"Thinking Eternally, Acting Locally." - Neal August
I was recently asked the following question that I answered:
"You being a Darwinian evolutionist, and having read some of your posts on the subject, I was wondering what your current opinion is of who exactly who you think Adam and Eve were, the nature of the Garden of Eden ...and your take on the nature of the Great Flood."
It seems logical to me that there was a first man, and I assume that this must be a point of agreement between evolutionists and “creationists” (i.e., those conservative Christian believers (usually fundamentalists) who believe that the Genesis 1-3 story is a literal and historical record (not to mention scientific) and believe that macro biological evolution is incompatible with the revealed teachings of Scripture.).
We can all admit that Man currently exists. We can also all admit that there was a time when Man did not exist. Therefore, if Man does exist and there was a time when Man did not exists, I must presume that there was a First Man. From a quasi-historical sense then, this first identified man would be “Adam”. He is the first Adam as Christ is the Second Adam.
But how do I reconcile this belief in the first Adam and my belief in the theory of evolution?
I would suggest that for millions of years life existed on Earth. All of this life was created by God but God did not create this life in the image of Himself. For this reason, because this life was not created in God’s image, this life created by God could not relate to God (a personal being) in a personal way. But God wanted to relate to in a personal way to a personal creature. Life began from the smallest single-celled organism and evolved over millions of year from small worms, to fish, to lizards, to mammals, to ape like creatures – all of which were created by God and non of which were able to relate to Him on a personal level.
I suggest that, at some point, one of these non-personal creatures produced the first creature that could relate to God in a personal way. This creature was probably some early form of “primate” that probably looked more like an “ape” than what we humans look like today. He probably had a small brain and very little intelligence, but this creature could relate to God on a personal level and, in this way, this creature was made in the “image of God.”
So why do I not simply identify the first man with the “Adam of the Scriptures”? The reason for this is that the Genesis 2-3 chapter is not focused on an individual but a corporate personality. The “Adam” of Genesis 2-3 is not a single individual but he is ALL men and every man (and woman) in this scenario in which Man sins and falls from the image of God. Each person (male and female) is Adam and not just the first man but it does include him. It even includes the last man … which is an interesting thought; who will be the last man? Anyway, this is not a foreign concept to Scripture at all.
Look at the “Son of Man” in Daniel 7:13. Before his entrance, four beasts presented (7:2-8, 15-17, 19-25). From the text it is obvious that these 4 beasts do not represent 4 persons but 4 kingdoms. They are symbolic and non-historical but it does represent 4 historical situations. After the beasts, last comes the “Son of Man”. The “Son of Man” is symbolic and non-historical. The “Son of Man” represents the a kingdom and not a person (7:18, 27). “He” represents the holy people of God.
Now when Jesus came along, He took the symbolic “Son of Man” figure and applied it to Himself. Christ is a corporate being in whom all believers exist (must exist) to be justified by God.
(In college I talked with many people who denied Christ’s deity. They always said, “Well, Jesus never said he was God.” To which I responded: “You’re right, He never said He was God, because He was not just God; He was God-Man.” Or I might respond: “He called himself the ‘Son of Man.’ That’s a much more interesting self-designation.”) See A Quick Confession of Christ.
In Romans 5 (and elsewhere), Paul compares and contrast Christ as corporate with Adam as corporate. The usual reply is that “Christ is both individual and corporate, therefore, Adam must be individual and corporate.” But that is not a logical corollary of Paul’s argument and is not point made in the text.
This is certainly not the point made in Genesis 2-3.
There are 3 “Adams” in Genesis.
There is the “Adam” of Genesis 1 as the collective Man, made in the image of God, being both male and female (P-source).
There is the “Adam” of Genesis 2-3 as collective Man (falls as group), individual Man (falls as individual) and Man as male (‘ish) that stands in relation to Man as female (‘isha) (J-source).
Then there is the “Adam” of Genesis 4 who is probably the only explicitly individual “Adam” in the book. He is the wife of Eve and the father of Cain, Abel and Seth. And he is not mentioned much. Eve actually has a more prominent role in the rest of the narrative.
This is Scripture: it is God-breathed, inerrant, infallible and revealed. From it we get the Word of God. But the question for me is not that the Scripture is inerrant; I believe it is! For me the question is how we interpret this revelation.
We are confronted with several questions in these passages?
We do we have TWO creation stories in TWO different styles each with a different chronology of events (Genesis 1 and Genesis 2)?
Who was Cain afraid of when he told God that people on the earth would try to kill him? The traditional view was that there were only 3 people living: Adam, Eve and Cain.
Where did Cain’s wife come from?
Why is there NO evidence of a world wide flood? If we believe that all the different types of animals that exist today were carried on the ark how do we reconcile that they could not all fit on the ark? Where did all the fresh water fish go? The insects? Eight people could not have managed the duties of what it would have taken to care for thousands of animals for over a year. If there was a flood then the earth would have a clay sediment all over the earth, but there isn’t one. Now I believe in miracles but the logistics are such that God would have had to have erased all evidence of those miracles. Why would He do that? And even if He did, then science won’t be able to prove it because God removed all evidence that science must need to verify it.
Again, I believe the Bible is inerrant and I am not questioning the Bible. Rather, I am questioning the traditional interpretation of the Bible on these points. The Bible is not wrong but maybe we have been wrong in how we interpret it.
See also:
Evangelical Evolutionism
The Historicity of Christ
Exegesis of Genesis 3
I hope that helps.
Friday, February 24, 2006
Monday, February 20, 2006
The Historical-Critical Nuclear Method
Forget the military strikes, the trade boycotts, the economic “arm-twisting” and the special intelligence … I have an idea of dealing with Islamic fundamentalism that will either cause a more peaceful world or cause Islam to go into a massive civil war within itself.
If the recent events concerning cartoon pictures of the prophet Mohammed, flushing Korans and even “tossing” Korans have convinced you that the majority of the world’s Muslim population are somewhat “touchy” when it come to their faith in the Islamic holy scriptures and are just waiting for the opportunity to strike at anyone (including a fellow Muslim) for knocking the “fundamentalist stick” off their shoulders then, brother, have I got an idea for you!
Yes, I now know exactly how the Western World can completely destroy the current crop of Muslim extremists and Islamic fundamentalists from ever having any effect upon the world in which we live.
Yes, I suggest to you that we introduce the Historical-Critical Method of Scripture research to the Islamic study of the Koran.
Check this paragraph out:
“Modern higher criticism is just beginning to be carried out on the Koran. This scholarship questions some traditional claims about its composition and content, contending that the Koran incorporates material from both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and that the text of the Koran developed both during and after Muhammad's lifetime. For example, Islamic history records that Uthman collected all variants of the Koran and destroyed those that he did not approve of.”
Think of what happened in this country with the introduction of the historical-critical method of Biblical criticism and what it could mean to Islam.
1) Fundamentalists were driven to the fringe of Christian society.
2) Biblical scholarship flourished and the Scriptures were opened up to mass Christendom.
3) Conservative Christianity abandoned slavery, polygamy, inequality, feudalism, and the Old Testament ethic of “an-eye-for-an-eye”.
4) Christianity grew at a phenomenal rate across the world.
5) Humility and tolerance became an effective attribute to employ with our cooperation with other believers and with our witness to non-believers.
And what if all the Islamic fundamentalists simply decide to yell, “Infidel” and begin hacking away at all the scholars and professors that they disagree with?
Then the Muslims will simply have to make them trustees.
If the recent events concerning cartoon pictures of the prophet Mohammed, flushing Korans and even “tossing” Korans have convinced you that the majority of the world’s Muslim population are somewhat “touchy” when it come to their faith in the Islamic holy scriptures and are just waiting for the opportunity to strike at anyone (including a fellow Muslim) for knocking the “fundamentalist stick” off their shoulders then, brother, have I got an idea for you!
Yes, I now know exactly how the Western World can completely destroy the current crop of Muslim extremists and Islamic fundamentalists from ever having any effect upon the world in which we live.
Yes, I suggest to you that we introduce the Historical-Critical Method of Scripture research to the Islamic study of the Koran.
Check this paragraph out:
“Modern higher criticism is just beginning to be carried out on the Koran. This scholarship questions some traditional claims about its composition and content, contending that the Koran incorporates material from both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, and that the text of the Koran developed both during and after Muhammad's lifetime. For example, Islamic history records that Uthman collected all variants of the Koran and destroyed those that he did not approve of.”
Think of what happened in this country with the introduction of the historical-critical method of Biblical criticism and what it could mean to Islam.
1) Fundamentalists were driven to the fringe of Christian society.
2) Biblical scholarship flourished and the Scriptures were opened up to mass Christendom.
3) Conservative Christianity abandoned slavery, polygamy, inequality, feudalism, and the Old Testament ethic of “an-eye-for-an-eye”.
4) Christianity grew at a phenomenal rate across the world.
5) Humility and tolerance became an effective attribute to employ with our cooperation with other believers and with our witness to non-believers.
And what if all the Islamic fundamentalists simply decide to yell, “Infidel” and begin hacking away at all the scholars and professors that they disagree with?
Then the Muslims will simply have to make them trustees.
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
Marriage and Divorce
On this day I thought I would post a dialogue I enjoyed with a friend concerning the subject of marriage, a dialogue that was precipitated by his article on the subject. This is a pretty good discussion in terms of offering my views on what Scripture teaches about marriage and related topics.
Some of the specific issues contained therein are of the following:
Marriage - what it is and when it begins
Divorce - what it is and when it is justified
Provision - what the Scriptures say about wives and mothers working
Adultery - when it occurs
A good resource on these subjects is Stanley Grenz’s, Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective.
FRANK:
“Because marriage is a picture of salvation.”
So is slavery.
“Have they adhered to God’s principles regarding divorce and remarriage? (An aside: Do you, like John Piper, believe that the only justification for divorce was during the Jewish betrothal period? Do you believe there is justification for divorce for continued, unrepentant adultery? Do you believe the spouse doesn’t count as the brother we are to forgive 77 times? Or, do you consider the normality of divorce in the church just apart of life that does not reflect an inadequate view of the holiness of God to the watching world?)”
God divorced Israel for “continued, unrepentant adultery”.
The appropriate principle that we must deal with is Jesus’ understanding that “whatever God brings together, let no man separate”? The question is: what has God brought together? We have to be careful to distinguish between man-recognized marriage and God-recognized marriage (for example: just because a local church excommunicates a member does not necessarily mean this was God’s will and that the member was guilty. The Roman Catholic Church excommunicated Martin Luther; was that excommunication recognized by God?). Just because two people decide to shack up does not mean that they are recognized by God as being married. If so, then God could recognize gay marriage. If so, then God could recognize incestual marriage. If so, then God could recognize a marriage between a child and an adult.
Now, if two people live with each other for the rest of their lives in a monogamous relationship but never have a ceremony, are they married and so recognized by God? Some states would recognize it as a common law marriage. In what way does God recognize their relationship? If two unbelieving teens marry just out of high school and divorce a few months later and the man later becomes a believer and remarries and lives a blameless life with the same wife until their deaths, which marriage will God honor, the first or the second? Was the second marriage adulterous or the first?
When does a marriage begin? Does it begin when the couple has sex? If so, then men who are paralyzed from the waist down are never actually married. Does it begin with the wedding ceremony? If so, then if two people agree to marry but never have a wedding ceremony then they are never ever married (Is a person not saved if he accepts God but does not get Baptized?). Does it begin when two people are recognized legally as such by the state? Nonsense. That’s the main problem we are facing today with gay marriage. I say that just because the state recognizes two people as married does not mean that God recognizes them as such. If the state recognizes gay marriage, God will not in turn do so (Just because the state recognizes various religions this does not mean they are true religions. Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists may say they are saved but that does not mean that God recognizes their claim. The same goes for “Christians”.). Furthermore, I say that a marriage begins when two people decide that they will be married. It is a decision that God has made in eternity and is recognized by the couple together temporally (which is why there is no marriage in glory). Therefore, a true divorce during the betrothal period is just as bad as a divorce during the midst of a lifetime of marriage.
“You can show them through exposition how the husband is the provider. I would argue that no wedding should take place if the wife has to work outside the home to support the family.”
You can also show them through Scripture that God does not mind for wives to be providers. Read Proverbs 31, for example, though there are numerous other examples.
But what if the woman has to work inside the home to support the family? What if the woman has to work outside in the fields or garden to support the family? What is the difference from working outside and inside the home? I know women (and men) who have computer jobs that pay them wages but do not require them to leave their homes. Is it okay for a wife to support the family if she remains inside the home? What does “support” mean? (Monetary or non-monetary?) If the wife is supporting the family in order to aid the ministry of her family, is that wrong?
EARNEST:
In Jeremiah 3, the background is Deut. 24:1-4. Now, does this verse speak of the allowance of divorce, or the defilement of receiving again the defiled wife? The latter, I would argue. If it was permitted, why then would she be defiled? As Jesus struck down the idea that this was permitted by God, we must view Jer. 3 in the same light. Is God showing the adulterous tendencies of Israel, and that she has now, finally (this is the last straw, I mean it this time) become undeserving of God’s mercy and forgiveness? Or is it that she was not of God to begin with? Did she break an unbreakable covenant (see Jer 33:23-26)? No. God asked for her repentance in Jer 3.. The point is that God was issuing a judgment of permanent exile to the disobedient tribe- otherwise, why keep Judah?
Take care to observe this verse:
Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."
It is not good practice to try to determine doctrinal stands from exceptions, or merely "hard-to-work-out" circumstances. I believe to insinuate that a marriage can be thought of as not binding because God doesn’t recognize it as such is dangerous and contrary to the verse I cited above. But, you went on to answer your own question. The covenant of marriage is bound by the intent of the couple and their witness to each other before and with God. It takes three: man, woman, God
Malachi 2:13-16 13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16 “For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”
To simply answer your objections (prior to your own answer), if a man and woman intend to marry, and they believe they are witnesses to each other and before God, they are married. Furthermore, being that a biblical marriage is between a man and woman, and the state sanctioned marriages exist in that manner as well, why would they not fall under God’s law for marriage since they are condemned by those same laws? And, the sexual union has no bearing on the efficacy of the marriage covenant, as it exists symbolically as the picture of a one-flesh union, and practically as the means by which husband and wife glorify God in procreation.
"If two unbelieving teens marry just out of high school and divorce a few months later and the man later becomes a believer and remarries and lives a blameless life with the same wife until their deaths, which marriage will God honor, the first or the second? Was the second marriage adulterous or the first?"
The first, if they remained faithful. The second is adulterous. Matthew 19:9 “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
"Furthermore, I say that a marriage begins when two people decide that they will be married."
Do they decide by their own sinful emotions and feelings; their “rational” minds and wisdom? Or do they decide by their actions?
"Therefore, a true divorce during the betrothal period is just as bad as a divorce during the midst of a lifetime of marriage."
I presume this is an attempt to discredit the “betrothal view” proponents. Be careful who you condemn among those who determined to divorce during the betrothal period: “And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.” (Matt 1:19; cf Mal 3:16).
The rest…
See Gen 2:18; 1 Tim 2:8-15; 1 Tim 5:8; and that man was cursed at his purpose (Gen 3).
Providing=provision
The proverbs 31 woman worked inside the home to be frugal and wise in her dealings. Her PRIMARY concern was for her home. Man provides for his wife and family just as God provides for His children, Jesus provides for the church. If the wife provides to support the ministry, that is called pragmatism. If God’s will was for that ministry, would He not provide? That a woman has to provide for her family? It can happen- husband ill, etc. But should not the church step in at that point, esp. if she is a mother?
"What is the difference from working outside and inside the home?"
The home.
What we in America view as necessary to “support” the family is in most cases a perversion of the definition of “need.” Are we building homes or houses?
Great questions.
