Tag: patriarchy

Miriam’s Sin and the Greater Punishment

In the early days of Israel’s history, during the Exodus period, there came a real challenge for Moses from what many would call his inner circle: Aaron, his brother, and Miriam, his sister. The two siblings became disgruntled with the choice Moses made for his wife. Moses didn’t marry an Israelite girl, but married a Cushite woman. Cush is in the area we know as modern Sudan. It is also a nation that is part of the table nations given after the flood.

Aaron and Miriam objected to the choice Moses made. But it wasn’t just their objection to the marriage. Their pride also arose in the situation and they boasted that they were just as important as Moses was, since they too, offered prophecy.

Numbers 12:2

…they said, “Has Yahweh indeed spoken only through Moses? Has He not spoken through us as well?” And Yahweh heard it.

Miriam did indeed act as a prophetess in Exodus 15. She took a tambourine and led the women to dance in light of God’s victory over Pharaoh’s army in the Red Sea.

“Sing to Yahweh,
For He has triumphed gloriously!
The horse and its rider
He has thrown into the sea!”

That’s it. She is clearly correct in singing to YHWH. She had been given a wonderful privilege to declare to the people all that YHWH had done. This is very similar to when we partake of communion. While we don’t say it, as a congregation, we are proclaiming the LORD’s death until He comes again. This is a prophetic act of the congregation. We should rejoice we have the privilege act and speak as prophets. But that is all.

Miriam would have benefited from taking the same attitude.

Yet, here she is with Aaron claiming equality with Moses, their younger brother.

AS for Aaron, the Bible never declares him to be a prophet, but to be a prophet to the prophet. He is the mouth piece of Moses (Exodus 7:1) Revelation is given to Aaron, but he is also in the presence of Moses when that occurs. It should be clear whom God’s chosen prophet is: it is Moses, as YHWH will make clear in the passage.

But notice one other thing from verse 2: the short sentence after their declaration.

And Yahweh heard it.

This is like the times when children are complaining about mom, and suddenly, they realize that dad is standing right there and heard all their gripes. The children immediately know that things are not well.

On top of that, the author puts in a parenthetical clause of explanation about Moses. He writes: (Now the man Moses was very humble, more than any man who was on the face of the earth.)

That is an important detail because it helps us understand what is going to be said next. The great humility on the part of Moses is what you would expect from someone who stands in the council and presence of God. God’s holiness has an effect upon those who spend time there.

That one verse is a parenthetical thought about Moses, showing us his humility, which is in contrast to the arrogance and pride that Aaron and Miriam are demonstrating. This is the actual focus of the section.

YHWH calls all three of them outside. He is about to make something very clear. He is about to clarify who His prophet is.

6 and He said,

“Hear now My words:
If there is a prophet among you,
I, Yahweh, shall make Myself known to him in a vision.
I shall speak with him in a dream.
7 Not so, with My servant Moses,
He is faithful in all My household;
8 With him I speak mouth to mouth,
Indeed clearly, and not in riddles,
And he beholds the form of Yahweh. (The reason for his humility)
Why then were you not afraid
To speak against My servant, against Moses?”

9 So the anger of Yahweh burned against them, and He went away.

First, we see the relationship that Moses had with YHWH was special, above all before and after him until Christ. Moses had privileges, but he didn’t flout them. He is YHWH’s chosen prophet.

Second, we see the key point to all this: … the anger of Yahweh burned against them…

The Father found the children disrespecting the mother, and He was hot with anger.

YHWH’s Wrath Upon Miriam

10 But the cloud withdrew from over the tent, and behold, Miriam was leprous, as white as snow. And Aaron turned toward Miriam, and behold, she was leprous.

Now we see God’s wrath being poured out on Miriam. She is cover with leprosy. Her skin is as white as snow, and not in the sanctification way of white snow. YHWH’s wrath had poured uncleanness upon her. She was to be an outcast.

Now, why does YHWH pour out this level of wrath upon Miriam and not Aaron?

This is the key question and most in our culture will not like the answer.

The reason He pours out His wrath upon her, is because she has stepped out of her role as a woman, taken on the role of a man, and tried to sit in judgment of God’s chosen prophet.

Moses was not acting arrogantly in taking a Cushite wife, but Miriam saw it as an opportunity to lift herself up, and praise herself, and demand equal treatment with Moses. She was doing the same thing that Eve did in the Garden of Eden with the serpent. She had placed herself in the role of the man, and wanted to be a prophet on equal status, or greater than Moses.

