Unbelievable

I think I can just let this story speak for itself. I mean, how can you have a "girlfriend," who not even human? [If he wanted to argue that it was human, that would be a major redefinition of the term.] How can you have a girlfriend who is not even, in fact, a girl? All of this is utter nonsense. It is amazing to me to think that we may not only have gay rights, but we may have to be dealing with a man claiming rights to marry his machine.

All the more reason why God gets to set the standards for relationships and marriage. They are only to be between one man and one woman.

Gay Rights Gone Wild!

If you want to see what happens when you don't have an answer to arguments against your position, and you desperately need to justify your sinful behavior, then listen to this segment of the O'Reilly factor. Yes, the opening images are disturbing, but at least try to stomach it, because what happens next at the church is even worse.

I almost wonder if we may have to get police officers at the door of church buildings in order to have services in the near future! However, this is not the only incedent. Here is another incedent made known to me by Dr. James White's blog:




There you go. Just take a cross, and throw it to the ground, and step on it like a bunch of animals. Then, these people have the audacity to yell "shame on you!" When I heard that, I couldn't help think of the very same passage Dr. White wrote at the end of his blog:

Isaiah 5:20-21 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, those who replace darkness for light, and light for darkness, those who set up bitterness for sweetness, and sweetness for bitterness! 22. Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, who discern in their own sight!

I think it is so providential that this verse is here because of the inability for secularism to account for morality. I mean, if this stuff is right, you might as well throw the Bible into the trash can. Yet, if it is not right, then you do you account for universal, absolute standards? How is it you can make sense out of universals in a universe that is inherently secular and imperical in character? Such is what happens when you are "wise in your own eyes." They know this, and they know that they only way they will get anywhere is by being bullies, and shouting anyone down who disagrees with them. Well, I could get four hundred body builders to shout them down too. Does that somehow prove something? Of course, it proves nothing at all. However, that is what you have to do when you are face to face with your creator day after day doing all kinds of abominations, knowing he exists the whole time, and knowing his wrath is against you for your sin. You have to suppress that knowledge, and that means that anyone who reminds you of that truth will just have to be shut up.

There is a simple solution for this, and that is the homosexuals repent and believe the gospel. However, as is the case with so much of society today, people love their sin more than they love God, and therefore, they will not repent. That is why we need to trust in an all powerful God who takes away the power of sin, frees people from bondage to their sin, and raises them to new life in Christ. Without the power of God to change peoples hearts and minds, we would be lost in this battle against this evil of homosexuality.

Reconsidering Something

(and a few miscellaneous items)

Now that I have had the time to focus on the study of the Hebrew Bible, I have had time to refine my views on certain texts. When you are taking classes in Hebrew Exegesis, and reading several books on the interpretation of the Hebrew Bible, you are going to have the opportunity to refine your position on several things. I figured it would be good to get a post started, and get some feedback.

Upon further study, I am considering another interpretation of Genesis 1:28. As a theonomist and a postmillenialist, I found that it was somewhat of a departure from classic reconstructionist beliefs. To start out, here is my translation of Genesis 1:26-28:

26a. And God said,
26b. "Let us make man in our image,
26c. after our likeness
26d. and let them reign over the fish of the sea,
26e. the birds of the sky,
26f. the beasts,
26g. all the land,
26h. and the insects that crawl on the land.

27a. Then, God created man in his image.
27b. In the image of God he created him.
27c. He created them male and female.

28a. And God blessed them
28b. and said to them,
28c. "Be fruitful,
28d. multiply,
28e. fill the earth
28f. and dominate it,
28g. and reign over the fish of the sea,
28h. the birds of the sky,
28i. and every living thing that creeps upon the earth."

