I disagree with this line of reasoning for the following:

(1) Marriage was not meant to be eternal, but it was meant to be a picture
of the relationship of Christ and the church, which is eternal. Therefore,
the IDEAL should be a lifetime marriage, which is the longest possible for
the way God designed marriage.

(2) Divorce is permissible "because of the hardness of their hearts". In
other words, divorce is allowed because of a weakness of our flesh, not
because marriage is not intended to be eternal.

(3) Yes, I agree divorce is permissible under the guidelines given by
Christ, but NOT because marriage wasn't meant to be eternal. It is
permissible because of OUR weakness. For this same reason much grace is
needed for those of us who have walked through this valley.

Rosa

Rosa,

Leo sent the post to which you are replying concerning
eternal.

   Moe
> I disagree with this line of reasoning for the following:
>
> (1) Marriage was not meant to be eternal, but it was meant to be a picture
> of the relationship of Christ and the church, which is eternal. Therefore,
> the IDEAL should be a lifetime marriage, which is the longest possible for
> the way God designed marriage.
>
> (2) Divorce is permissible "because of the hardness of their hearts". In
> other words, divorce is allowed because of a weakness of our flesh, not
> because marriage is not intended to be eternal.
>
> (3) Yes, I agree divorce is permissible under the guidelines given by
> Christ, but NOT because marriage wasn't meant to be eternal. It is
> permissible because of OUR weakness. For this same reason much grace is
> needed for those of us who have walked through this valley.
>
> Rosa
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty email to:
> pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Greetings,

    Can someone explain to me the main difference in NCT and CT. The reformed
Baptists like Piper and such, are they considered  to be New Covenant
Theologians as Fred Zaspel is. I am new to the tradition of both Reformed and
New Covenant Theology.

Matt O'Bryant

No Christ - No Peace ; Know Christ- Know Peace


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Matt, just a couple of observations. It would be impossible to give
the info you request and stay within list guidelines as to length of
post. :-) However, all is not lost. Go to Soundofgrace.com and order a
couple of books; namely Abraham's Four Seeds, Tablets of Stone and But I
Say unto You by John Reisinger and also the latest book by Fred Zaspel
and Tom Wells "New Covenant Theology" These will properly stear you in
the correct understand of each system and where they differ. AS a NCT
proponent, I must confess bias on the subject, but I think you'll find
that John gives a very good and fair synopsis of CT and its
disagreements with NCT.

As to the question on Piper, I keep needling Moe about Piper's NCT
leanings, but I must admit that I agree with Moe...Piper is Piper. He
sounds so NCT in so many ways, but I'm not sure we can claim him for our
camp just yet. :-)

mashcaba@... wrote:

>  Greetings,
>
>    Can someone explain to me the main difference in NCT and CT. The
> reformed
> Baptists like Piper and such, are they considered  to be New Covenant
> Theologians as Fred Zaspel is. I am new to the tradition of both
> Reformed and
> New Covenant Theology.
>
> Matt O'Bryant
>
> No Christ - No Peace ; Know Christ- Know Peace

--
"I find it impossible to avoid offending guilty men, for there is no way
of avoiding it but by our silence or their patience; and silent we
cannot be because of God's command, and patient they cannot be because
of their guilt. "-- Martin Luther
**************
Daniel L. Gunter
**************



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi,

We have decided to produce a little booklet/leafet for our church
entited (something like) 'Why don't we baptise babies?' We are a
young Church plant with members from a number of different
backgrounds - and as an eldership we felt  that something like this
would be useful for both members and visitors.

What do you think? What arguments should we include? Which scriptures
can we afford to ignore (given the limitations of space)?

Does anyone know if anything like this is already out there?

Any thoughts/comments would be gladly received.

Btw, I know that not everyone on this list is a Baptist, so if any
not-yet-Baptists would like to suggest which arguments/scriptures
present the strongest case against, I would be happy to address those.

Thanks,

Graham

On Tuesday, July 2, 2002, at 07:55  PM, DIVROM wrote:

> Btw, I know that not everyone on this list is a Baptist, so if any
> not-yet-Baptists would like to suggest which arguments/scriptures
> present the strongest case against, I would be happy to address those.

I dunno Graham. I'm a Baptist, but I didn't join this list to argue
about Baptist distinctives. It's not my place to say what should and
shouldn't be discussed here. But, I feel like we don't talk enough about
Christian Hedonism (not the phrase, but the teaching behind it) and how
to work it out in our lives.

This isn't scientific, but I feel like the number of people who
contribute on this list has dwindled since we got off on topics like
Baptism, pastor titles and pay, and what distinguishes Reformed Baptist
from Sovereign Grace Baptist, and the like. It's not that I don't care
about those topics, but this is a list to discuss Piper's teaching. If
people want to discuss those other topics, maybe someone should start a
SGB discussion list.

Now, what I've written here is MY opinion. Perhaps others disagree. I
don't think I'd unsubscribe if things go on as they have been, but I'd
feel more satisfied with getting what I signed up for if we spent more
time with Piper-related discussions.

Thanks for listening.

Blessing in the name of the Lord,
Daniel

Hi Daniel,

That's a fair response. However, I'm not trying to initiate an
argument about Baptism. I'm simply seeking help in compiling a short
and easy to understand leaflet from like-minded believers. I was also
hoping that someone might be able to point to materials aleady in
existence.

Grace to you,

Graham

On Tuesday, July 2, 2002, at 09:03  PM, DIVROM wrote:

> That's a fair response. However, I'm not trying to initiate an argument
> about Baptism. I'm simply seeking help in compiling a short and easy to
> understand leaflet from like-minded believers. I was also hoping that
> someone might be able to point to materials aleady in existence.

Ah, yes. And I have no problem with that. But, this is what triggered my
response:

> if any not-yet-Baptists would like to suggest which
> arguments/scriptures present the strongest case against, I would be
> happy to address those.

Maybe I misinterpreted what you mean by "address those". Did you mean
address those arguments here, or in your leaflet? I assumed you meant
here. If I have misunderstood you, I apologize.

However, whether or not my response fits your post or not, I'm still
hopeful that discussions on this list will not get bogged down on issues
that are less central to the purpose of this list. Not that we can't
dabble here and there in tangential topics (I think their great --- to a
point), but let's talk more about desiring and delighting in God.

Blessings,
Daniel


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Graham, I wouldn't call sprinkling babies "baptism." I think I would call
the article "Why we don't christen babies."

I think this issue is important, and I think that the hermeneutic that can
interpret the Scriptures in such a way that it accepts infant "baptism" is a
dodgy hermeneutic.


David McKay
musicke@...
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~musicke

Brother,

Pastor William Oosterman has published an excellent book to help
those who struggle with baptism, infants, etc., look for his book "Is
It Well With the Child?" at http://www.soundofgracebooks.com/

   Moe


--- In pipertalk@y..., "DIVROM" <divrom@y...> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> We have decided to produce a little booklet/leafet for our church
> entited (something like) 'Why don't we baptise babies?'.... etc...

Yeah, I realized after I sent it that it had your name in it, but didn't
want to repost just to correct that. This is an example of a situation
where I SHOULD have incuded the original text!

Rosa
>
>
>
>
> Rosa,
>
> Leo sent the post to which you are replying concerning
> eternal.
>
>   Moe
> > I disagree with this line of reasoning for the following:
> >
> > (1) Marriage was not meant to be eternal, but it was meant to be a
> picture  > of the relationship of Christ and the church, which is
> eternal. Therefore,  > the IDEAL should be a lifetime marriage,
> which is the longest possible for  > the way God designed marriage.
> >
> > (2) Divorce is permissible "because of the hardness of their
> hearts". In  > other words, divorce is allowed because of a
> weakness of our flesh, not  > because marriage is not intended to be
> eternal.
> >
> > (3) Yes, I agree divorce is permissible under the guidelines given
> by  > Christ, but NOT because marriage wasn't meant to be eternal.
> It is  > permissible because of OUR weakness. For this same reason
> much grace is  > needed for those of us who have walked through this
> valley.
> >
> > Rosa
> >
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty email to:
> > pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> > 
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/  >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty email to:
> pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Rosa,

   And I was just distancing myself from Leo while adorning my bald
head with my hard hat. <grin>

   BTW, Eternal is an awfully big word when we understand death will
ultimately destroy the marriage bond.

