. Perjury in a capital felony was, and still is in some states, punishable by death. (Ibid, p. 571.) The Lord God holds individuals responsible to be honest in all there dealings.
An honest and just social order is built upon honest and just family relationships, which must start at the very foundation of marriage. God considers it very important that the man and woman contemplating marriage be open and honest with one another. We find a good account of God's requirement of individual responsibility to be honest in marriage in Deuteronomy 22.

In vv. 13-21 we have the law concerning the deceit of a woman by a man, or vice versa.


First, we see that God protects a woman from deceitful intentions of a man. The desires which led to his taking her as his wife were not pure, v. 13. After their wedding night, his lust gratified, he desires to get rid of his new wife (cf. Amnon, 2 Sam. 8:15). In order to do this, he brings charges against her concerning her purity before their marriage. These were serious charges which would result in her death if proved true, v.21. Therefore, God provides for her protection.

Second, we see that God protects a man from deceitful intentions of a woman, vv. 20, 21. For whatever reason, the woman deceived her prospective husband into thinking she was pure. He finds out on their wedding night that he was deceived. Therefore, God's law makes provision for his protection.

The law permits the husband to go to the elders of the city, who act as the judges in the matter, and charge his new wife with not being pure, v. 14. The wife's father is her defense. He comes forward, and presents the evidence to the elders, v. 17. If the evidence proves his daughter is innocent of the charge by her husband, then the husband is chastised for bringing the false charge, fined 100 shekels of silver, and the husband is deprived of any future divorce right. (Normal dowry was 50 shekels, about three years wages for the average man. It was given to the girl's father, and thus out of the husband's reach.) The fine provided the wife with financial security. Furthermore, the husband's forfeits his right to divorce, which in practicality, he became her slave. Thus, she is protected by the law from both unholy desires and false charges from her husband.

On the other hand, if it is determined that the woman did intentionally deceive the man before their marriage, God's law requires her death, vv. 20, 21. Notice that the woman is not put to death for impurity before marriage (cf. Ex. 22:16, 17). Rather, she is put to death for deceiving the man.
There are two points in this law worth our notice.

1) The importance of beginning the marriage relationship with complete honesty. The Lord forbids people from passing themselves off as something they are not. This requirement does not require opening up every detail of one's past life to the other unless ignorance of that detail could damage the marriage relationship.
Paul is a good example of this law in action. We are told very little about his past life, only what is needful, but he never passes himself off as something that he is not.
2) The woman's father always has a certain amount of responsibility to protect his daughter. He is not actually 'free' of her until the death of either.
There is another division worth our attention, Deuteronomy 22:22-29.

First, a betrothed virgin was treated as a married woman, vv. 22-27.

Second, if the damsel is not betrothed or married, AND the maid is a virgin, the guilty man had to pay the father 50 shekels of silver (about 3 years wages), the dowry of a virgin. The Lord protects the family. On the other hand, if the maid is not a virgin, the man does not have to pay the dowry. There are other laws which come into action if the woman is playing the harlot, which we will not look at now.

Third, if the father of the girl permitted the marriage, the man had to marry the girl. He, not she, lost all right of divorce. He took marriage rights before marriage; therefore he loses any option after marriage. Because of his lack of freedom from his passions before marriage, he loses his freedom after marriage. He had no self-control before marriage; now she controls him after marriage. He seduced her into a compromised position before marriage; she has him in a compromised position after marriage. (Of course, adultery on her part after marriage would solve his problem. How tempting would it be for the husband to try to work something out along this line?)

Note that the man is the one responsible at all times. There is no mention of, nor provision for, what the woman might have done to entice the man. (Some time ago, a defendant in a rape trial in Florida pleaded that it was the immodest dress of the woman which prompted his action. People today use the same justification for not bringing their thoughts and actions under control as they are commanded, 2 Cor. 10:5. Such justification is ungodly. Remember Adam! The book of Proverbs covers this well, chs. 6 & 7.)

In short The man is responsible before God to be the moral backbone of a society. He pays the price, and loses his freedom for his moral failure. When he fails, society fails. He is a slave to his passions first of all, and civil freedom without freedom from his passions is impossible. (John 8:32, 36.) It is equally obvious that the required moral fiber must emanate from the word of God. There can be no 'saving' morality for society without the word and Spirit of God. Character training without the Christian God, who can only be approached through Jesus Christ, will not work. (John 14:6.)

By passions we must include far more than just the area of morality. A man may be as moral as the Lord Himself, yet unable to control in his passions.
Let us not think for a moment that the enemy of our souls doesn't know that if he can cause men to lose their self-control and moral fiber, he has gained society. Much of what we see around us today is geared for the breakdown: Pornography, advertising, TV, and entertainment of all kinds, & c.

The attack from all of these areas is primarily against the man, tearing down the self-control in his heart, which is why our Lord stressed the man's self-control. (1 Cor. 10:3-5, Mat. 5:27-29 & 15:18-20.) A defiled man must produce a defiled society. It is impossible for a man who is not free from the control of his passions to have freedom. A man who is a slave to his passions will reap from God an oppressive society. (Gal. 6:3-8.)

(Gal. 6:3-8. The person has confidence that he is in control, yet his spirit and passions are out of control he is deceived, v. 3. Everyone is to prove their spirit by their works the fruit of the Spirit of God, or the fruit of the spirit of the flesh, v. 4 [Gal. 5:19-25]. No one can blame anyone else for his failures each must bear his own fault, v. 5. Pay well the teacher of God's word, v. 6. The most blunt and easiest to understand Scripture in the word of God: Whatever spirit [5:19-25] that a person sows, that is what he shall also reap, vv. 7, 8. Therefore, a person or society that is captive to the spirit of the flesh will reap captivity. This is a law of God which cannot be avoided. Only the power of the resurrected Christ can free one from this captivity, 6:14-16.)

Obviously, the law of vv. 22-29 applies equally to woman, but the responsibility before God falls squarely upon the man. Women will reflect the attitude of the men in society. Therefore, we cannot emphasize enough the importance of self-control on the part of the man, especially before marriage, but also after marriage.

Foruth, if the father does not permit the marriage, the dowry is paid anyway, which gives her a double dowry upon marriage, making her an attractive prospective bride. The immoral action was an attack against the family, robbing the father of what was his, a virgin daughter. It also robbed the daughter of her own value to the man of her and her father's choice. Restitution must be made to the family.

Fifth, this law also assumes that the man is not an incorrigible person (habitual offender), who was severely dealt with, Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

Finally, it is impossible for one of these laws to stand alone. They are all intertwined.

We are living in a society where men refuse to take responsibility for anything, especially their own emotions and passions. But God holds them responsible, and their society will reflect what they are in the heart.

First published, 4/91, and edited since.


(Heb. 13:4)

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one: 11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. 12 They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Rom. 3:10.)

Those who deny the clear teaching of the word of God claim that each man has enough good within him that with enough education in the facts of a matter, he will make the right decision. However, Paul quotes Psalms 14, telling us that such an assumption is contrary to the Word of God. And God should know; He made us.
The fallen answer

Some time ago, the Indianapolis Star had an account of a survey in Greenwood, IN. They asked the parents of school age kids about sex education, and a surprising majority said they wanted more sex ed in the schools. We were visiting for a wedding in SC, and a local Sunday paper there proclaimed on the front page the out of control STD among youngsters. Those who were expressing their concern said they did not know what the answer was except more education.

And again:

Research questions success of sex education for adolescents

Written by BUPA's medical team - 17 June 2002

A review of 26 research trials regarding the effectiveness of sex education has been published in the British Medical Journal this week revealing some alarming conclusions.

The researchers looked at the effect sex education had on the age teenagers first had sexual intercourse, the increase in the use of birth control and also the incidence of unintended pregnancy in adolescents. Sex education classes and clinics in schools were examined in addition to family planning clinics and community based programmes.

The study found that sex education had no effect on delaying the initiation of sexual intercourse or improving the use of birth control or pregnancy rates. Worryingly data from five studies showed that the intervention of sex education may have increased pregnancies in partners of male participants. ...

They went on to say that prevention programmes may have to start earlier in childhood and sited a study undertaken with disadvantaged children under five years old that showed lower adolescent pregnancy rates. ...

Comment: the Sex Ed poison has had its effect, so what is the answer? Give the kids more poison earlier in life. The humanist's faith says that education is the answer for man's ills. Though the facts prove otherwise, their faith demands that they provide more "education", and they are willing to invest truckloads of money and multiplied years of time to accomplish the results their false faith "promises". It is certainly a shame that Christians cannot have the same kind of faiththat is, faith that continues on with the confidence of Christianizing the Nations (Mat. 28:19, 20) despite the appearance of losing the battle. The wicked continue in their hopeless cause by faith. If anyone should have hope, Christians should. Let us learn from the humanists, and continue in the faith.
The world's answer for contolling the unwanted results of free sex is a miserable failure. So let me give a course in Biblical Sex Education. I realize that to do this right in the world's eyes, this course should probably run at least 500 hoursthat is, a few hours a week for at least 12 years. But we will restrict ourselves to what the public perception was until about 50 years ago. Thus the sum total of our Sex Education course can be found in this short passage:
Marriage [is] honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. (Heb. 13:4.)

This is indeed a strange and seemingly foolish subject to cover, but we are being over-whelmed on every side with the need of proper sex education.

"Christian" authors are making fortunes on books about sex education from a Bible view point. The government schools are seeing their calling not to teach the basics of math, language, science, etc., but the basics of sex and drugs. The media is pumping out sex by the tube full right into our living rooms, in full living color.

As we listen to the Christian authors, secular educators and the media, one would question how the human race ever survived before sex education and seat belts. Who cares if Johnny can read or write as long as he knows how to have safe sex and fastens his seat belt?

Undoubtedly, there are many sincere Christians and pastors who are being influenced by this media blitz. Personally, I believe that the word of God gives all that a young person or an adult needs to know regarding this area of life. Do not tell the book writers and sellers this, because it will cost them money.

Maybe we should have titled this, "How to teach our children about sex," or, "How to have safe sex," or even, "Sex education from a Biblical view point," and then charge $10.00 for it. But we did not give this a fancy title, so we will not charge.

Hebrews 13:4, is no doubt "old hat" to almost everyone. All we would like to do is confront the tremendous public indoctrination which is going on in this area with some clear speaking Scripture.

First, marriage Marriage is instituted by God. God defines a family as a man and woman united together in the marriage covenant. The first marriage was performed by God in the garden, between Adam and Eve. A family unit is not a man and woman living together without this ceremony, nor is it a single person and a child. "Shacking up" is sin, and has God's judgment against the wickedness. God identifies the "shacking up" woman as a whore and the man as a whoremonger. God promises judgment against such wickedness as "living together" without marriage. Not only will He judge the individuals but He judges a society which condones such whoredoms.