YWHW would have none of it. He brings the most despicable disease on her, to show her that she is completely outside of the bounds of His will and the covenant community. Leprosy wasn’t just a disease, but something that revealed spiritual depravity. This is why the one who has leprosy has to go and be declared clean or unclean by the priests, not the physician.

Yet, it is the grabbing for power, the stepping out of the divine ordained role that we need to focus upon. In all the women in the Old Testament, only Jezebel compares to what Miriam had done. God’s word had spoken, showing just how sinful it is for a woman to assume the role of the man, and all but Jezebel realized that.

Miriam is given as a sign to the people of God showing us what is not acceptable. She is held to a higher standard because she was a prophetess, and was closer to Moses than the people. Therefore, it was incumbent upon YHWH to deal with her forcefully. This is similar to the way YWHW dealt with the sons of Aaron, Nadab and Abihu when they offered strange fire. They had more privileges as priests, and more responsibility. When they transgressed against YWHW, He brought greater judgment.

The beauty for Miriam is that Aaron appealed to Moses, who petitioned YWHW to heal her. She had to be separated from the community for seven days, but she was healed. I imagine that those seven long days, separated from the community and the blessings of YWHW, were quite painful emotionally. It gave her plenty of time to reflect upon her arrogance, and her grab for power, for she does recede from view.

The only time she is mentioned after this incident, is in Numbers when she dies, and in Deuteronomy as a memorial about the dangers of leprosy. Her rebellion is a reminder to us, that God will not be mocked.

The entire incident is a reflection of the fall, and a reminder of what happens when men and women reverse their roles. It angers God. The church would be so much better off if we could learn the lesson that those under the Old Covenant took for granted.

For more, listen to the sermon that this comes from: A Leper Came to Him

Chip & Joanna’s Fall and How Their Pastor Played a Part

It has been said that culture flows downstream from the church. More specifically, culture flows downstream from the pulpit.

This truth can be seen in the recent dustup over television stars Chip and Joanna Gaines.

For those of you who do not know, Chip and Joanna Gaines are local and national celebrities because of the show Fixer Upper, and because of their empire known as Magnolia. I have never seen Fixer Upper, but I have been to Magnolia. The cookies are worth the high price of $4 a piece. I’ve never tried the cupcakes, but I’m told they are splendid.

The problem for Chip and Joanna has come about because of a new show they are producing called Back to the Frontier.

The New Show

The new show features three couples who pretend to go back in time, and live in the 1880s. The problem with this scenario is that it involves a sodomite couple, who are pretending to be married, and who paid a woman to bear (sell) twin boys to them. My intent here, is not in discussing the couple. You can read more about them here and here. It is much worse than it sounds.

Also, please watch CrossPolitic’s presentation on the entire ordeal here. The guys at CP not only explain what is going on, but also show how wicked the entire show is. It is not as though Chip and Joanna were just providing money to produce the show. They are actively supporting and promoting sodomite marriage. The stated goal of the sodomite couple is to normalize sodomite marriage. This shows that they know it is not normal. It’s evil. In propping up this couple, Chip and Joanna are complicit in this normalization.

Yet, I think what is even more disturbing than all this, is the role their pastor is playing (or not playing). Chip and Joanna attend the church, Antioch Waco. And here is where the real problem begins.

The Pastor Bears the Responsibility

Now you do need to know, that the pastor of Antioch Waco, Jimmy Siebert, has come out against gay marriage, and has expressed that marriage is between a man and a woman. This is a bare minimum of what should have happend. Yet, there is more. He should not have just stated the positive of what they believe, but he also should have called both Chip and Joanna (and all who hold to sodomite marriage) to repentance.

This is what a true shepherd does. He should not just state what marriage is, but for those who are under his spiritual care who are supporting sodomite marriage, he should deal with them in such a way that either leads to their repentance or their excommunication from the church.

But to say nothing… is to neglect the calling of a shepherd.

I admit, church discipline may be going on behind the scenes. Yet, at some point, it has to be public since the sin was public. You cannot ignore the fact that other sheep are watching and need to see discipline in the lives of those who publicly sin.

The greater problem in all this is the fact that the pastor undermines his own stance on marriage every time he allows a woman to preach in the pulpit.

Women in the Pulpit Undermine Marriage

Gabriel Rench shares a video clip of the pastor of Antioch Waco introducing a woman to the congregation who “has a word for us today.” I strongly recommend that you watch it.

What you are seeing is the foundational problem that the pastor has embraced, of allowing women to preach, that results in the acceptance of sodomite marriage. How so?

