Last Man Standing
Survive to Procreate Again
The header image of a sinking ship and a sole male-survivor standing alone in a life-boat could be used to illustrate the importance of the man surviving to procreate again under better circumstances.
Women and Children First is Profane
Typically, doing the exact opposite of what the world’s system says will typically be the right thing to do and this can be seen in the worldly statement “Women and children first!”
There exists a certain “mentality” among those of the world which is expressed by the statement “Women and children first!” In the world’s system, the woman will typically run the household, the children will be served by the woman, then the pets, and the man of the house is like a rat that lives under the cupboard (who exists but has little say about what is done and is even of lower rank in that household than even the cats and dogs).
If this type of family (harboring such a worldly mentality) was abroad a sinking ship, their priorities would again be demonstrated by placing the woman and children on the lifeboat first, then the pets, and if there was no room left then the man would be abandoned to go down with the sinking ship.
But there is something seriously wrong with this worldly attitude and the priorities which are reflected in the worldly statement, “Women and children first!” It is as if they presume that the man is the least important member of the household (even lower than the pets in value) and therefore considered something that is dispensable. While the statement “Women and children first!” may appear to sound “chivalrous” nevertheless the worldly logic expressed by this statement is deeply flawed.
In direct contrast to the flawed logic of the world’s system, God declares that the man of the house is the most important individual in the entire household. God has ordained that the man be the leader of the home and the wife and children are to respect and honor the man within the position of authority God has placed him in within the household.
1 Corinthians 11:3 (NIV)
3 Now I want you to realize that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
God has created a chain-of-command with God as the head of Christ and Christ as the head of the man and the man as the head of the woman and parents placed in authority over the children. When the wife and children honor the man as the head of the household, they are in fact honoring the authority placed within the man by God to rule that household.
Exodus 12:37 (NIV2011)
37 The Israelites journeyed from Rameses to Sukkoth. There were about six hundred thousand men on foot, besides women and children.
When the children of Israel left Egypt under the leadership of Moses, there was over 600,000 men besides women and children. The reason that the women and children were not counted is because the women were created to be “one-flesh” or “one-person” together with their husbands and their offspring were considered as part of the household headed by the man. Therefore, there was over 600,000 Jewish families all headed by Jewish men who served as heads of each household. When the men were counted this included everyone under their authority. God deals with families based on the principle of men being the heads of households according to the principle of God’s divine order and God’s “chain-of-command” with men placed in authority over their wives and children.
Matthew 14:21 (NASB)
21 There were about five thousand men who ate, besides women and children.
This principle also carries over into the New Testament era and is reflected in the event of Jesus feeding the 5,000 men. Again, the women and children were not counted because they were considered as part of each household run by the men who are the heads of these households.
Matthew 15:38 (NIV2011)
38 The number of those who ate was four thousand men, besides women and children.
On another occasion Jesus fed a crowd of 4,000 men and again the women and children were not counted because it was understood that they were part of one household and they come under the authority of the man of the house. When the male heads of households were counted it was understood that the number included their wives and children.
Genesis 2:18 (NASB)
18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him.”
When God created the woman, it was done so that she would be a helper which was suitable for the man. God created women for the men.
1 Corinthians 11:8-9 (NASB)
8 For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man;
9 for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake.
God specifically created the woman for the man and this indicates that the one created to be a helper was made to honor and serve the one she was created for.
1 Timothy 2:13 (NASB)
13 For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve.
Adam was created first then later Eve was created to be his helper. The one first created by God holds the greater significance as the head of the household than the one created to serve him. This is in direct contrast to the ways of the world and their faulty logic that treats men as the least significant member of the household (even lower than pets in importance).
Genesis 2:21-23 (NIV)
21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh.
22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.”
The way in which God created the woman is significant because Eve was not created from the dust of the earth in the same manner that Adam was created. If God had created Eve from the dust, then she would have been a separate individual from Adam and created as an equal. But instead, God removed bone and flesh from Adam and then created Eve out of this material which came from Adam. Not only did God remove the bone and flesh from Adam but God also removed everything that was feminine from Adam and placed it within his wife Eve. This was done in God’s wisdom because when a man is married to a woman then everything that was removed from the man is again restored in marriage. So, Adam was made complete in marriage to Eve because all of his missing parts were restored to him again in marriage.