God's Word defines a whore, whoremonger and a harlot as anyone who engages in sex outside of marriage. The term whore or/and whoremonger (male counterpart for whore) is not restricted for those who use their bodies for a fee. God told Old Testament Israel that she paid her lovers to come to her, and identified her actions as whoredoms.

Regardless of what our young men are being toldsex outside of marriage makes them a "man"sex outside of marriage make them whoremongers. Sex outside of marriage makes the girls a whorenot a "woman" as the humanist crowd would have us to believe.

These are strong terms, and they sound dirty and nasty, which they are. They sound much worse than "sexually active." The Bible term is "whoring around", not "sexually active." The question is not, "Is he or she sexually active?" The question is, "Is he or she whoring around?"
The foundation of society is the marriage and the family unit. When this foundation is not supported and adhered to, collapse must follow. (Ps. 11:3.) The only thing the righteous can do is flee to the mountain, the word of God. Draw closer to Him.
Nor is a family unit two sodomites living togetherthis is an abomination to God, and deserves the death penalty against those who persist in it. God leaves no doubt as to what He thinks about sodomy. (Rom. 1.) Again, if a society condones sodomy as an alternate life-style, God will judge the society, for it is a direct attack upon God: 1), God's created order, male or female, and 2), God's commanded law-order, marriage. When "Christians" will not stand against sex outside of marriage, how can they stand against abortions and sodomy?

Second, we see that marriage is honorable. The Church of Rome holds celibacy as the superior way, which is totally unBiblical. Paul, even as a single man set aside for God's purpose, tells us here that marriage is the honorable way. It is the superior way. Sin is what makes a mess out of what God ordained to be the honorable way. If it had been more honorable or superior to be celibate, Adam would not have had a wife. God's perfect plan is a man and woman covenanted together in marriage.
Misery in marriage is not God's way. It is a result of the tempter and his work. What we see ruling in the marriage relationship today is a result of people (both men and women) giving themselves over to the lust of the flesh, lust of the eye and the pride of life.

Marriage is honorable and any doctrine that teaches a better way must be contrary to God's Word. Yes, Paul was "celibate" but it was clearly for a special purpose which God had ordained for him. Moses was married as were the members of the Old Testament priesthood. Moreover, one the qualifications for both the elder and deacon of the New Testament church is marriage.

The Papal System and its priesthood, which we have seen develop over the past 1,400, years is a perversion of God's word. It is unBiblical, having God's judgment against it.

Marriage is an honorable condition of life. Abstaining from marriage (therefore sex), is not more honorable, nor is it a more pure way of life. From what we hear, those who pride themselves in being celibate, aren't. History has proved that "celibate" priesthood has had its whores on the side, and sodomy is rampant within the priesthood as the Roman church has worked to keep the guilty out of the hands of the civil authority.

Third, marriage is honorable in all, and the marriage bed undefiled. We are hearing volumes worth of material concerning the desperate need of "proper sex education." We hear this cry from a host of Christian authors as well as from the secular crowd. (We do need proper sex education, but the word of God gives us that education.)

The social planners cry out that because there is a lack of proper sex education, we have numerous cases of teen pregnancies, as well as uncontrolled STD. The number is growing, and mothers (unwed teen mothers in this case) are murdering their babies because they don't have proper sex education. (An unmarried woman may murder her unborn child, but this doesn't change the fact that she is now a mother.) We hear further that because there is a lack of proper sex education there is an epidemic of AIDS which, unchecked, will cover the earth, destroying about 1/3 of the world population. The message continues, we must teach our kids safe sex in order to avoid the growing list of social ills and diseases which stem from unsafe sex. (To which we say, "HOW TRUE!! Safe sex, which is marital sex, must be taught in the home and church. Because parents aren't we have a crisis on our hand".)

The Washington Post, 10/06/02.

"The Sugar Daddies' Kiss of Death." By Martha Frase-Blunt. Sex between older men, "Sugar Daddies" and younger women (girls between 15 & 19), is causing a horrendous increase of AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa, threatening to wipe out a whole generation of girls. The answer:

So-called "social marketing" programsmany funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development can have an impressive effect on behavior change. In Nairobi, I tagged along with sales reps as they sold cases of "Trust"AIDSMark's subsidized, stylishly branded condomto street vendors, brothels and lodging houses. Talking with prostitutes and their clients, I found a high level of awareness about HIV risks and prevention. Adult infection rates are falling in Kenya's capital amid a proliferation of bill boards and MTV-style televison ads touting safe sex as a lifestyle to aspire to. Among the urban crowd, condoms can actually pass as "cool." Who'd have thought it?

She concludes her article with this:

Large-scale social marketing movements can work. Let's hope the international health community is willing to put its smarts and sweat into this one.

Though she does mention "youth abstinence" one time in passing, the emphasis of the article is about changing "sexual behavior"that is, having "safe sex." Unrestrained sex is OK, only use a condom.

The Christian book publishers are crying for "sex education" (purchase our book. Could there be a profit motive here?) The secular crowd is crying "sex education," as they want to start safe sex education in pre-school. Can you imagine what can be taught about sex for 12 or 15 years?

I must admit that from what little I know of Scriptures, we need to teach our kids about safe sex. The pulpits have failed. The parents have failed. The devil's crowd is right in saying that we need more sex education. Many Christians and churches are letting them have seemingly unrestricted access to their children in the government schools and the mass media to teach whatever is politically correct at the time. The parents who leave their children in those situations are the ones to blame for the destruction of their children. When the enemy is given free access to the children, we can expect him to work for their destruction.

The pulpit and the parents must give a very intensive sex education course if we expect to save our kids. We must take every precaution to see that they only have safe sex, marital sex, by teaching them to avoid bad situations and keeping themselves pure until marriage.

Personally, I think you will have a problem improving on God's Word for proper sex education, and, really, if we listen to and believe all of the "hype" even from the so called Christian community, we would wonder how Mary, the mother of Jesus, survived her younger years. Or Joseph, for that matter. How did the godly saints of old survive without Dodson's books around or any one of the numerous other "Christian psychologists?" I sure do not know how humanity survived before psychology evolved. What has happened to Biblical pastoral counseling?

If a person is old enough to read and they are unmarried, let us give them a very in-depth Biblical and theological course in safe sex education, for it is the responsibility of the teachers of God's Word and the parents.

"Is he going to give us the Biblical method of using birth control devices?" --Yes. "Is he going to give the Biblical method of safe sex?" Yes. In fact, let me paint for you a very graphic and vivid picture of Biblical sex education. Really it boils down to two very easily understood points, (and very graphic, I might add). Teach this in your homes, and if it is adhered to, I guarantee (money back), perfect results. This goes for boys and girls alike.

1. Before marriage, hands off. Don't even touch one another. No kissing, no touching. Avoid situations where you are alone with another of the opposite sex. ("But that's old fashion. I want to enjoy life, boozing, sex and partying. But I won't smoke because that will harm my body. I don't want to be left out of the good times.")
Probably one of the saddest things we see today is that many parents do not want their kids to miss out on the "good time" years. They want them to "enjoy" those years, so they make the provisions for them to go to college. Such parents will be judged by God for making it convenient for their kids to "have a good time," partying, drinking, drugs and sex. Even though they may say that they do not condone those things, they put their stamp of approval upon them by making it convenient for their children to be involved in those actions, as well as pay for them with tuition. What makes parents think their kids are different today than they were when they were that age?

2. After marriage, anything goes, and they will soon learn what they need to know by experience. Of course, this second point must be understood within the restrictions given in Romans 1:27 That which is according to nature. Can you image stretching this two point Scriptural outline out over an eight or more year period in school?

God is quite clearanything that arouses unrighteous desires is wrong, PERIOD. Sex outside of marriage is whoredoms. It is wicked and ungodly. It leads to terrible results because it has the judgment of God against it. There is only one safe sex, and it is taught in Hebrews 13:4. Anything else is whoring around and God will judge it.
Within marriage, the bed is undefiled. It is holy and honorable, and has nothing to be ashamed of nor embarrassed over. Paul also deals with the marriage bed in 1 Corinthians 7:4 The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife. This passage identifies "marital rape" bills as direct attacks against the word of God.

Notice that assault rifles are not our problem. Rather, the problem is the assault on God's Word by both "Christians" and pagans.

Hebrews 13, God's Spirit gives the practical application of the faith which He has talked about for twelve chapters. 1) 1 Corinthians 6:9, God clearly tells us that those who can pursue an ungodly life style and God not deal with them are not saved. They shall not inherit the kingdom of God. 2) Hebrews 13:1, love. Genuine love will look out for the best for the other person. The girl says to the boy, "I love you." The boy says, "prove it." The proof of love is waiting until after marriage to do anything. Then and only then is anything permitted. Whoredom is not a proof of love. Whoredom is a proof of wicked, ungodly lust, and is usually proof of the need of salvation. More often than not, when a young person says, "I love you", it is more like, "I lust for you".

(Bettie, my second wife, tells young ladies that the next words out of the mouth of a young man who sais he loves you, must be "will you marry me?")

Now that the sex education course is over, let's look at the last point here, Hebrews 13:4.

Foruth, But whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. Sex outside of marriage will be judged. This is New Testament theology. We have already been warned that our God is a consuming fire. In fact, "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God. (Heb. 10:31.) Whoredom places a person into the hands of the living God.

In Hebrews 13:4, the Lord is clear He will judge those who follow after immorality. Whether it is uncontrolled thoughts or actions, the immoral person will not avoid the results. ("Go for it. Preach hard against immoral activity." How about the immoral thought life? God will judge that also.)

These sins of immorality are everywhere. We are desensitized to the seriousness of immorality and sex outside of marriage. The enemy has worked very hard, using the world and the flesh, to convince us that if we "care" one for another, then sex is okay. Yet, God is clearHis judgment is AGAINST moral sins. The serious evil of immorality is not being taught from our pulpits today. Is it any wonder that we are seeing immorality abound. "Faith doesn't affect student" sex behavior, poll finds," says the headline at the top of page A-2 of the Indianapolis Star, 5/29/89. Is it any wonder when the parents will not take a stand against immodest dress and immoral behavior, nor will the pulpits? Until we return to enforcing Biblical moral laws, we will continue in the modern immoral, ungodly mess which we have today, toward our own destruction. (Hosea 13:9.)

Immodesty and immorality (whether mental or physical), is wicked. Whatever takes place within the marriage covenant has His blessings upon it. The only safe sex is within the marriage covenant. Sex education!! We need to return to teaching proper sex and enforcing it in the home.
1) Before marriage. Hands off. Sex outside of the marriage covenant is whoredom and adultery .
2) After marriage, between the husband and wife. Go for it, for the marriage bed is undefiled, and it is blessed by God. It is honorable before God.

Added thought:


The New Testament passage is Romans 1:26, 27. Vile affections, i.e. sodomy, is defined as men with men, and likewise, women with women.

However, v. 26 could probably be used to say that when women are "used" contrary to their natural use, they have entered into uncleanness. Ephesians 5:3.