  MT 22:23-33 The same day Sadducees (who say there is no
resurrection) came to him. And they asked him, 24 "Teacher, Moses
said, `If a man dies without having children, his brother must marry
the widow and have children for his brother.' 25 Now there were seven
brothers among us. The first one married and died, and since he had
no children he left his wife to his brother. 26 The second did the
same, and the third, down to the seventh. 27 Last of all, the woman
died. 28 In the resurrection, therefore, whose wife of the seven will
she be? For they all had married her." 29 Jesus answered them, "You
are deceived, because you don't know the scriptures or the power of
God. 30 For in the resurrection, they neither marry nor are given in
marriage, but are like angels33 in heaven. 31 Now as for the
resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was spoken to you by
God, 32 `I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of
Jacob'? He is not the God of the dead but of the living." 33 When the
crowds heard this, they were amazed at his teaching.


   By Grace,
     Moe


--- In pipertalk@y..., "Rosa Edwards" <rosa@a...> wrote:
> Yeah, I realized after I sent it that it had your name in it, but
didn't
> want to repost just to correct that. This is an example of a
situation
> where I SHOULD have incuded the original text!
>
> Rosa

I've noticed that the issue of spouse abuse as permissible grounds for
divorce has been mentioned on this thread, but not fully explored.
Undoubtedly this avoidance is due to the common misconception that
Scripture does not speak to this topic.  For example, on Thu, 20 Jun
2002 14:51:10 -0000, Graham (DIVROM <divrom@...>) wrote:


> Coming back to the Piper discussion, I think that even if I agreed
> with Piper exegetically (which I, unusually, don't), I would disagree
> over the application. For example, Scripture does not address the
> question of the proper response to spouse-abuse; yet, this is an area
> where mny hard-liners on the issue will soften the viewpoint and
> bring in extra-biblical 'principles' and get-out clauses.
>
> I am not trying to get into the debate here. I am simply questioning
> whether the correct application of this issue is as clear as (some
> people think) the exegesis is.


I suppose I am one of those "some people" who "think" the exegesis is
clear.  But 1 Peter 3:1-6 has not entered into the discussion, and I
feel it should.  In context Peter first addresses *slaves* with regard
to being abused (2:18-20):

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only
to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
  For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust
suffering because he is conscious of God.  But how is it to your credit
if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it?  But if you
suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before
God..."

Peter then supports this bearing-up under suffering with the example of
Christ (2:21-25):

"...To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving
you an example, that you should follow in his steps.  'He committed no
sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth' {Isaiah 53:9}.  When they
hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he
made no threats.  Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges
justly.  He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we
might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have
been healed.  For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have
returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls."

It is with this in mind that Peter finally turns to Christian *wives*
with the adverb hOMOIWS ("Likewise," "In the same way") (3:1-6):

"Wives, *in the same way* be submissive to your husbands so that, if
any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words
by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence
of your lives.  Your beauty should not come from outward adornment,
such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a
gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.  For
this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God
used to make themselves beautiful.  They were submissive to their own
husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You
are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear"
(3:1-6).

1 Peter 3:1 is an unfortunate place for a chapter division (the NIV
even places a new heading over 3:1ff), and it misleads the reader into
interpreting the passage apart from the preceding milieu.  Wives are to
submit to their husbands (as "master" [3:6]) in the same way that
slaves submit to their masters (2:18-20).  If slaves are to bear up
under unjust suffering, how much more those who have actually taken
vows and commited their lives in a covenant relationship instituted by
God!  (The greater context also testifies to this reading--1 Peter is
all about bearing-up under suffering of various sorts [1:6-7; 2:12;
3:9,14,16-17; 4:1,4,12-16,19; 5:9-10]).

While this may sound uncaring, detached and uncompassionate coming from
one who is only 24 years old, newly married and in seminary (I can
already hear angered responses, "What do you know about about abuse?
It's easy to say these things when you've never experienced it"), I ask
that those who feel this way look not to me, but to our Lord who walks
on before us as our example (2:21-25).  What if Christ had walked out
on us when we were abusing him?  As Piper constantly emphasizes, we all
are called to suffer to varying degrees as Christ suffered.  This may
be on a mission field across the ocean or in the mission field of the
home.

Spouse abuse is a horrible experience that can last for years and even
decades.  It can even end in death.  But I exhort everyone who may be
so involved to look to Christ's crucifixion and to see your abuse not
as an opportunity for divorce, but rather as your calling to follow in
his footsteps.  This will be difficult, but God will give you strength.
  That is his promise to all whom he calls (Rom 8:35-39).

Blessings...

Matthew Eby
Student, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary



"But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed.  'Do
not fear what they fear; do not be frightened' {Isaiah 8:12}." (1 Peter
3:14)

"Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with
the same attitude..." (1 Peter 4:1)

"So then, those who suffer according to God's will should commit
themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good." (4:19;
cf. 2:23)

"Be self-controlled and alert.  Your enemy the devil prowls around like
a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.  Resist him, standing
firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the
world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.  And the God of all
grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have
suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong,
firm and steadfast.  To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen."  (5:8-11)

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Matthew,

Good points. Would you consider that man who physically
and verbally abuses his wife a faithfull husband before
God and man?

