Pronouncement of Judgment,
No. 2 -
open your Bibles to Genesis chapter 3, returning to
verse 15. We are looking at the second
part now in the series of the subject of the pronouncement of judgment
sin in the Garden of Eden. Man has
sinned by the only sin that was possible for him to commit in the
Eden, and that was to say, “No” to what God had directed
him to do, namely, not
to eat of a particular tree. By negative
volition, he has become guilty. Now, we
have been observing how God has proceeded to declare judgment against
were involved in the fall into sin.
So the serpent was judged first. Although he was an animal, and as such not
accountable, he was a tool of Satan, and consequently suffered judgment
he was used by Satan. The serpent was
condemned henceforth to be the most detestable of all domestic and wild
animals. He was destined henceforth to
crawl on the ground with dust in his mouth, a position that forever
curse, and reminds of the doom of Satan himself.
Now God is ready to proceed to judge
the woman and the man,
but before He does that, as is His custom, true to His character, God
grace before judgment. He offers this
grace here in Genesis 3:15 in the form of the first declaration of the
gospel. Satan and humanity have been
declared to be at odds with one another.
He is seeking mankind’s doom.
Satan has a seed—a family.
born into the (human) race is born into his slave market of sin. The woman has a seed who is Jesus Christ as
is indicated by the personal pronouns that follow that it’s one
person. He was born outside of the slave
market because He was born without a human father.
The old sin nature is passed on through
procreation. In order for Christ to be
born without a sin nature, that is a sinless human, to (keep from
in the same position that Adam was in, it is necessary that He be born
a human father—thus, the virgin birth.
The first gospel promised, therefore,
stresses this central
strategic fact of the virgin birth. It
is essential to have a savior and to provide a sinless humanity. We have indicated last week that the liberal
ministers are very understandably moved by Satan to belittle the
the virgin birth, and to minimize its important—to outright
reject it as an
invention, as a fable, and not a reality.
The basic attitude, we have gathered, as we read
statements of what
liberal ministers make on this subject, is that they view Jesus Christ
illegitimate son of Mary who was a prostitute, and whose son was born
various possible fathers.
Now the fundamental minister,
we’ve pointed out, has a
certain problem of conscience in joining in fellowship and in Christian
with the apostates who hold this view of the virgin birth that the Word
stresses in the very first declaration of the gospel, and along with it
course the accompanying deity of Jesus Christ.
The Bible forbids this kind of association, so you
can understand why
this is a problem for conservative ministers.
It is a real problem in joining such
forces in order to save
souls. Save souls from what?
From a hell that doesn’t exist, supposedly. Based on a gospel from a Bible which was
written by men and therefore is full of error.
And inviting men to stand on a platform in
evangelistic campaigns, and
to lead in prayer. In prayer to
whom? To a prostitute’s son,
illegitimately born. Or to stand on that
platform and join in prayer while someone else leads in prayer to that
Now I hope you’re gotten the
feeling of the raw, stark
horror concerning this issue of the virgin birth and what its
are. Now I don’t care whether you
sympathy with the attitude of the fundamentalist minister who has
and therefore says, “I’d rather not be part of the team
that includes the
apostate and the heretic.” Whether
agree with him or not is beside the point.
I just want you to understand what it is that
disturbs him. He has, on biblical ground,
I think you will
admit, a legitimate problem.
It may be no problem for you. You may be in a position that you could jump
into a campaign like that and be part of the team and be in fellowship
contribute with your services, and it could be no problem.
You’re your own priest. But
I want you to understand that there is a
very grievous legitimate problem when it comes to calling Jesus Christ
prostitute’s son and to join forces with people, who, while they
leaders of vast segments of denominational groups, nevertheless hold
position that the Word of God condemns.
Some have been wondering what
motivates (them). That’s a
legitimate question. Why would ministers
who know this be
motivated to be involved under apostate sponsorship?
What is it that propels you to do that?
