Complementarianism and the Gospel

An unpopular subject these days is the role of the two genders, not only in society at large but especially within the confines of marriage. It gets especially difficult because you often have two extremes in the discussion: those of an egalitarian, feminist stream, and those of the "gimme a beer" woman stream. Some in the latter camp have even go so far as to say a husband should be allowed to physically discipline their wife, as they would one of their own children. A lot of egalitarians or semi-complementarians (ie., those who might want to be complementarians but are nervous about the doctrine) may use that one extreme to mock the entire concept, or present it as the reason why the entire concept should be dismissed.

The thought occurred, in recent musings on the subject, that one problem with the presentation of complementarianism is that, insofar as marriage is concerned, it is presented in a simple dogmatic fashion rather than what it's supposed to be: a home presentation of the Gospel. This comes across most clearly in one of the Bible's most clearest passages teaching on the subject, which we will present, and analyze, in full below:

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. In the same way husbands should love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ does the church, because we are members of his body. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This mystery is profound, and I am saying that it refers to Christ and the church. However, let each one of you love his wife as himself, and let the wife see that she respects her husband. [Ephesians 5:22-33]

Coming from a section on submission, the apostle Paul turns to the application of this at home. He tells wives to submit to their husbands, "as to the Lord." This does not mean the husband is God, but rather this is directly related to the understanding of Christ and the church: Paul explains that "the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior."

Some might point out here that the word "submit" is not in the original Greek for verse 22; indeed, Paul's original wording is "wives, to your own husbands, as to the Lord." The word "submit" is added by most translations for two reasons:

1. Paul is continuing his train of thought from verse 21: "be subject to one another in the fear of Christ." (We will touch on this verse later on in this post.)
2. Translators are attempting to tie this verse with the parallel passage in Colossians 3:18-19.

The original Greek word for "submit" in Colossians 3:18 is ὑποτάσσω. As many translation commentaries have noted (eg., AT Robertson's own wonderful work on the New Testament Greek), this word carries a very military feel to it; just as a private submits to his sergeant, so too does a wife submit to the husband. Other moments in scripture where the same word is used include:

• Christ is told that demons are in subjection to the disciples in his name (Luke 10:17).
• Christians are told to be in subjection to the governing authorities (Romans 13:1).
• God is said to have placed everything in subjection to Christ (1 Corinthians 15:27-28).
• The church is said to be in subjection to Christ (Ephesians 5:24 - this very passage).
• Believers are told to be in subjection to God (James 4:7).

We must also note here that, right at the beginning, Paul draws a connection between husband and wife, and Christ and the church. Those who want to do away with the idea that the roles of husband and wife in a marriage are somehow different, or (to be more fair) wish to do away with the idea that the wife submits to the husband, must therefore undo Paul's analogy. If wife does not submit to husband "in everything," then the church does not submit to Christ "in everything"; if the husband does not have a position of authority over the wife, then Christ has no position over the church. Indeed, in my discussions on this passage with egalitarians and feminists, a common tactic has been to commit a red herring and jump to an entirely different passage altogether, hence inadvertently pitting scripture against scripture. The reason they would do so is obvious: because you cannot defend an egalitarian or feminist view of marriage with this passage.

Yet immediately we must stop here and ask: what is the nature of the husband's authority over the wife? It won't be denied that many have abused this passage, even going so far as to cite passages elsewhere in scripture where God commands complete obedience, and hence interpret it as husbands having absolute authority like God Himself. While we shouldn't, like the feminist heretics, forsake the metaphor, we shouldn't likewise forget how Paul himself defines the metaphor. We see that Paul, after telling wives to submit to husbands as the church to Christ, now turns to husbands and explains what their role entails.

The apostle says that the husband's role centers around one single fact: love. From this love stems a great self-sacrifice on the part of the man, and for one single purpose: the sanctification and nurturing of the wife. Husbands are to love their wives "as Christ also loved the church and gave himself up for her, so that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might preset to himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless" (vv. 25-27).

Paul adds to this that "husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself" (v. 28). Likewise, "no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church, because we are members of his body" (vv. 29-30). Returning to the metaphor of Christ and the church, the apostle makes the connection that, just as the church is Christ's body, so too is the wife to be seen as the husband's own flesh - and rightfully so, given that, upon marriage, man and woman become one flesh (vv. 31-32). Yet even in this case, there is still some hierarchy, for the woman is said to be like the man's body, and the man is to love and nourish the woman as he would his own body. Nobody is controlled by their body, merely influenced by its condition. It is our duty to nourish and care for our body - hence the husband is commanded by Paul to love and cherish his wife as if she were his own body, because, within his Christ-Church metaphor, she is. Therefore, any man who abuses his wife for her sin is akin to the flagellants of the Middle Ages, who whipped their bodies because of their sin. This is especially plain in the parallel verse in Colossians 3:19, where the apostle Paul commands husbands to "not be embittered against" their wives.