The same is also true for all men that have ever been born on earth. Every man has something missing in him which can only be restored by marriage to a woman (who carries his missing parts). It is for this reason that when a man and woman are joined together in marriage then both the man and the woman become one complete person again. Before marriage the single man and single woman are both incomplete and have something missing that can only be fulfilled by marriage to the opposite gender.
Genesis 2:24 (NIV)
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
Before a man is married, he comes under the authority of his father’s household. But when he marries then a new household is started with the man as the head of this new household. It is for this reason that the man is to leave his father and mother (coming out from under the authority of his father’s household) and be united with his wife in marriage so that these two individuals become “one-flesh” or “one-complete” person together. Everything missing in the man is restored by his wife. The woman also is incomplete until she is married to a man. Together the man and woman are one-complete person in God’s sight.
Therefore, it is erroneous to say that God condones gender equality. In fact, God does not endorse “gender-equality” at all but rather God believes in “Oneness” meaning that God sees the man and the woman as one complete person in marriage.
Malachi 2:15-16 (NKJV)
15 But did He not make them one, Having a remnant of the Spirit? And why one? He seeks godly offspring. Therefore, take heed to your spirit, and let none deal treacherously with the wife of his youth.
16 “For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, for it covers one’s garment with violence,” Says the LORD of hosts. “Therefore, take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.”
God made the man and the woman into “one-complete” person in marriage. It is for this reason that God hates divorce because those who divorce are separating what God has united together into “one-complete” person. To cover the garment with violence speaks of tearing a garment across the fibers so that it is ripped apart. It can never be mended or restored to the original condition again because the fibers were torn and frayed. In the same way, when a man and woman are united in marriage and become “one-person” then it is complete devastation to tear them apart by divorce. They will never be the same, as they were prior to the divorce.
The only restoration that is possible is if the divorce occurred prior to salvation because when they become born-again then their old-person dies and they are made new in Christ. But for a believer to divorce this will cause permanent irreparable damage that cannot be restored by salvation since the damage occurred after they were already saved.
God has never intended that a married couple ever be separated by divorce.
Matthew 19:3-8 (NIV2011)
3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”
4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’
5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?
6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”
8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning.
God created humans as male and female so that they would be perfectly suited for one another and complete one another in marriage and become “one-flesh” or “one-complete” person together. What God has joined together in marriage no humans are to separate in divorce (meaning the couple themselves are not to choose to divorce rather than being reconciled together). Permitting divorce was only done because of the hardness of human hearts who refused to reconcile with their spouses and were stubborn to go their own way and use their human freewill to resist what God had joined together in marriage.
1 Corinthians 7:39 (NIV2011)
39 A woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.
It was God’s original intention that marriage between a man and woman should last for an entire lifetime! But if a spouse should die then the surviving spouse is free to remarry again if they have an opportunity to do so. Remarriage is acceptable in God’s sight if a couple is separated by death.
Marriage in time of Calamity
1 Corinthians 7:26 (NIV2011)
26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is.
Paul mentions a present time of crisis and church history reveals that there was a great Roman persecution of the church when the Romans brutally killed anyone who refused to worship the Roman Emperor as a god. It is said that multiplied thousands of believers were martyred during the Roman persecution of this era.
This brings up the subject of marriage and family during a time of great crisis and social upheaval. It is during a time of great crisis and turmoil that a young man would be wise to wait with marriage and having a family because raising a family requires an environment of relative peace and prosperity so a man can raise his family in unhindered manner. This is difficult if there are wars and economic collapse and famine or if an organized government force (like the Roman military) are actively arresting and executing people for their faith in God! Under great distress and turmoil and social unrest, a man would be wise to forebear marriage and family and wait until better times come when he can again have opportunity to provide for a family under times of relative peace.
Lamentations 2:20 (NIV2011)
20 “Look, LORD, and consider: Whom have you ever treated like this? Should women eat their offspring, the children they have cared for? Should priest and prophet be killed in the sanctuary of the Lord?
Under great distress of war and siege many women ate their own children because of the great turmoil which they suffered during these bad times. When war and calamity exist, it is definitely not a time that is conducive to raising a family.
Principle of Last Man Standing
Suppose a married man is faced with a situation during a great crisis where he has to choose who is going to survive. If he stays with his family, they will all die together but he does have a chance to survive if he abandons the family and lives to procreate again under better circumstances.