Well there are two things. First,
the concept is “the end justifies the
means.” The idea goes something like
this: If we can get the liberal ministers
to cooperate with a united evangelistic campaign to reach souls, he
by being on the sponsoring committees, and in the chairmanships and
directorships, he will bring his people out to the meetings where they
hear the gospel and then be saved, and be won away from the liberal
But there is this problem that the
converts, those who are
really converts, have to be sent back into the spiritual darkness. Even Dr. Graham says it would not be fair,
when these ministers cooperate with this campaigns, if we did not send
converts back to them.
One Dallas seminary student this week
came up and said, “I
thought you were just talking about liberal churches, or churches who
too good about preaching the Word, but I talked to a seminary wife this
who was on the staff typing up the cards of the Graham meetings, and
the end of the line. She was the last
person to process the card, and I couldn’t believe it when she
told me where
these card were going, including …” he said,
“… to Mormons, as well as Jehovah
Witnesses, who have a very defective view of the person of Jesus Christ
himself.” He said, “I see what
now. The converts have to go back, no
matter where. That’s the
policy.” Well, that’s right,
and that’s fair, if you
include the apostates on the committee to begin with.
There’s a second thing.
Why do ministers do that? The
thing is ministers. The average sincere
minister will do anything to increase church membership.
And if he cooperates, he is promised (and
statistics have been far from bearing out the realization of this
he is promised that he will increase his church membership. And he will in most cases do anything,
because this is the one mark of success:
how many people he has out there.
Now you wouldn’t know this, but
if you moved around
professional preacher circles, when preachers are by themselves, one of
favorite questions they ask one another is, “Is your work
growing?” Now what they mean by this
is, “What’s your
body count?” Now you’ve heard
count in Vietnam. Well the professional
preacher has his body count. He means,
is your body count, along with the chairs that those bodies are in, the
the floor space they’re on, the heat they’re generating,
and the offerings they’re
giving.” And I usually look puzzled
that question is asked, and I say, “Yes, I’d say that most
of my members have
grown about five to ten pounds in recent months.”
That’s usually the truth too.
The growth that counts with God is not
this inanity of body
count. The thing that counts with God is
spiritual maturity structure, and where you’re going with that. And I’m happy to say around Berean
Church, we (have) a lot of that kind of growth.
There’s a lot of extensive evidence (of)
growth in spiritual maturity
structures. But that’s the only
that counts with God. God does not deal
in the body count technique. Otherwise,
the most humiliating fact of all is that Jesus Christ was such a
failure when it came to body counts. But
He was a fantastic success with the Word of God in spiritual
development of the
people who were ready to respond, and that’s what God’s
There’s a third defense.
A writer for one of these college organizations that
works with college
students said there was one other explanation, and he called it
“sovereign acception.” He
said, “There is, in the case of certain
evangelists, we believe that God accepts them from the principals of
of God (about) association with unbelievers in Christian enterprises. “Sovereign acception,” (where) God
certain people from the principals of His Word because thereby God
certain ends. This again is a variation
of “the end justifies the means.” And
refers to the Old Testament prophet who was told to marry a prostitute,
on, violating a principal of the Word of God.
Yet this has no real relationship.
It’s no real analogy because, to begin with,
we’re not sure that we have
a declarative statement that God has made a sovereign acception. We have no further revelation beyond the Word
of God to guide us. And in the case of
the prophet Hosea, the declaration was clearly made and evidenced, and
working it to a certain end. But I leave
it with you to decide whether you feel that there is justification for
of “sovereign acception.”
Now, of course, there is no question
that in the Graham
meetings, particularly, the gospel is presented. And
there is no question that Mr. Graham has
the perfect right to play ball (to) whatever degree he needs to
a lot of different personalities and groups that are working together. The issue is when those personalities and
groups start calling Jesus Christ a prostitute’s illegitimate
son, then we draw
the line. So don’t misunderstand
are saying. We’re talking about who
people are who are in leadership, sponsoring, and who, by their
being dignified as religious leaders in the eyes of people who
don’t know the
difference, unless somebody has (sounded) a little alarm to point it
The virgin birth is the first thing
that God stresses in
Genesis 3:15 relative to our salvation. He
does not stress death of the seed. He
does not stress the blood and the death that it represents. The first thing God stresses is a humanity
that is sinless. And if it’s a big
with God, we dare not treat it blasphemously, because without it, all
and Satan wins. You may be sure that
Satan is behind every movement to dignify those who belittle and who
the virgin birth of the Lord Jesus Christ.