It should be noted here that, while there is a call for wife's submission, it is not to be blind or sinful submission. When Paul told believers to be in submission to their governments in Romans 13:1, he obviously did not mean to be in submission to the point that the government commands you to sin (otherwise, there were thousands of Christian martyrs in the Roman Empire that misunderstood that verse). With marriage, this is especially clear in the parallel verse in Colossians 3:18, where wives are told to be in subjection to their husbands "as is fitting in the Lord." If a husband is in sin, or is wanting the wife to sin, then that is where she draws the line in submission.

All the same, the roles in marriage are quite clear: wives are to submit to their husbands, and husbands are to care and love their wives. Paul says as much in the concluding verse of this passage, stating "each individual among you also is to love his own wife even as himself, and the wife must see to it that she respects her husband" (v. 33). The word here in the NASB for "respects" is phobetai in the Greek, from which we get the word phobia. As might be discerned, the word means "fear" - but it is not meant here as a kind of horrifying fear. Paul is not saying a wife should be literally afraid of her husband! Rather, it means a kind of great respect, similar to when we speak of the "fear of the Lord." A woman who disrespects her husband, in any way, is just as bad as a husband who does not give proper love to his wife. It has been said by many that, in a relationship, a man expects respect, while a woman expects love; from here, we can see that this isn't just good marriage counseling, it's actually as God designed it.

When you recognize the proper roles within a marriage, you suddenly realize a spiritual truth: marriage is in and of itself a daily model for the Gospel. The husband sacrifices himself for the wife, as Christ for the church. The wife submits to the husband, as the church to Christ. The wife is sanctified and spiritually led, as Christ does the church. In cases of sin, the wife can come to the husband, who must love and nourish her, as Christ loves and nourishes those who repent before him. The husband likewise looks within himself, and, knowing he can never truly be "like Christ," turns to God for repentance. The husband reviews his spiritual leadership, and, if finding himself lacking anywhere, seeks to rectify the situation, again turning to God for repentance and guidance.

Marriage, it can be said, is always seen under the shadow of the cross.

It probably should not surprise us, then, that in many circles where traditional marriage roles are undone, there is likewise an undoing of the Gospel and Christ's relationship with man. The substitutionary atonement may be removed, and man may be seen as a "partner" with Christ, co-joined in an earthly work. There is no hierarchy on earth, and hence the idea of a hierarchy with God above all is seen as shallow and superficial at best. I'm not saying that one necessarily leads to the other - sometimes these happen at once, or reversed. My point is that we shouldn't be surprised that in circles where complementarianism is undone, other orthodox doctrines are likewise undone.

Some egalitarians attempt to refute the idea that wives are to submit to their husbands by honing in on the words of Paul from the same chapter: "and be subject to one another in the fear of Christ" (Eph 5:21). Since we are to be subject to one another, they argue, it is nonsensical to say wives should submit to their husbands - in fact, husbands should submit to their wives in the exact same manner. In doing so, they make two mistakes:

• They argue scripture against scripture. They do not deal with what Paul says in Ephesians 5:22-24, instead grabbing a verse, isolating it, and pretending that no other verses exist. They are like the child who covers his eyes and thinks that, because he can't see something, no one else can, forgetting that rational people with eyes to see will indeed see that they are being dishonest with the text.
• Related to the previous problem, they forget that, after writing those words, Paul then clarifies what that subjection looks like. He explains what the subjection entails specifically: wife to husband (Eph 5:22-24), children to fathers (Eph 6:1-3), and slave to master (Eph 6:5-8). If an egalitarian wishes to argue there is no distinction between husband and wive because of verse 21, then they must likewise argue, to maintain Paul's consistency throughout his train of thought, that there is no distinction between children and parents, and slaves and masters.

Another tactic by some is to hone in on Paul's words "we are members of His body" (Eph 5:30). Some will use this and say that, since we are all members of Christ's body, no one is above another. Others will use this to take the idea of a husband being "the head" to say that the head is still part of the party. Both these arguments run into issues.

• In the former case, it's forgetting the connection Paul is making in his analogy: just as Christ is the head, and the Church the body, and hence has authority over it, so too is the husband the head of the wife, and hence has authority over her. For this argument to maintain some level of consistency, one would have to say that Christ has no authority over the Church.
• In the latter case, this is just completely missing the point of the argument. Paul is saying that the head has control over the body - the head is seen as the "center" of the body, in some way. Similarly, Christ is "head" over the Church, and the husband is "head" over the wife. Likewise, similar to the previous argument, one would have to logically deduce, in order to remain consistent with Paul's argument, that Christ has zero authority over the Church.

