Tag Archives: marriage

Headship is not Hierarchy

In my recent post, I made the statement that the phrase “he shall rule over you” was something new that came into the world because of the curse. I wrote, “There was no hint of hierarchy before the fall.” Since this has generated some consternation, and great concern that I might be turning liberal, I thought it wise to clarify a bit here.

To see clearly, perhaps Augustine’s division of the states of man might be helpful. If you recall, Augustine delineated four states of man, which were later repeated by Thomas Boston, neither one of them liberal.  First, before the fall, in his created state, man was able to sin and able to not sin. After the fall, unregenerate man was able to sin and not able to not sin. Regenerated man is able to sin and able to not sin. And glorified man is able to not sin and unable to sin.

Before the fall, before sin entered the world, Adam and Eve served God perfectly. They did not live for themselves; their desires were not to have power over each other, but they both lived as they were created – as one flesh, in perfect unbroken harmony. We can have no idea what this was like, since our state now is far different. If by “hierarchy” you mean that Adam ruled his wife and she submitted to his desires, I reject that. It has no basis in scripture.  If by hierarchy you mean an order of creation, that I happily accept, as Paul wrote

For Adam was first formed, then Eve. (1Ti 2:13 KJV)

This I wholeheartedly confess, believing the Bible to be the inerrant, infallible word of God. I am hesitant to try to apply this beyond how Paul applies this, however, since I have no idea what it looked like practically before the fall. I think it is reading to much into the text to say that this means that Adam ruled over his wife. Did Adam sit on the couch and say “Woman, beer me and shut those kids up!” I think not. He did not rule his wife. They both served God and one another perfectly, being without sin.  This is the only thing that I meant when I said, “There was no hint of hierarchy before the fall.”

After the fall is a world I can relate to. Men and women became idolaters and rebels. They were covenant breakers, serving themselves and their own lusts. The curse that came upon the relationship was that the desire of the woman would be “toward the man”, which I still interpret to mean that she would retain the longing for the one flesh relationship that she would be unable to have, because he would instead rule over her. This is different than before, and part of the curse, and not good.  She, in her unregenerate state, would respond to this rule in a variety of ways, depending on her personality. Despair, hopelessness, manipulation, domination – but it would be a life of slavery and degradation after the fall, which she would resist in various ways, because she would still be human. And she would still long for her husband.

I do not believe you can read anymore into the phrase, “to your husband, your desire”, than that. Nor do I believe you can read anymore into Genesis 4:7 than what is there, but I will address that in another post in another time. There is nothing in Genesis 3:16 that is prescriptive. It is simply a description of what life will be like now that men and women have sold themselves into the slavery of sin and death. They will now be governed by the rules of the kingdom of the devil, rather than the law of God. And this will be the case until the Seed of the Woman comes and crushes the head of the oppressor, which happened when Christ gave himself to the death of the cross.

Christ came to take away the curse, he delivered us from the bondage of sin and the power of the devil. This means that we no longer are to live by the rules of the kingdom of the devil. This is what Ephesians 5 is all about. The wife, instead of seeking her own things and her own desires, is to submit to her husband, as described here.

11 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
12 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. (Pro 31:11-12 KJV)

She is not to chafe against him, work against him, or seek his harm, but to do him good. Remember that Christ’s work is to restore what we lost. The goal of marriage is the one flesh relationship, rather than the antagonistic and abusive relationship that characterized the kingdom of the devil. It isn’t about who makes the coffee, changes the diapers, or does the dishes. It’s about love and peace.

Paul also has in mind the marriage of believers. He is not at all talking about marriage to a wolf, who seeks to destroy and devour. He is talking about believers, united in faith to Jesus Christ, where there is one Lord, one faith, one baptism (chapter 4). The church is to endeavor to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of love, and this is to be pictured most prominently in the home.

The husband’s job is not to rule over his wife, enforce the rules, or be the commander and king at home in his castle, for it is not his castle. The home belongs to Christ. He is not to usurp Christ’s role as the king of kings, but he is to emulate Christ in only one way, according to the text. He is to love her.

This fits beautifully with Jesus’ definition of authority in John 13:

John 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
2 And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon’s son, to betray him;
3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
4 He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
5 After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples’ feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
(Joh 13:1-5 KJV)

We cannot claim the smallest amount of authority that Jesus has. All authority has been given into his hands. And yet, he took the lowest place and washed his disciples’ feet. Wow.

Then look what he says,

12 So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
13 Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
14 If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another’s feet.
15 For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you. (Joh 13:12-15 KJV)

So in answer to the question, “Do I believe that the husband has authority in the home?” My answer is “Yes. Certainly. There is no way around it. He is to wash his wife’s feet, serve her, do good to her, love her – even, as Paul says, give himself for her.

This is far different than the curse of Genesis 3:16. It turns it on its head. Instead of either the man or the woman serving themselves, their lusts, their goals and desires, both are to serve the Lord Jesus Christ, and the husband is to take the lead in taking the lowest place in the home. That’s not me saying this. That’s Jesus Christ.

It is the husband ultimately responsible for the peace of the home. It is the husband that God will hold accountable for what has been entrusted to him. But he does not rule the home by power and control. He governs his home by service and love. You can see a woman controlled by power. She is downcast and the light is gone in her eyes. And you can see a woman who is loved by her husband. She is alive, fully human, confident, and joyfully doing whatever work God has called her to with spirit and life. Why do so many who claim the name of Christ believe that women are to be controlled by entitlement and power?

The husband isn’t the boss, the commander, the chief, the king. All of that belongs to Christ. Rather, the husband is the head, and she is the body. He is to nourish, cherish and love her as his body, because she is his body. That’s the point. To ask the question, “But isn’t he still in charge?” is to miss the point entirely. Do you think that she will turn into a harpy if you neglect to command her for a day? Whom did you marry? Is she not also an heir of eternal life and a firstborn son of God in Jesus Christ?

So for you husbands insisting that you are the head of your home, take it seriously. Go home, cook dinner, draw her a bath, do the dishes, put the kids to bed. Ask her what she is thinking. Talk about her dreams and fears. Assume she also is led by the Holy Spirit and trying to serve her Lord with a pure heart. Do all the modern equivalents of washing the feet.  This is what Jesus is talking about.

Remember that we are bought with a price, the precious blood of the lamb, and do not belong to ourselves. Husbands don’t belong to themselves, and wives don’t belong to themselves. All belong to Christ, and the husband is to take the lead in service and love.

Yes, I believe that the husband is the head of the home. But not like the president is head of the country. But like Jesus is the head of the church – flesh of our flesh and bone of our bone. And he washes our feet, and took the lowest place. This is our example.

As for man in the glorified state, there will be no more sin. The last will be first and the first last. Those who served on earth will be served in heaven. Those who were served on earth will serve in heaven. The kingdom of heaven throws all that we think we know about power and authority on its head.

It’s time we took that seriously.

Advertisements

83 Comments

Filed under Marriage

Genesis 3:16

…And thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee (Gen 3:16 KJV)

The publishers of the ESV recently announced that they have changed their translation of Genesis 3:16 to this:

…Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.

I believe this translation to be in error. In this brief post, I shall attempt to explain my reasons.

