The next course I selected as part of my Unschooled Master of Theology program was the KI course, Family Matters, which covers how God structured marriage, raising children, and how to do so with godly purpose.
As a reminder, you can all of my course assignments for the uThM here.
So, let’s get started….
KWL – What I Knew Before Starting This Study?
I don’t know a whole lot about marriage. I don’t know why God made marriage to begin with, if I’m being particularly honest. I, personally, over the course of several years, have come to the conclusion that Paul and Jesus were exactly correct, “It is better for a man not to touch a woman” and “Not everyone can accept this (being celibate), but to those to whom it is given, they should accept it.”
I have come to the conclusion that marriage is born out of weakness. A weakness toward the flesh, toward earthly things, toward paradigms of this world rather than what we should be looking toward which is things of heaven above. I tried in my 20’s to find a wife to no avail. It was not until I was 29 that I was able to convince a woman to marry me, and that turned out to be the worst possible experience of my life. My marriage drug on for a miserable five long years before she finally got rid of me and I filed for divorce as soon as I received word that she had moved someone into our house.
In that time, through that experience, and through the aftermath of trying to put my life back together post divorce, I concluded that marriage was a wild risk where the benefits did not outweigh those risks. I was okay with this. I embraced it.
But now I’m experiencing the other side of the coin. Paul also said, “each one has his own gift from God,” (1 Co 7:7b). So now God has directed me to take a wife and has intended it for good and has seemingly purposed it for his glory. I have not married that I might enjoy the benefits (though those benefits are enjoyable). I have married primarily for the call of Christ forward and out of the proverbial cave, from out of the cell, into service. He knows that I need the support, the adoration, the uplifting, the sense of being needed, that apparently only an early family can provide. I experience it now with both my wife and my children (those who were orphaned and left and who needed a father). My wife thinks very highly of me. Much more so than I think of myself. My children desire not only for me to be in their lives but to have me around day to day, are excited to do things with me, enjoy my company, and need the safe and caring affection I can provide (though I’m not really certain how I’m able to do so since, as a general rule, I really do not care for children).
So, for me, the home life and the married life is indeed a gift from God, but it was not at all a natural or earthly gift. It is a supernatural one. Or, at least, the giving of that gift is supernatural. For I longed neither to be married again nor to have children in this life, yet, here I am.
I am concerned of the ramifications of this. It quite possibly means that what is coming my wife (our way) in the future is much more than I can simply bear as a single person. This is, in and of itself, not a bright or positive horizon. Just the very thought of getting up in front of strangers and teaching on Sundays is a ridiculous thought to me. I cannot do it. I cannot survive this. I’m not cut out for ministry or in-person interactions.
But I know that God has gifted me with an innate ability for organization, for administration.
I know he has given me the gift of discernment (though it may not be always perfect).
I know he has now given me the gift of marriage and family life for at least this particular woman and these particular children in this particular context at this particular time.
And so I learn. I prepare. I attempt to equip myself. The honest answer, though, is I know very little about marriage, about the institution of it, about raising children or caring for or supporting or serving a wife and family. But I know the Bible. At least people tell me I do. And so every day I continue to throw myself at his feet and beg for his mercy because I know with certainty that I am not equipped, I am not prepared, I am not ready.
KWL – What I Want to Find Out in This Study?
1. I would like to learn how to be a good husband and a good father (since I am now called to both).
2. I would like to learn how family life is instituted and have the knowledge of marriage on par with my knowledge of the contemplative life.
3. I would like to learn how family life can be translated into service to God (in whatever capacity he is calling me to).
4. I would like to give my wife the honor of serving Christ as a helpmate to me who is genuinely comparable to me.
Lecture 1 What did you Learn? Survival Guide for Marriage.
There are, indeed, myths that perpetuate the world in which we live, the culture in which we are surrounded by. The man must be strong, physical, almost brutish, while the woman is to be meek, beautiful, attractive, kind, pleasing physically and not given to fits of emotion. More than anything else, she is to be the homemaker, lesser in status, an object, and the source of man’s pleasure and indulgences. Even worse, is the idea that there is a specific soulmate for each of us, and all is required is submitting to the hand of fate and we will encounter that special someone. The flip side of this coin, of course, is, if we are not brought our special individual, then we are somehow a failure, somehow broken or not attractive, or somehow marred. Likewise just as cancerous, once we enter into these kinds of relationships, we find working in us the idea that we can just as easily fall out of love as we fell into it, and the world around us tells us that if it feels good then it can’t be wrong. Lastly, if we fall out of love we simply replace that person with another one. Relationships are cheap, sexual pleasure is superficial, focusing on the physical sensations alone rather than on the continually developing intimacy of forever union before our maker.
But the Christian has a completely foreign set of beliefs about marriage, based on Genesis 1:27:
“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.””
The first set of questions posed I find quite fascinating:
“Was the woman an afterthought by God or originally intended?”
To answer this question, we cannot look at Genesis 1 alone, but have to analyze both chapter 1 and 2 to receive a fuller picture of the creation of the human being. While Gen 1-2 do each show the same creative work, they show it from different perspectives.
Genesis 1 is a pretty detailed summary of major points throughout the six day creative process, with God resting on the 7th day (actually ending in verse 3 of chapter 2).
