Rabyd Theologian 3.0

Good Friday? Maybe Not.

2012-04-06T08:53:00.001-04:00

No, I am not going to go into the whole thing about the passion of Christ being a 'good' thing or not. That is not what this post is about. My issue is the day of the crucifixion. I am not really sure Jesus was crucified on Friday is all.

What got me thinking about this is one of those nit picky details that I ran into several years ago. The nit picky detail? Jesus prophecy of his own death to the Pharisees. Matthew 12:38-40:

Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign from You.” But He answered and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet; for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (NASB - emphasis mine)

It's the 'three nights' thing that nails you. Because, if you have Jesus crucified on Friday and coming back to life on Sunday, you only get two nights no matter how you try to dance around it. The truth is the only way this prophecy could be wholly accurate is if for Jesus is laid to rest on Thursday.

Yes, I know Joseph of Aramathea and Nicodemus were trying hard to get Jesus buried before the sabbath, but it never says this was a normal sabbath. There actually is some good Biblical evidence that this was a special sabbath.  It is called the 'day of preparation', etc.  One of those, Passover falls on Friday (thus making Friday a Sabbath too) and then Saturday as the normal Sabbath, things. This would make a two day long - Sabbath. Passover falls on whatever day it falls on. Could be Tuesday or Friday. The issue is then it creates a two day rest period off that would be known as "Sabbath". This actually happens a lot with the Passover and it is quite possible that is what happened here.

So the next question is: "Is there a year that fits this pattern during the life of Christ?" The answer is 'yes' but it isn't the year 33 AD. Its the year 29 AD. This is actually something that has been long debated by scholars for this very reason. It changes Jesus' birth year to 4BC, but that also fits history with Augustus Caesar and Herod the Great and all that history stuff. If so, then Jesus dies and is raised from the dead in 29AD. He is killed on a Thursday and then rises from the dead on Sunday. Three days. Three nights. Prophecy fullfilled.

What difference does all this make? Not much as I suspect we will still be celebrating 'Good Friday' forever.  It is tradition and tradition is a tough thing to change, especially religious ones. I also don't think it is a bad tradition as traditions go. It means at least all of us Christians are celebrating something of significance in Jesus' cross and death at the same time. That isn't all bad.

The real issue is an apologetic one, because I am pretty sure the opponents of the faith have not let this 'discrepency' go unnoticed.  But, if we strive to reconcile it with some real history and evidence, the history still works. 'Good Thursday' just doesn't sing off the tongue.

Rabyd Opinion: Pat Robertson's Definition of Justice

2012-03-23T19:03:00.001-04:00

Preacher Hopes for Manning Injury

Oh Boy! It really is hard enough enough to deal with the whole Tim Tebow thing without some preacher butting his opinion in.   It gets of course weirder when it is Pat Robertson shooting off his mouth. The link above will take you to the story in question.

OK. As a football fan, I think there are a lot of stupid moves here. Tebow was getting the one stat that matters 'Wins' and to be blunt if it hadn't been for his involvement in last years season the Broncos would have never made the playoffs. How is Tebow rewarded for his effort and results? He is traded to the Jets because John Elway wants Peyton Manning.  To me this is symptomatic of the lack of loyalty that is rampant in the NFL, but it is also simply business. There is noting really unethical about being traded, it is the way of things. We can question John Elway's intelligence and that of the team that took Tebow (The New York Jets) who already signed their starter to a three year extension, but there is nothing unethical about it. Can we say 'Quarterback controversy' in both towns at the start of the season? Yes, we can.

Lack of Intelligence aside, there is nothing ethically wrong in sport with being traded. It is business. So when the Christian darling Tim Tebow (Who should fire his agent) gets traded, that is what it is - business.

Along comes Pat Robertson:

"And you just ask yourself," Robertson said, "OK, so Peyton Manning was a tremendous MVP quarterback, but he's been injured. If that injury comes back, Denver will find itself without a quarterback. And in my opinion, it would serve them right."

*Sigh* Really, it would be justice for Payton Manning to be hurt as fit punishment for trading Tebow? Sorry, this does not work.
1) It was the Broncos, not Peyton Manning that traded Tebow. To punish Manning for their actions would not be justice.
2) This is business, sorry it is true. Maybe not smart business, but there is nothing illegal or immoral about it.
3) Robertson has placed Peyton (who God also loves as much as Tebow) on a lesser status than Tebow. That somehow, it would be OK if God, or more likely a destructive Defensive End, would hurt him to teach the Broncos a lesson. Bad theology.
4) So much for the teaching of Christ: Pray for your enemies, do good to those who despitefully use you and all that.
5) I find such remarks to be self-righteous, like any of us know who deserves what as far as justice. Pat has placed himself in a position of judgment and a definer of justice and I am not sure he is qualified to do that. He really has no right to speak for God unless he is quoting Him from the Bible.

Pat Robertson has been doing this for a while. Shooting of his mouth without thinking or considering the teachings of his Lord and Savior, so it really comes as no surprise. He really should read James 3 again and take it to heart. His remarks on Hurricane Katrina were as stupid as they were bad theology, so the fact that he continues to do this with other issues should not be any surprise. I have personally lost all respect for a man who in his twilight years of ministry chooses to use them to sensationalize so his name gets mentioned on the Web and in the news, rather than use them to legitimately for the cause of Christ. He owes Manning and the Broncos an apology. Probably, God too.

IMHO

Jesus and the Pharisees - Part 1 - Introduction

2012-03-22T16:28:00.002-04:00

Sometimes in the course of studying for something, you discover something else. Recently I have been looking at Nicodemus in John 3:1-21 and elsewhere to get ready for a dramatic presentation and I have run smack dab into the middle of the whole dispute between Jesus and the Pharisees about self-righteousness. It is not only a heated debate but it encompasses so many subjects that I am certain it can be only covered in a series of articles.

Self-righteousness is one of the most insidious spiritual conditions because not only do you think you do not have it; you will also fight those who point it out to you. It means that you cannot see your spiritual reality at all. It is one of the most deadly spiritual conditions and one of the most prevalent.

The more I look at the church of Jesus Christ, particularly in the good ole' United States of America, the more I am convinced that the reason it is struggling in a classic case of self righteousness. We condemn the world and exalt ourselves. We impose our moral codes on others without doing them ourselves. We find all manners of way to get in people's face about how sinful they are, while all the while sinning ourselves.

For me, this enlightenment has been a long journey, but as I look through the Bible at the conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, I now realize that conflict would take place today but it would be between the church and Jesus. Bold words I suppose. I plan to back them up in this series.

In this series I will do what I always do. First, I will observe the conflict between the Pharisees and Jesus. Secondly, I will offer up some interpretation of what I see in this conflict. Finally, I will offer up application to our life and world here in the 21st century.

Next: Who Were the Pharisees?

Rabyd Theologian 3.0? Really?

2012-03-21T02:04:00.001-04:00

OK. I am sitting around on my birthday a few days ago and wondered what has been agonizing my soul of late. I have felt something has been out of sorts for a while now and it had nothing to do with the church, work or otherwise. All of those thing have been OK for the most part. Something was simply out of balance and I couldn't put my finger on it.