It is so because the pastor is tacitly approving of role reversals when he allows a woman to preach.

Now hear me out on this. We know that Paul makes it clear that women are not to teach, preach, or have authority in the church (preaching by its very nature is authoritative, so when you allow a woman to do so, you are in effect, effectively saying the roles of men and women matter not).

Here is the reason: when a lawfully ordained man stands before the congregation and declares the word of God, he does so as the representative of Christ to the congregation. He is standing in the place of Christ,  speaking to the Bride of Christ. Preaching to the congregation is in the context of a husband/wife relationship. Christ speaks to His Bride through the pastor.

I’m not saying that the pastor is the husband, but he represents the Husband, and when he preaches faithfully, the congregations hears HIM, meaning Christ. We understand this in part from Romans 10:14… How then shall they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how shall they believe in Him of whom they have not heard? And how shall they hear without a preacher?

Now, notice that I have placed a strikethrough on the word “of”? This is because “of” is not in the original text, meaning that when a man preaches faithfully, we hear Christ!

In describing this relationship that Christ has with His Bride, Paul tells us that Christ sanctifies His Bride with the washing of the water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish (Ephesians 5:26-27).

The main way that Christ washes His bride with the word is through the reading of the word, and the preaching of the word.

Now, notice something else about this passage in Ephesians: Paul is writing specifically about marriage, and writing to husbands. Yet, in the middle of his instruction, he shifts from earthly husbands to THE Husband, and THE Bride. This is THE Marriage that is the example to all marriages. It is THE Marriage planned before the foundations of the world.

Therefore, when Christ established the church, His plan was/is to use men to stand in His stead for Him, because the man represents Christ, the Bridegroom, as he preaches to The Bride.

Christ has already made it clear that the leaders of the church are to be men. Putting women in the role or place of a man is actually an abomination. The roles of men and women were clearly understood throughout the history of God’s people until the last 150 years.

Christ had this principle codified in the giving of the Law. (Understand that Jesus is the Second Person of the Trinity. While He did not yet have His human body, He was still the Mediator between God and Man even under the Old Covenant. So the giving of the Law on Mt. Sinai, was given by the Second Person of the Trinity. It is His Law, just as much as it is the Father’s Law).

And one specific law given made it clear that men were to serve in the roles of men, and women in their roles. To cross the roles is an abomination before God.

5 “A woman shall not wear man’s clothing, nor shall a man put on a woman’s clothing; for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God (Deuteronomy 22:5).

Clothing, throughout history, has indicated the role a person had. Yes, feminism has worked hard to erase this fact, but again, throughout history this truth was understood. What you wore, indicated who you were and what you did.

Therefore a woman was not to wear men’s clothing, i.e., take on the role of a man, to serve as man, to act as a man. Notice how sinful this is: for whoever does these things is an abomination to Yahweh your God.

As you can see, the reversal of roles in society is not looked on by God with pleasure. It’s the opposite. It is an abomination.

Why is this so?

Because it goes against the God-ordained order of the image of God, male and female. Men are to keep, guard, provide, and take dominion. Women are to help their husbands, and bear and nurture children. Affirming these truths does not matter if we do not live them out.  Therefore, when we violate the simple order God has given to us, it is an abomination to Him because it is a sin against HIS image. We are violating the very honor God has given to us in making us in His image.

His image is precious to Him.

And since it is precious to Him, we should treat it as precious as well, and seek to maintain the roles He has given to us, feminism be damned… and is damned.

Women in the Pulpit

Hopefully, you can see how wrong it is for a woman to preach. When a woman tries to preach, she has already proven herself unfaithful from the get go. We all know Paul’s admonition against women teaching and having authority. Feminists bend over backwards attempting to negate Paul’s statement: And I do not permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man, but to be silence (1 Timothy 2:12).

In fact, just before that verse, Paul wrotes: Let a woman learn in silence in all submission.

So, we know the moment that a woman stands up to preach, she is already in rebellion against God.

Therefore, we don’t hear from Christ, but from her. She shares a message with us, but she doesn’t preach. And it is actually worse than that. She is turning the husband/wife relationship that Jesus has with His Bride into an abomination. She is trying to stand in the place of the husband. She, like Eve in the Garden, is attempting to wield the sword against Satan and failing miserably. Her presence in the pulpit sends confusion, not clarity. It sends a message that the created order between men and women means nothing at all.

And this IS a creational issue. When Paul defends his position, he roots the issue in creation, not culture, not Jewish understanding, but creation.

For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived fell into transgression (1 Timothy 2:13-14).