Genesis 2 (starting in verse 4) is a detailed summary of a particular part of the creation, the making of the first man, what his purpose was initially, and a specific warning to the man. It is only after this, in verse 18 that we see the purpose for God creating the woman:
“And the LORD God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.”” (Genesis 2:18).
There are a multitude of assumptions made about this verse. What was it that made God conclude that it was not good for Adam to be alone? Was it loneliness? Was it obsessive masturbation? Was it always intended that Adam would receive a woman to be by his side? There are really no answers to any of these questions: we can only assume.
What we can know with certainty is:
1. God originally created the man without any seeming intention of needing the woman at his side.
2. Whatever the calculus God used to determine that “it was not good for Adam to be alone” his solution was creating the woman for him.
So, to answer the first question, was the woman an afterthought? I would say she was not included in the initial calculus. It is unclear if God always intended on the woman being created. It would significantly depend on how much predestination we are subject to, how much free will we actually exercise as autonomous creations. Personally, I do not understand the creation of the woman, nor do I think she was originally intended, but, as a man, as a husband, I am thankful every day that he did create my wife and that he thought enough of me to bring me a genuine helpmate. So, whether originally intended or an afterthought or a solution to an ever present problem that he later found, only gratefulness do I feel concerning my own wife. When I was single and content to be celibate and without union with another individual, I had no use for women (or people for that matter). Not much has changed in my life since then, save for a deep and all consuming gratefulness to my God and Creator.
“Could Adam have fulfilled the command of dominion without the help of the woman?”
The word ἀρχέτωσαν is here used in the LXX for the Hebrew word יִרְדּוּ֩ that means “tread, rule.” The Greek means “begin, be first” and both indicate the dominion here spoken about in the question. Was it possible for Adam to have subdued the earth without Eve? Of course, we know that it would have been impossible for Adam to have done so by himself. As it was after the fall, we know that women were cursed to give birth in greater labor pain than was originally intended (if there was any pain in childbirth at all previous to the fall) – but they were, it seems, designed to give birth from the beginning. Likewise, their submission to their husband was also subsequent to the fall, “your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you” (Gen 3:16).
We do see that the dominion command was given only to the two, not to the one. In Genesis 1:28 he says “he blessed them” and “God said to them.” They were both present at the time he said, “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over everything.” This was not a command he initially gave Adam. Instead, Adam’s job was to “tend and keep it” (Ge 2:15). It was only after laboring in this job for an unspecified time did God then determine to make changes (specifically giving him a wife and giving him the task of filling the earth). There is textual evidence that God knew everything that the man would do before he knew it (most specifically “when you do” Gen 2:17), so it is hard to determine if the creation of the woman was something God foreknew all along or if it was something he determined to do after the fact, when he concluded that it was “not good for man to be alone.” Either way, man is not from woman but woman from man (1 Co 11:8).
“What is the meaning of “helpmate?”
This was the foundation of the creation of the woman for the man (1 Co 11:8-9). She came “from” the man and was created “for” the man. Likewise, “Adam was formed first, then Eve” (1 Ti 2:13). This, of course, does not mean that she is a slave to the man, or that the man is to “dominate” his wife in a possessive or brutalistic manner. Rather, she was created to serve a purpose and that purpose was many-fold.
1. She was to provide “help” to the man in his completing of his task before God (whatever that may be).
2. She was to provide the mechanisms for procreation, to bare the man children and to foster the expansion of humanity.
We see that the word “helpmate” comes from the Greek word βοηθός which means “aid, help, one who comes to our aid.” And in Hebrew עֵ֫זֶר which means “to assist, to help, succor, or an assistant in times of distress.” The phrase is actually “help meet” which means “helper comarable.” This is: God will provide what the man needs in the answer of a woman. She is “corresponding” to him, by way of supplement, providing that which is lacking or found wanting. She is in every way adapted to be his co-partner and companion. All that man demanded to be complete physically, intellectually, socially, sexually, was to be found in the alter ego of the woman. It is one directional. The purpose in which the two are to serve is the mission given to the man. It is his task to complete, and it is the mission of the woman to help him complete it. This is bound up in Ecc 4:12, “a threefold cord is not quickly broken.”
But Paul said, “This is a great mystery, But I speak concerning Christ and the church” (Eph 5:32) and “the mystery of the gospel” (Eph 6:19) and the “fellowship of the mystery” (Eph 3:9) and the “mystery of Christ” (Eph 3:4). This is not the marital union, but that earthy institution is modeled after that which is heavenly. It is summed up in Genesis 2:24, “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.”
The question was asked “what holds the two together?” when talking about the Christian marriage. For me, the overriding bind that holds two believers to each other is an overriding commitment to their marriage vows and their deep and enduring love they have for God and their surrender to Christ. Only by both doing and maintaining this can they have a chance of enduring the stress and pressure of life.
Lecture 2 What did you Learn? Survival Guide for Marriage.
What is the design of marriage? This is Christ. This is Ecc 4:12. It is the wife submitting to the husband in faith as the husband is self-sacrificial toward his wife and children. He is the head of the household, but she is also the helpmate of his mission and ministry and purpose.