FRANK:
"In Jeremiah 3, the background is Deut. 24:1-4. Now, does this verse speak of the allowance of divorce, or the defilement of receiving again the defiled wife? The latter, I would argue. If it was permitted, why then would she be defiled? As Jesus struck down the idea that this was permitted by God, we must view Jer. 3 in the same light. Is God showing the adulterous tendencies of Israel, and that she has now, finally (this is the last straw, I mean it this time) become undeserving of God’s mercy and forgiveness? Or is it that she was not of God to begin with? Did she break an unbreakable covenant (see Jer 33:23-26)? No. God asked for her repentance in Jer 3.. The point is that God was issuing a judgment of permanent exile to the disobedient tribe- otherwise, why keep Judah?"
But I was not referring to the OT. Israel, for her frequent adulteries, the last straw was their adultery with the Torah over and against the Word of God (i.e., the Son of God, Christ Jesus the Messiah). THIS was the final straw, so to speak, that gave the Lord the final authority under the covenant relationship to let Israel go (again, the Lord did not abandon Israel; Israel abandoned the Lord for another “god”.).
"Take care to observe this verse: Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.""
"It is not good practice to try to determine doctrinal stands from exceptions, or merely "hard-to-work-out" circumstances. I believe to insinuate that a marriage can be thought of as not binding because God doesn’t recognize it as such is dangerous and contrary to the verse I cited above. But, you went on to answer your own question. The covenant of marriage is bound by the intent of the couple and their witness to with God. It takes three: man, woman, God."
Yes, exceptions do not determine doctrinal stands but they 1) give us knowledge of the extent of particular doctrines applicability and 2) where other doctrines then apply when other doctrines do not. Such doctrinal problems may lead to times of confusion and uncertainty on which doctrines to apply at certain situations. But such times of uncertainty are supposed to lead us to God. And such uncertainties regarding the doctrines of marriage and divorce are like the doctrines regarding salvation. How do we know when we have salvation? More importantly, how do we know when other people have salvation? We do not know their hearts; only God does. If someone after confessing Christ abandons the faith was that person ever really saved? If someone after confessing Christ abandons the faith but, after the Lord’s discipline, comes back to the faith, weren’t they always saved? Yes, it does take man, woman and God; but no one else because no one else is in that relationship and has no knowledge (the secret things of God have not been revealed to them). And, again, this leads to uncertainty but, again, this leads us back to God. But perhaps these exceptions do lead to doctrinal stands because they tell us which doctrine we need to stand by.
"Malachi 2:13-16 13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16 “For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”"
To simply answer your objections (prior to your own answer), if a man and woman intend to marry, and they believe they are witnesses to each other and before God, they are married. Furthermore, being that a biblical marriage is between a man and woman, and the state sanctioned marriages exist in that manner as well, why would they not fall under God’s law for marriage since they are condemned by those same laws? And, the sexual union has no bearing on the efficacy of the marriage covenant, as it exists symbolically as the picture of a one-flesh union, and practically as the means by which husband and wife glorify God in procreation.
The reason why they may not fall under God’s law for marriage is that God never recognized their marriage. The again, they may actually be in a God-recognized marriage and then they would be in sin by divorcing and be in an adulterous relationship by remarrying.
But if two unbelievers marry but then divorce and then become believers and marry other believers before God in a Christian wedding ceremony, does God recognize the first one or the second marriage? Does the NT doctrinal standard of marriage apply to only believers or also to non-believers?
If an unbelieving man marries an unbelieving woman and they then divorce and the unbelieving man becomes a believer then marries a believing woman and they have children, and if God does in fact only recognize the first marriage and considers the second marriage as adulterous, should that man then divorce his second wife so that he no longer is living in adultery? Could not God forgive the first marriage as adultery and honor the second marriage?
I think you’d agree that such scenarios are relevant because these are not extreme examples but, sadly, real life examples that believers are facing while ministering to the world and, even more sadly, while ministering to other believers in the Church. The more successful we are at evangelizing the lost in our culture the more we are going to be faced with such ethical issues. At the moment, many conservative evangelical groups (Southern Baptists in particular) do not have answers to such questions. Thankfully there are other evangelical groups that do have answers and are ministering to these people.
"If two unbelieving teens marry just out of high school and divorce a few months later and the man later becomes a believer and remarries and lives a blameless life with the same wife until their deaths, which marriage will God honor, the first or the second? Was the second marriage adulterous or the first?"
The first, if they remained faithful. The second is adulterous. Matthew 19:9 “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
No, you are equating the actions of man with the intent of God. Just because someone goes into the ministry does not mean they are called by God. Just because someone claims to be a believer does not mean they have been called by God. And just because a congregation accepts a person as a member of their church (recognizing them as a believer) does not mean that they are recognized by God as such. And just because a congregation excommunicates a person does not mean that God has. However, many people can use Mattthew 16:19 and 18:18 as their proof texts to suggest that all that the local church does is recognized by God. “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” But is this, in fact, the case?
Let us create a scenario:
A couple decides to get married but before they have the marriage ceremony they have sex. Just before the ceremony, problems arise and the couple does not marry. Later on, both of them meet other people and marry and have long marriages until death do part them.
Now because they did not marry the sexual relationship that the couple had would be regarded as adulterous because they married other people. If the couple had married but divorced even a week or day later, the “till-death-do-us-part” marriage that they had after this would always be an adulterous one.
Unfortunately, many conservative groups are making the same mistakes that liberal Christianity did in the 19th and 20th century by their adoption of Thomas Aquinas’ theory of analogia entis to both theological and ethical concepts. The theory holds that there exists a correspondence or analogy between the creation and God which gives the theoretical justification to draw theological and ethical conclusions from the known objects and relationships of the natural order concerning God. It is certainly debatable whether there is any truth to this theory but it was one of liberal Christianity’s bases for rejecting miracles, the incarnation, the Trinity and any other Christian doctrine whose rationality was beyond the understanding of man.
Too often what liberals meant by “creation” was “the human experience of their reality in creation”. To make theological and ethical decisions based upon the human experience of their reality in creation is fraught with danger. Whether or not there is any validity to the analogia entis theory, the method is flawed by our human natures which are sinful, finite and culturally biased. We are incapable of accurately making such analogies; only God can. Now conservatives do something very similar. We base our theories of what God means by something in the Scriptures based upon our own human experience of our reality in creation. For example: we base our theories of what God considers to be marriage by what we consider marriage to be. We do not distinguish between our identification and definition of reality and God’s. This extends itself to the practice of equating our interpretation of Scripture with the meaning of Scripture and those two are not always the same. While it is certainly the case “that no prophecy” (or any aspect)” of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20), such a practice plays itself out among individual believers and bodies of believers. We must always be aware of man’s general tendency to associate his reality and its interpretation with the reality of God and His interpretation.
“‘Furthermore, I say that a marriage begins when two people decide that they will be married.’ Do they decide by their own sinful emotions and feelings; their “rational” minds and wisdom? Or do they decide by their actions?”
They decide by their sinful emotions and their sinful “rational” minds and sinful wisdom and, of course, they decide by their own sinful actions. Even in a sanctified believer sin affects every aspect of their soul. Two people can sin by getting married. Does God always honor a marriage of sin whose initiation was contrary to His will? If so, God is dependent upon humans for which marriages he honors and which he doesn’t. If this is then the case then NO ONE ever marries the wrong person.
"Therefore, a true divorce during the betrothal period is just as bad as a divorce during the midst of a lifetime of marriage."
"I presume this is an attempt to discredit the “betrothal view” proponents. Be careful who you condemn among those who determined to divorce during the betrothal period: “And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.” (Matt 1:19; cf Mal 3:16)."
No, I am saying that if God in eternity predestines a couple to marry then a divorce during a betrothal period is just as heinous to God as a divorce during a marriage. Just because Joseph was a good and just man and was doing what he did for the right reasons does not mean that what he was doing was right. That God stopped him from doing it suggests that he was doing the wrong thing. Good people can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
But let me add this point: in our culture we do not “divorce” during the betrothal period. In American culture, divorce is a legal breakup of a marriage. Since under our culture’s laws a betrothal is not a legally binding period, we do not have “divorce” during this period in our culture. Since our culture does not recognize this particular cultural custom does divorce during then betrothal then not apply to us? Regardless, we should not base our understanding of what constitutes a marriage based upon the laws of our culture.
But really, when does a marriage begin? When the couple agrees to marriage? When all the state legal forms are married? When the ceremony takes place? When the marriage is “consummated”? How is a marriage “consummated”? Such questions must answered before we can then say whether or not a “divorce” has or can taken place.
"Providing=provision
The proverbs 31 woman worked inside the home to be frugal and wise in her dealings. Her PRIMARY concern was for her home."
Yes, she worked inside the home but she also worked outside the home just as the husband works both outside the home and inside. Frugal in her dealings? Yes, but her dealings are outside the home. The Scriptures are pretty clear here that a good wife can work outside the home.
v. 13 - “She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.”
v. 14 - “She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.”
v. 16 - “She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.”
v. 18 - “She perceiveth that her merchandise [is] good: her candle goeth not out by night.”
v. 24 - “She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.”
Now do I believe that a good wife has to work outside the home? Of course not. No more than a good wife has to have female servant (v. 15)
The point that the author is saying is not that a good wife must work outside the home but that if she does she must be good about it.
"Man provides for his wife and family just as God provides for His children, Jesus provides for the church. If the wife provides to support the ministry, that is called pragmatism. If God’s will was for that ministry, would He not provide?"
You have made the perfect point. Well said. And if I believed that wives were prohibited by God from “supporting” the family from outside of the “home” then I would certainly agree with the principle you set forth and so guide others.
However, I do not believe that God so prohibits wives. And my belief is not from Scriptural silence on the issue (though for orthodox believers this should be reason enough) but because of explicit evidence such as Proverbs 31.
"That a woman has to provide for her family? It can happen- husband ill, etc. But should not the church step in at that point, esp. if she is a mother."
Yes, the Church should step in. If not them, then our government should do so.
Q: “What is the difference from working outside and inside the home?” A: The home.
Ah, so just as long as she makes money inside the home she can work at a job. Now the husband is to work outside the home … can he still earn money by working if he does so inside the home?
What we in America view as necessary to “support” the family is in most cases a perversion of the definition of “need.” Are we building homes or houses?
That depends upon the particular situation. Some wives do not have to work outside the home but some do.
I do not know of any Christian leader, pastor or scholar (even among the fundamentalist movement!) that advocates such a view. Certainly our SBC leaders and seminary administrators do not hold such a view (at least publicly). You appear to hold Piper in high regard – I’ve never heard or read him advocating such a view. I’ve re-reviewed both Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” and Piper and Grudem’s “Recovering Biblical Manhood” – I don’t see this view advocated.
I think I’m going to have to see some Scriptural evidence to support this theory.
Though this is obviously not the case with you, I do know many individuals in the Southern states who grew up with an idealistic view of the home which included a stay-at–home mom. This is an idealism which they inherited from their grandparents (though there grandparents never actually practiced it themselves) because of fond childhood memories an ergonomic shift in the agriculture centers of the country during the early industrial era of the late 19th that on one hand prevented women from working on farms, but, on the other hand, allowed early feminists to campaign for the prohibition of women (and children) industrial workers due to unsafe conditions - a prohibition that later feminist groups have sought to retract. Though this ideal was rarely if ever a reality, these many individuals hold this scenario as an ideal and then assume that since this is an ideal that it must be God’s will and His ideal even though God does not offer such a scenario.
You've made some excellent points.
EARNEST:
"How do we know when we have salvation? More importantly, how do we know when other people have salvation? We do not know their hearts; only God does. If someone after confessing Christ abandons the faith was that person ever really saved?"
In the Bible. 1 John 2:3-6 is an example:
3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
and
John 8:31So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
When you evangelize, and the person says they know god, do you leave them be? Don’t you ask about Christ? Don’t you talk about James 2:19 when they say they believe Christ is God’s Son? If you can’t know anything, why do you either not evangelize, or evangelize every single person, including me?
"Does the NT doctrinal standard of marriage apply to only believers or also to non-believers?"
Samaritan woman- Jesus recognized her what? Yes, five HUSBANDS. (John 4:18) 1 Peter 3:1, were they not married since the husband doesn’t believe and didn’t notify God of his decision to wed? Paul says they are married. This is a ridiculous philosophical postulate that is clearly refuted from passages recognizing that others (yes, outside the faith) are married..
"Could not God forgive the first marriage as adultery and honor the second marriage?"
Adultery? Two single people can commit adultery? Interesting. And, …no. Reference Jesus’ own words about remarriage.
"I think you’d agree that such scenarios are relevant because these are not extreme examples but, sadly, real life examples that believers are facing while ministering to the world and, even more sadly, while ministering to other believers in the Church. The more successful we are at evangelizing the lost in our culture the more we are going to be faced with such ethical issues. At the moment, many conservative evangelical groups (Southern Baptists in particular) do not have answers to such questions."
Dude! I thought you were joking this whole time! The Bible certainly has the answers to these questions. All the scenarios you posited presuppose your own philosophical foundations. Hey, the Bible does not say that sex constitutes marriage!! Premarital sex does not bind a woman and man for life, therefore no adultery.
"While it is certainly the case “that no prophecy” (or any aspect)” of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20), such a practice plays itself out among individual believers and bodies of believers. We must always be aware of man’s general tendency to associate his reality and its interpretation with the reality of God and His interpretation."
That is what you have spent the past 20 minutes doing. If you noticed, you use zero scriptural evidence for your arguments. The closest you get is “its in the Bible.” You also picked the part of Deut 29:29 you liked, which is always what moderates go for when I quote it. “…so that I might observe all the COMMANDS OF THIS LAW…” (Deut 29:29). God’s secret things are secret- hence, we don’t presuppose them, or conjure up scenarios about them. The things revealed- namely, the commands- are WHAT WE LIVE BY! Therefore, open your Bible, and pull from scripture.
"If this is then the case then NO ONE ever marries the wrong person."
Is there one right person? Is there a “right” person? Scripture reference, please.
"That God stopped him from doing it suggests that he was doing the wrong thing. Good people can do the wrong thing for the right reasons."
No sir, it suggests that God had plans to make His glory known through Joseph’s marriage to Mary. Joseph was just- “since he was a just man”- which clearly is showing that he was not doing anything wrong! Because he was just, he was going to do this… And, curious, what right reasons do people do wrong things?
"Since our culture does not recognize this particular cultural custom does divorce during then betrothal then not apply to us?"
Betrothal view proponents argue yes, not binding- can’t get divorced for any reason.
v. 13 - “She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.”
v. 14 - “She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.”
v. 16 - “She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.”
v. 18 - “She perceiveth that her merchandise [is] good: her candle goeth not out by night.”
v. 24 - “She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.”
She was frugal and shrewd in her dealings outside the home. Does your wife buy food? Does she trade, sell? These things all took place when her clear emphasis was her home. Furthermore, she is not the provider and protector, but the helper- and a near perfect one. Is this not a suitable role for the helper in the home economy? We are not arguing for solitary confinement here. What other passages are you alluding to to support your view?
"then our government should do so"
Pragmatism and idleness, and bad theology- YOU should NEVER desire the government to do so because it profanes the name of God.
"Ah, so just as long as she makes money inside the home she can work at a job. Now the husband is to work outside the home … can he still earn money by working if he does so inside the home?"
Once again, it is about being the provider, not an issue of whether she can work or not. Is a career more valuable than her influence on her children? Any woman who believes her children are better off in daycare has believed a lie.
"I do not know of any Christian leader, pastor or scholar (even among the fundamentalist movement!) that advocates such a view. Certainly our SBC leaders and seminary administrators do not hold such a view (at least publicly)."
XXXXXX does, for starters. Now you know one.
On Piper, read this.
