A Biblical Model For Marriage?

A couple weeks ago in one of my seminary classes someone mentioned a "biblical model for marriage" during a class discussion. This ignited some fireworks amongst the students, but especially amongst the teachers (there are two teachers for this class: a main teacher and a co-teacher). In general, I think their sentiment could be summed up by saying they didn't think there was any evidence for a singular "biblical" model for marriage. The co-teacher said that the "biblical model for marriage" that she saw most prevalently in the Bible was one of polygamy. After all, it seems like everyone in the Old Testament had several wives. This doesn't seem to jibe with the modern Christian belief that marriage is between one man and one woman, so how do we explain that (it should be noted that she said this in somewhat of a flippant manner, to show how supposedly ridiculous it is to suggest that the Bible would actually insist on a particular model for marriage, and to ostracize those who would believe that they have discovered it)? The professor stated that "I can't find a biblical model of marriage that I can get excited about." His sentiment was based on the fact that pretty much every time you can see a marriage in the Bible, it's screwed up: David, Solomon, etc.

But I think this line of thinking is, to say the least, really uninformed, not to mention completely fallacious in its attempt to discount the idea that marriage is designed by God to be between one man and one woman, which, to be sure, was the intention of my teacher(s). Especially the bit about polygamy being the supposed biblical model for marriage. Just because polygamy existed - even amongst the Old Testament saints - does not mean that it was a God-ordained model for marriage. God did not give his "rubber stamp" of approval on those who had many wives. In fact, God said that having many wives would lead to sin and difficulty. So just because many, if not most, of the folks in the Old Testament had several wives, it doesn't mean that God condoned their actions. In fact, coupled with what Jesus says, it would seem that a lot of those OT saints were living in perpetual adultery. Just because people practiced polygamy didn't make it God's "design" for marriage, or even OK.

In Matthew 19 Jesus says that Moses allowed the Israelites to divorce their wives because they had hard hearts. In other words, because they were sinful - prideful, lustful, and selfish. Divorce was not God's ideal for marriage, and it still isn't. It was permitted by Moses, however, because the people were hard hearted. So, using my professor's line of thinking, is God OK with divorce because the Israelites practiced it? No. Does the fact that divorce took place in the Bible nullify an ideal biblical design for marriage? Certainly not. To suggest that it does would be ignorant.

I would argue the same for all deviations from what I believe is the God-ordained plan for marriage: one man and one woman, for as long as they both shall live. Anything other than this, while perhaps culturally acceptable (or is made acceptable by a hard-hearted generation) is not the ideal. This would mean that all of the Old Testament saints that had multiple wives were not following God's ideal design for marriage.

This gets interesting when we look to other cultures, however. In some cultures, women are completely dependent upon men for their livelihood. They won't eat or have anywhere to live unless they are married to a man who is able to provide for them. So, when a woman's husband dies, she may be forced to marry her dead husband's brother or some other relative just so she can survive. So in some cultures, polygamy can be used as a means of providing for the needy and showing compassion. Maybe this was part of the reasoning of the Old Testament saints, as well. I don't know.

But I think we can still say that this is not God's ideal for marriage. Yes, widows are being provided and cared for, and yes, it is a cultural system in which polygamy is used almost as a means of compassion. Does that mean it isn't sin? I don't know. God will judge that. But I believe it still stands that this is not what God intended.

When my professor said he couldn't find a biblical model of marriage that he could "get excited about," based on the screwed up marriages of people like David and Solomon, he similarly lacked perspective about marriage and the people involved in it. David didn't screw up his marriage because God's plan for marriage was flawed. David screwed up his marriage because David was a fallen, sinful human being. Solomon didn't take 700 wives and 300 concubines because God's plan for marriage wasn't good enough. Solomon took all those women because Solomon was selfish, prideful, and lustful. In every case where marriage doesn't "work," the problem is not the institution of marriage - it's the sinful, fallen people in the marriage. The fact that people in the Bible screwed up their marriages doesn't prove that God's design for marriage was/is wrong. It only proves that the people in the marriage were sinful people!