First, a confession. At one point not too long ago in the past, I also succumbed to the same faulty reasoning. In the paper “Promoting a Biblical Sexual Morality”, of which I was the primary author, I wrote the following:

Second, the curse was on her relationship with her husband. “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Gen. 3:16). Her intense longing would be directed towards her husband. The preposition translated “to” primarily indicates motion towards or into. Metaphorically it is used for “against”. Her longing, instead of a covenantal opening herself completely to the love of her husband, would now be directed towards domineering, manipulating, and refusing to be truly loved. (Reformed Church in the United States: Promoting a Biblical Sexual Morality. 2013, page 41)

In this paragraph, I referenced Tremper Longman’s book on the Song of Songs (page 65). Longman, in turn,  referenced an article by Susan Foh, entitled “What is the woman’s desire” (WTJ 37 (1974-75) 376-83.

This article by Foh seems to have influenced quite a lot of thinking (including mine). And now its influence is felt even in the ESV translation of Genesis 3:16. The question is this: is this proper exegesis?

I have to admit that the section that I wrote is somewhat embarrassing. To say that the curse upon the woman involves her domineering, manipulating and refusing to truly be loved by her husband seems a bit much  to read into one preposition.

This exegesis makes much of the similarity between Genesis 3:16 and Genesis 4:7. In Genesis 4:7, we read that God, speaking to Cain of sin, says,

And unto thee shall be his desire, and thou shalt rule over him. (Gen 4:7 KJV)

The connection is then made that sin seeks to have dominion over a man. Since the words and the grammar are identical to 3:16, the meaning of 3:16 is that the woman also seeks to have dominion over the man.

But both texts simply speak of “desire”. Why is the desire of the woman assumed to be the same as the desire of sin? This was an uncomfortable niggling that I buried deeply until I recently dug it up and thought about it.

My embarrassing admission is that I wanted to make an assumption, and I manipulated the grammar to do so.

It seems to me that using Genesis 4:7 to interpret Genesis 3:16 is rather sketchy exegesis. It would be similar to saying that God spoke against Baasha (1 Kings 16:12 – the preposition is ‘el) and God spoke unto Moses (Ex. 3:14 – the preposition is the same) therefore, God was against Moses just as he was against Baasha. It’s really bad exegesis. It seems to me that the meaning of the phrases must be determined in the context.

The fact is “sin” and women are not the same thing, and their desires are not the same thing. I wonder why we make the assumption that women’s desires are always for domination and manipulation even when the text doesn’t say so. Simply saying “Sin desires to manipulate and dominate and since the same preposition is used this applies to the woman as well” simply will not cut it. That’s not how language works.

The phrase in question is the one translated “and your desire shall be toward your husband.”

The second part, “And he shall rule over you” isn’t in dispute. Those words are simple and bear only one translation. The connecting copulative “and” is attached to a redundant personal pronoun “he” which indicates a disjunctive phrase. In other words, the second phrase is set in contrast to the first – BUT he shall rule over you.

So what does the first phrase mean? Looking at the words, it begins with a prepositional phrase introduced by the copulative vav (and). The prepositional phrase is simply two words: the preposition ‘el and the word for man, or husband, with the pronoun “your”.  After this prepositional phrase is the noun “your longing”. There is no verb. The complete phrase is this “And to your husband, your longing; but he shall rule over you.”

The question is whether the preposition ‘el ever has the meaning “contrary to”, as the ESV revision committee, following the lead of Susan Foh, claims.

The simple answer is no. If you wish to do a very technical study, you may look at Bruce Waltke and M. O’Conner, Biblical Hebrew Syntax (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns) 1990. 11.2.2. A helpful summary of that massive work is the work by Bill T. Arnold and John H. Choi (A Guide to Biblical Hebrew Syntax. New York, Cambridge University Press, 2003). Hebrew prepositions generally have a primary spatial meaning, with metaphorical secondary meaning. The primary spatial meaning is terminative (to, unto, towards).

I know, very technical. Let me break it down. The preposition ‘el means to, unto, or towards. It is a preposition indicating the termination of movement. That is its primary meaning. If I leave my office and walk to my house, I would use the preposition ‘el. Towards. Most commonly, it is used with the verb “to say” to indicate to whom the words are said. In the phrase, “And God said unto Moses”, the preposition ‘el would be used. God designed his words to terminate in the ears of Moses. I hope this makes sense.

In the lexicon by Brown, Driver and Briggs (somewhat archaic and disputed by modern scholarship) they indicate that “against” is a valid translation, and give many quotations, primarily by the prophet Ezekiel. For example,

Son of man, set thy face against Gog (Eze 38:2 KJV)

I would assume that since ‘el here has the translation “against”, the ESV revisers took that as their cue to translate it “contrary to” in Genesis 3:16. But in Ezekiel, the meaning of “to, or towards” is still latent in the word “against”. When a man’s face is “set” towards someone, hostility can certainly be assumed from the context, without changing the meaning of the preposition.

Even Brown, Driver and Briggs add this caveat to the translation “against”:

Where the motion or direction implied appears from the context to be of a hostile character, ‘el = “against”

No such hostility is expressed or implied in Genesis 3:16.

In another standard reference, The Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament, by Laird Harris, Gleason Archer, and Bruce Waltke, we read

Finally, the preposition can also mean “against,” although motion toward is evident, as in Gen 4:8, where Cain “rose up against Abel.” Here °el no doubt retains something of the original sense of both physical and mental motion toward. J.B.S.

In none of these statements by the universally recognized resources can the word ‘el be made to mean “contrary to”. There is no enmity stated or implied. There is no hostility inherent in the context.

The most widely recognized lexicon does not even admit the metaphorical use of “against” (Koehler-Baumgartner, Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament “HALOT”).

To summarize this rather complicated  survey, the basic meaning of the word is to, or towards. Sometimes, if the context and the verb used are hostile, “against” would be a proper meaning. But this does not mean that we can pick and choose whatever meaning we want. “Contrary to”, in the context of Genesis 3:16 or 4:7, cannot be justified. Only if we make the assumption that the word “longing” indicates hostility can we make this phrase mean “against her husband”.

The word “longing” only appears three times in all known Hebrew literature. In Genesis 3:16, Genesis 4:7, and Song of Songs 7:10:

I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me. (Sol 7:10 KJV)

In the Song of Songs, the preposition is ‘al, rather than ‘el. Formerly, I made much of this, but I was mistaken. the two prepositions have overlapping semantic fields and are used interchangeably, much like the English “to” and “towards”. The difference is not great enough to warrant new doctrines.

The word “longing” in all  three passages admits the same meaning: a great desire, a longing. It isn’t the same word as “covetousness”, and it isn’t the same word as “wanting something”. It is a rare word and “longing” is a good translation of it. I would be hesitant to go any deeper than that; that isn’t how language works.

So the simple reading of the text is this: “To your husband your longing”. In English, we would have to supply the verb “will be”. To your husband will be your longing. In other words, “your longing will terminate on your husband”, or, “your longing will be to your husband”.

So what does it mean? What is the longing of the woman? In the context, God is pronouncing the curse upon creation, the serpent, the man and the woman. He has already promised that one would come who would crush the head of the serpent (3:15), and he now moves on to the consequences of Eve’s sin.

How would she have heard those words? Let’s take it with the second part of the phrase, “But he shall rule over thee”, which is set in contrast to the first phrase. It’s a disjunctive clause. The word “rule” (mashal) can be good rule, benevolent rule, tyrannical rule or any other kind of rule. It’s a common word. It means to have dominion over. It is something that was not there in the relationship before the fall. It is something new. If it were there before the fall, then the curse on the woman would be that everything would be the same, which is ludicrous. The context implies that this is something new. The serpent will crawl on its belly; the ground will bring thistles, and your husband will rule over you.