On any further comments, please keep them to the point and brief. It is now 12:30 AM, and my quiet time starts at 5. I have much to do. Why did I respond? Because I fear for the trap you have fallen into. You have much philosophy to speak about, but very little with scriptural basis or evidence. Furthermore, as a “teacher,” you have volunteered yourself for a greater judgment. Take great pains to determine whether or not your theology is sound. I contend that it is not only unsound, but it is dangerous. I enjoy the interaction, but you must reevaluate your doctrine according to the Bible before you go any further.
FRANK:
"When you evangelize, and the person says they know god, do you leave them be? Don’t you ask about Christ? Don’t you talk about James 2:19 when they say they believe Christ is God’s Son? If you can’t know anything, why do you either not evangelize, or evangelize every single person, including me?"
I witness to everyone. Those who do not confess Christ I attempt to introduce them to Him. Those who confess Christ but show no fruit I ask them to check their hearts and their relationship with God. Those who confess Christ and do show fruit I continue to witness to and disciple and many of them do the same with me.
"Samaritan woman- Jesus recognized her what? Yes, five HUSBANDS. (John 4:18) 1 Peter 3:1, were they not married since the husband doesn’t believe and didn’t notify God of his decision to wed? Paul says they are married. This is a ridiculous philosophical postulate that is clearly refuted from passages recognizing that others (yes, outside the faith) are married."
What philosophical postulate?
"Adultery? Two single people can commit adultery? Interesting. And, …no. Reference Jesus’ own words about remarriage."
If we believe that God predestines marriages in eternity and if someone commits a sexual act with someone who God did not ordain them to marry then that person is committing adultery even before they meet their spouse. To use the salvation example: if a person before becoming a believer worships a false god and does not worship the true God then that person has committed “idolatry/adultery” against God who predestined them to a relationship with Him.
Also, Matthew 5:28 – “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
"Dude! I thought you were joking this whole time! The Bible certainly has the answers to these questions."
Of course the Bible has the answers to these questions but we need to know how to apply the principles therein. If we misapply the teachings on adultery and divorce we are no better than the person who doesn’t apply any Biblical principles at all.
"All the scenarios you posited presuppose your own philosophical foundations."
No. I have very little philosophical tenants to my foundation. Philosophy is man-made and highly suspect. At most, I use philosophical theories as examples to communicate Scriptural truths. Occasionally, I use philosophical tenants as a hermeneutic ONLY for applicational purposes. My foundational worldview comes from the Word of God and nothing else.
"Hey, the Bible does not say that sex constitutes marriage!! Premarital sex does not bind a woman and man for life, therefore no adultery."
That sex doesn’t constitute marriage is true. But that someone can commit adultery against the spouse God has chosen for them is true even if they do not yet know who that person yet is. Again, Matthew 5:28. Just lusting after another woman who isn’t your wife is adultery. If a single man who never marries has sex with a woman who is married to someone else then he has committed adultery. If a single man who never marries has sex with a single woman who later marries than he still has committed adultery. If a single man who never marries has sex with a single woman who never marries than they both still have committed adultery. Why? Because they are having sexual relations with a person who is not their spouse. Just like idolatry is a relation to a “god” who is not Lord God.
"That is what you have spent the past 20 minutes doing. If you noticed, you use zero scriptural evidence for your arguments. The closest you get is “its in the Bible.” You also picked the part of Deut 29:29 you liked, which is always what moderates go for when I quote it. “…so that I might observe all the COMMANDS OF THIS LAW…” (Deut 29:29). God’s secret things are secret- hence, we don’t presuppose them, or conjure up scenarios about them. The things revealed- namely, the commands- are WHAT WE LIVE BY! Therefore, open your Bible, and pull from scripture."
All my arguments come from Scripture. When you’ve asked me for citations, I’ve given it to you.
Me, a moderate? Ask my wife; I do not do anything in moderation.
But (pardon me), just because you can cite a passage does not mean that the passage is applicable to the situation.
Some things are secret to some that are not secret to others. How God has worked in your life and what your personal relationship is like with God is secret to me and vice versa. That is between the person and God. I can look at the person’s fruit but I cannot know for certain the degree of their relationship with God; it’s a secret. But it’s certainly not a secret to the person in that relationship.
Yes, we live by his commands but we do not live by his non-commands. As evidence, just because the Bible doesn’t say that we can do something doesn’t mean that we cannot. When the Scriptures are silent on an issue than we must be tolerant of the secret.
"Is there one right person? Is there a “right” person? Scripture reference, please."
Well, if God wants us to marry someone in particular (so much so that He joins them together – Matt 19:6) then God has the right person for that person. If God tells us not to marry someone and we disobey God, then have we not married the wrong person? Solomon had hundreds of wives, many of them were non-believers (1 King 11:1) but Solomon married women the Lord told him not to (11:2-11). He disobeyed the Lords’ prior command and did so even after being reprimanded. If he married the persons that God told him not to, then did he not marry the wrong persons? If there is a wrong person, is there not a right person?
"No sir, it suggests that God had plans to make His glory known through Joseph’s marriage to Mary. Joseph was just- “since he was a just man”- which clearly is showing that he was not doing anything wrong! Because he was just, he was going to do this… And, curious, what right reasons do people do wrong things?"
So … Joseph decided to do something. God told him not to do it. But what he was going to do that God told him not to do was okay to do. So if Joseph had done what God had told him not to do then he would still have done the right thing. It’s kind of like Kierkeggard’s “suspension of the ethical” in reverse (see Fear and Trembling). God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham disobeys God and does not sacrifice his son and has done the right thing. God tells Hosea to marry a harlot, Hosea disobeys God and does not marry a harlot and has done the right thing. God tells Peter to eat from “unclean” animals, Peter disobeys God and does not eat from “unclean” animals and has done the right thing. God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus disobeys God and does not heal on the Sabbath and has done the right thing.
Mainly, I think, the reason people do the wrong thing for the right reasons is that these are “immature believers” with such little faith/trust in the knowledge that God can do what He wants without their help, that they feel obligated to set the world “right” by measures disagreeable to the gospel message.
Examples: To try to “Christianize” Muslims by Crusades and Inquisition. To try to preserve doctrinal fidelity 1) inquisition, 2) by firing people who disagree with their methods of preserving doctrinal fidelity. To try to engage the culture for Christ by trying to get conservative judges appointed. To try to evangelize by “watering down” the gospel. To try to preserve the fidelity of the Scriptural witness by forcing literal truths into figurative passages. By trying to love one another by not admonishing sins such as adultery, divorce, homosexuality and pride.
"She was frugal and shrewd in her dealings outside the home. Does your wife buy food? Does she trade, sell? These things all took place when her clear emphasis was her home. Furthermore, she is not the provider and protector, but the helper- and a near perfect one. Is this not a suitable role for the helper in the home economy? We are not arguing for solitary confinement here. What other passages are you alluding to to support your view?"
So … a wife can do all the things that a woman working outside the home as long as her emphasis in on the home but just as long as she is not providing for the home? Scripture?
Well, considering that I am arguing that the Scriptures do not prevent a woman from working outside the home and you say that it does, isn’t the burden of proof on you to show such evidence otherwise? Even if the Proverbs 31 is not evidence (which it is), your position (without Scriptural evidence) is an argument from silence.
""then our government should do so"
Pragmatism and idleness, and bad theology- YOU should NEVER desire the government to do so because it profanes the name of God."
Scripture? Scripture?
"Once again, it is about being the provider, not an issue of whether she can work or not. Is a career more valuable than her influence on her children? Any woman who believes her children are better off in daycare has believed a lie."
Scripture? Scripture? Scripture?
"On any further comments, please keep them to the point and brief. It is now 12:30 AM, and my quiet time starts at 5. I have much to do. Why did I respond? Because I fear for the trap you have fallen into. You have much philosophy to speak about, but very little with scriptural basis or evidence. Furthermore, as a “teacher,” you have volunteered yourself for a greater judgment. Take great pains to determine whether or not your theology is sound. I contend that it is not only unsound, but it is dangerous. I enjoy the interaction, but you must reevaluate your doctrine according to the Bible before you go any further."
Well, I would disagree that I do have no Scriptural basis for my understanding of Scripture, but I do understand your concern and it is appreciated.
No, my theology is quite sound; it is Scriptural, orthodox, and conservative.
Yes, quite enjoyable. You’re a good man. It’s been fun.
EARNEST:
You have yet to tell me the good news of the gospel. How do you know I am saved? Should I make a “decision” to follow Christ daily, then get Baptized daily? You know there are lines here, because Paul himself entrusted Timothy and others to pass on their faith handed down to them. Paul knew Timothy was saved. Paul knew Barnabas was saved.
If everyone commits adultery (Matt 5:28), which I agree with, and agree that everyone does, then your argument has fallen flat. This was my point exactly- there is no need to hypothesize about premarital sex. Everyone is an adulterer. That leaves you to get the “feeling” as to which marriage God has recognized. Or, since the act is already committed, why does it matter now? Is it that God recognizes no marriage wherein any spouse is convicted by Matt 5:28? All marriages are adulterous! (Single persons, therefore, have committed adultery against God).
"Some things are secret to some that are not secret to others"
How about the things that are clearly revealed to all of us? And guess what, God has REVEALED himself to us. We have the full counsel of written revelation. He has not ordained us to live in the dark, but in the light of revelation, being an imitator of Christ.
What your not getting is this: a marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. God is witness to all marriages because it is His institution, but not solely intended for the elect. A man’s covenant to take his wife and be faithful to her is witnessed by God, not recognized/unrecognized by God. Therefore the man is now bound under God’s law and design for marriage, like he is in all areas of his life. If he divorces, he sins, and breaks his promise to his wife. If he remarries, he is an adulterer in the physical and moral sense.
"If God tells us not to marry someone and we disobey God, then have we not married the wrong person?"
Please! Does God tell you what car to buy? Does he tell you what shirt to wear? This is in no relation to your argument about a preordained “right” person to marry. It is not as if he determines your course by His will and you subvert it and marry another= open theism. His will is done. Granted, you can marry for the wrong reasons, etc. But you are bound by your covenant to your wife, and must still obey the commands of Scripture regarding her, and live with the consequences. When all is said and done, you are still actualizing the will of God.
"Abraham disobeys God and does not sacrifice his son"
What!? Oh, you mean his only son, right? You mean on the mountain where the Lord would provide the sacrifice?
"God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus disobeys God and does not heal on the Sabbath and has done the right thing."
?????????
Pv 31 is my scriptural support, that is what I was showing you.
I still believe you are severely lacking in tying great Scriptural truths together, namely the will of God, His full revelation to us, His preordaining and His sovereign will/decree, and the nature of the marriage covenant as it relates to all men’s responsibilities.
FRANK:
"You have yet to tell me the good news of the gospel."
I suspect that we might have different beliefs on the nature of the Gospel. But I always tell people the Gospel message: The Kingdom of God is here!
"How do you know I am saved? Should I make a “decision” to follow
Christ daily[?]"
Luke 9:23 – “And he said to [them] all, ‘If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.’”
Given the opportunity, I choose each day to follow Christ.
"then get Baptized daily?"
Baptized daily? Yes, but not spiritually and not symbolically; though I am more a “pourer” in my daily routine (that’s a joke). Seriously, baptism is an act of obedience that symbolizes the act like that which is taken in Luke 9:23.
"You know there are lines here, because Paul himself entrusted Timothy and others to pass on their faith handed down to them. Paul knew Timothy was saved. Paul knew Barnabas was saved."
Are you inferring that? The disciples thought Judas was saved and entrusted him with the “offering”.
Are you saying that Paul trusted them in their salvation security?
I have always liked Chapter 15 of John Piper’s book “Brothers, We Are Not Professionals”, which is called “Brothers, Save the Saints” (pp. 105-111). He uses two verse from 1-2 Timothy:
1 Timothy 4:16 – “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”
2 Timothy 2:10 – “Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
Piper also cites Phil. 2:12 (one of my favourite verses); James 5:19-20; 1 Cor. 8:9, 11; 15:17-18; 1 John 2:19 ;1 Pet. 2:2; Heb, 2:1; 3:14; 5:9; 2 Tim. 3:15.
Piper, as we all know, believes in eternal security but he also knows that he must “save the saints” as well, lest some should fall away. I think Paul (like Piper) had more faith in God then he had in either Barnabas or Timothy. He knew they (an others) would “hand down” the faith correctly because of his faith in the sovereignty of God and not the wills or claims of men.
If someone makes a profession of faith in Christ, then I assume that the person is a believer. If someone does not make such a profession, then I assume that the person is not. But many who say,” Lord! Lord” are not really “saved”, but I would NEVER publicly state my suspicions even concerning people who “bear no fruit”. I take the presence of profession but the absence of fruit as a sign of immaturity. Even with both fruit and profession, I continue to “preach” and “disciple” (in terms of discipline); I would expect others to do the same with me lest either of us should fall due to unchecked sin.
"If everyone commits adultery (Matt 5:28), which I agree with, and agree that everyone does, then your argument has fallen flat. This was my point exactly- there is no need to hypothesize about premarital sex. Everyone is an adulterer. That leaves you to get the “feeling” as to which marriage God has recognized. Or, since the act is already committed, why does it matter now? Is it that God recognizes no marriage wherein any spouse is convicted by Matt 5:28? All marriages are adulterous! (Single persons, therefore, have committed adultery against God)."
See above for my previous answers to these questions and comments.
"“Some things are secret to some that are not secret to others.”
How about the things that are clearly revealed to all of us? And guess what, God has REVEALED himself to us. We have the full counsel of written revelation."
“Clearly” revealed? Quite a subjective subject. Yes, God has revealed Himself and many other things to us.
This leaves us with two questions:
1) What is it God has revealed?
2) How then do we interpret what God has revealed?
These are not simple questions and good conservative believers can differ on the answers.
"He has not ordained us to live in the dark, but in the light of revelation, being an imitator of Christ."
And we don’t “live in the dark”. We have Christ and other revelations (Scripture, traditions, subjective experiences, etc.) But not everything is “clear” and it is in areas such as these that we must go back to the Scriptures to find our answers. And we ALL get some things wrong. This in itself should give us pause to ALWAYS return to Scripture.
What your not getting is this: a marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. God is witness to all marriages because it is His institution, but not solely intended for the elect. A man’s covenant to take his wife and be faithful to her is witnessed by God, not recognized/unrecognized by God. Therefore the man is now bound under God’s law and design for marriage, like he is in all areas of his life. If he divorces, he sins, and breaks his promise to his wife. If he remarries, he is an adulterer in the physical and moral sense.
I think you have a somewhat liberal (perhaps man-centered) view of marriage. You seem to believe that marriage is based upon man’s recognition and not God’s. Let me give an example from salvation:
A Jew who rejects Christ states that he is “saved” by God. He says that he is saved by God and simultaneously rejects the notion that God was in Christ. A Christian would argue, “No, you are not saved because salvation requires that one not reject Christ.” The Jews replies, “No, salvation by God does not require that I not reject Christ. I reject Christ and am saved by God.”
Now simply because the Jew states that he is saved by such conditions and may really believe this to be the case does not automatically make it so.
Similarly, simply because two people say they are married does not automatically make them married.
"Please! Does God tell you what car to buy? Does he tell you what shirt to wear? This is in no relation to your argument about a preordained “right” person to marry. It is not as if he determines your course by His will and you subvert it and marry another= open theism. His will is done. Granted, you can marry for the wrong reasons, etc. But you are bound by your covenant to your wife, and must still obey the commands of Scripture regarding her, and live with the consequences. When all is said and done, you are still actualizing the will of God."
No, for all my major decisions I seek God for His guidance, and if I sense God is telling me something about (what I perceive to be) a minor decision, then I seek His will; a minor decision may soon turn out to have been a major one. God tells me what to do and not to do; I do not always obey but I am sure obeying a lot more than I did than when I didn’t ask Him. And my relationship with God has grown because of my seeking His guidance.