We need to also note that for all the ways that people can goof up or not follow God's design for marriage, there are an equal number of ways to bring about forgiveness and restoration to marriage and to the lives of the people involved. There is always hope. There is always the opportunity for repentance and forgiveness. And I would also argue that this is part of the genius of God's design for marriage. When people work through the difficulties in marriage in order to conform it more to what God desires for it, it shows the value of the institution.

I'm not claiming to be an expert on what the Bible says about marriage, and God knows that my own hard heart confounds his ideal for my own marriage. But what I do know for sure is that pointing to the polygamy of the Old Testament as proof that God does not have an ideal model for marriage, or that unsuccessful marriages show that God's design is flawed, are arguments that lack serious historical and biblical perspective.

A Prayer for Memorial Day

OUR FATHER GOD, as we look back on our nation’s history, we can see that your hand has been upon us and has provided us the blessings of life and liberty. This is no more evident than when we think of those who have given their lives fighting to preserve the freedom that you have given us.

We thank you, O God, that you used the lives of men and women to preserve our freedom – even to the point of death. May we not forget their sacrifice and your goodness.

Thank you, O Lord, for the ones who have died to protect our freedom here. And thank you even more for your kingdom, which can never be threatened by any enemy.

We long for the day of your righteous judgment, when you shall settle disputes among nations, and when swords will be beaten into plowshares, and spears into pruning hooks; when nation will no longer take up the sword against nation, and when we will no longer train for war.

Until then, may we honor the memory of the fallen, and may we live in the light of your mercy. AMEN.

Where Does the Bible Come From, Dad?

Tonight during our bedtime routine, I was singing the "Matthew 5.8" song from Seeds Family Worship with The Fergeson. I asked him what he thought it meant that, "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God." He didn't know what it meant, which didn't surprise me. So we talked about that a bit. Then I told him that "blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God" is something that Jesus tells us in the Bible.

Then he asked, "Where does the Bible come from, Dad?" This caught me a bit off guard, just because it seemed to come out of left field, but I told him that the Bible is God's message to us. He had people write it down so we could read it. "Oh," he said.

Then the next question really caught me off guard: "How is God going to put the Bible in our mailbox?" Huh? In our mailbox? Then it hit me. Earlier tonight I told Jamie that I ordered a new storybook Bible that would be coming in the mail in a few days. He was really excited for it to come so we could read it.

So I told him that we were just waiting for the Bible to arrive at our house but, in a way, God was putting the Bible in our mailbox. No matter how we get it, we get it from God. He seemed OK with that answer. It was pretty cute.

The Strange Tension of Biblical Social Justice

Social justice is a hot-button issue on Christian university campuses, it seems. In both my experiences at Sioux Falls and Bethel seminaries, it would seem that a deep concern for social justice issues is the trend (and I mean that in the purest sense of the word, unfortunately). In my experience over the last several years, most students' ideas of what social justice is usually translates to liberal politics, or as Phil Johnson puts it (at right):

But a little deeper thought about what social justice looks like in scripture should give us a bit of a different perspective. I've been thinking about this issue for a while, mostly because I am faced with it as the popular trend whenever I go to school. Most of my professors seem to feel that social justice concerns are the primary issue the church is facing right now, and specifically that the church, quite frankly, sucks at it (although I've dispelled this myth here and here). My "deeper thoughts" about this topic have centered around two areas: social justice for the world, and social justice for Christians.

First of all, we can certainly affirm that God values social justice. He does not like oppression or inequality, or poverty, or unfair laws, etc. He values freedom, equality, fairness, and charity. This is observable in scripture in a myriad of ways. In Amos 5 God refuses to receive the sacrifices of his people precisely because the rich were walking on the backs of the poor. There was no fairness, no equality. The rich got richer, and the poor got poorer. So because of this, God basically cuts his people off. In Luke 4 Jesus proclaims that he has come to the world to set the captives free, liberate the oppressed, and bring good news to the poor. Even a cursory glimpse of his life and ministry shows how he reached out and ministered to the least of these. John the Baptist instructs those who participated in his baptism (particularly the tax collectors and Roman soldiers) that one of the main behavior modifications that should be present as a result of their repentance is fairness and equity in their dealings with others. To be sure, social justice issues are big deals to God and his people.