Before, Adam and Eve were one flesh. There is no hint of hierarchy in the garden. (I explain this more fully here). It is beyond the scope of this article to go into the meaning of “help meet”, but suffice it to say that hierarchy, authority and submission are not inherent in the Hebrew word ‘ezer (help). It is the name most often given to God, Israel’s help.

Instead, the relationship of the man and the woman was a relationship of unity and love. They were one flesh, committed, loving, fleeing all others, cleaving to one another.

I believe in that context, 3:16 can only mean one thing. Eve will still long for that. Her longing will terminate on her husband. She will long for that which was lost in Eden. But instead, her husband will rule over her.

The one flesh relationship would be a broken and corrupted remnant of what it was supposed to be.

This fits the context, does no violence to the grammar, and opens up wonderful insights into the marriage relationship.

Remember that God had promised already to crush the head of the serpent. The curse would one day be overcome. This was foretold in the Song of Songs:

I am my beloved’s, and his desire is toward me. (Sol 7:10 KJV)

The Song is a picture of redeemed relationship. One that could not happen apart from the gospel of Christ. His longing to her and her longing to him are mutual. Instead of him ruling over her, he desires her. When the word is only used three times, it cannot be an accident that Solomon is referring to the curse on the woman and looking forward to the time when that is taken away.

Paul, in Ephesians 5 speaks of the same thing. Love your wife. Don’t rule over her.

Since we live in a cursed world and all are tainted by sin, the desire of the wife towards her husband can and does easily become an idolatrous desire. The husband can never give to the wife what only Christ can give.

But as Redeemed creatures, we can certainly live as pictures of the life-giving water of Christ. So the husband is not to be worshiped as Christ, nor is he a mediator between God and his wife. But he can imitate Christ in one area: Love. The marriage is to be a picture of what was lost in the fall. The problem with the woman under the curse is not that she manipulates and dominates. It’s that she longs for what was lost and that longing is to her husband.

How Leah longed for a husband! How Rachel longed for a husband! Look at the harems of David and Solomon, and these were God’s people! How much worse would it have been in Persia or Assyria! Look at Elkanah, Hannah and Penninah; Look at what happened to Esther.

The woman longs for the one flesh relationship that she was created to have. But men have ruled over her. Does she turn to manipulation and resistance? Perhaps. Every human resists domination and subjugation. But this is not what 3:16 says.

Now that Christ has come, we as men are called, not to rule over our wives (whether benevolently or not) but to love our wives, and thus reflect to the world the love of our great savior, who gave himself for us.

See my follow-up post here.

103 Comments

Filed under Marriage

Wedding Sermon

Towards the end of Jesus’ life, his enemies were looking for an excuse to arrest and execute him. At one point, they asked him about divorce.

Listen to what Jesus answered them: (Matthew 19)

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

6 Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

He refers to the beginning, before sin and shame entered the world. God didn’t change his standard when men fell. He still expects us to live as we were created to live.

He answers a modern problem with reminding us of the very beginning. He gives the account of God’s creation of Adam.

God is one, and yet God exists eternally in three persons, and the persons of the trinity love one another, as Jesus taught us. And men and women were created to enter into the fellowship of love with the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost.

But it wasn’t good for man to be alone. So God brought a woman – flesh of Adam’s flesh and bone of Adam’s bone. They also were joined together in love, to image God’s perfect love to one another, to their children, and to the whole world.

But then they fell. They worshiped and served themselves, and became subject to the bondage of the devil, and hatred, reviling, murder and lust became the norm.

As the Heidelberg Catechism says, now we are prone by nature to hate God and our neighbor – and nowhere is this more apparent than in marriage. Where love was supposed to reign, hatred and bitterness entered. Where love and service were to rule, dominion and subjugation took over.

For the heart of every man is this: “I will be as god, knowing good and evil.”

And when two people come together, both saying in their hearts “I will be as god” only abuse, chaos, enmity and strife can result.

This is what Jesus warned us of. Don’t tear apart what God has joined together.

The standard for marriage is not marriage as it is now, according to Jesus, but marriage as God created it, before it was twisted and defiled by sin.

In the beginning, God told man to be fruitful and multiply and spread the kingdom of God throughout the whole world. But instead, man became a slave to the kingdom of the devil.

And so we are really talking about two kingdoms.

In one kingdom, the currency is power and control, lust, dominion, hatred – gaining the upper hand, winning at all cost.

This is what controlled the world before Jesus came to set up HIS kingdom. The few who were powerful crushed and enslaved everyone else. Husbands crushed and enslaved their wives. But from the beginning, it was not so. And Jesus came to restore to us the kingdom of God.

This is the very reason that He came into the world – to take away our sins. He came to deliver us from the bondage of the devil, to establish a new kingdom. And in the kingdom of God the currency is love, peace, joy, service, mutual respect, cherishing one another, learning to take the lower seat –

Jesus Himself is our example.

The conquering king came to defeat the greatest enemy the world can ever know. He came, though, not as a typical earthly general, but as a baby in a manger, he lived a life of poverty and homelessness, and was beaten, condemned, and executed – not just as a criminal, but as the lowest of the low, as the scum and off-scouring of the world. He took the form of a slave, the foreskin of the world.

If you had seen him, you also would  have despised him. You would have built walls to keep him out. “He’s not our kind of people.”

But in his moment of sinking to the lowest depth of powerlessness and weakness, when he died on that cross – something happened – the head of the serpent was crushed, the devil was cast out of heaven, and the war was finished. The devil received the death blow, for Jesus on the cross was not a victim; rather he was the victor. He was the conquering hero.

He was despised and rejected in our place, that we might be loved and accepted by God.

He was bruised for our iniquity and wounded for our transgressions, that we might be acceptable, without blemish and without spot before God and once again walk with our Maker.

And that day will come in perfection, when He will restore what WE threw away.

At the resurrection, the kingdom of God was inaugurated. Even now, Jesus is plundering the kingdom of the devil. Even now he is conquering and to conquer. And – here is the amazing thing – he has invited us to take part in his conquest!

He has united us to himself by the Holy Spirit and has promised us that the day will come when we also will crush the head of the serpent.

But now we still live between the two worlds– the world of the flesh and our sinful lusts, and the world of perfection when we have finally put off this body of sin.

We still are prone to use the currency of the kingdom of the devil – we still automatically think that our help and safety will come from power and control, domination and lust, conquest, winning at any cost.

But these things will never advance the kingdom of God. The kingdom of God comes only one way – the way that it did with our conquering king – through suffering, weakness, service, love – and humility.

3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.1

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:

10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;

11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phi 2:3-11 KJV)

Our example is Christ, who won the victory not by domination and control, but by love and service. In obedience to God he suffered and died, and the serpent’s head was crushed. And now he calls us to that same obedience. Don’t exalt yourself. Remember what Christ has done for you.

Anything other than that will tear apart what God has joined together.

So Jesus says to us that God joined us together, which is a wonderful thing; but it includes a warning. Don’t tear apart what God joined.

Which kingdom will you serve? One promises the easy way – but will end up in death and hell. Which kingdom will be served in your home? Hatred and strife? Or love and service?