Would “marrying” a person of the same sex be considered God’s will or is that just marrying for the wrong reasons? If then the gay couple then become Christians must they stay “married” to each other because they are “bound” by the covenant of marriage? Must they not obey the commands of Scripture regarding marriage even though they are then a gay couple? Maybe they were sinners when they married but (as long as they do not commit homosexual acts) must they maintain their covenant marriage relationship which is only them “actualizing the will of God”?
A “just man” can divorce his wife for adultery and be within the law of God. But, as the Joseph story so indicates, the laws of God are not always universal. If Joseph had divorced Mary for adultery according to the LAW of God but disobeyed the “angel” who was speaking for God, he would have been “unjust”. Why? Because not all divorce for the cause of adultery is God’s will but it is allowed in God’s law.
"It is not as if he determines your course by His will and you subvert it and marry another= open theism."
Let me deal with this particular point by itself:
God’s will is for married couples to remain un-divorced. A person who divorces his wife (for unbiblical reasons): is he subverting God’s will? Granted, he’s divorced for wrong reasons but he is also divorcing the wrong person.
Now the hypothetical gay “married” couple that I mentioned above: they would be both divorcing for the right reasons and divorcing the right person. Here is a situation (if we agree that this hypothetical gay “married” couple is indeed married) in which divorcing for a cause other than adultery would be a correct course of action.
What are the other possible answers?
1) They are not really married.
2) They ARE in fact committing adultery.
“Abraham disobeys God and does not sacrifice his son”
What!? Oh, you mean his only son, right? You mean on the mountain where the Lord would provide the sacrifice?
Yes, this was a hypothetical scenario.
Abraham (as a just man) knew that human sacrifice was wrong. God told him to sacrifice a human, something which we do not expect God to command us to do because such an act is a sin. God normally does not command someone to sin. Yet, if Abraham had said, “No, God; I’m not going to so as you now command and commit human sacrifice, rather I am going to do as you have commanded in your Law and not commit human sacrifice.” Now if Abraham had said and done this, would he have been JUST?
“God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus disobeys God and does not heal on the Sabbath and has done the right thing.”
?????????
See above. The Law says man is to rest on the Sabbath and not work. Jesus works, heals, walks, etc. on the Sabbath. If God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath but Jesus refuses to heal on the Sabbath in order to keep God’s Law to not work on the Sabbath, would Jesus had done the right thing? Would he have been JUST?
"Pv 31 is my scriptural support, that is what I was showing you."
Yes, and I was showing you that a woman can work outside the home. That is why I first mentioned this passage.
"I still believe you are severely lacking in tying great Scriptural truths together, namely the will of God, His full revelation to us, His preordaining and His sovereign will/decree, and the nature of the marriage covenant as it relates to all men’s responsibilities."
And I disagree with your assessment of Scripture and your assessment of my assessment of Scripture. But that is okay.
Here are a few final questions and comments of my own:
1) What is a true marriage? You have never said.
2) When does a marriage begin? You have never said.
3) What verses in Scripture support your view that women are not supposed to work outside the home? You have never shown through exposition.
4) You appear to have a very Armenian view of God’s sovereignty, i.e., the actions of man necessitate the will of God. This gives carte blanche for man to marry whomever they so choose and shrug it off as “God’s Will.” This is a very subjective, experiential and liberal view of God’s will that defines it as that which is allowed to occur. This is tantamount to saying, “A woman can be a pastor because a) she currently holds that position and b) has the spiritual gifts of leadership and teaching.” Nonsense! We need to base our understanding of the Faith on Scripture and not experience. Very dangerous!
5) You need to take a closer look at “exceptions” to doctrinal rules. I believe in the absolute Word of God and universal principles that God commands. If God’s command (A) is an absolute truth, then (A) is universal and then not merely a general truth. By saying that it is a universal and not a general truth, one is saying that there are not particular exceptions. If God’s command (B) is a general truth then there are particular exceptions. God’s prohibition against divorce is a general truth with one particular exception, i.e., adultery (C). But from this we get a universal: the universal truth (A) is that the general truth (B) has only one particular exception (C).
Now how do we define marriage? I believe that a definition of marriage can be pin-pointed (my presupposition). We can say that marriage = (X). Therefore, if marriage = (X). Then anything that is not (X) is not marriage. Example: gay “marriage” (X=+1) or incestual “marriage” (X-1) is not marriage. These examples are not marriage because they do not fulfill the definition of what it means to be married.
Therefore, the question becomes what is a marriage? If the situation is an exception to the rule then perhaps there are other rules that apply in this situation. If not, we must then abandon the sufficiency of the Scripture doctrine. I’m not willing to do that.
An exception to a doctrine means that the doctrine doesn’t apply to the situation. If the doctrine doesn’t apply, then we are working with the wrong doctrine and there is a better doctrine to be applied (My presupposition here is that of the conservative and orthodox position that the Scriptures are inspired, infallible, inerrant and sufficient: if the doctrine doesn’t apply then search the Scriptures for the one that does.).
But, more important to my point, WHY doesn’t this doctrine apply? My contention is that the doctrine doesn’t apply here not because the doctrine is breaking down or that it is not an absolute (another presupposition: I believe in absolutes), but because there is a misapplication of a marriage rule to a non-marriage situation.
We cannot say that God’s universal commands for marriage apply sometime and sometimes do not apply to a true marriage. They either do or do not. We mustn’t take a liberal view of Scripture. Scripture is not a matter of one’s own interpretation.
6) You might want to re-examine your view on church and government in light of the following:
On the one hand, you state the following: “Furthermore, being that a biblical marriage is between a man and woman, and the state sanctioned marriages exist in that manner as well, why would they not fall under God’s law for marriage since they are condemned by those same laws?”
On the other hand, when I respond to your statement, “That a woman has to provide for her family? It can happen- husband ill, etc. But should not the church step in at that point, esp. if she is a mother,” with this statement, “Yes, the Church should step in. If not them, then our government should do so,” you counter respond with the following: “Pragmatism and idleness, and bad theology- YOU should NEVER desire the government to do so because it profanes the name of God.”
This appears to be a contradiction in how we are to apply God’s commands in society. Enforcing a Christian view of marriage in society by means of government is OK but it is not OK to enforce a Christian view of poverty in society by means of government.
But how so? We are engaged in a religious-cultural battle in this country over homosexuality, feminism, “creationism”, the “place of God” in national oaths, and numerous other religious issues; yet, we conservative Christians are constantly calling upon our elected leaders to “defend” the Faith by enacting laws and appointing judges that will interpret laws a particular way.
Furthermore, being that a helping the poor (widows, children, destitute wives, the sick and the lame, etc.) is commanded by God in the Bible (Old and New), and the state sanctioned welfare exists in that manner as well, why would the church not applaud the state for following the Word of God by wanting to help the poor?”
7) Finally, you seemed to have had some difficulties with some people in Texas. Aren’t we all having that problem?!
I offer my essay: “The Problem of Atheism and Its Solution: A Call to Abandon Apologetics as an Evangelical Method.”
It might give you some insight into our earlier discussion concerning evangelism.
Some of the specific issues contained therein are of the following:
Marriage - what it is and when it begins
Divorce - what it is and when it is justified
Provision - what the Scriptures say about wives and mothers working
Adultery - when it occurs
A good resource on these subjects is Stanley Grenz’s, Sexual Ethics: An Evangelical Perspective.
FRANK:
“Because marriage is a picture of salvation.”
So is slavery.
“Have they adhered to God’s principles regarding divorce and remarriage? (An aside: Do you, like John Piper, believe that the only justification for divorce was during the Jewish betrothal period? Do you believe there is justification for divorce for continued, unrepentant adultery? Do you believe the spouse doesn’t count as the brother we are to forgive 77 times? Or, do you consider the normality of divorce in the church just apart of life that does not reflect an inadequate view of the holiness of God to the watching world?)”
God divorced Israel for “continued, unrepentant adultery”.
The appropriate principle that we must deal with is Jesus’ understanding that “whatever God brings together, let no man separate”? The question is: what has God brought together? We have to be careful to distinguish between man-recognized marriage and God-recognized marriage (for example: just because a local church excommunicates a member does not necessarily mean this was God’s will and that the member was guilty. The Roman Catholic Church excommunicated Martin Luther; was that excommunication recognized by God?). Just because two people decide to shack up does not mean that they are recognized by God as being married. If so, then God could recognize gay marriage. If so, then God could recognize incestual marriage. If so, then God could recognize a marriage between a child and an adult.
Now, if two people live with each other for the rest of their lives in a monogamous relationship but never have a ceremony, are they married and so recognized by God? Some states would recognize it as a common law marriage. In what way does God recognize their relationship? If two unbelieving teens marry just out of high school and divorce a few months later and the man later becomes a believer and remarries and lives a blameless life with the same wife until their deaths, which marriage will God honor, the first or the second? Was the second marriage adulterous or the first?
When does a marriage begin? Does it begin when the couple has sex? If so, then men who are paralyzed from the waist down are never actually married. Does it begin with the wedding ceremony? If so, then if two people agree to marry but never have a wedding ceremony then they are never ever married (Is a person not saved if he accepts God but does not get Baptized?). Does it begin when two people are recognized legally as such by the state? Nonsense. That’s the main problem we are facing today with gay marriage. I say that just because the state recognizes two people as married does not mean that God recognizes them as such. If the state recognizes gay marriage, God will not in turn do so (Just because the state recognizes various religions this does not mean they are true religions. Muslims, Jews, or Buddhists may say they are saved but that does not mean that God recognizes their claim. The same goes for “Christians”.). Furthermore, I say that a marriage begins when two people decide that they will be married. It is a decision that God has made in eternity and is recognized by the couple together temporally (which is why there is no marriage in glory). Therefore, a true divorce during the betrothal period is just as bad as a divorce during the midst of a lifetime of marriage.
“You can show them through exposition how the husband is the provider. I would argue that no wedding should take place if the wife has to work outside the home to support the family.”
You can also show them through Scripture that God does not mind for wives to be providers. Read Proverbs 31, for example, though there are numerous other examples.
But what if the woman has to work inside the home to support the family? What if the woman has to work outside in the fields or garden to support the family? What is the difference from working outside and inside the home? I know women (and men) who have computer jobs that pay them wages but do not require them to leave their homes. Is it okay for a wife to support the family if she remains inside the home? What does “support” mean? (Monetary or non-monetary?) If the wife is supporting the family in order to aid the ministry of her family, is that wrong?
EARNEST:
In Jeremiah 3, the background is Deut. 24:1-4. Now, does this verse speak of the allowance of divorce, or the defilement of receiving again the defiled wife? The latter, I would argue. If it was permitted, why then would she be defiled? As Jesus struck down the idea that this was permitted by God, we must view Jer. 3 in the same light. Is God showing the adulterous tendencies of Israel, and that she has now, finally (this is the last straw, I mean it this time) become undeserving of God’s mercy and forgiveness? Or is it that she was not of God to begin with? Did she break an unbreakable covenant (see Jer 33:23-26)? No. God asked for her repentance in Jer 3.. The point is that God was issuing a judgment of permanent exile to the disobedient tribe- otherwise, why keep Judah?
Take care to observe this verse:
Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law."
It is not good practice to try to determine doctrinal stands from exceptions, or merely "hard-to-work-out" circumstances. I believe to insinuate that a marriage can be thought of as not binding because God doesn’t recognize it as such is dangerous and contrary to the verse I cited above. But, you went on to answer your own question. The covenant of marriage is bound by the intent of the couple and their witness to each other before and with God. It takes three: man, woman, God
Malachi 2:13-16 13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16 “For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”
To simply answer your objections (prior to your own answer), if a man and woman intend to marry, and they believe they are witnesses to each other and before God, they are married. Furthermore, being that a biblical marriage is between a man and woman, and the state sanctioned marriages exist in that manner as well, why would they not fall under God’s law for marriage since they are condemned by those same laws? And, the sexual union has no bearing on the efficacy of the marriage covenant, as it exists symbolically as the picture of a one-flesh union, and practically as the means by which husband and wife glorify God in procreation.
"If two unbelieving teens marry just out of high school and divorce a few months later and the man later becomes a believer and remarries and lives a blameless life with the same wife until their deaths, which marriage will God honor, the first or the second? Was the second marriage adulterous or the first?"
The first, if they remained faithful. The second is adulterous. Matthew 19:9 “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
"Furthermore, I say that a marriage begins when two people decide that they will be married."
Do they decide by their own sinful emotions and feelings; their “rational” minds and wisdom? Or do they decide by their actions?
"Therefore, a true divorce during the betrothal period is just as bad as a divorce during the midst of a lifetime of marriage."
I presume this is an attempt to discredit the “betrothal view” proponents. Be careful who you condemn among those who determined to divorce during the betrothal period: “And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.” (Matt 1:19; cf Mal 3:16).
The rest…
See Gen 2:18; 1 Tim 2:8-15; 1 Tim 5:8; and that man was cursed at his purpose (Gen 3).
Providing=provision
The proverbs 31 woman worked inside the home to be frugal and wise in her dealings. Her PRIMARY concern was for her home. Man provides for his wife and family just as God provides for His children, Jesus provides for the church. If the wife provides to support the ministry, that is called pragmatism. If God’s will was for that ministry, would He not provide? That a woman has to provide for her family? It can happen- husband ill, etc. But should not the church step in at that point, esp. if she is a mother?
"What is the difference from working outside and inside the home?"
The home.
What we in America view as necessary to “support” the family is in most cases a perversion of the definition of “need.” Are we building homes or houses?
Great questions.
FRANK:
"In Jeremiah 3, the background is Deut. 24:1-4. Now, does this verse speak of the allowance of divorce, or the defilement of receiving again the defiled wife? The latter, I would argue. If it was permitted, why then would she be defiled? As Jesus struck down the idea that this was permitted by God, we must view Jer. 3 in the same light. Is God showing the adulterous tendencies of Israel, and that she has now, finally (this is the last straw, I mean it this time) become undeserving of God’s mercy and forgiveness? Or is it that she was not of God to begin with? Did she break an unbreakable covenant (see Jer 33:23-26)? No. God asked for her repentance in Jer 3.. The point is that God was issuing a judgment of permanent exile to the disobedient tribe- otherwise, why keep Judah?"
But I was not referring to the OT. Israel, for her frequent adulteries, the last straw was their adultery with the Torah over and against the Word of God (i.e., the Son of God, Christ Jesus the Messiah). THIS was the final straw, so to speak, that gave the Lord the final authority under the covenant relationship to let Israel go (again, the Lord did not abandon Israel; Israel abandoned the Lord for another “god”.).
"Take care to observe this verse: Deuteronomy 29:29 “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children forever, that we may do all the words of this law.""
"It is not good practice to try to determine doctrinal stands from exceptions, or merely "hard-to-work-out" circumstances. I believe to insinuate that a marriage can be thought of as not binding because God doesn’t recognize it as such is dangerous and contrary to the verse I cited above. But, you went on to answer your own question. The covenant of marriage is bound by the intent of the couple and their witness to with God. It takes three: man, woman, God."
Yes, exceptions do not determine doctrinal stands but they 1) give us knowledge of the extent of particular doctrines applicability and 2) where other doctrines then apply when other doctrines do not. Such doctrinal problems may lead to times of confusion and uncertainty on which doctrines to apply at certain situations. But such times of uncertainty are supposed to lead us to God. And such uncertainties regarding the doctrines of marriage and divorce are like the doctrines regarding salvation. How do we know when we have salvation? More importantly, how do we know when other people have salvation? We do not know their hearts; only God does. If someone after confessing Christ abandons the faith was that person ever really saved? If someone after confessing Christ abandons the faith but, after the Lord’s discipline, comes back to the faith, weren’t they always saved? Yes, it does take man, woman and God; but no one else because no one else is in that relationship and has no knowledge (the secret things of God have not been revealed to them). And, again, this leads to uncertainty but, again, this leads us back to God. But perhaps these exceptions do lead to doctrinal stands because they tell us which doctrine we need to stand by.