First, there is a definite problem if the husband does not have a mission to begin with. This would be a clear (relative) calling by God to fulfill some purpose. It certainly does not have to be vocational ministry (preaching, pastoring, etc), but it is to be the most important avocation in his world. It is to take precedence over hobbies or passions (like ESPN, sports, cars, etc). Whatever it is the husband has been called to do in this life, and this calling has been certain for awhile (2 Pe 1:10). If the man does not have a calling, then he certainly should not be entertaining marriage. He should straighten out his relationship with his Lord first before he enters into any kind of marriage relationship with a woman.
Second, it is the design of marriage for the woman to desire to be loved and for the man to desire to be respected. This is accomplished not by equality of the sexes, which is not equality at all, but perversion. It is accomplished by the husband sacrificing his own desires and his own will for the betterment of his wife (and family) just as Christ did for the church when he died for her (Eph 5:25). It is likewise accomplished by the wife’s complete submission to her husband in everything (Eph 5:22-24). For the woman was made for man, not man for the woman (1 Co 11:8-9). As well, this is part of the curse, “Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” (Genesis 3:16).
Contention arises most often between couples when this order breaks down or is rebelled against. It is often the man who fails to measure up to his call in Christ. Either he does not believe at all, or he is lackadaisical in his pursuit of God. He might likewise (and often does) put idols before God, such as sports, cars, philandering, or just selfish agendas. Likewise, the man may be a pursuer of God, may have clear call on his life, but he might be riddled with psychological or social issues that hinder him. He might also have a warped understanding of the design of marriage, in that women are to submit but husbands have no responsibility other than to “work” and make “money.”
Likewise, the woman might be in rebellion to her gender and to her God if she desires or demands equality from her spouse, having accepted the heresy that women are the same as men. We know from the Scripture above this is not the case. We also know that “Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression.” (1 Timothy 2:13–14). They are instructed to “love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.” (Titus 2:4–5).
Most contention arises form rebellion at its root, whatever symptom might be apparent on the surface. Either the woman does not want to submit to her husband, desires her own will to be first, or ultimately does not want or rejects the condition in which she finds herself, or the man does not want to provide for his wife and family, does not want to make a lifelong commitment, desires other things (hobbies, etc) over pursuit of and responsibility to God, or is carried away by some vice.
Lecture 3 What did you Learn? Survival Guide for the Home.
“Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. “Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”” (Genesis 1:26–28).
“Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh.” (Genesis 2:24).
“Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. “Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. “Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. “The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. “Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. “But I say this as a concession, not as a commandment. “For I wish that all men were even as I myself. But each one has his own gift from God, one in this manner and another in that.” (1 Corinthians 7:1–7).
The Vitruvian Man Leonardo da Vinci created as a Hyper-dimensional creation? It is insured for more than 1 Billion Euros, but nowhere can I find a discussion of it being a hyper-dimensional creation. In fact, da Vinci wrote, “the human body is so designed by nature” and was not referring to a different kind of human being, but of the generalized, or idealized human. It is also thought to be an artistic description between the contented man and the ambitious man. It is, ultimately, a depiction and study of symmetry of the human form based on Vitruvius’ architectural work. He also wrote, “the members of a temple there ought to be the greatest harmony in the symmetrical relations of the different parts to the general magnitude of the whole. Then again, in the human body the central point is naturally the navel. For if a man be placed flat on his back, with his hands and feet extended, and a pair of compasses centered at his navel, the fingers and toes of his two hands and feet will touch the circumference of a circle described therefrom. And just as the human body yields a circular outline, so too a square figure may be found from it. For if we measure the distance from the soles of the feet to the top of the head, and then apply that measure to the outstretched arms, the breadth will be found to be the same as the height, as in the case of plane surfaces which are perfectly square.” While interesting, it is a little rudimentary at this point in human history. A good semester course in anatomy and physiology and maybe a basic art course in drawing the human form might accomplish the same things and draw the same conclusions (if not be wholly more in depth).
I did like the concentric circles of the Body, Soul, and Spirit presented. I will say, though, I prefer this image over the one used
It provides for a trichotomic view of of the living being, with appropriate representation of the spirit indwelling the soul, rather than the soul and spirit being two halves of a whole (though this might be mistakenly taken from another seminar I watched). It is fascinating that 1 Th 5:23 depicts this representation perfection from the inner part of man (the spirit) to the soul (which consists of all personality and identity) to the body (which is the shell or the mechanism by which the etherial part of the living being interacts with the physical world). “may your whole spirit, soul, and body be preserved blameless at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (1 Thessalonians 5:23).
It can be argued that the heart (emblematic) resides within the soul, just as does our memories, our developed identity and personality, our emotions, our dispositions, etc. Likewise, indwelling the soul is the spark of life which is the spirit or the breath. This is why Jesus identifies these specific component parts of the living being in representing the “whole” of the individual. This is how much, or with which components (all of them) that you are to love God: with “all your heart,” with “all your soul,” and with “all your mind.” The mind resides within the soul and represents the thinking being, the consciousness, the mental faculties, the abilities to create and manipulate thoughts. The heart likewise resides within the soul and represents the willful being, the desires of the living being. Not only are we to love God with “all your soul” but we are also to do so with specific component parts of the soul: the heart and the mind as well. But, I do not see this being a representation of a hyper-dimensional creation, for none of us is this currently. Only Adam and Eve were hyper dimensional and this ability, this stasis they lost at the fall. Now all beings from Adam and Eve are created mortal, not hyper-dimensional. We will not experience that existence until our transformation.