By faith in Jesus Christ we belong to Him. Your marriage will be as strong as your faith in Christ. Every failure in marriage is a failure of faith.

But by faith, by trusting in his promises and looking to his hand alone for every good thing, he will guard and keep your soul.

You never have to settle for normal. Normal is bad. The saddest thing to me is when people say, “How’s your marriage?”

And the answer is “normal. We have a normal marriage.”

That’s not a goal! Strive for redeemed marriage.

But this can only be done by faith in Christ, who has redeemed us from the bondage of the devil.

In a few moments you will both vow to love one another. How does one do this when our default setting is hatred? Only through the gospel – learning to love the Lord Jesus.

Only when you learn to love the Lord Jesus can you learn to love each other. I know that is perhaps shocking – but it is nonetheless true. Unbelievers can fall in love, they can be attracted, they can even love how someone makes them feel – but they cannot truly love a person  until they learn how to love Jesus.

Joe, you can love how Rachel makes you feel. You can love what you think she is like. But you cannot love HER until you learn how to love the Lord Jesus.

Rachel, you can love how Joe makes you feel inside. You can love what you think HE is like. But you cannot love Joe until you learn how to love the Lord Jesus.

Things aren’t the same as they were when they were created because now sin and shame are in the world, and those ugly things will start to creep in. And if you haven’t learned to love the Lord Jesus, you will find yourself saying – “That woman that YOU gave me…!”

But the more you love Jesus, the more you will love each other. The more you won’t fear knowing one another, and actually being known. Because you know that nothing can take you from the love of God, you don’t have to be afraid anymore.

God has given each of you a tremendous gift and you are now entering a new era of warfare. Remember, that in this life we are at war – we are crushing the head of the serpent. And now, instead of going at it alone, you are two warriors, joined together by God as one flesh. Two conquering heroes united as one. Do battle together.

What does that mean? Learn to love Jesus. And when you do, you will learn to take the lower place, you will learn to serve one another. You will learn more and more to die to yourselves.

A warrior ready to die is undefeatable. Take up your crosses and strike the blow on the kingdom of the devil!

And do not neglect the church. This is where Christ’s warriors are equipped. This is where you learn to love the Lord Jesus.

Count yourself as dead in Christ daily – that you might live in service to God and to one another as he has commanded. This is how to keep the vow. It isn’t drudgery; it isn’t hard work. It isn’t difficult. Jesus said, my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

Learn to love him, and then you will love each other, for God has joined you together, and called it very good. Instead of tearing what God calls good apart, put on your combat boots together, and crush the serpent’s head together.

2 Comments

Filed under Marriage

Does the cross glorify passive acquiescence to violence?

From Donald MacLeod, Christ Crucified.

But if the cross does not quite glorify violence, does it not glorify passive acquiescence in violence? This is a serious issue, particularly if it can be shown that part of the message of Calvary is that victims of abuse should endure it silently, soak up the pain, offer no resistance and demand no justice.  The charge gains plausibility from the fact that too many Christian men have seen meekness as a distinctive feminine virtue and quiet submission as the crowning glory of womanhood, and too many Christian women have accepted this role definition. Even where they have not been abused and violated, they have taken it for granted that they exist to serve their husbands and children, and should sacrifice their own personal fulfillment to those objects.

The cross certainly commends non-violence and non-resistance to the extent that it portrays Christ as one who went like a lamb to the slaughter and who suffered without any threat of retaliation (Isa. 53:7; 1 Pet. 2:23). This fits in with the great kenotic perspective which Paul describes in Philippians 2:6-11. Far from insisting on divine rights, Christ made himself a no-person, devoid of rights, and there can be no doubt that the apostle lays this down as the paradigm for all believers. But that is precisely the point. It is the paradigm for ALL believers, above all for the powerful, who must renounce their own rights and strive for the rights of others. No man who takes the cross as his paradigm can make it an excuse for demanding that women acquiesce under his authority and submit to servility and abuse. Christ has exactly the same destiny in mind for the woman as for the man, and in the meantime, each of us, male and female, is called to do everything in our power to encourage the other in his or her journey towards that destiny. At the foot of the cross, the husband is bound to subordinate his own interests to those of the wife no less than she is bound to subordinate hers to those of her husband. It is patriarchy, not the doctrine of atonement, that needs to be redeemed. (Page 192-193)

When asked for the secret of a happy marriage, the answer is the same as the secret to a blessed and happy life. “Take up your cross, and follow Jesus.” I would add that the responsibility to put to death our old nature belongs to every Christian, as MacLeod so admirably teaches. But it is doubly laid upon the husband when Paul also writes, “Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself for her.”

Perhaps it is because God knows our pride and our demands and our desire to be kings in our homes that He commands us twice: first as Christians, “Let this mind be in you that was also in Christ Jesus;” and second as husbands, “Love your wives, as Christ loved the church.”

It is time to put to death our lusts for power, and put on the love of Jesus in service to our families.

4 Comments

Filed under Love, Marriage, Patriarchy

Whom Will You Serve?

8 Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;
9 And saith unto him, All these things will I give thee, if thou wilt fall down and worship me.
10 Then saith Jesus unto him, Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.
(Matt. 4:8-10)

When Jesus was born, the angels told Mary that God would give Him the kingdom of His father David.  Jesus came to do the will of His Father in Heaven and He knew that this will would lead Him to the cross.  Only by suffering the death of the cross would He inherit the kingdom through the resurrection from the dead.

The kingdoms of the world had been given into the hand of Satan as a just punishment for sin.  When Adam fell, mankind became slaves of sin and misery and under the bondage of the devil.

If Jesus was to “plunder the kingdom of Satan”, Satan must first be bound (Matt. 12:29-30).  In order for Satan’s kingdom to be plundered, Jesus must deal with sin.  The only way to deal with sin was to go to the cross and suffer the pangs and torments of hell in the place of His people.

But when Jesus was in the wilderness, Satan offered Him another way.  “I will concede every kingdom to you.  You can usher in peace, prosperity, long life and endless joy – just fall down and worship me, and all this will be yours. No cross.  No wrathful God to deal with.  Just me.”

And so it always is.  He offered the same thing to Adam.  He offers the same thing to every believer.  “Just fall down, serve me, and I will give you your heart’s desire.”

“Are you lonely?  Just one night with that girl in the bar”.

“That man that you have your eyes on can make all of your dreams come true.  God is not good.  He won’t bless you.  Reach out.  Serve me.  Everything will be better.”

“Perhaps if you just work a bit harder; submit a bit more; make sure dinner is on time – then you can have the home of your dreams.  Your husband is angry and stressed.  Make things easier on him and you can have all you want.  Serve a little harder.  Try a little more.  Work a little longer.”

And how often do we forget that God alone is the fountain of all good.

17 Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (Jam 1:17 KJV)

We reach out to people or to things or to ideas in order to ease the pain of a cursed world, and forget that Jesus already paid it all.  He alone can salve this broken and contrite heart.  He alone can take away the curse.

But the devil and his children will always offer another way.  “Just serve me a bit better, a bit more; just work harder, and you can have whatever you dream of.”

But whatever you do, and whatever you say, and however hard you work, you will never attain it.  It’s a lie.  It’s a lie because the devil is a murderer and a liar and his children follow in his footsteps.

