Clough Proverbs Lesson 66
DI #2: Marriage: Role of the Man
Shall we turn to
Genesis 1. Today we move into a new area
of study in the book of Proverbs and that is the second divine
institution. We have dealt with the
various aspects of the first divine institution; we have touched on the areas
of property, labor and money and at least exposed you to the fact that the Word
of God has definitive norms and standards in the field of economics, a field
that has usually considered itself independent of religious consideration. The Word of God, however, is not partial,
it’s total and comprehensive and therefore the Word of God speaks to those
fields also.
Today we move to
the second one that deals with sex and marriage and the orientation of the
human race in this area. And we’re going
to proceed, as we study the second divine institution more quickly than we did
the first because Proverbs basically is an individual type book. It’s not a group book and that being the case
we’ll cover it in two part; the second divine institution, the sphere of
marriage, and that is we’ll discuss today the role of man, then next week the
role of the woman, and then third we’ll deal with the specific Proverbs taking
the principles we’ve learned and then developing the proverbs that we find in
the book. That will be our procedure,
then, to run through these areas.
We start with the
institution of marriage and the institution of the sexual differences of the
human race, we have to go to the key passage which is Genesis 1. Everything begins with creation and as such
this will remind you by way of review that Bible Christianity has a base in
creation as well as in the fall and other areas. But if we abandon Genesis 1-3 you have no
basis for applying the Christian faith in these other areas. So again we are dependent on a literal
actual historically inerrant Genesis. As
offensive as that may be to some of you, we simply would counter that you
really do not have a base to say anything in any area of human knowledge unless
you first adhere, sharply and strongly, to a literal Genesis.
Now before we
start we have to collide with human viewpoint.
The human viewpoint pictures of marriage and sex are distorted. And one of the things that you usually get
into in this area that you have clear up immediately is a bunch of
negatives. So let’s list the negatives
to start with, what we are not talking about, to clarify what we are talking
about. The first thing we are not
talking about is the product of social forces.
Marriage is not a product of social forces down through the history of
man that has evolved this institution.
Marriage is not caused by the state.
Now some of you can be very confused because you’ll attend a marriage
ceremony and you’ll hear the minister say: now by virtue of the authority
vested in my by the state of
The second denial;
it is not a product of the church either.
Marriage is not an institution for the church. During the middle ages it was thought that
marriage, and in some areas still, marriage is a sacrament. The church does not make or terminate
marriages either, for the same reason the state does not make or end
marriages. Marriage began in
What is
marriage? All right, let’s look at
Genesis
But what about
their soul? The soul is the byproduct of
both and therefore the sexual differences extend into the soul. In case some of you men haven’t recognized
it, women do think differently than we do.
And so the woman’s soul is different.
It is different because the soul is the product of both a different body
and the same spirit and for this reason women think differently and men think
differently.
So today we are
going go on the role of the man. And I
might preface my remarks, because some of you men after I get through are going
to think your wives came and talked to me, honestly they didn’t, this comes
straight from the Word of God and it applies to me just as much as it applies
to you, and I can’t help it, but this is the Word of God and we might as well
get straight from the start that this is going to be our authority. And you may or may not like what God’s Word
tells us we ought to be doing but nevertheless, that’s what the Word of God
tells us, and there will be a test as to how submissive you can be toward God.
Let’s look at
three things; first, beginning in Genesis 1:28 we’re going to start off with a
principle and that is the role of the man.
The first thing a man has to learn is to submit to God’s authority. Everything hinges on that point; if a man
cannot do that he just can’t function the way he is supposed to function. Man must learn to submit to God’s
authority. Now that happens to be one of
the most hard, most difficult for American males to learn, is that before a woman is going to you, you have to
learn to respect God’s authority. In
other words, you have to be respectable if you expect some woman to respect
you.
So Genesis 1 gives
us one of the three illustrations of this principle we’re going to study
today. We’re going to study three men in
the Bible and we are going to study how each submitted to God’s authority. First we’re going to study Adam; then we’re
going to study David, then we’re going to study Jesus. Each of these three men ultimately started by
submitting to God’s authority.
Let’s look at what
God told Adam to do in Genesis 1:28, “God blessed them, and He said unto them,”
you can tell the order He said it by another verse which I’ll show you in a
moment, but verse 28 says, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish [fill] the
earth, and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the
fowl of the air, and over every living thing….”
I think some men read verse 28 as though it’s God giving you permission
to do as you please; you can subdue the earth if you choose to subdue the
earth, you don’t have to subdue the earth, that’s just an option available to
you if you’d like to do something in your spare time. This is not an option. Verse 28 is a demand that man; you will
subdue the earth, period! And you have
no peace unless you do actively subdue the earth. This is not an invitation, this is an order
that is given by God the Father and if you can’t take those kinds of orders you
have no business being a man. You have a
standard that the man should take orders from God as your authority. So this verse is a commission, it’s called a
cultural mandate for those of you who wish to be more literate. This is the command for man to conquer his
environment and master it. It includes
all things in that environment, including women in that environment and we’ll
discuss how in a moment. But it includes
the fact that man is the responsible manager; he is the one charged with this
duty.