It is interesting, I found no correlation between Pr 4:23 and the statement “the heart is the treasure of the soul.” Jeremiah 17:9 states that “The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it?” The LXX here states, “a person is also.” I would argue that the heart is not the treasure of the soul, but it is the vice of the soul. Jesus concluded that, “For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders,” (Mark 7:21). I would not conclude from this that God considered the heart to be a treasure of the soul. It might, though, be considered a liability.
Yes, intimacy is based on trust, and trust is based on commitment. But I would argue that is as far as it goes. Commitment is not based on experience. It is not conditional based on past effort, past actions, or really anything that another has said or done. Commitment is a vow before God, simply put. This is expressly the case for the marriage vow and the marriage contract. Marriage is not based (or should not be based) on emotional love, but on commitment. It is established and rooted in the mutual vows between the two before God. Those vows are sanctified before him and they are serious and sober: “When you make a vow to God, do not delay to pay it; for He has no pleasure in fools. Pay what you have vowed— Better not to vow than to vow and not pay. Do not let your mouth cause your flesh to sin, nor say before the messenger of God that it was an error. Why should God be angry at your excuse and destroy the work of your hands? For in the multitude of dreams and many words there is also vanity. But fear God.” (Ecclesiastes 5:4–7). Likewise, Paul remarks, “It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.” (Hebrews 10:31).
Personally, I think this description of intimacy is strained to make a point. All biblical love, biblical relationships are based firstly on commitment, on the bedrock of the apostles and the prophets with Jesus Christ being the chief cornerstone (Eph 2:20). Second, intimacy is then increased as the two progress through life, based on shared experience and the obedience witnessed by the other to God and in the fulfilling of the roles of husband and wife. If one rebells from their duties, then intimacy is damaged in the relationship. But, the covenantal promise, the vows made, they are to be unshakable and everything is based on the vow before God.
The Inner Circles of Intimacy is a handy idea, but I do not think it is all that accurate or even necessary. But I do agree with the statement made in the video that too often people (without God or even many who are believers) tend to move from “remotely personal” to “deeply spiritual” with no steps in between. My wife and I started out with “remotely personal” when we first began communicating online. But, because we were oriented with a mutual approach (courtship rather than casual dating) we moved through the steps of “lightly personal,” “progressively personal,” to “deeply personal” quite quickly. This only increased when we began speaking on the phone. I personally found her voice on the phone quite intoxicating. But, when we met for the first time, the “deeply personal” was quite naturally exchanged for “deeply physical” and then it was shortly after we were married, after we had weathered a few initial storms together, that the “deeply physical” was exchanged for “deeply spiritual.” I would argue that “deeply spiritual” is not necessarily identified as arising from the “heart” since the heart is inherently deceptive. I would say that we commit our soul as a whole to the other individual in a “deeply spiritual” relationship, as well as our bodies, and our likes, desires, goals, aspirations, and our dreams.
In addition, I found the Concentric Circles of Protection interesting. I do like that the husband and wife union and relationship is put above the children. This was one thing I appreciated about my wife, in that she put our relationship above the children. I disagree with the idea that the involvement of the extended family is necessary for the raising of the children. Many couples often find themselves on the outside of their natural families because of their faith in God. But I do think this is where the friendships come in, especially because friendships can be chosen voluntarily, and it gives more control to the parents concerning those with whom they associate with themselves, as well as who their children will associate with. As Paul states it, “Do not be deceived: bad company corrupts good character.” (1 Corinthians 15:33).
I think the comment, “Married couples have an obligation to protect each other” was quite interesting. But does this pertain to all situations? What about crimes? What if the husband or the wife commit a crime – what if they murder someone? Is the spouse obligated to protect them or to incriminate them? What about the wife who’s husband is imprisoned for tax evasion? Is she obligated to protect him during the trial, during the sentencing, and during the incarceration? Is she able to leave the marriage on the grounds of abandonment (1 Co 7:16) or must she remain in the marriage? I would argue that if the man desires to remain married, and does not want a divorce (does he even have a biblical reason), then she is obligated to stay in the marriage. Are wives required to submit to their husbands even if their spouse is breaking the law? “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear.” (1 Peter 3:1–2).
Now, bearing one another’s burdens does fulfill the law of Christ (Gal 6:2). This is the call of Christ, “Let each of you look out not only for his own interests, but also for the interests of others.” (Philippians 2:4). This is the purpose of the church body, the local assembly. It is not for terrible singing, for pretense, or pomp, ritual, or tradition. It is the building of the body in mutual edification and in love (Eph 4:11-16).
I think it is a clear warning to us that though we are charged as husbands and the heads of our families to be watchful, sober minded, and to protect those God has entrusted to us, we now seem to be more than willing to let just about anyone into our homes without challenge or question through unfettered internet access via a multiplicity of devices.
We need to protect those placed in our charge. We need to monitor what it is we are taking in as well. We need to filter everything by the Word of God in life and in behavior, and that which is not good and pure and right we need to discard.
Lecture 4 What did you Learn? Survival Guide for the Home.
Marriage is not to be entered into lightly. It requires planning, provision, exploration (and not just physical), familiarity, and compatibility before one enters into such a vow. You must count the cost. How will you provide for your wife? In what way will you serve your husband? In what capacity will you surrender the all of yourself for the betterment of the other?
Where will you live? How will you raise the children? How will you handle the responsibilities associated with such a union?
The world views marriage as disposable. People are told they should use it, abuse it, and take from it until it is no longer useful to them, then they are to discard it. I experienced this first hand in my first marriage, when my wife of 5 years told me that our marriage was over, she did not want to be married (to me) anymore, and stated that marriage should be easy – not hard work – and that if two people fall out of love or lose that emotional, physical connection, then they should not try to fix their marriage but should split up and find other people who excite them again.
In our separation I cited that marriage should be based on a commitment, on the vow, the promise. But this fell on deaf ears. We went to counseling and immediately my wife told the counselor that she was there to find a way for someone else to tell me that the marriage was over.
The problem is, the world wants the blessings of companionship, the benefits of it, but do not want to carry or live up to the cost of commitment. The problem with this is, of course, Jesus gave a strict prohibition to separation and divorce. There was, in fact, only one exception to marriage being for life: adultery. There is no other reason for divorce.
In 1 Co 7, Paul provides more detailed stipulations to separation and divorce. The individual should remain with their spouse as long as their spouse is willing to stay with them. If they are abandoned, they can divorce without fear of judgment because they are not bound by the law if the other person is not a willing participant. The woman is given the option to separate from her husband with really no qualifications attached. She is encouraged to stay married, but if she leaves she must keep one provision: she must remain single for the rest of her life or she must be reunited with her husband. The husband, on the other hand, is given no such stipulation. There is no option provided for the man to separate from his wife. He is not given the option to leave for any other reason and remain celibate. Rather, he is to not leave his wife. Period. If a person’s spouse abandons them, or they divorce because their spouse committed adultery, or the spouse dies, then they can marry again (and should do so if they are young), but with one caveat: they must only marry another believer.
The lecture states that Jesus gives extenuating circumstances to divorce, but I would argue them being called extenuating. I would state that Jesus gave only one exception to the law of Christ in marriage, and that marriage is to be lifelong until one of the spouses die, except for adultery.
Ron told the example of the proverbial couple that marry young, raise children together, and when their children leave home, they come to him stating that because of all these reasons already stated they would like to part amicably from the union. He tells them there is no option for this before God. You can’t part from one another except for immorality (one partner cheating on the other). The woman, as Paul lays out, has the provision to leave her husband (the husband does not have this option), but she must remain celibate and cannot marry anyone else for as long as she lives, or she must return to her spouse for the duration of her and her husband’s life. I thought it was interesting that Ron did provide this option, “that you can stop living together, be at peace.” But, you cannot divorce one another and pursue new mates.
I do find wisdom in how Paul lays out the situation among people. Basically, the gist is: stop focusing on yourself and your own needs and focus on what God is calling you to do, and how God called you. Were you called by God single? Were you called by God married? Do you desire to marry? Do you desire to remain single? Whatever it is that you feel a conviction toward, to that. Lean into it. And commit to it. Don’t make hasty vows (Ecclesiastes 5:4–7). As Ron said, “Don’t look back” in whatever it is you pursue.
I can attest to this myself. I spent my 20s pretty miserable because I wanted to be married. But, looking back on it now, I was not ready to be married nor was I willing to invest in a marriage like I should (not that I’m much better today). I wanted the things from a marriage (sex, companionship, children, etc) but I didn’t want the labor the cost (responsibility, work, protection, self-sacrifice, etc). I chose poorly the first time thinking that God was saying this was the one I should take as a wife because she was available and willing. I mean, no one else was willing by this point. Well, this is not exactly true. There were others who were willing. But they were so damaged by the world or so bizarre that I had no interest in pursuing them. I also was struggling with the church at that point and so my ability to find a good Christian woman was thwarted.
I was not in submission to anyone over me, how could I catch a godly woman who I expected to submit to me? Plus, and I will argue this until I’m dead, I also did not have the career prospects that women by and large demand. I also did not have the “bad boy” persona personality that most women seem to be drawn to.
But I do wonder now, looking back, if I had stepped out in faith when I was 19, 20, if God would have brought be a believing wife? Of course, I don’t think this is the case, but it might turn out that I had immense possibilities that god had declare and reserved for me that I squandered for a lack of faith or because of poor choices. I will have to wait to find out, and I may never actually know.
Again, too much in the lecture is being presented as a choice, when, in fact, there is a particular path in which God has predestined for each of us to walk in (Ephesians 2:10; Ro 8:29; Ps 139:8ff). We ultimately walk in the path in which God has created us for, and has created all those things in which we are to walk in. It is not left to human choice, though it is impossible to avoid those places in which free will appears genuine in Scripture (He 6:4-8; Matt 7:21-23; 24:13; 2 Pe 2:20-22; Col 1:21-23; Ro 11:22; Gal 5:4; 1 Co 9:27; 1 John 2:19).