They can’t give you eternal life.  They can’t give you peace.  They can’t even give you food and drink.  They can never ease the loneliness and the heartache of living in a sinful world.  But they can enslave you to a life of “work harder; do better; submit more; don’t make me mad – you know how my temper is!”

If this sounds like your life,  please remember what Jesus said to the tempter.  “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve.”

Wow.  Astounding words! He will do good to all men.  He will willingly wash feet.  He will take the lowest form and die the death of a criminal.  He will do good deeds of love and mercy and truth.  He will become servant to all and call us to do the same thing.

But He will never, ever worship anything or anyone other than the One True God who has revealed Himself in His word.

As redeemed men and women, we have the glorious calling of reflecting Christ’s glory – of being transformed into His glorious image.  We have the Holy Spirit.  God calls us the apple of His eye!

When the devil and his children give this promise, “I will give you what you want if you will only serve me,” remember where it comes from.  That which comes from God is pure and peaceable, brings joy and reconciliation, and gladdens the heart.  the promise of the devil brings shame and guilt and bondage.  There are always strings attached to every promise of an evil man.

You shall worship the Lord Your God, and Him alone shall you serve.

But there’s more.  Jesus commanded Satan to depart.  Satan and his children will never settle for anything less than worship. They will continue to hound, berate, revile and reproach you until you are finally grovelling at their feet – but even then, they will not be satisfied.

There is only one thing to do with this:  Cast him out.  Get out!  I will worship God alone.

I will serve God in my marriage by seeking my spouse’s good; by taking the lower place and joyfully doing what God has called me to.  I will joyfully give up my rights and even my life if that is what God calls me to.  But I will never, ever, worship and serve the creature.  I will worship and serve God alone and expect good only from His hand.  If my marriage has been irretrievably broken by the wicked actions of my spouse, I will pursue divorce; but I will no longer submit to the demands of the wicked one to bow and serve and worship the creature rather than the Creator.

I will not grovel at the feet of a scoffer and reviler hoping for some crumbs of peace to fall.

I will not serve a son of Belial in the desperate hope for a smile from the sneering face.

I will not seek from the creature what only the Creator can give.  I will seek reconciliation; I will seek forgiveness; I will seek peace, but if they are for war, I will withdraw and plead my case to the Almighty.  But I will never worship the creature.

Only the Creator can give me peace.  It will never come from the lies of the devil.  Jesus has freed me from the bondage of sin and misery.  He has made me an heir to eternal life!

I can’t earn it.  I can’t work harder and get it.  It’s the devil that tells me to work more, be better, grovel more, abuse my body more.  Jesus’ love is sanctifying, cleansing, unearned, complete and infinite.

Husbands, if you are withholding love and tenderness and honor from your wife until she works harder, submits more and learns her place, ask yourself who you most resemble.  Is this the picture of Christ, who loved the church and gave Himself for her?  Or is it the picture of Satan who said, “All this I will give you, if you only fall down and worship me.”

Perhaps this is why Paul said that a reviler (one who uses abusive and vicious speech to belittle and intimidate others) will never inherit the kingdom of heaven (I Cor. 6:9).  Nothing can be further from the beauty and love of Jesus than a reviler.  A reviler says, “Worship me, and I will give you rest.”  But the reviler is the one causing the unrest!  So not only is he a reviler, he is also an extortioner.  How can he inherit the kingdom of heaven unless he repents and becomes something else?

But Jesus actually gives rest.  He takes away sin and shame, doesn’t use it to control and manipulate.  He covers our ugliness and bitterness with His perfect righteousness.  He gives us a new heart and a new spirit so that we can become more and more like him.

So we can say with confidence, “I will do good to all whom God has placed in my path.  But I will worship and serve God alone.”

6 Comments

Filed under Abuse, Gospel, Hope, Marriage

Are Women Human?

I admit that this title is not original with me.  I borrowed it from a justly famous essay by Dorothy Sayers.  As the title suggests, she asks an important question.  At first glance, it seems like a trivial question.  But the more I think about it, the more I realize that we get the wrong answer most of the time.

I was in a bookstore the other day.  I had a gift certificate so I figured that perhaps I could finally pick up this Sayers essay that I have been wanting to read.  I asked the young lady at the counter if she had it.

She was your standard brainwashed college student who has been carefully groomed not to think for herself. I have before inquired about several conservative titles and she tended to avoid me with contempt as a privileged, white, misogynist male.

She said, “Women are human, by the way…”, with contempt dripping from her lips.

I responded, “Sayers was a champion for women’s rights in the early 20th century and one of the first few women to graduate from Oxford.”

She muttered, as she searched for the book in her computer, “She would have been appalled at the Supreme Court decision this past week,” referring to the well-publicized Hobby Lobby case.

At that point, I realized that I was dealing with a person who was unaccustomed to thinking her own thoughts.  Or, as Sayers would put it, one who was not living as if she were fully human.

She writes,

What is repugnant to every human being is to be reckoned always as a member of a class and not as an individual person….What is unreasonable and irritating is to assume that all one’s tastes and preferences have to be conditioned by the class to which one belongs.  This has been the very common error into which men have frequently fallen about women – and it is the error into which feminist women are, perhaps, a little inclined to fall about themselves.

Sayers was prophetic, as my exchange at the bookstore illustrated.  “Because she is a woman, she also agrees that women are incapable of making moral choices, but are simply animals with a need to rut in the streets like everyone else.  Being animals, they cannot be expected to make their own decisions, provide for themselves, or live with the consequences of their actions.  She therefore, being a woman, would assume that a court decision forbidding the government from forcing rich white males into providing abortion services free of charge is by its very nature an attack against women.”

“Since they are not human, they cannot be expected to resist their urges to mate freely with the alpha male, and must be kept and provided for by their masters – the rich, white males of Hobby Lobby.  But Hobby Lobby believes that women are human beings and don’t need to be stabled and kept, so they must be destroyed.”

But the only way that this logic follows is if women are not really human beings, but are rather animals that exist to gratify the lusts of men – unchoosing, unfeeling, and unfettered by moral restraint.

Rich white privileged professors have indeed been successful in grooming our daughters into a life of sexual slavery, all under the guise of “women’s rights.”  And they are incensed when anyone calls them on it – when anyone suggests that perhaps their daughters are in fact, human beings, created in God’s image, designed by God Himself to live with Him in eternal blessedness, reflecting His glory forever.

They sneer with contempt at those young women who insist on being treated as image-bearers, demanding covenant promises and faithfulness, desiring respect and honor, before uniting in a bond of love, intimacy and the joy of marriage.

They are terrified that perhaps the objects of their lusts have these old-fashioned morals based upon an old-fashioned book that demands that women be treated as human beings, rather than animals.

So they have made an all-out effort to remove any notion of humanity from our sexuality, grooming our daughters while we pay more and more tuition dollars for the privilege.

 

I read that essay a while back and have been thinking about it.

While I was thinking about it, I dusted off a book from my shelf called “Reforming Marriage” by Douglas Wilson.  I read it and wondered when we were going to get this right.  Wilson, in seeking to “combat feminism” makes the same assumptions about women as the bookstore employee.  Women aren’t really fully human, but were designed by God to be dominated by men.

He quotes Genesis 5:1-2.

This is the book of the genealogy of Adam. In the day that God created man, He made him in the likeness of God.

He created them male and female, and blessed them and called them Mankind in the day they were created.