"Malachi 2:13-16 13 And this second thing you do. You cover the LORD's altar with tears, with weeping and groaning because he no longer regards the offering or accepts it with favor from your hand. 14 But you say, “Why does he not?” Because the LORD was witness between you and the wife of your youth, to whom you have been faithless, though she is your companion and your wife by covenant. 15 Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth. 16 “For the man who hates and divorces, says the LORD, the God of Israel, covers his garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and do not be faithless.”"
To simply answer your objections (prior to your own answer), if a man and woman intend to marry, and they believe they are witnesses to each other and before God, they are married. Furthermore, being that a biblical marriage is between a man and woman, and the state sanctioned marriages exist in that manner as well, why would they not fall under God’s law for marriage since they are condemned by those same laws? And, the sexual union has no bearing on the efficacy of the marriage covenant, as it exists symbolically as the picture of a one-flesh union, and practically as the means by which husband and wife glorify God in procreation.
The reason why they may not fall under God’s law for marriage is that God never recognized their marriage. The again, they may actually be in a God-recognized marriage and then they would be in sin by divorcing and be in an adulterous relationship by remarrying.
But if two unbelievers marry but then divorce and then become believers and marry other believers before God in a Christian wedding ceremony, does God recognize the first one or the second marriage? Does the NT doctrinal standard of marriage apply to only believers or also to non-believers?
If an unbelieving man marries an unbelieving woman and they then divorce and the unbelieving man becomes a believer then marries a believing woman and they have children, and if God does in fact only recognize the first marriage and considers the second marriage as adulterous, should that man then divorce his second wife so that he no longer is living in adultery? Could not God forgive the first marriage as adultery and honor the second marriage?
I think you’d agree that such scenarios are relevant because these are not extreme examples but, sadly, real life examples that believers are facing while ministering to the world and, even more sadly, while ministering to other believers in the Church. The more successful we are at evangelizing the lost in our culture the more we are going to be faced with such ethical issues. At the moment, many conservative evangelical groups (Southern Baptists in particular) do not have answers to such questions. Thankfully there are other evangelical groups that do have answers and are ministering to these people.
"If two unbelieving teens marry just out of high school and divorce a few months later and the man later becomes a believer and remarries and lives a blameless life with the same wife until their deaths, which marriage will God honor, the first or the second? Was the second marriage adulterous or the first?"
The first, if they remained faithful. The second is adulterous. Matthew 19:9 “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”
No, you are equating the actions of man with the intent of God. Just because someone goes into the ministry does not mean they are called by God. Just because someone claims to be a believer does not mean they have been called by God. And just because a congregation accepts a person as a member of their church (recognizing them as a believer) does not mean that they are recognized by God as such. And just because a congregation excommunicates a person does not mean that God has. However, many people can use Mattthew 16:19 and 18:18 as their proof texts to suggest that all that the local church does is recognized by God. “And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” But is this, in fact, the case?
Let us create a scenario:
A couple decides to get married but before they have the marriage ceremony they have sex. Just before the ceremony, problems arise and the couple does not marry. Later on, both of them meet other people and marry and have long marriages until death do part them.
Now because they did not marry the sexual relationship that the couple had would be regarded as adulterous because they married other people. If the couple had married but divorced even a week or day later, the “till-death-do-us-part” marriage that they had after this would always be an adulterous one.
Unfortunately, many conservative groups are making the same mistakes that liberal Christianity did in the 19th and 20th century by their adoption of Thomas Aquinas’ theory of analogia entis to both theological and ethical concepts. The theory holds that there exists a correspondence or analogy between the creation and God which gives the theoretical justification to draw theological and ethical conclusions from the known objects and relationships of the natural order concerning God. It is certainly debatable whether there is any truth to this theory but it was one of liberal Christianity’s bases for rejecting miracles, the incarnation, the Trinity and any other Christian doctrine whose rationality was beyond the understanding of man.
Too often what liberals meant by “creation” was “the human experience of their reality in creation”. To make theological and ethical decisions based upon the human experience of their reality in creation is fraught with danger. Whether or not there is any validity to the analogia entis theory, the method is flawed by our human natures which are sinful, finite and culturally biased. We are incapable of accurately making such analogies; only God can. Now conservatives do something very similar. We base our theories of what God means by something in the Scriptures based upon our own human experience of our reality in creation. For example: we base our theories of what God considers to be marriage by what we consider marriage to be. We do not distinguish between our identification and definition of reality and God’s. This extends itself to the practice of equating our interpretation of Scripture with the meaning of Scripture and those two are not always the same. While it is certainly the case “that no prophecy” (or any aspect)” of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20), such a practice plays itself out among individual believers and bodies of believers. We must always be aware of man’s general tendency to associate his reality and its interpretation with the reality of God and His interpretation.
“‘Furthermore, I say that a marriage begins when two people decide that they will be married.’ Do they decide by their own sinful emotions and feelings; their “rational” minds and wisdom? Or do they decide by their actions?”
They decide by their sinful emotions and their sinful “rational” minds and sinful wisdom and, of course, they decide by their own sinful actions. Even in a sanctified believer sin affects every aspect of their soul. Two people can sin by getting married. Does God always honor a marriage of sin whose initiation was contrary to His will? If so, God is dependent upon humans for which marriages he honors and which he doesn’t. If this is then the case then NO ONE ever marries the wrong person.
"Therefore, a true divorce during the betrothal period is just as bad as a divorce during the midst of a lifetime of marriage."
"I presume this is an attempt to discredit the “betrothal view” proponents. Be careful who you condemn among those who determined to divorce during the betrothal period: “And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly.” (Matt 1:19; cf Mal 3:16)."
No, I am saying that if God in eternity predestines a couple to marry then a divorce during a betrothal period is just as heinous to God as a divorce during a marriage. Just because Joseph was a good and just man and was doing what he did for the right reasons does not mean that what he was doing was right. That God stopped him from doing it suggests that he was doing the wrong thing. Good people can do the wrong thing for the right reasons.
But let me add this point: in our culture we do not “divorce” during the betrothal period. In American culture, divorce is a legal breakup of a marriage. Since under our culture’s laws a betrothal is not a legally binding period, we do not have “divorce” during this period in our culture. Since our culture does not recognize this particular cultural custom does divorce during then betrothal then not apply to us? Regardless, we should not base our understanding of what constitutes a marriage based upon the laws of our culture.
But really, when does a marriage begin? When the couple agrees to marriage? When all the state legal forms are married? When the ceremony takes place? When the marriage is “consummated”? How is a marriage “consummated”? Such questions must answered before we can then say whether or not a “divorce” has or can taken place.
"Providing=provision
The proverbs 31 woman worked inside the home to be frugal and wise in her dealings. Her PRIMARY concern was for her home."
Yes, she worked inside the home but she also worked outside the home just as the husband works both outside the home and inside. Frugal in her dealings? Yes, but her dealings are outside the home. The Scriptures are pretty clear here that a good wife can work outside the home.
v. 13 - “She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.”
v. 14 - “She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.”
v. 16 - “She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.”
v. 18 - “She perceiveth that her merchandise [is] good: her candle goeth not out by night.”
v. 24 - “She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.”
Now do I believe that a good wife has to work outside the home? Of course not. No more than a good wife has to have female servant (v. 15)
The point that the author is saying is not that a good wife must work outside the home but that if she does she must be good about it.
"Man provides for his wife and family just as God provides for His children, Jesus provides for the church. If the wife provides to support the ministry, that is called pragmatism. If God’s will was for that ministry, would He not provide?"
You have made the perfect point. Well said. And if I believed that wives were prohibited by God from “supporting” the family from outside of the “home” then I would certainly agree with the principle you set forth and so guide others.
However, I do not believe that God so prohibits wives. And my belief is not from Scriptural silence on the issue (though for orthodox believers this should be reason enough) but because of explicit evidence such as Proverbs 31.
"That a woman has to provide for her family? It can happen- husband ill, etc. But should not the church step in at that point, esp. if she is a mother."
Yes, the Church should step in. If not them, then our government should do so.
Q: “What is the difference from working outside and inside the home?” A: The home.
Ah, so just as long as she makes money inside the home she can work at a job. Now the husband is to work outside the home … can he still earn money by working if he does so inside the home?
What we in America view as necessary to “support” the family is in most cases a perversion of the definition of “need.” Are we building homes or houses?
That depends upon the particular situation. Some wives do not have to work outside the home but some do.
I do not know of any Christian leader, pastor or scholar (even among the fundamentalist movement!) that advocates such a view. Certainly our SBC leaders and seminary administrators do not hold such a view (at least publicly). You appear to hold Piper in high regard – I’ve never heard or read him advocating such a view. I’ve re-reviewed both Grudem’s “Systematic Theology” and Piper and Grudem’s “Recovering Biblical Manhood” – I don’t see this view advocated.
I think I’m going to have to see some Scriptural evidence to support this theory.
Though this is obviously not the case with you, I do know many individuals in the Southern states who grew up with an idealistic view of the home which included a stay-at–home mom. This is an idealism which they inherited from their grandparents (though there grandparents never actually practiced it themselves) because of fond childhood memories an ergonomic shift in the agriculture centers of the country during the early industrial era of the late 19th that on one hand prevented women from working on farms, but, on the other hand, allowed early feminists to campaign for the prohibition of women (and children) industrial workers due to unsafe conditions - a prohibition that later feminist groups have sought to retract. Though this ideal was rarely if ever a reality, these many individuals hold this scenario as an ideal and then assume that since this is an ideal that it must be God’s will and His ideal even though God does not offer such a scenario.
You've made some excellent points.
EARNEST:
"How do we know when we have salvation? More importantly, how do we know when other people have salvation? We do not know their hearts; only God does. If someone after confessing Christ abandons the faith was that person ever really saved?"
In the Bible. 1 John 2:3-6 is an example:
3 And by this we know that we have come to know him, if we keep his commandments. 4 Whoever says “I know him” but does not keep his commandments is a liar, and the truth is not in him, 5 but whoever keeps his word, in him truly the love of God is perfected. By this we may be sure that we are in him: 6 whoever says he abides in him ought to walk in the same way in which he walked.
and
John 8:31So Jesus said to the Jews who had believed in him, “If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, 32 and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
When you evangelize, and the person says they know god, do you leave them be? Don’t you ask about Christ? Don’t you talk about James 2:19 when they say they believe Christ is God’s Son? If you can’t know anything, why do you either not evangelize, or evangelize every single person, including me?
"Does the NT doctrinal standard of marriage apply to only believers or also to non-believers?"
Samaritan woman- Jesus recognized her what? Yes, five HUSBANDS. (John 4:18) 1 Peter 3:1, were they not married since the husband doesn’t believe and didn’t notify God of his decision to wed? Paul says they are married. This is a ridiculous philosophical postulate that is clearly refuted from passages recognizing that others (yes, outside the faith) are married..
"Could not God forgive the first marriage as adultery and honor the second marriage?"
Adultery? Two single people can commit adultery? Interesting. And, …no. Reference Jesus’ own words about remarriage.
"I think you’d agree that such scenarios are relevant because these are not extreme examples but, sadly, real life examples that believers are facing while ministering to the world and, even more sadly, while ministering to other believers in the Church. The more successful we are at evangelizing the lost in our culture the more we are going to be faced with such ethical issues. At the moment, many conservative evangelical groups (Southern Baptists in particular) do not have answers to such questions."
Dude! I thought you were joking this whole time! The Bible certainly has the answers to these questions. All the scenarios you posited presuppose your own philosophical foundations. Hey, the Bible does not say that sex constitutes marriage!! Premarital sex does not bind a woman and man for life, therefore no adultery.
"While it is certainly the case “that no prophecy” (or any aspect)” of the scripture is of any private interpretation” (2 Peter 1:20), such a practice plays itself out among individual believers and bodies of believers. We must always be aware of man’s general tendency to associate his reality and its interpretation with the reality of God and His interpretation."
That is what you have spent the past 20 minutes doing. If you noticed, you use zero scriptural evidence for your arguments. The closest you get is “its in the Bible.” You also picked the part of Deut 29:29 you liked, which is always what moderates go for when I quote it. “…so that I might observe all the COMMANDS OF THIS LAW…” (Deut 29:29). God’s secret things are secret- hence, we don’t presuppose them, or conjure up scenarios about them. The things revealed- namely, the commands- are WHAT WE LIVE BY! Therefore, open your Bible, and pull from scripture.
"If this is then the case then NO ONE ever marries the wrong person."
Is there one right person? Is there a “right” person? Scripture reference, please.
"That God stopped him from doing it suggests that he was doing the wrong thing. Good people can do the wrong thing for the right reasons."
No sir, it suggests that God had plans to make His glory known through Joseph’s marriage to Mary. Joseph was just- “since he was a just man”- which clearly is showing that he was not doing anything wrong! Because he was just, he was going to do this… And, curious, what right reasons do people do wrong things?
"Since our culture does not recognize this particular cultural custom does divorce during then betrothal then not apply to us?"
Betrothal view proponents argue yes, not binding- can’t get divorced for any reason.
v. 13 - “She seeketh wool, and flax, and worketh willingly with her hands.”
v. 14 - “She is like the merchants' ships; she bringeth her food from afar.”
v. 16 - “She considereth a field, and buyeth it: with the fruit of her hands she planteth a vineyard.”
v. 18 - “She perceiveth that her merchandise [is] good: her candle goeth not out by night.”
v. 24 - “She maketh fine linen, and selleth [it]; and delivereth girdles unto the merchant.”
She was frugal and shrewd in her dealings outside the home. Does your wife buy food? Does she trade, sell? These things all took place when her clear emphasis was her home. Furthermore, she is not the provider and protector, but the helper- and a near perfect one. Is this not a suitable role for the helper in the home economy? We are not arguing for solitary confinement here. What other passages are you alluding to to support your view?
"then our government should do so"
Pragmatism and idleness, and bad theology- YOU should NEVER desire the government to do so because it profanes the name of God.
"Ah, so just as long as she makes money inside the home she can work at a job. Now the husband is to work outside the home … can he still earn money by working if he does so inside the home?"
Once again, it is about being the provider, not an issue of whether she can work or not. Is a career more valuable than her influence on her children? Any woman who believes her children are better off in daycare has believed a lie.
"I do not know of any Christian leader, pastor or scholar (even among the fundamentalist movement!) that advocates such a view. Certainly our SBC leaders and seminary administrators do not hold such a view (at least publicly)."
XXXXXX does, for starters. Now you know one.
On Piper, read this.
On any further comments, please keep them to the point and brief. It is now 12:30 AM, and my quiet time starts at 5. I have much to do. Why did I respond? Because I fear for the trap you have fallen into. You have much philosophy to speak about, but very little with scriptural basis or evidence. Furthermore, as a “teacher,” you have volunteered yourself for a greater judgment. Take great pains to determine whether or not your theology is sound. I contend that it is not only unsound, but it is dangerous. I enjoy the interaction, but you must reevaluate your doctrine according to the Bible before you go any further.
FRANK:
"When you evangelize, and the person says they know god, do you leave them be? Don’t you ask about Christ? Don’t you talk about James 2:19 when they say they believe Christ is God’s Son? If you can’t know anything, why do you either not evangelize, or evangelize every single person, including me?"
I witness to everyone. Those who do not confess Christ I attempt to introduce them to Him. Those who confess Christ but show no fruit I ask them to check their hearts and their relationship with God. Those who confess Christ and do show fruit I continue to witness to and disciple and many of them do the same with me.