So God tells Adam
what to do. He doesn’t give him options,
He tells him. Now that, in a nutshell,
is what Adam had to do. That’s the point
of Adam’s authority. You see it again in
Genesis 2:15-17, “And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of
Eden to dress [till] it and to keep it.
[16] And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the
garden you may freely eat; [17] But of the tree of the knowledge of good and
evil” you cannot. So verses 15-17 do not
give you an option. Adam wasn’t given,
Adam, if you happen to think of it take care of the garden. Huh-un, you will take care of the garden for
Me. That is the language that God used
to the first man. And that is the
language that God uses for every man, and the only problem is some hear better
than others. All right, that’s Adam,
Adam being commanded by God, under God’s authority.
Now we come to a
second illustration in the Word. David;
turn to Psalm 34. David learned well
that as a man, as a leader, before he could lead he too had to submit; submit
to God’s authority. Remember this was
taught to his army at Adullam; the military training of one of the greatest
armies that the ancient world ever saw, commanded by David, was begun through
Psalm 34; that was the basic training, and you recall that the basic training
of David’s army starts with the concept of authority. No army can live and exist without
authority. That’s wrong with the United
States Armed services today; we have racial fights in the barracks, we have all
sorts of things that are going on in the Marines and in the Army particularly,
Army and Navy, that just represent a total denial of authority. And no officer can shoot them or get rid of
them because he’d be disciplined for exercising authority. But any superior officer in these kinds of
things ought to take some of these whiny cry-baby soldiers out and get rid of
them in some way. But no army can
survive without authority and respect for authority. Now this is just another sign of deterioration,
just another sign of it and the next time America gets in a war we’re going to
watch; we’ll have people running all over the place because there’s been no
authority. And it’s just a manifestation
of what’s happening at home.
But Psalm 34, David
insisted that the men, it was addressed to men, not women, Psalm 34 is loaded
with how a man should respond to God. In
verse 4-6 he describes his lament or the problem that he had. “I sought the LORD, and he heard me, and
delivered me from all my fears,” there is David’s submission to God’s
grace. [6] “This poor man cried, and the
LORD heard him, and saved him out of all his troubles.” David is not being a phony, he’s not being a
weak man here, he’s actually being a very strong man because he’s taking his
position under God’s authority. God’s
authority says you will be occupied with grace; you will operate, David, on the
grace principle. Not to operate on the
grace principle but on the works principle is going to be a violation of this
authority.
And so in Psalm
34:7 he lists a series of principles he wants his men to understand. Verse 7 says, as a principle, “The angel of
the LORD encamps round about them that fear him,” and both the verb “encamp”
and “fear” are participles meaning continual action. “The angel of the Lord constantly camps round
about them who fear him,” now this word “fear,” a very basic word in Psalm
34. In fact, if you look down through
this psalm quickly you’ll notice that the word “love” is not there, it’s there
in some form but it’s not as prominent as “fear.” Now why does fear precede love when the New
Testament says “Perfect love casts out fear?”
Why do you have this? Because the
word fear in the Old Testament, is a word that refers to respect for
authority. What is the beginning of
knowledge? Respect for authority. What does the fear of the Lord mean? Respect for Him. How do you respect the Lord? You respect Him by respecting His orders, by
respecting His Word. When He tells you
to do something in the middle of a situation in the Word and you don’t you are
not being respectful to His authority.
Respecting God’s authority is respecting His Word.
And this is why he
says those that constantly fear Him, the Lord cams round about them. Now the word “camp” is a military term. It was a word that has the idea of this is a
military group on the march, and they pause and they camp and the angel of the
Lord is their defense perimeter. It’s a
military term geared to men, not women.
And it refers to a particular kind of men that the Lord is interested in
working with; only those who respect His authority.
Then he says in
Psalm 34:8, as an invitation to the men, “taste and see that the LORD is good;
blessed is the man who habitually trusts in Him.” Now you can’t trust the Lord without
respecting his authority. There’s no
way; you try to figure this out, I once did.
Try to figure out how you can trust the Lord without respecting Him, and
then come out another way, try to figure out how to respect Him without
trusting Him. Just try to work it out in
your mind; it can’t be done. God’s
authority must be respected and that is trust.
Verse 9, he repeats it. “Fear the
Lord, ye his saints,” that is an imperative, it is a command to respect God’s authority,
“for there is no lack to them that fear him.
And then in Psalm
34:10 he says this, and this is deliberately to attack the human viewpoint of
the male. He says, “The young lions do
lack, and suffer hunger;” now “the young lions” is a term used in the ancient
world, both by Arab and Jew alike, to refer to the heroic warrior. The young lion would be the model of the male
success image. So when you see the word
“young lion” that would be what every aspiring would like to be in that world,
a “young lion.” That’s his hero, that’s
his male image. And by using this term
in the text David deliberately attacks it, and he says your male images of
success lack. It’s an outright attack on
the male success image, they “lack and they suffer hunger, but they that
habitually seek,” the word “seek” is a participle, “they that habitually seek
the LORD shall never want any good thing.”