V. 27 with v. 25 tells us that to leavie the natural use of the woman is to confuse God's natural order.

V. 26, "shameful lusts, passions which are degrading, and the indulgence of which covers men with ignomity..." Charles Hodge. Note Romans 1:24, "Uncleanness through the lust of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:"

"Dishonour" can here be understood as not using our bodies (or our spouse's body) as God designed them to be used. Departing from the natural use of the body is to confuse the order God has established – it goes against God's established laws of nature.

Paul's words in Romans 1:19-32 condemn anything that goes against God's design of nature. Sex in the marriage bed is for procreation, and the only way procreation will work is according to nature.

Women's Empowerment Movements

1 Timothy 5

Though it is totally contrary to the fallen nature that is in so much control today, the glory and honour of the woman is to be content in the place God has given her in his order of things. Her business is not to be out and about, but to be keepers at home. On the other hand, the glory and honour of the man is to be out and about the Master's business, expanding the Kingdom of God into every corner of the world. Sadly, the effects of sin in men have forced, many times, godly women to move into grievously dangerous areas in order to support themselves.

Every area of modern society, including the church more often than not, is violently militating against God's word that the woman was made for the man. (1 Cor. 11:8, 9. However, both are on equal footing before the Lord, vv. 10-12.)
Paul gives Timothy important instructions concerning how the minister must treat women for whom he is responsible--as mothers and sisters. Ministers should have the same kind of loving concern for them as he does toward his family members.
Vv. 3, 4, widows Paul defines who is a widow worthy of church support. The widow seemes to be a special class of people within the church, having special jobs. In addition, Titus 2:3 lists the duty of widows in the church. The widow indeed in 1 Timothy 5:3, 4, could have been one who had no children, childless (v. 10). Though nothing is said in Timothy, the widow in Titus 2 is responsible to teach younger women how to love their husbands and children. The responsibilities of the widows indeed in Timothy are to trust in God, and continue in supplications and prayer night and day. (Cf., Anna, a prophetess, Lk. 2:36ff.) But the responsibilities of the widows as presented in Titus are more involved.
Titus 2, the widow is to teach the younger women, 1) to be sober, serious, 2) to love their husbands, 3) to love their children, 4) to be discreet, and 5) to be chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Thus we see that Christian women who does not do this blasphemes the word of God. They lead onlookers to say that Christianity does not work, it is of none effect, &c.

Notice that Paul's instructions are as opposed to modern thought as anything can possibly be. Women have started a group to work with women, as "Promise Keepers" works with men. I heard a woman state that the "female Promise Keepers" movement is not about being in subjection to their husbands (as promoted by the Southern Baptist), but it was about empowering women. Such an idea is totally contrary to what is clearly spelled out in the word of God, but it obviously appeals to the fallen nature.

Concerning Titus 2:1, Matthew Henry (1662-1714) comments:

2. To the aged women. These also must be instructed and warned. Some by these aged women understand the deaconesses, who were mostly employed in looking after the poor and attending the sick; but it is rather to be taken (as we render it) of all aged women professing religion. They must be in behaviour as becometh holiness: both men and women must accommodate their behaviour to their profession. Those virtues before mentioned (sobriety, gravity, temperance, soundness in the faith, charity, and patience), recommended to aged men, are not proper to them only, but applicable to both sexes, and to be looked to by aged women as well as men. Women are to hear and learn their duty from the word, as well as the men: there is not one way of salvation for one sex or sort, and another for another; but both must learn and practise the same things, both as aged and as Christians; the virtues and duties are common. That the aged women likewise (as well as the men) be in behaviour as becometh holiness; or as beseems and is proper for holy persons, such as they profess to be and should be, keeping a pious decency and decorum in clothing and gesture, in looks and speech, and all their deportment, and this from an inward principle and habit of holiness, influencing and ordering the outward conduct at all times. Observe, Though express scripture do not occur, or be not brought, for every word, or look, or fashion in particular, yet general rules there are according to which all must be ordered; as#1Co 10:31, Whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. And#Php 4:8, Whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things. And here, whatsoever things are beseeming or unbeseeming holiness form a measure and rule of conduct to be looked to. Not false accusers -[Greek word], no calumniators or sowers of discord, slandering and backbiting their neighbours, a great and too common fault; not only loving to speak, but to speak ill, of people, and to separate very friends. A slanderer is one whose tongue is set on fire of hell; so much, and so directly, do these do the devil's work, that for it the devil's name is given to such. This is a sin contrary to the great duties of love, justice, and equity between one another; it springs often from malice and hatred, or envy, and such like evil causes, to be shunned as well as the effect. Not given to much wine; the word denotes such addictions thereto as to be under the power and mastery of it. This is unseemly and evil in any, but especially in this sex and age, and was too much to be found among the Greeks of that time and place. How immodest and shameful, corrupting and destroying purity both of body and mind! Of what evil example and tendency, unfitting for the thing, which is a positive duty of aged matrons, namely, to be teachers of good things! Not public preachers, that is forbidden(#1Co 14:34, I permit not a woman to speak in the church), but otherwise teach they may and should, that is, by example and good life. Hence observe, Those whose actions and behaviour become holiness are thereby teachers of good things; and, besides this, they may and should also teach by doctrinal instruction at home, and in a private way. The words of king Lemuel, the prophecy his mother taught him. Such a woman is praised, She openeth her mouth with wisdom, and in her tongue is the law of kindness, #Pr 31:1,26. Teachers of good things are opposed to teachers of things corrupt, or to what is trifling and vain, of no good use or tendency, old wives' fables or superstitious sayings and observances; in opposition to these, their business is, and they may be called on to it, to be teachers of good things. (Online Bible.)


First, "Women are to hear and learn their duty from the word, as well as the men: there is not one way of salvation for one sex or sort, and another for another; but both must learn and practice the same things, both as aged and as Christians; the virtues and duties are common."

Second, it is evil and shameful for women to be "public preachers," other than by their chaste actions and behaviour.

Third, they can "teach by doctrinal instruction at home, and in a private way."

3. There are lessons for young women also, whom the aged women must teach, instructing and advising them in the duties of religion according to their years. For teaching such things aged women have often better access than the men, even than ministers have, which therefore they must improve in instructing the young women, especially the young wives; for he speaks of their duty to their husbands and children. These young women the more aged must teach,

(1.) To bear a good personal character: To be sober and discreet, contrary to the vanity and rashness which younger years are subject to: discreet in their judgments and sober in their affections and behaviour. Discreet and chaste stand well together; many expose themselves to fatal temptations by that which at first might be but indiscretion. #Pr 2:11, Discretion shall preserve thee, understanding shall keep thee from the evil way. Chaste, and keepers at home, are well joined too. Dinah, when she went to see the daughters of the land, lost her chastity. Those whose home is their prison, it is to be feared, feel that their chastity is their fetters. Not but there are occasions, and will be, of going abroad; but a gadding temper for merriment and company sake, to the neglect of domestic affairs, or from uneasiness at being in her place, is the opposite evil intended, which is commonly accompanied with, or draws after it, other evils. #1Ti 5:13-14, They learn to be idle, wandering from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busy-bodies, speaking things which they ought not. Their business is to guide the house, and they should give no occasion to the enemy to speak reproachfully. Good, generally, in opposition to all vice; and specially, in her place, kind, helpful, and charitable; as Dorcas, full of good works and almsdeeds. It may also have, as some think, a more particular sense; one of a meek and yet cheerful spirit and temper, not sullen nor bitter; not taunting nor fretting and galling any; not of a trouble-some or jarring disposition, uneasy in herself and to those about her; but of a good nature and pleasing conversation, and likewise helpful by her advice and pains: thus building her house, and doing her husband good, and not evil, all her days. Thus in their personal character sober, discreet, chaste, keepers at home, and good: and,

(2.) In their relative capacities: To love their husbands, and to be obedient to them: and where there is true love this will be no difficult command. God, in nature, and by his will, hath made this subordination: I suffer not a woman to usurp authority over the man (#1Ti 2:12); and the reason is added: For Adam was first formed, then Eve. Adam was not deceived, but the woman, being deceived, was in the transgression, #Tit 2:13-14. She fell first, and was the means of seducing the husband. She was given to be a helper, but proved a most grievous hinderer, even the instrument of his fall and ruin, on which the bond of subjection was confirmed, and tied faster on her (#Ge 3:16): Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, with less easiness, it may be, than before. It is therefore doubly enjoined: first in innocency, when was settled a subordination of nature, Adam being first formed and then Eve, and the woman being taken out of the man; and then upon the fall, the woman being first in the transgression, and seducing the man; here now began to be a subjection not so easy and comfortable, being a part of the penalty in her case; yet through Christ is this nevertheless a sanctified state. #Eph 5:22-23, Wives submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord, as owning Christ's authority in them, whose image they bear; 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. God would have a resemblance of Christ's authority over the church held forth in the husband's over the wife. Christ is the head of the church, to protect and save it, to supply it with all good, and secure or deliver it from evil; and so the husband over the wife, to keep her from injuries, and to provide comfortably for her, according to his ability. Therefore, as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be unto their own husbands, as is fit in the Lord (#Col 3:18), as comports with the law of Christ, and is for his and the Father's glory. It is not then an absolute, or unlimited, nor a slavish subjection that is required; but a loving subordination, to prevent disorder or confusion, and to further all the ends of the relation. Thus, in reference to the husbands, wives must be instructed in their duties of love and subjection to them. And to love their children, not with a natural affection only, but a spiritual, a love springing from a holy sanctified heart and regulated by the word; not a fond foolish love, indulging them in evil, neglecting due reproof and correction where necessary, but a regular Christian love, showing itself in their pious education, forming their life and manners aright, taking care of their souls as well as of their bodies, of their spiritual welfare as well as of their temporal, of the former chiefly and in the first place. The reason is added: That the word of God may not be blasphemed. Failures in such relative duties would be greatly to the reproach of Christianity.

"What are these the better for this their new religion?"

would the infidels be ready to say. The word of God and the gospel of Christ are pure, excellent, and glorious, in themselves; and their excellency should be expressed and shown in the lives and conduct of their professors, especially in relative duties; failures here being disgrace. #Ro 2:24, The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you.

"Judge what a God he is,"

would they be ready to say,

"by these his servants; and what his word, and doctrine, and religion, are by these his followers."

Thus would Christ be wounded in the house of his friends. Thus of the duties of the younger women.


First, those women who view their homes as a prison are in danger of losing their chastity.

Second, wives are commanded "To love their husbands, and to be obedient to them..." The "modern liberated woman" sees this command as very difficult, oppressive and restrictive. However, "where there is true love this will be no difficult command" for the wife

Third, God, in His divine providence and for His own good pleasure alone, is the one who placed women in His order of things. Fallen men and women are the ones who are intent in overthrowing God's order. The women's empowerment movements over the ages have been rebellion against God's natural order. Note -- men and women rebel against nature, and nature rebels against men and women.