Then he writes,

In Hebrew, the …word translated mankind is Adam.  In other words, God created Adam and his wife male and female, He blessed them and called them Adam.  She was, from the beginning, a covenantal partaker in the name of her husband.  God does not call her Adam on her own.  He calls her Adam with him (Reforming Marriage, page 15)

I have often said that if we are not right about Genesis One, we will be wrong on everything else.  This topic is no exception.  Wilson acknowledges on the next page (Page 17) that Adam is a generic term for man or mankind.  In this, he is absolutely correct.  Not only is the word “Adam” the proper name for the first male of the species, it is also the term for humanity in general.  From this, it is apparent that Wilson is teaching that apart from the male, the female has no humanity of her own.  “God does not call her Adam on her own.”

Wow.  This is not only poor anthropology, it is also horrible exegesis.  It does not follow that since Adam means humanity, that it must mean humanity every time that it is used.  Nor does it follow that since Adam is the proper name for the first male of the species, that it means this proper name every time it is used.  Ultimately, context must come in to it.  Wilson changes the meaning of the word midstream through his argument, switching back and forth between the two different meanings of the word Adam.

Wilson is using this argument to give biblical justification for the wife taking her husband’s name, but he reads into the text that which isn’t there, interpreting the text to mean the opposite of what it actually means.  It is one thing to say that God calls the woman “human”.  It is quite another to say that God calls her Adam because she derives her humanity only through him.

Moses’ point is this.  God called the male of the species and the female of the species both human.

As human beings they were in God’s image directly.  As humans they were directly accountable to God, joint-heirs of the promise.  As humans, they had minds, will, thoughts, feelings, desires and longings.

And not just the male.  The male AND the female.

Moses is teaching here that women are indeed fully human, in every sense of the term.

In fact, the first time that females are mentioned, they are mentioned in this context, from Genesis One:

26 Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.”

27 So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.

28 Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

It cannot be avoided.  The dominion mandate is given to BOTH the man and the woman, from the very beginning.  Wilson avoids this by simply not mentioning it.  He writes,

In addition to taking care of the Garden of Eden, Adam was also to multiply and replenish the earth.  There was an obvious need for a helper as he could not multiply the species all by himself. The task assigned to him was that of exercising dominion over the earth; in order to accomplish this task many descendants were needed (Page 29).

Dominion, to Wilson, was given to the man.  The woman was to be his helper by bearing descendants.  Women are not fully human.  The dominion mandate is not given to them apart from their husbands.  They have no gifts nor abilities nor strengths other than those given for the purpose of bearing and raising children.  If they are in heaven, they will also be subservient to the men there, for this is God’s created order.

But this is not what the text in Genesis actually says.  The female is a human being, in every sense of the term.  As a human being, she also is fallen in Adam and redeemed in Christ.  She is a member of Christ and a partaker of His anointing. Her humanity is not mediated through her husband and neither is her justification and sanctification.  She also is complete in Christ, and must therefore take heed to these words:

18 Let no one cheat you of your reward, taking delight in false humility and worship of angels, intruding into those things which he has not seen, vainly puffed up by his fleshly mind,

19 and not holding fast to the Head, from whom all the body, nourished and knit together by joints and ligaments, grows with the increase that is from God. (Col. 2:18-19)

Paul’s entire point in this epistle is that Christians are redeemed by Christ alone.  He alone is the mediator and savior of the world.  False teachers will seek to drive Christians from Christ by offering other mediators – in this case, angels.  Rome offers their priests, but Wilson offers the husband as the mediator of sanctification.  Both take away from the humanity of the Savior as well as the humanity of the “lesser” people of God.  Both are denials of Christ.

When a woman takes a husband, she is to submit to him in the Lord.  But this isn’t what Wilson teaches.  He teaches that women as a class are created a little less human, with their humanity mediated through men.

When we are wrong in Genesis One, we are wrong everywhere.  Wilson’s poor theology leads to the following advice from Wilson:

“The first time the dishes are not done, he must sit down with his wife immediately, and gently remind her that this is something which has to be done. At no time may he lose his temper, badger her, call her names, etc. He must constantly remember and confess that she is not the problem, he is. By bringing this gently to her attention, he is not to be primarily pointing to her need to repent; rather, he is exhibiting the fruit of his repentance.

“He does this, without rancour and without an accusative spirit, until she complies or rebels. If she complies, he must move up one step, now requiring that another of her duties be done. If she rebels, he must call the elders of the church and ask them for a pastoral visit. When the government of the home has failed to such an extent, and a godly and consistent attempt by the husband to restore the situation has broken down, then the involvement of the elders is fully appropriate.”

At best, she is a recalcitrant child.  At worst, she is inhuman, and incapable of wanting to keep an orderly home all on her own, or perhaps even having a “less than neat” personality.  She cannot be renewed by the Holy Spirit, but her husband must show her (gently, of course) how a Christian home really should be.  She cannot possibly have a reason to not have dishes done.  She, of course, is not allowed to think that maybe it would be OK for the dishes to sit on the sink until tomorrow.  She must think as her class tells her to think. She is not allowed to be tired, irritated, exhausted, discouraged, lonely or worn down.  She is not human.  She is an appendage of the man, made only to be dominated by his whims and desires – gently, of course.

Wilson writes, “(God) created us as male and female in such a way as to ensure that men will always be dominant in marriage.” (Page 24)

But you know something?  Women and men both have all different types of personalities, likes, dislikes, styles.  They are sloppy or neat, obsessively clean or obsessively unorganized.  Some women like trucks and some men like to design clothes. Some women like Aristotle; some men like to Pinterest.  To be human is to be an individual, accountable to God alone, free from bondage and tyranny. There is a difference between mutual, loving order and dominance and subjugation.  The world has “50 Shades of Grey”; the church has “Reforming Marriage”.  Neither are biblical.  The desire of fallen man is to rule over his wife.  But this is the curse.  And Christ did away with the curse.

I guarantee that if a man called the elders of our church to his house to explain to his wife how to be faster at doing dishes that he would end up with a far different conversation than the one Wilson imagines.

It is at once terrifying and exhilarating to be married to a human.  The reason that God took Eve from the side of Adam was not because Adam would always be dominant, but that Eve would be fully human, of one blood with Adam.  Just like him in every way, but female. The creation mandate was given to them both – male and female.  Moses couldn’t have said it more often or more clearly.

God could have made something else to clean Adam’s dishes, bear his children and serve his whims.  But it wouldn’t have been good for Adam.

So God made a woman. Adam could only love a woman.  You can be aroused by all sorts of things.  You can get a machine to do the dishes in a timely way.  You can get a television to talk to you at night. You can get a snuggle pillow to hug at night.  A donkey can carry bags and a monkey can be fun.

But you can only love a woman.  In order to love a woman, you have to see how she sees.  Understand what she is feeling.  Know her dreams and desires and goals.  Know what she fears and what she longs for.

These attributes only apply to humans.  If your wife isn’t really human, just part of a class, you can use her to your destruction; but you can’t love her.

Fallen man thinks that they want a chef in the kitchen, Martha Stewart in the home, and a hooker in the bedroom.  God says otherwise.  He says, “He who finds a wife finds a good thing.”

2 Comments

Filed under Marriage

God’s grace an excuse for cruelty??