Now he’s talking
about battle, the “good thing” mentioned in verse 10 isn’t just some little
birthday present that’s going to be mailed into the camp. The “good thing” is victory, it’s military
victory. Psalm 34 was written for an
army. This is talking about success in
God’s world. And so he says being a
young lion doesn’t hack it. Why? Because on the human viewpoint base the male
always wants to go autonomous, I will do it, I will achieve my success with my
potential, with my capabilities, independent of God’s program I will strike out
my path, and David says try it, you’ll lack every time. And those that submit to God, those men that
bow before His authority, they’re the men that are going to be successful. God will frustrate you at every point until
you bow your knee before His Word. David
wants to make sure his men get that point across.
Now let’s see the
third example; Adam, David, now Jesus Himself, Matthew 26. The Lord Jesus Christ is probably one of the
most represented men in history. If you
been to see Jesus Christ Superstar and all the other pimply faced imitations
you obviously have walked away with the impression that Jesus Christ is some
sort of a fairy waving his Kleenex at all the people. But Jesus Christ could not have been that
kind of a person. First of all, He was a
carpenter and they didn’t have Skill saws; He had to hand saw. He worked his father’s shop for years,
without the benefit of power tools. He
carried His own cross after he had been severely beaten up by Roman
soldiers. Jesus Christ was a very strong
man. To show you an illustration of how
strong He is you have but to remember what He did to the mob in the temple in
John 2. For those of you who are more
gentle and meek and mild, take note of the fact that Jesus armed himself. The whip that He used was equivalent to what
we would call a blackjack. And He didn’t
just wave it at the people; He hit them with it. Jesus Christ armed Himself and hit people and
threw them out of the temple. And so Jesus Christ was not some little fairy
that trotted into Palestine a few centuries ago.
Now Matthew 26 has
to be seen in that context, otherwise this is not the core of authority. This is the struggle of a man to submit to
the principle he must submit to, and I want you to see this struggle for a
moment to recall that no person… this does not come naturally. It didn’t come naturally to Christ so don’t
be discouraged men, if it doesn’t come naturally. Here’s Jesus, the third
illustration. Jesus Christ in the Garden
of Gethsemane had minus sin nature; no sin nature. He didn’t have the flesh in the sense that we
have. He wasn’t burdened by this constant
tendency to generate ungodly behavior patterns, stimulate them. He didn’t have that. But, as Hebrews tells us, He had to learn
obedience. Jesus Christ had to learn
submission to authority and here He is still learning; this is His humanity,
yes, but that’s what we’re interested in, the male humanity of Jesus
Christ.
So in Matthew
26:36 we read, “Then comes Jesus with them unto a place called Gethsemane, and
says to the disciples, Sit here, while I go and pray. [37] And He took with Him Peter and the two
sons of Zebedee, and bean to be sorrowful and very heavy [depressed].” Can a man be depressed and still
spiritual? Yes, He is depressed, He
doesn’t go tripping up to Gethsemane with the joy, joy, joy in His heart; He
doesn’t have any joy in His heart, He’s sorrowful at this point. Why?
Because He has a job that is very repulsive to do. He is being asked to come in contact with sin
for the first time in His life, something that is utterly revolting to His
entire character. So men, remember when
you have a job to do that you hate and you despise and it’s utterly revolting
to you, that you will never face a job so revolting to you that this job was
revolting to Jesus of Nazareth. He is
very sorry.
And then He said
in verse 38, “Then said He unto them, My soul is exceedingly sorrowful, even
unto death,” in other words He had a fantastic sorrow in His heart at this
point, which is not an omission of His spirituality; if you think this is an
omission of His spirituality your concept of spirituality is wrong. “Wait here,” He said, “and watch with
me. [39] and He went a little further,
and fell on His face, and prayed, saying, O My Father, if it be possible, let
this cup pass from Me; nevertheless, not as I will, but as You will.” He does not want to the job that God has
called Him to do; it does not come naturally to Him. He just doesn’t give up, however, He orients
Himself under the authority of God.
Notice in verse 39 that He adds, “Nevertheless, let it not be as I will,
but as You will.” There’s His
existential submission to authority at that point, but it still doesn’t come
natural because in verse 40, “And he comes to the disciples, and found them
sleeping; and He said unto Peter, What, could you not watch with Me one hour?” Here is the God of the universe in His
humanity asking for a little human friendship and Peter and the disciples
couldn’t make it.
Matthew 28:41,
“Watch and pray, that you enter not into temptation; the spirit indeed is
willing, but the flesh is week. [42] And
He went away again the second time, and prayed, saying, O My Father, if this
cup may not pass away from Me except I drink it, Thy will be done.” So verse 42 is a progression from verse 39;
notice in 39 He’s saying oh, I wish it weren’t so. Now in verse 42, if the cup can’t pass away,
then let Your will be done, He’s moved a little bit closer. But notice submitting to the Father’s
authority did not come easy to the sinless Savior. Now if it didn’t come easy to Him it’s not
going to come easy to you. So don’t be
shook when you have to go through a very agonizing process of getting your
submission into line.
