Princes Walking as Servants

Prince is often used in the Bible as a nominal to distinguish a person as being a leader among the people in his environment. A “prince” isn’t necessarily a nominal used in the Bible to distinguish a son of a King. Abraham was known as a “prince” among the children of Heth, but he wasn’t the son of a King:

Genesis 23:1-6 And Sarah was an hundred and seven and twenty years old: these were the years of the life of Sarah. And Sarah died in Kirjatharba; the same is Hebron in the land of Canaan: and Abraham came to mourn for Sarah, and to weep for her. And Abraham stood up from before his dead, and spake unto the sons of Heth, saying, I am a stranger and a sojourner with you: give me a possession of a buryingplace with you, that I may bury my dead out of my sight. And the children of Heth answered Abraham, saying unto him, Hear us, my lord: thou art a mighty [prince] among us: in the choice of our sepulchres bury thy dead; none of us shall withhold from thee his sepulchre, but that thou mayest bury thy dead.”

Israel in their idolatry complained that Moses acted like a “prince” over them, and Moses wasn’t a son of a King:

Numbers 16:12-14 And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab: which said, We will not come up: Is it a small thing that thou hast brought us up out of a land that floweth with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except thou make thyself altogether [a prince] over us? Moreover thou hast not brought us into a land that floweth with milk and honey, or given us inheritance of fields and vineyards: wilt thou put out the eyes of these men? we will not come up.”

God told Jeroboam that he made him a “prince” among Israel, but Jeroboam was the very first King of the northern Kingdom of Israel. Jeroboam was never a “prince” as being a son of a King:

I Kings 14:7-10 Go, tell Jeroboam, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Forasmuch as I exalted thee from among the people, and made thee [prince] over my people Israel, And rent the kingdom away from the house of David, and gave it thee: and yet thou hast not been as my servant David, who kept my commandments, and who followed me with all his heart, to do that only which was right in mine eyes; But hast done evil above all that were before thee: for thou hast gone and made thee other gods, and molten images, to provoke me to anger, and hast cast me behind thy back: Therefore, behold, I will bring evil upon the house of Jeroboam, and will cut off from Jeroboam him that pisseth against the wall, and him that is shut up and left in Israel, and will take away the remnant of the house of Jeroboam, as a man taketh away dung, till it be all gone.”

Therefore, when you read prince in the Bible, you must qualify it to whether it means “leader” or the son of King.

When you read Prince in Ecclesiastes the 10th chapter, it means “leader”—a leader acting like a servant or follower. That is what a gentleman is: a male leader—who supposed to be leading his woman and women in general—acting like a servant to his servant. Solomon calls this dynamic of “princes walking as servants,” EVIL!

Ecclesiastes 10:5-7 There is [an evil] which I have seen under the sun, as an error which proceedeth from the ruler: Folly is set in great dignity, and the rich sit in low place. I have seen servants upon horses, and princes walking as servants upon the earth.”

It’s Evil that women, who are servants to their husbands, are upon “horses” (pedestals) like they are “princes” (leaders). It’s Evil that men, who are “princes” over their wives and women in general, are walking as servants upon the earth via this western “gentlemen” etiquette, that servants (women) shall rule over men.

Proverbs 19:10  Delight is not seemly for a fool; much less for a servant to have rule over princes.”

Not only is the western “gentleman” etiquette not delightful (as according to the proverb above), it’s erroneous. This error (as in most errors) of the western “gentleman” etiquette starts from the top—from the rulers (cf. Eccl 10:5-7). The rulers who are in error, that propagate this “gentleman” etiquette consist of a wide range of authorities, starting from secular & religious authorities, all the way down to baby boomer born men and single mothers. Every one of these rulers who propagate this “gentleman” etiquette, who propagate this error, will be punished by God sooner or later, in some way or another, for making God’s law of man, the head of woman of non-effect. And for making the evil (man created for the woman/princes walking as servants upon the earth) good, and also for making the good (woman created for the man/servants walking as servants upon the earth) evil.

Isaiah 5:20-21, 24 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe unto them that are wise in their own eyes, and prudent in their own sight. Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away [the law] of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.”

It’s good that men in general be princes (leaders) who are to be set upon horses (pedestals). Also, it’s good that women in general be servants (followers/helpmeets) who are to be walking as servants upon the earth. All according to God’s Law and nature itself.

Biblically speaking, a man isn’t desirable to women for being a prince walking as a servant (“gentleman”) upon the earth. God said out of his own mouth that well-dressed men upon horses are desirable to women. God didn’t say that docile men (“gentlemen”)—princes walking as servants upon the earth—are desirable to women.

Ezekiel 23:1-6, 12, 23 The word of the LORD came again unto me, saying, Son of man, there were two women, the daughters of one mother: And they committed whoredoms in Egypt; they committed whoredoms in their youth: there were their breasts pressed, and there they bruised the teats of their virginity. And the names of them were Aholah the elder, and Aholibah her sister: and they were mine, and they bare sons and daughters. Thus were their names; Samaria is Aholah, and Jerusalem Aholibah. And Aholah played the harlot when she was mine; and she doted on her lovers, on the Assyrians her neighbours, Which were clothed with blue, captains and rulers (heads, leaders, PRINCES), all of them [desirable young men],[horsemen riding upon horses]. She doted upon the Assyrians her neighbours, captains and rulers clothed most gorgeously, [horsemen riding upon horses], all of them [desirable young men]. The Babylonians, and all the Chaldeans, Pekod, and Shoa, and Koa, and all the Assyrians with them: all of them [desirable young men], captains and rulers, great lords and renowned, all of them riding upon horses.”

Did you see any “desirable women” riding upon horses in the scripture above? No! All of them were young ruling men (leaders), who were well dressed, and who were riding upon horses. All of whom God called “desirable young men.”

We know God wasn’t saying that these young ruling men upon horses were “desirable young men” to other men.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.”

Therefore, we know the Lord was saying that these young ruling men upon horses were “desirable young men” [to women]. This lets you know that ruling men (young or old) who are well dressed (and well-spoken, and well-read I might add), and who are “riding upon horses”—which figuratively means men who are on pedestals, stalwarts in their manhood (head of woman), and who are accomplish in life—are desirable [to women], especially if God said so. Thus, “undesirable men” [to women]—according to God—will be men who devalue their manhood, men who are subservient to women, and men who are princes walking as servants upon the earth (“gentlemen”). Even if they are men who are accomplished in life by way of making money for propagating the vanity of woman, the head of man, in a female appeasing society.

Some of these “gentlemen” who are princes walking as servants upon the earth (which is evil) may for a time be accepted by women. But, eventually they will be disrespected by these same women because they are not acting like “princes riding upon horses” which all women (with self-esteem) desire whether they admit it or not.

If well-dressed men riding upon horses are desirable to women in God’s point of view, then certainly servants (wives) walking as servants (subservient/obedient women to their husbands) upon the earth are desirable to men in God’s point of view. That’s why it’s written that a Meek and Quiet woman is a Great Price in the Sight of God:

I Peter 3:1-4 Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, [which is in the sight of God of great price].”                                                                  

Anyone that is in some being’s sight “of great price” to them, by definition means that the person is desirable in that being’s sight. Therefore, meek and quiet women who are subject to their husbands (“servants walking as servants upon the earth”) are in God’s point of view “desirable,” since they are in his sight of a great price. This must mean that “undesirable women,” or women of little or no price in the sight of God, are women who are Clamorous, women who are Loud and Stubborn, and women who usurp male authority and their husband’s authority. So, don’t listen to these female appeasing preachers who covertly tell you that princes walking as servants (“gentlemen”) upon the earth, and servants upon horses as princes (woman, the head of man) are both desirable to the opposite sex—that is a Lie! Better that you ride with God’s opinion instead of these female appeasing preachers’ opinions.

 

This was the Doctrine of the Gathering of Israel

 

Jehoiada Israel

The Civil Servant Husband Part 2

Moses A “Gentleman”?

With understanding the two different capacities of service (civil and servile service) as pertaining to conjugal relationships between a man and a woman, you are now better equipped to refute the erroneous doctrine and the twisted scripture Modern Preachers have used or may use to perpetrate that a man is to be a “gentleman” to his woman as a servile servant.

First, I am going to repeat that men indeed are to serve and submit to women in the same aspect as women are to do to men, by looking after the other’s best interest and working on the other’s behalf in all things. But the service and submission that men ought to do unto women is in a far different capacity than what women are biblically obligated to do to men.

For example, I remember a preacher taught to me that Moses was a “gentleman” to seven women, in Moses fighting off shepherds who apparently had always bullied these seven women and made them wait until they had finish drawing water before the seven women were able to draw water. After Moses fought off the bully shepherds on the women’s behalf, he drew water for them and also watered their flocks.

Exodus 2:16-21 “Now the priest of Midian had seven daughters: and they came and drew water, and filled the troughs to water their father’s flock. And the shepherds came and drove them away: but Moses stood up and helped them, and watered their flock. And when they came to Reuel their father, he said, How is it that ye are come so soon to day? And they said, An Egyptian [delivered us] out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock. And he said unto his daughters, And where is he? why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread. And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.”

Scripture like the above are a cornerstone for the “gentleman” and “whiteknight” doctrine which comes from Modern Preachers that all men should be “Real Men” by showing the proper respect for women. Like Moses supposedly was to the seven daughters of the Priest of Midian.

Modern Preachers don’t understand (and don’t care to) the two types of services (civil and servile service) in nuptial relationships. They don’t understand because they ignore other scripture and are partial toward women. They have ignored the fact that a woman name Rebekah in scripture did the very same thing for a stranger that Moses did for seven strangers. She drew water on a stranger’s behalf and watered the strangers flock, just out of the kindness of her heart.

Genesis 24:1-4, 10-27 And Abraham was old, and well stricken in age: and the LORD had blessed Abraham in all things. And Abraham said unto his eldest servant of his house, that ruled over all that he had, Put, I pray thee, thy hand under my thigh: And I will make thee swear by the LORD, the God of heaven, and the God of the earth, that thou shalt not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell: But thou shalt go unto my country, and to my kindred, and take a wife unto my son Isaac. And the servant took ten camels of the camels of his master, and departed; for all the goods of his master were in his hand: and he arose, and went to Mesopotamia, unto the city of Nahor. And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water. And he said O LORD God of my master Abraham, I pray thee, send me good speed this day, and show kindness unto my master Abraham. Behold, I stand here by the well of water; and the daughters of the men of the city come out to draw water: And let it come to pass, that the damsel to whom I shall say, Let down thy pitcher, I pray thee, that I may drink; and she shall say, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: let the same be she that thou hast appointed for thy servant Isaac; and thereby shall I know that thou hast showed kindness unto my master. And it came to pass, before he had done speaking, that, behold, Rebekah came out, who was born to Bethuel, son of Milcah, the wife of Nahor, Abraham’s brother, with her pitcher upon her shoulder. And the damsel was very fair to look upon, a virgin, neither had any man known her: and she went down to the well, and filled her pitcher, and came up. And the servant ran to meet her, and said, Let me, I pray thee, drink a little water of thy pitcher. And she said, Drink, my lord: and she hasted, and let down her pitcher upon her hand, and gave him drink. And when she had done giving him drink, she said, I will draw water for thy camels also, until they have done drinking. And she hasted, and emptied her pitcher into the trough, and ran again unto the well to draw water, and drew for all his camels. And the man wondering at her held his peace, to wit whether the LORD had made his journey prosperous or not. And it came to pass, as the camels had done drinking, that the man took a golden earring of half a shekel weight, and two bracelets for her hands of ten shekels weight of gold; And said, Whose daughter art thou? tell me, I pray thee: is there room in thy father’s house for us to lodge in? And she said unto him, I am the daughter of Bethuel the son of Milcah, which she bare unto Nahor. She said moreover unto him, We have both straw and provender enough, and room to lodge in. And the man bowed down his head, and worshipped the LORD. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of my master Abraham, who hath not left destitute my master of his mercy and his truth: I being in the way, the LORD led me to the house of my master’s brethren.”