A pastor’s primary function is to preach and teach God’s word to the sheep that Jesus has placed in his care.  In order to do this effectively, he must be a lover of language. He must become a master of communication.  Not, indeed, the language of the world wielded by the manipulators of rhetoric, but as a steward of the treasure that God has placed in his care.  The ungodly man uses language to manipulate people, to get people to act in a way that he wishes them to act.  As Christians, however, we must learn how to use language in order to convey truth clearly and effectively.  But unfortunately, pastors frequently become manipulators of people instead of preachers of truth.

To be a God-pleasing preacher of truth, a pastor must understand two things:

First, he must understand what God teaches in His word.  Good seminaries drill this into the heads of their students with original language classes, systematics, apologetics, Old and New Testament survey classes, exegesis classes, and other offerings.

But unfortunately this is not enough.  A man may be an expert in the meaning and theology of the scripture and be completely unable to communicate that effectively, for he has not yet understood the English language.  Through poor choices of words, truth is skewered and equity is fallen in the streets.

So the second thing that a pastor must understand in order to communicate God’s word effectively is how the English language works and how to put the truth of God’s word into accurate language to be understood clearly by his audience.  The goal in communicating truth is to speak in such a way that the ideas in the speaker’s head are transferred to the mind of the hearer with as little loss as possible.  We may think that we are communicating one thing, when in fact our hearers hear something else entirely.  If pastors do not understand this, their work will be ineffective at best and outright harmful to the soul at worst.

A word in any language may have different nuances or even different meanings altogether depending upon the context of the word.

Take the word “love”.  I saw a car with two bumper stickers.  One said, “I love my Golden Retriever.” The other said, “I love Jesus.”    Same car; same bumper.

What the owner of the car was attempting to communicate was lost to me.  Two abstract thoughts, one referring to the affection that a man feels for his dog, and the other a religious affection for our Lord and Savior, were both denotated by the same word: “love”.  Two thoughts.  One word.

At the very least, I would hope that in the mind of the car owner these were two separate ideas.  But perhaps he meant that his love for his dog was exactly identical (univocal) to the love that he has for Jesus, in which case we would have to charge him with polytheism, in the same way that you would charge a man with bestiality for loving his dog and loving his wife univocally.

For those who may think that I am splitting hairs, or using ridiculous examples, I would like to remind you that we are currently inundated with predators and pedophiles who use the same techniques to cover their horrendous and vile actions.  I take great offence at the North American Man/Boy Love
Association for using the word “love” to describe their filthy lusts, hoping that our refusal to analyze language will give them a pass.  But do not be deceived.  What they mean by “love” and what I mean by “love” are two different things entirely.

A recent blog, A Christian Wife’s Marriage Catechism  commits a similar error, with similar deadly consequences for the truth of the Gospel.

You can find some excellent refutations here.

I have much to say.  But I will limit my comments to only one question of this catechism:

Q11.    How good a husband is my husband to me?

A11.    Much better than I deserve, and therefore I will thank God for him every day.

Here the writer makes a deadly error.  Here we see the error of using a word with several different meanings as if it only had one meaning.  Let me illustrate:

What he is saying in effect is this:  Because I deserve eternal punishment in hell for my sins, it follows that I deserve to take whatever injustice and abuse that my husband wishes to dish out to me.

But does this follow, or is it possible that the English word “deserve” has different meanings depending on the context?

In Shakespeare’s great tragedy Hamlet, Hamlet the Prince asks Polonius to take the newly arrived actors to their accommodations and make sure they had what they needed for their comfort.  Polonius replied, “I will treat them according to their desert.”

Hamlet replied, “God’s bodkin, man, much better!  Treat every man according to his desert and who shall ‘scape whipping?”

Hamlet has made the same error.  Polonius was merely speaking of giving them the accommodations and amenities that their station and their labors warranted.  Hamlet then replied, swearing by the bodkin, or dagger, of God, referring to their standing as sinners before the Throne of God. But the desert of the actors at the hands of Polonius and the desert of the actors at the hands of God are two different things!

Are we to believe that since no one has ever earned any favor from God whatsoever, but has received every good thing by grace alone that it would therefore follow that my boss can withhold my paycheck from me, since I deserve far worse?

If the blogger in question would be consistent with his univocal use of the word “deserve”, we would expect the following exchange:  “My employer has robbed me of my wages.  What should I do?”

Answer, “Rejoice that you have received far more than you deserve and continue to work for him with a meek and quiet spirit.  Don’t make a fuss.”

Take it one step further:  “My family was slaughtered by a wicked man.”

Answer: “It was better than they deserved.  Let it go, and don’t make a fuss.  No need to involve the police.”

It is indeed true that God’s mercy can never be earned – or deserved.  We increase our guilt daily before God.  We are fallen sinners.  Unless we are born again, we deserve nothing but eternal wrath and damnation.  This is taught clearly throughout Scripture.

(Eph 2:8-9 KJV)  8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:  9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.

But this is speaking of our standing before the Judgment Throne of God.  It does not follow that we therefore deserve to be treated with cruelty, hatred and dishonor by wicked men.

If the grace of God can be used to justify injustice and cruelty, then words no longer have any meaning.

From the hand of God we always and continually receive far more that we can ever merit or “deserve”, for even the best works in this life are all polluted by sin.

Does it then follow that we do not deserve kindness, love, respect and honor from our fellow man?  Not according to the Bible.

Consider the following passage:

(Rom 13:7-8 KJV)  7 Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. 8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

God teaches here that there are those who deserve our taxes, our honor, and our tribute.  But then in verse 8, he carries the argument further:  We owe all men love.  Not the love of the world, but love defined by the law of God.

For a husband, we owe our wives the same love with which Christ loved his church.  Does she earn it?  Of course not.  But does she deserve it?  She certainly does.

In another place, Paul teaches that husbands and wives are both owed benevolence – they deserve it because they are husband and wife:

1 Corinthians 7:3 Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.

If it were not possible to treat our wives worse than they deserve, as this blog implies, then it would not be possible to defraud your wife, and Paul’s command would make no sense (1 Cor. 7:5).  Paul’s argument depends upon the Biblical truth that a husband owes his wife benevolence (favor, good-will, sexual intimacy).  To put it passively, she deserves it because she is his wife.  To withhold those things is to defraud her – or to treat her less than she deserves – directly contrary to the statement made by this blogger.

To the beloved daughters of God, do not allow your husband to treat you less than you deserve as his wife.  On the same token, do not treat your husband less than he deserves as your husband.  God requires equity in our dealings, not fuzzy appeals to misunderstood grace.

Equity means that we treat others fairly, or as they deserve.  Fulfill those obligations and remember that you have a right to expect the same in all of your relationships.  This is what a covenant of marriage is.  We are in a covenant and there are covenant obligations.  A husband owes his wife the fulfillment of his vows, and she deserves that fulfillment, because she is his wife.

If I make a contract, the other party deserves for me to fulfill my end.  Why is marriage any different?

Let us exegete scripture correctly, lest we become prey for the devil, and expose ourselves to the abuses of wicked men.

To affirm the covenant of marriage is to affirm the obligations of that covenant.  The husband deserves for the wife to fulfill her vow, and the wife deserves for the husband to fulfill his vow.  Neither party deserves to be treated with abuse, cruelty, violence and hatred.

The Bible also teaches that a husband or a wife can behave in such a monstrous way that they ultimately forfeit the benefits of this covenant, but that is another post for another time.

I have much more to say, but I have wearied the reader enough for the day.