Verse 43, “And He
came and found them asleep again; for their eyes were very heavy. [44] And he left them, and went away again,
and prayed the third time, saying the same words.” And then He turned to His disciples “and said
unto them, Sleep on now, and take your rest; behold, the hour is at hand, and
the Son of man is betrayed into the hands of sinners.” Now the interesting fact about this was the
word in verse 44 that He prayed the same words but they were all sleeping. How then do we know what the words were that
He prayed? How did Matthew find out what
the words were that Jesus prayed in the Garden?
Doesn’t it tell you that Christ must have told Matthew? Doesn’t it tell you that He must have shared
with them what He went through while they were sleeping? If that’s the case, that also teaches you
something else about the male submission to God’s authority; it’s nothing to be
ashamed of. Jesus shared it with those
around Him. He wasn’t ashamed to share
with His disciples that it took three prayers before He could get His soul
submissive to God’s Word. And we know
that it had to be Jesus that told the disciples because the disciples were
sleeping; He had to be the one. They
weren’t sleeping there, watching with one eye open what was going on, they were
sound asleep.
Now, let’s look at
the typical male in opposition to Jesus Christ, the male operating on human
viewpoint. Starting off with this chaos
in the heart, it starts off with negative volition toward revelation expressed
with such statements as I am a man, I don’t need this. And the fundamental assumption of the
American male is that manliness is identical to pride, a very satanic kind of
thinking. But for some men they can’t
separate maleness from pride and the wrong kind of pride. So starting with this attack and considering
the fact that I lose my masculinity if I submit to God’s Word outside of myself
as an absolute authority, then I progress to darkness, because then I am in
opposition to God’s grace, and he withdraws His grace, and this… you usually
have the statements, well, I’m smart, I can figure it out myself kind of
thing. And this usually occurs right
during the time when perception is decreasing and the male is actually
withdrawing his contact with God. Just
as he’s doing that he’s usually saying on the surface, I can handle it. And then the human viewpoint, because he
thinks he’s so smart, and beginning with our autonomy and decreasing
perception, I will erect my own thinking, winding up usually with a little
licentiousness or legalism, one or the other.
That’s human viewpoint, the third thing in the decay of the man.
Then progressing
along the ladder of decay the hatred toward God finally develops. Having rejected Him as unnecessary at the
first step, very logically the man blames God for all his troubles, when at the
first step he said I didn’t need God to start with. And yet it isn’t it always amusing that men
(?) God gets blamed for it. Now if God
is so inconsequential that you don’t need Him at the first step, why should He
receive the blame at the fourth step? If
it really is true that you can take care of yourself, independently of God,
then why blame Him for the mess you get into up here? It means, obviously that you didn’t mean what
you said you meant down here. So at the
point of hatred the man usually falls under the spell of various idols, money,
success, his image and so on. Here are
the typical male idols and that’s where they begin to affect a tremendous
program in his soul. This intimates my
rejection of God’s grace.
And then finally
the frustration, everything falls apart.
The final stage, social chaos, everything falls apart, irresistible
discipline and so on, it’s just absolute misery.
Now that
summarizes the first principle of the role of the man, that the man must first
learn to submit to God’s authority or he can’t function the way he is created
to function. Let’s take four test
questions that we can apply to our hearts and see whether as men we are
submitting to God’s authority. The first
obvious test that every man should ask himself is whether I have been obedient
to God’s refusal to justify by works, and have I submitted to His gospel of
grace in Christ? Or, am I still trying
to strike it out in m proud American male image, that I will save myself,
operation bootstrap, I will save
myself, I don’t need a Savior, that’s for the women, not for men. And in this case you are violating God’s
authority; you are trying to establish your own autonomous works over and
against God’s grace.
The second
question for those who have become Christians, for those who have gone along in
at least one point bowed their knees to God’s grace and remember that only
grace can save you through the ordained Savior and you are not the ordained
savior of yourself, we come to a second test question. Are you habitually obedient to God’s
insistence that all good works come by grace, not by legalism. Are you insistent that you must hang on, so
to speak, at every point, that it’s God’s grace that gives you the ability to
do or independently of God are you trying to do things, even be good, be moral,
come to church, come to Bible class, pray, go through the motions but there’s
no real heart dependence on God’s grace at every point in your life. If you have trouble this way may I suggest
the Hebrew series. Hebrews, I’m discovering
as I prepare for Wednesday night’s class, is one of the most vehement attacks
against liberalism I’ve ever seen in the Word of God and I never expected to
see it in Hebrews, of all places. But
are you a legalist, an autonomous man who sets up his own standards. We have men in this town, I know because
every once in a while they trot in here and put in their appearance, let me
know they’re breathing, and they come in, they take in a little bit of the
Word. And then they erect certain
legalistic standards. See, they get
enough of the Word to get some of the standards out of the word, and then they
add their standards, like this, and then they go around condemning people that
fall short of their legalistic human standards.
They’ve got enough of the Word to be dangerous, but they’re not
submitting to the Word, they’re using the Word, just as you might use a course
that you learn at the university or something.
The third question
that tests whether we are submitting as men to God’s authority. If you did a chart of how you spent your
dollars and time last week, and listed it concretely, where did your dollars
go? I don’t mean to the church, but
where did your dollars go as consciously submitting on God’s priority, in the
light of what we studied about money, all Proverbs told you about getting in
debt through covetousness and so on.
Are you submitting to God’s Word in the area of money, how you use
it. Are you submitting to God’s Word in
the area of time or don’t you have time to study the Word each day.
Somebody was just
telling me, one of the fathers of one of our college students was telling me
yesterday that he’s just read a biography of a plantation owner in Virginia,
and these men, though you may think they’re the leisure class, really
worked. But this plantation owner got up
every morning at 5:00 o’clock, before he managed his plantation, he managed to
read three chapters of the Word of God, two chapters in Josephus, one in
Aristotle, and then dealt with some geometrical problems of surveys, and then
he went to work. Can you imagine a middle
class businessman preparing himself spiritually and intellectually that way
today? What did these Virginia planters
do though as far as the history of our country; think of the government those
kind of men instituted. Their fruit
shown, didn’t it. They took the time to
submit and bow to God’s Word and the fruit, they didn’t consciously say well
now let’s make a Constitution where we respect Christianity; it just came out
of their souls because their Christian principles had been so absorbed into their
soul. They couldn’t help it when they
went to design a government to operate it on biblical principals.
The fourth
question, besides what did I do with my time and money, when was the last time
I sought God’s overall will on the basis of 12:1? When was the time that I sought the overall
will? Let’s turn to Romans 12:1 for a
moment. I don’t mean just saying well now, is it God’s will that I do this job
or that job? Another matter, God’s will
I marry this girl or that girl? I mean
something more basic. Romans 12:1, when
was the last time this thought struck you?
“I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye
present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is
your spiritual” or “reasonable service.
[2] And stop being conformed to this world, but be transformed by the
renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and
perfect, will of God.” Do you know what
the word “prove” there means? It’s a
word that’s related to refining metal; it’s a word that means to prove under
pressure. The idea is that you have this
rock with impurity and the pure metal is at the center, and all the impurities
are burned off through heat.
Do you know what
this verse is really saying? It’s saying
if you will (?) understand the Word, submit totally to the Lord Jesus Christ,
you are prepared so that when the trials of life come, just like the heat comes
on this metal, that in the innards of your soul through grace the Holy Spirit
works out the will of God. Proving the
will of God means proving it under some kind of opposition. That’s what the word “prove” means; it
doesn’t just mean that all of a sudden the words of God will flash in front of
you, you’ll have a plan for your life and you’ll just walk out, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
and operate that way. That’s not what it
means at all. Romans 12:1-2 means that
you first bow totally in every area, meaning that it is not a specific matter
of your job or your wife or something else, it is just you and your soul before
God, like the Lord Jesus Christ. If you
want a picture think of Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemane, facing the most
revolting, repelling thing imaginable and having to adjust to it by prayer. That’s Romans 12:1. So the test is, when is the last time that
thought went through your mind?
That’s the first
principle, the role of the man, submission to God’s authority. To have other people respect you, you must be
respectable yourself.
Now the second
thing; how does the man become the wise manager. If he is to manage the earth and subdue it,
how does he do it wisely? Now let me
show you what appears to be a contradiction in God’s Word. Now don’t get upset, I’m going to show you
reconciliation of it, but first to make some of you think a little bit I want
to show you what appears to be a contradiction.
Turn back to Genesis 2 again.
Something doesn’t seem right here.
In Genesis 2, understood in the context of Genesis 1 and the subduing of
the earth, which comes first in Genesis 2.
Look at verses 15-18. Which does
God give to man first? His job or his
wife? Which comes first in Genesis
2? Obviously his job; his job comes
first and then his wife, and that seems to be the logic of Genesis 1 and
2.
But now turn over
to Ephesians 5; in Ephesians 5:22, first 5:18, the famous passage on being
filled with the Spirit, you’re being filled with the Spirit and then the
outworking of the filling of the Holy Spirit, after the initial response in the
congregation, then in verse 22, deals with marriage, “Wives, submit
yourselves,” etc. and then verse 25, “Husbands, love your wives.” Then in Ephesians 6:1, “Children obey your
parents,” and then in 6:5, “Servants, be obedient to your masters.” Now what kind of an order is that? We have the wife first, then you have the
children, then you have the job.
Turn to Colossians
3:18 for a parallel passage. I think
some men are visualizing what’s coming; just relax, as I said, no woman in the
congregation put me up to this. Verse 17
is parallel to Ephesians 5:18, then we go immediately to verse 18, “Wives,”
verse 19, “Husbands,” verse 20, “Children,” verse 22, Servants.” So again you follow the order, wives,
children, job. But in Genesis it’s job
first, then wife.
Now what is the
story, how do these two reconcile. We
seem to have two contradictory lines of thought in Scripture. Let’s turn back and see if we can read
Genesis 1:28, the key passage again with the eyes of seeing does this passage
answer the question, why do we have these two apparently contradictory lines of
reasoning. In other words, it’s a
classic dilemma, is it my job or my wife that comes first? In Genesis 1:28 God created man in his own
image, in the image of God, He “blessed them, and said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it,” what comes first
there? It’s obviously the family, and
obviously before you can have a family you have to have a little sex, so
obviously the wife comes first.
Now notice this,
the wife appears to be the means of subduing the earth; is this perhaps a key
to why we have these contradictory lines of reasoning in Scripture. What is the woman doing here? The passage has a certain sequence to it. Now if you come back to Genesis 2 where we
thought we had a contradiction, let’s look at it a little more carefully in the
light of what we’ve learned in the New Testament. Notice what it says in Genesis 2:15, “God
took the man, and put him in the garden … to keep it.” That’s the job; He tells the man the
job. It appears the job is first, but
notice what happens after verse 16, “God commanded,” see, He’s describing the
job; verse 17, continuing the job, and then immediately verse 18, “And the LORD
said, It is not good that the man should be alone,” in what context? In the context of his job. So that the wife is brought right directly
into the whole thing; she is not an autonomous part, she is part of the
creation to the subduing. The commands
of Genesis 2:15, 16 and 17 can’t be fulfilled without something happening in
verse 18. Verse 18, then, stands in the
way of verse 16 and 17. Adam can’t do
what God has told him to do without a helper; without an ‘ezer.
Now some
Christians have gotten the idea of this helpmeet, as though this is a
word. It’s not a noun, this means a
helper suited, literally, it’s a noun and verb, a helper suited. Suited for what? Here’s what a woman is suited, she’s not
suited to him separate from everything else; she’s suited for him for the job
that God gave him to do. See, the woman
becomes an integral means of subduing the earth; she’s not an appendix or an
accessory, she is one of the central instruments the man uses to subdue the
earth. He can’t exist and function, the
word “not good” in verse 18 would upset the total of God’s creation if the woman
were not there. It is not good…. [Tape turns]
…the marriage
which should have been developed hasn’t because all the time, all the effort
was devoted to the kids, the kids this, the kids that, the kids something else,
and the marriage itself was never nourished, never grew.
So here we have a
principle that a man must leave his father and his mother, the parent/child
relationship is secondary to the man/wife.
And this also solves the in-law problem.
You know the Chinese symbol for trouble is two women under the same
roof. And we might adjust to the
American picture, the symbol would be two women in the same kitchen. So the in-law problem is always something
that has to be dealt with and you’ll find trouble after trouble after trouble
in marriage after marriage because a man, the man, won’t submit to verse
24. Notice it doesn’t say, “Therefore,
shall a girl leave her father and her mother,” why doesn’t it say that? Why is this just the man? Because namely it’s the man who has to
initiate the break. The man has to
insist on the break. And in the cases
I’ve worked with it’s usually the man who fails to make the break. Now there are exceptions but generally it’s
because the man has not exercised his authority in the second divine
institution; in violation of God’s order he has put the first, his relationship
to his parents, above his relationship to his wife. Wrong, according to Scripture. Again, don’t get mad at me, I didn’t write
it.
Now let’s look at
one further verse, in 1 Corinthians 7.
You can argue yeah, yeah, yeah, but isn’t celibacy better, all right,
let’s turn to 1 Corinthians 7. What do
you do about celibacy; doesn’t that violate and interrupt God’s plan, and
doesn’t Paul, the old fogy bachelor, doesn’t he say that bachelor life is better
than marriage? No he doesn’t, in fact
there’s a question whether Paul was a bachelor.
He could have been a widower.
1 Corinthians
7:29, this is the context of the problem of celibacy. “This I say, brethren, The time is short; it
remains that both they that have wives be as though they have none; [30] And
they that weeps, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they
rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; [31] And they
that use this world, as not abusing it,” the point is under extreme historical
pressure celibacy sometimes becomes an emergency means of the Church. The reason is that under extreme exceptional
conditions celibacy provides greater flexibility against Satan’s attacks, but
this is an exception, not the rule.
There is nothing that is more spiritual about being a celibate. It is true that this can be a spiritual
gift. It is true that exceptionally God
may call men in this area. But
gentlemen, don’t count on it. 99.9% of
the time God wants you to find your right woman, your “Eve,” you ‘ezer and to subdue the earth through
her.
All right, now the
second principle on the role of the man that we’ve dealt with is the man must
be the wise subduer and it must be by means of a wife. The wife cannot be cut away from the
job. Where you have a situation where
the job and the wife are at odds there’s something wrong some place. Now it may be difficult to find where it is,
and sometimes you have to go on and on and on and on to find out what’s happened
some place, but there’s something unscriptural about that little deal. If the wife and the job are at odds there’s
something terribly unscriptural about the whole thing because the wife is
originally given to blend with and be the means of the job; either the job is
wrong and God hasn’t led you into it or you are not managing your wife
properly, or she’s not responding to you or something, there’s a disaster some
place. It is not Scriptural and it is
not normal for the wife and the job to compete; that is unscriptural.