  By Grace,
    Moe
> I've noticed that the issue of spouse abuse as permissible grounds for
> divorce has been mentioned on this thread, but not fully explored.
> Undoubtedly this avoidance is due to the common misconception that
> Scripture does not speak to this topic.  For example, on Thu, 20 Jun
> 2002 14:51:10 -0000, Graham (DIVROM <divrom@...>) wrote:
>
>
> > Coming back to the Piper discussion, I think that even if I agreed
> > with Piper exegetically (which I, unusually, don't), I would disagree
> > over the application. For example, Scripture does not address the
> > question of the proper response to spouse-abuse; yet, this is an area
> > where mny hard-liners on the issue will soften the viewpoint and
> > bring in extra-biblical 'principles' and get-out clauses.
> >
> > I am not trying to get into the debate here. I am simply questioning
> > whether the correct application of this issue is as clear as (some
> > people think) the exegesis is.
>
>
> I suppose I am one of those "some people" who "think" the exegesis is
> clear.  But 1 Peter 3:1-6 has not entered into the discussion, and I
> feel it should.  In context Peter first addresses *slaves* with regard
> to being abused (2:18-20):
>
> "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only
> to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.
>  For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust
> suffering because he is conscious of God.  But how is it to your credit
> if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it?  But if you
> suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before
> God..."
>
> Peter then supports this bearing-up under suffering with the example of
> Christ (2:21-25):
>
> "...To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving
> you an example, that you should follow in his steps.  'He committed no
> sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth' {Isaiah 53:9}.  When they
> hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he
> made no threats.  Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges
> justly.  He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we
> might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have
> been healed.  For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have
> returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls."
>
> It is with this in mind that Peter finally turns to Christian *wives*
> with the adverb hOMOIWS ("Likewise," "In the same way") (3:1-6):
>
> "Wives, *in the same way* be submissive to your husbands so that, if
> any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words
> by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and reverence
> of your lives.  Your beauty should not come from outward adornment,
> such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.
> Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a
> gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God's sight.  For
> this is the way the holy women of the past who put their hope in God
> used to make themselves beautiful.  They were submissive to their own
> husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You
> are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to fear"
> (3:1-6).
>
> 1 Peter 3:1 is an unfortunate place for a chapter division (the NIV
> even places a new heading over 3:1ff), and it misleads the reader into
> interpreting the passage apart from the preceding milieu.  Wives are to
> submit to their husbands (as "master" [3:6]) in the same way that
> slaves submit to their masters (2:18-20).  If slaves are to bear up
> under unjust suffering, how much more those who have actually taken
> vows and commited their lives in a covenant relationship instituted by
> God!  (The greater context also testifies to this reading--1 Peter is
> all about bearing-up under suffering of various sorts [1:6-7; 2:12;
> 3:9,14,16-17; 4:1,4,12-16,19; 5:9-10]).
>
> While this may sound uncaring, detached and uncompassionate coming from
> one who is only 24 years old, newly married and in seminary (I can
> already hear angered responses, "What do you know about about abuse?
> It's easy to say these things when you've never experienced it"), I ask
> that those who feel this way look not to me, but to our Lord who walks
> on before us as our example (2:21-25).  What if Christ had walked out
> on us when we were abusing him?  As Piper constantly emphasizes, we all
> are called to suffer to varying degrees as Christ suffered.  This may
> be on a mission field across the ocean or in the mission field of the
> home.
>
> Spouse abuse is a horrible experience that can last for years and even
> decades.  It can even end in death.  But I exhort everyone who may be
> so involved to look to Christ's crucifixion and to see your abuse not
> as an opportunity for divorce, but rather as your calling to follow in
> his footsteps.  This will be difficult, but God will give you strength.
>  That is his promise to all whom he calls (Rom 8:35-39).
>
> Blessings...
>
> Matthew Eby
> Student, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
>
>
>
> "But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed.  'Do
> not fear what they fear; do not be frightened' {Isaiah 8:12}." (1 Peter
> 3:14)
>
> "Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with
> the same attitude..." (1 Peter 4:1)
>
> "So then, those who suffer according to God's will should commit
> themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good." (4:19;
> cf. 2:23)
>
> "Be self-controlled and alert.  Your enemy the devil prowls around like
> a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.  Resist him, standing
> firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers throughout the
> world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.  And the God of all
> grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have
> suffered a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong,
> firm and steadfast.  To him be the power for ever and ever. Amen."  (5:8-11)
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> http://sbc.yahoo.com
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty email to:
> pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Matthew (and Moe),

You do make a valid point but it is, as Moe seems to be pointing out,
terribly one-sided. Faithful Christian women in abusive marriages need to
hear about the strength God gives to endure, but they also, IMO, need to
hear the other side of the story - that God abhors the man of violence,
that Malachi's exhortations against divorce include a harsh word to
husbands who were not treating their wives properly, and that just a few
verses later in 1 Peter 3 husbands are told that their treatment of their
wives affects their prayers!

This is an example of what I mentioned in a previous post about divorce
being related to the hardness of man's heart. If an abused wife gets a
divorce, is that God's ideal? NO! But neither was her being abused in the
first place.

I get tired of Christians acting as though everything were redeemed in
Christ but our marriages, and we just have to suffer through them because
of the fall. Yes there are consequences, but in Christ ALL THINGS are made
new and we are in all ways being made into His image, which should make our
marriages look a lot more like God intended in the first place - "one
flesh". Intimate. NO ABUSE. In fact, when I teach women on submission, I
share that the goal in marriage is not that we have a proper view of
submission and authority, but that we become "one flesh" with our spouse.
We can submit all day long and never get near that.

I would NEVER tell an abused woman it is "ok" to get a divorce. But I think
I would be on solid Biblical ground to tell her, as I have many, "God hates
what is being done to you. It is wrong."

Rosa


>
> Matthew,
>
> Good points. Would you consider that man who physically
> and verbally abuses his wife a faithfull husband before
> God and man?
>
>  By Grace,
>    Moe
> > I've noticed that the issue of spouse abuse as permissible grounds
> for > divorce has been mentioned on this thread, but not fully
> explored.  > Undoubtedly this avoidance is due to the common
> misconception that > Scripture does not speak to this topic. 
> For example, on Thu, 20 Jun > 2002 14:51:10 -0000, Graham (DIVROM
> <divrom@...>) wrote: >
> >
> > > Coming back to the Piper discussion, I think that even if I
> agreed  > > with Piper exegetically (which I, unusually, don't),
> I would disagree > > over the application. For example, Scripture
> does not address the  > > question of the proper response to
> spouse-abuse; yet, this is an area > > where mny hard-liners on
> the issue will soften the viewpoint and  > > bring in
> extra-biblical 'principles' and get-out clauses. > >
> > > I am not trying to get into the debate here. I am simply
> questioning  > > whether the correct application of this issue is
> as clear as (some  > > people think) the exegesis is.
> >
> >
> > I suppose I am one of those "some people" who
> "think" the exegesis is > clear.  But 1 Peter 3:1-6
> has not entered into the discussion, and I > feel it should. 
> In context Peter first addresses *slaves* with regard > to being
> abused (2:18-20):
> >
> > "Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect,
> not only > to those who are good and considerate, but also to those
> who are harsh. >  For it is commendable if a man bears up under
> the pain of unjust > suffering because he is conscious of God. 
> But how is it to your credit > if you receive a beating for doing
> wrong and endure it?  But if you > suffer for doing good and
> you endure it, this is commendable before > God..."
> >
> > Peter then supports this bearing-up under suffering with the
> example of > Christ (2:21-25):
> >
> > "...To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you,
> leaving > you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 
> 'He committed no > sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth'
> {Isaiah 53:9}.  When they > hurled their insults at him, he did
> not retaliate; when he suffered, he > made no threats. 
> Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges > justly.  He
> himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we > might
> die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have >
> been healed.  For you were like sheep going astray, but now you
> have > returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls."
> >
> > It is with this in mind that Peter finally turns to Christian
> *wives* > with the adverb hOMOIWS ("Likewise," "In
> the same way") (3:1-6): >
> > "Wives, *in the same way* be submissive to your husbands so
> that, if > any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over
> without words > by the behavior of their wives, when they see the
> purity and reverence > of your lives.  Your beauty should not
> come from outward adornment, > such as braided hair and the wearing
> of gold jewelry and fine clothes.  > Instead, it should be that of
> your inner self, the unfading beauty of a > gentle and quiet spirit,
> which is of great worth in God's sight.  For > this is the way
> the holy women of the past who put their hope in God > used to make
> themselves beautiful.  They were submissive to their own >
> husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and called him her master. You
> > are her daughters if you do what is right and do not give way to
> fear" > (3:1-6).
> >
> > 1 Peter 3:1 is an unfortunate place for a chapter division (the
> NIV > even places a new heading over 3:1ff), and it misleads the
> reader into > interpreting the passage apart from the preceding
> milieu.  Wives are to > submit to their husbands (as
> "master" [3:6]) in the same way that > slaves submit to
> their masters (2:18-20).  If slaves are to bear up > under
> unjust suffering, how much more those who have actually taken > vows
> and commited their lives in a covenant relationship instituted by >
> God!  (The greater context also testifies to this reading--1 Peter
> is > all about bearing-up under suffering of various sorts [1:6-7;
> 2:12; > 3:9,14,16-17; 4:1,4,12-16,19; 5:9-10]).
> >
> > While this may sound uncaring, detached and uncompassionate coming
> from > one who is only 24 years old, newly married and in seminary
> (I can > already hear angered responses, "What do you know
> about about abuse?  > It's easy to say these things when you've
> never experienced it"), I ask > that those who feel this way
> look not to me, but to our Lord who walks > on before us as our
> example (2:21-25).  What if Christ had walked out > on us when
> we were abusing him?  As Piper constantly emphasizes, we all >
> are called to suffer to varying degrees as Christ suffered.  This
> may > be on a mission field across the ocean or in the mission field
> of the > home.
> >
> > Spouse abuse is a horrible experience that can last for years and
> even > decades.  It can even end in death.  But I exhort
> everyone who may be > so involved to look to Christ's crucifixion
> and to see your abuse not > as an opportunity for divorce, but
> rather as your calling to follow in > his footsteps.  This will
> be difficult, but God will give you strength. >  That is his
> promise to all whom he calls (Rom 8:35-39). >
> > Blessings...
> >
> > Matthew Eby
> > Student, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary
> >
> >
> >
> > "But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are
> blessed.  'Do > not fear what they fear; do not be frightened'
> {Isaiah 8:12}." (1 Peter > 3:14)
> >
> > "Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves
> also with > the same attitude..." (1 Peter 4:1)
> >
> > "So then, those who suffer according to God's will should
> commit > themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do
> good." (4:19; > cf. 2:23)
> >
> > "Be self-controlled and alert.  Your enemy the devil
> prowls around like > a roaring lion looking for someone to
> devour.  Resist him, standing > firm in the faith, because you
> know that your brothers throughout the > world are undergoing the
> same kind of sufferings.  And the God of all > grace, who
> called you to his eternal glory in Christ, after you have > suffered
> a little while, will himself restore you and make you strong, > firm
> and steadfast.  To him be the power for ever and ever.
> Amen."  (5:8-11) >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
> > http://sbc.yahoo.com
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty email to:
> > pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
> >
> > 
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/  >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty email to:
> pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Daniel,

    Thanks for the information on the site. I will absorb it readily. I am
brand new to this thinking.

    I was raised in a very legalistic, works-oriented denomination(Church of
Christ). I have since come out of this group, and have begun
worshipping/fellowshipping with a PCA congregation here in this small town I
live in.

    The PCA congregation is exhilirating, yet at the same time there are
obvious matters I disagree with them on; namely- infant baptism, and the mode
of baptism. I also think there is too much exaltation of creeds in this
denomination.

    However, this is a good home for me. There are no Reformed Baptists around
here. The congregation I speak of (PCA) exalts Christ, and has introduced me
to the Reformed faith. Yet, I have also been studying this new "thing" called
New Covenant Theology, and it seems to be more in line with my theology, as
well as what the Bible teaches.

    Still the journey home continues....

Pray for me, that I may come to the truth.

Peace,
Matt

No Christ - No Peace ; Know Christ- Know Peace


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Rosa:

Thanks for your reply. I realize that I am on shaky ground for considering
this viewpoint because it can only be inferred from scripture. But one of
the best ways to test a viewpoint is to throw it out for discussion and
evaluate it in light of the criticism.  So I appreciate that you took the
time to respond.

I do agree that marriage is symbolic of the relationship between Christ and
His church. I also concur that divorce is not desirable and that God hates
it. Marriage should always be restored if at all possible.  God's ideal is
for one man- one woman marriage till death does part- and that parting is
permanent for there is no marriage in heaven except between Christ and the
Church. I would also agree that divorce is always due to weakness of the
flesh.

Finally, I am intrigued by the idea that the temporal nature i.e., limited
to this life, is also a factor in the Lord's allowance for divorce though I
would never teach it publicly.


Leo

At 08:59 AM 7/1/02 -0500, you wrote:
>I disagree with this line of reasoning for the following:
>
>(1) Marriage was not meant to be eternal, but it was meant to be a picture
>of the relationship of Christ and the church, which is eternal. Therefore,
>the IDEAL should be a lifetime marriage, which is the longest possible for
>the way God designed marriage.
>
>(2) Divorce is permissible "because of the hardness of their hearts". In
>other words, divorce is allowed because of a weakness of our flesh, not
>because marriage is not intended to be eternal.
>
>(3) Yes, I agree divorce is permissible under the guidelines given by
>Christ, but NOT because marriage wasn't meant to be eternal. It is
>permissible because of OUR weakness. For this same reason much grace is
>needed for those of us who have walked through this valley.
>
>Rosa
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an empty email to:
>pipertalk-unsubscribe@egroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
><http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>Yahoo! Terms of Service.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've been quietly soaking up this discussion and very much appreciate
everyone's commments.

(Moe wrote)
> Good points. Would you consider that man who physically
> and verbally abuses his wife a faithfull husband before
> God and man?

I know you addressed this to Matthew but I though I would comment.
No, I would not consider him a faithful husband before God and man.

Isn't this precisely the type of person the text Matthew cites refers
to, though?

The text talks about unjust suffering from slave masters, unjust
suffering from Christ's abusers and revilers and torturers, and then
goes on to say "likewise" as it transitions to the husband/wife
relationship.  I think what you describe in your question is the type
of man the text is talking about when instructing wives how to win
him over.

Do you agree?

I appreciate Rosa's approach of pointing out the wrong behavior of
men who behave this way.  Although not said explicitly, my assumption
is that she goes on to teach women in this situation what scripture
describes as the best way to respond to this treatment all the while
trusting God and not abandoning common sense safety concerns.  I hope
I haven't put words in your mouth, Rosa!

Troy (I left the scripture verses cited in tact below)

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

"Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only
to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are
harsh.  For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of
unjust suffering because he is conscious of God.  But how is it to
your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it?
But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is
commendable before God..."

"...To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving
you an example, that you should follow in his steps.  'He committed no
sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth' {Isaiah 53:9}.  When they
hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered,
he made no threats.  Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges
justly.  He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we
might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have
been healed.  For you were like sheep going astray, but now you have
returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls."

"Wives, *in the same way* be submissive to your husbands so that, if
any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without
words by the behavior of their wives, when they see the purity and
reverence of your lives.  Your beauty should not come from outward
adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and
fine clothes.  Instead, it should be that of your inner self, the
unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth
in God's sight.  For this is the way the holy women of the past who
put their hope in God used to make themselves beautiful.  They were
submissive to their own husbands, like Sarah, who obeyed Abraham and
called him her master. You are her daughters if you do what is right
and do not give way to fear" (3:1-6).

"But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are
blessed.  'Do not fear what they fear; do not be frightened' {Isaiah
8:12}." (1 Peter 3:14)

"Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also
with the same attitude..." (1 Peter 4:1)

"So then, those who suffer according to God's will should commit
themselves to their faithful Creator and continue to do good." (4:19;
cf. 2:23)

"Be self-controlled and alert.  Your enemy the devil prowls around
like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.  Resist him,
standing firm in the faith, because you know that your brothers
throughout the world are undergoing the same kind of sufferings.  And
the God of all grace, who called you to his eternal glory in Christ,
after you have suffered a little while, will himself restore you and
make you strong, firm and steadfast.  To him be the power for ever
and ever. Amen."  (5:8-11)

--- Moe (moebergeron@...) wrote:

> Good points. Would you consider that man who physically
> and verbally abuses his wife a faithfull husband before
> God and man?

--- to which Rosa Edwards <rosa@...> followed up:

> You do make a valid point but it is, as Moe seems to be pointing out,
> terribly one-sided. Faithful Christian women in abusive marriages
> need to
> hear about the strength God gives to endure, but they also, IMO, need
> to
> hear the other side of the story - that God abhors the man of
> violence,
> that Malachi's exhortations against divorce include a harsh word to
> husbands who were not treating their wives properly, and that just a
> few
> verses later in 1 Peter 3 husbands are told that their treatment of
> their
> wives affects their prayers!


I suppose I felt it to be a "given" that an abusive husband is not a
faithful husband; I don't know anyone who would insinuate such a man to
be in a right relationship with Jesus Christ.  The reason my post may
have seemed to be "terribly one-sided" (and why I didn't continue into
1 Peter 3:7) is that this thread is not on the topic of spouse abuse
per se; it rather concerns exceptions that would permit divorce.  Hence
I was speaking to the *victim* of an abusive relationship--the one who
would think to seek a divorce--not to the abuser.  (If this were a
thread considering the biblical stance on spouse abuse, I suspect it
would not last very long for the very reason wherewith I
opened--unanimity would reign).

In any case, Rosa, I would somewhat disagree with your opinion
above--that the abused party also needs "to hear the other side of the
story - that God abhors the man of violence..."  Not only is this side
of the story biblically obvious (and I suspect that an abuser himself
already knows in his conscience that his actions are deeply sinful),
but focusing on it could easily breed judgmentalism toward the abusive
partner.  How will such knowledge on her part help her situation?  In
other words, what good does it do to convince the woman that her
husband's actions are sinful?  We are responsible for our own actions,
not for those of others.  You also stated:

> If an abused wife gets a
> divorce, is that God's ideal? NO! But neither was her being abused in
> the first place.

First of all, to compare God's ideal for the Christian wife's actions
to that for the non-Christian husband's actions is invalid for making
your point.  The Christian is self-professedly committed to Christ; the
non-Christian is not.  God's sovereign, decrative ideal for his called
and chosen followers is always to carry out his moral will.  His ideal
for others is not necessarily so.  I don't wish to open a Pandora's box
here, but I would like to submit that, on one level, it may very well
be God's ideal for a Christian woman to be abused.  The example of
Christ will be helpful again:  Was it God's ideal that Christ be
crucified?  On one level, no; the actions of the Jews were sinful, and
the unrepentant will be judged for their actions.  Yet on another
level, yes!  Christ's sufferings were necessary for God's eternal plan
to be accomplished (cf. Acts 2:23; 4:27-28).  I would assert that the
same is true for the Christian.  Although God abhors abuse,
nevertheless *suffering* is a prime means for God's sanctifying of his
people (which is really nothing more than his conforming them to the
image of his Son) (cf. again 1 Peter 4:1ff).  Hence the consistent
juxtaposition of suffering and glorification in the NT (e.g., Rom
8:17ff; 2 Cor 4:17; Phil 3:10-11; Acts 14:22; 1 Peter 4:13).

In fact, I would assert that this is what Heb 4:14-16 is really all
about.  In a previous post you cited this passage as a support for the
notion that God sympathizes with the moral weakness of his people
(specifically, when they fall and get a divorce).  Ironically, this
passage actually states the opposite.  It is *not* *moral* weakness
that this passage has in mind, but *physical* weakness as the result of
physical suffering (i.e., frailty/infirmity; the historical context is
one of persecution [cf. 10:32-36].  Cf. also "weakness" in 2 Cor
12:9-10).  The word "tempted" in v. 15 is properly translated "tested"
and refers to Christ's sufferings (so clearly also in Heb 2:18--cf.
2:10; 5:7-10; 12:2-3; 13:12-13).  In other words, Christ was tested
through all suffering, yet he never abandoned his task.  So we can now
confidently approach him for the mercy and grace to persevere in his
footsteps when we are suffering.  God's grace here is efficacious
(hence "grace to *help* us in our *time of need*" [4:16])--it doesn't
helplessly forgive failures after-the-fact, it empowers his people to
stand firm through suffering just as Christ himself did.  To bring it
down to a practical level in our situation of spouse abuse, Christ can
sympathize with the abused wife and--when approached by her for
empowering mercy--supply her with the grace to persevere when she is
being mistreated.

Finally, you also stated:

> I get tired of Christians acting as though everything were redeemed
> in
> Christ but our marriages, and we just have to suffer through them
> because
> of the fall. Yes there are consequences, but in Christ ALL THINGS are
> made
> new and we are in all ways being made into His image, which should
> make our
> marriages look a lot more like God intended in the first place - "one
> flesh". Intimate. NO ABUSE.

I would assert that a lot more than just marriages are not yet "made
new" in Christ.  It seems as though you are bordering on realized
eschatology (hopefully I'm not using just seminary jargon).  Biblically
we live in the "already-but-not-yet."  Although we are destined for
full redemption, in the meantime (as Paul says) "outwardly we are
wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day" (2 Cor
4:16).  You are right that "we are in all ways being made into His
image"--but that is precisely why we *will* suffer in this life ("No
servant is greater than his master" [John 15:20]).  And that is also
why our marriages will *not* be perfect--particularly when one's spouse
is a non-believer.

In the grace and peace of Christ,

Matthew Eby
Student, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

I think something has been left out here.

1 Peter speaks to the abused person, whether slave or wife, etc.

But society must care for and try to prevent this abuse.

If you knew a woman was being abused by her husband, you should inform the
authorities. She should be given a safe place to live and her husband should
be in gaol if he has broken the law.

If the abuser is a church member, he should be forbidden to associate with
Christian people until he repents and the church should provide a safe place
for the abused woman.


David McKay
musicke@...
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~musicke

Hi Matthew,

Welcome to the list. Forgive me if ur not new, but I don't think I've
seen a post of yours before.

> > I am not trying to get into the debate here. I am simply
questioning
> > whether the correct application of this issue is as clear as
(some
> > people think) the exegesis is.
>
>
> I suppose I am one of those "some people" who "think" the exegesis
is
> clear.  But 1 Peter 3:1-6 has not entered into the discussion, and I
> feel it should.

Just to clarify, I was not suggesting that the exegesis is unclear;
on the contrary, I think that *in most cases* it is. What I was
questioning is whether the application is as clear as the exegesis. I
am one of those people who thinks that it is not.

> It is with this in mind that Peter finally turns to Christian
*wives*
> with the adverb hOMOIWS ("Likewise," "In the same way") (3:1-6):

I have a number of problems with your application of this passage
(and the surrounding context) to the issue of divorce/remarriage and
spousal abuse. Perhaps I can just reel off my problems and you can
respond to whichever ones your feel require a response?

1) This passage is not about Divorce and remarriage. Rather it is
addressing certain roles and situations in society and how we should
respond to them. Just as Slaves were sometimes free to leave their
masters (having paid off their debt, bought their freedom etc.),
maybe Peter envisions a time when wives *will* leave their husbands.
However, that is not his pont here. Rather, he is saying, all the
time that you are in this situation, behave in this way.

2) I feel that you are stretching the meaning of 'Homoiose.' There is
no reason to think that it means 'in exactly the same way, in every
detail be the same.' It has as much flexibility as our English
word 'simlarly.' The degee of similarity needs to be defined from the
context. As I read the wider context (2:133:-7) I see Peter
addressing a number of relationships. "Submit yourselves to every
authority...Slaves submit to your masters...wives be submissive to
your husbands...husbands be considerate."

You seem to be reading 'Homoiose' as saying "Wives, similarly to the
way that slaves are to obey to the point of suffering - or Christ has
suffered - you are to be submissive to your husbands." But I read
the 'similarly' as pointing back to 2:18. All that follows the
slave's command to obey is an elaoration on how that command will
work itself out. This is also done with the Wives command in 3:1-6
and the husbands in 3:7.  I think that the 'similarly' almost jumps
these sections and goes to the command each time.

This understandng of 'Homoiose' is confirmed in 3:7 where Husbands
are told 'in the same way' to be considerate. It seems here that the
word is best translated as 'also.' In a number of places in the NT
the word is used to bring in a new sub-topic within a wider argument.

Sorry if this labours the point, but I thought it might be helpful
for any non-Greek readers to recognise that the word did not
necessarily carry the exact meaning you had given it (though of
course, it could do). Just looking at the way that the word is used
elsewhere in the letter (cf. 3:7; 5:5) demonstrates that the word can
mean 'similarly' (without specifying the degree of similarity
intended) or simply 'also.'

3) If we are commanded in 2:14 to submit to law-enforcement agencies,
does this not require the reporting of all violent crimes? After all,
to keep such information to ourselves is against the law.

4) The wider testimony of scripture suggests that we should stand up
for the rights of the oppressed. This is why there was such a thing
as the French resistance in WWII - and not just a submitting to the
new authorities.

5) The wider testimony of scripture also suggests that it is
sometimes right to flea persecution. Cf Mt. 24 and Acts.