Fourth, since Eve's sin, women have found it very hard and uncomfortable to be in subjection to men -- her father or her husband. However, her subjection is part of her penalty for Eve's sin, just as is man's required hard, and many times futile, labour for his living part of his penalty for Adam's sin. Sin caused man's hard labour to many times fail, just as sin caused a woman to be in subjection to the man. In both cases, the fallen nature seeks ways to avoid the results of the fall apart from the work of Christ.

Fifth, the husband's proper love to his wife and the wife's proper love for her husband and subjection to him prevents disorder and confusion in the family, in the church and in society. (All parts of society are in great confusion today.)

Sixth, proper love is something that must be learned from those who have learned it. It is something that must be taught from the word of God and from experience. Wives must be instructed in their proper duties (love) toward their husbands and their children -- it is not something that comes naturally. Pastors are unqualified to provide this instruction for the younger women. The godly aged women (over 60, 1 Tim. 5:9) are to teach the young women. They are to pass on what they have learned from practical experience. They are to pass on what they learned in how to apply God's word into their families.

A wife can rightly tell the pastor, "You do not know what I have to go through." However, she cannot justly say that to the aged women who have been through or have seen about every imaginable situation a wife can go through.

Seventh, the Christian God, the Lord Jesus Christ, is judged by the pagans by the actions of professing Christians. Thus when Christians fail in Christianity as outlined by the Spirit, they wound Christ.

I realize Gill (1696-1771, Online Bible) is quite "old fashion," but his comments at Titus 2:5 are worth noting: To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.

Ver. 5. To be discreet, &c.] Or temperate in eating and drinking, so the word is rendered in#Tit 2:2 or to be sober both in body and mind; or to be wise and prudent in the whole of their conduct, both at home and abroad:

chaste; in body, in affection, words and actions, having their love pure and single to their own husbands, keeping their marriage bed undefiled.

Keepers at home: minding their own family affairs, not gadding abroad; and inspecting into, and busying themselves about other people's matters. This is said in opposition to what women are prone unto. It is reckoned among the properties of women, by the Jews, that they are
twynauwy , "gadders abroad" {x}: they have some rules about women's keeping at home; they say {y},

"a woman may go to her father's house to visit him, and to the house of mourning, and to the house of feasting, to return a kindness to her friends, or to her near relations--but it is a reproach to a woman to go out daily; now she is without, now she is in the streets; and a husband ought to restrain his wife from it, and not suffer her to go abroad but about once a month, or twice a month, upon necessity; for there is nothing more beautiful for a woman, than to abide in the corner of her house; for so it is written, #Ps 45:13 "the king's daughter is all glorious within"."

And this they say {z} is what is meant by the woman's being an helpmeet for man, that while he is abroad about his business, she is
tybb tbvwy , "sitting at home", and keeping his house; and this they observe is the glory and honour of the woman. The passage in #Isa 44:13 concerning an image being made "after the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, that it may remain in the house" is by the Targum thus paraphrased:
"according to the likeness of a man, according to the praise of a woman, to abide in the house."

Upon which Kimchi, has this note.

"it is the glory of a woman to continue at home, and not go abroad."

The tortoise, which carries its house upon its back, and very rarely shows its head, or looks out of it, was, with the ancients, an emblem of a good housewife. These also should be instructed to be "good" or "kind" to their servants, and beneficent to the poor, and to strangers, towards whom, very often, women are apt to be strait handed, and not so generous and liberal as they should be:

obedient to their own husbands; see Gill on "Eph 5:22", see Gill on "Eph 5:24".

that the word of God be not blasphemed; by unbelieving husbands, who, by the ill conduct of their wives, would be provoked to speak ill of the Gospel, as if that taught disaffection and disobedience to them.

{x} Bereshit Rabba, sect. 45. fol. 40. 3.

{y} Maimon. Hilchot Ishot, c. 13. sect. 11.

{z} Tzeror Hammor, fol. 5. 4.

"But Matthew Henry and John Gill are old fashion. They are out of touch with reality. If they lived today, they would not be so dogmatic." We must raise this question: What has happened to society since the women's empowerment movements have gained prominence?

Though totally contrary to the fallen nature that is in so much control today, the glory and honour of the woman is to be content in the place God has given her in his order of things -- that is, under authority. Her business is not to be out and about, but to be keepers at home. On the other hand, the glory and honour of the man is to be out and about the Master's business, expanding the Kingdom of God into every corner of the world.

We will not cover it at this time, but Paul did not place all the responsibility on young women. Everything he placed upon women is likewise applicable to men:

Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded. (Tit. 2:6.)

Ver. 6. Young men likewise exhort to be sober minded.] Temperate, chaste, modest, moderate, wise, and prudent in all things: this is said to Titus, as being his province to instruct and exhort the young men; as it were proper and convenient for aged women to teach the young women how they should behave and conduct themselves. (Gill)

The many modern women's empowerment movements, both inside and outside the "church," are clearly the spirit of the antichrist at work.


The Feminization of Christian America

Generally, feminism means the advocacy of women's rights to full citizenship--that is, political, economic, and social equality with men. Feminism encompasses some widely differing views, however, including those which advocate female separatism...

Despite differences, most feminists seek equal economic rights; support reproductive rights, including the right to abortion; criticize traditional definitions of gender roles; and favor raising children of both genders for similar public achievements and domestic responsibilities. Many wish to reform language so that it does not equate man with humanity. Many also campaign vigorously against violence against women (wife battering, rape) and against the denigration of women in the media. (Multimedia encyclopedia, 1992 edition.)

"Christian Feminism" is exposed with the question, "Who will control the family and church? Will they be controlled by husbands and fathers or by wives and mothers?"
For space's sake, I have edited out my extensive comments concerning the importance of godly women and mothers in Scripture, and various other documenting points. Check the unedited version at <wttp://> before you judge me as being anti-woman. We must conclude that throughout Scripture, godly women, both single and married, have played important roles in the kingdom of God and its work on this earth, including spreading the gospel.

The following, therefore, is not meant to downplay the importance of women in God's Kingdom Work. However, it is meant to call attention to the fact that the Feminist movement has made inroads into the Christian family and the church, quite contrary to the word of God. So some, both women and men, may find the following comments quite disconcerting they may not be any better received today than they were when Archibald Thomas Robertson made the comment, quoted below, in 1931.

However, these Examiner articles have never been to make folks, including myself, feel good about self nor about where we are in our Christian lives. More often than not, these articles point out how far society, even Christian society, has moved from the word of God. The move has not only taken place in practice, but has taken place in our emotions to where we emotionally resist God's instructions, e.g., "I am confident in my heart that what Paul said somehow does not wholly apply now."

"Feminism" would be defined as a woman's movement that seeks "equal rights" with men in every area, particularly in the home and church and including the work place. However, someone must have the final authority. Will it be the man or woman? Paul spoke to this situation several times, e.g.:

Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. (1 Cor. 14:34.)

{Keep silence in the churches} ( en taiv ekklhsiaiv sigatwsan ). The same verb used about the disorders caused by speakers in tongues (verse #28) and prophets (#30). For some reason some of the women were creating disturbance in the public worship by their dress (#11:2-16) and now by their speech. There is no doubt at all as to Paul's meaning here. In church the women are not allowed to speak ( lalein ) nor even to ask questions. They are to do that {at home} ( en oikw ). He calls it a shame ( aiscron ) as in #11:6 (cf. #Eph 5:12; Tit 1:11). Certainly women are still in subjection ( upotassesywsan ) to their husbands (or ought to be). But somehow modern Christians have concluded that Paul's commands on this subject, even #1Ti 2:12, were meant for specific conditions that do not apply wholly now. Women do most of the teaching in our Sunday schools today. It is not easy to draw the line. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses. It seems clear that we need to be patient with each other as we try to understand Paul's real meaning here. (Emp. added. RWP, Online Bible.)

Robertson points out that in his day 70 years ago, Paul's words were being dismissed. So the challenge by Christian Feminists against things that might hinder their usurping authority (1 Tim. 2:12) has been around for years. I must also agree with Robertson that we do not understand all that was involved in Paul's words (cf., 2 Pet. 3:16), so what follows probably overlooks some things. At the risk of being accused of "bashing" women, I will proceed with the word of God.
We will point out where we are today compared to the word of God; we will consider comments by godly men of the past; then we will point out how we got here, and what might be done about it.

Where are we?

Speaking with a pastor some time ago, he pointed out that he was facing a problem. While men liked his preaching/teaching and had even invited him to hold a Bible study during their break time at work in a local factory, the wives did not. So the wives were pressing their husbands to go elsewhere where they could be "fed" and "comfortable." He told me of some plans he had to deal with the foreseen problem.

No doubt that pastor is not unique in the problem. Pastors face a distressing challenge: More often than not, the wives in Christian families make the decisions as to where the family will go to "worship" and "serve" the Lord. Wives are taking over the religious authority in Christian families. (Having worked in bus ministries for many years, I have heard more than a few unsaved husbands say that they leave "religion" up to their wives. That now seems to be a prevalent attitude among Christian families.)

There are pastors who realize the social climate among Christian families. The result is that churches catering to that "needs" of the wives to "feel fed" and emotionally involved are gaining in numbers. And then onlookers say, "My! That church sure has God's blessing upon it, for it is gaining large numbers of people."


First, not long ago at a parents' meeting where our daughter was enrolled in a Christian school, another parent told me of a good friend of his who attended a local church. Though that church has been without a pastor for well over a year, it experienced great numerical growth. They have an hour or so of music interspersed with personal testimonies. The increased attendance has caused them to build. The pastor of the school commented to me that we both can remember when churches were built upon sound and serious expositions of God's word.

Second, I attended a funeral of a pastor's wife's mother at a church that had formerly been a small very rural Baptist Church. The small church changed its name and changed its emphasis from preaching God's word to music, and has had to build three times in the last few years to accommodate the increased attendance. They now have 45-60 minutes of uplifting music, and a short sermonette of 15 or so minutes. (I personally know of other formerly sound Baptist churches that have done the same thing in order to hold and increase their attendance. Though in the past they preached against such things, they now promote "Contemporary Christian" music, i.e., "Worship" music, whatever that might be, and the attendance increases.)

Third, a local United Methodist Church packed out its new building with a 45 minute music service and a 15 minute devotional message. They are already considering expanding their new building (less than two years old) to accommodate the increased attendance of young couples.

Those who remember through WWII will admit that the women going into the factories and becoming self-sufficient was a devastating blow against the Christian family. The result was an overwhelming independent spirit among women, including Christian women. That spirit is readily apparent in the modern "Feminist" movement. We are, accordingly, in the final death throes of a once Christian society, for the Christian foundation that was built upon sound instruction in the word of God is gone. Scripturally, the foundation of a Godly, free society is in the godly family where husbands rule well their own homes. (1 Tim. 3, Titus 1:6-16. See Edersheim's Sketches of Jewish Life below.)