Now, footnote
before moving to the third principle, and that is single men, you’d better see
now what you’re getting into before you go tripping down this aisle or some
other aisle remember that the girl which you pick out, the girl that you marry,
is a life partner in a permanent institution and you, as it were, have to
subdue the earth through her. Now how
would you like to be tied down for the rest of your life to that thing you’re
dating? See. No insult girls, I’m just telling the boys to
be careful, that’s all.
Let’s go to the
third principle, let’s turn to 1 Corinthians 11. What is the central issue in the second
divine institution? The details of the
man’s role in the second divine institution.
We will refer to three passages and deal with three principles. First, 1 Corinthians 11:7-9. This is in the context of a passage on long
and short hair, by the way, of course, some of you think that the Bible doesn’t
have anything to say about that either, I’m sorry. “For a man indeed ought not to cover his
head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory
of the man.” Now notice in verse 8 and
9, [can’t understand words] who would love to get rid of Genesis, but verses 8
and 9 are a literal interpretation of Genesis.
“For the man is not of the woman, but the woman of the man. [10] Neither was the man created for the
woman, but the woman for the man.” And I
want you to notice something there because sometimes you’ll hit verse 7 and say
oh, well that was good in that day. The
truth that we’re about to teach was culturally limited to the ancient world; it
doesn’t apply to America in the 20th century. Oh really, why is this passage grounded not
in any other part of the Old Testament except the creation narratives? This truth follows from the act of creation,
it is not culturally relative; it is culturally absolute. This is true of all cultures, all times, all
places, with no exception. It is built
on the creation narrative and therefore is an absolute.
“The woman is the
glory of the man.” Now what does that
mean? The word “glory” throughout the
Scripture, God’s glory, what does God’s glory show, the Shekinah glory? It is a revelation of God into the world,
isn’t it; the glory is a manifestation of God.
It’s where you can see God by looking at His glory. Do you know what this means? Here’s the man and here’s his wife. If the wife is the glory of her man you can
learn a lot about the man by looking at his wife. That’s what this verse means. The woman is a reflection of how her husband
has treated her; she is a reflection of their own relationship; she is a
revelation of him; she is his glory.
Question then; you
go out next time looking for a job would you like it if the employer said to
you, I really don’t need any recommendations but I’d like to call your wife in
for an interview and that will determine whether you get the job or not. Would you like an employer to look at your
wife and talk to her and on that basis decide whether you are qualified for the
job or not. 1 Corinthians 11:7 says that
she is your glory. Now I would suppose
those of you who are employers you might just do this once in a while and it
might give you a big clue on what you’re getting into when you hire this guy… a
big clue. Isn’t interesting that we can hire Presidents
and Vice Presidents and it’s strange that we investigate their financial
background but have you ever seen a Senate committee investigate their family
life, their marriage relationship? You
don’t think it’s biblical, look at 1 Timothy a moment.
I propose that
public servants pass a test other than financial scrutiny, but pass a little
interview as to how their families are run.
After all, if a man professes to be material for the Senate or the House
or the President or the Vice President, he’s asked to reign over… manage the
United States as a nation, don’t you think it would be a very modest
requirement that he manage his own home.
1 Timothy 3:1, “If the man desire the office of a bishop, he desires a
good work. [2] A bishop must be
blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober,” and so on. Notice verse 4, “One that rules well his own
house, having his children in subjection with all gravity.” Could verse 4 be applied to contemporary
American politics before we okay people for high office? It would be very interesting, wouldn’t it, if
this test were applied.
Back to 1
Corinthians. So the principle we gain
from this verse as to the man/woman relationship is that the woman is a
responder. If she’s an old bitty, the
chances are that she’s been handled to make her one; she’s been designed to
reflect her husband. If she’s a grouch
and you know what else, then that obviously does say something, doesn’t
it. It shows you how much she’s been
cared for, it shows you how she’s been treated, and so forth. Now it’s not wholly due to the husband
because in the fallen world we have the sin nature, you have to take that into
account, but the principle, the woman is the responder and if she’s a grouch
she’s just simply responding to a bigger one that comes home every day.
Now the second
biblical passage on the third principle; the third principle in the details of
the man/woman relationship; we’ve dealt with 1 Corinthians 11, that the woman
is the responder to the man. Let’s turn
to Ephesians 5:25, I see a few look a little more uncomfortable. Well, it’s too bad as I say, take it up with
the author, not me. Ephesians 5:25,
commands given to the husband. There is
a triple analogy here, let’s get it down: Christ and His body, the husband and
his body, and the husband and his wife.