Now should we used the scripture above and Rebekah’s kindness (like Modern Preachers will use and have used Exodus 2:16-21 and Moses’ kindness) as a cornerstone for doctrine that all women should be “Real Women” and show the proper respect for men by being “gentlewomen” to them. God forbid! Our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees as the Lord said:

Matthew 5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.”                   

We must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees because the doctrine of Modern Pharisees (Saturday Preachers), Modern Sadducees (Sunday Preachers), and Modern Herodians (“Religious” secular authorities) all have leaven (hypocrisy—lies and a false balances) in it, especially pertaining to this gentlemen propriety.

Matthew 16:6-8, 12 “Then Jesus said unto them, Take heed and beware of the leaven of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees. And they reasoned among themselves, saying, It is because we have taken no bread. Which when Jesus perceived, he said unto them, O ye of little faith, why reason ye among yourselves, because ye have brought no bread? Then understood they how that he bade them not beware of the leaven of bread, but of the doctrine of the Pharisees and of the Sadducees.”                                                                                                                                         

Mark 8:14-15 “Now the disciples had forgotten to take bread, neither had they in the ship with them more than one loaf. And he charged them, saying, Take heed, beware of the leaven of the Pharisees, and of the leaven of Herod.”

Luke 12:1 In the mean time, when there were gathered together an innumerable multitude of people, insomuch that they trode one upon another, he began to say unto his disciples first of all, Beware ye of the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.”

What we will do is compare both scriptures to make a sound and balance doctrine instead of being hypocrites like the Modern Pharisees and Modern Sadducees who say that men are the head of the household, while they also say that men are to submit to their women by being gentlemen (servile servants) to them. We also will not be hypocrites in being partial toward men as they are toward women.

Moses was acting as a civil servant toward the seven daughters of the Priest of Midian. While Rebekah was acting as a servile servant to the head servant of Abraham. Moses and Rebekah both did the same thing in drawing water and feeding the flocks of strangers in whom they were serving. But their service was in a different capacity. Moses had to fight off shepherds (plural) on the behalf of the seven women before he drew water and fed their flock. He delivered them out of the hand of the shepherds (as they said—Exodus 2:19), like all great leaders (civil servants) who deliver the people they are over and responsible for.

Exodus 18:5-12 And Jethro, Moses’ father in law, came with his sons and his wife unto Moses into the wilderness, where he encamped at the mount of God: And he said unto Moses, I thy father in law Jethro am come unto thee, and thy wife, and her two sons with her. And Moses went out to meet his father in law, and did obeisance, and kissed him; and they asked each other of their welfare; and they came into the tent. And Moses told his father in law all that the LORD had done unto Pharaoh and to the Egyptians for Israel’s sake, and all the travail that had come upon them by the way, and how the LORD [delivered] them. And Jethro rejoiced for all the goodness which the LORD had done to Israel, whom he had [delivered] out of the hand of the Egyptians. And Jethro said, Blessed be the LORD, who hath [delivered] you out of the hand of the Egyptians, and out of the hand of Pharaoh, who hath [delivered] the people from under the hand of the Egyptians. Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them. And Jethro, Moses’ father in law, took a burnt offering and sacrifices for God: and Aaron came, and all the elders of Israel, to eat bread with Moses’ father in law before God.”                                                                                           

Judges 9:5-7, 16-21 And he went unto his father’s house at Ophrah, and slew his brethren the sons of Jerubbaal, being threescore and ten persons, upon one stone: notwithstanding yet Jotham the youngest son of Jerubbaal was left; for he hid himself. And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went, and made Abimelech king, by the plain of the pillar that was in Shechem. And when they told it to Jotham, he went and stood in the top of mount Gerizim, and lifted up his voice, and cried, and said unto them, Hearken unto me, ye men of Shechem, that God may hearken unto you. Now therefore, if ye have done truly and sincerely, in that ye have made Abimelech king, and if ye have dealt well with Jerubbaal and his house, and have done unto him according to the deserving of his hands; For my father fought for you (Jotham’s father Gideon or also called Jerubbaal fought on Israel’s behalf against their enemies—serving them—like a civil servant should), and adventured his life far, and [delivered] you out of the hand of Midian: And ye are risen up against my father’s house this day, and have slain his sons, threescore and ten persons, upon one stone, and have made Abimelech, the son of his maidservant, king over the men of Shechem, because he is your brother; If ye then have dealt truly and sincerely with Jerubbaal and with his house this day, then rejoice ye in Abimelech, and let him also rejoice in you: But if not, let fire come out from Abimelech, and devour the men of Shechem, and the house of Millo; and let fire come out from the men of Shechem, and from the house of Millo, and devour Abimelech. And Jotham ran away, and fled, and went to Beer, and dwelt there, for fear of Abimelech his brother.”                                                                                            

So Moses delivering the seven women out of the hand of the shepherds and then drawing water and feeding their flocks was more in the capacity of civil servitude, which is provision and security.

Rebekah on the other hand didn’t deliver anyone from anything. When she drew water and fed the flock of the stranger it was more in the capacity of servile servitude, which is nurturing and comfort. Rebekah’s servile service—to a stranger of the opposite sex—was after the pattern of what great followers (servile servants) do for their leaders.

Once again, Moses and Rebekah did the same things (draw water for strangers and their flocks), because they both had the same kind of humble spirit of serving their neighbor. And it sure was a hell of a coincidence that after both Moses and Rebekah served their neighbor (of the opposite sex) in their allotted capacity, according to their gender, that God immediately blessed the both of them with a spouse. Apparently, they both showed God (and man) that they were ready for marriage since they knew exactly how “to serve” the opposite sex. Therefore, God honored both of them with a spouse because of the humility of servitude they both showed toward the opposite sex.

Proverbs 18:12 Before destruction the heart of man is haughty, and before honour is humility.”

Exodus 2:19-22 And they said, An Egyptian [delivered] us out of the hand of the shepherds, and also drew water enough for us, and watered the flock. And he said unto his daughters, And where is he? why is it that ye have left the man? call him, that he may eat bread. And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter. And she bare him a son, and he called his name Gershom: for he said, I have been a stranger in a strange land.”

Genesis 24:42-48, 60-67 And I came this day unto the well, and said, O LORD God of my master Abraham, if now thou do prosper my way which I go: Behold, I stand by the well of water; and it shall come to pass, that when the virgin cometh forth to draw water, and I say to her, Give me, I pray thee, a little water of thy pitcher to drink; And she say to me, Both drink thou, and I will also draw for thy camels (Abraham’s head servant was looking for a woman who knew HOW TO SERVE a man as a servile servant for his master’s son Issac): let the same be the woman whom the LORD hath appointed out for my master’s son. And before I had done speaking in mine heart, behold, Rebekah came forth with her pitcher on her shoulder; and she went down unto the well, and drew water: and I said unto her, Let me drink, I pray thee. And she made haste, and let down her pitcher from her shoulder, and said, Drink, and I will give thy camels drink also: so I drank, and she made the camels drink also. And I asked her, and said, Whose daughter art thou? And she said, the daughter of Bethuel, Nahor’s son, whom Milcah bare unto him: and I put the earring upon her face, and the bracelets upon her hands. And I bowed down my head, and worshipped the LORD, and blessed the LORD God of my master Abraham, which had led me in the right way to take my master’s brother’s daughter unto his son. And they blessed Rebekah, and said unto her, Thou art our sister, be thou the mother of thousands of millions, and let thy seed possess the gate of those which hate them. And Rebekah arose, and her damsels, and they rode upon the camels, and followed the man: and the servant took Rebekah, and went his way. And Isaac came from the way of the well Lahairoi; for he dwelt in the south country. And Isaac went out to meditate in the field at the eventide: and he lifted up his eyes, and saw, and, behold, the camels were coming. And Rebekah lifted up her eyes, and when she saw Isaac, she lighted off the camel. For she had said unto the servant, What man is this that walketh in the field to meet us? And the servant had said, It is my master: therefore she took a vail, and covered herself. And the servant told Isaac all things that he had done. And Isaac brought her into his mother Sarah’s tent, and took Rebekah, and she became his wife; and he loved her (Of-course Issac loved Rebekah because Rebekah knew HOW TO SERVE the opposite sex): and Isaac was comforted after his mother’s death.”

From the example of Moses’ and Rebekah’s service to strangers of the opposite sex, we can figure out people’s character and marriage potential or lack thereof. That the way someone generally treats strangers of the opposite sex, good or bad, serving them or abusing them, is a great indicator on how they will inevitably treat their spouse. Keep all that in mind when you are looking for a spouse.

Understand brothers that if your woman doesn’t adequately serve you in the capacity of a servile servant, then that means she isn’t adequately serving your children as a civil servant, because she doesn’t know how to serve or she refuses to serve.  ONLY a good wife/girlfriend will make a good mother because she knows how to serve. And ONLY a good husband/boyfriend will make a good father because he knows how to serve.

Lack of serving the opposite sex is why there are so many single mother households in America, single women period, and women in their 30’s and 40’s who have never been married. All because these women don’t know how to serve a man. They are so busy competing with men to be “the man” (in charge) or trying to be served by gentlemen, that they never learned how to serve a man to get a good male leader to marry them.

Remember Rebekah’s future father-in-law’s servant found her on the behalf of her future husband because he saw that she knew how to serve a man when she [willingly] drew water for him and his flock. This dynamic is why it is written that when a man finds a wife he finds a “good thing.”

Proverbs 18:22 Whoso findeth a wife findeth a good thing, and obtaineth favour of the LORD.”

The “good thing” in which a man finds when he finds a wife isn’t the wife herself per se. The “good thing” in which a man finds when he finds him a wife is that he finds a wife who knows how TO SERVE! The Service (not the sexual gratification, that is icing on the cake) the wife provides is what is “good,” not necessarily the wife in herself.

Titus 2:3-5 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of [good things]; That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home (serve at home),[good], obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Besides, Ahab found him a wife in Jezebel, now was that a good thing?

I Kings 16:30-31 And Ahab the son of Omri did evil in the sight of the LORD above all that were before him. And it came to pass, as if it had been a light thing for him to walk in the sins of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, that he took to wife Jezebel the daughter of Ethbaal king of the Zidonians, and went and served Baal, and worshipped him.”

I Kings 21:25 But there was none like unto Ahab, which did sell himself to work wickedness in the sight of the LORD, whom Jezebel his wife stirred up.”

Of-course Jezebel wasn’t a good thing although Ahab found her to be his wife. Likewise, any woman that doesn’t know how to serve or refuses to serve isn’t a good thing for that man although he found her to be his wife.

Look at the example of Abigail who was found of David to be his wife. David was a man after God’s own heart (means he thought like God) and the greatest king to ever live, so you can’t get a better example of good male leader. This high-brow man (David) married Abigail because he saw that she knew how to serve.

Abigail was beautiful and wise but she knew that HER WORKS ONLY were going to give her praise (appreciation) and not her beauty, because beauty is vanity.

Proverbs 31:29-31 “Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the LORD, she shall be praised. Give her of the fruit of her hands; and let her own works praise her in the gates.”

That’s why when David sent men “to hire” Abigail to be his wife (after God killed Nabal), Abigail accepted “the job offer” and the job requirements which was TO SERVE! Cause of the job requirements of being a wife is TO SERVE is why Abigail said unto David’s men “Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord.”

I Samuel 25:40-42 And when the servants of David were come to Abigail to Carmel, they spake unto her, saying, David sent us unto thee, to take thee to him [to wife]. And she arose, and bowed herself on her face to the earth, and said, Behold, let thine handmaid be [a servant] to wash the feet of the servants of my lord. And Abigail hasted, and arose and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that went after her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became [his wife].”