My position is that of Wilhelm Gesenius, the famous Hebrew grammarian, which is articulated in his grammar:

(c) To express a distinct assurance (like our expression, thou shalt have it)² or promise, e.g. Is 65:18 but be ye glad, &c. (i.e. ye will have continually occasion to be glad); and Is 37:30, y Ps 110:2; in a threat, Jer 2:19. So especially in commands, the fulfilment of which is altogether out of the power of the person addressed, e.g. Is 54:14 be far from anxiety (meaning, thou needst not fear any more); Gn 1:28, &c. (for other examples, such as 1 K 22:12, 2 K 5:13, see below, f). Most clearly in the case of the imperative NiphÇal with a passive meaning, e.g. Gn 42:16 Wrs.a†'he ~T,a;w> and ye shall be bound; Dt 32:50, Is 49:9 (Is 45:22, see below, f).

There are many strengths to this perspective. First of all, it fits nicely with the context of God blessing them in 28a, there are other examples where where this combination clearly means a blessing [Genesis 17:20, 28:3, 48:4, Leviticus 26:9, Jeremiah 23:3, Ezekiel 36:11]. Also, it avoids the problems of having to deal with women who are infertile sinning.

However, Reconstructionism has historically taught that this text is one of the reasons why the Church will one day conquer the world through the preaching of the gospel, because God has commanded man to take dominion here in this text. Thus, if we do not take dominion, we are, in fact, going against the commandments of God. Thus, the question is whether or not my interpretation of this passage is consistent with the reconstructionist perspective.

My first thought is to think that I don't really need Genesis 1:28, as we also have the Great Commission. However, what if we took a different interpretation of this passage, one that enabled one to hold that this was a command, that the command is about dominion, and that women who are infertile are not sinning? I think the solution is to consider that this is a command that was originally given to Adam and Eve, but is, by extension, given to humanity in general, and not to every individual within humanity. Thus, humanity in general would be under the obligation to exercise dominion, however, only humanity in general would be under the obligation to "be fruitful and multiply."

The weakness of this position is that it is difficult to reconcile with the afore mentioned information, and is also difficult to reconcile with verse 22. For instance, if humanity does not increase and multiply, then they are engaging in sin. However, we would have to make sense of how it is that animals can sin. However, that is utter nonsense. It is an attractive view, but it is difficult to work out those issues, and make them consistent with the rest of the text.

Now, I also have had time to look carefully at this text, and consider the interpretation of our Mandatory Marriage friends. They would say that this text gives us a command for [almost] everyone to marry and produce offspring. This is also a text used by those who say that it is a sin for people to get married and never have children. However, that view is difficult to reconcile with 28e, as, if the commands to "be fruitful and multiply" are commands which imply that [almost] every human being is to have offspring, then, reading the text consistently, we would also have to say that [almost] every human being is to fill the earth. The reality is that I know of no one involved in this movement who is the father [or mother] of 7 billion children! However, to be consistent, the folks that use this text to say that [almost] everyone must get married and have children or that all married people must have children must be consistent with their interpretation and say that [almost everyone] should have 7 billion children, and everyone who is married must have 7 billion children. That is simply absurd. Yet, it seems like the people involved in this movement want to take one interpretation of the first two imperatives [making them applicable to individuals], and yet make the third imperative applicable to humanity in general. However, that is totally arbitrary. If you read the first two imperatives in a certain way, you have to read the rest of the imperatives in the text in that way as well.

However, it is interesting that the afore mentioned view that I am considering can make sense of this problem. If God commands humanity in general to increase and multiply, he also is commanding humanity in general to fill the earth. Thus, as I said, it is an attractive view, but one I am not ready to jump on just yet.

Also, I happened to go over to Anakin Niceguy's blog, and found that he posted this article today. I clicked on the post he originally wrote, and that can be found here. It is about an article by Thabiti Anyabwile which can be found here. Now, I must say, to be fair, I like the idea of Anyabwile's article. Honoring your parents is something that we don't take seriously anymore. We need to love our father and mother, and, in doing so, we will be obedient to the law of God. However, Anakin rightly was disturbed by this comment:

But biblically, it seems that mature adulthood is defined by marriage and parenthood. In other words, the Bible reserves adult status for those who leave mother and father and cleave to a spouse (Gen. 2:24).

Apparently, Anyabwile has taken the time to reply to Anakin in the comments section of his blog here [his nick is "FellowElder"]. In his response he writes:

1. Pretty spiritual girl, marriage is not merely a "civil institution." It's a creation ordinance. It preceeds every civil organization/government in human history. It's established by God's governance at the beginning of creation. This is why marriage in some form is universal. Which is also why marriage and childrearing are normally associated with adulthood. Gen. 2:24 doesn't explicity state marriage is a marker of adulthood, true. However, the entire creation account establishes marriage and childrearing as typically central to adulthood.

Let us take a look at Genesis 2:24. Again, here is my own translation of the Hebrew text:

24a. Therefore, a man forsakes his father and mother,
24b. cleaves to his wife,
24c. and they become one flesh.

We need to understand what is being said here. The key to the interpretation of this text is the construction "imperfect+!Ke-l[;." This is a relatively common construction in the Pentateuch and the historical books, and thus, we should see how that construction is used in that context. Here are the instances by stems. For those who do not know Hebrew, I will use a bold font to indicate where the text is translating the specific Hebrew phrase:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Qal:

Genesis 32:32 Therefore, to this day the sons of Israel do not eat the sinew of the hip which is on the socket of the thigh, because he touched the socket of Jacob's thigh in the sinew of the hip.

Numbers 21:25-27 Israel took all these cities and Israel lived in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all her villages. 26 For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab and had taken all his land out of his hand, as far as the Arnon. 27 Therefore those who use proverbs say, "Come to Heshbon! Let it be built! So let the city of Sihon be established.

1 Samuel 5:5 Therefore neither the priests of Dagon nor all who enter Dagon's house tread on the threshold of Dagon in Ashdod to this day.

1 Samuel 19:24 He also stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore they say, "Is Saul also among the prophets?"

2 Samuel 5:8 David said on that day, "Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him reach the lame and the blind, who are hated by David's soul, through the water tunnel." Therefore they say, "The blind or the lame shall not come into the house."

Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and his mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh.

Niphal:

Genesis 10:8-9 Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore it is said, "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD."

Numbers 21:13-14 From there they journeyed and camped on the other side of the Arnon, which is in the wilderness that comes out of the border of the Amorites, for the Arnon is the border of Moab, between Moab and the Amorites. 14 Therefore it is said in the Book of the Wars of the LORD, "Waheb in Suphah, And the wadis of the Arnon,

Piel:

2 Samuel 22:47-50 "The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock; And exalted be God, the rock of my salvation, 48 The God who executes vengeance for me, And brings down peoples under me, 49 Who also brings me out from my enemies; You even lift me above those who rise up against me; You rescue me from the violent man. 50 "Therefore I will give thanks to You, O LORD, among the nations, And I will sing praises to Your name.

Hiphil:

2 Samuel 22:47-50 "The LORD lives, and blessed be my rock; And exalted be God, the rock of my salvation, 48 The God who executes vengeance for me, And brings down peoples under me, 49 Who also brings me out from my enemies; You even lift me above those who rise up against me; You rescue me from the violent man. 50 "Therefore I will give thanks to You, O LORD, among the nations, And I will sing praises to Your name.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The first thing we should notice is that the stem does not make much of a difference. The meaning of the phrase is pretty consistent throughout the stems, although the stems of preference for this construction are the Qal and the Niphal. We also need to be careful of not taking into account the context of Genesis 2:24. If we do not, we fall into the fallacy of termus technicus. It seems that, when we examine Genesis 2:24, we find that what is more important is the arrangement by context. Genesis 2:24 comes after a narrative, whereas 2 Samuel 22:50 comes in the context of a Psalm. Thus, while the meaning is similar to the other instances, it is not necessarily parallel to Genesis 2:24.