Over and above God's valuing of social justice is his command to his people to pursue social justice causes as well. We are to have the same attitude as Jesus, our example, and stand up for the cause of the oppressed and the captive, and those who have been treated unfairly and unjustly. This is where many of my professors and classmates would say the church has dropped the ball (although, again, this is not true). And the typical belief of these folks is that the government needs to pick up where the church left off.

The interesting thing, when it comes to social justice for believers, however, is that it would seem that it is something that we are not supposed to pursue for ourselves. In other words, scripture seems to say that when we are treated unfairly, or are taken advantage of, or are held in inequality, we are not to try to rectify our situation in the same way that we would for those oppressed people of the world. For example, what would Jesus have me do if I, as his follower, were treated unfairly in some way? Would he have me demand fairness for myself? Would he have me stand up for my rights? That's certainly not what Jesus did when he was "oppressed" (to put it lightly). Instead of standing up for his rights, Jesus suffered. He took what was given to him. He didn't fight to be treated fair, or even with justice, and it seems to me that scripture teaches Christians to not demand justice for themselves.

Why not? I think part of the answer is that our satisfaction - our joy - is not found in justice or fairness for ourselves, or our "rights." Rather, our satisfaction and joy are found in God. Therefore, when our rights are trampled on and when we are treated like garbage, and when the wicked flourish while we waste away, we can remain satisfied, knowing that we belong to God.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus famously says that if a person (presumably one of his followers) is struck on the face, he should offer the other cheek as well. What? You mean he shouldn't confront the guy and say, "What gives you the right to treat me so badly? I'm going to report you to the authorities!" Similarly, Jesus says that if someone demands your robe, you should offer him your tunic as well? "Huh? Why? It's my tunic, for crying out loud! The guy isn't entitled to my robe, let alone my tunic!" Jesus also says that if someone asks you to go with him one mile, go with him two. Jesus said this because there was a Roman law that stated a Roman soldier could legally require anyone to carry his armor for up to one Roman mile. Jesus is saying that instead of demanding your rights be respected, and that the Roman soldier had no right to ask you to take his armor for any distance, instead, submit to him and and suffer. That's pretty radical, and it's part of the counter-cultural-ness of being a follower of Jesus. I would even dare to say that part of being a Christian is sacrificing your rights and gladly putting up with unfairness and inequality.

So there's at least some tension between the kind of justice we are to give others, and the kind we are to demand for ourselves. How do we balance standing up for justice for the oppressed and yet not demand it for ourselves? There's a significant line that needs to be walked that, when crossed, could lead to selfishness and pride. It's also an interesting paradox that fits nicely with Jesus' words about the last being first, and that he who would be great must first be the servant of all. Maybe when it comes to social justice issues, the point is that we put ourselves low by not demanding our rights, while standing up for the rights of others.

I've only just begun thinking about this, so sorry if my thoughts are a bit disjointed and hard to follow! At the least, it's given me something to think about and flesh out further as time goes on.

My Translation of the Beatitudes

My translation assignment for this week was Matthew 5.1-12, the Beatitudes. Here's a link to the NASB and ESV if you'd like to compare. The more I'm learning about translation, the more interesting it becomes to read the main English translations of scripture to see how and why they translated the text the way they did. I'm still a beginner at translating Greek, but I think I'm getting better.

And having beheld the crowd, he went up into the mountain, and having sat down, his disciples came to him. And having opened his mouth, he taught them, saying, "Blessed are the poor in spirit, because the kingdom of heaven is theirs. Blessed are the ones who are mourning, because they will be encouraged. Blessed are the meek, because they will inherit the earth. Blessed are the ones who are hungering and thirsting for righteousness, because they will be fed. Blessed are the ones who are merciful, because they will be having mercy. Blessed are the clean in heart, because God will appear to them. Blessed are the peacemakers, because they will be called sons of God. Blessed are the ones having been persecuted on account of righteousness, because the kingdom of heaven is of them. You are blessed when they may reproach and persecute you and say all evil against you, having been liars because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because your wage is great in the kingdom of heaven. For thus they persecuted the prophets before you."