Still other egalitarians will jump from Ephesians entirely, running to Paul's words in Galatians: "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:28). If we are all one in Christ, they argue, then you cannot say that men and women have special roles, or that one rules over the other. The problem with this is two-fold:

• As before, they are arguing scripture against scripture. Those who follow the Feminist Christian heresy are unable to properly deal with passages in their proper context; they must always jump to some other verse and deal with that instead, revealing the incoherent nature of their thinking. Instead of dealing with verses giving the clearest teaching on a doctrine (the sedes doctrinae verses, as Lutherans say), they will jump to verses with a much more vague connection, and attempt to teach clarity from there. Similar tactics are employed by Jehovah's Witnesses, Muslims, and others who follow a false teaching.
• To appeal to this verse is appealing apples to oranges. In this section of Galatians, Paul is elucidating on the nature of the promise of the Gospel, and the unity of believers under that promise - not just the Jewish descendants of Abraham. Believers, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or social status, are "all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal 3:26). Unlike certain Gnostic heresies, being a man does not make one saved alone, and belonging to a specific ethnic lineage does not make you saved. Hence, Paul is speaking of a salvific unity, not a kind of SJW-brand of egalitarianism. If he were, not only would he be contradicting himself in Ephesians 5, where he speaks of wives being in subjection to their husbands and slaves to their masters, but likewise in another epistle, where he speaks of sending a runaway slave back to his master (Phil 1:10-16).

The fact remains, there is a scriptural call for roles within marriage, within the relation of husband and wife. This hierarchy is tied with the hierarchy of Christ and the Church, in relation to the Church's loyalty and service to Christ, and Christ's love and care for the Church. For one to deny the one hierarchy is to deny the other. The shame is that, in denying this relationship and its respective roles, we in essence deny what is a wonderful, experiential representation of the Gospel and that relationship between Christ and believer.

Wives, are you in submission to your husbands? Does it reflect the submission that the church should have towards God? Husbands, do you love, sanctify, and nourish your wives? Does it reflect the kind of love and joy that Christ gives to the church? Are you the guardian of the spiritual well-being of your household? You two are one flesh, and if either fail in their role, then the entire body will be sick, and the marriage shall suffer. Take the commands of submission and love as a chance to work the Gospel into your marriage, and to continually give yourself and your spouse the Gospel every day.

As I said before, place your marriage under the shadow of the cross.

Where are the husbands?

Christian husbands, let me present a parable for you: if your wife one day told you, "Honey, I'm about to take a casual stroll through that dangerous part of town that even the cops don't go to," would you let them? If they told you, "Honey, I'm about to go have a nice private chat with that guy we suspect is a serial killer," would you let them? Obviously, most husbands would answer "no" to these questions. You'd probably want to protect your wives from all possible danger to their persons. Why then do so many husbands, when these situations are placed in the spiritual realm, answer "yes"?

Husbands are commanded by scripture to love their wife as Christ loves the church, and part of this is to "nourish" and "cherish" her (Eph 5:29). As the spiritual head of the house, the husband is not only the spiritual role model for his children, but is the one who provides the spiritual nourishment and education to his wife and, consequently therefore, from him and the wife to the children. He is directly responsible for what his family professes as orthodoxy and what his family declares to be their object of worship. "But as for me and my house," Joshua famously declared, "we will serve the LORD" (Jos 24:15). The definition of "LORD" means as much today as it did back in Joshua's day. Is is the husband's role to make certain that by "LORD" his family means the LORD our God, and not another deity such as Ba'al.

Yet constantly on social media, I see married women posting quotes from men and women who claim to be teachers of God but who have been proven to be wolves in sheep's clothing. They quote from individuals who, if they had existed in the Old Testament, would most likely have been stoned for their false prophecies, false visions of God, and false doctrines. What I immediately think each time is, "Does her husband know she's posting that?" I think to myself, "Is her husband aware from which fountain his wife is getting her spiritual nourishment?" Is the husband aware that his wife is seeking theological grounding from a heretic and false teacher? Is he aware that his fellow sheep is wandering towards a ravenous wolf? Of course, it will be granted not all the quotes shared are not necessarily bad or even "wrong" to some degree, but why would we permit our loved ones to traverse through a mine field of error hoping they won't step on the wrong spot?