Jeremiah 14:5 (NASB)
5 “For even the doe in the field has given birth only to abandon her young, because there is no grass.
This principle can be seen in nature because when a deer is suffering famine (during a drought) and there is no grass to eat, then the deer will abandon her young. If the deer tries to nurse the fawn she will die together with the fawn because she cannot support both herself and her fawn under conditions of drought and famine. By abandoning the fawn, the doe has a chance of surviving (living off body fat) until the rains come again and grass reappears. Then she can again procreate and have new offspring. This makes logical sense because if the deer survives the famine, she can again bear young again under better conditions but if she perishes with her fawn in famine that will be the end of the line for both of them.
God forbid that a man would ever face a situation where he would have to make such a terrible decision as to who will live and who will die (during a time of crisis when he cannot keep his family alive). The chances of such a situation arising like this may seem so remote that many would consider this a “moot-point” or a silly scenario to consider. But in fact, this is not that “far-fetched” at all and I personally know someone who was forced to make that very decision for survival.
My late father-in-law came from North Korea. During the time of the Korean War his family sent him down to South Korea immediately because he was their only son. It is said that he was also married and had a family in North Korea but he was forced to flee instantly and in doing so he was the only member of all his relatives and family who managed to make it across the border before it was completely sealed off.
Everyone who was caught trying to flee the country were executed or killed or placed into concentration camps as traitors. My father-in-law never saw his relatives nor his wife and children in North Korea again. He however remarried in South Korea and my wife Helen was one of his children born by his second marriage. He had lived to procreate again under better times and if he had not done this, he would probably have perished together with all of his relatives and with his family who were left in North Korea. He was the only known survivor of his entire family line and he lived to carry on by having a new family in South Korea.
Last Man Standing
Again, if someone was to follow worldly wisdom, they would say, “Let the man go down with the ship” and the women and children should be given preference in survival. But this is faulty logic because the only one of the household who has the greatest chance of survival in a crisis is the man. The women and children largely depend upon the man for his leadership and provision and protection. If they lose the man, they will not likely survive a crisis on their own. It is therefore foolish for the man to go down with the ship only to spare the wife and children to be a widow and orphans (who have a slim chance of survival in hard times without him) being left alone without a male provider and protector.
Under a great crisis therefore (where life and death decisions must be made) it should be the man who decides to use his greater strength and ability to survive to escape so that he can live and procreate again under better circumstances. If he foolishly goes down with the ship to spare his wife and children then they will not likely survive without him and so their entire family line will be extinguished. It is far better for him to stay alive so he can start a new family again under better conditions!
Again, this may seem like a “far-fetched” scenario but in fact there are people who were forced to make such terrible choices when living under great calamity and distress! It is therefore better for the man to follow the principles of nature to abandon his family and use his greater strength and ability to survive to escape the crisis and live to procreate again under better circumstances.
Compared to the value of a man, the women and children would be “expendable” under a time of great crisis where survival is difficult or almost impossible. Therefore, it should be the man who is given first priority because he is the one who has the best chance of survival during a crisis. It does him and his family no good if he remains only to perish together with them and end the family line completely. According to this principle (which is also confirmed by nature) my father-in-law did the right thing to use his greater strength as a man to flee across the border before it was closed. If he had tried to bring his family with him, they would have slowed him down and they would have all died together at the border. It is better that one of the family survive than the whole family perish. The one family member who has the best chance of survival is the man who has greater strength than the wife and children and the man also has the ability to provide for himself and to survive and to remarry and create a new family under better conditions.
The survival principle of the “Last Man Standing” speaks of making a decision during a time of great crisis and calamity that if only one person of the family will survive then it will be the man of the household. He has the best chances of survival and if only one person can be saved it should be the man who survives (not the wife and children).
Heaven forbid that any man should be forced to make such a terrible decision but if such a crisis should arise then men should know that they have the best chance of staying alive and abandoning the wife and children under great crisis is not cowardly but an act of survival that even a wild animal (like a deer) will do in time of necessity.
According to God’s word, the man was created first and the woman was created as his helper. Following the same logic, it is only common sense that it should be the man who is given first priority in survival (during a time of great crisis) because he has the best chance of survival. Giving priority to women and children will only result in having no surviving members left remaining of that family unit.