Now, note the meanings of each of these texts. The construction is telling us that an action happens in the present because of what happened in the narrative. For instance, because of what happened in 1 Samuel 5 with the priests of Dagon, they do not tread on the threshold. Because Nimrod became an excellent hunter, he is called a great warrior for the Lord in the present. Because Saul prophesied, people say "Is Saul among the prophets?" It is because of what happened with Jacob that the Israelites do not eat the sinew of the hip, and it is because of Israel's inhabitance of Heshbon that those who write proverbs say what they do. We can see that, over and over again, when you have this construction at the end of a narrative, it always means that something happens in the present because of what happened in the narrative.

Thus, if we apply the study of this construction to Genesis 2:24, we find that the text means that the reason why people get married today is because of what God did back in the garden of Eden. Therefore, any reading of this text that says that the text is stating that marriage is a "marker of adulthood" is exegetically unwarranted.

However, as I said, I don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Anyabwile has hit the nail on the head when he talks about how children need to be more obedient to their parents. I see way to many children get into their teens, and then they just go wild, and don't care about their parents at all.

Also, it is good to see Anyabwile doing work on Islam as well. James White, Michael Haykin, and Thabiti Anyabwile will be doing a conference on Islam. Also, there is a debate of Anyabwile debating a Muslim here. So, again, we have to be careful that we don't become imbalanced, and make sure that we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

Women At Odds with the Mandatory Marriage Movement

Just in case people from the mandatory marriage movement think that all women think like they do, I just thought I would post these reviews that I found the other day of Debbie Maken's book [all written by women]:

Dianna, A reviewer, 02/17/2007

Not Scriptural, Very Unfair to Men

I bought the book at a Barnes & Noble store. Maken spends too much time blaming men for the vast numbers of unmarried Christian women. Does she show understanding or offer solutions? Not at all. Maken goes to extraordinary lengths to question the manhood of men who do not embrace marriage. Marriage isn't for everyone and is financially impractical for many Christian men. Maken's ideas of courtship and matchmaking are more in line with her Hindu background than her recently adopted fundamentalist Christianity. The sad part of this is that many single Christian women are shaming and alienating the few Christian men who are left in the church. Women are breaking off relationships with good men because they won't marry within Maken's 3-month guidelines. Men are being denounced as eunuchs and 'completely lacking in manhood'. Maken should be deeply ashamed of this book. It isn't scriptural - Maken takes great liberties with certain verses in the Gospels in order to make her points. Don't buy this book.

Jennifer, A reviewer, 02/10/2007

Using Shame to Promote Marriage

Maken does deconstruct the overused 'gift of singleness' but her heavy emphasis on shaming men into marriage makes this a deeply flawed book. It's good to encourage marriage, but Maken is only encouraging a 'blame men' approach. She suggests churches should shame unmarried men and make them feel as unwelcome as possible. I cannot agree with her approach.

Linda, a teacher, 11/05/2006

One Size Does NOT Fit All

I married later in life. I'm glad I did and I'd do it again. But I wasn't ready earlier, and I enjoyed being single. Yes, there were frustrating times when I felt lonely, but I figured that there's one thing worse than being single -- and that's being married to the wrong person! For me, the hardest part about being single was being asked a lot of personal questions that were, quite frankly, nobody else's business! I can't say that married life is 'superior' or 'inferior' to being single. It is different. It satisfies some needs, but not all. Finding that 'right person' doesn't cure everything.

Not only do all of these reviews testify against the marriage mandators, but also consider this post on the Boundlessline the other day from Suzanne Hadley, and look at some of the comments:


bekah had the following to say on Aug 27 at 5:40 PM:
Thank you so much for this post!

I am so encouraged.

I wonder about this a lot, although; the Lord always brings me back to..
1 Thessalonians 5:16-18
Be joyful always; pray continually; give thanks in all circumstances, for this is God's will for you in Christ Jesus.

I do not rejoice in being single, but this is the portion that the Lord has given me TODAY.