6) Even *if* this passage refers to spousal abuse, I don't think that
the application is all that clear. To what degree should the wife
submit to her husband and endure such suffering? Should she turn the
other cheek and let him stab his cigarette out on her face? Should
she let him and his drunken friends take erotic pictures of her when
he tells her to? What happens when he turns upon the children?

7) There are some topics that scripture just does not address. (E.g.
does Eph.5:29 ignore cases of self-mutilation?). In such situations I
think it is valid to look at the wider testimony of scripture and the
spirit of Christ and seek to apply the (often) black and white words
of the Bible to our grey and murky world.

It is not popular to say it in such a setting, but I would *insist*
that an abused spouse leaves her/his partner. This shows compassion
on both counts.

Apart from that, I agree with everything you wrote! ;o)

Grace to you,

Graham

Troy, you're right, I just didn't put all that in my post because Matthew
had covered it very well. I was just giving "the rest of the story". I also
point out 1 Corinthians 13 as the ideal for what love is and isn't, and
tell them that it says love does not rejoice in unrighteousness but in the
truth, and that it is okay for them to recognize the wrong their husbands
are doing! Love doesn't hide from the truth. As you alluded, sometimes
safety concerns are an issue, and also legal concerns -- for example often
drug abuse is involved, and in my state at least, children can be removed
from the home if drugs are found, even if only 1 parent is using them, and
I encourage women to draw a firm line in the interest of protecting their
kids and refuse to allow drugs in the home. Often in these situations the
father also abandons his parental responsibilities and the woman still has
to make sure the kids are safe. I don't see being a 1 Peter 3 example as
being mutually exclusive of being a strong parent for the kids who are
vulnerable. I know some may disagree, but I see legal authorities as a
protector in this case, and I don't think a woman would be acting
unbiblically to call the police if her husband refused to remove drugs from
the home.

Matthew, I apologize if the tone of my email seemed abrasive. I got to
thinking about it last night and I know I feel really strongly about this,
and I just want you to know I wasn't lashing out at you or anything like
that, I just was on my soapbox and may have come across differently than I
intended. Ah the weaknesses of the flesh ....

Rosa



> I appreciate Rosa's approach of pointing out the wrong behavior of  men
> who behave this way.  Although not said explicitly, my assumption
> is that she goes on to teach women in this situation what scripture
> describes as the best way to respond to this treatment all the while
> trusting God and not abandoning common sense safety concerns.  I
> hope  I haven't put words in your mouth, Rosa!
>

Hi Matthew,

Thanks for your clarification not only of your post and interpretation but
of the Scripture we have discussed. Just a couple of comments/thoughts ...

> In any case, Rosa, I would somewhat disagree with your opinion
> above--that the abused party also needs "to hear the other side of
> the story - that God abhors the man of violence..."  Not only
> is this side of the story biblically obvious (and I suspect that an
> abuser himself already knows in his conscience that his actions are
> deeply sinful), but focusing on it could easily breed judgmentalism
> toward the abusive partner.  How will such knowledge on her part
> help her situation?  In other words, what good does it do to
> convince the woman that her
> husband's actions are sinful?  We are responsible for our own
> actions, not for those of others. 

This is where talking to others who have been there can be helpful to us.
Women who have been abused frequently are deceived into an attitude of "I'm
bringing it on myself." It is not uncommon for abused women to make excuses
for their husband's actions: "If only I did...". Even Christian women are
prone to this, because part of the abuse often includes actions by the
abuser that encourage this line of thinking. Often these women have never
recognized that this action is sinful. Many grew up in abusive homes and
think this is just the way marriage is.

When we present the "whole counsel" of the Word of God, we demonstrate
truth in every aspect of the situation, to the best of our ability. In
doing so, we help the woman recognize which of her attitudes are truly her
own sin, and which are not. For example: Her husband beating her up is NOT
sin on her part, but she may think she is sinning by "making" him do it.
She needs to know she is not sinning, he is. However, resenting him and
harboring unforgiveness is sin, and she needs to know that she is not to
justify sin by pointing to his actions. [I am making the assumption of a
Christian wife here.]

> In fact, I would assert that this is what Heb 4:14-16 is really all
> about.  In a previous post you cited this passage as a support for
> the notion that God sympathizes with the moral weakness of his people
> (specifically, when they fall and get a divorce). 

Not being a Greek scholar, I can't comment on the Greek word here, but I
thank you for your definitions. I have always assumed from the context ("We
have a high priest who has been tempted in every way as we are yet without
sin") that the "weakness" He sympathized with was our weakness to give in
to temptation, and that the grace and strength in the time of need that He
gives, is the grace and strength to sustain the temptation rather than give
in to it. So my perspective has been that He will give strength to
persevere despite abuse because He knows the weakness of our flesh. But if
we fail, He doesn't stop sympathizing just because we didn't take the help
He offered to keep us from failing.

That sounds really convoluted and I have to get to work but I hope it makes
a little sense. Basically that's what and why I've interpreted it the way I
did, but maybe I'm way off base, and I appreciate your explanations which I
will give more study to later.

Finally, you said:

> I would assert that a lot more than just marriages are not yet
> "made new" in Christ.  It seems as though you are
> bordering on realized eschatology (hopefully I'm not using just
> seminary jargon).  Biblically we live in the
> "already-but-not-yet."  Although we are destined for
> full redemption, in the meantime (as Paul says) "outwardly we are
> wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day" (2 Cor
> 4:16).  You are right that "we are in all ways being made
> into His image"--but that is precisely why we *will* suffer in
> this life ("No servant is greater than his master" [John
> 15:20]).  And that is also why our marriages will *not* be
> perfect--particularly when one's spouse is a non-believer.

I agree totally. However, I also believe that when these things are present
in our marriages it indicates something that CAN be made new in Christ. For
example, if the wife comes to Christ, endures abuse, and later the unsaved
husband is saved and his behavior changed by Christ, that marriage has been
made new in Christ.

Also I (perhaps wrongly) sensed an assumption that an abusive husband is
always a non-Christian. That may not necessarily be true. An immature
Christian may be susceptible to this same behavior, especially if it was
part of his past. And in those situations the woman can be greatly helped
by going through the procedure described in Matt. 18 (or we who see this
behavior can help them by the same discipline process). In my understanding
these are the type of men addressed in 1 Peter 3:7.

Thanks Matthew. May you learn much in the classroom and the laboratory of
life!

Rosa

Hi Matt,

I can understand ur trials with coming to grips with NCT. It took me
ages to get something in my head in answer to the question, what *is*
NCT? One of the problem seemed to be that there is (I guess,
obviously) a variety of positions under the rubric of NCT. Zaspel is,
for instance, slightly diferent to Reisinger. For the record, I stand
somewhere near Zaspel on this one.

As well as Sound of Grace, you might like to check out In-depth
Studies at www.ids.org

At that site you'll find the very helpful essay on 'What is NCT?' The
exact URL is http://www.ids.org/ids/wnct.html

As well as looking at NCT, I'd encourage you to look at Dan Fuller's
view in "Gospel or Law? Contrast or continuum?" Even if you disagree -
  as I do - you'll get some good insights. I'm convinced that Rom.9:32
is vital to the discussion.

God bless with ur studying. If you work it all out, let me know!

Graham

Hello, Graham, thanks for your response.  Just by way of notice (to you
and all others), I won't be able to continue these long posts, as I am
very busy right now (even with the holiday approaching; it is my wife's
and my 6-month anniversary on Friday :).  But feel free to respond
again; I will definitely read what anyone has to say on this issue.


--- DIVROM <divrom@...> wrote:
> Welcome to the list. Forgive me if ur not new, but I don't think I've
> seen a post of yours before.


I've been lurking for a couple months, but as a seminary student I am
usually too busy to get very involved in the dialogue.  For brief
personal background/introduction, I completed my B.A. at Moody Bible
Institute in 2000, and my acquaintance with Piper is actually only
vicariously through his son, Ben, who attended there at the same time.