In view of all this, you can see, that even if the pastor says publicly that marriage is between a man and a woman, every time he allows a woman to preach in the pulpit, or preach anywhere, he undermines the very message he is claims to maintain. He is promoting what God’s word calls an abomination.

This is considered being correct on orthodoxy, but incorrect on orthopraxy. He is not practicing what he preaches. And he does allow women to preach.

Remember the video clip from Gabriel Rench on X  above? You can see the video of the Pastor Jimmy Siebert of Antioch Waco introducing a woman to preach in the church. If Siebert is serious about shepherding the flock God has given him, he needs to repent of this practice. It is a sin against the image of God, and against God Himself.

And how should we respond? We should never submit to listening to a woman attempt to preach. It is an abomination before Christ. It completely undermines Christ and His shepherds. It warps the Husband/Wife relationship of Christ and His Bride.

The Pastor Did Respond

To be fair, Siebert did respond to all the hubbub concerning this. It’s typical.

The problem with this response? There was NO CALL FOR REPENTANCE… he was just rehearsing the “compassion and clarity” trope that so many winsome, soft preachers fall back on. He does say that marriage is between one man and one woman. This is the very least he could do. But John the Baptist is nowhere to be found. There was no call to repentance and performing works worthy of repentance, just soft spoken platitudes of mercy and compassion. (Where is the compassion for the two motherless boys being parented by two gay men?) It was a feminized appeal to make everyone feel comforted, instead of a true call to the gospel.

Let me reemphasize my point: Saying one thing, marriage is between a man and a woman, is making lip service to the truth. Siebert is merely saying what he has to say. But in allowing a woman to preach in his church, he is showing us what he really believes. He really believes that men and women are interchangeable… especially in that which is most important: the preaching of God’s word, and holy matrimony.

It should be no shock to us that Chip and Joanna are confused. Hopefully, in light of the truths I’ve put forth here, Pastor Siebert will repent and be the shepherd he is called to be. He must stand strong on these issues.

Money Quote

As for Chip and Joanna, I think this a great explanation of their fall. See full article here

The Gaines aren’t the first Christian icons to slip from their built-on-solid-rock foundations. Jen Hatmaker, Joshua Harris, and even renowned theologian Richard B. Hays (whose son co-authored a 2023 pro-gay book with him before his death) all traveled the same downward slope allowing relationships to shape their theology. They arrived at a place where, on issues of gay relationships, they believe themselves more loving than God.

From the Archives: A Critique of Mark A. Garcia’s Post After the Patriarchy, Part 1.

(Originally published July 13, 2016. Since publishing this, Garcia’s post has been scrubbed from they internet. It won’t be missed. The point of my article is to show how progressives deal with Biblical patriarchy by appealing to lofty language in order to obscure biblical truth. The word of God has not changed, and neither has God. Therefore, patriarchy remains the calling of every man, in every family, in the church, and in society. All who pray the words, “Our Father, who art in heaven,” fundamentally agree with patriarchy. It comes from God and His very nature.

Another reason that I’m reposting this article, is because the failure to be patriarchal on the part of the church, is one of the Top 10 reasons the church is no longer the Pillar of Truth (1 Timothy 3:15). Just think of the great contradictions over the past few years. WE were aghast that a Supreme Court nominee cannot define what a woman is, but for the most part, we have been silent on the issue of the biblical roles of men and women. Yes, there are ministries devoted to it, but the pulpits in general, even where they are patriarchal in their understanding of things, have remained silent, lest they offend the feminists in their midst. This too shows a sad reality: far too many pastors would rather remain silent on what Scripture says, in order to avoid offending the goats, while starving the sheep. I’ve come to realize the loneliest sheep in our midst is always the woman who has a clear understanding of her role in the family and the church, and never gets any support from her own shepherd.

As for the article by Garcia, he was correct on one issue: patriarchal complimentarianism is dead. Those of us who are patriarchal today, prefer to call it what it is, biblical patriarchy. WE quit using the word complimentarianism a while back when we realized it anyone claiming to be complimentarian were nothing more than feminist who were to afraid to admit that reality about themselves. 

One more note: my hope in republishing it, is not the attack on Garcia per se, but to help you see how so many love to water down the truth in academia, always talking around a subject, but never really looking to it and submitting to God’s word as we are called to do. Enjoy.

First off, for those of you who don’t know me, the one thing that bothers me most in Christian circles is when a man preaches or teaches in such a way that sounds lofty and erudite, but is nothing more than a liberal screed (think N.T. Wright). I believe the loftier, the more dangerous a man’s speech. Jesus, Paul, Peter, and Stephen would not have fit in the erudite circles of the church today.