Something happened on my missions trip to Romania and to be quite honest I could not figure it out. I simply stopped being inspired to write anything. There was simply too much to digest from my trip and I think my mind and heart got log jammed. Inspiration and desire simply stopped. I am not sure that was a bad thing.

At the time, I had purchased two URLs, one for the Rabyd Theologian 2.0 and the other for Open Theism. Odd thing, I began to move from writing because I loved it into this world where I was trying to make money with it and BAM!!!, nothing. I am pretty sure with me now that pressure of this kind leads to the well drying up a little. I am no longer trying to make this my lifeblood source of income, but enough to justify the time spent would be nice.

Back to the missions trip, ever have one of those events in your life that make you think hard for a long time? That trip to Romania did it for me. I simply can't express the feelings and lessons in words. There is a far larger world out there for me now and yet smaller too. My theology and its direction needed a little bit of an overhaul.

Then came the angst. Angst is a great German word that deals with the great unsettled feeling we have when facing the unknown within us. I need to write again to let it out.

Why not just pick up the old Rabyd Theologian 2.0? Because I simply feel it is time for a fresh start. Don't worry though, I will probably transfer everything over here eventually, but I want to edit and relabel each post. Some stuff will probably get dropped for simply being B.S. posts or rambling junk. Patience please. This time I want to do it right and leave nothing unfinished, except maybe the last series or post I do.

Blessings and Welcome to the Rabyd Theologian 3.0

Marriage and the Bible - Part 50 - Final Thoughts

2011-06-12T20:20:00.000-04:00

This series started with a series of questions and a simple idea to go through the Bible and find out what is actually said about marriage. With 50 posts it stands as probably the most lengthy thing I have done to date and I am sure some of those questions weer answered, but not always in the way one would have thought.

1. Is there a difference between being married and being husband and wife?

I would say yes. At least there is a great deal of difference between a couple that seeks to have a spiritual covenant and those who engage in a cultural contract type of obligation. It seems that God has always desired man and woman to have what the original couple had before the fall of man.  A triune relationship with Him, man and woman together. Sin entered the world and over time culture and law began to seek to define marriage as forms of obligation and give it in many ways a mechanical and practical view away from the idea of 'one flesh', naked and unashamed.

In our world Christians find themselves where the ultimate desire for their married lives is to return to this covenant relationship but still there are cultural and legal obligations that define marriage. God seems to let mankind define this but presses each couple 'back to the garden' as it were. Mankind can indeed present difficulties in this as sometimes marriage contracts are not written with this in mind. In some forms cultural contract marriage is actually a deterrent to achieving spiritual covenant. The spiritual covenant marriage is about God; the cultural contract is about man. God seems to respect or at least allow both, but His desire is to bring mankind back to the garden at least in spirit.

2. Does the Bible give a actual moment of marriage that is definable?

This greatly depends on what you are talking about. When it comes to culture and law, marriage is definable when all requirements are met and agreed on. Those requirements are different for each culture and nation so it is difficult to say anything other than God honors that man makes some choices here. Even here, because of the nature of humanity, this can be a clear as mud. In a spiritual covenants I see that is this union is only possible with one man, one woman and God at a moment when all three parties come together in spirit, mind, heart and for the couple flesh.

I think it is very possible to have one without the other but often what happens is a conjunction of both. Some marriages start out as covenants without cultural obligations such as Adam and Eve's being husband and wife.  Others start off as a cultural and legal obligation and can change into a spiritual covenant. The best marriages in our fallen world try to live up to both with an understanding that, if push comes to shove, what God desires in a spiritual covenant takes precedent over the cultural contract.

3. Are other types marriage bonds acceptable?

What can be said about this is that the Bible allows for the fact that humans are going to be humans and we are going to enter into less than perfect relationships because of it. The Bible presents many forms of marriage in its contract form: polygamy and concubinage for the most part with marriages that are purely procreative or pleasure oriented. God accepts that human being will want to control sexual expression to maintain certain cultural and legal obligations.

What the Bible takes the dimmest view on is anything that involves sin in the relationship or a mixing of faith (believers with unbelievers). In our modern context, that means open marriages and homosexual marriages are out, but polygamy and even group marriage (minus homosexual and open elements) are real possibilities. The problem with all of these though is that outside the simplest arrangement for marriage (one man, one woman for life) there becomes a diminished capacity to live up to or even attain a marriage that is a true spiritual covenant.

4. Can a marriage end?

The unfortunate answer is yes.

The real truth is that spiritual covenants require a great deal of effort to both attain and maintain and this means that there are a lot of opportunities for it to become the lesser form of marriage -- the cultural contract.

In the cultural contract form, marriage can be broken and ended when one side or the other decides the obligations are not being kept.  Christians probably should take note that Jesus defines adultery as the only thing that should end any marriage but allowance is also made for mixed marriages by Paul and the fact Jesus even seems to indicate that 'hardness of heart' can still cause a marriage end, it just may not justify it.

The other unfortunate end to marriage is death and this in effect ends both kinds of marriage. This can make the end of a spiritual covenant marriage particularly difficult when a couple is truly one flesh.

In the end marriage is both an action involving both God and man and thus it gets complicated even in the Bible as it greatly is affected by what what a person or culture is seeking to produce with marriage. Marriage involves a lot of choices but God's desire remains the same. That desire being to see a man and woman one flesh, naked and unashamed working for His purposes.

Finis

Previous: Modern Challenges: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure?

Marriage and the Bible - Part 49 - Modern Challenges: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure?

2011-06-11T18:45:00.000-04:00

The question keeps getting raised by people who challenge traditional marriage:Is it a failure? There are even people who suggest that we should do away with legal marriages all together and just let people do what they want. Given some of the Recent headlines with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Anthony Weiner as well as the 50% divorce rate, there seems to be ammo with this. Why not just call traditional marriage a wash and let people live in any arrangement they want?

Firstly, I reject the notion that the institute of traditional marriage is a failure. Things may fail but there is always a human reason why they fail. When a building collapses, we don't sue the building but the people who designed it, built it and said it was OK. In traditional marriage, the idea is sound, in fact it really stands at the only true way to have the highest form of intimacy between a man and a woman. The issue is not the institution of traditional marriage but the people who say "I do".

Secondly, as much as we want to show marriage failures as evidence there are also couples who succeed. I have been to 60 year, 50 year, 40 year and 25 year anniversary celebrations. I myself just celebrated 22 years with the same woman just yesterday. The truth is that for every failure there is a success.

Ultimately, I would conclude that those who want to talk about the failure of traditional marriage are people who have an unfortunate wrong understanding about what traditional marriage is supposed to be about. It is supposed to be about a spiritual covenant with God and a member of the opposite sex that runs as an example of what the relationship between Christ and the Church is supposed to be. Traditional Marriage then ultimately fails because people fail to understand this. This is reflected in many thing I have seen over the years:

1. People going into marriage purely for selfish self interest. If all you talk about before you get married is what the marriage is going to do for you and you never think about what your responsibilities are toward the other person are and how you can make them a better person, you have a problem.