10 Comments

Filed under Abuse

To the one about to marry my daughter

Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;(Eph 5:25 KJG)

Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered. (1Pe 3:7 KJG)

There is a growing problem among young men today.  Pornography is so available that a large majority of men are not able to love a real woman, even physically. A young woman is simply an object, whose sole purpose of existing is to cater to a man’s whims and moods. A real woman is to be understood and loved, and this is too much to ask for today’s young man.

It is easier to drop out of reality, turn on the screen and love a fantasy, which is simply another word for loving yourself.

This is not love.

Men have become perpetual children, demanding and petulant.  A woman is seen as an impersonal collection of various body parts, designed to be used until she has no more to give – and then discarded.

A child demands sex; a man longs for intimacy. A child refuses to give anything; a man gives his heart.

So the streets and the clubs and the bars are filled with children, demanding satisfaction, searching for their next toy to use and destroy.

Some young men seek marriage, but are unwilling to give their heart.  They play with a woman’s heart until they “find the right one” and then they inadvertently “fall in love” – Cupid’s next victims.  But a victim of Cupid is a victim, not a man.  He was not man enough to choose a wife; he was not man enough to love the one he chose.  He simply allowed the currents of desire to carry him this way and that. He falls in love.  He falls out of love.  He leaves behind him the wreckage of broken and hurting young women who were naïve enough to believe him when he said, “I love you”.

This also is not love.

 

The question that I have for you is this: Are you man enough to love a woman?

Are you man enough to love your wife as Christ loved the church?

Are you man enough to live with her with understanding; or do you simply wish to never be inconvenienced, smashing the vessel of her heart on the floor like a cantankerous child?

Are you strong enough to protect her heart? To never do anything that would damage her reputation?

Would you rather die yourself than do the least thing to damage the soul of the one you love?

Are you strong enough to ask forgiveness? Courageous enough to call her lovingly to repentance?

Are you bold enough to reconcile?

Are you man enough to turn off the television and listen to her?

Do you understand her fears, her desires, her longings? Do you have the courage to hear her?

Do you have the courage to open up your heart to her?

Do you have the courage to talk to her about your fears, your desires and your longings?

Do you have the courage to admit that it is not good for you to be alone?

 

A child desires a mother.  A man seeks a wife.

A mother is a tremendous blessing for a child.  She nurtures, feeds, cleans, bathes and provides for the child’s every need.

But a mother is not a wife.

Are you man enough to leave your mother and your father and cleave to your wife?

It is a great calling – but most are not strong enough, courageous enough or man enough to take a wife.

It is easier to turn on the computer and fantasize about pixels of ink, rather than love a woman, so most choose the fantasy.

They do not know that it is for their life.

 

But a woman wants a man.

A man is strong enough to give himself for his wife. He demands nothing; gives everything.

He is man enough to make her place in his heart safe; he is man enough to win her heart and trustworthy enough to keep it.

He is courageous enough to hear the question “What are you thinking?” and actually understand it and answer it.

He is courageous enough to hold her in his arms and wipe away her tears.

He is man enough to see when she is at her end, and cook a meal, do the dishes, watch the kids, clean the house and still have enough left to hold her and pray for her and know the right things to say.

He is man enough to at least try to understand her, without resentment, bitterness, impatience or rage. If he is a man, the understanding will come in time.

He is man enough to forsake all others and cleave unto his wife.

He doesn’t whine and complain when there is dust on the windowsill or dinner is late – these are the actions of a child, not a man.

He has nothing to prove; he will not hide behind a façade of bluster and words; he never has to be the “man of the house” nor the “king of the castle”.

He is strong enough to take the lowest place; be the servant of all; wash the dirty feet himself.

For he is man enough to know that being a leader doesn’t mean being the boss.

A child tells everyone what to do.  A man leads the way by being the servant of all.

 

A man is strong enough to set his wife as a seal upon his heart, as a seal upon his arm:

For a man knows that love is strong as death; jealousy is cruel as the grave: the coals thereof are coals of fire, which hath a most vehement flame. (Sol 8:6)

A man is strong enough to keep the flame going; bold enough to never play with a woman’s heart; courageous enough to never use a woman as a toy to be discarded at whim.

A man is one who trusts the Lord with his whole heart. He therefore does not seek proof of his manhood on the earth, for it is safe with his Lord.

The man who trusts the Lord is ready for a wife; for a man who trusts the Lord has nothing to prove to anyone.

Only then he is ready to love a woman.

2 Comments

June 5, 2014 · 2:24 am

What the husband of a chronically ill wife wants her to know.

My dear wife recently sent me a list of three things that a chronically ill person wants her loved ones to know.  You can access that article here

It is very well done, and puts to words all that you are feeling.

My darling, I know.  I’ve heard you.  I understand.

I also want you to know that there are three things that a husband of a chronically ill wife wants her to know:

  1. I want you to know that your value to me is not connected to how many chores you can accomplish.

I don’t love you because you do stuff.  I don’t value you because of your efficient shopping and laundry skills.  I know you have them; I brag about them.  I know that you long with your whole heart to be healthy enough to do chores; and I admire you for that.

But I don’t love you for what you do; I love you because of who you are.  I love you because God has joined us together and my life would be black and white without you in it.  I love you because you are a daughter of God and with your whole life you point me to the beautiful Savior.  I love you because we have something quite special: in our union we picture Christ and the church!  In our relationship, we are something far greater than simply two people who share chores.  We are one flesh, linked together by covenant as Christ is forever united to His church.

I love you because you are my half of the orange; my flesh and my bones.  When you hurt, I hurt.  When you grieve, I grieve with you.

When all you can do is reach out when we are sitting together and touch my hand, the universe moves.  It may seem small, but worlds pass between us.  You aren’t a maid, a laundress, a schoolmarm – you are my wife.  Your touch moves my world.

  1. I want you to know that life consists of more than activity.

I don’t dream of the next party, the next activity, the next thing.  All of that is nothing if you are not there.  My life is already full of too much activity.  What I dream of is simply sitting with you; talking, watching, praying, thinking.

My life is not full because I do a lot of stuff.  I know that you apologize for not being able to be there, but I’d rather bring a meal to you in your chair than dine without you in the banquet hall of the great ones.

I want you to know that when you are here, I’m not missing out on anything.  You may feel useless and a drain on us all, but you have no idea how much we all lean on you.  You are our stability, our home, our comfort.

  1. I want you to know that I wouldn’t have it any other way.

I say this – even though I grieve with you; even though I pray and long for your health and strength; even though I do get weary and overwhelmed sometimes.  But what it all comes down to is this: When I vowed “in sickness and in health” I wasn’t just saying words.  I know that health and sickness only come from the hand of God, and that He is good.

I know that all things must work together for our salvation.  I know that He has linked my life to yours, and we are in this together.  We will grieve together; we will pray together.  And if you NEVER recover strength, we will lean on our God together.  And I wouldn’t have it any other way.

It’s you and me.  I’m with you.  That’s where I belong.  Let’s do this thing together.

“Set me as a seal upon your heart, As a seal upon your arm; For love is as strong as death, Jealousy as cruel as the grave; Its flames are flames of fire, A most vehement flame. Many waters cannot quench love, Nor can the floods drown it. If a man would give for love All the wealth of his house, It would be utterly despised” (Sol 8:6-7 NKJ).

 

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized