Can Women Wear Pearls in Church?(pt.1) by Emily Wallace

INTRODUCTION

Many egalitarians accuse complementarians of selective literalism concerning passages of Scriptures discussing women wearing jewelry or braided hair. Egalitarians would argue that because in today's culture it is ethically permissible for women to wear pearls, gold or braided hair, women now do not have to submit to their husbands because both of these commands were addressed to a specific culture. This paper seeks to prove that complementarians are not guilty of selective literalism in 1 Timothy 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 3:3-5, and that Scripture does not ethically prohibit women from wearing pearls, gold or having braided hair.

First, egalitarians would argue that both Adam and Eve were created in God’s image (rightly argued), but that Adam’s role as the head is just a result of the Fall. Furthermore, they would profess that women no longer have to submit to their husbands because Christ came to this earth and established a new covenant. Egalitarians have to reinterpret many passages of Scripture concerning a woman’s role in the church to fit their view (Eph. 5:21-22; Col. 3: 18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7). Ultimately, this view must be rejected for it elevates a woman’s experience above the authority of the Word of God.¹

Secondly, complementarians would argue that both Adam and Eve were created equal in God’s image, but that Adam’s role as head of the home was established before the Fall, and not as a result of sin (Gen. 2-3). Women are created equal in essence yet with different roles. Complementarians believe that a wife should graciously submit to her husband’s servant leadership, care and protection (Eph. 5:21-22; Col. 3: 18-19; 1 Peter 3:1-7). Even though there are some qualifications for women in ministry, the many valuable ministries of women far outweigh the few restrictions Scripture imposes.²

BRIEF BACKGOUND/DEFINITION OF FEMINIST HERMENEUTICS

Hermeneutics is the key issue in the gender debate among evangelicals today. What exactly does the Bible say about gender roles? Is the feminist interpretation correct? These questions certainly have seemed to divide evangelicals for approximately the last forty years. The feminist movement re-emerged in America in the 1960’s with key leaders such as Betty Friedan. She spoke of ideas such as the “trapped housewife syndrome,” and that women were empty and dissatisfied.³ Friedan said that the only way a woman can find herself is through doing her own creative work.⁴

This paper will focus on “biblical feminists” or “egalitarians” which differ from secular feminists in that egalitarians accept Scripture as their sole authority.⁵ Biblical feminists assert that a feminist interpretation is correct and that the Bible teaches an egalitarian ethic. This egalitarian ethic displayed in the home is seen in a mutual partnership marriage where neither spouse will lead or have the final authority. This egalitarian ethic in the church is seen in role interchangeability between the sexes. ⁶ They see gender roles as being the result of the Fall and that these roles are abolished as the result of Christ’s redemptive work. Therefore, redeemed individuals should display this egalitarian practice of role interchangeability. Complementarians would say that a feminist interpretation of the Bible is flawed and leads to a misrepresentation of the Word of God. They believe the Bible teaches the complementary roles of men and women. These roles were established before the Fall and are not abolished through Christ, but are maintained as the ideal set forth at Creation.

Egalitarians commit many exegetical fallacies when interpreting God’s Word. The first main fallacy egalitarians are guilty of is forming incorrect presuppositions. An example of one such presupposition is that the Bible’s teachings do not contradict themselves in that they are a reflection of the character of God and He cannot contradict himself.⁷ Biblical feminists fall short of this and bring to the text certain presuppositions based on culture and experience that fall outside the Word of God.

Secondly, is a fallacy called the normative; it applies to believers at all times and places.⁸ For example, 1 Timothy is written for a particular church, Ephesus. This letter was written to deal specifically with their problems such as false doctrine possibly including an early form of Gnosticism. However, the teaching in the book is to be read like a church manual, according to 1 Tim. 14-15, meaning the application pertains to believers at all times and places. Therefore, the passage concerning women not being allowed to teach or have authority over men, applies to all believers at all times (1 Tim. 2:12). Biblical feminists may say that the teaching is only applicable to the original audience with no universal application.⁹ The biblical feminist places more emphasis on what Scripture means today to them, therefore, they leave behind what the original audience heard.¹⁰

The third main fallacy is that the text is transcultural. The general rule being that Scripture is normative unless Scripture itself states otherwise.¹¹ One common question that arises is, “How much does culture play a role in how I should interpret the text?” The problem is not always with the principle itself, but rather how it should be applied. ¹² There are two diagnostic questions that should be asked: “Does Scripture convey universal principles or culture-limited application?” and “What method can distinguish the normative from the cultural in Scripture?”¹³ Second Tim 3:16 should be followed: “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.” Paul declares all Scripture applicable to living a life of righteousness; therefore, all of it is to be followed despite the current culture. Biblical feminists would limit the text’s application and assume that it was only meant for the original hearers to follow: “…the egalitarians have tended to use the cultural vehicle as a reason for relativizing the truth of God to some ancient now irrelevant advice.”¹⁴

Coming attractions

I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving break. I know my family and I did. The following is a paper that my wife, Emily, wrote for a class. She recieved an extremely good grade on it and it is on an interesting topic. I will have it up soon.

Charlie

Equal in Essence; Different in Function (pt.5) and Conclusion

ARGUMENTS OPPOSED TO THIS RELATIONSHIP

As can be expected, the egalitarian supporters do not agree with this biblical theology. Gilbert Bilezikian agrees with the history of the church’s view of the Trinity but claims Christ was not “number two in the Trinity” and acted salvifically not because “his boss told him to do so or because he was demoted to a subordinate rank so that he could accomplish a job that no one else wanted to touch.”[1] Rather, Christ “volunteered his life out of sacrificial love.”[2] While the latter statement is correct, that Christ did humble himself in love for mankind, He did not get demoted and take orders from his boss. Such language is one of subordination, which, as already noted has been condemned as heresy, and speaks of Jesus being inferior to God. Once again, the egalitarian view of a being inferior in self worth because one has a specific role that is different permeates his thoughts. Also, it is interesting to note that Bilezikian does not interpret the headship passages, such as Ephesians 6, in the biblical and traditional way.

Regarding Bilezikian’s article, Peter R. Schemm states that Bilezikian has first “clearly oversimplified and misrepresented church history of the understanding of the Trinity. He has taken the heretical concept of subordinationism and wrongly identified it with any type of eternal order, ranking, or hierarchy in the Godhead.”[3] Also, Schemm points out that Hilary, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Augustine all affirm some sort of eternal order or ranking in the Godhead.[4] Augustine stated that the Father is different from the Son relationally, and yet the same ontologically.[5]

Stanley J. Grenz, in an attempt to talk about the mutuality of the Trinity, makes the claim from Athanasius that the Son is not the Son without the Father, and the Father is not the Father without the Son.[6] While that is correct, all that statement implies is that without the Son’s existence, the Father would be different. Indeed, the entire Trinity would be different; in fact it would no longer constitute a Trinity. Regarding Grenz’s article, Schemm notes that Grenz has an overemphasis on relationality in the doctrine of God and has interpreted the entire doctrine through this concept.[7] Schemm asserts “an overemphasis on relationality – that which removes the distinction between God’s essence and His person – may lead to a weakened view of God’s triunity.”[8]

The last problem with Grenz’s article is that he “seems to presuppose that for a mutually reciprocating love relationship to be meaningful there must not be an order or ranking in that relationship.”[9] Schemm remarks that this statement is the “touchstone of evangelical feminism” that states that any type of an ordered relationship automatically implies inferiority.[10]

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, it is clear that the complementarian view of the relationship between a husband, his wife, and God has a biblical pattern in the inner-workings of the Trinity. There is evidence that there is an “eternal order in the Godhead, an order in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share and reciprocate love, and yet still maintain their eternally distinct roles.”[11] There is also evidence based on Scripture that there are also separate roles for men and women in marriage, as well as in the church. While this study is by no means complete or exhaustive, there is a biblical framework with which to work from that will aid in further developments with this relationship. Those who hold to an egalitarian viewpoint, but still claim a view of inerrancy of Scripture, will continue to struggle in adequately explaining a biblical concept of the Trinity based on their hermeneutical methods. Furthermore, these methods will continue to skew the relationship between a husband and a wife that God has, in His infinite wisdom, so created and designed.

---

[1] Gilbert Bilezikian, “Hermeneutical Bungee-Jumping: Subordination in the Godhead,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 40/1, (March 2001): 59.

[2] Ibid.

[3]Peter R. Schemm, “Trinitarian Perspectives on Gender Roles,” The Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 6/1, (Spring 2001): 14.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Stanley Grenz, “Theological Foundations for Female-Male Relationships,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, 41/4 (December 1998): 618.

[7] Schemm, “Trinitarian Perspectives on Gender Roles,” 15.

[8] Ibid., 16.

[9] Ibid., 18.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid., 19.

Equal in Essence; Different in Function (pt.4)

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRINITY AND COMPLEMENTARIANSM

The Different Roles of the Trinity

The question that is left to answer is, “How does the Trinity relate to the marital relationship of husband and wife?” This question can first be answered by asserting that, as has been seen above, the persons of the Trinity have different primary functions, or roles, in relating to the world. These roles have sometimes been referred to as “the economy of the Trinity,” which simply means the different ways the three persons act as they relate to the world and to each other for all eternity.[1]

The first time these different roles are seen is in Genesis, as already discussed above, during creation. Grudem states it best when he writes, “God the Father spoke the creative words to bring the universe into being. But it was God the Son, the eternal Word of God, who carried out these creative decrees.”[2] Jesus is not often thought of as being the agent of creation but John 1 as well as Colossians 1 clearly testifies to this role of the Son. The Holy Spirit also had a role in creation as he was hovering over the face of the waters, “apparently sustaining and manifesting God’s immediate presence in his creation.”[3] It is interesting to note that the Spirit also manifests God’s presence in believers’ lives by being with them as Jesus promised in the gospels.

As Augustine alluded, the Trinity is also at work in different ways through the work of redemption. God the

Father sent His Son to die for our sins. The Son obeyed the Father and came to the earth. When Jesus ascended

back into heaven, the Holy Spirit was likewise sent by the Father and the Son to apply redemption to us.[4]

These role differences are not to be confused with the heresy that is subordinationism which teaches that the Son

was eternal and divine, but still not equal to the Father in being or attributes, but likewise is inferior or

“subordinate” to God the Father.[5] As has been stated throughout this paper, there is no difference in being for

the three persons of the Trinity.

The Different Roles of Men and Women

Just as the persons of the Trinity are equal yet different, likewise the same can be said for men and women. Just as God the Father has authority over the Son, by sending Him to die for the sins of mankind, so does the husband have authority over the wife, although they are equal in the essence of personhood. Grudem correctly asserts, “in this case, the man’s role is like that of God the Father, and the woman’s role is parallel to that of God the Son.”[6] As Ephesians 5 mentions, the husband is the head of the wife and the wife should submit to his leadership.

However, evangelical feminists would consider the Trinitarian view one of inequality because God sent Christ, therefore God, being the “leader of the relationship,” would become more important then Jesus. Because of this, Evangelical feminists have “rejected the Bible’s own and traditional theology’s predominantly masculine language for God as a rejection of the Trinity itself and, as such, the imposition of a different faith.”[7] Peter Schemm states that theological feminism has four main problems at its core: (1) it has a biblical problem in that by replacing words such as “Father” with phrases such as “Father/Mother” theological feminism “divests the paternal biblical language of its grammatico-historical meaning,”[8] (2) it has a theological problem in that it denies the primacy of God the Father in Triune relations,[9] (3) it has a confessional problem in that it “intentionally divorces itself from the orthodoxy of the creeds and confessions of the church”[10] and (4) it has a doxological problem in that it “defrauds God the Father of the worship due His name.”[11] By rejecting the language of the Bible concerning the Trinity, egalitarians have stumbled upon a different form of Christianity and likewise given men and women the same function in the marital relationship when God ordained different roles for each.

We now revisit the question of what it means to be made in the image of God. Because we are made in the image of God we should live in a way that glorifies Him. Ware states, “Our goal is to fulfill and obey his word. Male and female, while equal as in the image of God, are nonetheless distinct in the manner of their possession of the image of God.”[12] Yet again, men and women are created equal yet different, just as the three persons of the Trinity are equal yet different. Ware adds “the female’s becoming the image of God through the male indicates a God-intended sense of her reliance upon him, as particularly manifest in the home and community of faith.”[13] Thus men should act as the spiritual leaders in the family as well as the church, just as God acts as the leader in the relationship with Jesus and the Spirit as seen in the Trinity. The man is the leader of the church and the home and evangelical feminists who confirm the authority of Scripture are forced to change the language of God as well as the inner-relationships of the persons of the Trinity.

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, 248.

[2] Ibid., 249.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 245.

[6] Ibid., 461.

[7] Bruce A. Ware, “Tampering With the Trinity: Does the Son Submit to His Father?” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 6/1 (Spring 2001): 4.

[8] Peter R. Schemm, “Taxis or Praxis? Why Trinitarians Do Not Make Good Feminists,” Faith and Mission 22/1 (Spring 2005): 25.

[9] Ibid., 26.

[10] Ibid., 27.

[11] Ibid., 28.

[12] Bruce A. Ware, “Male and Female Complementarity and the Image of God,” Journal for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood 7/1 (Spring 2002): 23.

[13] Ibid.

Equal in Essence; Different in Function (pt.3)

COMPLEMENTARIANISM

The term complementarian “describes those who understand manhood and womanhood as distinct and yet complementary roles that have been divinely appointed by God for both the home and the church.”[1] This view teaches that God created men and women equal with different gender-defined roles.[2] The term “complementarian” was chosen by scholars in order to “emphasize both the equality of the sexes and the complementary differences between men and women.”[3] Most people would agree that men and women are different in some respects. For instance, one can usually tell a man apart physically from a woman with relative ease, especially since women and men do not possess the exact same parts of the anatomy.[4] According to this viewpoint, God created men and women equally in His divine image.[5] Perhaps the best explanation of what is meant by the term “complementarianism” has been penned by John Piper:

“In the home when a husband leads like Christ and a wife responds like the bride of Christ, there is a harmony and mutuality that is more beautiful and more satisfying then any pattern of marriage created by man. Biblical headship for the husband is the divine calling to take primary responsibility, for Christlike, servant-leadership, protection and provision in the home. Biblical submission for the wife is the divine calling to honor and affirm her husband’s leadership and help carry it through according to her gifts…when we follow his idea of marriage we are most satisfied and he is most glorified.”[6]

Indeed, the word “submission” and “leadership” have a negative connotation in the present culture. With the advent of the modern feminist movement, these terms are looked at as being patriarchal and derogatory. Complementarianism is an attempt to defeat this evangelical view of egalitarianism. The basic definition of an egalitarian is “one who believes in the equality of all people.”[7] Complementarians would certainly agree to this principle as well. However, these biblical feminists argue that hierarchically structured relationships serve a condition of inequality and that “different means unequal.”[8] Biblical feminists have rejected the traditional view of equality and have redefined the meaning of what equality is.[9]

This view, also referred to as Evangelical Feminism, is simply birthed out of the present culture. Even though the modern militant feminist movement of the 1960’s and 70’s has lessened its influence on the public scene, its influence still permeates culture. Sharon James correctly notes:

“People are nervous of comments about men and women that might be construed as sexist. It is still said that any differences between the sexes are probably only the result of societal conditioning. Enlightened parents have earnestly tried giving their little boys dolls to play with, hoping that they would grow up intuitive and empathetic, the next generation of ‘new men.’ Small girls have been presented with trucks and trains, as if they might then give up their girlish dreams of marrying Prince Charming and go and join the army instead.”[10]

James correctly affirms what the present society is all about: gender equality. Even though complementarianism also espouses gender equality, the egalitarian belief is misconstrued as a form of gender merging. Apparently, the present society would be quite happy with asexual beings that were no different from each other in any way. However, the Bible firmly states that God created men and women in His image.

Egalitarians also profess that the Bible is their sole authority, however, if that is the case, there is a broad disconnect between their claim and their actions. Their view of biblical equality is that it refers to the “fundamental biblical principal that there is no moral or theological justification for permanently granting or denying a person status, privilege, or prerogative solely on the basis of that person’s race, class, or gender.”[11] This definition of equality seems to be confused with one of prejudice. Egalitarians view a person’s status (i.e. that of a pastor, leader of the family, etc.) as being equivalent to self-worth. This is a semantic error that will eventually distort every major doctrine of Christianity. As will be seen below, when the theology of the doctrine of man is altered, then the doctrine of the Trinity, and that of God, is also altered. Thus, the doctrine of salvation will also be misunderstood and then Christianity at its core is subject to revision as was the case of the Arian controversy of the 4^th century.

---

[1] Peter R. Schemm, “A Call to Clarity: Understanding Gender Roles,” in Christian Theology Lecture Outlines, (Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary, Fall 2005), 101.

[2] Alexander Strauch, Equal Yet Different, (Littleton, Colorado: Lewis and Roth, 1999), 6.

[3] Ibid.

[4] The surgical alterations present with transsexuals can somewhat distort this claim however, all transsexuals were at some point born with either male or female parts of the anatomy and not both.

[5] Strauch, Equal Yet Different, 6-7.

[6] John Piper, “A Vision of Biblical Complementarity” in Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, ed. John Piper and Wayne Grudem, (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 1991), 52-53.

[7] Mary Kassian, The Feminist Gospel, (Wheaton: Ill: Crossway, 1992), 206.

[8] Ibid.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Sharon James, God’s Design for Women, (Auburn, MA: Evangelical Press, 2002), 17-18.

[11] Rebecca Merrill Groothuis, Good News for Women (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1997), 19

Equal in Essence; Different in Function (pt.2)

BACKGROUND ON THE TRINITY

Theological Background

The Trinity may be defined as “God eternally exists as three persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit, and each person is fully God, and there is one God.”[1] The Trinity is also said to be a theological term used to define God “as an individual unity expressed in the threefold nature of God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit.”[2] The term “Trinity” attempts to explain the attributes of God as He is three separate persons but at the same time one eternal being. Although the actual word “Trinity” is never found in the Bible, the idea is represented by the word which is taught in many places in Scripture.[3] The first time that the idea of a Triune relationship appears in the Bible is in Genesis 1:26-27: “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to our likeness’…so God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female he created them.” (NKJV).

The casual Bible reader may refer to a publication such as a Bible handbook to try to understand the previous verse. In this case he will find that Halley’s explains that the image of God that is being discussed is either (1) some spiritual, mental, and/or psychological quality in humans, (2) emphasizes the ruling over creation by humans, (3) or that there is a “relational” quality of the Triune Godhead that shows that humans have “the ability to enter into a relationship with God and with other humans.”[4] While these three explanations are not necessarily wrong in describing the phrase of “image of God” they fall short in explaining the full meaning of the phrase as it relates to the Triune nature of God and His relationship with man.

History of the Doctrine

It has been said that from its very inception, Christianity has been involved in theological controversies.[1] The doctrine of the Trinity is no stranger to these controversies. In fact, several of the controversies in the early church have centered on the relationship between the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The first few hundred years after Christ’s ascension were generally filled with persecution, dissipation, and martyrdom of Christian believers. Therefore, the study of theology had not quite blossomed into what it would later become. However, upon Emperor Constantine’s Edict of Milan in 313 AD, the church suddenly was not only tolerated, it was deemed the official religion of the empire. Soon after reaching this status, controversy arose concerning the doctrine of the Trinity.

The controversy began when the bishop of Alexandria, Alexander, clashed with Arius, one of the most popular and prestigious presbyters of the city, over several issues, most notably over the issue of Christ’s humanity and deity in the Trinity.[2] Arius claimed that the Word (Jesus Christ) was not God, but rather the first born of all creation.[3] He further claimed that before anything was made, the Word had been created by God whereas Alexander argued that the Word was divine, and therefore could not be created, but rather was coeternal with the Father.[4]

The controversy led to the calling of the Council of Nicea in 325. Behind the promotion of Eusebius and Athanasius, Arius’ heresy was condemned and the Nicene Creed was constructed. The creed illustrates the idea of the unity of the Trinity.

“We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of his Father, of the substance of the Father, God of God, Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the Father. By whom all things were made, both which be in heaven and in earth.”[5]

The Nicene Creed insisted that Christ was of the same substance as the Father and the dispute came down to the use of two Greek words: homoousios (of the same nature) and homoiousios (of a similar nature).[6] The former phrase was agreed upon so that there would be no doubt as to the deity of Christ. Therefore, we see the emphasis on the unity of the Trinity as all persons of the Godhead are equal.

After this creed was established future church fathers wrote on the Trinity.

Augustine wrote that the purpose of the church writings that he was familiar with “has been to teach that according to the scriptures Father and Son and Holy Spirit in the inseparable equality of one substance present a divine unity…although indeed the Father has begotten the Son, and therefore he who is the Father is not the Son.”[7] The emphasis is again made that all three are equal; however it also begins to become clear that all three persons have different roles. Augustine further argues:

“It was not however this same three that was born of the virgin Mary, crucified and buried under Pontius Pilate, rose again on the third day and ascended into heaven, but the Son alone. Nor was it the same three that came down upon Jesus in the from of a dove at his baptism, or came down on the day of Pentecost after the Lord’s ascension, with a roaring sound from heaven as though a violent gust were rushing down, and in divided tongues as of fire, by the Holy Spirit alone. Nor was it this same three that spoke from heaven, ‘You are my Son,’ either at his baptism by John, or on the mountain when the three disciples were with him…but it was the Father’s voice alone addressing the Son; although just as the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are inseparable, so do they work inseparably.”[8]

Therefore, it is evident that not only are the three persons of the Trinity co-equal in their divine being, they are also equally different in their roles and relationship with each other. Furthermore Dionysius on his defense of the Trinity writes, “But we must believe in God the Father all sovereign, and in Jesus Christ his Son, and in the Holy Spirit, and hold that the Word is united to the God of the universe.”[9] All of this is evidence that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the three persons of the Trinity, are co-equal and co-eternal, but are also different in their attributes as related to their roles.

---

[1] Justo L. Gonzalez, The Story of Christianity vol.1 (San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1984), 158.

[2] Ibid., 161.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] H. Percival, ed., The Seven Ecumenical Councils in the Library of Nicene and Post Nicene Fathers, vol. XIV (New York: Charles Scribners, 1990), 3. The rest of the creed further explains the role of Jesus and the Holy Spirit but is beyond the scope of this paper.

[6] Grudem, Systematic Theology, 244.