2. Failure to understand God's role in the covenant. Going into a marriage without God automatically reduces marriage to a contract. Contracts break.

3. Viewing marriage as a manipulative tool to get what you want done from your spouse. The main thing to remember about marriage vows is to make sure your fulfilling your end of them. I see so many people who complain about their spouse's not fulfilling what they expect, but are completely oblivious to their own failures.

4. Failing to be your spouse's best friend. Viewing a spouse as an attachment and not a friend is the first step to divorce.

5. Failing to engage in the things that bring intimacy. Worshiping, communicating, loving and sexual expression all have their place to do this when done a a couple.

In short, when a person starts viewing their spouse as a thing that should just do what they want without concern for their person hood or what they are needing, you are viewing your marriage as a contract.

In a sense, I too believe traditional marriage should go. It should go, if all people are going to use it for is a contract to keep the other person obligated. It should be returned to its real role of a covenant expression of love between to people and God. That is probably the difference in most marriages as far as success or failure.

Next: Final Thoughts

Previous: Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage

Marriage and the Bible - Part 48 - Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage

2011-06-10T17:53:00.000-04:00

If there is a topic of conversation that everyone has an opinion on, it's homosexual marriage. In our modern western culture, this topic probably generates more heat than light as the emotions run very high all the way around. Christians and homosexual advocates are particularly vocal and at times very hostile toward each other.

Biblically, there is no doubt as to the stand on homosexual practice - it is a sin. Most notably is the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 where he calls the act 'unnatural' and 'degrading'. This along with many other verses makes the Bible's position clear. Homosexuality is a sin.

One thing though that needs to be cleared up about homosexuality is how big a sin it really is. The way you hear the TV preachers talk it is the most terrible sin ever. The fact is that it is in many ways equal to other sexual sins. In the Law, homosexuality and adultery have the same penalty - death. This indicates that while homosexuality isn't exactly high on God's hit parade, neither is adultery which the Bible equates as equally despicable in God's sight. This sheds a whole new light on the issue to me because many Christians will decry the homosexual and then turn around and slightly shrug their shoulders when it comes to adultery saying: 'well these things happen'. No wonder the charge of hypocrisy sticks.

The rhetoric that is thrown both ways is not helpful. I find the term 'homophobic' not only to be a bogus term, but to be an emotionally laced term as well that has no value; it simply is used against the opponents of homosexuality so they will shut up and then no real debate or discussion takes place on the value of homosexuality. On the flip side, the expression "Hate the sin, but love the homosexual" does not have much effect either. It in fact creates more barriers.

The real issue from a marriage standpoint for me is that any such union will never be more than a contract arrangement, the only question that remains for American society is: will such a contract be culturally accepted? The reason I say this is that the Bible offers no possibility for a same-sex couple to truly achieve spiritual covenant. By design, God has created male and female and only presents that this arrangement has a possibility of achieving such a union. In simplest terms, it is not possible.

My basic contention is that homosexuals cannot actually achieve sexual intercourse, therefore the idea they can be truly 'one flesh' is not possible. The reality is that while a homosexual couple can draw close to each other emotionally, mentally and even spiritually, they can never truly be physically one. In all cases of homosexuality, sexual expression can only be achieved by everything else but actual sexual intercourse.

The other place where a homosexual union fails is that to have a covenant is that God must be in it. The only relationship that can draw close in homosexuality is the between the two humans, Because God declares that a homosexual union is sin, there is no way He could draw close to either party unless they give up their homosexuality. Sorry, No spiritual covenant.

My counsel to homosexuals is the same though as I would to a couple in open marriage. You are settling for a lesser form of marriage than the one form that is presented as the ideal. That ideal, one man / one woman in covenant with each other and God stands as the biblically highest form of marriage.

Even if laws were changed to allow such unions, I simply do not see a Biblical acceptance of the idea of homosexual marriage. Culture may accept it, and Christians will indeed have to accept it if that happens. The fact remains that culture changes and over the centuries Christianity has had to adapt and change to maintain 'love and truth'.

Next: Modern Challenge: Is Traditional Marriage a Failure?

Previous: Modern Challenge: Line or Group Marriage

Marriage and the Bible- Part 47 - Modern Challenges: Line or Group Marriage

2011-06-08T20:31:00.000-04:00

I have to admit this one is a tough one. It is very difficult to say this is truly unbiblical. The reason is that polygamy is most certainly in the Bible, the difference here is that the polygamy is both ways at the same time.

One could say there is no example of a woman married to many men in the Bible, but that could be a cultural thing as the importance of knowing both the father and mother of a child was very important to them. It is also an argument from silence which does not do us much good. A woman with many husbands would have a problem identifying the father in that culture. In our modern day, paternity tests could determine this, but the proponents of group marriage point out that all the men take legal responsibility for every child in a group marriage regardless of who the father actually is. The issue for them is that all adults are responsible for all children produced by the group.

The difference between this and open marriage is that sexual fidelity is expected in most group marriages. The person must keep there sexual relationships inside the group. Some of the more liberal ones allow for homosexual relationships and openness, but that is not always the case. The Biblical problem with open marriage is fornication, but in group marriage where openness is not allowed and coupling must be male-female, the charge of homosexual sin and fornication disappears. That leaves us with only the charge that multiple men with a single woman is not seen in the Bible. That does not leave us much to cling to, if we are going to say this marital arrangement is unbiblical.

This type of marriage actually also does allow for the possibility of a covenant relationship but much in the same manner as polygamy has that possibility. The difference being that with more men more such covenant couples are possible. Ultimately though this becomes at best a mixed contracts type marriage with covenant relationships possible, but more and more unlikely as more people are added to the group.

In many ways group marriage is about creating a line (thus line marriage) of marriage that can last for a long time. As members die, they can be replaced and a legacy created that can last as long as people want to stay in it and keep it going. It also, in many ways is about getting some of the benefits of open marriage (multiple partners to avoid boredom, which is by the way the third leading cause of divorce in the United States for both men and women) and yet the legal protection of a marriage contract.

Another thing could be said about divorce here, that if one member of the group decides to divorce the rest, it does not end the group marriage, just that person's involvement in it. It still means the kids would be taken care of by more than one parent, although custody issues are going to get really complex with this type of marriage should that person getting the divorce decided to sue for custody.

This is ultimately a tough one to say - "this is sin, it should be not be done". What could be said is that it does not reflect the ideal of what God, Jesus and the Apostles present as a marriage. It is much more of a contract than a covenant relationship.

Next: Modern Challenges: Homosexual Marriage
Previous: Modern Challenges: Open Marriages

Marriage and the Bible - Part 46 - Modern Challenges: Open Marriage

2011-06-07T06:15:00.000-04:00

Open marriage is defined as a marriage where both spouses agree that they may each engage in extramarital sexual relationships without those relationships being regarded as infidelity. In short both sides say that cheating isn't cheating. Looking above at a copy from a page from a book advocating open marriage you can see the general perspective as one that allows freedom of the individual and a value on honesty and truth in a relationship. Or so it is stated and believed by those who practice and promote open marriage. Historically, in the United States open marriage has been popular at two times: the 1970s during the sexual revolution and right now. From a biblical point of view is this an allowable form of marriage? Is the swinger cry of: "It ain't adultery if my spouse says its OK." true?