Note that Abigail above didn’t say “let David’s servants serve her,” instead Abigail said “Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord (her husband).” Not only did Abigail serve David, but she served David’s servants (officers) as well. This woman knew HOW TO SERVE! In whatever capacity, as a servile servant or a civil servant. No wonder the Bible recorded Abigail as being a woman of good understanding (cf. I Sam 25:3). ALL WHO HAVE GOOD UNDERSTANDING KNOW HOW TO SERVE!

Also take note that Abigail didn’t dare say anything tantamount to “let my lord David serve me as a gentleman.” Therefore, no doors were going to be opened for Abigail, no chairs were going to pull out for Abigail, she wasn’t going to be the first one to eat, and definitely no jacket over a poodle of water was going to be set for her to walk on, although she was a beautiful and wise woman. Abigail’s wisdom and beauty didn’t exempt her from serving as a servile servant as God ordained women to do unto their husbands.

 

This was the Doctrine of the Gathering of Israel

 

Jehoiada Israel

Surrogate Mothers

God is a species and an occupation, and Mankind is a species and an occupation. God is the boss of mankind, who assigns duties to mankind. The first duty (commandment) that God gave unto mankind was for us procreate.

Genesis 1:26-28 “And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish 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 that moveth upon the earth.”                                                                                                

God (the species) assigned mankind (the species) the duty to procreate itself, because Gods don’t procreate, they create. Thus, God created man with the capability of procreating himself in order for God to have a help meet in creating more man. That God doesn’t have to do all the work of creating more man, one by one, himself. And so that God’s creation can also work and create, and share in the glory with God for all the work, and for all the creation that is produced.

The key point is that man shares in the glory with God for the work and for the creation (more man) that is produce, not that man usurps the authority of God and takes all the glory, even God’s due, because man is the one who is physically procreating more man.

In these contemporary times, preachers and western society’s “mother worship” give mothers the power to usurp the authority of fathers, and take all the glory for creating children (more man) away from not only human fathers, but God our father also. As if mothers are a creation that God didn’t create. And as if God didn’t create mothers from an adult male.

I Corinthians 11:8 For the man is not of the woman: but the woman of the man.”

Interesting that the first mother was actually an adult male—Adam! Therefore, after God (who created everything that is made–John 1:1-3) in the array of giving glory for creating, next in line is the adult male. Whom God used to procreate the woman. In the stead of God creating a woman from nothing else, besides dust and air like he did the man.

Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.”

God decided to use a man’s womb as a surrogate in the stead of God, to create a separate being from the man, which was to become a woman. Thereafter, God used the woman’s womb—which God took from the man, mind you, and gave to the woman, as an incubator for the man’s seed to create children. That the man can have a help meet (cf. Gen 2:18) and not have to do all the work himself of procreating more man. Thus, the man became a father (instead of a mother, which he was at first)—a vessel used to create, and a surrogate creator in the stead of God (who is the first creator and father—cf. Luke 3:38), in order to create more man. Consequently, the woman became a mother and a surrogate procreator in the stead of the man (who is the first and original mother of humankind), in order to procreate more man. So again, women are [surrogate mothers] in the stead of the man or the adult male, who was the very first mother of humankind!

When I say the man or the adult male was the very first mother, I really mean the very first mother. By definition, God being a creator means he isn’t or wasn’t ever a mother in the anatomical sense. Again, God creates, he doesn’t procreate. A [mother] is a vessel used to procreate. Adam a man, and an adult male, was the very first being in the God and in the man species to procreate—EVER! Although Adam called Eve the mother of all living (cf. Gen 3:20), Adam not Eve is really the mother of all living human beings. For procreation, which by definition only comes by way of a mother, started with Adam not Eve. Once again, Eve came by way of Adam, she didn’t come entirely out of the ground like Adam did. Hence, Adam was created by God (a father), and Eve was procreated by God using Adam (a mother).

God brought Eve, Adam’s daughter, and Adam’s wife, out of the ground with Adam’s womb in her to make a point of romance to us. That a husband is also a “father” (authority) to his wife. Or you can say the husband is a “daddy” to his wife. The husband must be both husband and “father” to his wife for there to be romance between the spouses. While the wife is a “surrogate mother” (nurturer) to her husband, and to her husband’s children, in the stead of him.

The wife must be both wife and “surrogate mother” to her husband, and to her husband children, for there to be romance between the spouses.

The spouses leave their first parents in lovingkindness to cleave unto their second or surrogate parent in romance.

Genesis 2:22-25 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.”

With all that said, some glory of motherhood should go to adult males, for they are the first mother of human kind. Adult females are really surrogate mothers in the stead of adult males, who are now fathers in the procreation sense.

Yet, the adult male is still a mother in the abstract sense. The good shepherd, the good preacher, the good priest, the good teacher, the good husband, and the good male mentor to men and women are all “Male Mother Figures.” Who gives suck to babes looking for and needing vital knowledge from them.

These are the good men in the earth who God use, in the stead of God, to spiritually procreate more good men and women in the earth. The good adult male will always be a “mother” of some kind procreating more good men and women by his knowledge and wisdom out of his spiritual womb (his mind). While he is physically and emotionally a father now, in the stead of God, creating more men and women by “his womb” in his wife.

The great fallacy in western society’s veneration of mothers is that not only do mothers get all the glory for procreation, but they also get all the glory for creation as if they are fathers (creators). The father is the creator not the mother—who by definition is the procreator.  Life starts with the sower of seed, not the incubator of seed. Do you say when you put a cake in the oven, and when the cake raises and is fully cooked “the oven created the cake.” You say the one who puts the cake in the oven created the cake. How would you sound by saying “man, that easy bake oven created a good lemon cake”? And discount the person who mixed the cake and put it in the oven, as if they are irrelevant in the creation process. Western society sounds that way when they marginalize fathers to basically nothing but sperm donors, while they give mothers all this glory for creating. When mothers (adult females)—far as the creation process goes—are nothing but surrogate mothers in the stead of adult males and nature’s oven for incubating a man’s seed. It’s very evil not to give male fathers their due of being the creators of Life. Also, it’s even more evil to reduce them below the life they have created (children), which is a hidden evil being done by western society of giving the creature more glory than the creator (cf. Romans 1:25).

Even more evil is how western society so highly venerates mothers that it takes away the glory that is due to God our father who is the origin of all life that has been created. God is the one who sets up rulers and take away rulers.

Daniel 2:20-22 Daniel answered and said, Blessed be the name of God for ever and ever: for wisdom and might are his: And he changeth the times and the seasons: he removeth kings, and setteth up kings: he giveth wisdom unto the wise, and knowledge to them that know understanding: He revealeth the deep and secret things: he knoweth what is in the darkness, and the light dwelleth with him.”                                                                                                                

Since God is the one with the power to set up rulers and take away rulers, and God has the power of life & death in his hands, makes everything and everyone (including surrogate mothers, the adult female kind) as nothing in comparison to God.

Not only are surrogate mothers are as nothing in comparison with God, but they also can’t do nothing without God, including procreate children.

John 15:4-5 “Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me. I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.”

As it is written, the planter isn’t anything, neither he that watereth, but only God who gives the increase.

I Corinthians 3:6-7 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase. So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase. Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.”

The planter is tantamount to the sower of seed (father), and the waterer is tantamount to the incubator of seed (mother). Both the “planter” and the “waterer” is nothing, since God is the one who gives the increase. In other words, since God created everyone, and decides life and death, he decides alone if the fruit of the womb is going to live and live prosperous or in grief.

God decided not to let David’s first child with Bathsheba live because of the adulterous affair (cf. II Sam12:13-19). Also, it’s written in God’s Law that if one serves the Lord, they shall not cast their young (miscarry).

Exodus 23:25-27 And ye shall serve the LORD your God, and he shall bless thy bread, and thy water; and I will take sickness away from the midst of thee. There shall nothing cast their young, nor be barren, in thy land: the number of thy days I will fulfil. I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.”

Accordingly, it’s a big possibility if one doesn’t serve the Lord, that the Lord will cause them to cast their young because he has the power of life & death in his hands.

Hosea 9:7, 9, 12-15 The days of visitation are come, the days of recompence are come; Israel shall know it: the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is mad, for the multitude of thine iniquity, and the great hatred. They have deeply corrupted themselves, as in the days of Gibeah: therefore he will remember their iniquity, he will visit their sins. Though they bring up their children, yet will I bereave them, that there shall not be a man left: yea, woe also to them when I depart from them! Ephraim, as I saw Tyrus, is planted in a pleasant place: but Ephraim shall bring forth his children to the murderer. Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts. All their wickedness is in Gilgal: for there I hated them: for the wickedness of their doings I will drive them out of mine house, I will love them no more: all their princes are revolters.”

But a lot of surrogate mothers—who don’t serve the Lord—don’t need God to cause them to miscarry, they miscarry voluntarily by aborting the unborn child in their womb. That’s the evil outcome you have when you have all these secular and religious authorities making mothers “gods” over their children; “gods” who decide life & death over their children and unborn children. That is a lot of power—the decision of life & death—for a surrogate mother (in the stead of the adult male) to have, who is third in the array of glory (1-God, 2-the adult male, 3-the adult female) for creation.

Surrogate mothers aborting their unborn children in unbelief of God is tantamount to fathers in archaic times passing their children in the fire unto pagan gods. Interesting when God confronted these fathers for passing their children in the fire, that he called their children HIS CHILDREN IN WHOM THEY HAD BOURNE UNTO HIM! As if these fathers were nothing but surrogates whom God used to create God’s children.

Ezekiel 16:20-23 “Moreover thou hast taken thy sons and thy daughters, whom thou hast borne unto me, and these hast thou sacrificed unto them to be devoured. Is this of thy whoredoms a small matter, That thou hast slain [my children], and delivered them to cause them to pass through the fire for them? And in all thine abominations and thy whoredoms thou hast not remembered the days of thy youth, when thou wast naked and bare, and wast polluted in thy blood. And it came to pass after all thy wickedness, woe, woe unto thee! saith the LORD GOD.” Ezekiel 23:36-37, 46-49 The LORD said moreover unto me; Son of man, wilt thou judge Aholah and Aholibah? yea, declare unto them their abominations; That they have committed adultery, and blood is in their hands, and with their idols have they committed adultery, and have also caused their sons, [whom they bare unto me], to pass for them through the fire, to devour them. For thus saith the Lord GOD; I will bring up a company upon them, and will give them to be removed and spoiled. And the company shall stone them with stones, and dispatch them with their swords; they shall slay their sons and their daughters, and burn up their houses with fire. Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness. And they shall recompense your lewdness upon you, and ye shall bear the sins of your idols: and ye shall know that I am the Lord GOD.”

The scripture above underscores the fact that a [surrogate] father’s children and a [surrogate] mother’s children actually belong to God. God has the ultimate “copyright” for every single child bourne unto him by every [surrogate] father and by every [surrogate] mother. So being, a [surrogate] father and a [surrogate] mother are nothing but works for hire—to create and procreate children—for God. Thus, a human father and mother are nothing but surrogates, who create and procreate children, in the stead of God. Therefore, what mother can boast about carrying a child in her womb for nine months when her womb is nothing but a surrogate womb in the stead of the adult male’s womb, who thereafter became a creator (father) in the stead of God.

 

This was the Doctrine of the Gathering of Israel

 

Jehoiada Israel

“Honor Thy Son”

It’s written that everyone shall [honor and fear] their father and their mother:

Exodus 20:12 Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.”

Leviticus 19:1, 3 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying, Ye shall fear every man his mother, and his father, and keep my sabbaths: I am the LORD your God.”

It’s also written that everyone shall [honor and fear] their King:

Proverbs 24:21 My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and meddle not with them that are given to change.”

I Peter 2:13-14, 17 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king.”