In some respects, the wives may intentionally not care, and perhaps the husband permits her to be over him in this respect, not realizing that part of the husband's role, as said earlier, is to guide his wife on spiritual matters she may not fully understand (cf. 1 Cor 14:35). Other times, it might well be that the husband is fully aware, and doesn't care...in fact, he may approve of the false teacher having influence in his home. In this case, he invites danger into his life, and willingly puts his entire family in a line that leads to great sin, error, or even apostasy.

Christian husband, your role is to be used of God for the sanctification of your wife. Just as you need to be aware of the budget, the needs of the individual family members, and other serious concerns, so too do you also need to be aware of what your family is being exposed in their spiritual studies. Are they learning the truth of God, or are they learning heretical nonsense? Are they being fed on spiritual fruit or demonic junk food? Ask yourself, again, if you would put your wife or even family in such danger as I illustrated at the beginning of this post. If not, then why would you dare to put your family in danger related to their eternal soul?

I write this not as an open condemnation or a judgment against others, but merely a call for discernment.

The Sham of Love Equality

When the Supreme Court met a while ago to begin deliberation on the issue of DOMA and Prop-8, and then released their recent decisions on both, I saw some of the usual repeated mantras over social media. "Hooray for love equality!" some said. Others put up the equal-sign for their profile pic, saying to their friends, "This means I favor equal rights for all!" And then there is the "Equal Love; Equal Rights" slogan that many have repeated. Yet when I have engaged this worldview in discussion and dialogue, I can't help but notice that there is a certain level of hypocrisy and inconsistency found within.

The biggest problem is where this presupposition defines marriage, which boils down to "two people feeling emotionally satisfied with one another." The idea is that if two people of the same gender feel satisfied in one another, then why shouldn't they be allowed to be together and even marry? It's the classic "who cares so long as the person's happy" fallacy. If you attempt to qualify marriage in any way (the interaction of the genders, the ability to procreate and produce families, the need for a mother and father figure on the child, etc.), they find all that unnecessary, and toss it out. They demand that we make the definition of marriage be the satisfaction found in a union between two people.

Of course, what happens when this same standard used for homosexuals, and this same definition of marriage, is applied to other areas? What of "intergenerational" relationships, such as between a 50-year old man and a 15-year old boy? If it is entirely consensual, and the two feel emotionally satisfied, why is it wrong? If a brother and sister fall in love and decide to marry in an "interfamilial" relationship, and the two feel emotionally satisfied with one another, why is it wrong? Shouldn't any and all examples of two people feeling emotionally satisfied be permitted and accepted by the government under the law? This isn't even covering the issue of why, if it's possible for more than two people to feel satisfied together, polygamy should be illegal.

When these issues are brought up, usually two responses are given:

1) Straw men. People will accuse you of equating homosexuality with pedophilia, incest, polygamy, etc. The fact is, this isn't what we are doing - no one is saying that all homosexuals are pedophiles and vice versa, or that homosexuality and incest are the same thing. What we are attempting to do is to show the shallowness of this marriage definition, and just how weak a position it is by taking the same presupposition and presenting it in a similar situation. This is especially important as, at the time of this writing, those who promote "interfamilial," "intergenerational" and polygamous marriage make the exact same arguments made by those who promote same sex marriage. Why does the position of "equal love; equal rights" not work for them?

2) Inconsistency. The person who just a moment ago did not like you qualifying marriage...will now begin to qualify marriage. They might bring forward reasons why an elder and a minor shouldn't be married, or why siblings shouldn't be married, or why a marriage shouldn't involve more than two people - and some of their reasons might be perfectly valid and legitimate. The problem is that they are holding "interfamilial" and "intergenerational" marriages on a different standard than they are same sex marriage. On the one hand, they deny that you should qualify marriage; on the other hand, they affirm you should qualify marriage. In this case, even the same sex supporter - though unintentionally - realizes that a definition of marriage as "two people emotionally satisfied with one another" is a feeble one at best.

From this comes an obvious conclusion: the idea of "equal love; equal rights" and "love equality" is simply a sham. It's simply an emotional slogan for the cause of same sex marriage, so that its supporters can cry it out and feel as if they have done something grand. Yet they do not really approve "equal love; equal rights" because they believe that if a brother and sister have fallen in love and desire to fulfill their dreams of marriage - perhaps even adopt a child and raise it with love - then it should be opposed by the law. If a 25-year old and a 14-year old fall in love and desire to begin marriage, they oppose it and believe statutory rape laws should stand. It is clear that even in their minds, not all "love" is equal, and not all "love" should be given the same rights other "love" is given.