What are the blessings of companionship? This question is a perplexing one for me, for I can now see from both sides of this fence and can remember both lives simultaneously. Yes, there are benefits to marriage, certainly. And, it is also hard to avoid the great possibility that my single, celibate life was not honoring to God since he did not ultimately have me continue in it. Maybe at the end of the day, God did determine for me as he did for the first Adam, “It is not good for man to be alone.” Regardless, I do not that my single life was peaceful, refreshing, and simple. I was also, for several years, quite free in what I could pursue or do. I was also free from the burden of relationship with other people for a long time. I did not have to deal with the drama of people (save for at work) or the complications of interpersonal relationships.
With that said, marriage comes with many blessings. The blessing of companionship. The joy of feeling supernaturally connected to another person. The feeling of being needed by others (my wife and my children). The benefit of having greater value for the work ahead. Also the value of having others to care for yourself (when you cannot do it).
He talked about the benefits of financial and material stewardship. How things often own the individual rather than the individual owning the thing. That property has a snare built within it if we are not careful to steer clear of debt. Ron points out that most marital problems stem from money issues in some way. The futile idea that 10% more income will solve the problems is erroneous. The happiest people are not the wealthiest. Likewise, it is also not the poorest. The happiest (if this can even be a qualifier) are those who seek just enough to maximize genuine satisfaction as they move through life, and use things and money as tools rather than as things to possess. I agree with Ron, there is a greater danger of debt now than there ever has been in human history.
Ron’s overview of the Tithe was interesting. The fact that he sees it mostly unnecessary was refreshing. Our local church has done away with the tithe stipulation in practice if not in doctrine, and simply provide an offering box at the back of the building. Not only is the building wholly unbiblical, but the Scriptural references so often used to support the Tithe is severely out of context. To say that Matt 23:23 supports the institution of the tithe in the modern church is ludicrous. This passage points to the fact that the pharisees paid their tithes but did not pay justice, mercy, or faith.
The reality is, we are not obligated as Christians to give 10% to the church. We are obligated to give 100% of what we have to God because he has given us 100% plus even more to us. When we had nothing, God gave us his son, that we might be reconciled to him. We owe God everything so everything we have, all that we prosper in, we do not owe him a mere percentage, but we owe him everything and should be ready and willing to give all to him or to others as he directs.
Ron is correct. We should not follow the world when it comes to finances. We are at liberty to use the tools of the world (within limits) but not to abuse it or let it abuse us. Too often believers claim to be separate and different, to have a King in Christ, but go out and live like the rest of the world. If we are biblical Christians, who take the Bible seriously as a roadmap to right living, then we will be distinct, separate, and disengaged from the world and its many vices.
Lecture 5 What did you Learn? Survival Guide for Your Children.
This was an interesting lecture as it focused on the home environment for children and how there are forces at work to influence both the children and the family unit as a whole. It is true, as Ron stated, that homeschooling does take place everywhere. I say this as I’m sitting in our passenger van in the parking lot while my wife is at an appointment with our 2 year old, and the two older kids (10, 9) are actively doing division flashcards in the back seat.
The greatest education we can give our children, though, is the one that is focused on the contents of the biblical text. As stated in Deuteronomy 6:7-9, “You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.” Granted, this was the instruction given to the Israelites to teach their children the commandments and statutes of God when they enter a land that was full of good things that they did not created, did not procure, that they might remember God in their hearts.
But, is this not the same for each one of us? We were each once alien to God, lost. Worse, none of us save the ethnic Jew had any promise of salvation. We were condemned in our sins from birth with no path to redemption, no way to bridge the gap created by those who came before us. We were all destined to die, to be separated soul from spirit form body, to cease existing as a living being, to linger on instead as a disembodied soul, imprisoned in Hades until the time of the end when we would be unceremoniously rented from our captivity and subject to judgment, condemnation, and then at least, be cast into the Lake of Fire. This was our fate. But then God provided a way for us to be grafted into the vine, to be by mystery entered into Christ that we might be saved as well as the Israelites.
Though not a direct command to us today, it is good advice nonetheless. We are to raise our children in the commands of Christ. As Christians, we are to empower them with the full knowledge of Christ, with the knowledge of the Bible, so that, in the day they are called by God to defend their faith or the faith of others, they are thoroughly equipped to do so.
I wholeheartedly agree with homeschooling. I reject public school education outright and completely. I think it has become a travesty in our time.
Ron is certainly correct. Our homes are today filled with all manner of things that limit or vie for our time, our attention, and our loyalties. It is no longer enough to simply stand at our doors and watch for someone to try and creep in. They are coming in through our devices, through our televisions, through our laptops and tablets, through our smart phones. They are coming in through the books we read, through the games we play, and the entertainment we consume. It comes through the people we invite into our lives as well. There is no shortage now of the avenues by which evil or wickedness can and does creep into our lives and into our households.
As he stated, we no longer have the solitude, the solace, the times of prolonged peace and contemplation that we once had because the world (and the ruler of this world) desires for us to be continually distracted, continually saturated with dopamine, continually on the hunt for our next fix.
I would like to spare our children of this scheme. Our children, for whatever reason (this is the Lord’s alone) have been placed in a particular situation where they will, by the time they are 18, have an education in the Bible that is above and beyond what is taught in seminaries today. My wife and I are in agreement: we are raising disciples for Christ, we are preparing them for a life of service in the church, in the Kingdom, and what they do with that provision is theirs to manage. They can accept it, receive the call on their life that is apparently there (otherwise why put them with us in the first place), or they can squander it and let their fruit wither on the vine.