The King who is to be honored and feared—according to the scriptures—is some father’s son, and some mother’s son. So, with that said, does it mean that a King’s father and a King’s mother must honor and fear the King, although the King is their child—YES!

King Solomon’s mother (Bathsheba) expected her son Solomon—her King and the King of Israel—to honor any request that she would make just because she was his mother. Even though Solomon said he would honor any of her requests because she was his mother, yet, the King’s mother made a request that was foolish to the King. SO THE KING SPOKE RUDELY TO HIS MOTHER AND CHECKED HIS OWN MOTHER FOR HER [FOLLY]. That unbeknownst to the King’s mother, she was asking the King to give up his throne to his elder brother (Adonijah), by requesting that the King’s elder brother be able to marry David’s concubine.

I Kings 2:13-25 And Adonijah the son of Haggith came to Bathsheba the mother of Solomon. And she said, Comest thou peaceably? And he said, Peaceably. He said moreover, I have somewhat to say unto thee. And she said, Say on. And he said, Thou knowest that the kingdom was mine, and that all Israel set their faces on me, that I should reign: howbeit the kingdom is turned about, and is become my brother’s: for it was his from the LORD. And now I ask one petition of thee, deny me not. And she said unto him, Say on. And he said, Speak, I pray thee, unto Solomon the king, (for he will not say thee nay,) that he give me Abishag the Shunammite to wife. And Bathsheba said, Well; I will speak for thee unto [the king]. Bathsheba therefore went unto king Solomon, to speak unto him for Adonijah. And the king rose up to meet her, and bowed himself unto her, and sat down on his throne, and caused a seat to be set for the king’s mother; and she sat on his right hand. Then she said, I desire one small petition of thee; I pray thee, say me not nay. And the king said unto her, Ask on, my mother: for I will not say thee nay. And she said, Let Abishag the Shunammite be given to Adonijah thy brother to wife. And [king Solomon] answered and said unto [his mother], And why dost thou ask Abishag the Shunammite for Adonijah? ask for him the kingdom also; for he is mine elder brother; even for him, and for Abiathar the priest, and for Joab the son of Zeruiah. Then king Solomon sware by the LORD, saying, God do so to me, and more also, if Adonijah have not spoken this word against his own life. Now therefore, as the LORD liveth, which hath established me, and set me on the throne of David my father, and who hath made me an house, as he promised, Adonijah shall be put to death this day. And king Solomon sent by the hand of Benaiah the son of Jehoiada; and he fell upon him that he died.”

The King’s mother did a lot of hard work to get her son on the throne of Israel, and she saved his and her life from Solomon’s elder brother (cf. I Kings 1:11-53). But once Solomon got on the Throne of Israel, he wasn’t just Bathsheba’s child anymore, HE WAS ALSO [HER KING] AS WELL. And as her King, the King’s mother had to fear & honor her King (who just happened to be her child) accordingly. Solomon being King, put him in the position of being in charge over the King’s mother, which gave him the authority to reprimand his own mother for her folly. The King’s mother couldn’t do anything but HONOR & FEAR HER SON as her King, and say nothing else as her son, the King, reprimanded her for her folly of asking him to give up the Kingdom that she so much help him obtain.

King Jesus’ mother (Mary) expected her son—the future King of Israel (cf. John 1:49 & John 12:12-13)—to honor her request to perform a miracle before his time, just because she was his mother. But note how Jesus, the [sinless] savior, spoke so rudely to his own mother.

John 2:1-11 And the third day there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee; and the mother of Jesus was there: And both Jesus was called, and his disciples, to the marriage. And when they wanted wine, the mother of Jesus saith unto him, They have no wine. Jesus saith unto her, [Woman], what have I to do with thee? mine hour is not yet come. His mother saith unto the servants, Whatsoever he saith unto you, do it. And there were set there six waterpots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece. Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And they filled them up to the brim. And he saith unto them, Draw out now, and bear unto the governor of the feast. And they bare it. When the ruler of the feast had tasted the water that was made wine, and knew not whence it was: (but the servants which drew the water knew;) the governor of the feast called the bridegroom, And saith unto him, Every man at the beginning doth set forth good wine; and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse: but thou hast kept the good wine until now. This beginning of miracles did Jesus in Cana of Galilee, and manifested forth his glory; and his disciples believed on him.”                                 

For a moment, Jesus’ mother offended him, in the way she had approached him and asked him to do something that he wasn’t quite ready to do. Notice when Jesus mother offended him, he said [“WOMAN”] and not “mother,” “mommy,” “ma,” or “mommie.” Jesus said [“WOMAN”] to his mother (like a father would say [“BOY”] to his son who in some way is questioning his authority) as a backhanded epithet to put his own mother in her place—A WOMAN! A woman who wasn’t to give an adult man a commandment even in an indirect way. Though the adult man that Jesus’ mother was giving an indirect commandment to was her son. But this son, of this mother (Mary), was her King, her Lord, and her Savior. As she herself attested in the book of Luke.

Luke 1:30-33, 46-56 And the angel said unto her, Fear not, Mary: for thou hast found favour with God. And, behold, thou shalt conceive in thy womb, and bring forth a son, and shalt call his name JESUS. He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest: and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David: And he shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end. And Mary said, My soul doth magnify the Lord, And my spirit hath rejoiced in God my Saviour. For he hath regarded the low estate of his handmaiden: for, behold, from henceforth all generations shall call me blessed. For he that is mighty hath done to me great things; and holy is his name. And his mercy is on them that fear him from generation to generation. He hath showed strength with his arm; he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts. He hath put down the mighty from their seats, and exalted them of low degree. He hath filled the hungry with good things; and the rich he hath sent empty away. He hath helped his servant Israel, in remembrance of his mercy; As he spake to our fathers, to Abraham, and to his seed for ever. And Mary abode with her about three months, and returned to her own house.”                                                                                                             

Matthew 1:18-23 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost. Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily. But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall [save] his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, [God with us].”                                                                                              

Jesus’ mother Mary risked her engagement to Joseph and her own life from being stone to death to carry Jesus in her womb. Mary knew it looked like to Joseph and everyone else that she got pregnant by an adulterous affair, instead of being with child of “the holy ghost.” That is why she kept quiet to Joseph about the theophany happening to her (who would believe it) that look like adultery. All the way to the point of her belly showing in her pregnancy of “the holy ghost” (cf. Matthew 1:18-21). Nonetheless, when this child who she risked her life for was grown, this child was to be feared and honored by his mother Mary for being her King, her Lord, and her Savior. Hence, that adult child Jesus checked his own mother accordingly (“Woman”), for her brief lack of Fear and Honor for her King, her Lord, and her Savior—who she risked her life for mind you.

Notwithstanding, as generally the case when a man checks a [“WOMAN”] who he loves for given him an indirect commandment, and she accepts being checked for her folly, he obliges to her wishes if it’s nothing to arduous for him to do. Though he might have been offended by her approach or previously did not want to do it for some reason. So, did Jesus do to the [“WOMAN”] in him turning water into wine at her request.

Also, what needs to be pointed out about Jesus dealing with his mother Mary, was that he wasn’t in charge over his mother for the reasons of him being her King, her Lord, and her Savior, but he was also in charge over his mother for the reason of him being an adult man. Thus, as Jesus was dying on the cross—still thinking to care for his mother at his death, like his mother was thinking about caring for him in her womb at the risk of death (beautiful mother and son love), he gave charged of his mother over to John, one of his disciples.

John 19:25-27 Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene. When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved (John), he saith unto his mother, [Woman], behold thy son! Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.”                                                                                                             

John wasn’t Mary’s son, let alone her King, her Lord, and her Savior. But what put John in the position to be in charge over another man’s mother was that John was an ADULT MAN—THE HEAD OF WOMAN! It’s all that simple.

If King David had to give honor to his son Jesus according to the flesh:

Romans 1:1-4Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated unto the gospel of God, (Which he had promised afore by his prophets in the holy scriptures,) Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.”

Cause his son Jesus the Christ (the Messiah) was also his Lord. Than you know, Mary Jesus’ mother, wasn’t exempt from giving her son Jesus the Christ honor. Jesus pointed this out to some Pharisees in his day that David in the spirit called the Christ—which was Jesus (cf. John 4:25-26)—his Lord and not his son.

Matthew 22:41-46While the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them, Saying, What think ye of Christ? whose son is he? They say unto him, The son of David. He saith unto them, How then doth David in spirit call him Lord, saying, The LORD said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool (cf. Psalm 110:1)? If David then call him Lord, how is he his son? And no man was able to answer him a word, neither durst any man from that day forth ask him any more questions.”                                                                        

Though the Christ was David’s son according to the flesh (cf. Romans 1:3), the Christ wasn’t David’s “son” according to rank and authority. The Christ was David’s Lord according to rank and authority (cf. Psalm 110:1), although the Christ was David’s son according to the flesh. That fact was what Jesus was trying to teach the Pharisees in the above scripture, who looked at the Christ like he was David’s son according to the flesh. In other words, the Pharisees mistakenly looked at the Christ as if he was under David in rank and authority, because the Christ was David’s son according to the flesh.

Jesus teaching the Pharisees that a son according to the flesh can also be a Lord to his parent according to rank and authority, underscores that it is just as urgent for a parent to Honor their child who has more rank and authority than them (i.e. “WOMAN,” –John 2:4), as it is urgent for a child to Honor their parent who is their origin of life. And to honor their parent who [had] or have more rank and authority than them when they were or are just a child.

Luke 2:41-52 “Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old (just a child), they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day’s journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers. And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing. And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father’s business? And they understood not the saying which he spake unto them. And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them (being just a child): but [his mother] kept all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.”

King Asa seems to be the antithesis of some things that Paul wrote in the New Testament concerning one’s treatment of their parents. For one, Paul wrote that people with reprobated minds are haters of God, from doing such things as being disobedient to parents. And that people who are disobedient to their parents are worthy of death.

Romans 1:28-32 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient; Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful: Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”                                                                                            

Paul’s written above is in accordance with God’s commandments, that recalcitrant children are worthy of death.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”                                            

However, what Paul wrote in the Book of Romans and God’s commandments against recalcitrant young children are concerning children under the rank and authority of their parents. They both are not concerning children who have higher rank and authority than their parents.

King Asa “hated” his own mother because he was a Lover of God:

Luke 14:26-27And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, If any man come to me, and [hate] not his father, [and mother], and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.”

King Asa removed his mother (really his “grandmother” cf. II Chron 11:21-22, no Hebrew word could be Anglicized into grandmother) from being queen because she was an idolater.

I Kings 15:9-13 And in the twentieth year of Jeroboam king of Israel reigned Asa over Judah. And forty and one years reigned he in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Maachah, the daughter of Abishalom. And Asa did that which was right in the eyes of the LORD, as did David his father. And he took away the sodomites out of the land, and removed all the idols that his fathers had made. And also Maachah [his mother], even her he removed from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove; and Asa destroyed her idol, and burnt it by the brook Kidron.”

King Asa’s mother most likely thought that she could be an idolater, offend the King, and receive no repercussion from the King, based on the fact she was the King’s mother. She was wrong!

Remember again that Jesus said in the book of Luke that if one doesn’t “hate” (disobey or forsake, for God’s sake) their father or their mother, then they can’t be his disciple.

Luke 14:26-27And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, If any man come to me, and [hate] not his father, [and mother], and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”

How can someone be worthy of death for “hating” their parents according to the Book of Romans (Rom 1:28-32), but at the same time be worthy to be Jesus’ disciple and teach eternal life according to the above scripture. Either we have a contradiction here, or there is an urgent necessity of one “hating” their parents for God’s sake if they must. The latter is true, and King Asa did according to the latter. Thus, King Asa was a worthy disciple of God’s, because when it was necessary, he “hated” his own mother and removed her from being queen—for God’s sake. Cause his mother was an idolater who was not to influence the people of Judah under her authority to commit idolatry with her. This thing that King Asa did in removing his idolatrous mother from being queen, was right in the eyes of the Lord (cf. I Kings 15:11).