There are some Biblical passages to consider here. The most direct teaching is 1 Corinthians 7:4 where it is stated plainly that a wife does not have power over her own body, but her husband does and visa versa. So if a man wilfully says to his wife that it is OK for her to go out and engage in extramarital sexual activity is he in a sense exercising this power? Another thing to consider is at certain points in polygamist relationships the marriage is partially open.  If a man is married to a wife and seeking a second, some behaviours could be seen as extramarital activity until the second woman agrees to marriage. If this is OK why would the idea of open marriage be not OK?

Firstly, I would like to say that open marriage must be classified as purely a cultural contract marriage. Covenant marriage requires wilful sexual faithfulness and so once a couple is talking open marriage they are dickering about the terms of the marriage contract. In particular the line that says: "Forsaking all others, keep you only unto her/him". That stated, is such a contract allowable by the Bible?

The Bible in cultural context is trying to protect a few things with its view of marriage and one of them is children. When a child is born, the main protection of the child knowing who its parents are is that no one else has been with mommy but daddy. Modern proponents of open marriage however argue that with modern birth control this could be curbed.

The other thing the Biblical views of marriage try to protect is health. If the Biblical pattern for marriage were followed worldwide, even including the various forms of polygamy, sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) would disappear in a couple generations. Once again Open marriage advocates argue that condoms could stop this too.

The problem with both things is that no birth control is perfect and no condom is fail safe. Human gadgets are always prone to error and defect.  No matter what happens this is true because both also require that humans use them correctly. Sorry, this is simply true to the point that even the manufacturers of said instruments say "99.9% effective if used correctly" to save against lawsuits.

These objections however do not deal with the biblical issue, I simply want to state for the record that this seems culturally OK, but it has its practical problems that could become huge monsters.

The biblical problem is 1 Corinthians 7:4 does not directly say that the giving of the power of your spouses body for sexual gratification of another is wrong. Paul in the same book; however, has a very dim view of fornication and that is where open marriage fails biblically. Fornication would still be taking place from a biblical point of view as any sex outside any type of marriage contract is considered fornication. Fornication is declared to be a sin so the extra martial sexual encounters become a biblical no-no.

Next: Modern Challenges: Line or Group Marriage
Previous: Women's Equality in Marriage

Marriage and the Bible - Part 45 - Women's Equality in Marriage

2011-06-06T21:57:00.000-04:00

Probably the most significant thing that Jesus and the Apostles do to the understanding of marriage is they very much elevate the status of women in it. The fact is that one Jesus starts talking about divorce in Matthew 19 and other places the fact is seen that the bride is not to be treated with contempt but respect. Paul's Jesus/Church equals Bride/Groom also puts woman at a far higher level that much of the Old Testament does. By restoring the idea of spiritual covenant, Jesus and the other apostles actually put women back at equal levels with their husbands in most cases.

This has an impact on how men are to treat their wives. Namely looking at one's wife like Adam first looked at Eve. Not as some thing attached to my life to help my ego, but as a fellow traveller on the road of life and bone of my bones, flesh of my flesh - part of himself. It means to love her no matter what. I know this can be frustrating at times but you have a good counselor. Jesus I am sure relates to husbands with difficult wives seeing His wife is the church and she can be difficult at times.

It also impacts how women should view themselves in there marriage. Viewing themselves as responsible to be images of what the church should be toward Christ is a great responsibility and equal to that of their husbands. In many ways this idea puts women on equal footing in ever area except one and it is the most significant - authority.

The one thing that neither Jesus nor the apostles change is the issue of authority in a marriage. Man is still the head of woman.  Paul's explanation of this in First Timothy chapter 2 is basically that woman was created for the man, not the other way around. Man ultimately was created to fulfil God's purpose and woman is there to help man achieve that purpose. Men thus have the final say in what happens. That being said, the one thing that is also clear is that submission cannot be forced. A woman must willfully and freely choose to be under her husbands authority. For a husband to force his authority on his wife would be an act without love. At the same time, for a woman not to submit to her husband would be a sin both against her husband and God. The choice is however the wife's to make, just like it is a choice for a husband to be under the authority of God and love his wife.

Next: Modern Challenges: Open Marriage
Previous: How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break

Marriage and the Bible - Part 44 - How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break.

2011-06-05T21:44:00.000-04:00

There are a lot of things that are required to build and maintain a spiritual covenant marriage as well as a cultural contract marriage for that matter. It is these things that also are what give both a fragile nature that has to be maintained by both parties to keep them strong.

The Requirements of Spiritual Covenant Marriage:

1. Dedication to God - if both the husband and wife are not also dedicated to God the covenant will fall apart. The thing with covenant marriage it involves three parties and three relationships. If a husband or a wife is not also concerned and gives time for their spouse to build and grow their relationship with God, then the covenant will start to break down. One mistake people make about marriage is they think that the only thing that matters is their relationship to their spouse. If that is the case then your not really engaged in a spiritual covenant, you have crossed the line to cultural contract.

2. Dedication to Intimate Friendship on All Levels: This intimacy must be marked all the elements of true intimacy: one flesh, naked and unashamed. It covers all aspects of the relationship: spiritual, mental, emotional and physical. most of the time the crack in the armor of marriage starts when one of these areas or more begins to have a 'seperateness' lack of unity, or lack of openness or some shame because of past action. The healing elements of forgiveness, kindness and of course love (the real stuff) must always be there.

Given all the things that need to be maintained it is easy to see why things can start to go south. All it takes is one person turning their back on God or an element of intimacy to be ignored or forgotten or a single unforgiveness offense for it to no longer be covenant.

Cultural contracts provide a safety net for society as a rule, but they are in some ways more fragile than covenants. While a cultural contract does not need either of the two elements above, it does require that both (or more) parties keep their end of what is expected of them. One clause disregarded, one cultural rule violated and the contract invokes consequences. Because a cultural contract is based more in selfishness and self interest, violation is going to be in some ways harder, but also easier. Example: In a covenant adultery is defined as lust toward another person other than your spouse, in a cultural contract lust could exists but the marriage contract maintained, but the moment in a cultural contract that physical adultery takes place, contract dissolved. The existence of lust in the contract type of arrangement is going to make such falls more of a possibility.

In modern marriage what I see, even in Christian marriages, is kind of mixed hybrid of both where some elements of covenant are there and other things have devolved to a contract. You may for example see a couple who are each dedicated to God but their intimate friendship has dropped down to contract level. Mixed marriages also have this problem as one spouse is dedicated to the ideas of relationship with God and their spouse, but the other spouse has no walk with God and views their marriage as a contract arrangement. The Goal is to get both elements in place and growing, but that is not always possible.