Our children will hopefully be given a childhood that is similar to paradise itself. To live most of their early days on the lake, in the woods, wandering, exploring, exercising their full faculties, learning to navigate, learning to swim, learning to play and have fun. They are already gifted with a life where their parents do not have to spend 40+ hours each in another place to make money. We are here with them continually. This is already quite foreign to most children. The rest is filtering.
Unfettered access to all these inputs is simply allowing your child to be raised and educated by Satan. It is our responsibility to ensure that they are educated properly, effectively, biblically, and socially. We are to guard their hearts and minds when they cannot guard it for them. They are to exercise their critical thinking skills when the world and the ruler of the world does not want them to think for themselves at all. We must be vigilant. We must be ruthless in our protection of our children and our families. Providing them 2 hours of biblical instruction each week compared to the 24/7 onslaught of input they receive elsewhere is only going to drive them in the direction of the world. They will have no choices. They will be imprisoned by the mind virus that is infecting the whole of humanity.
One section of the lecture talked about how correction must be followed by teaching or it is simply punishment. My wife thinks this way also. I would argue that this is not necessarily true, that punishment is a teacher in and of itself, and that correction is not always what is needed.
Some children are stubborn. Some children need a firm hand. Some children need to be proverbially pounded into the ground up to the neck so they have no place to go and nothing they can do until they relent. That might take a day, a month, a year. But at some point they will stop. They will surrender. But, I do give caveat to the burdens and curses placed on souls because of the sins and trauma they’ve endured at the hands of others.
Lecture 6 What did you Learn? Survival Guide for Your Children.
This was an interesting lecture. Ron is correct in the there are a multitude of different voices in the world, all claiming to know what and how one should parent their children. The government itself seems hellbent on raising our children a certain way, on instilling in them their own version of religion, their own version of culture. Biden just the other day made the statement, “these are all our kids.” This is what our children are raised with if we leave their education and their upbringing to the state.
Instead, we are to turn away from these extraneous voices and turn toward the Bible to understand how we are to raise children in this world while simultaneously not being of the world.
Of course, a lecture on raising children will always reference Proverbs 22:6: “Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it.” This is always the passage, or the one better than this from those who don’t actually read the Bible all that much, “Spare the rod, spoil the child.” As discussed in the lecture, the first adage does not universally apply. And I’ve struggled with this quite a bit over the years, especially as a parent. There are simply too many variables, too many obstacles in the way of this adage being universally true other than in the most abstract way possible.
The reality is, parents are doing the best they can, and often not doing so well. They seem to all be broken in one way or another, and those who appear to not be so, typically are hiding things in dark closets or their children turn to the dark side for no rhyme or reason.
Surprisingly, this verse, “Train up a child” is not actually found in the Septuagint. The LXX contains verse 5 and verse 7, but for whatever reason, it simply skips verse 6. We must keep in mind, the verses were added much, much later. The LXX was the primary Bible used by the OT believers for at least 150 years before Christ and was predominately used in New Testament quotes by both apostles and Jesus as well. So, it does appear as if verse 6 was added sometime after the LXX was penned from the previous Hebrew text. This means that it is not a plague upon our houses as Christians because this adage was never genuinely true and we so often had to gnash our teeth and ring our hands at others because we knew deep down inside that it often does not work this way. Many, many times we find that if we raise a child up in the way he should go, they still do depart from the faith, quite often in fact, later in life.
The reality is, there is no way to determine when raising a child if they are a child of God or not. We have no way of telling if they are going to be drawn by the father into a lasting relationship with him, to be genuinely saved at all, or if all the work and effort we pour into them is for not. We are called to do so as believers, simply by the passages we’ve already read, plus a handful of others. But someone actually coming to a saving faith in Christ by grace, this is between them and the Lord.
“Success has a thousand fathers but defeat is an orphan” by JFK I thought was a noteworthy quote. Though I’m not certain how practical it is today. The problem, of course, is there is little inherent in success other than the limited reward it provides in the moment. Failure on the other hand, defeat, this is the arena of learning, of iron sharpening iron, of personal growth. But it does stand to reason why most people are not prone to embrace failure with enthusiasm and success instead. This is due to the mechanism of the sin nature within us, the flesh, that pursues at virtually all cost the temporary, the immediate, and gratification of the senses and the inner portion of the man that is termed proverbially the heart.
We find in the lecture the declaration with some support that most parenting formulas typically do not work. I would argue that this is true for those that claim universal application regardless of age. But, then again, I also remain convinced that a stronger hand is better than a light one, direct, firm, unrelenting direction better than the pursuit of being your child’s friend.
I do appreciate how Ron laid out the responsibilities of the parent as to: provide, protect, direct, educate, correct, and care for. Sadly, in this world of our own making, these simply, basic, fundamental responsibilities too often go unfulfilled and unmet for countless children. Many times the perpetrators of who rob the innocent of these things are the parents themselves. They are often violent, demeaning, harmful both physically and bizarrely sexually (I’m not sure I fully comprehend the perversion that finds a 10 year old child as sexually enticing).