Notwithstanding, what is right in the eyes of the Lord is also for one to obey their parents in the Lord.

Ephesians 6:1-3 Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.”                                                                                              

And that is the underlining meaning, that children obey their parents in the Lord; not obey their parents in idolatry.

In the Lord, as we read the words of the Lord Jesus, would be a mother subjecting herself to the authority of her adult male son (John 2:1-11), or adult males period (cf. John 19:25-27).  An adult male son obeying his mother is not in the Lord. That is in idolatry. Adult male sons can obey their mother’s good counsel (Proverbs 31:1-9), or any other woman’s good counsel. But far as adult males obeying their mother as a superior over them, or any other woman (who isn’t a secular authority or boss/supervisor,) as a superior over them, that will be in idolatry, and not in the Lord.

As a wife is an idolater because she doesn’t believe or trust in God for not submitting herself to the authority of her husband (cf. I Peter 3:5), so is a mother an idolater, when she doesn’t submit herself to the authority of her adult male son. Such an idolatrous mother who doesn’t submit herself to the authority of her adult male son, might need to be removed from being “the queen” of his life, because of her idolatry. It’s very offensive for a mother to treat her adult male son like he is still a boy under her authority. Again, such an idolatrous mother might have to be removed from being “the queen” of his life because she is an idolater, who has offended her adult male son with her idolatry. Of treating him—an adult male who acts like one—like a child under her authority. Just like King Asa removed his mother from being queen because she offended him with her idolatry, which was right in the eyes of the Lord: So will it be right in the eyes of the Lord for an adult male son to remove an idolatrous mother from being “the queen” of his life, for her idolatry of treating him like a child who is under her authority.

An adult male being treated like a child by anyone including his mother isn’t a good look. It makes him look unclean as a man of God, and as a man (head of woman) period. If a man is a chief man, meaning he is a ruler over other men in a King or High Priest position, then he definitely can’t be unclean and defile himself (look like a child) for his mother or for his father.

Leviticus 21:10-12 And he that is the high priest among his brethren, upon whose head the anointing oil was poured, and that is consecrated to put on the garments, shall not uncover his head, nor rend his clothes; Neither shall he go in to any dead body, nor defile himself for his father, [or for his mother]; Neither shall he go out of the sanctuary, nor profane the sanctuary of his God; for the crown of the anointing oil of his God is upon him: I am the LORD.”

Idolatry is unclean in itself. By which someone must receive the spirit (word) of God to cleanse themselves thereby, and thereafter they will have a new “heart”—which is to say, a new way of thinking.

Ezekiel 36:22-28 Therefore say unto the house of Israel, thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land. Then will I sprinkle clean water (the Word of God—cf. John 15:3 & Eph 5:25-26) upon you, and ye shall be clean: from all your [filthiness], and from all your [idols], will I cleanse you. A new heart also will I give you, and a new spirit will I put within you: and I will take away the stony heart out of your flesh, and I will give you an heart of flesh. And I will put my spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes, and ye shall keep my judgments, and do them. And ye shall dwell in the land that I gave to your fathers; and ye shall be my people, and I will be your God.”

I hope the way I have broken down (by the scriptures) how an adult male son is in authority over his mother in the Lord, and how his mother being in authority over him is in idolatry, give mothers and adult male sons reading this post a new way of thinking. That they would cleanse themselves of this idolatry of mothers ruling over their adult male sons.

Last Note:

It doesn’t matter that mothers carry their sons in their womb for nine months, and go through hard labor pains for hours to give birth to their sons. It doesn’t matter if mothers risk their lives for their sons (like Mary for Jesus). Or even save their son’s life and help put them in a great position (like Bathsheba for Solomon). Still their sons (even if they are not going to be Kings and High Priest) are going to be adult males one day. Since these sons will be men, they will be the head of women—including their mother. Therefore, mothers need to [honor] their adult male children as their leaders and not dishonor them, by treating them like they are just their babies and their subjects. This goes also for adult female children who are co-regent with their mother in womanhood. The mother isn’t to treat her adult daughters like babies, but, [honor] her adult female children for what they intrinsically are—Adults!

It is too late in the day for all this veneration of female mothers on top of all this female appeasement in general, when you have all these single mothers abusing their children in slick ways that add insult to the injury of these children being fatherless (this blog will have a later post on this).

Mommy or Big Ma is not first (in authority), the adult male is first (in authority). If Mommy or Big Ma was first, God would’ve brought Mommy or Big Ma out of the ground first in the Garden of Eden, as a precedent to teach us that Mommy or Big Ma is first. But of-course, we know that the Lord brought up the adult male up first, and you will learn in the next post that the adult male is even the first mother. Therefore, our precedent from God’s creation is that adult males are first (in authority), since they were the first created of humankind.

 

This was the Doctrine of the Gathering of Israel

 

Jehoiada Israel

God is a Man!

If you are a woman who hate men in general, and manly men in particular, then you hate God as well, because God is a Man! God isn’t unisexual. God isn’t androgynous. God is a Man! And a manly man at that.

As a matter of biblical fact, the male part (not the female part) of the species of man is the complete image (glory) and physical/flesh & blood manifestation of God.

I Corinthians 11:7 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.”                                                                 

When you read both:

Genesis 1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created [he him]; male and female created he them.”

 And

Genesis 5:1-2 This is the book of the generations of Adam. In the day that God created man, in the likeness of God made [he him]; Male and female created he them; and blessed them, and called their name Adam, in the day when they were created.”

You’ll discover that ONLY the adult male was created in the image and likeness of God.

The female isn’t created in the complete image and likeness of God. It isn’t a typo or a miscopy by a scribe that either scripture above doesn’t say “In the image of God created he her,” or “In the likeness of God created he her” or “In the image and likeness of God created he them.”

The above scriptures ONLY say that “In the image and likeness of God created he him.” Because that’s what it is. The adult male is the complete image and likeness of God. While the female is a distorted image and likeness of God.

Yes, the female has one head, one nose, two eyes, two ears, two arms, two legs, two feet, and so on, just like God, and just like the male. However, she’s not a man, unlike God who is a man with no female characteristics or mannerisms. Thus, the female is a distorted image and likeness of God.

In scripture, God never shows up with female characteristics or mannerisms. He always shows himself as A MAN (not a woman)! Most notably, [the physical appearance of a man] as the Prophet Ezekiel testified:

Ezekiel 1:26-28 And above the firmament that was over their heads was the likeness of a throne, as the appearance of a sapphire stone: and upon the likeness of the throne was the likeness as [the appearance of a man] above upon it. And I saw as the colour of amber, as the appearance of fire round about within it, from the appearance of [his loins] even upward, and from the appearance of [his loins] even downward, I saw as it were the appearance of fire, and it had brightness round about. As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness (image) of the glory of the LORD. And when I saw it, I fell upon my face, and I heard a voice of one that spake.”

God also speaks with the voice of a man (not the voice of a woman) as the Prophet Daniel testified, when he heard the voice of the Lord giving commandment to the angel Gabriel.

Daniel 8:15-17 And it came to pass, when I, even I Daniel, had seen the vision, and sought for the meaning, then, behold, there stood before me as [the appearance of a man]. And I heard [a man’s voice] between the banks of Ulai, which called, and said, Gabriel, make this man to understand the vision. So he came near where I stood: and when he came, I was afraid, and fell upon my face: but he said unto me, Understand, O son of man: for at the time of the end shall be the vision.”

The being who spoke in a man’s voice, who had “the appearance of a man” in the scripture above was God himself. This being with the man’s voice above could not possibly be an angel over Gabriel, to command him to teach a prophet. Gabriel is the chief angel that stands in the presence or in the stead of God, between man and God, to teach man what God want man to know.

Luke 1:11-13, 18-20 “And there appeared unto him an angel of the Lord standing on the right side of the altar of incense. And when Zacharias saw him, he was troubled, and fear fell upon him. But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And Zacharias said unto the angel, Whereby shall I know this? for I am an old man, and my wife well stricken in years. And the angel answering said unto him, I am Gabriel, that stand in the presence of God; and am sent to speak unto thee, and to show thee these glad tidings. And, behold, thou shalt be dumb, and not able to speak, until the day that these things shall be performed, because thou believest not my words, which shall be fulfilled in their season.”                                                                        

Since the angel Gabriel is over man (at this point in time) as man’s teacher in the stead of God, than the being that gave commandment unto Gabriel, with the man’s voice, who had “the appearance of a man,” could not literally be a man. Therefore, this being could be no one other than God himself who Daniel said had a man’s voice and “the appearance of a man.”

In fact, ALL the angels have a man’s voice and “the appearance of a man.” If angels were a sex or gender they would ALL BE MALES! Every single time the Bible mentions an angel by name, it is a male given name. Gabriel (Daniel 8:16, Daniel 9:21, Luke 1:19, 26), Michael (Daniel 10:13, 21, Daniel 12:1, Jude 1:9, Rev 12:7), Lucifer (Isaiah 14:12). Not Gabriela, not Michelle, not Lucinda.

THERE IS NO ANGEL IN THE BIBLE WITH A FEMALE GIVEN NAME! That should tell us something. That the female isn’t aboriginal to creation in the universe. Male characteristics, mannerisms, and names are aboriginal to creation in the universe. That should also tell us something else—Man, the Head of Woman!

The female is an adjunct to creation in the universe. For the purpose of pro-creation in man’s and beast realm. The female never was and isn’t now in the realm of the supernatural of Gods and angels. The GOI will discuss at another time if the female will ever be part of the supernatural realm (the answer is YES!).

You would stop calling females the “fairer sex” if you are looking from the vantage point that they are a distorted image of God. While the adult male is the complete image and likeness of God. But if you are thinking about sexual intercourse, well, I’ll go with the notion too that they are the “fairer sex.”

My point in showing by the scripture that GOD IS A MAN (and angels are too) is for the reason to remove the foolishness of “He can be a She” out of your mind, while establishing firm in your mind that “He is a He.” Also, for the reason that there are so many feminist women who avow to be “Christian women,” yet they are “worshipping” a God who is a man. Who manifested himself unto his prophets as a man, with a man’s voice. Who manifested his complete image and likeness in the man family through adult males. Yet these women have blatant contempt and condescending attitudes toward almost every adult male they encounter. Who doesn’t have a “Rev” title in front of his name. It’s impossible for them to Love God as they say they do, while at the same time have a disdain for men in general.

When they are looking at any adult male, they are looking at the complete physical/flesh n blood representation of God. If they hate and have contempt for the complete physical/flesh n blood representation of God (adult males), then they hate and have contempt for the literal manifestation of God (“the appearance of a man”)—simple and plain.

I John 4:20 “If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen.”

It’s good teaching to teach that in a theophany, God always shows himself as “the appearance of a man.” Yet the prophets Daniel and Ezekiel writing down that they saw God as “the appearance of a man,” is in essence a misnomer. If anything, it proves more so that adult males, whom God have created in his complete image and likeness, are as “the appearance of God.”

Therefore, it’s erroneous etiquette in western society to give women all of this exaltation and respect just for being female, while having a collective degradation and disrespect toward men who are as “the appearance of God.” The literal appearance of God (a man) is indirectly being degraded and disrespected, when degradation and disrespect is being done collectively to all men by women and by female appeasing male rulers.

Imagine God coming down as a literal man to be a husband to one of these feminist women, who also claim to be “Christian Women.” Suppose God the literal man gives his “Christian” wife some rules and regulations (i.e. Gen 3:16) in a man’s voice like he did Gabriel. God’s “Christian” wife would mimic the cadence and bass of his voice and say something like “Oh, you speaking in your man’s voice, so now I suppose to do what you say huh, you don’t tell me what to do.”