Flee Without Hesitation
Mark 13:15-16 (NASB)
15 “The one who is on the housetop must not go down, or go in to get anything out of his house;
16 and the one who is in the field must not turn back to get his coat.
During time of crisis a man must flee without hesitation because even seconds can determine if he will live or die. Jesus spoke of a coming calamity in Israel when seconds can determine a man’s survival. In the scripture above, Jesus mentioned “his” house referring to the ownership of the house in a masculine-gender term “his” indicating he was referring to a man in this scripture above. It should be noted if a man has no time to bend over to pick up a coat and no time to even pick up an item from the house then he certainly would not have time to carry along his wife and children who would slow him down and prevent his escape.
Jesus said that man on a rooftop should not go down and get anything out of his house. A man in a field should not go back to pick up his coat. This is because when a military force places a dragnet around a city then there are only seconds to escape. It is much like a large fishnet encircling a school of fish in the ocean. Only those fish which can flee out of that enclosure before it is sealed off completely will be the only ones that will escape.
This happened on border between North and South Korea during the Korean war and my father-in-law fled without hesitation and just barely made it over the border before the North Korean army had completely sealed it off. He was like a small fish that managed to evade a large dragnet before it completely closed off all avenues of escape!
Jesus spoke of a future time of calamity in Israel when men would have to flee instantly without even going back for a coat or stopping to get something in their house. If their lives will depend on “saving-seconds” to avoid capture [so that they have no time to bend over to pick up a coat or grab something from the house], then all the more will they have to learn to flee without trying to bring wife and children with them. In such a crisis, they will perish together with their wife and children if they hesitate trying to bring them along. They must flee without hesitation and without looking back.
Genesis 19:17 (NIV2011)
17 As soon as they had brought them out, one of them said, “Flee for your lives! Don’t look back, and don’t stop anywhere in the plain! Flee to the mountains or you will be swept away!”
The angels instructed Lot and his family not to look back but to flee without hesitation. To look back can also mean that someone has emotional attachments they are leaving behind similar to how the wife of Lot looked back as if she longed for the wicked city that was swept away in judgment. The point to make here is that a man has to make hard decisions in advance so that if faced with a great crisis, he will not hesitate but will flee when he has only seconds before the dragnet closes upon him. If he is pondering the emotional dilemma of forsaking his wife and children then he will perish together with them because of the seconds delayed before he put himself into “flight mode” and went full speed toward his freedom.
If a man will consider biblical principles, he will consider himself as the most important person in the household and the one most likely to survive a crisis. He will know that in a time of dire crisis it is better if he is the only survivor rather than doing “nothing “and perishing together with his wife and children. Better that he lives to procreate again under better times than to do nothing and perish only because he hesitated for a few seconds before he took flight. If a man will make that decision now (under good conditions) then he will know what is required of him and he will not hesitate to flee when a crisis suddenly comes upon him. He should not feel guilty about such a decision because it does his family no good to die with them when he could have been the only survivor to live and remarry and have another family when times are good.
I am so glad that my father-in-law made that difficult decision to flee when he had the chance without looking back because my wife was born when he remarried and started his life anew in South Korea. Men have to realize that God sees them as the most important member of the household and it is their duty to stay alive so they can procreate again under better times. This “chivalry” nonsense of the world’s system makes it sound as if the man has the duty to die and sacrifice himself for his family in time of crisis. But nothing could be farther from the truth!
What will a widow and orphans do in a crisis situation without a head of household to depend on for leadership, provision and protection? Women and children typically have little chance of survival during hard times without the help of a man. Should they be spared in a crisis only to have them perish later without a man to help them? Following the foolishness of the world’s “reprobate logic” will leave no survivor of that family unit during a time of dire crisis.
If Jesus instructed a man to flee without bending over to pick up a coat and not getting anything from the house, then it is guaranteed that a man cannot wait to trundle his entire family clan with him across a border in order to escape a military dragnet! Doing so would only result in his own death together with them leaving no survivors of his family unit. Again, a man carries with him the power of procreation so he can always remarry and start a new family under better times so it should be the man who determines to be the sole survivor in a time of crisis.