Next: Women's Equality in Marriage
Previous: God and the Spiritual Covenant

Marriage and the Bible - Part 43 - God and the Spiritual Covenant

2011-05-31T20:01:00.000-04:00

There are two things to consider here 1) is the elements of Spiritual Covenant and 2) God's role in those elements.

The purest way to see the elements of spiritual covenant relationship between a man and a woman is to return to the Garden of Eden and look at Adam and Eve's relationship before the Fall. Mostly because at this time there is no need for marriage contracts or viewing marriage as a cultural act. What we see are a man and a woman who enjoy a unique relationship status. There are no cultural conventions to follow, nor are there any words or actions to establish to others that the two of them are husband and wife. They simply are.

1. Element One: Both man and woman understand they are creations of God and responsible to his authority. Each have been created for a purpose in the relationship. Man to fulfill the wishes of God for planet earth and the woman to be man's helper.

2. Element Two: 'One Flesh'. Jesus himself reinforces this idea in Matthew 19 with the line - 'they are no longer two but one.' This indicates a union of two people on all levels: spiritual, mind, heart and body.

3. Element Three: 'Naked' - It takes true trust and openness to be naked in the spiritual sense of the word above the physical. To be naked in this sense is to have no secrets, no hidden thoughts or feelings and no hidden agendas. It is to be comfortable being naked with each other in all senses. For a better understanding of nakedness from a Biblical perspective my series The Bible and Nakedness was written specifically to examine this issue.

4. Element Four: 'Unashamed' - No shame indicates neither side has done anything to the other or before God so as to cause the shame of sin and regret. There is nothing to clear the relationship between the man, woman or God.

This of course leads us to God role in a spiritual covenant marriage. In order for a covenant marriage to exist God must be a part of it. For a true covenant, this means God has a covenant with the man and the woman and they man and woman with each other. Without all three of these relationships in covenant, there is no covenant marriage. At that point what you have is a contract. This is why Paul in 1 Corinthians7 can give a mixed faith marriage reason for divorce. The unbeliever does not have a covenant with God; the believer does. The man and woman have a contract.

In a spiritual covenant, love and blood seal it solid. The man must love God and his wife. The wife must love God and her husband. God loves both man and the woman. God seals his covenant with man and woman through their salvation by the blood of his Son. Man and woman seal their covenant with each other in blood through sex. This is why sex is more than a physical action for fun and procreation in a spiritual covenant.

In a spiritual covenant all actions together and with God, if done in love and respect will strengthen the covenant. God to church and worshiping together, communicating with each other, being each other's friend, raising kids together, making love, etc. can all be actions both of expression and living of a couples' spiritual covenant.

Next: How Spiritual Covenants Fail and Cultural Contracts Break.

Previous: God and the Cultural Contract

First Post:

Marriage and the Bible - Part 42 - God and the Cultural Contract

2011-05-30T19:39:00.000-04:00

With all the desire for spiritual covenant type of marriage in Scripture, the fact remains cultural contracts are very much part of the Bible and many are directed by God himself particularly in the law. The above illustration deals with most of them.
1. Man+woman = monogamy
2. Man+woman+concubine = polygamy with two classes of wife
3. Man+woman+property woman=polygamy with slave concubine
4. Man with multiple women as equal wives='traditional' polygamy
5. Woman marries brother of dead husband=could result in polygamy if the brother already had another wife.
6. Man with unbetrothed woman (the illustration is inaccurate at this point as a rapist was put to death in Old Testament law). But this is a situation where two people have sex (the woman unmarried and unbetrothed) and it is discovered in some way. Man loses his option for divorce with her and must provide for her.
7. Man with war wife (she must be a virgin taken as spoils of war)
8. Slave couple: only stay married if their master wishes it or the slave chooses a bond slave status.

In the grand scheme of things as much as God want people to have a spiritual covenant type marriage, allowance is made for a multitude of reasons for other types of marriage contracts. In all of these situations God has laws regulating the practice of these types of contracts.

What this brings up is how open God is when it comes to this subject. He desires some greater things for marriage but understands mankind enough that he does not forbid certain other things involving marriage contracts and the culture. In short, God is very realistic about humans and their relationships with the opposite sex and this translates to marriage contracts to protect the parties involved.

God ultimately is acknowledging the selfishness of mankind and marriage is not going to be something He is going to think is avoid of such selfishness. Contracts protect the parties involved from the negative effects of such selfishness. in many cases it seems that a lot of these laws guard against divorce by creating difficulty or options for the man regarding wives. The wives are protected as well as one of the main reasons for this contract type mentality is to protect a woman from abandonment or disgrace.

Cultural contracts have one flaw, that is that they are essentially about maintaining the self interests of those in the marriage contract. A contract by it's nature is not about mutual love but protection and obligations. Each party involved need not care about the other person in a love and affection sense, they are only obligated to perform their duties and provide as dictated by the contract.

To have a marriage leave this state and become all that it should be is only possible when the concept of a 'one flesh' spiritual covenant in embraced.

Next: God and the Spiritual Covenant
Previous: The Bible and Divorce
First Post

Marriage and the Bible - Part 41 - The Bible and Divorce

2011-05-29T03:59:00.000-04:00

While it is difficult to get an opinion from God as to his like or dislike of polygamy (see my previous post), it is not difficult to get his opinion about divorce. He hates it. It is this hatred of divorce by God that should set the theme for our discussion of divorce. If I am a Christian, I should hate what God hates and God hates divorce.

Despite the hatred by God of divorce, it is still biblically allowed. Divorce is allowed by the law of Moses very early on and it remains a constant force in the Bible from then on. Ultimately, this seems to be an allowance by God because of sin and the nature of marriage in its cultural contract form. Doesn't stop Him from hating it, but it does indicate God understands the why of it.

There are basically three biblical reasons God would allow a divorce:

1. Sexual Infidelity: As much as God hates divorce, he hates unfaithfulness even more. Jesus himself gives this as a reason for it. This reason ultimately points to something deeper and that is that sex is not simply about fun or procreation. Sex is the ultimate expression of the spiritual covenant of marriage and to engage in adultery in any form shows a lack of understanding of this idea. This why not only should sex not be engaged in before marriage; it also should be kept in the confines of marriage.

2. Mixed Faith Marriage:  The Bible has nothing really positive to say about a marriage between an unbeliever and a believer and that goes throughout the entire Bible. In one case after the exile, Israelite men are forced to divorce their wives for this reason or give up their inheritance in Israel. When we get to the New Testament there is a change though and that is that the believer should stay with the unbeliever unless the unbeliever wants out. Paul in 1st Corinthians is not defying Jesus so much as he is considering a further implication of Jesus' teaching. That of the impossibility for such a marriage to achieve covenant without both parties understanding the true nature of love and self-sacrifice, which are found only in genuine faith in God. The believer should treat their marriage as a covenant and strive for the ideal, but if the unbeliever wants out, the believer can depart free of obligation.

3. Hardness of Heart: I simply do not see that Jesus Teaching in Matthew 19 and other places nullifies this idea. The divorce law of Moses still stands because Jesus himself said he had not come to destroy the law or the prophets. The fact is God still allows for hardness of heart, because hardness of heart is still going to happen. People are still going to fail in how they view marriage, act in selfishness to the point that even the cultural and contractual sides of their marriage are not being kept, violate their marriage vows and thus become hardened of heart. It is still an out, but I would say God doesn't like it very much given Jesus' words. This reason should be avoided at all costs but it still is there in case it happens. One thing though we can say about divorce is that it never is considered a sin that is unforgivable by God.

That said, we need to be reminded that God still hates divorce.  It means then the Christian should make every effort to save their marriage and to strive to see that they view it as a spiritual covenant above the cultural contract. Ultimately this is about shifting out understanding of marriage from the selfishness of the contract and moving it to the self-sacrifice of the covenant. For the Christian it becomes very important to understand the difference between the two and strive for the covenant.

Next: God and the Cultural Contract.
Previous: The Bible and Polygamy
First Post in Series

Marriage and the Bible - Part 40 - The Bible and Polygamy

2011-05-27T22:33:00.000-04:00

The extreme difficulty with the issue of polygamy and the Bible is twofold: 1) There is no direct statement forbidding the practice anywhere in the Bible and 2) It is prolifically practiced from very early on in Scripture and by some of the great heroes of faith from Abraham to David. In short, while the Bible certainly does not encourage the practice, it does not forbid it. In fact there are Biblical laws that regulate it.

The first implication of this is that those Christians that go around and say the practice of polygamy is a sin or evil are very much not supported by the Bible. This means that the moral judgments about people that practice polygamy stand purely on cultural grounds not Biblical ones.

Secondly and on the flip side, there is a problem with polygamy that the Bible presents, that of achieving the ideal of what marriage symbolizes. The polygamist marriages in the Bible present either a man who has no close spiritual covenant relationship with any of his wives or only just one with the rest of his wives being contract wives. In fact, it seems that if a man opts for polygamy he is already accepting this fact. His marriages are about other cultural and personal desires not a desire to be 'one flesh' in truth with a woman. It has been said that no polygamist relationship in the Bible is absent from problems, the truth is that in some situations we simple do not know this for sure.

Another thing to consider is that there is no Biblical example of polygamy other than one man with multiple wives. The idea of one woman with multiple husbands simply is not there. In part this is because of a patriarchal man dominated culture, but in truth it is also a practical consideration. When a man has more than one wife there is still not doubt when a child is born who the father of the child is. This would not be true in the reverse situation. Given that family was important in this culture and being able to trace one's lineage also important: one wife, multiple husband relationships would undercut both and are rejected. It is an argument from silence all the way around on this issue but given the lack of example we have to conclude it is probably not an option.

Finally, the New Testament has two important changes in understanding polygamy. First, the fact that the ideal marriage is presented very strongly as one man, one woman from both Jesus and the apostles point of view. Secondly, that if a man is polygamist he is disqualified from church leadership. In short, Jesus and the apostles are encouraging monogamy but neither condemns polygamy although they do enact things to consider and thus discourage it.

For the Christian in the modern day, application touches two areas:

1) When confronted with polygamy in society there is no biblical grounds for condemning the practice or the polygamist and his wives. As long as the relationship was freely entered into, we have to conclude that all the parties involved are both sin free and accepting the consequences of such a relationship. In truth, this is far less repulsive to God than the man who has multiple partners without marriage contracts and children from each relationship as well. At least the polygamist is accepting responsibility both legally and culturally. The situation of multiple wives one at a time due to divorce would also fall under a far more 'hate' category from God's perspective than polygamy.

2) If a Christian considers entering into a polygamist relationship, they should consider the following issues: a) by so doing they are opting for the less desirable option than monogamy, b) it is going to be difficult for them to achieve a spiritual covenant with this type of relationship and c) they are opting out of being in leadership in the church.

In final analysis, polygamy is an allowable situation for mankind because of the nature of the beast as it were. People are encouraged to get married if they are sexually attracted to the opposite sex and can't control it. Here seems to be an additional allowance for the man who simply can't contain his sexual desire to one woman. It offers an option free of affairs and divorce. It is not the best situation, but it is better than the alternatives. Interestingly enough while many women do not like the idea, many women in such relationships defend it for various reasons.

Next: The Bible and Divorce
Previous: Spiritual Covenant vs. Cultural Contract
First Post in Series

Passion and Message - Have We Lost Something Here?

2011-05-26T21:07:00.000-04:00

There are a lot of things that have factored into this post but the first thing that got me thinking was this link: What Harold Camping Got Right. But another factor was yesterday when I did a funeral for one of my members. I preach to the same people all the time so whenever I preach to someone different I try to get feedback, even at a funeral. My sermon was short, simple and to the point. I got a lot of positive feedback and most of it had nothing to do with the message of the sermon, but the passion of it. 'It was nice to go to a funeral and the preacher knew the person so well they could speak passionately about them". This was a typical comment and it has confirmed what I have long suspected. People will never remember a message unless the preacher puts passion behind it. If you try to preach something that you do not believe or have any emotions about you might as well sit down.

Through the whole Harold Camping nonsense, as the link above points out, the one thing you have to give the Harold Camping group credit for was their passion and message worked. They went from an obscure group to being talked about across the nation and world in a few short months. In large part we could blame sensationalism, but the fact is they had real passion about their message and that passion turned into action. That action netted results.

The problem with the message of the American Christian church regardless of denominational flag is that it has a couple of problems. On the one hand, we seem to have a large number of denominations and churches who are reworking everything so that it is unoffensive, tolerant and a different paradigm. On the other hand, we also have a large number of denominations that are so concerned about being right in doctrine, that there is more infighting than ever. Either Satan has us ineffective due to lack of passion and focus, or he has us shining our armor and fighting one another. Either way he is winning. Some would argue that this is one of the reasons for the emergent church, but what is their central message? Can anyone pin it down?

Some questions that could be asked are: What is the message of the church supposed to be? and How does the church reclaim the passion for that message? Comments are encouraged on this one because I personally do not see a simple answer to either one and the importance of them is beginning to get weighty indeed.

Marriage and the Bible - Part 39 - Spiritual Covenant vs. Cultural Contract

2011-05-26T17:55:00.000-04:00

An interesting tension exists throughout the Bible between the ideas spiritual covenant and cultural contract.

Spiritual Covenant is based on the idea of a man and a woman becoming 'one flesh', being naked and unashamed without influence by the nature of their culture, society or legal obligations. Center of this idea is an idea of genuine spiritual love and growth together. It is deeper than romantic love; it is true genuine 'oneness' of spirit, mind, heart and body. It is this idea of spiritual covenant that drives later New Testament ideas of relationships and the Christ as groom; Church as bride in union.

Cultural contracts involves marriage as a legal and cultural issues and are made for various reasons including procreation, sexual pleasure, cultural obligation, diplomacy, simple desire and a host of other reasons. There is no expectation in such contracts other than what is stated in the contract or expected by culture. Ultimately these are done so society will have some benchmark of when a relationship between two people moves from unmarried to married and to protect the parties involved from certain dangers of such relationships.