Some feminist “Christian” women accept the reality that God is a man! It’s cool with them as long as God act as a man way up yonder in heaven, and not in their face on the earth. They can pray to a man God for instructions while he is up in heaven, but if he was to come down and be their man, they will suddenly become independent and their own woman, who don’t obey a man’s instructions. Or, they would choose their female friends and family instructions over their man’s instructions.

They can praise a man God’s name (Jesus) now, while he is up in heaven, but if he was to come down and be their man, they would slander his name every time he made them angry or he didn’t do what they want him to do.

They can call Jesus their “man and lover” now when they don’t have a man and lover, while Jesus is up in heaven, but if Jesus was to come down and actually be their man and lover, they would withhold sex from him to play power games with him, in order to get their way with him.

Do you see what I am saying? The way a woman treats her man, and men in general, is a sign to God himself on how that woman thinks about him, being that he is as “the appearance of a man.” A woman’s general treatment of her man or men in general shows her faith in God or her lack of faith in God, WHO IS A MAN!

Feminist women foolishly call upon God, and think that alone is going to save them, when they don’t believe in God WHO IS A MAN! Their unbelief in God shows itself when they don’t respect men in general, and don’t subject themselves to their own man.

Romans 10:13-14 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. 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.”                                               

I Peter 3:4-5 But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God (who believed in God), adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands.”

 

This was the Doctrine of the Gathering of Israel

 

Jehoiada Israel

The Civil Servant Husband Part 1

This blog first wrote about the Obedient Wife before we talk here about the Civil Servant Husband because that’s the due order. The wife obeys first, then her husband treats her well as her civil servant right after her obedience to him. That relay pattern is how it always should be, not the other way around like most modern preachers teach.

The Bible teaches this relay pattern. When you study the Bible, you read first about the Obedient Wife, then right after that you read about the Civil Servant Husband.

The Obedient Wife:

I Peter 3:1-6 “Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel; But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.

Than Right After That, the Civil Servant Husband:

I Peter 3:7 “Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.”

AGAIN!

The Obedient Wife:

Ephesians 5:22-24 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.”

Than Right After That, the Civil Servant Husband:

Ephesians 5:25-28 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.”

Remember the Relay!

Obedient Wife > Civil Servant Husband > Obedient Wife > Civil Servant Husband > and so on.

If there is a break up or break down in the relationship, then the relationship needs to start back at the beginning of the relay for the relationship to continue forward. Or go “Back at One” like the old Brian McKnight Song says.

Cause of this relay, a “no-fault” divorce is the wife’s fault for the divorce, because more than likely she didn’t start back at one (Obedient Wife), to get the husband to start back at two (Civil Servant Husband). She expected him To Be the One to start things back in the relationship as the “Obedient Husband.” That’s out of order and not the order of things.

Now, let’s talk deeply about Serving and the Civil Servant Husband.

Differentiating Civil and Servile Service

You know we have feminist thinking “Christian” women out here who know a little (very little) scripture, and they like to quote what Paul said below about service:

Ephesians 5:20-21 Giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”                             

These feminist “Christian” women just happen to ignore the very next two verses that Paul wrote which say:

Ephesians 5:22-23 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.”

Obviously when Paul said in Ephesians 5:21 “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God,” he meant that wives ought to submit themselves unto their own husbands as unto the Lord (Eph 5:22) TO SHOW THAT THEY FEAR GOD as he wrote in the next two verses following Ephesians 5:21.

All this leads us to I Peter the 3rd chapter which states that women who trusted (feared) in God submitted themselves unto their own husbands.

I Peter 3:5 For after this manner in the old time the [holy women] also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands.”

By submitting themselves unto their own husbands these [holy women] showed that they feared the Lord. So Paul was on the same page with what Peter wrote above when Paul wrote in Ephesians 5:21 “submitting yourselves (wives) one to another (husbands) IN THE FEAR OF GOD”! Paul just didn’t make it plain in Ephesians 5:21 as he did in Ephesians 5:22-23, that he was specifically teaching wives to submit to their own husbands.

But you know “Christian” feminist try to use Ephesians 5:21 to say that husbands ought to submit unto their wives like wives ought to submit to their husbands. In other words, “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.” If it’s the case that husbands ought to submit to their wives than there should be another witness to this. This “Christian” feminist supposition is just one witness, where is the other one. The scripture says there must be two or three witnesses to establish a fact, Paul is just one witness.

Deuteronomy 19:15 One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth: at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall the matter be established.”                                                                                                             

Matthew 18:16 But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established.”                                                         

Plus, why wouldn’t the Bible just plainly say “husband submit yourselves unto your own wife,” like the Bible plainly says “wives submit yourselves to your own husbands (cf. Eph 5:22, I Peter 3:1,)” if both parties (husband and wife) supposed to submit themselves one to another.

If it was true that “husbands submit yourselves unto your own wife” it will be plainly written somewhere in the Bible to augment the ambiguous parable of “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” (Eph 5:21). Jesus who taught in Parables;

Matthew 13:33-36 “Another parable spake he unto them; The kingdom of heaven is like unto leaven, which a woman took, and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened. All these things spake Jesus unto the multitude in parables; and without a parable spake he not unto them: That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.”

Also said in another place he will [make it plain] what he had taught in parables.

John 16:25, 29-31 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs (or parables): but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall show you plainly of the Father. His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb. Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God. Jesus answered them, [Do ye now believe].”               

If the parable of “submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God” is true according to the context that “Christian” feminist used it, then “IT” (“husbands submit yourselves unto your own wife”) would’ve been plainly written somewhere else is in scripture. Yet to no avail for “Christian” Feminist, “it” is nowhere plainly written in the Bible. Therefore no one should believe “IT,” because it doesn’t exist since “IT” is nowhere plainly written in the Bible. Far as husbands serving (submitting to) their wives as servile servants.

Submit to means “to serve,” it doesn’t necessarily mean “to agree with.” Two equal people can agree on something but that doesn’t mean either one is submitting to the other. A superior can agree with a subordinate that doesn’t mean the superior is submitting to the subordinate. God agreed with Moses on not destroying Israel entirely, which he was about to do, but Moses had changed his mind.

Numbers 14:11-20 And the LORD said unto Moses, How long will this people provoke me? and how long will it be ere they believe me, for all the signs which I have showed among them? I will smite them with the pestilence, and disinherit them, and will make of thee a greater nation and mightier than they. And Moses said unto the LORD, Then the Egyptians shall hear it, (for thou broughtest up this people in thy might from among them;) And they will tell it to the inhabitants of this land: for they have heard that thou LORD art among this people, that thou LORD art seen face to face, and that thy cloud standeth over them, and that thou goest before them, by day time in a pillar of a cloud, and in a pillar of fire by night. Now if thou shalt kill all this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of thee will speak, saying, Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which he sware unto them, therefore he hath slain them in the wilderness. And now, I beseech thee, let the power of my lord be great, according as thou hast spoken, saying, The LORD is longsuffering, and of great mercy, forgiving iniquity and transgression, and by no means clearing the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation. Pardon, I beseech thee, the iniquity of this people according unto the greatness of thy mercy, and as thou hast forgiven this people, from Egypt even until now. And the LORD said, I have pardoned according to thy word.”                               

Since God agreed with Moses, and Moses changed God’s mind, did that mean God submitted to Moses? NO! If God had submitted to Moses he would have allowed Moses to enter into the promise land as Moses had asked God. But of-course we know that God didn’t allow Moses to enter into the promise land because of Moses’ rebellion. God exercised his authority as a superior over Moses at that time although he agreed with him in a lot of other things prior.

You can submit to someone and don’t agree with them like Abigail did to David and her husband Nabal. First, Abigail didn’t agree with her husband’s shunning and his turning away of the hungry men sent by David, who had asked Nabal for some food after David and his militia were in the wilderness protecting Nabal’s subsistence from robbers. Secondly, Abigail didn’t agree with David coming to avenge himself of Nabal by his own hands, for Nabal’s shunning and ingratitude. So to preserve the life of Nabal’s household (including Nabal and herself), Abigail prepared David and his men some food as they were coming to kill and pillage Nabal’s house for Nabal’s disrespect to them and his lack of gratitude for what they were doing for him.

I Samuel 25:14-26, 35 But one of the young men told Abigail, Nabal’s wife, saying, Behold, David sent messengers out of the wilderness to salute our master; and he railed on them. But the men were very good unto us, and we were not hurt, neither missed we anything, as long as we were conversant with them, when we were in the fields: They were a wall unto us both by night and day, all the while we were with them keeping the sheep. Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household: for he is such a son of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him. Then Abigail made haste, and took two hundred loaves, and two bottles of wine, and five sheep ready dressed, and five measures of parched corn, and an hundred clusters of raisins, and two hundred cakes of figs, and laid them on asses. And she said unto her servants, Go on before me; behold, I come after you. But she told not her husband Nabal. And it was so, as she rode on the ass, that she came down by the covert on the hill, and, behold, David and his men came down against her; and she met them. Now David had said, Surely in vain have I kept all that this fellow hath in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that pertained unto him: and he hath requited me evil for good. So and more also do God unto the enemies of David, if I leave of all that pertain to him by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall. And when Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass, and fell before David on her face, and bowed herself to the ground, And fell at his feet, and said, Upon me, my lord, upon me let this iniquity be: and let thine handmaid, I pray thee, speak in thine audience, and hear the words of thine handmaid. Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: but I thine handmaid saw not the young men of my lord, whom thou didst send. Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, seeing the LORD hath withholden thee from coming to shed blood, and from avenging thyself with thine own hand, now let thine enemies, and they that seek evil to my lord, be as Nabal. So David received of her hand that which she had brought him, and said unto her, Go up in peace to thine house; see, I have hearkened to thy voice and have accepted thy person.”

Like God agreed with Moses whose words prevented God from killing all of Israel, so did David agree with Abigail whose words prevented him from killing her, her husband, and all of his household. Yet David’s agreement with Abigail didn’t necessarily mean he was submitting to Abigail. Abigail—who was the subordinate in this case—was actually submitting to David by disagreeing with him, because she was looking after David’s best interest. Abigail was looking after David’s best interest when she advised him not to avenge himself with his own hands. And David had understood that, and appreciated her for that.

I Samuel 25:25-26, 32-34 Let not my lord, I pray thee, regard this man of Belial, even Nabal: for as his name is, so is he; Nabal is his name, and folly is with him: but I thine handmaid saw not the young men of my lord, whom thou didst send. Now therefore, my lord, as the LORD liveth, and as thy soul liveth, seeing the LORD hath withholden thee from coming to shed blood, and from avenging thyself with thine own hand, now let thine enemies, and they that seek evil to my lord, be as Nabal. And David said to Abigail, Blessed be the LORD God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: [And blessed be thy advice], and blessed be thou, which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood, and from avenging myself with mine own hand. For in very deed, as the LORD God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left unto Nabal by the morning light any that pisseth against the wall.”                                                                                                            

Moses was looking after God’s best interest when he “advised” God not to utterly destroy Israel for his name and glory’s sake among the other nations, and God agreed with Moses. As did David with Abigail for David’s name and glory’s sake, that David would not avenge himself and utterly destroy everything pertaining to Nabal.

Understand when a superior agrees with a subordinate that that doesn’t necessarily mean the superior is submitting to the subordinate. And when the subordinate disagrees with their superior, it doesn’t necessarily mean the subordinate is usurping authority—as long as it’s all in the respect of the subordinate looking after the best interest of the Superior. When a subordinate is at all times looking after the best interest of their Superior, then they are truly serving them and submitting to them even if they disagree with them. So again, submitting doesn’t mean “to agree with,” it means “to serve.”