So in Genesis 3:15, we have this
dramatic declaration. The prophet Isaiah
was led to take this
promise and to expand it in three very definite ways that I want to
this morning. First is Isaiah 7:14, if
you’ll turn there for a moment. Isaiah
7:14 tells us how this seed of the woman is going to come into the
world. Isaiah 7:14 says, “Therefore,
Himself shall give you a sign.” A
is something to identify the promises savior.
It connotes something of a miraculous nature, just
as the beginning of
the church age was given a sign—a signal.
We were told when we would know that something was
reference to the Jewish people.
Isaiah 28:11 foretold that the Jews,
who has possessed the
Word of God for centuries, would receive the gospel in, of all things,
tongues. It was told them that when they
found themselves receiving the gospel in non-Jewish language, it was
that God’s curse upon the nation of Israel had begun. By the same token, which they didn’t
understand at that time, it was the signal that the church age had
begun. Well, when did the Jews receive the
Gentile languages? Obviously on the day
of Pentecost. So that was the first time
that the gift of tongues was exercised.
Here was the first legitimate expression in known
languages of the world
where the gospel was preached to Jews, who had gathered in Jerusalem
over the world, and they were hearing the gospel in Gentile languages.
That was a sign. The
gift of tongues was a sign, particularly a sign to the Jews. And it was a sign that the curse had begun
the nation, and it was their opportunity of grace to escape the curse
judgments that were coming by turning to Christ now, and to receive the
whom the nation had crucified. So the
gospel was given to the Jews at the same time as the curse, so that,
curse could be turned to blessing.
In like manner, here was a sign in
Isaiah—a sign that would
identify this savior who had been promised in Genesis 3:15. The sign was this: “Behold
the virgin shall conceive and bear a
son and shall call his name Emmanuel.”
The word for “virgin” in the Hebrew
looks like this: “alma.”
Now this word in the Hebrew means
“virgin” but it also can mean simply “young
woman.” There is a Hebrew word that
means specifically “virgin.” It’s
means strictly “virgin.” There
is no question about it. It means only
that. It doesn’t mean “young
So here in Isaiah 7:14, we have a word
that can mean “virgin”
or “young woman.” Which does
mean? When the Revised Standard Version
(of the Bible) came out, it was a liberal-sponsored Bible, and
threw the weight of its decision to say, “… a young woman
shall conceive.” At the time, one of
the local ministers came
and said, “We’re going to have a rally against the Revised
Standard Version of
the Bible because of the way it translated Isaiah 7:14.
It used the word “young woman” instead
because they want to get away from the fact of the virgin birth.”
Well, I pointed out to him that it was
true that they had
done that, but on the matter of simply scholarship, the word
either young woman or virgin. So while
it was not a good translation on their part, there was a defensible
but there was a reason why we know what God meant here.
I pointed out that that would be the thing to
stress to people, that we know what God meant—which of those two
He meant. And the reason we know is
because this word
is quoted in the New Testament, where the word “parthenos”
is used. This means only virgin.
Now when God the Holy Spirit led the
writer to quote this from
the Old Testament, when he quoted in Matthew 1:23, quoting Isaiah 7:14,
Holy Spirit led the writer to use the Greek word that means only
same as “bethula” means only virgin.
Therefore we know what God the Holy Spirit meant up
here (in Isaiah
7:14). He meant “a virgin shall
conceive.” Then we’re also
told that she
would bear a son and call his name Emmanuel.
So this child which was to be born
would be a sign because he
would be virgin born, and his name would be Emmanuel, which is
“God with us.” So Isaiah 7:14
took Genesis 3:15 and it
expanded it. How was this savior going
to come into this world? By showing us
it was going to be a virgin birth.
Then, in another place, in Isaiah 9:6,
if you’ll turn there,
he tells us what this savior is going to be like. “For
unto us a child is born. Unto us a son is
given.” “A child is
born.” The Hebrew looks like this: “yeled.”
(This) means simply “born one.”
One who is born—a child who is born.