Below I have responded to your points regarding the interpretation of 1
Peter:


> 1) This passage is not about Divorce and remarriage. Rather it is
> addressing certain roles and situations in society and how we should
> respond to them. Just as Slaves were sometimes free to leave their
> masters (having paid off their debt, bought their freedom etc.),
> maybe Peter envisions a time when wives *will* leave their husbands.
> However, that is not his pont here. Rather, he is saying, all the
> time that you are in this situation, behave in this way.


Although this passage is not directly about divorce and remarriage (per
se), it (3:1-6) *is* (conversely) about commitment to one's spouse, and
so clearly by inference it does speak very pointedly to the issue at
hand.  Furthermore, although a slave occasionally was set free by his
master, this is something altogether different than a slave running
away from his master--which was never condoned, even by the NT apostles
(the latter scenario would need to be proven as condoned in order to
make your case).  But--for the sake of the argument--even if it were
condoned, a husband and wife do not have the sorts of clauses written
into their covenant that a slave did.  It is "for better or for worse,
as long as we both shall live."  And if (for a slave) submission
entailed enduring abuse, do you truly suppose that Peter would set a
lower standard of submission for those who are bound by a marriage
covenant?  I believe Peter could have restated 2:18ff in this way:
"Wives, submit yourselves to your husbands with all respect, not only
to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are
harsh..."  It seems to me that Peter's definition of submission
throughout 2:18-3:6 pretty well precludes divorce.


> 2) I feel that you are stretching the meaning of 'Homoiose.' There is
> no reason to think that it means 'in exactly the same way, in every
> detail be the same.' It has as much flexibility as our English
> word 'simlarly.' The degee of similarity needs to be defined from the
> context. As I read the wider context (2:133:-7) I see Peter
> addressing a number of relationships. "Submit yourselves to every
> authority...Slaves submit to your masters...wives be submissive to
> your husbands...husbands be considerate."
>
> You seem to be reading 'Homoiose' as saying "Wives, similarly to the
> way that slaves are to obey to the point of suffering - or Christ has
> suffered - you are to be submissive to your husbands." But I read
> the 'similarly' as pointing back to 2:18. All that follows the
> slave's command to obey is an elaoration on how that command will
> work itself out. This is also done with the Wives command in 3:1-6
> and the husbands in 3:7.  I think that the 'similarly' almost jumps
> these sections and goes to the command each time.
>
> This understandng of 'Homoiose' is confirmed in 3:7 where Husbands
> are told 'in the same way' to be considerate. It seems here that the
> word is best translated as 'also.' In a number of places in the NT
> the word is used to bring in a new sub-topic within a wider argument.
>
> Sorry if this labours the point, but I thought it might be helpful
> for any non-Greek readers to recognise that the word did not
> necessarily carry the exact meaning you had given it (though of
> course, it could do). Just looking at the way that the word is used
> elsewhere in the letter (cf. 3:7; 5:5) demonstrates that the word can
> mean 'similarly' (without specifying the degree of similarity
> intended) or simply 'also.'


Graham, I would not weaken the adverb hOMOIWS to merely "also"; at its
root it is a comparative/contrastive term (cf. hOMOIOS [adj.], hOMOIOW
[vb.]).  I would suggest instead that the best English gloss for
hOMOIWS is something like "correspondingly."  This is sufficiently
broad in its connotation to accomodate both *direct* correspondence
(i.e., slaves::wives [3:1]) and *inverted* correspondence (i.e.,
wives::husbands [3:7]; elders:young-men [5:5])--but correspondence
nevertheless.  In other words, one must determine from context whether
the author intends a *comparison* or an associated *contrast*--but
never (I would assert) merely a "new sub-topic within a wider
argument."

I would further maintain that the notion of "submission" throughout the
epistle carries at the forefront the implication of "even through
unjust suffering."  We must observe that 2:13 ("Submit yourselves for
the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men") follows 2:12
("Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of
doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he
visits us").  Christians in the first two centuries were being falsely
accused/mistreated for such things as atheism (failure to worship the
Roman emperor), cannibalism (eating "body and blood") and incest
(marriage between so-called "brothers" and "sisters").  And although
Peter asserts that governors "are sent by him to punish those who do
wrong and to commend those who do right" and even rhetorically asks,
"Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?" (3:13), he
nevertheless concedes that unjust suffering is a very real potential:
"But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed.  'Do
not fear what they fear; do not be frightened'" (3:14ff).

So 1 Peter 3:6b ("You are her daughters if you do what is right and do
not give way to fear") supports the fact that implicitly Peter also has
such mistreatment in mind when speaking to wives.  This is the only
thing to "fear" in the surrounding context.


> 3) If we are commanded in 2:14 to submit to law-enforcement agencies,
> does this not require the reporting of all violent crimes? After all,
> to keep such information to ourselves is against the law.


Perhaps.  One has to reckon with the question of what is more sacred:
obeying law-enforcement agencies, or honoring/preserving God's marriage
covenant.  I suspect that one's larger ethical framework will determine
the side of the fence whereon he/she lands.


> 4) The wider testimony of scripture suggests that we should stand up
> for the rights of the oppressed. This is why there was such a thing
> as the French resistance in WWII - and not just a submitting to the
> new authorities.
>
> 5) The wider testimony of scripture also suggests that it is
> sometimes right to flea persecution. Cf Mt. 24 and Acts.


Yes, but the French resistance were not breaking up someone's marriage
covenant, nor were those in Matthew 24 and Acts fleeing from one.


> 6) Even *if* this passage refers to spousal abuse, I don't think that
> the application is all that clear. To what degree should the wife
> submit to her husband and endure such suffering? Should she turn the
> other cheek and let him stab his cigarette out on her face? Should
> she let him and his drunken friends take erotic pictures of her when
> he tells her to? What happens when he turns upon the children?


Of course, everything must be taken on a case-by-case basis, and it
would be framing the question to assume that the only two options in
every situation are either to remain compliant to the abusive spouse's
every wish or to dissolve the marriage.  A woman should submit to her
husband and endure such suffering to the degree that she committed to
do so on her wedding day (again, "for better or for worse, 'til death
do us part").  If she did not intend to do so, or if there were some
sort of exception(s) she had in mind, she should not have taken such
radical vows.  On the other hand, she must remember that her prior and
ultimate allegiance is to her covenant with God.  Thus, if submission
to her husband would involve doing something sinful (as in your second
example above), she is under no obligation to do so (cf. Acts 4:19;
5:29).  And, yes, children should be protected--but there exist
numerous means for accomplishing this outside of divorce.

> 7) There are some topics that scripture just does not address. (E.g.
> does Eph.5:29 ignore cases of self-mutilation?). In such situations I
> think it is valid to look at the wider testimony of scripture and the
> spirit of Christ and seek to apply the (often) black and white words
> of the Bible to our grey and murky world.


I would suggest that we must always look at the overriding emphasis of
the text we are exegeting.  I don't think your example of Eph 5:29
proves your point because Paul is not even remotely concerned about the
issue of self-mutilation there.  He is appealing to something that is
*generally* true (most people do not mutilate their bodies) and using
it to support his main argument:  husbands must love their wives.  On
the other hand, in 1 Peter 3:1-6 the question of a wife's commitment to
her husband is not remote; it is its very substance.


> It is not popular to say it in such a setting, but I would *insist*
> that an abused spouse leaves her/his partner. This shows compassion
> on both counts.


Would you also suggest that marriage vows then be revised at the
outset, something like, "for better or for worse--unless you turn on me
and abuse me (or do something else I deem deeply injurious)--as long as
we both shall live"?  I am in no way being sarcastic; this is a
question in all seriousness.  Perhaps this is what you think, I don't
know...

Just by way of addendum, whatever "submission" properly entails, let us
remember that it is "for the Lord's sake" (2:13).  He must be the
driving factor in all our decisions.  We must always ask, "For whose
sake am I making this decision?"