Ruleth well his own house (1 Tim. 3:4) includes the husband providing for his own house (1 Tim. 4:8), loving his wife even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it (Eph. 5:25), loving his wife as his own body (v. 28) and establishing the "religion" of his family based upon the word of God (1 Tim. 2:12-14). It includes seeking first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, (Mat. 6:33).

Though "somehow modern Christians have concluded that Paul's commands on this subject, even 1Timothy 2:12, were meant for specific conditions that do not apply wholly now", God's word is specific:

21 Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God. 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. (Eph. 5.)

Note that Christ's headship over the church is connected to the husband's headship in his home. When one is compromised, so is the other. Also note that Ephesians 5:24 is given before v. 25, Husbands, love your wives...

18 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord. 19 Husbands, love your wives, and be not bitter against them. (Col. 3. See also Titus 2:5.)

The command to the wife is given before the command to the husband. Moreover, the husband is forbidden to be bitter against his wife if she fails to submit to him. (See also v. 22.)

1 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. 3 Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; 4 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. 5 For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: 6 Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement. 7 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. (1 Pet 3.)

Note: 1) the wife is told to be in subjection to her own husband (her own husband, not to another man in the work force, not even in a church nor Christian school), saved or unsaved, for it says, if any husband obey not the word. 2) The hope is that the husband will be won over to obey the word through the wife's chaste conversation, i.e., godly life and attitude of the meek and quiet spirit. 3) the subjection and the meek and quiet spirit is a sign of the wife's trust in God to do what she cannot do, i.e., win her husband to obedience to the Word, v. 5. (Obviously, subjection is within the bounds of God's Word: "Woman does not lose her rational power of thought and responsibility by abiding in the place assigned her by the gospel; and she also has a right to prove all thingsonly in a manner suited to her positionin order that she may hold fast that which is good, and reject what is otherwise." Pastoral Epistles, by Patrick Fairbairn, 127. T & T Clark. 1874. Reprint by Klock & Klock. 1980.) 4) Meekness is required of all people, particularly of those in authority, if we expect to see God work his repentance in the hearts of others. (2 Tim. 2:25.)

Let me reproduce one comment 1 Corinthians 14:34, and urge you to check the other comments in the unedited version posted on our web site:

But they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. In #Ge 3:16, "thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee". By this the apostle would signify, that the reason why women are not to speak in the church, or to preach and teach publicly, or be concerned in the ministerial function, is, because this is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men. The extraordinary instances of Deborah, Huldah, and Anna, must not be drawn into a rule or example in such cases. (John Gill [1696-1771]. See also, JFB, Online Bible; Sketches of Jewish Life, Alfred Edersheim [1825-1899], p. 146; An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Charles Hodge [1797-1878], pp. 304, 305; Barnes' Notes, Online Bible; Matthew Henry [1662-1714], Online Bible; An Exposition of the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Charles Hodge [1797-1878], pp. 304, 305.)

Yes, the above quote (and others referred to) is from the past, made by a man totally out of touch with modern times and the modern social temper, but let me ask Has society improved in godliness in the last 100-200 years? I realize that Paul, in 1 Corinthians 14, is talking about the confusion caused by Christian women speaking in "tongues" in the Christian assembly, but note what he saidthe wife is, by law, commanded to learn basically from her husband.

Thus when the Christian wife forces her will in any area (we expect pagan wives to do that, because the carnal mind is enmity against God, Rom. 8:7), it "is an act of power, and authority; of rule and government, and so contrary to that subjection which God in his law requires of women unto men." It moves her outside of her God-ordained place, and usurps her husband's government from over his family. (Several years ago I was told by another pastor, who had first hand knowledge, of a pastor's wife who taught the ladies of her husband's church how to get what they wanted from their husbands. Obviously, all wives know this, but the point is that the women of the church were being "taught" how to do that.)

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. (1 Tim. 2:12.)

Nor to usurp authority; as she would should she undertake publicly to teach. It is the revealed will of God that public religious teachers should be men, not women. He has allotted to them different spheres of action, and the perfection of each consists not in aspiring or submitting to occupy the place of the other, but in performing their own appropriate duties. (Family Commentary, Online Bible.)

Note Thayer's definition of usurp authority:

1) one who with his own hands kills another or himself 2) one who acts on his own authority, autocratic 3) an absolute master 4) to govern, exercise dominion over one (usurp authority is only used one time in Scripture, and Thayer lists it under 4).

This passage, accordingly, forbids women from usurping men's place in the church, home and in societyin "Sunday Schools", "Christian Schools" and on church staffs!! Implied is that when a woman usurps authority, she strikes a death blow against that area with her own hands. (Look around. The results speak for themselves.)
By teaching in a public assembly, the congregation of the Lord, the woman usurps authority over the man, which is strictly forbidden her by God himself. (Family Commentary, Online Bible. Exception, Titus 2:4.) While women are commended for teaching their own children in the home, e.g., Timothy's mother and grandmother taught him, teaching the Bible in the church is an act of power and authority over men, a place forbidden to her, for it supposes the teacher to be superior in office and abilities. (Gill) "And yet all modern Christians allow women to teach Sunday school classes. One feels somehow that something is not expressed here to make it all clear." (RWP)

How did it happen?

When did the husband start to lose the governance of his family to his wife? What brought it about? We should ask, "What was the start of the Feminization of Christian America?" (The French Revolution gave Feminism a great boost in Europe.) Apparently, it started with the women's commendable efforts against drunkenness, which developed into women's suffrage and modern feminism . The cause against drunkenness in society was just, but the means used in that cause against drunkenness led to what we have today in feminism.

The unsettled nature of the frontier accounts in some part for this unique campaign against liquor. In developed sections of the world, society was better organized, and effective law enforcement protected the church and its ministers against disturbances. But in the wilderness, where society had not taken root, and was still fluid and unrestrained by agencies of law, the church was faced with the basic task of protecting itself for survival and self-respect. It set out to do for itself what others would not or could not do for it. Moreover, on this money-scarce frontier liquor was draining off much of the money used for the necessities of life. This slowed development, including that of the church.

Following the clergy, the first among the laity to take up the banner of abstinence were the women, individually and then in organized crusades. Few took the arduous action of Carry Nation (1846-1911, ed.) and resorted to the hatchet, but many who had had difficulty keeping the pot boiling because the saloonkeeper beat the groceryman to the family wages became wandering, dedicated missionaries pleading for sobriety.

In time, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union was organized. (The WCTU of the United States, was founded in 1874 in Cleveland, Ohio. It is an organization of women seeking to improve public morals, especially through abstinence from alcoholic beverages and narcotics. Ed.) The dry movement then took on numerous ramifications, particularly in politics. The movement was associated with, in order, the woman's rights movement resulting in woman suffrage, national prohibition, and the rise of gangsterism. Political parties were formed based on the issue, and in many sections, to this day, the lines are more closely drawn between Wets and Drys than between the Republicans and the Democrats.

At first the church congregations were inclined to bear with members whose thirst had been too much for them. It was the practice in many churches to administer correction which consisted in an acknowledgement of intemperance by the accused, whereupon the congregation would vote that the accused was censorable. Many churches would bear with members if it appeared they "were deceived or taken in," or if they promised "with the help of God to abstain for the future." There is record of one brother's bringing a complaint against himself. He expressed sorrow for his sin and stated that the Lord had pardoned him. The church followed the stated example of the Lord and permitted him to remain in fellowship.

As time went on, churches took an increasingly firm stand on drinking. Church minutes reveal expulsions for "drinking to excess," "for having been repeatedly Intoxicated with spiritous liquors," "for parting with his wife, getting drunk and dancing," "for drinking to excess and offering to fight.''14 (14 See Sweet, The Baptists, for reproduced church minutes showing numerous such examples.) Whiskey was responsible for the short duration of some memberships. For example, the minutes of one church reveal that "Elder R. G. Green joined by letter December 1838, and was excluded for drunkenness in February 1840.''15 (15 J. M. Carroll, History of the Texas Baptist [Dallas: Baptist Standard Publishing Company, 1923], p. 125.)

The Wets did not cork their bottles just because of the blast from the pulpit or the march of the "petticoat brigades," though none could ignore the concerted attempt to "dry up the country." About as much as they could do was to serve as examples for their cause, vote for it, and make jokes about the opposition.
For example, it was said of one candidate for political office that he would "belly up to the church and back up to the bar."

The drinking fraternity also enjoyed telling a story about a pious sister of the Anti-Saloon League who accosted a wobbly cowboy on the street, well along in his cups: "What are you going to do when you approach the Lord with whiskey on your breath?" she demanded, pointing a long finger under his nose.
The cowboy steadied himself for a moment, then said: "Lady, when I approach the Lord, I'm going to leave my breath here.''16 (16 Shine Philips, Big Spring [New York: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1945], p. 79.)

The imbibers had their laughs, but it became increasingly evident that the church's crusade against liquor was no joke.

(Bible in Pocket, Gun in Hand. The Story of Frontier Religion, Ross Phares. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln. First Bison Book printing, 97-101. 1971.)

In the United States, woman suffrage (the right to vote) began with a declaration of women's rights issued on July 19, 1848, by Mott, Stanton, and other feminists. The movement gained momentum with the formation in 1869 of the National Woman Suffrage Association, which sought woman suffrage through a constitutional amendment. Lucretia Mott and Elizabeth Cady Stanton (1815-1902), worked closely with Susan B. Anthony for women's suffrage. Stanton and Mott dominated the first women's rights convention at Seneca Falls, New York, in July 1848. (Zane Reference Library, CD.)

The temperance movement was also closely tied with the labor movement:

Knights of Labor (1869) This organization was founded by Uriah S. Stephens. By the 1800s its membership was about 700,000, with Terence Powderly as its president. Men, women, blacks, whites, aliens, the well-educated, the illiterate, the skilled, agrarian workers, industrial workers, and clerks formed its 6000 local unions. Political goals, such as the graduated income tax, temperance, abolition of child labor, cooperatives, supplemented the usual economic demands for more pay, fewer hours, and other improvements in working conditions... (Ibid. It disintegrated in the violent public reaction against all organized labor caused by the Haymarket Riot of 1886.)

Prohibition, i.e., temperance required by law (18 Amendment, 1919), was "the product of a century-long reform movement. ... Prohibitionists ... argued that it was the government's responsibility to free citizens from the temptation of drink by barring its sale." (Multimedia Encyclopedia, v. 1. CD. Comment: Accordingly, should not the "gun control" crowd also be calling for "prohibition?" If it is the State's responsibility to control guns, is it not the State's responsibility to control liquor?) This idea says that it is the State's responsibility to see that women are equal with men in all areas of life.

Temperance certainly is a commendable goal. The problem, however, was that temperance was seen as a virtue apart from any Biblical foundation. (Acts 24:25, &c.) "Plato argues in the Republic that when reason rules the soul, as is its function, the soul is virtuous; as such, it possesses wisdom, bravery, temperance, and justice." (Zane) Thus the Christian readily sees the problem "when reason rules the soul," these commendable things take place. On the other hand, Christians must say that the "soul" is inherently and wickedly corrupt, so that only when the Spirit of God rules the "soul" through Christian conversion, these commendable things take place. Plato's assumption rules today.