And today is a day that the Lord has made.

So today is the day that whether single, or married, I must live for the Lord and seek his face in all things.

And finally, his timing is perfect and his ways are MUCH better than our ways:

Isaiah 55:8
As the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.

So, with that, we have rest in His timing and His perfect Grace, knowing that He already sees All of it.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Katie had the following to say on Aug 27 at 8:56 PM:

Suzanne (and Denise), this is one of the most awesome posts I have ever read on Boundless. Your honesty is so encouraging! Thanks for sharing such a balanced view, and for the reminder that God is for us, no matter how we feel.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Susan had the following to say on Aug 27 at 9:50 PM:

It's really hard to wait on God's timing but, He knows our heart and honors it. He says in Psalms 37:4, "Delight yourself in the Lord and he will give you the desires of your heart." One of them is our desire to be with someone we want to be with for the rest of our life. Just make it known to Him and wait until He gives that person to us. We'll be surprised that what He gave us is more than what we have expected. Remember that God doesn't give the least but only the best...Have joy in waiting...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn had the following to say on Aug 28 at 6:18 AM:

As a single in my late 20's, I know that I have certainly not always (or ever?) praised God for my single-ness.

I am, however, learning more about myself and dealing with issues (like selfishness, family of origin issues, etc.) that I know would come up in marriage.

I can only hope that maybe God is giving me a head start on getting those things straight before He drags someone else into the mix :)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You see, the reality is that these folks would like us to think that women are generally on their side. They just simply are not. One of my friends, while admitting that there are many immature men in the church, still disagrees with these folks, and, you guessed it, he is getting married in a month! Most of the girls with whom I am acquainted, have not heard of these folks. When I tell them what they believe, they are just shocked that anyone would believe this stuff. So, the reality is that there are plenty of women out there who do not agree with this stuff, and are currently making (and will make) wonderful wives for the single men in the church that oppose this stuff. Conspicuously, the proponents of the mandatory marriage movement seem to be so busy promoting their position that they have not been able to find the time to put out their wedding announcements.

More on Maken's Absurdities About the Income of Men

Given Debbie Maken's comments which I addressed in my last post, I wanted to point out that there is a passage Debbie has used before in the past to try to get people to marry. It is from Martin Luther's The Estate of Marriage. Debbie Maken quoted from it trying to show that men who do not have much money are still to marry. I think in light of her comments that I cited in my last post, it would be good to cite Luther here, as he seems to be shouting to Debbie Maken from heaven:

Finally, we have before us one big, strong objection to answer. Yes, they say, it would be a fine thing to be married, but how will I support myself? I have nothing; take a wife and live on that, etc. Undoubtedly, this is the greatest obstacle to marriage; it is this above all which prevents and breaks up marriage and is the chief excuse for fornication. What shall I say to this objection? It shows lack of faith and doubt of God's goodness and truth. It is therefore no wonder that where faith is lacking, nothing but fornication and all manner of misfortune follow. They are lacking in this, that they want to be sure first of their material resources, where they are to get their food, drink, and clothing [Matt. 6:31]. Yes, they want to pull their head out of the noose of Genesis 3 [:19], "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread." They want to be lazy, greedy rascals who do not need to work. Therefore, they will get married only if they can get wives who are rich, beautiful, pious, kind, indeed, wait, we'll have a picture of them drawn for you.

Let such heathen go their way; we will not argue with them. If they should be lucky enough to obtain such wives the marriages would still be un-Christian and without faith. They trust in God as long as they know that they do not need him, and that they are well supplied. He who would enter into wedlock as a Christian must not be ashamed of being poor and despised, and doing insignificant work. He should take satisfaction in this: first, that his status and occupation are pleasing to God; second, that God will most certainly provide for him if only he does his job to the best of his ability, and that, if he cannot be a squire or a prince, he is a manservant or a maidservant.