Secondly, I’ve been told that I’m very blunt when I preach and teach. To me, there is no greater compliment. Show me from scripture one sermon that was not in someone’s face, drawing a line in the sand, or calling out sinners to repentance, as opposed to what is set forth today in many circles, lofty words that tickle our intellectual fancies.

The point is that, when I read Mark A. Garcia’s post After Patriarchy, Part 1, I couldn’t help but think he was trying to bamboozle us with his lofty words. For the first two paragraphs, he was obviously writing for the inner circle, no, more like the inner sanctum of the high priestly elites of Christendom. He was much like Dennis Miller, dropping names and references to things that only six people in the country really know anything about, and laughing endlessly because only they get the inside joke. So needless to say, I wasn’t impressed with Garcia from the beginning. I didn’t know where he was going and it didn’t look like he did either. But that is because I don’t know the inside joke, and he does.

But he did finally meander his way to a point. He is making the poorly supported case for a more broad understanding of a woman’s role in marriage, with the usual calls to be broader in our thinking, and more claims that scholarship supports this gradual and more enlightened movement from a more conservative approach to a woman’s role in the family. He is working his way to saying that patriarchal complimentarianism is dead, and the ones who don’t know that are foolish.

But before we go deeper, let’s try to clarify. Granted, when it comes to the patriarchy/complimentarianism debate, I’m hardly an expert. But neither is anyone else as far as I can tell. Everyone seems to be talking past each other and if you are not careful, you will be called a member of one side or the other in a way that really is meant as an insult.

On the patriarchy side of things, there are people like Douglas Wilson who hold that a man is the head of his household and that the woman is there to serve her husband. Since he clearly states what he means by this, I will quote him:

Patriarchy simply means “father rule,” and so it follows that every biblical Christian holds to patriarchy. The husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church (Eph. 5:23), and fathers have the central responsibility to bring up their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). Children are required to obey their parents (both of them), and since the wife is to follow the lead of her husband in all things (Eph. 5:24), this means that the father is responsible to provide for and protect his family. Father rule. That’s the good part.

This seems reasonable enough. The problem (which Wilson also identifies) is that fallen men are called to marriages and often abuse this position of authority. They tend to think it means “little dictator” and end up becoming…well, I can’t say where that thought ended up.

This is why strong elders are needed in the church. When someone is abusing their position given to them by God, they need to be confronted. Because there is this lack of confrontation, those who hold to patriarchy tend to be metaphorically tarred and feathered by the more “enlightened” corner of Christianity.

Now, as for complimentarians…It is really hard to pinpoint what they actually believe. I read in the New Geneva Study Bible the footnote for Genesis 2:20 that uses the phrase “comparable to him,” the following: “this expression assumes a complementary relationship; what he lacked she supplied and vice versa.” I can live with that. My wife certainly compliments me in this way, and I’m truly grateful.

But after that, it becomes much more fuzzy and I get the impression that many complimentarians are nothing more the feminist in disguise. Well, I shouldn’t say that. I should say that Garcia is nothing more than a feminist in disguise.

Allow me to define what a feminist is: a feminist is a woman or a man, that want to erase the male/female distinctions in the family, workplace and all of society. On some level, they also want to tear men down and subjugate men. There are really varying degrees of feminism, but I think the best way to understand it is in light of the curse in Genesis.  Feminists are women living out the curse: “Your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Genesis 3:16). The desire here is not sexual desire, but a desire to rule and control their husbands.  That is not a good thing.

With that background, let’s move forward with Garcia’s post. What he starts out doing is calling us to go back to all the theologians of the past and re-read them with the intent of finding out what they actually believed about women and their roles in marriage. He asks us if we have read Gregory of Nyssa on the Trinity. And if we have, then we should go back and read Gregory on women. He is making the assumption that Gregory was as confused about the role of women in marriage as he is.

Realize that when you look throughout church history, you don’t find a lot of women leading their husbands or women’s ministries because they understood their role in the family. Yes, the struggle of the curse was always there, but for the most part, men understood their role in the family and women understood their role. After all, it was quite obvious. With women giving birth to children, the most noble of all callings, they didn’t have time for worldly pursuits, or making a name for themselves.

Feminism has so saturated the church today, that we cannot see these clear distinctions in calling. We raise our daughters with the idea that they can be anything they want to be and if pregnancy gets in the way, that’s OK, we can kill the child in her womb. In fact, even in Christian homes, girls are raised with the idea that they need to go to college, get a career, and then after they have been satisfied in all the worldly pleasures, then settle down and have one baby, maybe two. I have heard from women raised in the church, while in college, tell me quite simply that they didn’t want the “burden” of children. I pointed out that this was a feminist view of the world, and was shortly thereafter “unfriended” by them. Never mind the directive: be fruitful and multiply.

The confusion in our day has become so pronounced that in the next few years, our daughters and wives can also go off to war. I believe this is because the church has clearly abdicated its place in reminding the women of our day that their greatest calling is giving birth to the next generation. Their calling is not to be all they can be. It is not to climb the corporate ladder. It is not to serve in any role just to prove their worthiness. As long as we continue with the charade, the importance of children will continue to be overlooked, and our society will see them only as the political footballs that they are now.

So when I read the liberal diatribe by Mr. Garcia, you can see that it gets my blood boiling. He is most erudite, and wordy. He says a lot, without actually saying a thing. He defends, not a biblical position, but being more biblical without actually referring to the Bible. He makes allusions to the fact that there have been abuses in patriarchy, and then makes the false assumption, that since there have been abuses in patriarchy, then all those who hold to the patriarchal position must be wrong.

We see this when he writes:

To avoid the dangers of reactionary error, the most responsible and well-informed voices need to be clear that, for example, our rediscovered sensitivity to the dark reality of spousal abuse does not mean we do not need to be very careful in identifying spousal misconduct as “abuse.”

Just look at his language: “the most responsible and well-informed voices…” that is code speak for, “those who agree with me are the most responsible and well-informed voices. Everyone else is daft.” Mr. Garcia, please just say what you believe: that everyone who disagrees with you is a backwards rube. And thank you for your nod in the direction that you, have discovered, that spousal abuse actually exists. We have known this for quite some time. Glad you are with the program.

He goes on to give a nod toward “submission” which is the closest to Scripture he actually comes and writes:

Our most responsible reading of what “submission” does and does not mean should not somehow entail, for our thinking or our rhetoric, that Scripture does not in fact teach that wives should “submit” to their husbands in the Lord. The fact of nuances and richness in biblical teaching on the grounds for a valid divorce does not mean divorce has limitless grounds (it does not), that divorce is no longer a significant problem in our day (it is), or that divorce ever takes place without the serious sin of at least one, though maybe only one, spouse (it only ever does). In these examples and many others, we must be painstakingly careful not to confuse our rejection of a bad idea or framework with the acceptance of every possible opposing one.

In other words, unless we see “submission” as Garcia & Company say it is, then clearly we are not being reasonable and fair minded in our approach to Scripture. Whenever scholars start throwing around the phrases like “nuances and richness in biblical teaching” you can count that not much biblical teaching will follow. And it doesn’t. In fact, the word “submission” is about the only Bible verse, nay word, that Garcia quotes.

Garcia is referencing Ephesians 5:22 to try and show us he understands the biblical teaching, but then quickly changes the subject and moves on to divorce to tell us what a problem it is. Notice the glaring non-sequitur in his argumentation. He brings up divorce because he has already said far too much about submission for  his own comfort. This is because he cannot hold to his position and give us an honest reflection on what the verse actually says. Liberals never can. We know the word of God doesn’t change, and the biblical idea of submission will not change even with “a vast amount of solid biblical and theological scholarship over the last several decades.” Garcia is trying to lead us to believe that new discoveries have been made, which mean that submission, doesn’t really mean submission.

So allow me to do what Garcia won’t do: actually look at the verse.

Ephesians 5:22 reads Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the LORD. The idea of submission is a military term that was used of those in the lower ranks, submitting, aligning under, placing themselves under their commanding officers so that the command could be successful in warfare. It is a voluntary act of the woman. It is not something that man can command. Yet, for a woman not to submit to her husband is to be in rebellion against the LORD. She is to submit to him, and serve him, as she would the LORD.

Peter, in his treatment on wives submitting to their husbands, even unbelieving ones, gives us an example of what this submission looks like:

Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands,6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening (1 Peter 3:3-6).

Notice the example we are given. It is Sarah, who obeyed her husband, even when he told her to lie about their marriage (twice), and she is commended for obeying him. She didn’t argue with him, usurp his authority, tell him how wrong he was, but obeyed him.What she did was right and glorifying to the LORD, which is in stark contrast to the people of our day who will jump through all kinds of rationalizations in order to not obey God’s word.