I heard an interview on Public Radio International some time ago. The woman being interviewed believed that as the "poor" and "downtrodden" studied the "classics," they would be raised out of their lowly conditions by their own "bootstraps." The first "classic" she had them study was Plato's Republic. Observe:

(23) I know now what I say seems intolerable to some, but I must act according to the reason of things, not to the whims of wishes. Let anyone who is angry at me tell me: Has not Socrates always been considered the wisest of all men and that even by the testimony of the Delphic demon who was, as it were, the prince of philosophers as well as the prince of demons? Let us see what laws Socrates appointed about chastity and what laws the Vandals, about whom I am speaking, decreed. Socrates said : 53 'Let no man have his own wife, for marriages should be common to all; for thus there will be greater harmony among the cities if all the men cohabit, without discrimination, with all the women: and all the women submit themselves to all the men, without discrimination: if all the men become the husbands of all the women, all the women will become the wives of all the men.'

Have we ever known any madman or one possessed of the devil, or one made raving mad by the various blemishes of, insanities who spoke anything like this? You say, O greatest of philosophers, that by this ordinance all the men are the husbands of all the women, and all the women are the wives of all the men, and the children are the children of all. But I say that, by this ordinance, no man is the husband of any woman nor is any woman the wife of any man, nor is any offspring the child of any parent, for, where all is promiscuity and confusion, there is nobody who can claim anything as his own.

As some say, it was not sufficient for the wisest of philosophers to teach this unless he practiced it, that is, he gave his wife to another man, just as Cato the Roman who is the other Socrates of Italy. 54 Behold what things are the examples of Roman and Attic wisdom! They made all husbands, inasmuch as was in their power to do so, their wives' pimps. Socrates, however, surpassed the others. He composed books on this subject and bequeathed to posterity these shameful thoughts. 55 He had more whereby he could glorify himself by his teachings. Insofar as it pertains to his teaching, he made a brothel of the world.

53 Plato, Republic 5, 437. 54 Cato gave his wife, Marcia, to a friend to breed children. 55 Probable reference to Plato's Socratic Dialogues. (The Writings of Salvian, the Presbyter, (c. 400 AD) [The Governance of God] Translated by Jeremiah F. O'Sullivan, Ph.D. New York, CIMA Publishing Co., Inc. © 1947. Fathers of the Church, III.220, 221.)

Here we see this female trying to get the "poor" and "downtrodden" to lift themselves by their own "bootstraps" with Plato's Republic. Intentionally or unintentionally, she is returning "womanhood" to paganism, where women are treated as not much more than a piece of property, including to breed children. It was the God of the Bible, including the Apostle Paul's writings, that brought women out of Plato's pagan bondage. PRI then interviewed one student who talked about how great are Plato's ideas about democracy.

Drunkenness and Feminism

This pastor is not overlooking nor downplaying the clear and present danger of drunkenness God's word is so clear about the matter that it would be redundant to deal with drunkenness here. However, we can draw some conclusions from the above:

First, the public was persuaded that it was the State's responsibility to prevent drunkenness, an idea that now controls every area, e.g., "It is the State's responsibility to control murder, so we must have gun control." "It is the State's responsibility" mentality led to political movements in the United States to deal with spiritual problems (this was after the French Revolution, which gave birth to a new religion, "Patriotism." See TBE, 2/95):

In time, the Woman's Christian Temperance Union was organized. The dry movement then took on numerous ramifications, particularly in politics. The movement was associated with, in order, the woman's rights movement resulting in woman suffrage, national prohibition, and the rise of gangsterism. Political parties were formed based on the issue, and in many sections, to this day, the lines are more closely drawn between Wets and Drys than between the Republicans and the Democrats. (Bible in Pocket)
The American Temperance Society, founded in 1826, began gathering pledges of abstinence. In the 1840s the Washington Temperance Societies conducted revival-style meetings to encourage similar pledges. Reformer Neal Dow persuaded Maine to approve (1846) the first statewide prohibition law and then led attempts to secure such laws elsewhere; the Civil War interrupted this effort. The Prohibition party, formed in 1869, ran presidential candidates, including Dow. The Woman's Christian Temperance Union (see WCTU), in 1874, and the politically potent Anti-Saloon League, established on a national scale in 1895, also favored banning the liquor traffic. (Multimedia Encyclopedia)

The National Woman's Christian Temperance Union (WCTU) of the United States, founded in 1874 in Cleveland, Ohio, is an organization of women who seek to improve public morals, especially through abstinence from alcoholic beverages and narcotics. Frances WILLARD was an early president (1879-98) of the WCTU and organized (1883) the world WCTU, which now has branches in more than 70 countries. In 1979, with headquarters in Evanston, Ill., it had 250,000 members and a staff of 34. (Ibid.)

Civil law quietly replaced Christian and church law. Hope in organizations and governmenti.e., an all powerful State that could control the basic desires of fallen manquietly replaced hope in Christian conversion. Whereas the church had previously dealt with intemperance, women organized civil "revival-style" crusades to require total abstinence. A result of the political movement against drunkenness was the women's rights movementmodern Feminism.

We, as Christians, realize that it is an individual responsibility to prevent drunkenness, which, in the end, can only be accomplished through Christian conversion and self-control.

Second, generally, the woman's rights, feminist, movement was interested "in building a new kind of family life." (Multimedia.) And social pressure, feminine "wiles" and politics were seen as the means to build that "life," as redefined by the Feminists. That "new kind of family life" was in contrast to God's requirement for family life. In saying this, I am not even suggesting that everything in "family life" at that time, or any time for that matter, was according to God's requirements. I am, however, making the point that the goal of the early 1800s Feminist Movement was not to conform their families to God's requirements for the women, men and children of the family. Therefore, though some of the Feminist's goals were no doubt commendable, the "new kind of family life" they sought was in rebellion to the word of God. Their goal was for "Every woman to be able to do what was right in her own eyes," and they gathered others with the same "vision" to pass civil laws. (Notice that "everyone being able to do what is right in his or her own eyes" must violate the rights and responsibilities of others.)

Though their desire for a "new kind of life" was no doubt commendable, they did not set about obtaining that "life" in a godly manner, 1 Peter 3:1-7, q.v. Over one hundred and fifty years later, the wife now "wears the pants" in the family, and the husband is left with yielding his headship to his wife, or losing his family.
The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman's garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the LORD thy God. (Deut. 22:5.)

Keli geber, the instruments or arms of a man. As the word geber is here used, which properly signifies a strong man or man of war, it is very probable that armour is here intended; especially as we know that in the worship of Venus, to which that of Astarte or Ashtaroth among the Canaanites bore a striking resemblance, the women were accustomed to appear in armour before her. It certainly cannot mean a simple change in dress, whereby the men might pass for women, and vice versa. This would have been impossible in those countries where the dress of the sexes had but little to distinguish it, and where every man wore a long beard. It is, however, a very good general precept understood laterally, and applies particularly to those countries where the dress alone distinguishes between the male and female. The close-shaved gentleman may at any time appear like a woman in the female dress, and the woman appear as a man in the male's attire. Were this to be tolerated in a society, it would produce greatest confusion. Clodius, who dressed himself like a woman that he might mingle with the Roman ladies in the feast of the Bona Dea, was universally execrated (abhorred, ed.). (Clarke's Commentary [Adam Clarke, 1762-1832], I.794, 795.)

Some New Testament parallel passages are,

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. 14 And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression. 1 Corinthians 14:34, Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. (1 Tim. 2.)

Paul is obviously referring to women preachers, e.g., Kathryn Kuhlman, &c.

The results of the early 1800s feminist movement are all around us. However, the uneducated frontier (the frontier is where the American Feminist Movement started) clergy cannot be overlooked, for it emphasized emotion, and failed to teach the frontier men the importance of Biblical manhood:

The Typical frontier preacher, regardless of denomination, had practiced some vocation, and had been called to the ministry from among the folks he served. He was unlearned, but this was not considered a handicap. Congregations encouraged it and bragged about the humbleness and ignorance of their ministers. They pointed to such early examples of church leaders as Peter and John, "unlearned and ignorant men" 1 (1 The Acts 4:13.) who came from the underprivileged classes like themselves, but who confounded the high priests and the rich sinners. The frontier people did not demand that their preachers lead them to knowledge and worldly position but rather to the treasures of the eternal world to come. ...
Some preachers undertook a few courses of reading under an older preacher, but it was generally considered that if God called a man to preach, that meant he was ready. A Baptist group in Mississippi went on record with the rather prevalent position: if God "wants a learned Moses or Saul of Tarsus He will have them qualified before He calls them into his work." This group challenged the world to show any divine authority for sending a man to school after God called him into the ministry.4 (4 Walter Brownlow Posey, The Baptist church in the Lower Mississippi Valley, 1776-1845 [Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1957], p. 21.) A Tennessee association as late as 1835 opposed education of the ministry on the grounds that it implied inadequacy of God and His power to call and equip ministers. The people, as a whole, regarded preaching ability as the "gifts of heart" rather than "gifts of mind," and held that religion was caught, not taught. Preparation of sermons was usually left to inspiration of the Holy Spirit at the time of delivery. Failure to speak extemporaneously indicated to some that the speaker had not experienced rebirth.
No Holy Ghost in "book larnin' "
Much of the frontier was hostile to "book larnin' " on the ground that "there ain't no Holy Ghost in it." In 1836 a Nashville observer stated: "Our preachers are mostly educated between the handles of a plow, there they have their study, and hence they know themselves to be much below par." An authority estimated that in Kentucky in 1828 three fourths of the preachers could not distinguish between a noun and a verb. Some could not read at all. Another reporter said that whenever the preachers arose to preach they "usually threw the reins upon the neck of feeling, and let her run full speed."5 (5 Ibid., pp. 22-27.)
A preacher interpreting Luke's description of John as "an austere man" explained that John was an oysterman who spent his time fishing. Another said that Christ was crucified between two "Male-factors." A Boone County, Missouri, preacher used for a text, "Peter's wife's mother lay sick of a fever." Three years later in the same church he used the same text. But when he started a man in the congregation spoke out: "Why, Lord God, ain't she dead yet?"6 (6 Ibid.) One sputtering Kentucky preacher addressing an illiterate congregation allowed that heaven could only be described as a "Kaintuck of a place."7 (7 Timothy Flint, Recollection of the Last Ten Years ... [Boston: Commings, Hillard and Company, 1826], p. 32.)
Ernest Sutherland Bates, in American Faith, sums up the situation thus: "The requirements for the clergy were steadily lowered until they could be met by any one with a native talent for exhortation . . . The last vestige of the European intellectual tradition vanished in the American forest. And in its place developed steadily the great tradition of the common man."9 (9 New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1940, p. 329.) (Bible in Pocket, 10-14.)