For the Biblical Christian, the desire should be to press toward spiritual covenant, but with a full acknowledgement that cultural contract is a part of it. However, a couple who genuinely achieves spiritual covenant will ultimately fulfil any cultural contract but even Jesus' conversation indicates that even He shared some understanding that culture and law had some influence on determining when a couple is married.

Ultimately, God acknowledges both. He desires covenant for mankind, but realizes that because of sin, contracts are necessary. In truth it is because of sin and the necessity of enforcing obligations that cultural contracts are needed. In the Law at least there is some concern for the protection and provisions for the wife and children of a union.

When it comes to marriage or husbands and wives, this tension becomes a continual thread that weaves its way through all the marriage issues that will follow. We are always trying to bring the relationship back to Adam and Eve and yet acknowledging that we have many obstacles to do so.

Next: The Bible and Polygamy
Previous: Does the New Testament Change Anything?
First Post in Series

Marriage and the Bible - Part 38 - Does the New Testament Change Anything?

2011-05-25T22:26:00.000-04:00

So does the teaching of Jesus and the apostles change the concept of marriage or enlighten our understanding from what we already know from the Old Testament? The answer to both is yes, but does it take it as far as we would like it to go?

The greatest concept of marriage that is enhanced or revived a return to the beginning and the concept of 'one flesh'. Jesus' teaching certainly makes divorce a harder option because of it and it paves the way for an understanding of Church/Christ being equated to bride/groom in Paul. The idea that marriage should be more than a cultural contract but involve instead a spiritual covenant is very much present in the teaching of Jesus and Paul.

One significant change is that women suddenly have a new importance in marriage. The role of women is defined in a very real way a submission by choice not by force of culture or strength. It also give a great picture of the importance of women in the mind of God as far as marriage as their role no longer being unimportant. As important as it is for a man to reflect Christ in his marriage role, it is just as important for a woman to reflect what the church should be in relationship to Christ.

The thing I am not sure of at this point is if these are truly new concepts or concepts that are being enhanced from the Old Testament. It seems that Jesus uses the Old Testament to make all his points; Paul and Peter as well engage both the Law and Old Testament History to illustrate what they see in marriage. While the concept of Church/bride in relationship to Christ/groom is new, the concepts of marriage they are built on are already there.

With my Observations concluded at this point, I now move on to the next phase which involves Interpretation and Application. What indeed does all this mean and how does it apply to our lives as Christians.

Next: Spiritual Covenant vs. Cultural Contract

Previous:The Marriage of the Lamb

First Post in Series

The Harold Camping Dodge

2011-05-24T17:33:00.000-04:00

OK. I am going to say it for the rest of us: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! Let's be honest, most of you were thinking it, I am just having the guts to say it. Today's Harold Camping interview was telling and predictable. He dodges pretty fast for an old guy.

1. Harold says he didn't fully understand what was going on May 21st. He thought it was going to be a physical coming of the Lord but he misunderstood and it was actually a spiritual coming of the Lord.. Jesus is here folks we just didn't see of feel anything but the world is under Judgment Day.

2. New Date Now: October 21st. Not that it really was new. This has been predicted right along that the actual end of the world would happen on October 21st, 2011. The problem now of course is ALL of us will be here when that happens including Harold and his followers.

3. Harold also says he is not responsible for what people did. He is just a Bible teacher, what people do is their business. The only one he has authority over is his wife.

All right. Of course a 'spiritual coming' can't be proved or disproved but you would think that the 200,000 elect who are saved (got to love the doctrine of election) would have sensed something.

Now we all have another day to mark on our calenders - October 21st, 2011. Ready for round two. Here is Harold's chance to get even with me seeing I am up 1-0 so far. I predict that once again nothing will happen on October 21st, 2011. Hear that Harold, here is a chance to get your money back. See you at the pearly gates to pay up if you win.

I guess Harold has never read James 3:1 - "Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we will incur stricter judgment." Oh, do not get me wrong, the people that followed this and spent their money on it and wasted their time still are responsible, in my mind, for their foolishness, but Harold Camping is wrong about not being responsible. When you teach the Bible you will be judged and judged harder for what you teach. It is completely understandable because what is taught has the power to make or break a person's salvation. Something every teacher and preacher should take to the pulpit is an element of fear and reverence for the effect God's word has on people.

And all of us thought this was over. See you in October Harold.

Marriage and the Bible - Part 37 - The Marriage of the Lamb

2011-05-24T08:16:00.000-04:00

The Book of Revelation on several occasions evokes a reinforcement of the Jesus/Groom and Church/Bride concept. The wedding depicted is one under the ancient customs where the bride waited until the bridegroom came and took her to a wedding feast.

Because revelation is written by John though it means that this concept was not exclusive to Paul as we have seen but John and Jesus use it as well.

For marriage in this world the idea is of the wedding day. The return of Christ is depicted as a joyful event where the bride is swept off her feet to be with her groom forever. It also means that perhaps Paul's concepts of behavior in marriage were not just his but were shared by others.

Next: Does the New Testament Change Anything?
Previous: Hebrews and Peter
First Post in Series

The Aftermath of the Failed Rapture

2011-05-23T20:17:00.000-04:00

In know, I know I am getting a little tired of it too, but the sad part of this predictable story is now unfolding. Reports of people spending their life savings on advertising, disillusioned followers people maxing out the credit cards and going on vacations to see some things before they are ruptured to be with Jesus. It has become a deafening roar of disappointment, bewilderment and pain.

Harold Camping refused comment and said he needed a day to think about it. He almost said he was going to have to live with it, but then changed and said he needed to think it out. Interesting change. The sixty six radio station Family Radio has dumped all references to Judgment Day.

If someone were to ask me what I think of all these people and do I feel sorry for them I would say 'No'. To state it simply there are so many passages of scripture that remind the believer to beware of false prophets, to not be taken for a fool and using money wisely. Jesus' own words of how no one knows the day or the hour except the Father should be enough for everyone to say this was very foolish. Maybe the money spent will be enough of a life lesson. The only exception to this is the ones who are young and new to the faith.

What will happen now? Oddly enough, people will still believe in him and the whole thing will indeed rally in some way. Just watch, the failure will be explained away, followers will be reassured and ultimately some other direction will be taken.

Thankfully, though some people will not buy it.

Hopefully I will only have to do one more post based on what the man says in his interview and then end this. Unfortunately for the people that believed this false prophet, the pain will be there for a long time.

Marriage and the Bible - Part 36 - Hebrews and Peter

2011-05-23T07:48:00.000-04:00

In the remaining epistles only two sections of scripture really address issues regarding marriage: Hebrews 13:4 and 1 Peter 3:1-7.

The single verse of Hebrews addresses several issues but the chief among them is that the writer states that marriage is an honorable thing. He also states that the marriage bed is not defiled in any way. Once again the image is to promote the idea that sexual activity in the confines of a marriage is not sinful or dishonorable but pure and undefiled. The verse goes on to say that other forms of sexual activity outside of marriage - God will judge them. There is definitely a upholding of the idea that marriage is a protective thing from the wrath of God but also a promotion of marital sexual activity, as it is not evil if it is in a marriage bed.