Indeed, God has shown sufficiently in the first chapter of Genesis how he provides for us. He first created and prepared all things in heaven and on earth, together with the beasts and all growing things, before he created man. Thereby he demonstrated how he has laid up for us at all times a sufficient store of food and clothing, even before we ask him for it. All we need to do is to work and avoid idleness; then we shall certainly be fed and clothed. But a pitiful unbelief refuses to admit this. The unbeliever sees, comprehends, and feels all the same that even if he worries himself to death over it, he can neither produce nor maintain a single grain of wheat in the field. He knows too that even though all his storehouses were full to overflowing, he could not make use of a single morsel or thread unless God sustains him in life and health and preserves to him his possessions. Yet this has no effect upon him.

Also, I want people to notice something else about this comment. Notice how, again, Debbie Maken engages in a false analogy. Debbie Maken is good at coming up with analogies that have nothing to do with the situation hand, and then acting as if they do:

When people interview for certain jobs, guess what-- there have to be certain kinds of qualifications in place-- no hospital would hire a doctor who never attended medical school. Why is it that the qualification of earning potenial is always villified? It is one of the elements of consideration for any woman serious about marriage, and no apologies need be had about it. Again, this is a place where parity plays a great deal, and I think that those who have made choices that afford them more monetary rewards should be able to ask for the same in the other partner, as well as asking for the same amount of intellectual development, or parity in looks, etc.

Notice, the whole analogy she uses is a situation where, indeed, a specific qualification should be looked at. However, Debbie Maken totally begs the question as to whether or not this is relevant to whether men should have a specific income when a woman is considering them for marriage. If it is, indeed, a legitimate requirement for marriage, then it is a proper analogy. However, if it is not a legitimate requirement for marriage, then it is a false analogy. In essence, unless Debbie Maken can show that it is a requirement, she has reasoned in a circle.

Let me construct a parody of this argument:

Here I go on the record. Men wanting or desiring Women who were entered in the Miss America pageant, and got honors at Harvard is not a reflection of their lack of trust in God or the fulfillment of their sexual lusts through marriage. It has to do with simple economics of-- will she be able to satisfy me sexually, and monitarily. This sentiment does not deserve an apology. It is amazing to me that Women in this culture are voluntarily voluntarily careless about their looks, and think in an emotional manner that has consequences, and yet they think that their choices should be consequence free from the men that may find them interesting or mate worthy. Lack of beauty and lack of intellegence in women is routinely covered up in spirituality, and I do not think any man should ever have to plead disinterest in the physical appearance or intellegence of a woman in order to prove they are "nice," or "not mean." When people interview for certain jobs, guess what-- there have to be certain kinds of qualifications in place-- no hospital would hire a doctor who never attended medical school. Why is it that the qualification of physical beauty, and intellegence is always villified? It is one of the elements of consideration for any man serious about marriage, and no apologies need be had about it. Again, this is a place where parity plays a great deal, and I think that those who have made choices that afford them better physical appearance and intellegence should be able to ask for the same in the other partner, as well as asking for the same amount of income, and willingness to do whatever the man says, etc.

As you can see, with a parody like this, there is no way Debbie Maken's arguments are rational, because I can use the same thing to prove that it is alright for me to have a single-minded desire to marry a woman from the Miss America Pageant who also graduated from Harvard. She has simply written a false analogy, and hidden it behind the irrational emotionalism of the mandatory marriage movement. She is under obligation to prove that a man must have a satisfactory income from the Bible, or otherwise, her whole argument is nothing more than emotional gobblygoock.

Hence, I maintain, and continue to maintain, that this movement is pure idolatry. Notice, we trust in the man's income rather than trusting in God. What they are saying is, "We are putting our salvation from debt, sexual sin, and lonliness in the hands of ourselves and our husband, and, we will do nothing more than attack the motives, and engage in namecalling to anyone who dares to disagree." That should tell you that this movement should be written off as purely juvinile, and not serious in their pursuit of truth.