Note: Bible in Pocket records many good things from Frontier Religion, e.g., it was the "noisy" Protestant preachers who brought religious freedom to Spanish Texas where the State church was the Church of Rome. However, the uneducated clergy failed to teach some key points of Biblical manhood.


First, husbands must be taught to love their wives. They must be taught their Biblical responsibilities in the families, churches and in society. (Question: Do pastors have the courage to go against the feminist mood in their churches, and emphasize Biblical content over emotion? [See "Paganized Christianity," TBE, Jan. 98.] Only by God's Sovereign Grace can courage and wisdom be gained from God by men of God. I must say that my experience in larger churches has been that the women secretaries basically control the church.)

Second, the office of godly aged women must be restored in the church, for they are to teach the women of the church how to fulfill their proper responsibilities in their families. A pastor is limited as to what he can teach women concerning their proper place in families and society, or Paul would not have given the instructions in Titus 2:3-5.

Third, we must stop seeing the root of our problems as outside of ourselves, outside of sin and outside the reach of the grace of God. (Divorce is a result of sin. We are not here dealing with "single parent" families.)

Fourth, sadly, we must admit that no doubt many good Christian wives are where they are in determining what is best for their families because their husbands have little or no godly spirit and/or have acted more like worldly "lords" than like the Lord Jesus, e.g., Likewise, ye younger, submit yourselves unto the elder. Yea, all of you be subject one to another, and be clothed with humility: for God resisteth the proud, and giveth grace to the humble. (1 Pet. 5:5. See also Rom. 12:10, Eph. 5:21, Col. 3:12.)

Fifth, there are more things that a woman can do in her family and in the Kingdom Work than she will ever be able to accomplish, so why does she want to take the man's place also?

But somehow modern Christians have concluded that Paul's commands on this subject, even #1Ti 2:12, were meant for specific conditions that do not apply wholly now. Women do most of the teaching in our Sunday schools today. It is not easy to draw the line. The daughters of Philip were prophetesses. It seems clear that we need to be patient with each other as we try to understand Paul's real meaning here. (RWP)

Society, even within "Evangelical" churches, is so far from what is required by the God of the Bible that a Biblical, Christian family would be an abomination to the vast majority of both women and men. To try to reintroduce a Biblical Church, family and society would, no doubt, bring open rebellion in the vast majority of Christian homes and churches.

Society, feminism especially, cannot be reclaimed without a deep and wide, genuine Christian revival. The revival must affect, convert, the very soul of men and women, giving them the new desire and power to be what is required of them by the Lord God in His word. Until Christian families are reclaimed for God and godliness and the husbands and wives take their God-ordained places and responsibilities, there is no hope for society Feminism will only gain in strength. There is no hope outside of the guidelines established by God for each individual.

First published, 9/97

The Value of a Woman

Leviticus 27

(Revised and edited version of what was published in 9/97.)

This pastor realizes that many might consider the following heresy, for it applies an Old Testament law to a modern situation, something absolutely forbidden by many Christians.1 However, though I will be accused of being "legalistic," I will proceed anyway. (Legalism, actually, is adding works of any kind to freely given salvation by the Grace of God.)

The NOW crowd continually demands "equal pay for equal work" that is, a women's pay must be equal with men's in the work force. Is such a demand Biblical, worthy of Christian support? What does God's Word say about "equal pay" for women in the work force?

We find the answer clearly given in the Old Testament law, and it is about as "Politically incorrect" as anything can possibly be. Scripture gives two values for a woman: First, her value in the home, and, second, her value in the work place.

Let us open with where the Lord places the most value upon the woman.

Though this may sound "sexist," Paul tells us that the proper place for women is, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed, Titus 2:5. The Wise Man, Solomon, said that in the home, the woman's value is far above rubies. (Pro. 31:10. The New Testament parallel for this passage is found in 1 Tim. 2:9, 10 & 1 Pet. 3:1-6. Gill points out that no daughter of Adam can obtain to the high standard established in Pro. 31, and believes that this woman represents the gospel Church.2 Isa. 54:1, 5, 6, Gal. 3:26, Rev. 12:1. He shows how Pro. 31:28, 29, taken with Can. 6:8, 9, implies that both were written by Solomon. Ambrosius, Augustine and others also hold that this passage is an allegory of the Church.3)

Proverbs 31 describes the ideal wife, a standard to which all young ladies should seek by the grace of God. It also describes the kind of wife every young man should seek and choose. This passage shows us that a successful and godly home depends on a godly wife.

Solomon tells us that houses and riches, which in themselves do not make a man happy, may be inherited by law. But God characterizes a prudent wife as His gracious and divine gift, making her husband happy, something riches cannot do.4 (Pro. 18:22, 19:14.)

Prudent able to contemplate upon a complex series of thoughts, resulting in wise dealings and the use of good practical common sense. It involves paying attention to circumstances, and learning God's lessons from them. It also refers to insight, e.g., Proverbs was written to give the young man, and woman, insight into wise behavior that conforms to the image of Christ. (Pro. 1:3.) Prudent stresses the ideal of causing one to consider a matter, resulting in insight and instruction, e.g., Gabriel gave Daniel insight and skill. (Dan. 9:22.) It also contains the idea of acting circumspectly (with caution) or prudently in every situation. In the times of evil, the prudent knows when to remain silent. (Amos 5:13.) It also means to prosper or have success Saul feared David because David acted prudently, and had good success in all he did. (1 Sam. 18:14ff.)5

The Proverbs 31 woman is a virtuous woman.

Virtue having power over one's own spirit and strong moral courage. Virtue speaks of strength, might, power, able for the task at hand, valor, and is used to describe an elite warrior, similar to the hero of the Homeric epic. When used of a woman (virtuous woman, Ruth 3:11, Pro. 12:4, 31:10), it may well attribute to her all the attributes of her male counterparts.6 The virtuous one will not yield to the pressure of yielding Christian principles in the slightest:

The person enquired after, and that is a virtuous womana woman of strength (so the word is), though the weaker vessel, yet made strong by wisdom and grace, and the fear of God: it is the same word that is used in the character of good judges (Ex. 18:21), that they are able men, men qualified for the business to which they are called, men of truth, fearing God. So it follows, A virtuous woman is a woman of spirit, who has the command of her own spirit and knows how to manage other people's, one that is pious and industrious, and a help meet for a man. In opposition to this strength, we read of the weakness of the heart of an imperious whorish woman, Eze. 16:30. A virtuous woman is a woman of resolution, who, having espoused good principles, is firm and steady to them, and will not be frightened with winds and clouds from any part of her duty.7

Solomon also characterizes the wife lacking in these things as a curse to a man. (Pro. 12;4, 21:9, 19, 27:15, Ecc. 7:26.)

The question is asked, Who can find...?, implying that only a few men can find such a woman, and they cannot find her without Divine intervention. The Lord must find her for the man who "holds out" for a virtuous woman. Adam, in paradise before the fall, was incomplete until his gracious Heavenly Father made and brought a help-meet to him. (Gen. 2:18.) We are thus told that the value of God's gracious gift to a man, a virtuous wife, is not comparable to any earthly treasure. The virtuous woman is an unusual woman, more difficult to find than pearls and other precious treasures. (Ecc. 7:28.) Because of her rarity, her worth is unspeakable, and her husband must thank God continually for His provision of such a wife. Her value is worth far more than the rich jewels with which vain women adorn themselves.
Perhaps one reason she is so hard to find is that she is not sought after, as Abraham sought for such a wife for his son. (Gen. 24:3, 4.) Too often the search is made for beauty and accomplishments rather than for virtues and godly worth. Rather, men commonly seek after the vain things of physical favour and beauty. (Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Pro. 31:30.) Physical qualifications are deceitful, and can lead to many hurtful things:

The woman who fears the Lord is the one who will have her children rise up and call her blessed, and have her husband praise her. (Pro. 31:28.) It can be expected that the flesh will place a high value upon physical beauty, which places great pressure upon the young lady to compromise her real beauty, the beauty of the hidden man of the heart. (1 Pet. 3:4.)

Proverbs 31 seems to describe a super woman, but notice v. 11, her husband. She is first of all a wife. This passage depicts a wife as she ought to be. Under her husband's authority and guidance, she governs and increases the wealth of the home, thereby advancing the position of her husband in the estimation of others. The author here attributes all of her virtues and prudence to her fear of God. Her faithfulness to her duties causes her husband's heart to safely trust in her. He is able to trust her in the matters entrusted to her as he goes about his business, though it may take him away from home. Rather than abusing the confidence he has in her, she seeks to enlarge it as she seeks to please her husband. (1 Cor. 7:34.)

She does him good all the days of her life, unlike many women of the Bible, such as Rebekah who wickedly deceived her husband when it came to the children. (Gen. 24.) She will not return perceived neglect from her husband with bad-temper.

She, in professing godliness, is adorned with good works. (1 Tim. 2:10.) She is not locked behind closed doors as a religious recluse seeking a "closer walk with God." Rather, she is in public, unafraid of menial service to the saints (1 Tim. 5:10), regardless of her social standing. She is over those under her with diligence and dignity, requiring nothing of them that she would not do herself. She governs herself first of all, and thereby has legitimate authority to govern those who might be under her. She is ready to do any work befitting her sex and station in life. She has wise management of money, and knows how to best use what she has. Her dress is always appropriate for the job at hand as well as for her social standing. It is possible to pay too little or as well as too much attention to the issue of dress. Emphasizing the inward adorning, the Lord does not negate outward adorning.

In her conduct, we are told that she guides rather than rules her home. Proper guidance (directing) requires skill, maybe more than ruling (authoritave commands). She looks well to the moral habits of her charges, including their religious instructions, all under the authority of her husband. She is careful not to overwork her charges, nor to allow them to eat the bread of idleness. Nor is she content with being idle.

The virtuous woman in her home is a crown to her husband.

There is so much more that could be said about the virtuous woman whose value, as she works in the home, is beyond any earthly treasure, but we will stop here.
In the home, the woman's value is so great it cannot be measured, which, as we will see, is quite different than in the world's work places where she is only 60% of the man's value, e.g., the man gets $20.00 per hour while the woman gets $12.00 for the same job. If a woman wants to be paid what she is worth, let the Lord value her worth, and then let her go to the place where her worth cannot be measured because it is so great in the home. Of course, such an idea of a woman in our modern, anti-Christian society is blasphemy, worthy of stoning.
As we will develop from Leviticus 27, the woman who remains where she has the most value, in the home instead of the work-place, "retains" her value 66.6% more than does the man above the age of 60. She is more capable of managing the affairs of the family, and is of great use and service. She is not "worn out" by the work-place as is the man, nor did the Lord intend for her to be "worn out" by the work force. Gill comments:

When the wife and mother stays home, she not only retains her value, but, many times, she also retains her family. The home school movement is proving the validity of the above statements concerning the woman's value in the home vs her value in the world's work-places. Who can measure her value in the home?