Peter's view of marriage is a little different than Paul's. Paul uses marriage as a living breathing example of Christ and his church. Peter is more practical but echos the idea of submission from the the woman. However, he does not invoke and Christ church image but one of Sarah and Abraham. Peter's message to women is six verses long and includes that submission has the following practical qualities: 1) it may lead to the salvation of their husband 2) Internal spiritual modesty is more valuable than vanity and 3) it reflects what holy women of old did.

Peter also addresses husbands to be understanding with the motivation that if they do their prayers will be unhindered.

One thing you can say for this, at this point what marriage is takes a back seat to what marriage should be in practical terms. It is almost as if the other issues are already understood.

Next: The Marriage of the Lamb
Previous: Paul - Divorce, Sex and Polygamy
First Post in Series

To the False Prophet Harold Camping - Let Me Help You, Sir.

2011-05-22T17:48:00.000-04:00

Well it is May 22 and we are ALL still here. No rapture and I want to send a message to Harold Camping to lend him a hand in these trouble times and hopefully educate everyone else why date setting and date setters for the end of the world and judgement day continue to fail.

1. Lack of Understanding: You fail to understand that there are some things that we are not supposed to know and that is OK. The reason God does not want us to know the date is very simple - motivation. If we did know the date we then would live like we want until near the end and then we would make our life right. It is our ignorance that keeps us watchful, praying and looking to the need for holiness in our lives. That is why it is ultimately left to one being - The Father God - to decide these things. Jesus says he is the only one who knows and I take Jesus' word for it. There are some things WE CAN"T KNOW.

2. Lack of the Compassion of God: It not that you just don't have an understanding of God's compassion, you do not have it yourself. 2 Peter 3:9 shows this as it points out that God is not willing that any should perish but that all would come to repentance. This verse points out God's patience toward people, a patience date setters do not have. Had Jesus actually come yesterday how many people that did not have an opportunity to accept Christ would have perished? To God these people deserve our love and a chance at repentance, not our "bye, tough luck for you."

3. Lack of Concern for New Christians: The real danger of doctrines like this the effect it has on the young and ignorant believer. The 'children' they cause to stumble. Before preaching anything pastors and church leaders should really ask the question of how what they are preaching is going to be perceived by new Christians. When it comes do date setting, this is particularly devastating when you set a date for Jesus' return and then it does not come to pass. Loss of faith in Christ and the Bible is an inevitable result.

Ultimately, the main reason you fail is your focus is on yourself and not others. You want to escape but you do not want to face your fears and live in this would with the same compassion as Christ. You draw attention to yourself at the expense of others.

You have my pity.

I hope and pray you develop enough humility to fall on your knees and beg forgiveness and come to a realization that you do not know everything you need to know. There are lessons to be learned from this event that you need to learn and they have nothing to do with looking at the Bible to find a date of Jesus' return.

Hope this helps.

Doomsday At Last!

2011-05-21T07:28:00.000-04:00

So how come I feel disappointed so far? Well I understand as I write this there is 16 hours to go on May 21st, 2011, but you would think there would be some rumblings or something.

I do want to make some more predictions at this point:
1. When Harold Camping is proven false today and the We Can Know crowd are made to look like fools, he and they will back pedal and say that there must be some small miscalculation on Harold's part and they will get back to us.
2. His followers will be confused
3. The people who have made money off this will disappear.

Nothing to do but wait.

See you tomorrow.

Marriage and the Bible - Part 35 - Paul: Divorce, Sex and Polygamy

2011-05-21T06:20:00.000-04:00

Paul has a great imagery for marriage in the relationship between Christ and the church. What becomes interesting is some of the other practical application of it in particular as regards to divorce, sexuality and polygamy.

First, we need to understand that Paul knew the teaching of Christ and may have been on to hear them as a budding Pharisee. So when he makes some of his remarks we need to remember that he had possible seen Jesus teach and most certainly Paul was sensitive to the issue of reconciling his own teaching with the Lord Jesus after his conversion. Marriage issues included. His view of Christ as groom and church as bride clearly demonstrate a one flesh mentality in understanding of marriage.

1 Corinthians 7 though starts to cause us to question this unless we try to reconcile the idea of "no divorce, saving for cause of fornication" put forth by Jesus and Paul's idea of an unbelieving spouse being the deciding factor in terminating a marriage. In short in this chapter Paul's says as long as the unbeliever want the marriage to continue don't leave it but if they decide to terminate it, then let them. This adds another reason in the New Testament for allowable divorce - difference in faith in Christ.

We need to remember though that Jesus said the law would still be in effect until all was fulfilled and that included the law of divorce set forth by Moses. Jesus' explanation is that this allowed because of hardness of heart and I don't think he was nullifying divorce but helping people recognize the perils of it.

Taking these ideas to Paul's teaching means that Paul is recognizing a more specific application of Jesus' teaching. That application being a spouse with no faith in Christ is not going to be able to fulfill his ideal of marriage in his imagery of Christ and church and hardness is more likely to occur in such situations. One flesh in the higher sense of covenant marriage before God is not possible in such a union. Such a union is nothing more than a contract marriage which the Christian half should honor as much as possible, but if the spouse who is unbelieving decides to terminate the contract, 'a brother or sister is not in bondage in such cases'.

The other issue in 1 Corinthians 7 is the issue of sex in marriage. Paul's advice also centers on Jesus' teaching. In particular, the issue in Jesus' teaching about not all men (or women for that matter) can accept celibacy. Marriage then for Paul becomes a defence and outlet that is safe for sexual practice and his instruction not to withhold from each other indicates a strong understanding of sex as an ultimate expression of the 'one flesh' nature of covenant marriage.

Paul also makes the issue of polygamy difficult. Most of this is found in his instructions to Timothy and Titus about the qualifications for overseers and deacons with his expression: 'husband of one wife'. When I was growing up and in my formative ministry years, I was told that this meant that a overseer or deacon could not ever be divorced. I now reject this interpretation on the grounds that divorce is not mentioned. I truly think this is a restriction on church leaders from being polygamist.

Paul is dealing largely with new Gentile believers whose only Scripture is the Old Testament. In some parts of the Roman Empire polygamy was practiced, particularly in the eastern provinces. What needs to be considered is that when you couple allowable polygamy in a cultural sense and the fact that many of the great heroes of the Hebrew Scriptures are polygamist, polygamy is going to be seen as OK. Paul is basically saying then though that if a man decides to engage in polygamy he is disqualified from being a church leader.

Why? I think it is Paul's desire to make sure that all church leaders reflect the idea of Christ as groom and church as bride as much as possible. Covenant marriage is far easier to attain and be reflected this way in faithful monogamy. Polygamist households, as we have seen, have great difficulty with this, if they achieve it at all.

One more thing Paul brings up is death being the end of marriage in both senses in Romans 7:1-3 where he points out that a woman is only bound to a husband as long as he lives. Death then becomes the end point for marriage in this world in both a legal and covenant sense.

Next: Hebrews and Peter
Previous: Paul's Image of Christ and His Bride
First Post in Series