"Samaritan woman- Jesus recognized her what? Yes, five HUSBANDS. (John 4:18) 1 Peter 3:1, were they not married since the husband doesn’t believe and didn’t notify God of his decision to wed? Paul says they are married. This is a ridiculous philosophical postulate that is clearly refuted from passages recognizing that others (yes, outside the faith) are married."
What philosophical postulate?
"Adultery? Two single people can commit adultery? Interesting. And, …no. Reference Jesus’ own words about remarriage."
If we believe that God predestines marriages in eternity and if someone commits a sexual act with someone who God did not ordain them to marry then that person is committing adultery even before they meet their spouse. To use the salvation example: if a person before becoming a believer worships a false god and does not worship the true God then that person has committed “idolatry/adultery” against God who predestined them to a relationship with Him.
Also, Matthew 5:28 – “But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”
"Dude! I thought you were joking this whole time! The Bible certainly has the answers to these questions."
Of course the Bible has the answers to these questions but we need to know how to apply the principles therein. If we misapply the teachings on adultery and divorce we are no better than the person who doesn’t apply any Biblical principles at all.
"All the scenarios you posited presuppose your own philosophical foundations."
No. I have very little philosophical tenants to my foundation. Philosophy is man-made and highly suspect. At most, I use philosophical theories as examples to communicate Scriptural truths. Occasionally, I use philosophical tenants as a hermeneutic ONLY for applicational purposes. My foundational worldview comes from the Word of God and nothing else.
"Hey, the Bible does not say that sex constitutes marriage!! Premarital sex does not bind a woman and man for life, therefore no adultery."
That sex doesn’t constitute marriage is true. But that someone can commit adultery against the spouse God has chosen for them is true even if they do not yet know who that person yet is. Again, Matthew 5:28. Just lusting after another woman who isn’t your wife is adultery. If a single man who never marries has sex with a woman who is married to someone else then he has committed adultery. If a single man who never marries has sex with a single woman who later marries than he still has committed adultery. If a single man who never marries has sex with a single woman who never marries than they both still have committed adultery. Why? Because they are having sexual relations with a person who is not their spouse. Just like idolatry is a relation to a “god” who is not Lord God.
"That is what you have spent the past 20 minutes doing. If you noticed, you use zero scriptural evidence for your arguments. The closest you get is “its in the Bible.” You also picked the part of Deut 29:29 you liked, which is always what moderates go for when I quote it. “…so that I might observe all the COMMANDS OF THIS LAW…” (Deut 29:29). God’s secret things are secret- hence, we don’t presuppose them, or conjure up scenarios about them. The things revealed- namely, the commands- are WHAT WE LIVE BY! Therefore, open your Bible, and pull from scripture."
All my arguments come from Scripture. When you’ve asked me for citations, I’ve given it to you.
Me, a moderate? Ask my wife; I do not do anything in moderation.
But (pardon me), just because you can cite a passage does not mean that the passage is applicable to the situation.
Some things are secret to some that are not secret to others. How God has worked in your life and what your personal relationship is like with God is secret to me and vice versa. That is between the person and God. I can look at the person’s fruit but I cannot know for certain the degree of their relationship with God; it’s a secret. But it’s certainly not a secret to the person in that relationship.
Yes, we live by his commands but we do not live by his non-commands. As evidence, just because the Bible doesn’t say that we can do something doesn’t mean that we cannot. When the Scriptures are silent on an issue than we must be tolerant of the secret.
"Is there one right person? Is there a “right” person? Scripture reference, please."
Well, if God wants us to marry someone in particular (so much so that He joins them together – Matt 19:6) then God has the right person for that person. If God tells us not to marry someone and we disobey God, then have we not married the wrong person? Solomon had hundreds of wives, many of them were non-believers (1 King 11:1) but Solomon married women the Lord told him not to (11:2-11). He disobeyed the Lords’ prior command and did so even after being reprimanded. If he married the persons that God told him not to, then did he not marry the wrong persons? If there is a wrong person, is there not a right person?
"No sir, it suggests that God had plans to make His glory known through Joseph’s marriage to Mary. Joseph was just- “since he was a just man”- which clearly is showing that he was not doing anything wrong! Because he was just, he was going to do this… And, curious, what right reasons do people do wrong things?"
So … Joseph decided to do something. God told him not to do it. But what he was going to do that God told him not to do was okay to do. So if Joseph had done what God had told him not to do then he would still have done the right thing. It’s kind of like Kierkeggard’s “suspension of the ethical” in reverse (see Fear and Trembling). God tells Abraham to sacrifice his son, Abraham disobeys God and does not sacrifice his son and has done the right thing. God tells Hosea to marry a harlot, Hosea disobeys God and does not marry a harlot and has done the right thing. God tells Peter to eat from “unclean” animals, Peter disobeys God and does not eat from “unclean” animals and has done the right thing. God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus disobeys God and does not heal on the Sabbath and has done the right thing.
Mainly, I think, the reason people do the wrong thing for the right reasons is that these are “immature believers” with such little faith/trust in the knowledge that God can do what He wants without their help, that they feel obligated to set the world “right” by measures disagreeable to the gospel message.
Examples: To try to “Christianize” Muslims by Crusades and Inquisition. To try to preserve doctrinal fidelity 1) inquisition, 2) by firing people who disagree with their methods of preserving doctrinal fidelity. To try to engage the culture for Christ by trying to get conservative judges appointed. To try to evangelize by “watering down” the gospel. To try to preserve the fidelity of the Scriptural witness by forcing literal truths into figurative passages. By trying to love one another by not admonishing sins such as adultery, divorce, homosexuality and pride.
"She was frugal and shrewd in her dealings outside the home. Does your wife buy food? Does she trade, sell? These things all took place when her clear emphasis was her home. Furthermore, she is not the provider and protector, but the helper- and a near perfect one. Is this not a suitable role for the helper in the home economy? We are not arguing for solitary confinement here. What other passages are you alluding to to support your view?"
So … a wife can do all the things that a woman working outside the home as long as her emphasis in on the home but just as long as she is not providing for the home? Scripture?
Well, considering that I am arguing that the Scriptures do not prevent a woman from working outside the home and you say that it does, isn’t the burden of proof on you to show such evidence otherwise? Even if the Proverbs 31 is not evidence (which it is), your position (without Scriptural evidence) is an argument from silence.
""then our government should do so"
Pragmatism and idleness, and bad theology- YOU should NEVER desire the government to do so because it profanes the name of God."
Scripture? Scripture?
"Once again, it is about being the provider, not an issue of whether she can work or not. Is a career more valuable than her influence on her children? Any woman who believes her children are better off in daycare has believed a lie."
Scripture? Scripture? Scripture?
"On any further comments, please keep them to the point and brief. It is now 12:30 AM, and my quiet time starts at 5. I have much to do. Why did I respond? Because I fear for the trap you have fallen into. You have much philosophy to speak about, but very little with scriptural basis or evidence. Furthermore, as a “teacher,” you have volunteered yourself for a greater judgment. Take great pains to determine whether or not your theology is sound. I contend that it is not only unsound, but it is dangerous. I enjoy the interaction, but you must reevaluate your doctrine according to the Bible before you go any further."
Well, I would disagree that I do have no Scriptural basis for my understanding of Scripture, but I do understand your concern and it is appreciated.
No, my theology is quite sound; it is Scriptural, orthodox, and conservative.
Yes, quite enjoyable. You’re a good man. It’s been fun.
EARNEST:
You have yet to tell me the good news of the gospel. How do you know I am saved? Should I make a “decision” to follow Christ daily, then get Baptized daily? You know there are lines here, because Paul himself entrusted Timothy and others to pass on their faith handed down to them. Paul knew Timothy was saved. Paul knew Barnabas was saved.
If everyone commits adultery (Matt 5:28), which I agree with, and agree that everyone does, then your argument has fallen flat. This was my point exactly- there is no need to hypothesize about premarital sex. Everyone is an adulterer. That leaves you to get the “feeling” as to which marriage God has recognized. Or, since the act is already committed, why does it matter now? Is it that God recognizes no marriage wherein any spouse is convicted by Matt 5:28? All marriages are adulterous! (Single persons, therefore, have committed adultery against God).
"Some things are secret to some that are not secret to others"
How about the things that are clearly revealed to all of us? And guess what, God has REVEALED himself to us. We have the full counsel of written revelation. He has not ordained us to live in the dark, but in the light of revelation, being an imitator of Christ.
What your not getting is this: a marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. God is witness to all marriages because it is His institution, but not solely intended for the elect. A man’s covenant to take his wife and be faithful to her is witnessed by God, not recognized/unrecognized by God. Therefore the man is now bound under God’s law and design for marriage, like he is in all areas of his life. If he divorces, he sins, and breaks his promise to his wife. If he remarries, he is an adulterer in the physical and moral sense.
"If God tells us not to marry someone and we disobey God, then have we not married the wrong person?"
Please! Does God tell you what car to buy? Does he tell you what shirt to wear? This is in no relation to your argument about a preordained “right” person to marry. It is not as if he determines your course by His will and you subvert it and marry another= open theism. His will is done. Granted, you can marry for the wrong reasons, etc. But you are bound by your covenant to your wife, and must still obey the commands of Scripture regarding her, and live with the consequences. When all is said and done, you are still actualizing the will of God.
"Abraham disobeys God and does not sacrifice his son"
What!? Oh, you mean his only son, right? You mean on the mountain where the Lord would provide the sacrifice?
"God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus disobeys God and does not heal on the Sabbath and has done the right thing."
?????????
Pv 31 is my scriptural support, that is what I was showing you.
I still believe you are severely lacking in tying great Scriptural truths together, namely the will of God, His full revelation to us, His preordaining and His sovereign will/decree, and the nature of the marriage covenant as it relates to all men’s responsibilities.
FRANK:
"You have yet to tell me the good news of the gospel."
I suspect that we might have different beliefs on the nature of the Gospel. But I always tell people the Gospel message: The Kingdom of God is here!
"How do you know I am saved? Should I make a “decision” to follow
Christ daily[?]"
Luke 9:23 – “And he said to [them] all, ‘If any [man] will come after me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and follow me.’”
Given the opportunity, I choose each day to follow Christ.
"then get Baptized daily?"
Baptized daily? Yes, but not spiritually and not symbolically; though I am more a “pourer” in my daily routine (that’s a joke). Seriously, baptism is an act of obedience that symbolizes the act like that which is taken in Luke 9:23.
"You know there are lines here, because Paul himself entrusted Timothy and others to pass on their faith handed down to them. Paul knew Timothy was saved. Paul knew Barnabas was saved."
Are you inferring that? The disciples thought Judas was saved and entrusted him with the “offering”.
Are you saying that Paul trusted them in their salvation security?
I have always liked Chapter 15 of John Piper’s book “Brothers, We Are Not Professionals”, which is called “Brothers, Save the Saints” (pp. 105-111). He uses two verse from 1-2 Timothy:
1 Timothy 4:16 – “Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.”
2 Timothy 2:10 – “Therefore I endure all things for the elect's sakes, that they may also obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.”
Piper also cites Phil. 2:12 (one of my favourite verses); James 5:19-20; 1 Cor. 8:9, 11; 15:17-18; 1 John 2:19 ;1 Pet. 2:2; Heb, 2:1; 3:14; 5:9; 2 Tim. 3:15.
Piper, as we all know, believes in eternal security but he also knows that he must “save the saints” as well, lest some should fall away. I think Paul (like Piper) had more faith in God then he had in either Barnabas or Timothy. He knew they (an others) would “hand down” the faith correctly because of his faith in the sovereignty of God and not the wills or claims of men.
If someone makes a profession of faith in Christ, then I assume that the person is a believer. If someone does not make such a profession, then I assume that the person is not. But many who say,” Lord! Lord” are not really “saved”, but I would NEVER publicly state my suspicions even concerning people who “bear no fruit”. I take the presence of profession but the absence of fruit as a sign of immaturity. Even with both fruit and profession, I continue to “preach” and “disciple” (in terms of discipline); I would expect others to do the same with me lest either of us should fall due to unchecked sin.
"If everyone commits adultery (Matt 5:28), which I agree with, and agree that everyone does, then your argument has fallen flat. This was my point exactly- there is no need to hypothesize about premarital sex. Everyone is an adulterer. That leaves you to get the “feeling” as to which marriage God has recognized. Or, since the act is already committed, why does it matter now? Is it that God recognizes no marriage wherein any spouse is convicted by Matt 5:28? All marriages are adulterous! (Single persons, therefore, have committed adultery against God)."
See above for my previous answers to these questions and comments.
"“Some things are secret to some that are not secret to others.”
How about the things that are clearly revealed to all of us? And guess what, God has REVEALED himself to us. We have the full counsel of written revelation."
“Clearly” revealed? Quite a subjective subject. Yes, God has revealed Himself and many other things to us.
This leaves us with two questions:
1) What is it God has revealed?
2) How then do we interpret what God has revealed?
These are not simple questions and good conservative believers can differ on the answers.
"He has not ordained us to live in the dark, but in the light of revelation, being an imitator of Christ."
And we don’t “live in the dark”. We have Christ and other revelations (Scripture, traditions, subjective experiences, etc.) But not everything is “clear” and it is in areas such as these that we must go back to the Scriptures to find our answers. And we ALL get some things wrong. This in itself should give us pause to ALWAYS return to Scripture.
What your not getting is this: a marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. God is witness to all marriages because it is His institution, but not solely intended for the elect. A man’s covenant to take his wife and be faithful to her is witnessed by God, not recognized/unrecognized by God. Therefore the man is now bound under God’s law and design for marriage, like he is in all areas of his life. If he divorces, he sins, and breaks his promise to his wife. If he remarries, he is an adulterer in the physical and moral sense.
I think you have a somewhat liberal (perhaps man-centered) view of marriage. You seem to believe that marriage is based upon man’s recognition and not God’s. Let me give an example from salvation:
A Jew who rejects Christ states that he is “saved” by God. He says that he is saved by God and simultaneously rejects the notion that God was in Christ. A Christian would argue, “No, you are not saved because salvation requires that one not reject Christ.” The Jews replies, “No, salvation by God does not require that I not reject Christ. I reject Christ and am saved by God.”
Now simply because the Jew states that he is saved by such conditions and may really believe this to be the case does not automatically make it so.
Similarly, simply because two people say they are married does not automatically make them married.
"Please! Does God tell you what car to buy? Does he tell you what shirt to wear? This is in no relation to your argument about a preordained “right” person to marry. It is not as if he determines your course by His will and you subvert it and marry another= open theism. His will is done. Granted, you can marry for the wrong reasons, etc. But you are bound by your covenant to your wife, and must still obey the commands of Scripture regarding her, and live with the consequences. When all is said and done, you are still actualizing the will of God."
No, for all my major decisions I seek God for His guidance, and if I sense God is telling me something about (what I perceive to be) a minor decision, then I seek His will; a minor decision may soon turn out to have been a major one. God tells me what to do and not to do; I do not always obey but I am sure obeying a lot more than I did than when I didn’t ask Him. And my relationship with God has grown because of my seeking His guidance.
Would “marrying” a person of the same sex be considered God’s will or is that just marrying for the wrong reasons? If then the gay couple then become Christians must they stay “married” to each other because they are “bound” by the covenant of marriage? Must they not obey the commands of Scripture regarding marriage even though they are then a gay couple? Maybe they were sinners when they married but (as long as they do not commit homosexual acts) must they maintain their covenant marriage relationship which is only them “actualizing the will of God”?
A “just man” can divorce his wife for adultery and be within the law of God. But, as the Joseph story so indicates, the laws of God are not always universal. If Joseph had divorced Mary for adultery according to the LAW of God but disobeyed the “angel” who was speaking for God, he would have been “unjust”. Why? Because not all divorce for the cause of adultery is God’s will but it is allowed in God’s law.
"It is not as if he determines your course by His will and you subvert it and marry another= open theism."
Let me deal with this particular point by itself:
God’s will is for married couples to remain un-divorced. A person who divorces his wife (for unbiblical reasons): is he subverting God’s will? Granted, he’s divorced for wrong reasons but he is also divorcing the wrong person.
Now the hypothetical gay “married” couple that I mentioned above: they would be both divorcing for the right reasons and divorcing the right person. Here is a situation (if we agree that this hypothetical gay “married” couple is indeed married) in which divorcing for a cause other than adultery would be a correct course of action.
What are the other possible answers?
1) They are not really married.
2) They ARE in fact committing adultery.
“Abraham disobeys God and does not sacrifice his son”
What!? Oh, you mean his only son, right? You mean on the mountain where the Lord would provide the sacrifice?
Yes, this was a hypothetical scenario.
Abraham (as a just man) knew that human sacrifice was wrong. God told him to sacrifice a human, something which we do not expect God to command us to do because such an act is a sin. God normally does not command someone to sin. Yet, if Abraham had said, “No, God; I’m not going to so as you now command and commit human sacrifice, rather I am going to do as you have commanded in your Law and not commit human sacrifice.” Now if Abraham had said and done this, would he have been JUST?
“God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath, Jesus disobeys God and does not heal on the Sabbath and has done the right thing.”
?????????
See above. The Law says man is to rest on the Sabbath and not work. Jesus works, heals, walks, etc. on the Sabbath. If God tells Jesus to heal on the Sabbath but Jesus refuses to heal on the Sabbath in order to keep God’s Law to not work on the Sabbath, would Jesus had done the right thing? Would he have been JUST?
"Pv 31 is my scriptural support, that is what I was showing you."
Yes, and I was showing you that a woman can work outside the home. That is why I first mentioned this passage.
"I still believe you are severely lacking in tying great Scriptural truths together, namely the will of God, His full revelation to us, His preordaining and His sovereign will/decree, and the nature of the marriage covenant as it relates to all men’s responsibilities."
And I disagree with your assessment of Scripture and your assessment of my assessment of Scripture. But that is okay.
Here are a few final questions and comments of my own:
1) What is a true marriage? You have never said.
2) When does a marriage begin? You have never said.
3) What verses in Scripture support your view that women are not supposed to work outside the home? You have never shown through exposition.
4) You appear to have a very Armenian view of God’s sovereignty, i.e., the actions of man necessitate the will of God. This gives carte blanche for man to marry whomever they so choose and shrug it off as “God’s Will.” This is a very subjective, experiential and liberal view of God’s will that defines it as that which is allowed to occur. This is tantamount to saying, “A woman can be a pastor because a) she currently holds that position and b) has the spiritual gifts of leadership and teaching.” Nonsense! We need to base our understanding of the Faith on Scripture and not experience. Very dangerous!
5) You need to take a closer look at “exceptions” to doctrinal rules. I believe in the absolute Word of God and universal principles that God commands. If God’s command (A) is an absolute truth, then (A) is universal and then not merely a general truth. By saying that it is a universal and not a general truth, one is saying that there are not particular exceptions. If God’s command (B) is a general truth then there are particular exceptions. God’s prohibition against divorce is a general truth with one particular exception, i.e., adultery (C). But from this we get a universal: the universal truth (A) is that the general truth (B) has only one particular exception (C).
Now how do we define marriage? I believe that a definition of marriage can be pin-pointed (my presupposition). We can say that marriage = (X). Therefore, if marriage = (X). Then anything that is not (X) is not marriage. Example: gay “marriage” (X=+1) or incestual “marriage” (X-1) is not marriage. These examples are not marriage because they do not fulfill the definition of what it means to be married.
Therefore, the question becomes what is a marriage? If the situation is an exception to the rule then perhaps there are other rules that apply in this situation. If not, we must then abandon the sufficiency of the Scripture doctrine. I’m not willing to do that.
An exception to a doctrine means that the doctrine doesn’t apply to the situation. If the doctrine doesn’t apply, then we are working with the wrong doctrine and there is a better doctrine to be applied (My presupposition here is that of the conservative and orthodox position that the Scriptures are inspired, infallible, inerrant and sufficient: if the doctrine doesn’t apply then search the Scriptures for the one that does.).
But, more important to my point, WHY doesn’t this doctrine apply? My contention is that the doctrine doesn’t apply here not because the doctrine is breaking down or that it is not an absolute (another presupposition: I believe in absolutes), but because there is a misapplication of a marriage rule to a non-marriage situation.
We cannot say that God’s universal commands for marriage apply sometime and sometimes do not apply to a true marriage. They either do or do not. We mustn’t take a liberal view of Scripture. Scripture is not a matter of one’s own interpretation.
6) You might want to re-examine your view on church and government in light of the following:
On the one hand, you state the following: “Furthermore, being that a biblical marriage is between a man and woman, and the state sanctioned marriages exist in that manner as well, why would they not fall under God’s law for marriage since they are condemned by those same laws?”
On the other hand, when I respond to your statement, “That a woman has to provide for her family? It can happen- husband ill, etc. But should not the church step in at that point, esp. if she is a mother,” with this statement, “Yes, the Church should step in. If not them, then our government should do so,” you counter respond with the following: “Pragmatism and idleness, and bad theology- YOU should NEVER desire the government to do so because it profanes the name of God.”
This appears to be a contradiction in how we are to apply God’s commands in society. Enforcing a Christian view of marriage in society by means of government is OK but it is not OK to enforce a Christian view of poverty in society by means of government.
But how so? We are engaged in a religious-cultural battle in this country over homosexuality, feminism, “creationism”, the “place of God” in national oaths, and numerous other religious issues; yet, we conservative Christians are constantly calling upon our elected leaders to “defend” the Faith by enacting laws and appointing judges that will interpret laws a particular way.
Furthermore, being that a helping the poor (widows, children, destitute wives, the sick and the lame, etc.) is commanded by God in the Bible (Old and New), and the state sanctioned welfare exists in that manner as well, why would the church not applaud the state for following the Word of God by wanting to help the poor?”
7) Finally, you seemed to have had some difficulties with some people in Texas. Aren’t we all having that problem?!
I offer my essay: “The Problem of Atheism and Its Solution: A Call to Abandon Apologetics as an Evangelical Method.”
It might give you some insight into our earlier discussion concerning evangelism.
TOP 50 RESTAURANTS IN THE METROPLEX
Due to popular demand (and valentine's Day celebrations) I have decided to list my Top 50 Favourite Restaurants in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex. Here are the restaurants by cuisine with "national", "chain" restaurants in their own, separate category, along with each restaurants phone number, address and even pricing.
$ - $10-20
$$ - $20-40
$$$ - $40-60
$$$$ - $100+
This pricing is based upon a general 2-person dinner. If you are alone (reduce by half) or with more (add by half) you can figure it out yourself.
Of special note: I've highlighted my TOP CHOICES.
Hamburger Places
Chapp’s - $ - 817-263-5172, 6219 Oakmont Blvd., Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Charley's Old Fashioned Hamburgers - $ -
817-731-8000, 1712 Montgomery St, Fort Worth
817-244-5223, 3520 Alta Mere Dr, Fort Worth
817-924-8611, 4616 Granbury Rd, Fort Worth
Jon’s Grille - $ - 817-923-1909, 3009 S University Dr., Fort Worth
Kincaid’s Burgers - $ - 817-732-2881, 4901 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth
Montana Restaurant - $ - 817-573-2500, 1454 E Hwy 377, Granbury
Mexican and Tex-Mex
Blue Mesa Grille - $$ - 817-332-6372, 1600 S University Dr # 609e, Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Cabo Grande - $$ - 817-348-8226, 112 W 2nd, Fort Worth
Joel T. Garcia’s - $$ - 817-626-4356, 2201 N. Commerce St., Fort Worth
Rio Mambos - $$ - (817) 423-3124, 6125 SW Loop 820, Fort Worth
Steakhouses
Cattleman’s - $$$ - 817-624-3945, 2458 N Main St., Fort Worth
H3 Ranch - $$$ - 817-624-1246, 109 E Exchange Ave, Fort Worth
GREAT!!! The Keg - $$$- 817-731-3534, 5760 SW Loop 820, Fort Worth
Old San Francisco Steak House - $$$ - 214-357-0484, 10965 Composite Dr, Dallas
Riscky’s - $$$ - 817-626-7777, 140 E Exchange Ave #101Bm, Fort Worth
Ruth’s Chris Steak House - $$$ - 972-250-2244, 17840, Dallas
Silver Fox - $$$ - 817-332-9060, 1651 S. University Dr., Fort Worth
Texas De Brazil - $$$- 817-882-9500, 101 N. Houston St., Fort Worth
Trail Dust - $$$ - 817-640-6411, 2300 E. Lamar Blvd., Arlington
East Asian
Bamboo Garden - $ - 817-292-9655, 6415 McCart Ave., Fort Worth
Chopstix Express - $ - 817-920-9888, 2105 W. Berry St.
Pei Wei - $$ - 817-294-0808, 5900 Overton Ridge Blvd, Fort Worth
Wok-N-Roll - $ - 817-820-1822, 817-920-7880, 2817 W. Berry St., Fort Worth
Middle Eastern and Indian
King Tuts - $$ - 817-335-3051, 1512 W. Magnolia, Fort Worth
Maharaja - $$ - 817-263-7156, 6308 Hulen Bend Blvd., Fort Worth
British
GREAT!!! Baker Street Pub - $$ - 817-377-9772, 6333 Camp Bowie Blvd., Ft. Worth
GREAT!!! Sherlock’s Baker Street Pub and Grill - $$ - 817-226-2300, N. Collins and I-30 in the Lincoln Square Shopping Center, Arlington
European
Bella Italia - $$ - 817-738-1700, 5139 Camp Bowie, Fort Worth
Escargot - $$$$ - 817-336-3090, 3426 W 7th St, Fort Worth
La Madeleine - $$ - 817-654-0471, 6140 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Niesters Restaurant and Deli - $$$ – 817-573-0211, 4426 E Hwy 377, Granbury
Ristorante la Piazza - $$$$ - 817-334-0000 - 1600 S University Dr, Fort Worth
BBQ
Cousins Pit Barbecue - $ - 817-346-2511, 6262 McCart Ave. Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Red Hot and Blue - $$$ - 817-731-8770, 3000 S. Hulen St. @ Bellaire Dr., Fort Worth
Southern Cooking
Julie’s Fresh Kitchen - $ - (817)263-6070, 6256 McCart Avenue, Fort Worth
Massey’s - $ - 817-921-5582, 1805 8th Avenue, Fort Worth
Chain
Bennigan’s Grill and Tavern - $$ - 817-294-1021, 4833 S Hulen St, Fort Worth
GREAT!!!Chilis - $$ - University-Chili's - 817-429-2002, 1540 S. University Dr., Ft. Worth
Hulen-Chili's - 817-572-1195, 5288 S. Hulen Dr., Ft. Worth
GREAT!!! Don Pablos - $$ - 817-346-3787, 5601 S. Hulen, Ft. Worth
Fuddruckers - $ - 817-263-0996, 5601 Southwest Loop 820, Ft. Worth
Jason's Deli - $- 817-370-9187, 5100 Overton Ridge, Fort Worth, TX
GREAT! Johnny Carinos - $$ - 817/346-4456, 5900 S. Hulen St., Fort Worth
Logan’s - $$ - 817-447-3504, 1125 N. Burleson Blvd., Burleson
Macaroni Grill - $$ - 817-336-6676, 1505 S. University Dr., Fort Worth
Olive Garden - $$ - (817) 377-8091, 4700 SW LOOP 820, FORT WORTH
Outback Steakhouse - $$ - (817) 370-7800, 4608 Bryant Irvin Road, Fort Worth
Pappadeaux - $$ - 817-877-8843, 2708 West Frwy, Fort Worth
Salt Grass - $$ - 817-306-7900, 5845 Sandshell Dr., Fort Worth
$ - $10-20
$$ - $20-40
$$$ - $40-60
$$$$ - $100+
This pricing is based upon a general 2-person dinner. If you are alone (reduce by half) or with more (add by half) you can figure it out yourself.
Of special note: I've highlighted my TOP CHOICES.
Hamburger Places
Chapp’s - $ - 817-263-5172, 6219 Oakmont Blvd., Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Charley's Old Fashioned Hamburgers - $ -
817-731-8000, 1712 Montgomery St, Fort Worth
817-244-5223, 3520 Alta Mere Dr, Fort Worth
817-924-8611, 4616 Granbury Rd, Fort Worth
Jon’s Grille - $ - 817-923-1909, 3009 S University Dr., Fort Worth
Kincaid’s Burgers - $ - 817-732-2881, 4901 Camp Bowie Blvd., Fort Worth
Montana Restaurant - $ - 817-573-2500, 1454 E Hwy 377, Granbury
Mexican and Tex-Mex
Blue Mesa Grille - $$ - 817-332-6372, 1600 S University Dr # 609e, Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Cabo Grande - $$ - 817-348-8226, 112 W 2nd, Fort Worth
Joel T. Garcia’s - $$ - 817-626-4356, 2201 N. Commerce St., Fort Worth
Rio Mambos - $$ - (817) 423-3124, 6125 SW Loop 820, Fort Worth
Steakhouses
Cattleman’s - $$$ - 817-624-3945, 2458 N Main St., Fort Worth
H3 Ranch - $$$ - 817-624-1246, 109 E Exchange Ave, Fort Worth
GREAT!!! The Keg - $$$- 817-731-3534, 5760 SW Loop 820, Fort Worth
Old San Francisco Steak House - $$$ - 214-357-0484, 10965 Composite Dr, Dallas
Riscky’s - $$$ - 817-626-7777, 140 E Exchange Ave #101Bm, Fort Worth
Ruth’s Chris Steak House - $$$ - 972-250-2244, 17840, Dallas
Silver Fox - $$$ - 817-332-9060, 1651 S. University Dr., Fort Worth
Texas De Brazil - $$$- 817-882-9500, 101 N. Houston St., Fort Worth
Trail Dust - $$$ - 817-640-6411, 2300 E. Lamar Blvd., Arlington
East Asian
Bamboo Garden - $ - 817-292-9655, 6415 McCart Ave., Fort Worth
Chopstix Express - $ - 817-920-9888, 2105 W. Berry St.