Yes, I agree with Ron that children should be instructed in the Law, because it brings about the knowledge of sin (Ro 3:20). I did not recognize the necessity or importance of this until I heard him say it. But it is true. If there is no law then there is no sin (Ro 5:13). And he would be correct that they should likewise be instructed in the love of God. It is not a single sided coin. Too often, we focus on one aspect or the other of God. It is either the angry God or the jealous God or the righteous God or the forgiving and loving God. The reality is it is all of these and so much more.
But the message of the gospel to us is clear. God gave his only son (made the reincarnate Jesus his son) out of the great depth of love that he has for each one of us, that we might be redeemed to him, snatched out of the fire of his own judgment. Yet, we must not neglect showing them his anger and his vengeance also, otherwise they might not recognize how fearful a thing it is to fall into the hands of the living God (He 10:31).
I just have to comment here about Deuteronomy 21:18–21 and the stoning of the rebellious child. I first get it. It makes sense. The text states, “If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and who, when they have chastened him, will not heed them…” This is explicit to 1. Sons, and 2. To a child who will not obey his parents, even after chastening him. I have a step son that falls into this category. Obstination. Complete lack of concern for other people. This adjudication is fine in my estimation (of course, we are prohibited from doing so today), but what of the willful daughter? From this we only get Proverbs 31 (after she has grown into an adult) and parts of 1 Timothy 2, Titus, and 1 Co 14.
I do agree that our first and primary mission field is our own family. This gives me both pause and relief, as I am no evangelist. But I can raise up a child. I have been given three children to raise, a fourth to influence somewhat indirection, a fifth to influence limitedly, and a sixth to impact distantly. Lastly, and unfortunately, two additional were too late entirely for me to have much of an effect on at all as the one is completely and unapologetically obstinate to sound instruction or reason or logic, and the other appears to be growing in distance to her mother and is making poor choices (despite the rather ample hand that has been given her).
I do like the idea of moving myself out of the role of supreme authority in my childrens’ lives and replacing it with God. I would then be in the role of supporter, discipler, and mentor rather than dictator. Children are plagued by the sin of Adam. They have a sin nature that inclines them in this direction from birth. The environment of a lost world that we live in likewise only reinforces those traits, habits, and dispositions, and responses from an early age and on throughout their childhood and into adulthood. Children do sin willingly. They choose sin because there is no other option for the unregenerate soul to choose.
This leads us down to the kind of environment we are raising our kids in. This is important because “evil company corrupts good habits” (1 Co 15:33). We cannot have “friendship with the world” for this is “enmity with God” (James 4:4). This is during the leaven from our own homes, as Ron suggests. It is the removal of our family idols. It is the purging of the leaven from our own lives.
2 Ti 2:24-26 should be our guide in raising children. Likewise, Prov 15:1-2. We should never stop praying for them or loving them. But we should also not compromise the clear teaching of Scripture for the sake of social or cultural inclusion. From 5 to 55, your children will break your heart. But, you must continue to pray for them. Remind them that you are still their parent.
Conclusion
Overall, this was just an okay course. It has some interesting information in it and I did learn a few things. But, it was an elective and had to be taken.
Until my next post……
Excerpt from The Light Aurora:
The door’s lock released and Dr. Lewis looked around at each of them.
“Stay close, and be ready for anything. I’m not sure if they’re all in the Command Center or if they are trying to secure Level 4. Hell, they could all be evacuating.”
He stared at Scott as he came up onto the landing.
“Let’s go,” Scott said.
Dr. Lewis pushed the door open and walked out into the hall, followed by the others – in ones and twos. Level 2 was similar to the other level, with a long corridor, doors on either side, all with security displays recessed into the wall next to them.
But, as they entered the corridor, Scott’s breath caught in his throat. As he stood there with the others, he couldn’t believe what he was seeing. In front of them, probably no more than a few yards away, were three bodies lying on the floor. One was sitting up against the wall, the side of his face melted, exposing his right eyeball and a good portion of his right skull. Another one was laying face down, his entire back opened up at the spine, as if his spinal cord had been ripped out of him from behind. The last one was a few more feet away from the others, on his back, his eyes seared from his head, black, burnt flesh where his eyes used to be.
The intercom came back to crackling life.
“Professor?” Derrick said over the intercom.
“Don’t worry. You can answer,” he said. “I can hear you.”
Scott looked up, then fixed his gaze on the security camera at the end of the corridor.
“Yes?” Scott finally asked.
There was a pause, static.
“What are you doing, Derrick?” he asked. “Did you do this?”
“Indeed,” Derrick said, coming back on.
“Why?”
“They refused to help me.”
“What are you trying to do, Derrick?” Scott asked.
There was another pause.
“I want to go home, Professor,” the boy said.
“Home?”
“Yes,” Derrick said, his tone soaked with some other-worldly confidence that did not belong in an innocent, ten year old boy.
“I want to go home, Professor,” he said again. “Would you be interested in coming home with me?”
Buy the entire story The Light Aurora today and get ready for the thrill ride of a lifetime! What is this foreign and hostile place these strangers find themselves in? What does it all mean? Will all of them survive?
Click here and grab your copy today! All three books in one!
But, trust me when I say, reading this book will change your life forever.
What do you think?