When a woman leaves her place of great value, the home, and goes into the world's work place, we learn from Leviticus 27 that her value decreases dramatically. There her value is only 60% of a man's. In this chapter, the Lord God Himself establishes the value of individuals, and the value He establishes is according to age and sex.

A little background - the VOW

Chapter 26 promised some serious results for sin and blessings for right living. The promises of chapter 26 looked forward to Christ. Chapter 27 assumes that people to whom the blessings are promised in chapter 26 love God enough and are thankful enough for His goodness and benefits that they will give to Him well over and above what is required of them in His Word. Chapter 27 deals with things over and above the covenant responsibilities as presented previously. The offerings of chapter 27 were not commanded, but were freely given by the individual "worshiper" out of love and reverence for the God of the covenant.
Though the individual "worshiper" did things of his own free will over and above what was required by God, he was not permitted to do things according to his own pleasure. He was still bound by the Law, v. 1. In other words, a "free-will" offering did not have to be given, but if the individual freely gave to God, the gift had to conform to God's law.


Moreover, even man's highest and most holy emotions must be brought into conformity to God's Law-Word. (Therefore, how much must all of man's emotions be conformed to God's Law-Word at all times.) God's Word has an instruction for everything, and those who love God are expected to find and follow those instructions.
Moreover, the law shows us that it is not a sin to refrain from vowing, but once a vow is made, it is sin not to follow it through. (Deut. 23:22-24, Pro. 20:25, Ecc. 5:3-5.) Neglect to keep a vow, though it was a free-will vow, had to be atoned for with a sin-offering. (Lev. 5:4ff.) Chapter 27 deals with vows. It deals with "giving one's word," primarily to the Lord promising to do something above and beyond the requirements of one's profession of love for God. It also applies to "giving one's word" to another person. No doubt Solomon had these laws of the free-will vows in mind in Ecclesiastes 5:1-8.

In Leviticus 27, we are told that not all people are "created" equal before God, for God Himself places different values on individuals. We are "equal" in the sense that we are all sinners before God, and as sinners, we can only come to Him through Christ, but "equality" ends there. Though the "worshiper" had to appear before the priest for the priest to "value" him or her, the individual's "value" was already established by God. It would have clearly been rebellion against the Lord God for the priest, the "worshiper" or for a bystander to question the "value" of any individual. (Rom. 9:20.)
Keil introduces chapter 27 thusly:

Keil also points out that this chapter assumes the person or property will be either redeemed or purchased, according to the value fixed by the law. If neither redemption nor purchasing were to take place, what would be the use of making the vow and establishing the value of the person and/or property?

Those to whom this chapter speaks have experienced some great blessing from the Lord, or they would not be making the vow. Evidently, they were prospering financially, although the Lord did not exclude those who were not having financial prosperity, v. 8. Provision was made for the "poor" to express their love for the Lord through the vow.

Though at one time in America, one's word was his bond, we no longer realize the importance and seriousness of vows. Vows and oaths in Bible times and in Eastern cultures were extremely serious.

Individual, Personal Value
V. 2, Children of Israel..., When a man... Unlike the preceding laws that applied to all who dwelt in the land, the following laws concerning vows could only apply to those who worshiped the God of Israel. The pagans could not worship the Lord God as the Israelites were commanded to do; however, a pagan could convert to Israel's God, e.g., Rahab and Ruth. Nevertheless, though the following laws concern fulfilling one's vow to the Lord God, the general application of keeping one's word applies to everyone regardless of his or her relationship to the Lord God. In dealing with the unsaved, we should be aware that they are not bound (they will be accountable to the Lord God) by the indwelling Spirit to keep their word as are His people.

Gill, on the other hand, says that every male includes even Gentiles. Thus those who did not serve Israel's God could be grateful enough for Israel's God's blessings that, in their zeal, they could make a vow to give something special to the Lord God. (Maybe an example of Gill's thoughts is found in 2 Ki. 5. See Online Bible.)

singular (v. 2) means wondrous, marvelous, extraordinary, valuable or something above and beyond one's responsibilities, above one's abilities, beyond one's power to do. It can refer to something hard or difficult to do.

The singular vow was something set apart for the Lord. The vow was an uncommon vow the man, through uncommon zeal for God and His service, devotes himself, his children, his cattle, his house or his property, to the Lord, i.e., to the Lord's service in the Lord's house, e.g. chopping wood, cleaning, and other menial tasks. But it was not God's plan that His house be taken care of by people other than Levi, so rather than the thing vowed being actually given to the Lord, the like equivalent in money was given, and the funds used for the maintenance of the house, 2 Kings 12: 4, 5. (King Jehoash became upset and took corrective measures when the priests misused the funds, vv. 6ff. We also cover the fact that it costs to serve God in another article.)

If a person is really dedicated to the Lord, let them externally and visibly declare it with a vow.

Vv. 3-8, the Lord establishes the value of the individual who gave him or her self to the Lord. The establishing of that value was not left up to the individual. No one could say to the priest, "What's the matter? Don't you think I am as valuable, or as good, as that other person?"

Obviously, under the law, all are guilty of sin, and as such, are condemned to eternal death unless they have been converted by the work of the Spirit through faith in the Redeemer. But in this chapter, we are plainly told that all persons are not equal in value before the Lord here on this earth. The Lord established the values of those who made the vow. Neither the priest before whom the person appeared nor the individual could establish the value of the one who vowed God Himself established the value.

As we saw, rather than the individual giving his or her physical labour for the upkeep of the Lord' house, which was the Levites' duty, his or her physical ability to labour was valued, and the money given in place of that labour.

God designed women to be a help-meet for her husband. He did not design women to enter into the world's work place and compete with men, yet they are there. We know that sin many times forces Christian women into the work place, e.g., divorce or death. We also know that the sin of covetousness, that is, the desire to live beyond one's means, may also "force" Christian women into the work place. So we will proceed considering the value of various individuals' labour in the work place as valued by the Lord when that labour was exchanged for money in the Lord's house, including women. Leviticus 27 gives us the following implications:

1) "The rate is the same for persons of all ranks. 'To the poor the gospel is preached.' The great and wealthy have no place here above the poor; all stand as sinners to be redeemed by the same blood, and bound by the same cords of love."12

The opinions that the rich are to be "taxed" more than the poor and that there should be a "graduated income tax" to redistribute the "wealth" are results of sin, i.e., "income redistribution" is clearly socialism at work. Such ideas are totally ungodly.

2) of the male from 20-60 he was valued the highest, for he was the most fit for labor as he would "work off" the value of his vow (which was converted into money, and given for the upkeep of the Lord's house.)

[S]hekel of the sanctuary... Exodus 30:12, the value of the money (which was gold and silver) is a religious activity, and the priests the religious leaders were responsible to keep it at its proper value. (See <> for a discussion on money.

Twenty years old and upward was also the age a man could go to war, Numbers 1:3.

3) a femalethe value given here was 60% of the male's, and was equal to the value of a servant, Exodus 21:31, which was the value of the Lord Jesus, Matthew 26:15. Remember, the Lord God, not man, establishes the values. Therefore, no man can be accused of undervaluing the woman. Her value was not as high, for she could not be as productive with her labor as a man. (She is only 60% as physically strong as a man, and made so by the Lord God. Cf. 1 Pet. 3:7.)
4) ages 5-20 yearsthe female's value is only 50% of the male's.

The one under 20 is not making the vow, but his/her authority is saying, "Let the value of such a one be upon me. I will pay it." That person, accordingly, pays as determined by the Lord.

Incapable of as much work as those over 20, the younger person's value is less. Moreover, the value of females under 20 was a smaller percentage of the male's than it was over 20 because the younger female was capable of less work in proportion to the male.

Entry Level Jobs

Males over 20 were valued at fifty shekels, and the younger males' were valued at only twenty shekels, which is less than half. Thus entry level jobs for young people pay less than ½ of those who are more mature in the work force.

5) ages one month to 5 yearsher value was again 60% of the male's.

If a man devotes his child to the Lord within this age group, the value is established by the Lord for the age. Samuel was a good example, but rather than being redeemed with money, he was actually given into the Lord's temple-service.

Though neither the male nor female of this age group was capable of any service of value, the female was still valued at only 60% of the male's. The Lord clearly, by fixing the value of each, tells us that the male was/is worth more than the female who would seek to have her physical labour valued, both before men and before God. God created man first, then the woman. God primarily revealed/reveals Himself to and through men. God chose men to be the priests to Himself. In the family, community, society and in the church, God chose and chooses men through which to work and speak.

6) ages 60 and aboveshe is worth 66.6% of the male's value, the highest point of any age of her life. Though both the male's and female's value drops at age 60, she retains a greater proportion of her value.


The Work Force

1) Though women were not designed for the work place in competition with men, they are there. We then hear that "Women are equal to men in the work-place; therefore, they should receive equal pay." Such an idea is contrary to God's Word, which is why it is being promoted so heavily in our modern, post-Christian era. The Lord values a woman who insists on competing with a man in the work place at 60% of a man's at the height of the "work career." Though fallen man hates the idea, the fact remains that the Lord establishes the values, not man. Thus clearly the Lord establishes the woman's value in the work force as 60% of a man's. Of course, this law assumes the man is working and not just showing up on the job to collect his pay. (The union "pusher" used to tell us when I worked out of the Steam Fitters local, "Don't work yourselves out of a job." 60% of normal working capacity was more than enough for the Fitters' union that wanted the job to last as long as possible for its members. That was 35 years ago when wages were high and cost of living much lower than today, e.g., Fitters' union scale was over $14.00 per hr., and a new, loaded, top of the line Ford, Chevy or Dodge was only $5-6,000, and a very good house below $20,000. Obviously, there are women who do the same evil thing not much more than showing up to collect their pay.)

Women, God has seen fit to leave the choice up to you. You can be where your value cannot be stated, or you can be where God Himself places your value at only 60% of the man's. It would seem to me that the woman would want to be where she is the most valuable.

My, how much we must retrain our thinking according to the Word of God. We either accept the precepts established by God's Law-Word, or we are pagan, anti-Christ, humanists. Accordingly, the hype we will hear as the politicians seek the NOW vote is clearly contrary to the inspired Word of God.

End Notes
1 See TBE, "A Lawless Religion."
2 John Gill, Online Bible.
3 Keil-Delitzsch, Commentary on the Old Testament, Eerdmans.
4 Ibid.
5 Theological Word Book of the Old Testament
, Moody Press. Sv. #2263, #2264.
6 Ibid, sv. #642.
7 Matthew Henry, Online Bible.
8 Matthew Pool, Online Bible.
9 Proverbs, Charles Bridges.
10 Online Bible.
11 Keil- Delitzsch, The Third Book of Moses, 479, 480.
12 Bonar, Leviticus, 496.

[Home] [Index] [Examiners] [By Topics] [Book Store] [Material]