It is popular for those in the same sex marriage camp to compare those who oppose it to the racists of the 1960's and those who opposed interracial marriage (a fallacy I've examined before), but even in their case this same analogy can be lodged their way. When they support the marriage between homosexuals but deny marriage to other groups who, by their own logic appear perfectly legitimate, then they are no different than those in the 1930's who opposed the Nuremberg laws against Jews in Nazi Germany, but approved of the Jim Crow laws against blacks here in the United States. They are no different than someone who might approve of their child marrying an Asian person, but not approve of them marrying a black person. Already there are voices in this country, seeing the privileges given to homosexuals, who are beginning to ask that "interfamilial," "intergenerational" and polygamous marriages be permitted as well. No doubt in decades to come, many who supported same sex marriage will find themselves opposing the governmental affirmation of "interfamilial" marriage - or any other kind of distortion of how even nature has always defined marriage and true union - and they too will be called racists and intolerant bigots by the coming generations who have been raised to emotionally respond and parrot popular arguments, all for the sake of a new wave of public opinion.

Of course, we know why mankind is inconsistent, and why they desire to support their favorite sin, even in the face of an inconsistent worldview.

And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a debased mind to do what ought not to be done. They were filled with all manner of unrighteousness, evil, covetousness, malice. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness. They are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Though they know God's righteous decree that those who practice such things deserve to die, they not only do them but give approval to those who practice them. [Romans 1:28-32]

The only reason we have not yet seen greater immorality find greater approval in our culture is because God has thus far restrained it. If we inspire more judgment, more judgment shall come. Man's natural state is open rebellion against God, and their denial of Him will come in many forms, whether it be in false religions, apostate churches, or embracing sins such as this. I saw someone on social media say the Supreme Court made the right decision despite God's intentions. Yet God is still in control - indeed, the spreading of sin is by God's sovereign will, so that His judgment may be true and His cause glorified (cf. Ro 9:22-24). The increase of sin is not a sign that God has failed, only that God has judged, and is bringing further judgment.

How should we take all this? We should be praying for the repentance of friends, family, and neighbors. We should be praying not that they would be correctly aligned in politics, or that they would understand this one issue (for your opinion on homosexuality does not save you), but rather that they would come to an understanding that they themselves are sinners deserving of judgment. There is a natural law, even if they deny it, and it is God alone, not the Supreme Court or any other higher court, who will have the final say on what unfolds on the day of judgment. On that day, all men will be held accountable for their sins, but only those purified by the blood of Christ will be deemed innocent. Regardless of the state of our society, we should all ponder the state of our souls, and remember that no matter how many years we live, eternity shall be a long time. Let us remember that as we look upon society and those who oppose God - and let us not forget that once, too, we were like them. God bless.

Husbands: It's NOT OK to Look

One thing that has been on my mind the past few months has been the number of times I've encountered men either married or just attached to women in a relationship who held the idea that it was all right to look and lust after other women, even in the midst of their attachment. The responses are usually the same if you try to bring up what they're doing: "I'm just looking," "Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you can't look at the menu," etc. Quite frankly, these kinds of responses sadden me.

Let's take a moment to ask the question: when you're looking at another woman with lustful intent, are you committing adultery? Actually, yes - and you are as guilty as if you had gone to bed with the woman you're lusting after. Christ himself clarified, in the Sermon on the Mount:

"You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart." [Matthew 5:27-28]

In God's eyes, there is no such thing as "just looking" or "just browsing." This is because, even though your actions may say "I'm faithful to my wife," your heart does not. Deep down, you aren't faithful to your wife. Think of it this way: imagine if someone you work with is all smiles and compliments to you, and then you find out that they're actually going around behind your back and talking about how terrible you are and how much they really hate you. You would feel betrayed, wouldn't you? You would think they were a hypocrite, wouldn't you? Now let's return to the subject of adultery: you're telling you're wife you love her and she's the only one for you, but in you're heart you're lusting after other women and telling your buddies crude thoughts from your heart about said females. This latter scenario is no different than the former; although the subject is different, both involve deceit and disloyalty - one in regards to friendship, and one in regards to marriage.

When you marry a woman, you engage in a great bond with her. You two are united not only in regards to your lease or bank account, but in mind, body, and heart. Your heart should belong to hers, as her heart belongs to yours. Your body belongs to hers, just as her body belongs to you. You can't make love to any other woman except her; similarly, the object of your physical attraction should be no one else but her. When you bring attraction to another woman in your heart, you're violating that unity.

You're likewise inviting further temptation, and the possibility of physical adultery. People often say "just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you can't look on the menu," but as any personal trainer, diet coach, or just anyone who has struggled to lose weight will tell you, if you look at that menu long enough, eventually you're going to order something. Most adulteries begin because the unfaithful spouse entertained thoughts and permitted those thoughts to gain greater control of them. You entertain lustful thoughts of a particular type of woman, or seek after pornography to satisfy some kind of craving, and it will get worse, and it will, over time, affect your marriage. With your unity broken, you will have two authorities in your life to contend with, and you will have to sacrifice one of them. "No servant can serve two masters" (Lk 16:13a).