[7] John E. Rotelle, ed., Edmund Hill., tr., The Trinity (Brooklyn: New City Press, 1991), 69.

[8] Ibid., 69-70.

[9] Henry Bettenson and Chris Maunder, Documents of the Christian Church, (Oxford: University Press, 1999), 35.

---

[1] Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 226.

[2] Trent C. Butler, ed., Holman Concise Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001), 611-612.

[3] Ibid.

[4] M. van der Maas, ed., Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 89.

Equal in Essence; Different in Function (pt.1)

I am going to be posting parts of a paper I wrote recently entitled: "Equal in Essence; Different in Function: Exploring the Relationship Between Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and the Triune Godhead " - Below is the introduction. The first part will be posted tomorrow. Enjoy and I welcome all comments.

INTRODUCTION

“The doctrine of the Trinity is crucial for Christianity.”[1] This statement is one pregnant with truth and legitimacy. The stance that one takes concerning the Triune relationship of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, will have tremendous bearing on one’s own practical theology of life. One’s stance of the Trinity will decide whom we worship, how we live our lives, and ultimately impact our understanding of Christology and Soteriology.[2] Moreover, the doctrine of the Trinity helps to clarify the relationship that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit have with each other while still maintaining one essence as one being. God is indeed three persons, which are each fully God, while still maintaining one God status without being polytheistic.

One’s understanding of the Trinity will help clarify one’s understanding of what it means to be made in God’s image. Indeed, there are different beliefs in how the Trinity models the way mankind should relate to itself, namely the difference between men and women. The relationship between husband and wife is one of the most important themes throughout Scripture and a thorough study on the doctrine of the Trinity has the ability to enlighten mankind on God’s design for marital relationships. This paper will seek to prove that the complementarian view of the relationship between a husband, his wife, and God has a biblical pattern in the inner-workings of the Trinity.

---

[1] Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1985), 322.

[2] Ibid.

It happened!

The unthinkable has happened. My computer has crashed. Therefore, I lost a few files that I had not backed up on disks such as the remainder of my sermon on Song of Songs. I'll have some new stuff up this week, hopefully.

A Successful Marriage (Song of Songs 3:6-11) Part 1

The following is a sermon manuscript which I had to turn in for my Biblical Preaching class taught by Dr. Danny Akin (our president). He's somewhat of an expert on Song of Songs so he thought it would be fun to make us struggle with this book. No one has that much time to read the whole sermon in one sitting, so today I've just posted my first point. Hope you enjoy.

Introduction


Turn in your Bibles to the Song of Songs 3:6-11. While you’re turning there I’d like for you to close your eyes and think back to your wedding day. If you’ve never experienced marriage, try to imagine what your wedding day will be like. Think about that morning when you woke up. Think about the moments leading to the ceremony. Think of all your family and friends who came from miles away to be there. Think of what it was like walking down the aisle or waiting on your bride as you watched her walk down the aisle holding the arm of the man who was going to give her away. Wasn’t that a special time? Wasn’t that a tremendously personal time? Finally, wasn’t that a time where everyone who was there approved of your future union with this person? Or maybe it wasn’t. Maybe there were some underlying situations that made it unfortunate. Maybe the wedding preceded a not-so-good marriage and it remains a sad chapter in your life. Sadly enough, many weddings and marriages do not go as dreamed of or planned. The fairytale wedding sometimes ends up with a “not-so-happily-ever-after” ending. But, it doesn’t have to be this way.

There is a book of the Bible that talks about marriage and how it should be. It is a book that talks about how to extol sexual love the right way between a man and a woman in a day where sexuality has become idolatrous.[1] There is a passage in that book that talks about the wedding day. It outlines for us the best way to have a wonderful, memorable, and exciting wedding and it shows us that we should have God at the center of all that we do as we live life and more specifically, plan our weddings. This book is called the Song of Solomon but is also known as the Song of Songs because it is considered the most marvelous of the 1,005 songs that King Solomon wrote.[2] Ironically, the book has been doubted as to its inclusion into the canon of scripture. The main reason of its doubt was that it seemed “sensual” to some.[3] The pundits are right. This is a sensual book. In fact, respondents to this claim have said that because it is sensual God has placed this book in Scripture to showcase the purity and sanctity of the institute of marriage which He created.[4]
There have also been disagreements as to whether this book is simply an erotic love tale or something purely metaphorical. I would say it is a combination of both.[5] It is a love song describing two lovers, but it also contains a wonderful parallel that shows that marriage between a husband and a wife is a foretaste of the relationship between Christ and His church.[6] In this passage of scripture, a beautiful picture of the wedding ceremony is portrayed. Your wedding, or your children’s wedding can also be this beautiful and your marriage can also be this extravagant, especially with God at the center. Allow me to show you three ingredients for a successful wedding.

Read Text

Pray


A Wedding Should be Special (v.6-8)


The first element that a wedding should have is that it should be special. Of all the events in the world that we plan, our wedding should most definitely be special. Most little girls grow up dreaming of their wedding day and imagine what it will be like as well they should. Everyone’s wedding day should be special. It is estimated that 2.3 million couples wed every year in the United States. That means that there are 6,200 weddings a day.[7] Of those weddings, how many are special? How many glorify God? God has designed marriage between a man and a woman to be a very special relationship and likewise the wedding ceremony itself should be as special as the couple can make it. Not only should a wedding be special, but while it is special it should be exciting. Let’s look at verse six.

a. The Ceremony Should be Exciting (v.6)

This section of the Song opens with a sense of mystery and intrigue: “Who is this coming out of the wilderness?” it asks. Who is it? Why are they coming from the wilderness? The reason is not exactly known.[8] This is probably the beginning of a wedding procession.[9] Whoever is coming is surrounded by what looks like “pillars of smoke, perfumed with myrrh and frankincense, with all the merchant’s fragrant powders.” This question is asked in a way that will draw the audience’s attention to what is being described.[10] Also, this expression uses a feminine form of the Hebrew phrase which usually refers to a woman.[11] However, the word can sometimes be in the neuter so there is a great deal of disagreement as to who exactly is coming.[12] But we will see that the identity of the person who is coming up from the wilderness makes a big difference. Whoever is coming must be important. We know right away that whoever is coming out of the wilderness is coming in grand fashion. The person’s approach heightens the drama as does the phrase “like a column of smoke.”[13]

Myrrh and frankincense flank the entourage. Myrrh and frankincense are resins that are produced by trees that grow in dry lands.[14] Frankincense was prescribed for a holy incense mixture and myrrh was similar but was used as medicine or cosmetic use.[15] In this case these mixtures were used for cosmetic use. The person coming out of the wilderness wanted to make sure he or she smelled good and that the people watching would know that they were on their way.
So who is coming from the wilderness? History tells us that “a central aspect of the wedding ceremony was a procession to the bride’s home led by the groom.”[16] The groom would come in his splendor and then collect his bride and escort her to their new home where the wedding ceremony would commence.[17] Obviously, this is not exactly how wedding ceremonies are done now, but nevertheless is a romantic way of courtship. No doubt this part of the wedding ceremony was dreamt of over and over again by most young girls.

Imagine that you are the young girl and you see King Solomon in his royal splendor emerging from across the horizon, getting ready to take you back to his house for the wedding ceremony. What an exciting event! Indeed, their wedding was not only special it was also exciting.

b. The Marriage Should be Secure (v.7-8)

The other special part of a wedding is that the groom should allow the bride to trust him that their marriage will be one that will be wrapped in safety and security. A bride should be able to feel secure in the arms that will hold her for the rest of her life. Look at verses seven and eight. Verse seven tells us that Solomon was coming, most likely seated in his couch, which could be a bed[18] or a carriage[19] type transport, surrounded by sixty “valiant” men who are all holding swords and are skilled in combat.

Solomon is showing his bride-to-be that he will not only protect her while they transport her back to their house (it was well known that armed bandits could crash such an elaborate and expensive production[20]), but that he will protect her throughout the entirety of their marriage and that their marriage will be a secure one. All women want security which is one reason why they can be attracted to men with money. But Solomon offers much more than money, he offers real security! He wants his bride to know that she will never ever have to worry about her safety ever again. Indeed, he had already made her feel secure as she would think of him while she slept.[21] Many think that she was just a country girl who had been out in the sun too long.[22] However, interestingly enough many also think that his wife was Abishag of Shunem, the most beautiful woman in all the land.[23] Whatever the case, Solomon was deeply in love with his wife and wanted her to feel secure.