Pei Wei - $$ - 817-294-0808, 5900 Overton Ridge Blvd, Fort Worth
Wok-N-Roll - $ - 817-820-1822, 817-920-7880, 2817 W. Berry St., Fort Worth
Middle Eastern and Indian
King Tuts - $$ - 817-335-3051, 1512 W. Magnolia, Fort Worth
Maharaja - $$ - 817-263-7156, 6308 Hulen Bend Blvd., Fort Worth
British
GREAT!!! Baker Street Pub - $$ - 817-377-9772, 6333 Camp Bowie Blvd., Ft. Worth
GREAT!!! Sherlock’s Baker Street Pub and Grill - $$ - 817-226-2300, N. Collins and I-30 in the Lincoln Square Shopping Center, Arlington
European
Bella Italia - $$ - 817-738-1700, 5139 Camp Bowie, Fort Worth
Escargot - $$$$ - 817-336-3090, 3426 W 7th St, Fort Worth
La Madeleine - $$ - 817-654-0471, 6140 Camp Bowie Blvd, Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Niesters Restaurant and Deli - $$$ – 817-573-0211, 4426 E Hwy 377, Granbury
Ristorante la Piazza - $$$$ - 817-334-0000 - 1600 S University Dr, Fort Worth
BBQ
Cousins Pit Barbecue - $ - 817-346-2511, 6262 McCart Ave. Fort Worth
GREAT!!! Red Hot and Blue - $$$ - 817-731-8770, 3000 S. Hulen St. @ Bellaire Dr., Fort Worth
Southern Cooking
Julie’s Fresh Kitchen - $ - (817)263-6070, 6256 McCart Avenue, Fort Worth
Massey’s - $ - 817-921-5582, 1805 8th Avenue, Fort Worth
Chain
Bennigan’s Grill and Tavern - $$ - 817-294-1021, 4833 S Hulen St, Fort Worth
GREAT!!!Chilis - $$ - University-Chili's - 817-429-2002, 1540 S. University Dr., Ft. Worth
Hulen-Chili's - 817-572-1195, 5288 S. Hulen Dr., Ft. Worth
GREAT!!! Don Pablos - $$ - 817-346-3787, 5601 S. Hulen, Ft. Worth
Fuddruckers - $ - 817-263-0996, 5601 Southwest Loop 820, Ft. Worth
Jason's Deli - $- 817-370-9187, 5100 Overton Ridge, Fort Worth, TX
GREAT! Johnny Carinos - $$ - 817/346-4456, 5900 S. Hulen St., Fort Worth
Logan’s - $$ - 817-447-3504, 1125 N. Burleson Blvd., Burleson
Macaroni Grill - $$ - 817-336-6676, 1505 S. University Dr., Fort Worth
Olive Garden - $$ - (817) 377-8091, 4700 SW LOOP 820, FORT WORTH
Outback Steakhouse - $$ - (817) 370-7800, 4608 Bryant Irvin Road, Fort Worth
Pappadeaux - $$ - 817-877-8843, 2708 West Frwy, Fort Worth
Salt Grass - $$ - 817-306-7900, 5845 Sandshell Dr., Fort Worth
Monday, February 13, 2006
Anni favor jubilaei
Anni favor jubilaei
Poenarum laxat debitum,
Post peccatorum vomitum
Et cessandi propositum.
Currant passim omnes rei.
Pro mercede regnum Dei
Levi patet expositum.
Poenarum laxat debitum,
Post peccatorum vomitum
Et cessandi propositum.
Currant passim omnes rei.
Pro mercede regnum Dei
Levi patet expositum.
Friday, February 10, 2006
First Insights Into The Book Of Joshua
I've started a study on the book of Joshua: here are my first insights.
The book of Joshua on politics:
"Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it [to] the right hand or [to] the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest." (Joshua 1:7)
The book of Joshua on war:
"And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, '[Art] thou for us, or for our adversaries?' And He said, 'Neither; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come.' And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, 'What saith my lord unto his servant?'" (Joshua 5:13-14)
The book of Joshua on leadership:
"Then Joshua commanded the officers of the people: 'Right, good morning children of Israel. My name is Joshua and I'm the new Israelite leader in charge of religious genocide. Now, if you play straight with me you'll find me a considerate commander, but cross me and you'll find that under this playful boyish exterior beats the heart of a ruthless sadistic maniac.'" (Joshua 1:19-21)
The book of Joshua on politics:
"Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it [to] the right hand or [to] the left, that thou mayest prosper whithersoever thou goest." (Joshua 1:7)
The book of Joshua on war:
"And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and, behold, there stood a man over against him with his sword drawn in his hand: and Joshua went unto him, and said unto him, '[Art] thou for us, or for our adversaries?' And He said, 'Neither; but [as] captain of the host of the LORD am I now come.' And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, 'What saith my lord unto his servant?'" (Joshua 5:13-14)
The book of Joshua on leadership:
"Then Joshua commanded the officers of the people: 'Right, good morning children of Israel. My name is Joshua and I'm the new Israelite leader in charge of religious genocide. Now, if you play straight with me you'll find me a considerate commander, but cross me and you'll find that under this playful boyish exterior beats the heart of a ruthless sadistic maniac.'" (Joshua 1:19-21)
We Write In Order To Understand
This is one of my favourite quotes about the writing process:
"First, I do not sit down at my desk to put into verse something that is already clear in my mind. If it were clear in my mind, I should have no incentive or need to write about it. We do not write in order to be understood; we write in order to understand."
-- Robert Cecil Day-lewis (poet)
"First, I do not sit down at my desk to put into verse something that is already clear in my mind. If it were clear in my mind, I should have no incentive or need to write about it. We do not write in order to be understood; we write in order to understand."
-- Robert Cecil Day-lewis (poet)
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Panis Circenses' 50 Top Most Influential Christians
I was recently sent this article about the 50 Top Most Influential Christians in America. A friend who sent me the article was upset that R.C. Sproul and John McArthur were not listed. I was somewhat surprised that a few others were not listed. Anyway, I decided to do my own list of most influential Christians. I did not do a Top 50 countdown becasue 1) I wanted something a bit more flexible and 2) I do not actively supprot some of the ministerial tactics that some of these individuals practice but I do need to include them because they are influential. Let it be known that I have included non-Americans.
Here is my criteria list: A still living believer who is influential today. Therefore, I would not but Barth or Brunner since they are dead. I would not but Karen Armstrong or Bishop John Shelby Spong because they are not are believers. I would not but Jim Bakker or Oral Roberts because they are no longer influential. Also, and most importantly, I made sure that my choices did not reflect my own view of who truly is important but, rather, who is actually influential. Regardless, I am highlighting my favourite choices.
Pastors
Pope Benedict XVI
Tony Evans
Jerry Falwell
Bill Hybels
T.D. Jakes
John McArthur
Brian McLaren
Joel Osteen
John Piper
Robert Schuller
Chuck Swindoll
Rick Warren
Writers
Tim LaHaye
Max Lucado
Beth Moore
Jim Wallis
Bruce Wilkinson
Philip Yancey
Scholars
Richard Bauckham
Jim Dunn
Donald Hagner
Richard Hays
N.T. Wright
Theologians
Wayne Grudem
Stanley Hauerwas
Hans Kung
Jurgen Moltmann
Wolfhart Pannenberg
Clark Pinnock
Leonard Sweet
Preachers
Billy Graham
Franklin Graham
Benny Hinn
Joyce Meyer
Other
George Barna
Bono
George W. Bush
Jimmy Carter
Chuck Colson
James Dobson
Mel Gibson
Sean Hannity
Richard Land
John Maxwell
Dr. Phil McGraw
Al Mohler
Bill Moyers
Pat Robertson
Jay Aan Sekulow
Walter Shurden
Here is my criteria list: A still living believer who is influential today. Therefore, I would not but Barth or Brunner since they are dead. I would not but Karen Armstrong or Bishop John Shelby Spong because they are not are believers. I would not but Jim Bakker or Oral Roberts because they are no longer influential. Also, and most importantly, I made sure that my choices did not reflect my own view of who truly is important but, rather, who is actually influential. Regardless, I am highlighting my favourite choices.
Pastors
Pope Benedict XVI
Tony Evans
Jerry Falwell
Bill Hybels
T.D. Jakes
John McArthur
Brian McLaren
Joel Osteen
John Piper
Robert Schuller
Chuck Swindoll
Rick Warren
Writers
Tim LaHaye
Max Lucado
Beth Moore
Jim Wallis
Bruce Wilkinson
Philip Yancey
Scholars
Richard Bauckham
Jim Dunn
Donald Hagner
Richard Hays
N.T. Wright
Theologians
Wayne Grudem
Stanley Hauerwas
Hans Kung
Jurgen Moltmann
Wolfhart Pannenberg
Clark Pinnock
Leonard Sweet
Preachers
Billy Graham
Franklin Graham
Benny Hinn
Joyce Meyer
Other
George Barna
Bono
George W. Bush
Jimmy Carter
Chuck Colson
James Dobson
Mel Gibson
Sean Hannity
Richard Land
John Maxwell
Dr. Phil McGraw
Al Mohler
Bill Moyers
Pat Robertson
Jay Aan Sekulow
Walter Shurden
Thursday, February 02, 2006
The Textual Evidence For Jacob Wrestling An Elohiym
A late response to a very good question.
what is your textual evidence for Jacob wresting an "elohiym" besides the presumed implicit water god references regarding the river, morning, etc.
In v. 6 we know that Esau is coming to meet Jacob. In vv 7-8, Jacob panics when he learns of Esau’s approach. Fearing an attack, he divides his caravan into two groups. In v. 9, Jacob prays to God for help, “reminding” God of His promise and that He has told Jacob to go back home to the land of Abraham and Isaac. Now all his servants and family go on ahead and Jacob remains the night just outside the border of his families land at Peniel. Peniel (Penuel) is the just outside of the land of promise and the utmost extent of the land that David conquered.
Jacob is basically returning to the land that will be his inheritance and which was promised to him by God and which he stole from Esau. He is alone and outside of his inheritance and the night before he is about to cross over into that land, someone wrestles with him at night keeping him from entering into that land (There is one theory that Jacob was actually wrestling Esau. It’s an attractive theory but I’m not convinced.).
I am offering 3 credible possibilities to what this “man” (iysh) who wrestled with Jacob was.
1) It is argued that he wrestled with Yahweh. Here are some reasons why I doubt this interpretation.
a) If this was Yahweh that Jacob wrestled with, it is odd that the writer uses the term elohiym or “god”. If this was the Lord, it was an anthropomorphic God. Usually, when God is portrayed with anthropomorphic features He is referred to as Yahweh and not elohiym.
b) The “man” who struggles with Jacob is referred to as a “man” (iysh), which would be unusual to refer to God in that way (but see Genesis 18 for an exception).
c) It’s not at all keeping with the portrayal of Yahweh to behave in this way. Why would Yahweh wrestle with Jacob? How could Jacob wrestle the Creator to a standstill so that Yahweh had to “cheat” in order to win? It seems out of character.
d) Why would Yahweh want to keep Jacob from reaching the land that He promised and in which He told Jacob to go to? This would be even odder because Jacob just spent the previous day praying to Yahweh for help in reaching the land and recalling Yahweh’s promise. Nowhere is Yahweh portrayed as one who tries to break His promise.
e) In the book Hosea, the prophet is interpreting the life of Jacob and refers to the fact that Jacob “wrestled with an angel” (12:4). Only when he later went to Bethel, did Jacob meet God. Hosea wrote his prophecy only some 200 years after the Genesis 32 was written down. It seems that by this time the “angel” interpretation was already common.
2) It is argued that he wrestled with an angel. Here are some reasons why I doubt this interpretation.
b) In Genesis 32:1-2, when at Mahanaim, Jacob sees angels of God and recognizes them as such. The wrestling incident is only a short time later, he refers to the “man” as a “god” and not an “angel”. If he had just seen angels then we presume he would know another one when he sees it.
c) If an “angel of God” was wrestling with Jacob and preventing him from entering into the promise land it would be theologically tantamount to God trying to prevent Jacob from entering the land because “angels of God” do God’s bidding.
d) I doubt that a mere man like Jacob could overpower an angelic being who was doing the will of God.
3) It is argued that he wrestled with an elohiym. Here are some reasons why I prefer this interpretation.
a) That the “man” was trying to prevent Jacob from fulfilling God’s promise suggests to me that it was a malicious being.
b) Jacob refers to the “man” as an elohiym which suggests that this was not a human but a god or spirit of some sort.
c) Hosea refers to this being as an “angel.” This suggests to me that the being was some sort of spirit being, like an angel, only malicious. Probably some form of “fallen angel”.
d) Looking at Canaanite mythology, in the era in which this story takes place, the people of this age and culture did believe in such spirits.
i. Night time was the understood time for spiritual attacks.
ii. Localized spirit-demons were believed to exist in these times. There was an ancient belief the Jabbok river was protected by a localized deity.
iii. Such deities were said to give blessings if they were caught, sort of like the fairy tales of catching gnomes, fairies or leprechauns.
These are the reasons why I think the Scriptures suggest that Jacob wrestled with and elohiym and neither God nor ones of His angels.
For more info on this episode, I suggest reading Nahum Sarna’s book Understanding Genesis.
what is your textual evidence for Jacob wresting an "elohiym" besides the presumed implicit water god references regarding the river, morning, etc.
In v. 6 we know that Esau is coming to meet Jacob. In vv 7-8, Jacob panics when he learns of Esau’s approach. Fearing an attack, he divides his caravan into two groups. In v. 9, Jacob prays to God for help, “reminding” God of His promise and that He has told Jacob to go back home to the land of Abraham and Isaac. Now all his servants and family go on ahead and Jacob remains the night just outside the border of his families land at Peniel. Peniel (Penuel) is the just outside of the land of promise and the utmost extent of the land that David conquered.
Jacob is basically returning to the land that will be his inheritance and which was promised to him by God and which he stole from Esau. He is alone and outside of his inheritance and the night before he is about to cross over into that land, someone wrestles with him at night keeping him from entering into that land (There is one theory that Jacob was actually wrestling Esau. It’s an attractive theory but I’m not convinced.).
I am offering 3 credible possibilities to what this “man” (iysh) who wrestled with Jacob was.
1) It is argued that he wrestled with Yahweh. Here are some reasons why I doubt this interpretation.
a) If this was Yahweh that Jacob wrestled with, it is odd that the writer uses the term elohiym or “god”. If this was the Lord, it was an anthropomorphic God. Usually, when God is portrayed with anthropomorphic features He is referred to as Yahweh and not elohiym.
b) The “man” who struggles with Jacob is referred to as a “man” (iysh), which would be unusual to refer to God in that way (but see Genesis 18 for an exception).
c) It’s not at all keeping with the portrayal of Yahweh to behave in this way. Why would Yahweh wrestle with Jacob? How could Jacob wrestle the Creator to a standstill so that Yahweh had to “cheat” in order to win? It seems out of character.
d) Why would Yahweh want to keep Jacob from reaching the land that He promised and in which He told Jacob to go to? This would be even odder because Jacob just spent the previous day praying to Yahweh for help in reaching the land and recalling Yahweh’s promise. Nowhere is Yahweh portrayed as one who tries to break His promise.
e) In the book Hosea, the prophet is interpreting the life of Jacob and refers to the fact that Jacob “wrestled with an angel” (12:4). Only when he later went to Bethel, did Jacob meet God. Hosea wrote his prophecy only some 200 years after the Genesis 32 was written down. It seems that by this time the “angel” interpretation was already common.
2) It is argued that he wrestled with an angel. Here are some reasons why I doubt this interpretation.
b) In Genesis 32:1-2, when at Mahanaim, Jacob sees angels of God and recognizes them as such. The wrestling incident is only a short time later, he refers to the “man” as a “god” and not an “angel”. If he had just seen angels then we presume he would know another one when he sees it.
c) If an “angel of God” was wrestling with Jacob and preventing him from entering into the promise land it would be theologically tantamount to God trying to prevent Jacob from entering the land because “angels of God” do God’s bidding.
d) I doubt that a mere man like Jacob could overpower an angelic being who was doing the will of God.
3) It is argued that he wrestled with an elohiym. Here are some reasons why I prefer this interpretation.
a) That the “man” was trying to prevent Jacob from fulfilling God’s promise suggests to me that it was a malicious being.
b) Jacob refers to the “man” as an elohiym which suggests that this was not a human but a god or spirit of some sort.
c) Hosea refers to this being as an “angel.” This suggests to me that the being was some sort of spirit being, like an angel, only malicious. Probably some form of “fallen angel”.
d) Looking at Canaanite mythology, in the era in which this story takes place, the people of this age and culture did believe in such spirits.
i. Night time was the understood time for spiritual attacks.
ii. Localized spirit-demons were believed to exist in these times. There was an ancient belief the Jabbok river was protected by a localized deity.
iii. Such deities were said to give blessings if they were caught, sort of like the fairy tales of catching gnomes, fairies or leprechauns.
These are the reasons why I think the Scriptures suggest that Jacob wrestled with and elohiym and neither God nor ones of His angels.
For more info on this episode, I suggest reading Nahum Sarna’s book Understanding Genesis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)