By the very fact of using this term, he indicates
that this being is
going to have a beginning. It refers, of
course, to the humanity of the coming savior.
This humanity came from the seed of the woman, and
it was the product of
the virgin birth conceived by God the Holy Spirit.
Luke 1:35 tells us it was God the Holy Spirit
who conceived this supernatural body—the born one, someone who
had a beginning.
So there was some part of the savior
who was going to come
that had a beginning. But there is
another word here you will notice in Isaiah 9:6 that says, “Unto
us a child is
born. Unto us a son is given.” The word “son” in the Hebrew is
“ben.” The word
“son” here is a mature being—someone
who is mature. This mature being is not
said to be born. He’s said to be
indicating that at the time of birth, he already existed before birth. (This) refers, of course, to the deity of
(“yeled”) speaks to the humanity of Jesus
(“ben”) speaks to the
deity of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is
to be born in His humanity; He is to be given in his deity, because he
existed. Deity cannot be born. So the One who is to be the gift of God from
the Father to us, which John 3:16 speaks of, is to be God.
So Jesus Christ, as the seed of the woman,
was to come into existence as the unique being called the God-man. He would be true deity, and he would be true
humanity. The pre-existent deity of
Jesus Christ would join to the sinless humanity of a virgin birth. So Jesus Christ is undiminished deity; true
humanity; one person forever.
Then this verse goes on with various
this person. Isaiah 9:6 is telling us
what this savior was to be like. He was
to be a God-man. He was to have the
on His shoulders, in the millennium at His second advent.
He is to be wonderful. He
is to be unique person—a God-man of the
universe. He is to be counselor. He is to be a perfect advisor because He has
perfect discernment. He is to be the
mighty God because He is true deity. He
has perfect discernment as a counselor in His humanity because He is
deity. He is the everlasting Father, of
the Father of eternity. He is the source
of eternal life. And He is the Prince of
Peace which means He will provide between man and God.
This does not mean that He will provide peace
from war. He will do that in the
millennium, but not now.
There’s a third passage in
Isaiah which tells us a little
more about Genesis 3:15. Isaiah 53:9
tells us what the savior will do. “He
made His grave with the wicked, and with the rich in His death.” We’ve already looked at this and noted
the word “death” here is “deaths.”
plural. It is not singular.
“He made His grave with the wicked … in
his ‘deaths.’” In the
Hebrew, it is “bemothaw.” It
is very definitely a plural word. He had
two deaths. What does that refer to?
Well, we’ve looked at this verse
before. It simply means that Jesus Christ
spiritually on the cross, and he died physically. He
suffered physical pain from 9:00 o’clock
in the morning, when they put him on the cross, until noon. At high noon, the sins of the world were
poured out on Jesus Christ entirely—past, present, and future
(sins), and He
died spiritually. This was His first
death. He was separated from the Father
and from the Holy Spirit, in His humanity.
He bore our sins from noon until 3:00
o’clock in the
afternoon when He was forsaken in His humanity, and He was alone upon
in intense agony. And so, for this
period, darkness covered the land and this hill of Calvary (Matthew
27:45). Finally at the end, we hear His
cry of agony, “My God, My God,” addressing the Father and
the Holy Spirit, “…
why hast thou forsaken me?” (This)
declaration indicates to us what had happened during that last three
the cross—what His situation was during those last three hours on
cross. It was separation from God the
Father and God the Spirit in His spiritual death (Matthew 27:46). He addressed deity as “My God.” Why?
Because fellowship was broken with the Father. Sin—our sin—had broken the
fellowship and He
could not be addressed then as “Father.”
When His mission was completed, that
is in the paying for
the sins of the world, then Jesus Christ died a second death,
is the other death here in the word “bemothaw.”
Death by crucifixion was very slow.
It was an agonizing process. It
usually took up to three days to a week.
They did it in two ways. Some
people they just tied on the cross and left them there to starve and
exposure and dehydration. Others they
nailed to the cross which was considerably more agonizing, and those
ones they gave the stupefying drink to, that they tried to give the
first but He rejected, at the beginning of His crucifixion period. They gave the drink in order to enable the
person to stand the inflammation of the wounds, the tetanus effects,
tearing of the bones from their joints, and the exposure.