Yet, if our families are to function as God intended, we cannot continue on in this disobedience. The family is the most sacred institution that we have in society, and our LORD guided the apostles on how we should live in this institution. Christ does so because it is honoring to Him for us to do so. This is actually an act of kindness on part of the LORD. William Hendriksen writes in the New Testament Commentary on Ephesians:

Now in his kindness toward womanhood, the Lord, fully realizing that within the family much of the care of children will rest on the wife, has been pleased not to overburden her. Hence, he placed ultimate responsibility with respect to the household upon the shoulders of her husband, in keeping with the latter’s creational endowment. So here, through his servant, the apostle Paul, the Lord assigns to the wife the duty of obeying her husband. This obedience must be a voluntary submission on her part, and that only to her own husband, not to every man. What will make this obedience easier, moreover, is that she is asked to render it ‘as to the Lord,’ that is, as part of her obedience to him, the very One who died for her (p. 248).

I wonder if Garcia would agree to Hendriksen’s scholarship.

But you get the idea. This is what it means for women to submit to their husbands. All the modern scholarship in the world is not going to change it and, since this is so, patriarchal complementarianism will continue, just like there are those of us who will never ordain women as deacons or elders in spite of increased pressure from denominational progressives to do so. The Bible doesn’t change, even when the culture around us changes.

I must give Garcia credit. He finally does get around to saying what he means. In his closing paragraph, he writes the following:

Next in this series, we will look at what has happened to the idea of marital and societal “patriarchy” in biblical and historical scholarship, its origins and elusive meaning, and why patriarchal complementarians are apparently the last to realize that this social-scientific convention has been abandoned (and rightly) by just about everyone else.

What absolute arrogance on Garcia’s part. He is so caught up in his progressive mindset that he cannot see that what scripture commands us to do, God actually expects us to do. The God who never changes, is not changing His word for men like Garcia, or any other progressive to come along, even with their erudite scholarship.

There is a lot more to comment upon, but I think we have given Garcia enough attention. One final point, as I was reading his article, I kept thinking that the way in which he wrote it, could have been used to make the argument for gay marriage. The same tactics were used by proponents of ordaining women in the ministry, ordaining gay men in the ministry, and accepting the oxymoronic gay marriage. Just use lofty words, an appeal to broader scholarship, and you can make the Bible say anything you want it to say…except, of course, what it actually says.

Wednesday Word: Preaching the Text, Without Preaching the Text

I heard another sermon on Ephesians 5:21-33 this past weekend. Once again, the pastor preaching the sermon did a wonderful job of avoiding the text wholeheartedly. Like many others, he started with a passage about biblical marriage, and talked about all kinds of things that make a good marriage, that are not found in the text itself.

He talked about unity, saying that in a good marriage, there must be unity. This is true. But the text says nothing about unity. Ephesians 4:1-6 deals with unity. Preach that text if you want to preach about unity.

He also talked about humility. Humility is necessary for a great marriage. This is also true. But the passage isn’t dealing with humility. Philippians 2:1-11 deals with humility. Preach that text if you want to preach about humility.

He also preached about pride. The text isn’t dealing with pride. Camp out in Proverbs if you want to preach on pride.

I admit that all three of these things are necessary for a good marriage, and are worth mentioning in a sermon about marriage. But again, by preaching about these things, the pastor avoided what the text actually says. What is really sad is that no one, as far as I could tell, noticed.

My goal in this post is that my readers will understand how easy it is to not preach the Bible, and to understand what to look for in a good sermon. Let’s look at the key verse to understanding the entire passage it applies to: Ephesians 5:21.

“Submitting (subjecting) to one another in the fear of God.”

This is the verse that sets the tone for 5:21 through 6:9. It is dealing with the hierarchy God has given us in the household, and how we are to submit to one another within that hierarchy. So far, I’ve mentioned two words that the pastor above didn’t mention. First, he used the word “subject” because that is what the NIV translators used, thereby avoiding the more accurate translation: “submit.” The translators assume that no one likes the word “submit.” They think it sounds too overbearing.

When translators do such things, they are letting their fear of man dictate their translation instead of the text. The dirty little secret is, those of us who are true believers want the text translated as closely to the full meaning of the Greek and Hebrew as possible. We want the truth, as hard as it may be, as confrontational as it is with our culture, and more importantly, with our sinful flesh. We don’t want it watered down, or softened for our delicate sensibilities because we know that the most loving thing that can happen in the life of a believer, and the church, is to hear the full counsel of God. It is God’s way of feeding us spiritually, correcting us, rebuking us, and loving us.

