| September 19, 1999 |
Vol. II, No. 21
|
Over the past four decades in our self-centered society, we have heard a lot about rights: civil rights, states rights, women’s rights, children’s rights, even animal rights. Most of these rights movements involve complicated and interrelated issues, and some of them may not be as “black and white,” “cut and dried” as some imagine them to be. But one right that our society has all but lost sight of is the Divine right of the Creator to command and restrict His creatures as He sees fit.
God’s word does not deny a woman the power to choose a career in the business world rather than the more traditional domestic lifestyle. And surely we all agree she should receive “equal pay for equal work.” These principles are not at issue.
There is a problem, however, when women’s rights extremists seek to “liberate” wives and mothers from God-given duties and responsibilities they already have, and when they seek to pressure girls and young women into career fields, and away from home and marriage relationships.
The feminist movement has contributed to the alarming divorce rate in modern society. God ordained the marriage relationship and He intends it to endure as long as both parties live, allowing only one exception, Matt. 19:4-9. But in our country today, fully one out of two marriages end in divorce.
Being reared in broken homes and pressured by various liberation movements of one sort or another, many young people are shying away from marriage and home responsibilities. Unfortunately, however, they are not shying away from being sexually active. Celebrities and educators daily advise young people how to engage in “safe sex.” No wonder there are nearly three million people in the U.S. living together in open fornication. No wonder sexually transmitted diseases are reaching epidemic proportions. No wonder more than 25% of all births in this country are to unwed mothers. No wonder millions of innocent babies have been put to death by induced abortion either in attempt to cover up the sin of fornication, or to spare the mother the inconvenience of rearing her child. The only “safe sex” is that which is within a Scriptural marriage relationship. Sex outside of marriage is fornication, 1 Cor. 7:2. “But as for... fornicators... their part shall be in the lake that burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8, ASV). Sex outside of marriage is never safe.
In addition to the multitudes who have been influenced by the feminist movement to abandon their husbands and children, many others have been encouraged to relegate home duties and responsibilities to a second-rate status. The Bible does not deny a wife and mother the right to work outside the home. Some godly women in both Old and New Testament times engaged in activities that took them outside the home, but godly women did not ABANDON their homes and families, nor relegate them to second-rate status. See Prov. 31:16, 24; Acts 16:14-15; 18:2-3, etc.)
A wife and mother’s primary responsibility is in the home. This is the realm for which God designed her. Eve, the first wife and mother, was designed to be a “helper comparable to” Adam (Gen. 2:20, NKJ). The consequences of sin reflected their basic God-given roles. Adam was the bread-winner. God said to him, “In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread” (Gen. 3:19). Eve’s role was basically domestic. God said to her, “In pain you shall bring forth children, your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you” (Gen. 3:16).
The New Testament recognizes the same basic roles. Older women are to “admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (Titus 2:4-5). Translations vary on the word rendered “homemakers” in the NKJ. Some say “keepers at home,” “workers at home,” etc. None of these terms indicates that a woman cannot leave the house, or work outside the home. Rather, they simply underscore that her PRIMARY responsibilities as a wife and mother are DOMESTIC. Her options may be many, but whatever else she may choose to do, her God-given responsibility to her husband and her children must take precedence.
And one more thing. Being in subjection to a husband does not in any way imply or involve inferiority. Jesus is not in any way inferior to God the Father, but Jesus did willingly submit Himself to the Father, for this was the Divine will. See 1 Cor. 11:3; Phil. 2:5-11, etc.
--CRJ
After the Pharisees accused Jesus’ disciples of violating the Sabbath by plucking and eating a few heads of grain, Jesus answered by showing their own inconsistency. Neither He nor His disciples had violated God’s law, although, admittedly, they had behaved contrary to the human restrictions the Pharisees had tacked onto God’s law. Jesus sums up His defense against the Pharisees by stating: “The Son of Man is Lord even of the Sabbath.” See Matt. 12:1-7.
Jesus’ statement that He was Lord of the Sabbath was His way of saying that He was in a better position to know what was allowed and what activities were disallowed on that day than were the Pharisees.
After Jesus left the grainfield and proceeded to the synagogue, Matthew records that “behold, there was a man who had a withered hand. And they [the Pharisees] asked Him, saying, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath?’ -- that they might accuse Him. Then He said to them, ‘What man is there among you who has one sheep, and if it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not lay hold of it and lift it out? Of how much more value then is a man than a sheep? Therefore it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath.’ Then He said to the man, ‘Stretch out your hand.’ And he stretched it out, and it was restored as whole as the other. Then the Pharisees went out and took counsel against Him how they might destroy Him.” (Matt. 12:9-14).
Keep in mind that Jesus was not claiming a right to violate the Sabbath. Being Lord of the Sabbath did not permit Him to violate it or disregard it. Being Lord of the Sabbath qualified Him to know of a certainty what was and what was not proper to do on that day.
Note also that the Pharisees’ question, ‘Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath’ was not intended as a means of enlightenment, but simply as a tool to try to ensnare Jesus in something for which they could charge Him before their civil and religious courts. They asked in order “that they might accuse Him.”
Thirdly, notice how Jesus appealed to the Pharisees’ own practice as evidence that they knew it was lawful to do good on the Sabbath. They did whatever “work” was necessary to provide for their farm animals and show mercy to them. Jesus pointed out that a man (made in God’s image) is of far more value than a sheep, therefore if it is lawful to help a sheep on the Sabbath, any degree of common sense would convince any reasonable person that it is lawful to do a good deed for a fellow man on that day.
Their logic couldn’t allow them to deny what He had said. But their prejudice couldn’t allow them to accept it. So they “went out and took counsel against Him, how they might destroy Him.”
--CRJ