It was agonizing, but it usually took at
least three days for the person to die.
Now the Jewish leaders, you remember,
wanted Jesus off that
cross before the Sabbath began, so they asked Pilate to hasten the
Christ and the two thieves by breaking their legs and getting their
the cross. Well, the soldiers broke the
legs of the two thieves and thus precipitated their death.
But when they got to Jesus Christ, they found
Him already dead, and they verified this by thrusting a spear into His
side. When they reported to Pilate that
Christ was already dead, Pilate was amazed.
The reason He couldn’t believe
it was because he had
crucified plenty of people. He has seen
plenty of people crucified. During the
Spartacus revolt, the roads to Rome were literally lined for miles with
crosses, every hundred feet or so, with somebody crucified, hanging
there. It was a common sight, and they
people did not die quickly from crucifixion.
(Pilate) couldn’t believe that, in six hours,
Jesus Christ was
dead. They had to break the bones of the
others, but not of Christ.
Well, the cross did not kill Jesus
Christ. He died strictly by choice. John 10:18 says, “No man taketh it
of His life) from me, but I lay it down of Myself.
I have power to lay it down and I have power
to take it again. This commandment have
I received from My Father.” As you
at the incident of Christ upon the cross, you will notice that He was
enough near the end, near 3:00 in the afternoon, to ask for a drink. His head was unbowed. John
19:28-30 tells us that He said (in a loud
strong person—not as an exhausted person, but shouting in a loud
voice), “It is
finished,” meaning that spiritual death had now been paid for. And it says that He bowed His head. He was not on the cross with his head
dangling helplessly in those final moments.
He was spiritually alive, as a matter of fact, at
the end of this six
hours. He was restored to fellowship as
is indicated by the term “Father.”
In Luke 23:46, when He did dismiss His
spirit, He addressed
God as His “Father.” “When
cried with a loud voice, He said, ‘Father, into thy hands I
commend my spirit.’ Having said
this, He gave up the spirit.” So we
have every indication that, at 3 PM,
the substitutionary sacrifice was completed.
He dismissed His spirit (that is, His life) with a
loud voice. He was not exhausted. He was in full command of Himself, but
physical death was now necessary to be followed by the spiritual death
had already experienced. It was
necessary that He now experience death (in order) to perform certain
duties: to fulfill Scripture, and to
prove the reality of propitiation by the fact that three days later the
would raise Him back to life, thus demonstrating to us that God was
what the Son did.
So for three days, the body was in the
grave, the soul was
in the paradise section of Hades, and the human spirit was with the
heaven. On Easter Sunday morning, all
three parts (body, soul, and spirit) came back together again, and He
resurrected God man.
Isaiah has expanded Genesis 3:15 with
three vital facts: 1) He would be virgin
born; 2) He would be a
God man; and 3) He would die physically and spiritually, providing
Now, coming back to our passage, there
are two wounds here
in Genesis 3:15. We are told that
shall bruise thy head (that is, the head of the serpent, as the serpent
represented Satan), and thou (Satan) shall bruise His (Christ’s)
heel.” He, the seed of the woman
would bruise the
serpent’s head. The Hebrew word
like this: “shuf.” This means “to crush.” The serpent’s head, the vulnerable spot,
would receive a mortal blow. God, of
course, is really speaking to Satan who would be given a fatal blow at
cross. This is exactly what happened to
In Hebrews 2:14, it says, “For
as much then as the children
are partakers of flesh and blood, He himself likewise took part of the
that through death He might destroy him (Satan) that hath the power of
(the devil).” John 12:31 says,
the judgment of this world. Now shall
the prince of this world be cast out.”
The Scriptures indicate clearly that, on the cross,
Jesus Christ and
Satan came to grips, and Satan received a mortal blow.
Now the final execution of this blow
will be at the Second
Advent when Jesus Christ destroys the world system of Satan. “Thou (referring to Satan in the
the serpent) shall bruise His heel.”
Again the same word “shuf” is used.
This word indicates a strong blow.