Sharing your pursuit of love and truth,

Matthew Eby
Student, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign up for SBC Yahoo! Dial - First Month Free
http://sbc.yahoo.com

Graham,

Thank you for your insight and (imVVVho) good exegisis, and the added
prevention of this chick pulling her feathers out of her head is
appreciated :O).

(WIMBLEDON... WIMBLEDON...WIMBLEDON... WIMBLEDON... WIMBLEDON...
WIMBLEDON... WIMBLEDON... )

Matthew,

We had a thread that quickly died regarding the topic of spousal
abuse a month or so ago. Like you, I am younger punk (31) and I must
say that in the last few years, my eyes have been WIDELY regarding
this topic.

When one encounters women (even as recently as this very afternoon)
who have been beaten, who have head their heads thrown into doors
(and grateful their hair had not been pulled out by the man as he
threw her) women who have been made to eat spoiled food for an ENTIRE
week by a controlling spouse "Don't you dare waste any of this
food"), not allowed to flush their own toliets, read a book... (the
bible even) threatened with mutilation, then you reflect on the God's
word spoken in Malachi, which again in my humble opinion the context
surrounding God's declaration of "I HATE DIVORCE" is not dealt with
nearly thoroughly often enough, the door of black/white and rigidity
can open to see the broad context of God's mercy towards downtrodden
women.

As I have reflected upon Jesus dealings with the woman at the well as
of late, He didn't give her a list of instructions on how to make
right of her marital situation or heavily lay into her about the
circumstances surrounding the events that lead to each of her
divorces. I believe He tried to communicate to her that HE is the One
she was searching and thirsting for and no man on this green earth is
going to fill her longings but Him.

Much Grace,
Jenny


--- In pipertalk@y..., "DIVROM" <divrom@y...> wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
> Welcome to the list. Forgive me if ur not new, but I don't think
I've
> seen a post of yours before.
>
> > > I am not trying to get into the debate here. I am simply
> questioning
> > > whether the correct application of this issue is as clear as
> (some
> > > people think) the exegesis is.
> >
> >
> > I suppose I am one of those "some people" who "think" the
exegesis
> is
> > clear.  But 1 Peter 3:1-6 has not entered into the discussion,
and I
> > feel it should.
>
> Just to clarify, I was not suggesting that the exegesis is unclear;
> on the contrary, I think that *in most cases* it is. What I was
> questioning is whether the application is as clear as the exegesis.
I
> am one of those people who thinks that it is not.
>
> > It is with this in mind that Peter finally turns to Christian
> *wives*
> > with the adverb hOMOIWS ("Likewise," "In the same way") (3:1-6):
>
> I have a number of problems with your application of this passage
> (and the surrounding context) to the issue of divorce/remarriage
and
> spousal abuse. Perhaps I can just reel off my problems and you can
> respond to whichever ones your feel require a response?
>
> 1) This passage is not about Divorce and remarriage. Rather it is
> addressing certain roles and situations in society and how we
should
> respond to them. Just as Slaves were sometimes free to leave their
> masters (having paid off their debt, bought their freedom etc.),
> maybe Peter envisions a time when wives *will* leave their
husbands.
> However, that is not his pont here. Rather, he is saying, all the
> time that you are in this situation, behave in this way.
>
> 2) I feel that you are stretching the meaning of 'Homoiose.' There
is
> no reason to think that it means 'in exactly the same way, in every
> detail be the same.' It has as much flexibility as our English
> word 'simlarly.' The degee of similarity needs to be defined from
the
> context. As I read the wider context (2:133:-7) I see Peter
> addressing a number of relationships. "Submit yourselves to every
> authority...Slaves submit to your masters...wives be submissive to
> your husbands...husbands be considerate."
>
> You seem to be reading 'Homoiose' as saying "Wives, similarly to
the
> way that slaves are to obey to the point of suffering - or Christ
has
> suffered - you are to be submissive to your husbands." But I read
> the 'similarly' as pointing back to 2:18. All that follows the
> slave's command to obey is an elaoration on how that command will
> work itself out. This is also done with the Wives command in 3:1-6
> and the husbands in 3:7.  I think that the 'similarly' almost jumps
> these sections and goes to the command each time.
>
> This understandng of 'Homoiose' is confirmed in 3:7 where Husbands
> are told 'in the same way' to be considerate. It seems here that
the
> word is best translated as 'also.' In a number of places in the NT
> the word is used to bring in a new sub-topic within a wider
argument.
>
> Sorry if this labours the point, but I thought it might be helpful
> for any non-Greek readers to recognise that the word did not
> necessarily carry the exact meaning you had given it (though of
> course, it could do). Just looking at the way that the word is used
> elsewhere in the letter (cf. 3:7; 5:5) demonstrates that the word
can
> mean 'similarly' (without specifying the degree of similarity
> intended) or simply 'also.'
>
> 3) If we are commanded in 2:14 to submit to law-enforcement
agencies,
> does this not require the reporting of all violent crimes? After
all,
> to keep such information to ourselves is against the law.
>
> 4) The wider testimony of scripture suggests that we should stand
up
> for the rights of the oppressed. This is why there was such a thing
> as the French resistance in WWII - and not just a submitting to the
> new authorities.
>
> 5) The wider testimony of scripture also suggests that it is
> sometimes right to flea persecution. Cf Mt. 24 and Acts.
>
> 6) Even *if* this passage refers to spousal abuse, I don't think
that
> the application is all that clear. To what degree should the wife
> submit to her husband and endure such suffering? Should she turn
the
> other cheek and let him stab his cigarette out on her face? Should
> she let him and his drunken friends take erotic pictures of her
when
> he tells her to? What happens when he turns upon the children?
>
> 7) There are some topics that scripture just does not address.
(E.g.
> does Eph.5:29 ignore cases of self-mutilation?). In such situations
I
> think it is valid to look at the wider testimony of scripture and
the
> spirit of Christ and seek to apply the (often) black and white
words
> of the Bible to our grey and murky world.
>
> It is not popular to say it in such a setting, but I would *insist*
> that an abused spouse leaves her/his partner. This shows compassion
> on both counts.
>
> Apart from that, I agree with everything you wrote! ;o)
>
> Grace to you,
>
> Graham

Daniel Beck said:
It's not my place to say what should and
> shouldn't be discussed here. But, I feel like we don't talk enough about
> Christian Hedonism (not the phrase, but the teaching behind it) and how
> to work it out in our lives.
>
> This isn't scientific, but I feel like the number of people who
> contribute on this list has dwindled since we got off on topics like
> Baptism, pastor titles and pay, and what distinguishes Reformed Baptist
> from Sovereign Grace Baptist, and the like. It's not that I don't care
> about those topics, but this is a list to discuss Piper's teaching. If
> people want to discuss those other topics, maybe someone should start a
> SGB discussion list.

I would like to "chime" in this, if I may. I would contend that our numbers
have not dwindled but rather increased... But, Moe is in the know with the
facts. Also, I have found for some of us there is a sense of an
"e-community" of like minded folk we've become comfortable communicating
with regarding a number of differing issues. Yet, I agree that it would be a
BIG blessing to also discuss the work Dr. Piper.

SOOOO :O) Daniel, as you proposed, could you start one off?

Jenny

Graham,

    Thanks so much for the post. I will certainly be studying every suggested
site which deals with the topic with much interest.

    I do appreciate every encouragement I can find in this endeavor.

Peace,
MATT


No Christ - No Peace ; Know Christ- Know Peace


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

All,

  My wife's sister was in a boating accident today
http://startribune.com/stories/462/3036274.html
  and is in the hospital. She is not a believer and is in serious
condition. Please pray for my wife for wisdom in dealing with her
family during this time and for my sister in law to repent.

  Thanks,

  - Bernie

1 Corinthians 7:15  But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother
or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to
peace.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]