If you are looking at other women in lust, and fantasizing about them unrepentantly, and continuing to do it without concern for your spouse or your soul...then you are guilty of adultery, and stand before God as guilty as if you had gone to another woman's bed.

At this point in writing this, I can hear the classic contention of, "Oh, I guess you're just sooooo perfect!" No I'm not, actually. I struggle with lust every day. I have temptations in my heart to be disloyal to my wife like any other married man. I'm an adulterer. I'm a sinner. And I can offer nothing but my repentance to Christ, and ask that he, who is a high priest who is not "unable to sympathize with our weaknesses," but rather was "in every respect...tempted as we are, yet without sin" (He 4:15), forgive me. Christ is the high priest for those who believe, interceding before the Father, and has given himself for atonement once for all time (cf. He 7:27). If you are a believer, you have a chance to repent and turn to Christ, and he will prove to be the faithful high priest he is. If you aren't a believer, then God is granting you, while you still have breath to breathe, to repent of all your sins, and to turn and repent, and change your ways, and put your faith in Christ. Under no other name can you be saved (Acts 4:12), and there is no other way except under Christ the high priest that you can have complete atonement for your sins. Consider this carefully, and treat this day as if it were your last. There is no sin too great for Christ to forgive, for there is no greater savior than Christ. God bless.

The Blessing of a Blessed Wife

He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the LORD. [Proverbs 18:22]

My church has been going through the book of Proverbs, and last Sunday touched on many of the verses dealing with marriage and finding the "perfect" spouse. This verse was cited, and while the sermon was, for the most part, aimed at those who were single or in the state of courtship, I was still able to do some meditating on this verse and my recent marriage.

In this verse, it is said that he who finds a wife finds a good thing, and obtains favor from the Lord. In the first section, two "finds" are stated: he who finds a wife (obviously in the context, a good one) will find a good thing. The "good thing" (the familiar Hebrew word tov) refers to something that is good, pleasurable, and fortunate, especially in the eyes of God. The parallel line then states that one who does such "receives what is pleasant" (in the original Hebrew) from the Lord - the noun for pleasant (ratson) refers here, contextually, to the pleasure one finds in all aspects of marriage. The verse is stating that the good wife, and all that is pleasant in the marriage with her, is a gift from God to the man.

Compare this verse with a "contrast" verse: "The mouth of a forbidden woman is a deep pit; he with whom the LORD is angry will fall into it" (Pr 22:14). The NASB reads "he who is cursed," which is a more literal translation. The ESV is attempting to capture the passive participle associated with God, hence the NET's rendering of "the one against whom the LORD is angry." The point is that men who are inclined towards spiritual wickedness will be judged by God with the arrival of wicked women in their lives. Keep in mind that this proverb is not saying all women are evil or inherently evil, nor that the men are off the hook for their own sin. Both parties are guilty: the forbidden woman for her lifestyle, and the man with whom the Lord is angry for his love of such a lifestyle.

As I wrote in a previous post, I had, in the past, often pursued such "forbidden women." The blame for these endeavors is, of course, placed squarely on myself, and it was only by the intervention of God through His providence that I did not fall into the snare which was laid for me. Instead, God had a very different kind of woman in mind for me - He had a godly woman, who could support me emotionally as well as spiritually, and care for me with the heart of a caregiver. She was someone I could not only go to church with, but could grow with together and edify with what little skill the Lord has given me in being able to do so.

And now, as we are fast approaching two months of married life, I look back and realize that God's care and providence has truly shown His sanctifying love for me as His child, and I see that every time I see the love my wife has for me. God bless you, dear.

A Woman Who Fears the Lord

Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised. [Proverbs 31:30]

I pray to the Lord with many thanks, because He has blessed me with a woman who has all three traits. And today, she has become my wife.

Bless you, my darling, and I love you.

Squabbles and Defense of Family

A few words from Martin Luther related to family and marriage life, taken from his Table Talk.

It is no wonder that Satan is an enemy to Christ, his people and kingdom, and sets himself against him and his word, with all his power and cunning. T'is an old hate and grudge between them, which began in Paradise: for they are, by nature and kind, of contrary minds and dispositions. The devil smells Christ many hundred miles off; he hears at Constantinople and at Rome, what we at Wittenberg teach and preach against his kingdom; he feels also what hurt and damage he sustains thereby; there rages and swells he so horribly.