But men… fearing men… shy away from the truth, which is the reason for this post. I’m trying to show what it looks like when men who occupy Christ’s pulpits fear men more than they fear Him.

Second, the pastor avoided using the word “hierarchy,” even though the moment he used the word “subject,” instead of “submit,” he still implied hierarchy. You can’t remove either concept from the text. Submission, which is what the Greek word means in the original, implies that there is a hierarchy being dealt with, and within that hierarchy, one person has to align themselves under the headship of another. The term is actually a military term and was used for those entering into the ranks, who had to “submit” or align themselves under those of higher rank. Those of higher rank were their “heads.”

When the Apostle Paul, by the power and inspiration of the Holy Spirit, uses the term, he doesn’t leave it alone in verse 21. He explains what he means within the hierarchy of the household and tells us how we are to submit to “one another” in that hierarchy.

And THIS is what this pastor, and thousands like him, don’t want to touch, preach, mention or imply. They will use jokes, half-thought out illustrations, moral imperatives  and weak analogies to avoid speaking about what the text is actually saying because they believe that the women in their congregations don’t want to hear what it means to “submit to your own husbands, as to the LORD.” 

The sad truth is that there are plenty of godly women who want to hear what it means. They want to be affirmed in their understanding of the text. They want the reminder of knowing that when they are submitting to their husbands, they are doing so, “as to the LORD,” the LORD whom they love and want to faithfully serve every day.

By God’s grace, there are pastors who faithfully preach the text, but not many. Those who do, do so because they love the LORD and fear Him above all else. They also love what God’s word actually says. And, not least of all, they love their flock, and want to feed them on the truth so that they become conformed more to the image of Christ, and less like the world.

Back to Sunday’s sermon.

Most pastors like the one I heard this past weekend, if they say anything at all about submission, will say something like this: “the text says to submit to one another, so men, you should be submitting to your wives as well.”

No, it doesn’t. Paul is very clear about what he means. “Wives submit to your husband, as to the LORD (5:22). Children, obey your parents in the LORD, for this is right (6:1). Bondservants (slaves), be obedient to those who are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ (6:5).”

Notice what Paul doesn’t say: husbands, submit to your wives. Parents, submit to your children. Masters, submit to your slaves. It’s remarkable that when you put verse 21 in context with the rest of what Paul is saying about submitting to one another, how absurd it is to assume husbands are to submit to their wives. Paul eliminates this possibility when he gives the reason wives are to submit to their husbands: for the husband is the head of the wife, as also Christ is the head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body.

The head doesn’t submit to the body. The body submits to the head. Paul backs his argument by using Christ as an example. Christ is the head of the church. We submit to Christ. Christ doesn’t, hasn’t and will not submit to the church. That is not His place. His place is leading, shepherding, saving, and sanctifying the church while He submits to the Father’s will in all things.

I know that there are some who say that Christ submitted to the church when He was placed on trial and died on the cross. This is not true. He submitted to the authorities, rulers, powers and principalities of darkness, of which members of the church may have belonged to at the time. But He didn’t submit to the body. He died for His body, in order to redeemed His bride. But He doesn’t submit to her.

Christ being the head of the body (see Colossians), and the husband being the head of the wife, is called headship. See also 1 Corinthians 11:1-12, Numbers 30.

All of what I’m saying here are things the pastor should have been dealing with. He should have dealt with submission, and what it means for us and our marriages. He should have spent time expanding on this so that women would have understood what their duties are in marriage.

Please note: I’m purposefully not using the word “roles” for men and women in marriage. We have duties given to us by God in the Garden of Eden and expanded upon throughout the rest of Scripture. A role is something someone can step into or out of. A duty is something placed upon us that remains until the One who placed it there, removes that duty from us. (Heads up: He doesn’t remove it from us).

The pastor should have dealt with headship, and worked to show us that it is biblical, and men are to take on the duty they have been given by God, and lead their wives and families. He should have answered the hard questions of what it means to be submissive. But he didn’t. He gave a sappy sermon on love and romance instead.

I’m sure he would say that he was preaching the “application” of the text. This excuse is often used to avoid the text. Another dirty little secret: if you preach the text faithfully, there is immediate application. You don’t have to manipulate the text to make it applicable. It’s God’s word. By preaching the text faithfully, and getting out of the way, God uses it immediately, although imperceptibly, in the lives of those who hear it. That is how God’s word works. We don’t have to jump through hoops to make it applicable for today’s society. God’s word is always applicable.

I hope you can see the real point here: far too many are preaching subjects that can be derived from the text, but not preach the text itself. Hopefully, your pastor doesn’t do the same.