Serving as we just found out means to ALWAYS look after the best interest of the person you are serving or submitting to. Notwithstanding, I am not saying serving (submitting) for the subordinate is letting the superior walk all over you. Serving is all about being diplomatic, fulfilling your duties according to the due order, and looking after the best interest of the superior FIRST! As Abigail did for David, and for her foolish husband Nabal whose life she was trying to preserve. Abigail didn’t keep anything back from her husband Nabal, she gave food to David, in order to give of herself to nabal, to save Nabal’s life, which of-course was in Nabal’s best interest. But Nabal being a fool didn’t even appreciate what his wife Abigail had done for him, in saving his life. He was actually mad that she gave food to David and his men [on his behalf]. So, the Lord killed Nabal for his foolishness and his lack of appreciation for both Abigail guarding his life, and for David and his men guarding his subsistence, being that Nabal didn’t want to return the favor by giving David and his men food to eat. After Nabal was killed by the Lord, David acquire of Abigail to be his wife. Abigail agreed to be his wife. So David, the man who appreciated Abigail for what she had done for him won over Nabal and “got the girl” while Nabal who lost his life and of-course “the girl” because of his lack of appreciation for what “the girl” did for him (save his life).

I Samuel 25:36-39 And Abigail came to Nabal; and, behold, he held a feast in his house, like the feast of a king; and Nabal’s heart was merry within him, for he was very drunken: wherefore she told him nothing, less or more, until the morning light. But it came to pass in the morning, when the wine was gone out of Nabal, and his wife had told him these things, that his heart died within him, and he became as a stone (means he was mad & stubborn). And it came to pass about ten days after, that the LORD smote Nabal, that he died. And when David heard that Nabal was dead, he said, Blessed be the LORD, that hath pleaded the cause of my reproach from the hand of Nabal (the Lord also pleaded the cause of the reproach of Abigail for the lack of appreciation the her husband Nabal showed her), and hath kept his servant from evil: for the LORD hath returned the wickedness of Nabal upon his own head. And David sent and communed with Abigail, to take her to him to wife. And when the servants of David were come to Abigail to Carmel, they spake unto her, saying, David sent us unto thee, to take thee to him to wife. And she arose, and bowed herself on her face to the earth, and said, Behold, let thine handmaid be a servant to wash the feet of the servants of my lord. And Abigail hasted, and arose and rode upon an ass, with five damsels of hers that went after her; and she went after the messengers of David, and became his wife.”

Abigail was an extraordinary woman, the Bible describe her as being [wise and beautiful].

II Samuel 25:2-3 And there was a man in Maon, whose possessions were in Carmel; and the man was very great, and he had three thousand sheep, and a thousand goats: and he was shearing his sheep in Carmel. Now the name of the man was Nabal; and the name of his wife Abigail: and she was a woman of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance: but the man was churlish and evil in his doings; and he was of the house of Caleb.”                                    

What Abigail did was a great example of submitting (serving) in both capacities of subordinate and superior. She looked after the best interest of both David & Nabal (being the subordinate) and Nabal’s servants (being the superior). She preserved the lives and the name/reputation of all. She didn’t shun David and his men like her husband, especially after her servant told her that David pronounce evil and war against all who were part of Nabal’s household. Thus, Abigail also acted out of concern and for the interest of the life of her servants who will also be killed if she didn’t act fast and provide dole for David and his men. Abigail was being a true superior, acting in the best interest of her subordinates.

Nabal didn’t look after the best interest of his wife Abigail or his servile servants because along with him being a fool, he was also despot and not a good leader.

I Samuel 25:14-19 But one of the young men told Abigail, Nabal’s wife, saying, Behold, David sent messengers out of the wilderness to salute [our master]; and he railed on them. But the men were very good unto us, and we were not hurt, neither missed we any thing, as long as we were conversant with them, when we were in the fields: They were a wall unto us both by night and day, all the while we were with them keeping the sheep. Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against [our master], and against all his household: for he is such a son of Belial, that a man cannot speak to him. Then Abigail made haste, and took two hundred loaves, and two bottles of wine, and five sheep ready dressed, and five measures of parched corn, and an hundred clusters of raisins, and two hundred cakes of figs, and laid them on asses. And she said unto [her servants], Go on before me; behold, I come after you. But she told not her husband Nabal.”

Looking at Abigail’s example, we see that the superior actually serves (submits to) the subordinate in the same aspect (not in the same capacity—more on this coming up) that the subordinate does unto the superior. By looking after the subordinate’s best interest. Even in some cases where the subordinate may disagree with what the superior is doing, the superior is still to serve or “submit to” the subordinate just as the subordinate is to serve or “submit to” the superior. Serving isn’t unilateral, only pertaining to the subordinate. Serving is universal, pertaining to both the subordinate and the superior. Both the superior and the subordinate are to look after the best interest of the other, but starting with the subordinate looking after the best interest of the superior FIRST! That is the due order. Cause everything has must be decent and in order, so that there can be peace and not confusion:

I Corinthians 14:33, 40 For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let all things be done decently and in order.”                                                               

The subordinate isn’t losing out on anything by looking after the best interest of their superior FIRST because most of the time the superior’s best interest is in their best interest as well. You think Abigail trying to preserve the life of Nabal wasn’t also in her best interest in preserving her own life from a marauding band of men. You think Moses didn’t benefit himself along with the Lord when he convinced the Lord not to destroy the entire nation of Israel for the Lord’s name sake. So subordinates don’t get too mad because you have to look after your superior’s best interest FIRST and not your own. Even if the superior is a despot like Nabal, most likely you will still benefit somehow like Abigail.

A superior who doesn’t serve in their allotted capacity isn’t worthy to be served by any type of subordinate. As we saw Nabal wasn’t worthy of Abigail, so God killed him and gave her unto David (who was worthy). A subordinate who doesn’t serve in their allotted capacity isn’t worthy to be served by any type of superior. As you can read many times in the Bible with the disobedient nation of Israel toward God.

What are the allotted capacities for both the subordinate to serve (submit to) the superior and for the superior to serve (submit to) the subordinate? We just learned the aspect that they both should serve one another in, and that is to look after the best interest of the other. But again, what are their allotted capacities of their servitude? Both the superior and the subordinate can’t be “the superior.” Although they both serve each other in the same aspect their still must be some difference between the two parties which separates them one from the other, which identifies them one from the other, and which causes both parties to know their role juxtapose to the other. The Biblical answer to this is that the superior (husband) is a Civil Servant unto the subordinate while the subordinate (wife) is a Servile Servant unto the superior.

A Civil Servant is defined as one who is elected by their subordinate(s) to serve them, by looking after their best interest and always acting on their behalf in the capacity of being their leader and administrator.

A Servile Servant is defined as one who is hired by the superior to serve them, by looking after his best interest and always acting on the behalf of the superior in the capacity of being a follower and assistant (help meet) to the superior.

The dynamic of the Civil Servant and the Servile Servant applies to husband & wife, boyfriend & girlfriend, men in general & women in general, as it applies to delegate and constituents. In interpersonal or romantic relationships with some exceptions in relationships that are secular and work related, men are civil servants to women, while women are servile servants unto men. If this is in reverse where men are servile servants (“gentlemen”) to women and women are civil servants (domineering women) to men, it is vanity and will bring about evil because it isn’t natural.

A big problem that goes on in western society is that a lot of women want to be their man’s civil servant (leader, head) and wish for their man to be their servile servant (follower) as a gentleman. Not only is that unnatural but how can that be in the first place. The prerequisite of being a civil servant (leader) to someone is first learning how to be a servile servant (follower) under someone. Thereby in your servile servitude you will learn the virtue of serving. If you never learned how to serve a man or you refuse to serve a man (whether your father or husband) as a servile servant, you are kidding yourself and everyone else in thinking you can abruptly be a man’s civil servant (leader, head).

Most great male leaders who serve their women (or women in general) in the capacity of a civil servant learned the virtue of serving by first serving their mother as servile servants when they were children and adolescents. The men who first served their mothers as servile servants than their woman in the capacity of civil servant (leader, head) are the true and balance “gentlemen.” The men who serve their women in the capacity of a servile servant (follower, assistant) are imposters. They are false “gentlemen.” They are not desirable to high-brow women who have high standards and are mentally stable. They are desirable to low-brow women who are crazy, manic depressive, have a repressed fear of male authority and are of the domineering type of women.

When we contrast the maternal upbringing of male civil servants with the paternal upbringing of “female civil servants” (domineering women) we would see a great difference in the virtues that were taught. The female civil servant’s fathers was either passive, chased away by her wicked-insubordinate mother (most cases), her mother taught her to be deceptive toward men and to get what she can out of them (“don’t let your left hand know what your right hand is doing”), or maybe her father was just negligent and wicked. In either case, these domineering women never learned the virtue of serving the opposite sex like most male civil servants. From not ever serving their father as a servile servant when they were children and adolescents. They only learned the “virtues” of how to get over on (dominate), and be deceptive (violent) to the opposite sex. How can learning the virtues of dominance and violence make someone a good civil servant to the opposite sex? Those virtues are prerequisites for being a despot or tyrant to the opposite sex. Despots and tyrants are what these domineering women are to their biological male children and their honorary male children who are “gentlemen” to them, and who serve them in the capacity of a servile servant.

What domineering women need to understand (since they have a lake of fire judgment waiting if they don’t keep God’s commandments and obey their husbands) is that it’s psychologically proving that every person however submissive he/she may be in one interpersonal relationship, may still interact with other people where he/she is the dominant one. The greater the number of the latter, the less impact any one submissive stance make on his or her personality. So ladies if you know you are one of these domineering women I am talking about, you still can feel powerful in plenty of other areas in your life outside of your relationship with your husband in whom you are commanded by God to submit to as a servile servant. You can exercise dominion over your children, in your career, with your girlfriends, in hobbies you take up, etc. But do it as a civil servant by serving those people you have the rule over, don’t do it as a grievous despot or a tyrant, that would be counter-productive.

Another thing to note is that a woman must elect a man to be her civil servant (her leader), so that he can be “Her Man.” This means that she must choose him (start the romantic wooing process), and have confidence in him that he can lead her. First the man must have confidence in himself that he is able to lead others, and when that is the case, women will have confidence in him because he has it in himself.

When a woman accepts a man as her servile servant instead of electing him to be her civil servant, know that he will not be “her man” but instead he will be “her pet.” He will be used for a “pet” for her own sexual gratification and to manifest her “girl power,” which is dominion over male authority. All that is vanity and vexation of spirit!

 

This was the Doctrine of the Gathering of Israel

 

Jehoiada Israel

Sound Doctrine (An Obedient Wife)

(This Post is an excerpt from the book Till Divorce Do Us Part: Book III in the Man, the Head of Woman Series. On sale now! Click here if you like to purchase this book.)

Chapter 2 – Sound Doctrine (An Obedient Wife)

The way today’s preachers teach man, the head of the woman, if they teach it all, is the same way [Going to Heaven] is taught by them, while they also talk about, or sing about, being resurrected from the dead.

Which one is it?

Are we going to heaven right after we die?

Or are we going to be resurrected from the dead when the 7th Trumpet Blows?

Teaching both going to heaven and being resurrected from the dead simultaneously isn’t Sound Doctrine. Choose One!

The Gathering of Israel (the GOI) will teach you later the resurrection from the dead in blog posts and Sabbath Day Lessons because it’s sound doctrine!

************

Which one is it?

Is it Gender Equality?

Or is it Man, the Head of the Woman?

Teaching both gender equality and man, the head of the woman, simultaneously isn’t Sound Doctrine! It’s syncretism with feminism, so Choose One!

Here at the GOI we choose one, and only one. We choose man, the head of the woman. Than segued into the Obedient Wife. Cause the Obedient Wife is Sound Doctrine!