It is the purpose of this lesson to speak to men to have them consider this topic and have them make a firm decision to survive if they are faced with the terrible decision to choose between their wife and children and losing their own life together with their family. A man is not a coward to save himself as the head of the household in a time of dire crisis. It does his family no good at all for him to perish together with them. It is far better that at least one of the family survive and the one who has the best chances of survival in times of crisis is the man as the head of the household.
A man who does not make this decision in advance will hesitate and that hesitation can cost him his life in a time of crisis. He should not bend over to pick up a coat or even grab an item from the house and not even look back when he takes flight leaving his family behind. That is not cowardice under dire circumstances but only the logical thing to do and even wild animals follow the same logical method following the instincts God gave them.
Making this decision now enables a man to be prepared knowing that he has to keep himself alive to provide leadership and provision and protection for his future family. If his original family is lost in crisis, he can remarry and start a new family which will equally need his leadership and provision and protection. He is the most valuable one in the household and he should make a decision to stay alive during times of crisis because it does no one any good if he dies because of the “hesitation” in taking flight when he has the chance.
Application for Honoring Male Heads of Households
It should be noted that this teaching principle has direct application to exposing the false narrative that the man is the least valuable person in the household. In fact, God says that the man is the most important person of all. It is through the head of the household (the man) that God gives his direction and leadership to the family. God is not going to skip over the man and speak to the wife about direction for the family because God has ordained the man to be the head of the household (not the wife). God may speak to the woman about personal matters or matters concerning her children but God is not going to speak to her about direction for the family which is the responsibility God has given to the man as the leader of the household.
This survival principle “Last Man Standing” in fact also serves to expose the worldly mentality or faulty attitude carried by those who are worldly-minded. They expose themselves as being “carnal-minded” whenever they disdain the value of the head of the household and falsely presume that he is of no consequence whatsoever.
When things become really hard and economies crash and chaos and anarchy reign then it will be at this time that the value of real men will be acknowledged. When the comfort and security of a once prosperous nation has been trashed by incompetent political leadership then it will be those families who have real men as heads of the household who will have the best chance of survival. Those arrogant women who have divorced their husbands with disdain and are living as independent “single-parent” working women will not survive long when they are faced with the glaring need to have a man during a disaster as a provider and protector and leader. In hard times widows and orphans and families with no male head of household will have a difficult time in surviving.
It is for this reason that this principle can be used to illustrate that God has set the man of the house as the most important individual within the household (not the least important as the world would dictate today). Therefore, the correct attitude of the wife and the children should be one of honor and respect and obedience toward the man God has placed as head over their own household. Any type of bad attitude that reflects distain or disregard for the head of the household in any form (including indifference) should be rebuked because it is displeasing to the Lord!
In this sense this teaching could be used to expose the sin of disdain for male authority in the home and to rebuke those women and children who refuse to honor the head of the household as they should. They should be rebuked for this unrepentant sin of disdaining God’s appointed spiritual authority.
Psalm 45:11 (NLT2)
11 For your royal husband delights in your beauty; honor him, for he is your lord.
The husband should be treated as royalty because God has placed him as head of the home and the woman is to honor her husband for this reason.
1 Peter 3:4-6 (NASB)
4 but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God.
5 For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands;
6 just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.
Godly women are distinguished by having a quality of a gentle and quiet spirit toward male authority because this is something that is precious in the sight of the Lord. Holy women adorn themselves with a gentle and quiet spirit by being submissive to their own husbands. Sarah obeyed her husband Abraham and called him her “lord” as a term of respect and honor. Sarah understood that if she honored her husband then she was honoring God who placed her husband in authority over her.
Ephesians 6:1-3 (NIV)
1 Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.
2 “Honor your father and mother”–which is the first commandment with a promise–
3 “that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth.”
Children are to obey their parents because this is right in the sight of the Lord. It is God’s command that they honor their parents and keeping this commandment offers a promise that they might have things go well for them and they can live a long life on earth and be blessed by God. God rewards those who follow his commands and this includes the command for the wife to honor her husband as the head of the household and the command that the children are to honor their parents.
Those who show disdain for the head of the household are those who also show disdain for God’s appointed authority in the home. To rebel against male authority in the home is to rebel against God who established the man as the head of the household. Any bad attitude toward male authority in the household should therefore be exposed and rebuked and set in order by the teaching of God’s word.