But what is more to be wondered at is, that we, who are of one kind and nature, and, through, the bond of love, knit so fast together that each ought to love the other as himself, should have, at times, such envy, hate, wrath, discord and revenge, that one is ready to kill the other. For who is nearer allied to a man, than his wife; to the son, than his father; to the daughter, than her mother; to the brother, than his sister, etc.? yet, it is most commonly found, that discord and strife are among them. [233]

If the emperor proceed to war upon us, he intends either to destroy our preaching, and our religion, or to invade and confound public policy and economy, that is to say, the temporal government and administration. In either case, t'is no longer as emperor of the Romans, legally elected we are to regard him but as a tyrant; t'is, therefore, futile to ask whether we may combat for the upright, pure doctrine, and for religion; t'is for us a law and a duty to combat for wife, for children, servants, and subjects; we are bound to defend them against maleficent power...But the temporal and civil person is subject to the temporal rights and laws, and tied to obedience; it must maintain and defend itself, and what belongs to it, as the laws command. For example, if, in my presence, some wretch should attempt to do violence to my wife or my daughter, then I should lay aside my spiritual person, and recur to the temporal; I should slay him on the spot, or call for help. For, in the absence of the magistrates, and when they cannot be had, the law of the nation is in force, and permits us to call upon our neighbor for help; Christ and the Gospel do not abolish temporal rights and ordinances, but confirm them. [784]

Modern Marriage and Modern Theology

Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands. Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish. [Ephesians 5:22-27] 

In the course of my upcoming marriage, I've been doing some thinking about how society perceives marriage, and the similarities we have to our concept of God and our interaction with God.

1. The bride and groom choose one another. In Christ's time, the bride was chosen by the father of the groom. Now, I'm not proposing we go back to arranged marriages, or that women shouldn't be allowed to choose their husbands, but this difference leads into the realm of theology as well. With Semi-Pelagianism (and at times rank Pelagianism) infecting the church and Christian evangelizing movements, the idea of God's calling (whether you want to go at it from effectual grace or prevenient grace) is left out. Indeed, many are outright horrified by the idea. To them, nothing is more offensive to them than the words of Christ to the disciples, when he said, "You did not choose me, but I chose you" (John 15:16a). Instead we desire a Savior that we can play "hard to get" with, and whom we can choose when we personally feel we are good and ready. 
2. So much focus is on the bride. Every notice how everything involves the bride these days? The bride makes the final call on everything, most of the decisions regarding the wedding are made by the bride (or her family), and on the day of ceremonies, everyone is focused on the bride. What is considered one of the most climactic moments of the wedding is not when the groom appears, but when the bride appears. Everyone is focused on how lovely her dress is, how beautiful she looks, how happy she is, etc. How unfortunate this circumstance is in the divine marriage as well: so much emphasis is placed on the church itself (specifically, it's members). People want a flashy praise band, smoke machines, dirty jokes during the sermon, and generally want all the focus to be on them. It's not about Christ, it's all about them, and what Jesus can do for them (that is, in an earthly sense). People as a whole desire Christianity to be about them and what they want - Christ just needs to stand up there in the tux and passively go with the flow.
3. There are no specific roles. In this day and age, many consider it extremely sexist to suggest that, in a marriage, a husband plays a significant role particular to him, as does the wife. Here I have to be careful, as many, upon hearing about marriage roles, jump to the extreme of a man on a couch watching football and yelling to his wife, "GIMME A BEER!" However, as Paul explained the verses cited above, there are distinct roles between the husband and wife, and they are similar to Christ and the church. That is, the wife submits to the leadership of husband, as the church submits to the leadership of Christ, and husbands nurture and edify their wives, just as Christ nurtures and edifies the church. However, many today desire far more passive men who become in essence walking doormats. Therefore, not only do we expect a passive groom, but we expect that passive groom to be a passive husband the day after the wedding. In the same fashion, many today desire Christ to be a passive groom in the divine marriage between himself and the church: we don't want a Messiah who will condemn some to hell; we don't want a Messiah who gives us a guide on how to discern the morality of our lives; we don't want a Messiah that tells us the sins we love to do, or what sins our friends do, are wrong; bottom line, we don't want a Messiah to whom we should submit. Rather, we want the Messiah to submit to us. 
4. Loyalty to one another is minimized. In college I used to hear guys with girlfriends (or even wives) say, "Just because you're on a diet doesn't mean you can't look at the menu." The idea is that, so long as you aren't doing anything physical, it's perfectly fine to look at and lust after other women. Some would probably even say emotional affairs or flirting is all right, so long as it doesn't lead anywhere physical. To the Christian worldview, this is completely false: Christ clarified to us that looking at a woman with lust made one guilty of the act of adultery, as if they had performed it (Matt 5:27-28). Many today - even many so-called Christians - therefore desire a sort of "permissible adultery." For those in the church, this extends to the realm of loyalty to Christ. Why can't we take a gander at New Age theology? Why can't we make worldly philosophy even more important than studying scripture? Why can't we place our favorite pastor on equal with Christ's authority? Why can't we listen to a heretical teacher so long as he says "Jesus" a few times? The bride's loyalty to the groom is not seen as highly important...indeed, she can toy around with other suitors as much as she wants.