Modern Preachers often set the ground work of complaining about how a myriad amount of men are supposedly so abusive to women, and how they are so inapt at being fathers and providers that when they start teaching—in the same lesson or same sermon—about the obedient wife, they already have sabotaged (on purpose) any man chances of being the head of his wife with their ambivalent doctrine.

What’s it going to be?

Gender Equality?

Or the Obedient Wife?

Let the GOI in this post teach you about the Obedient Wife, because it’s Sound Doctrine!

Let the GOI take you away from the Gender Equality Wife, because it’s not sound doctrine, it’s ambivalent doctrine.

Contrary to sound doctrine, Modern Preachers and the disobedient wives/gender equality wives they appease use what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9 of a husband not being able to put away his wife (except for adultery) to transgress the Law in Genesis 3:16 of a husband being the God ordained ruler over his wife.

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

The correct context to what Jesus said in Matthew 19:9 is that a husband can’t put away [an obedient wife]. It was rightly assumed by everyone who Jesus was talking to that when he said “put away his wife,” that he meant an obedient wife. Why in the world would he have meant a disobedient wife in the context he was talking in not putting away your wife for “every cause”

Matthew 19:3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for [every cause].”

It is only fair and balanced that since a husband has God giving rule over his wife, and his wife’s “desire” (judgment for her actions) is unto him (Gen 3:16), that he can’t just kick her to the curb for any little thing  (or “every cause”), barring she is obedient to him.

The husband has the responsibility of giving his wife security (Matt 19:9) for her obedience, while the wife is responsible for giving her husband reverence (Eph 5:33) for his security. But, for a husband to give his wife security for her disobedience, as according to modern preachers and divorce court, isn’t Sound Doctrine!

No employer is required to provide job security for employee(s) who are non-complaint with the employer’s rules and regulations. So how in the hell are these religious and secular authorities making it so—by their dogma and laws—that a husband must provide spousal security for a wife who is non-complaint with his rules and regulations. That isn’t Sound Doctrine!

Modern Preachers and Secular Authorities both use the Laws of the Land to transgress God’s Law in Genesis 3:16 (husband rule over wife).

Regardless of how you transgress God’s Law, whether you do it [by God’s Law], or by Man’s Law, transgressing God’s Law is still defined as sinning.

I John 3:4 Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law.”

Using God’s Law (Matt 19:9) or Man’s Law to transgress God’s Law (Gen 3:16)—which is a sinisn’t Sound Doctrine!

Anyone using God’s Law to transgress God’s Law (how weird does that sound), makes God’s Law one’s strength to sin (transgress God’s Law). Which isn’t Sound Doctrine!

I Corinthians 15:56 The sting of death is sin; and the strength of sin is the law.”

You can’t keep one Law and cause another Law to be broken in the same set of Law you are dealing with, since it is written that if you offend in one point, then you are guilty of breaking all the Laws.

James 2:10-11 For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one point, he is guilty of all. For he that said, Do not commit adultery, said also, Do not kill. Now if thou commit no adultery, yet if thou kill, thou art become a transgressor of the law.”

For he that said:

Matthew 19:9 And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery.”

Also said:

Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”                                                              

Modern Preachers offend in the latter scripture above and fervently go out to keep the former scripture of a husband not putting away (divorcing) his wife for “every cause.” But in doing so, Modern Preachers cause another law to be broken: The law of a wife being obedient to her husband (Gen 3:16 & I Corin 14:33-34). Thus, Modern Preachers are guilty of breaking all the Laws.

Modern Preachers make what is written in Matthew 19:9 the strength for wives to continue sinning in disobeying their husbands. Under the Matthew 19:9 supposition that their husbands can’t put them away no matter what they do or say (except for adultery/fornication).

It ends up being that disobedient wives who don’t even keep the Law (Gen 3:16), benefit more from the Law (Matt 19:9), than the husbands who are trying their best to keep the Law (Matt 19:9). That isn’t Sound Doctrine!

God’s Law supposed to be against the sinner (not for the sinner) who is disobedient, and who does everything contrary to sound doctrine.

I Timothy 1:8-10 But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully; Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and [disobedient], for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, For whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to [sound doctrine].”                                                                                                                                              

Sound Doctrine according to the Bible is a wife who is obedient to her husband.

Titus 2:1, 4-5 But speak thou the things which become [sound doctrine]: That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”                                                                                                                                            

But Modern Preachers are using God’s Law in Matthew 19:9 against sound doctrine (An Obedient Wife), instead of using God’s Law in Matthew 19:9, as it should be used, against what is contrary to sound doctrine (A Disobedient Wife).

Modern Preachers have used Matthew 19:9 and have made themselves ministers for an audience of wicked women who will not endure sound doctrine (An Obedient Wife—Titus 2:1, 4-5).

Modern Preachers are teachers for disobedient wives who have itching ears; meaning, since these disobedient wives will not endure sound doctrine (An Obedient Wife), they are ever ready to hear a Lie and turn themselves away from the truth to fables. Heresy fables which state that husbands can’t put away wives no matter what their wives say or do (except for adultery).

II Timothy 4:2-5 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine (such as an Obedient Wife); but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers (such as Modern Preachers preaching gender equality), having itching ears; And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.”  

Modern Preachers can’t make full proof of their ministry—obedient husbands who can’t put away their wives. But the GOI can by the scriptures make full proof of our ministry—a wife must obey her husband lest she be put away.

As we should be using God’s commandments against everything contrary to sound doctrine, we should also be doing everything for the truth, and do nothing against the truth.

II Corinthians 13:8 “For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.”

The truth is, is that Modern Preachers are doing everything against the truth when it comes to their doctrine that a husband can’t put away his wife no matter what she says or does (except for adultery).

It’s insidious that Modern Preachers propagate on how supposedly a man is “stuck” with a woman after having sexual intercourse with her. The man is supposedly “stuck” in that he can’t put the woman away from that point on regardless of what she says and does, he must live all his life with his choice of choosing her. That isn’t Sound Doctrine! The truth is, is that a woman like a man must live with her choices. Since her salvation and eternal life is on the line in accordance with how she obeys or disobeys her husband (And you are going to fully understand this once you read the subsequent chapters in this book), then it’s very urgent that a woman make the right choice and marry a man who she fills she can OBEY! Just like it’s dangerous for a man to have sex with a woman who doesn’t respect him, it’s even more eternally dangerous for a woman to marry a man who she doesn’t respect. Cause after the sexual intercourse happens (especially sexual intercourse with the same man 3 times or more—which is a confirmation of the relationship), she is “stuck” with him, she has no other choice but to OBEY HIM—according to her vow before God! Or else she can be put away by the man and be cast into the Lake of Fire for her idolatry (Rev 21:8). That is Sound Doctrine!

A woman needs to make it her business to find a man who she feels is worthy of her respect and her obedience. I know that all men are not worthy of respect and obedience, because all men are not good leaders and don’t know how to serve women as a civil servant. Nevertheless, a woman batter not get herself “stuck” in a vow before God with those men who are not worthy of respect and obedience, by not having sexual relations with them in the first place.

Modern Preachers rather for wives to continue disobeying their husbands, than have their husbands put them away for their disobedience. Apparently, to Modern Preachers, it’s more important for a husband to keep his marriage vow of not putting away his wife for “every cause,” than for his wife to obey him. But wait a minute though, the wife obeying her husband is her wedding vow to God. Thus, Modern Preachers are admitting in their own little female appeasing way, that one law supersedes another law. They are inadvertently saying that the Law of a husband not putting away his wife for “every cause” to keep his wedding vow to God, supersedes his wife having to obey him which is her wedding vow to God.

Therefore, Modern Preachers are caught up again in their hypocrisy (i.e. Luke 12:1), when they Lie and say that God’s Laws are absolute rules with no exceptions and that there is no law of God which supersedes another law of God. Modern Preachers saying a husband can’t put away his wife no matter what (except for adultery), which supposedly supersedes a man putting away his wife for constant disobedience isn’t Sound Doctrine!

What are Modern Preachers going to say? A wife doesn’t have to obey her husband and keep her vow of marriage to God if she chooses not to. Yet her husband has no other choice but to keep his marriage vow to God and not put her away for “every cause.” Even if that cause is his wife breaking the Covenant of Life and Peace (due order—Man, the head of the woman) that she made with him before God. That doesn’t sound fair or balanced, which is why it isn’t Sound Doctrine!

Modern Preachers make it seem like a man should feel guilty because God ordained him to rule over his wife (Gen 3:16). They covertly try to get men under their tutelage to voluntarily abdicate their positions as the head of their wives to downgrade to “gender equality” with their wives or be under their wives in authority. All in the spirit of the American way and doing “what is right.” That is syncretism of God’s Law with feminism. The Syncretism of God’s Law with Feminism isn’t Sound Doctrine!

The syncretism of God’s Law of a wife obeying her husband conjoined with feminsim of wives being equal with their husbands in authority isn’t going to work. It isn’t Sound Doctrine! It makes the commandment of God of a wife obeying her husband of non-effect. All of which underscores that Modern Preachers judge God’s Law of a wife being obedient to her husband as evil. Than these same preachers will consequently speak evil of men who put away their wives for their disobedience.

Modern Preachers speaking evil of a man for putting away his wife for her constant disobedience shows that these preachers are not doers of the law (Gen 3:16), but are judges, judges who are against God’s Law (Gen 3:16).

James 4:11 Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his brother, speaketh evil of the law, and judgeth the law: but if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer of the law, but a judge.”

Since Modern Preachers judge a man for doing evil for keeping the Law (Gen 3:16), when he puts away a consistently disobedient wife, they will be judge by God for doing evil. They will be doubly judge, for judging a man of doing evil for keeping the Law (Gen 3:16), and for not keeping the Law (Gen 3:16) themselves, but looking at the Law (Gen 3:16) as if it is evil.

Matthew 7:1-5 Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.”

Modern Preachers act like the Bible says “A husband should not put away his wife that the Word of God be not blasphemed.”

The Bible actually says “obedient to their own husbands, that the Word of God be not blasphemed”—Titus 2:5.

There is no place in scripture where it says that a husband who puts away his wife is blaspheming the Word of God.

One would think, that Modern Preachers would think, that the more important Law between a man keeping his marriage vow of not putting away his wife for “every cause,” versus that same wife obeying her husband according to her marriage vow, would be the latter one. Since the Bible says a wife who doesn’t obeys her husband blasphemes the Word of God. But to female appeasing preachers, a disobedient wife isn’t blasphemy to them—although the Bible says it is blasphemy. A man who puts away his wife for constant disobedience is blasphemy to Modern Preachers. This non-biblical reasoning by Modern Preachers is blasphemy and contrary to sound doctrine (An Obedient Wife).

Modern Preachers judging that a man who puts away his wife for constant disobedience counts as blasphemy against him, is the exact reason why you brothers can’t look for justice from a preacher when you are dealing with a consistently disobedient wife. Their judgments according to their partiality toward women will always be unjust toward men. You know God’s Law (Gen 3:16), you know your situation with your disobedient wife, and you know yourself. Hence, you know if your wife’s disobedience is justified or not. Be self-reliant, and take it upon yourself to give yourself justice and not look for it from a preacher or a secular authority. Justice doesn’t come from without, anyway, justice is a by-product of the self-respect you have for yourself within you. Therefore, respect yourself and be merciful to yourself, don’t go through unnecessary misery and vanity (Eccl 8:14). Especially don’t go through any misery and vanity (Eccl 8:14) from someone who God has ordained you to rule over (Gen 3:16). Put the disobedient wife away! Don’t observe the Lying Vanities of Modern Preachers who say you can’t put your wife away no matter what she does or says against you (except for adultery). If you don’t put the disobedient wife away, by-and-by you will end up forsaking your own mercy from misery because you have hearken to these Lying Vanities coming from female appeasing preachers.

Jonah 2:8 They that observe lying vanities forsake their own mercy.”

 

This was the Doctrine of the Gathering of Israel

 

Jehoiada Israel