The text tells us that these men all held swords and were “expert in war” and that every man’s sword was on his thigh, which is a place where he can easily get to it. The end of the verse then relays an interesting detail. These warriors were with Solomon because of “fear in the night.” What is there to fear in the night? Armed bandits? Yes. But it is also believed that this bed that Solomon and his bride will both be traveling in is the same bed where they will consummate their wedding night. Therefore, the warriors are there to “protect the woman in the vulnerability of her night of love” with Solomon.[24] Solomon does not want anyone or anything upsetting or alarming his wife on their first night. Solomon’s marriage was going to be secure no matter what. The wedding should be special with the ceremony being exciting and the marriage being secure. And we can see very clearly that Solomon has planned a special wedding, as well as marriage, for his bride.
I can empathize with Solomon. On my wedding night, I was worried to death that my wife Emily’s cousins and aunts and uncles were going to follow us down the interstate as we made our way to the hotel where we were going to spend our first night. I had heard horror stories all week about how they followed different people in the family for hours and hours until they found out where they were going to stay. Then when they came to the place they would bang on the door and disrupt the first night of the unlucky couple. I did not know much about my wedding day (my lovely wife planned most of it) but I knew one thing: no one was going to follow me and disrupt my wedding night. I designed an elaborate plan to where I had my car hidden in some random part of Spartanburg, SC, where no one would be able to find it. After the reception, our getaway car rushed us to my secret spot and we were off to our selected location. I wanted to make sure that my wife would feel safe and secure on the first night of our wedding. I haven’t done a lot of things right in our marriage, but that is one situation where I succeeded.

Solomon succeeded in planning out that his wedding night was going to special, exciting and secure. Your wedding should also be special. It should be an exhilarating ride you will never forget and it should include a promise of safety from the groom to the bride. Solomon was no pansy, 21st century “metro-sexual” man who was in touch with his “feminine side.” Solomon was a real man who wanted to protect his bride and make sure she felt safe in his arms.
[1] Raymond B. Dillard and Tremper Longman III, An Introduction to the Old Testament, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 264.
[2] M. van der Maas, ed., Halley’s Bible Handbook (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), 358.

[3] Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody, 1986), 258.

[4] Ibid., 259.

[5] Gleason L. Archer, A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago: Moody, 1994), 542-543.

[6] van de Mass, Halley’s Bible Handbook, 359.
[7] “Statistics on Weddings in the United States,” accessed at http://www.soundvision.com/info/weddings/statistics.asp

[8] Renita J. Weems, The New Interpreter’s Bible vol. 5 (Nashville: Abingdon, 1997), 400.

[9] Frank E. Gaebelein, The Expositors Bible Commentary, vol. 5 (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1991), 1226.

[10] John G. Snaith, The New Century Bible Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), 51.

[11] Robert W. Jenson, Interpretation (Louisville: John Knox, 2005), 40.

[12] Snaith, New Century Bible Commentary, 51.

[13] Duane A. Garrett, The New American Commentary vol. 14 (Nashville: Broadman, 1993), 400.

[14]Trent C. Butler, ed., Holman Concise Bible Dictionary (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2001), 494.

[15] Ibid.

[16] Daniel Akin, God on Sex (Nashville: Broadman and Holman, 2003), 123.

[17] Ibid.

[18] Garrett, The New American Commentary, 401.

[19] Akin, God on Sex, 125.

[20] Snaith, The New Century Bible Commentary, 53.

[21] S. Craig Glickman, A Song for Lovers (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1976), 37.

[22] Tom Gedhill, The Message of the Song of Songs (Downer’s Grove: IVP, 1984), 78.

[23] van der Mass, Halley’s Bible Handbook, 359.

[24] Garrett, The New American Commentary, 402.

New Teaching Position with Youth

Well, I officially start a new teaching position a week from today. The church would like for me to start in Romans (surprise! isn't it crazy how God works) so my blog entries will not be repeats, but more of a detailed account of what I've already posted on here which was just a little sermonette with little meat or application. I'm also going to be teaching on the Doctrine of God on Sunday nights so I'll also include those entries. As always, the postings will be open to comment and comments are welcome.

God: More than our Santa Claus

Packer on God as some kind of cosmic Santa Claus:

"Yet the Santa Claus theology carries within itself the seeds of its own collapse, for it cannot cope with the fact of evil. It is no accident that when belief in the 'good God' of liberalism became widespread, about the turn of the twentieth century, the so-called problem of evil (which was not regarded as a problem before) suddenly leaped into prominence as the number one concern of Christian apologetics.

This was inevitable, for it is not possible to see the good will of a heavenly Santa Claus in heartbreaking and destructive things like cruelty, or marital infidelity, or death on the road, or lung cancer. The only way to save the liberal view of God is to dissociate him from these things and to deny that he has any direct relation to them or control over them; in other words, to deny his omnipotence and lordship over his world. (Emphasis mine) Liberal theologians took this course fifty years ago, and the man on the street takes it today. Thus he is left witha kind God who means well but cannot always insulate his children from trouble and grief.

When trouble comes, therefore, there is nothing to do but grin and bear it. In this way, by an ironic paradox, faith in a God who is all goodness and no severity tends to confirm men in a fatalistic and pessimistic attitude to life."

People, in order to have the goodness of God, the severity of God has to exist. Praise Him for rescuing us from His wrath through the Son's sacrifice of himself.