There is a triple analogy that Paul uses in this passage. In verse 25 it says, “Husbands, love your
wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave Himself for it.” All right, this principle we’re going to
study is that man is the initiator; he is the lover. The woman is never said to be the lover. Odd, because of the context the word “love”
has in Scripture. What immediately do
you read after you read the verb “love” in verse 25? It means give, love and give. How do we know that God loves us? Because God gave His only begotten Son.
Giving is always the outward manifestation of love and so therefore in
the analogy the one who initiates is the one who gives, he gives something.
Now let me show
you another little principle. There are
going to come many, many times, gentlemen, when you don’t like to give in this
kind of a context, but that’s because you emotions are just like that; don’t
worry about the emotions. The first
principle was submit to the authority of the Word and go ahead and do the
giving; you’ll find your emotions always align after you’ve done it. Don’t to by your emotions, trying to whoop up
some feeling of love before you act.
Huh-un, the giving means total support here. Notice Ephesians 5:25, He gave Himself, would
Christ give himself for the church? Did
the Church ask that Christ be given it?
No, Christ initiated. Christ
“gave Himself” [26] “That He might sanctify and cleanse it…. [27] That He might present it to Himself a
glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing,” do you see
the analogy? He trains the Church,
doesn’t He? What is the husband supposed
to with the wife? Not just give
disconnectively, but he’s to manage her.
The husband is to manage the wife like Christ manages the Church.
Now I’ve been
pastor just long enough to notice a very interesting thing about the
truthfulness of some of the pastoral epistles.
The people that will cause the greatest amount of trouble in the local
congregation are women who are not managed properly by their husband. They will do all sorts of things and many
times innocently. I don’t mean that
these women are sinister, but they do all kinds of things and as pastor I
notice the effects. The first thing I
know something is falling apart over here, a whole bunch of people are at each
other’s throats over here, trace it down, what is it? Some woman couldn’t keep her mouth shut,
hadn’t been trained properly, not managed by her husband, always going into
some thing.
Now why does that
happen? Because of the principle here,
and again I don’t mean these people are deliberately out to do anything wrong,
it just turns out that way. Why? Because the husbands are not managing their
wives properly. So as Christ should be
managing the body we should be managing our wives. Husbands, the illustration here is taking care
of their body; you get a cut and the blood is spurting out your arm you don’t
say oh well, the hell with it. Is that
the way you’d act toward that? No, you
do something about it. Well, same thing,
if your wife is lying on the floor bleeding you do something about it. And she can bleed psychologically and
spiritually and you can just pass right on, oh, you down there and so
forth. The principle to apply here, that
the man is the initiator, a test that you can use. What are some things that you’ve recently
done in the [?] for you wife.
1 Peter 3:7, the
last passage; that’s all right, the women get their turn next week. 1 Peter 3 is a very hard passage,
particularly for women who live with unbelieving husbands and we’ll get into
that problem but 1 Peter 3:7 has something to do with the husbands; Peter was
one, by the way, he knew what it was like.
“Likewise, you husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving
honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of
the grace of life, that your prayers be not hindered.” Isn’t it interesting, that last phrase in
verse 7, it means that if we men don’t handle our women correctly we suffer in
our prayer life. Isn’t that interesting
connection. I wonder if that’s not why a
lot of men are spiritually out of it.
You go to the average Christian church and you’ll find far more women
than men. It’s often puzzled me
why. Could it possibly be that the men,
trying to be autonomous trying to go their own independent way, have fouled up
and have come under this principle operating in verse 7? The Word of God doesn’t mean anything to them
any more; it’s just dry and dull. Of
course it is, under this principle, that if you don’t manage the home and it
has a (?) cause/effect relationship that makes you finally have a distaste for
the Word of God itself, “that your prayers be not hindered.”
But for our
principle this morning look at the first part of verse 7, “dwell with them
according to knowledge,” now that’s a “prove it” question that you can ask
yourself. Can you, right now, if I asked
you, some of you men, give me an approximate schedule of what your wife does
during the day? I don’t mean every
little thing that she does but could you think as to what her average routine
is during the course of the day? Another
question: have you ever done some of the things that she does during the day so
you can get direct eyewitness evidence.
It’s something to behold if you’ve ever tried it. I know some men that wouldn’t be caught in the
kitchen; they have this strange theory that masculinity is somehow dissolved in
the dishwater. If that’s the case, your
masculinity is in the wrong place.
All right, the two
principles; the first principle in the role of the man is to submit to the
Lord’s authority and gentlemen, you’re just going to have to fight off the
American human viewpoint that makes manliness, or maleness equal to pride. And your very reaction, some of you, to these
mandates in the Word of God tells me right away that you haven’t even got to
the first step, some of you, and you’re reacting adversely to some of these
passages and I can see it. And that
tells me right away that you have not done the first step, which is not my
word, it’s not your wife’s word, it’s God’s Word. So argue with Him, but you argue with Him,
He’ll convince you. Two, the male is to
fulfill his role unto God with his wife, not in spite of her… with his wife,
not in spite of her! And thirdly, you
have the various principles that the wife is the responder, the man is the
initiator and he must manage her in knowledge.
It’s a lifetime study but it has to be done.