What a man wants

As this post suggested, I recently became engaged to a wonderful daughter of God. I had spent the months leading up to the proposal questioning whether or not she was the perfect woman for me, and if I would truly be happy spending the rest of my life with her. Were we a good match? Did we share similar interests? Could I depend on her to be my lifelong support? Would we be able to support one another? This also got me thinking about the mentality of those who seek a loved one, and all that pertains.

The apostle Paul once wrote: "When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways" (1 Cor 13:11). Of course, he was speaking in this verse of spiritual maturity, but in many ways this is true of our attitude and maturity in other areas. In regards to romance and a lifelong partner, there is often a difference between what a man may want, and what he truly needs. In my job as a graphic designer for a news station, I often recognize that there can be a world of difference between what a news producer wants for a graphic, and what they actually need for a graphic. In a similar fashion, a man may have an idea of what he wants in a woman, and yet fail to grasp what he needs in a woman.

When I was younger, the woman I wanted was different than the woman I wanted now. I was seeking empty satisfaction in both the physical and emotional departments. I was desperate to fill in the void that had been there in my life, and didn't care what it was I used to fill that void. It was like someone who was hungry, and desired to fill it with readily available junk food rather waiting for more nutritious food. This led me down some very dangerous paths, and, even in the youthful days of my faith, introduced me to some very dangerous women. I came to know all too well the words of Solomon when he writes: "The mouth of forbidden women is a deep pit; he with whom the LORD is angry will fall into it" (Prov 22:14).

As I matured in my faith, God grew me from a child of God into a man of God, and made me realize my need for a woman of God. First and foremost, I realized I needed a believing, God-fearing woman - I could not engage in a relationship with a non-believer, insomuch as I would engage in "missionary dating." I needed a woman with whom I could go through scripture and not worry about controversies. I wasn't looking for a walking theological catechism, nor did I desire a woman who saw eye-to-eye with me 100%, but wanted as close a theological match as possible.

Physical appeal and attraction became somewhat secondary - not that they were thrown out entirely, but rather they were removed from the pedestal I had placed them. Not every woman has the elegance of Audrey Hepburn nor the appeal of Christina Hendricks, only because Hepburn's elegance was matched by Hepburn, and Hendricks' appeal is matched by Hendricks. The vast majority of woman have elegance and attraction that belongs to them and them alone. It is unjust to hold one woman up to another woman's standards and ignore how her elegance and attraction belong to her alone. Likewise it is unjust to ignore her other traits. I had realized, by the sanctification of God, that such "other traits" do exist. I realized - again, by the sanctification of God - that those "other traits" far outweighed what I had previously believed to be important. As scripture states: "Charm is deceitful, and beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the LORD is to be praised" (Prov 31:30).

I should pause here a moment to alert the reader that they should not confuse this for "settling." That is, I am not saying a person should enter the mindset, "Well, I found a person who likes me, I guess that's good enough," nor even, "Hey, she's a believer - good enough for me." There's a difference between seeking what you need and just settling for what you have. I might compare this to a boy who desires to own a car as he grows up: at a youthful age, he wants a cool looking sports car like the ones on his favorite action movie or cartoon show; at his more mature age, he realizes there is more to a car than looks, and gradually he begins to want a car with good gas mileage, a good warranty, a good engine lifespan, and the like. Eventually the boy, now a man, chooses a car that has the latter options rather than the former. This does not mean the boy has "settled" - it means the boy's understanding of the car he needs is now more mature, and he is basing his decisions off this more mature understanding.

What a man truly needs in a woman is someone to be "bone of his bone" and "flesh of his flesh," with whom he can become "one flesh" (Gen 2:23-24). The man needs a woman with whom he can be physically comfortable (cf. 1 Cor 7:1-5). The man needs a woman with whom he can educate his children (cf. Prov 1:8). The man needs a woman that he can love, care for, and edify, just as Christ loves for, cares for, and edifies the church (Eph 5:25-30). The man needs a woman with whom he can enjoy the rest of his life (cf. Ecc 9:9). All this is important, hence why the word of God says: "An excellent wife who can find? She is far more precious than jewels" (Prov 31:10).
------------------
The above image is an edited version of Dante and Beatrice by Henry Holiday.