This is going to be inflicted, but it’s not
going to be a mortal
blow. This blow that Satan inflicted upon
Jesus Christ is described in such places as 1 Peter 2:24, “Who
His own self
bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we being dead to sins
under righteousness by whose stripes ye were healed.” 2 Corinthians 5:21 says, “For He hath
Him who knew no sin to be sin for us that we might be made the
These verses, and many others like
them, are describing
Satan’s wound of Jesus Christ. Satan
would seek to spoil the sacrifice of the Son of God on the cross. (Satan would seek) to dissuade Him in the
Garden of Gethsemane, which he tried to do as he realized what was
him. (Satan would seek) to goad Him off
the cross with his detractors who said, “If you’ll come off
the cross, we’ll
believe that you are the Messiah.” And
if He had come off the cross, salvation would have been eliminated. Satan put all kinds of pressures upon Christ
in the moment of spiritual death when He was separated from the Father
Holy Spirit. The seed of Satan,
unbelievers, crucified the woman’s seed and inflicted this wound,
but not a
So Adam and Eve were being given the
offer of the gospel
before they were disciplined. With this
statement, which they didn’t fully, perhaps, enter into, …
God explained to
them sufficiently for them to understand that He would make a gracious
for them. And that there would be one
who would deal with the problem of the spiritual death that now had
them. God never judges without first
offering grace so that discipline can be turned into blessing. Always remember that whatever discipline you
may experience, it is possible for you to turn it into blessing by the
act of confession. (The discipline) may
cease, but if it continues, it will be for your blessing.
Nobody is in hell who was not given the opportunity
of grace before being condemned, either at the point of
the point of gospel hearing.
So with this offer being made, God
then proceeds to take the
man and the woman and to bring systematic judgment upon them. He goes down in that inverse order, first the
woman and then the man. Out of this you
and I experience certain things today that we would not have
(otherwise). Women experience certain
things today because of what happened in Eden.
Men are going to experience things tomorrow morning
that they never
would have experienced if it had not been for what had happened in the
Let’s take a look for a moment
at what happens to the man
and the woman. In Genesis 3:16, first of
all, unto the woman He said, “I will greatly multiply thy sorrow
conception. In sorrow thou shall bring
forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall
thee.” Alright, what discipline (is
there) for the woman? It is two-fold.
(First, there is the discipline) of
in child-bearing. Had it not been for
the sin in the Garden of Eden, children would have been born without
pain. Unto the woman, He said, “I
greatly multiply thy sorrow (thy pain), in thy conception.” The specific pain imposed is that relative to
bearing children. It was originally
plan for the woman to bear children. In Genesis 1:28, He made that distinction, but
it was not his intent that she must bear them in pain.
So every experience of labor pain is a
reminder of Eve’s negative volition to the will of God. This cursing, however, was again turned to
blessing in the fact of the Savior who was to be borne by this woman
own salvation. 1 Timothy 2:15 says that
in the very process of childbirth, salvation would be provided for the
who had sinned.
There was a second discipline. She would be given an insatiable desire for
fulfillment by the man. The word
in the Hebrew is “teshukah.” The
means “longing.” It means an
overpowering craving for a thing, something that she just fantastically
craves. It’s something that she
satisfy. It comes from another Hebrew
word, “shuk.” “Shuk”
means “to run
after.” “Teshukah” comes
from “shuk.” It means “a
desire that causes her to run
after” the man.
Have you ever known any girls who run
after boys? That is no accident. Have you noticed how rather universally girls
run after boys? When we run summer camp,
one of the things I have to caution our young teenage staff about is
the “teshukah” quality. They
smile at me and they don’t take it seriously until they’ve
been on for one
season, and then they come back and they shake their head and they say,
when those girls get here, they’re really wild.” But I tell them how girls tend to chase, and
they have to keep a certain dignity and reserve at arm’s length,
might be tempted to think that there’s something more to the
there really is.
This is where it came from.
This was instilled as a judgment upon a woman that
she would have a
desire for a man. As a matter of fact,
this word means a compulsion bordering on a disease.
It is something (to which) you just really
say, “I’m going to stop it.” So
home and tell your girl not to be boy crazy.
Instead, explain to her her waves of libido and give
her enough doctrine
so that she knows how to ride the waves and keep things under control
is old enough to start dating and making expressions in reaching out
this fulfillment realized. It refers to
a longing in her soul, first, that then finds physical fulfillment.
The woman has violated her place as
responder when she
assumed the role of aggressor in Eden.
God’s pattern is that women are responders. They are made to be responders.
They are not made to dominate over a
man. They are not made to fill the role
of aggressor. But men are to be
aggressors. They are to be aggressive
toward the woman. But this drive was
perpetuated into the human race through Eve.
It is to be a drive which is directed, it says,
“thy desire shall be to
thy husband.” This is to be focused
a particular man who was designed by God to particularly fulfill that
particular woman. Man is given the
leadership. He is the aggressor.
“He shall rule over thee,”
is the final phrase in Genesis
3:16 to declare what his relationship is going to be.
The desire that only the woman’s right man
can fulfill keeps her in a subordinate role.
And the “rule” means that the husband is
going to be responsible to
initiate love, care, protection, and everything necessary to draw her
response. So if a woman’s responses
not there, it is because he has not been the aggressor, in the
of initiating and drawing forth from her that which God placed to begin
to be fulfilled by her particular man.
The Bible condemns, therefore, for women to be
leaders, or to be
authorities over men, mainly because it destroys their femininity.
So a woman must be careful not to
respond to a false
aggressor. This is the trouble that
every girl faces. The world is full of
false aggressors, people who are not her right man.
So with other men, there can be no soul
attachment possible, so she will never experience fulfillment if she
with the wrong man. This is a grave
hazard for teenage girls who will respond to this drive unless they are
some proper direction.
It is a very grave hazard for woman
who has moved up into
her later 20s and begins to get nervous that she’s never going to
pursued. This again calls for the
practice of faith rest, because she’s wrong.
God, in His plan, did not make a mistake. In time, she will be pursued for the
fulfillment that he has for her. If he
has celibacy for her, then that will be her particular right man and
be her fulfillment in her service.
And this is especially hazardous for a
woman who has
recently been divorced. This drive gets
more women who have been divorced in trouble than anything else. Anybody who has experienced the tragedy of
divorce should never date for a year.
They should spend their time in the meantime finding
enough doctrine to
put into your soul to get you oriented in your thinking.
The worst thing someone who has been divorced
can do, the most insane thing you can do is to date.
I have case history after case history where
people have been in that position, and I’ve said, “OK,
you’re in a bad
spot. The divorce is out of line with
God’s plan. You think you have
better plan, a more perfect plan. But
you have entered a worse one, unless you had legitimate ground,”
which in most
cases, scriptural ground they did not have.
You’ve entered a worse case and
what will happen now, if you
do not very carefully take yourself and say, “Now I’m going
to get stabilized
with God.” So I caution these people
to date, and I’ve seen them go both ways.
Some said, “OK,” and they stayed off the
dating bit and they got squared
away. Others went right into dating, and
they were no sooner into dating than they were in mating, because there
“teshukah” quality in a woman. If
stupid, she will never grasp this, and she will forever get herself
Now do your best to alert your
daughter that this quality is
in her. Explain it to her.
Fill it out from Scripture. Show
her where it came from, and show her
that it is a great thing. When a woman
gets with her right man, then she can play very legitimately toward him
certain role of aggressor—not in dominating and ruling, but in
toward him, she can pursue with an aggression that which she draws back
him in fulfillment of the desire that God has placed in her.
As a matter of fact, this is the very
word that Song of
Solomon 7:10 uses of the man. It speaks
about the man having the “teshukah” quality, where she
says, “I am my beloved’s,
and his desire is toward me.” This
the very same word “teshukah,” which “is toward
me.” He too has a desire and a
physical desire for
his right woman. But it comes, not
because she plays aggressor, but because first he plays aggressor, she
responder, their signals lock on each other, and then she is free to
toward him because he is her beloved, and his desire is drawn toward
her. But she is born with this compulsion
The love of a particular man for his
particular woman then
turns this discipline of this desire into blessing. She
finds fulfillment for her soul and
fulfillment for her body, but she has to be careful not to respond to
John E. Danish
to the Basic Bible Doctrine index
the Bible Questions index