We also know that God is also a social Being.

As Jesus prayed before his crucifixion, he mentioned the joint glory he shared with his Father prior to the Creation: “Now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began” (Jn 17:5). God also desires fellowship with man whom he created: “We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ” (1 Jn 1:3).

God created marriage to fulfill man’s social need. “The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’ The LORD God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.’ Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. The man said, ‘This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called “woman,” for she was taken out of man.’ For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame” (Gen 2:15-25).

It seems apparent that this text is the theological account of Creation, whereas Genesis one provides a chronological account of Creation. The main reason for seeing Genesis 2 as a theological reading of Creation is that a simple, straightforward reading of the text would imply that God created the animals in a misguided attempt to find a helper for Adam. In reality, this text is showing that God supplies all of man’s needs.

It is apparent from this text that God knows man’s nature even better than man knows it himself, and God did not create man to live in isolation but he created man to live in community.

Like man, the animals are “formed” from the ground and they are “living creatures.” However, there is a qualitative difference in that God has made man in his own image.

Thus, God brings the animals to the man (not man to the animals) and man names the animals (they do not name him). This is possible only because God has given man dominion over the animals.

Read More

We also know that God has great cognitive ability.

E.g., Leviticus 19:45: “I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.”

God’s moral law arises out of his character. Our moral capacity has great implications for the family relationship: I can choose how to interact with my wife—am I going to beat her or am I going to go and have an affair?—and I can choose how to interact with my wife—am I going to teach them to be moral and am I going to use spanking out of anger rather than a teaching method?

We also know that God has great cognitive ability. E.g., “The foolishness of God is wiser than man’s wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man’s strength” (1 Cor 1:25).

If God and man neither had cognitive abilities, how could God place his moral law in a written form so that man could understand that law? Man’s cognitive abilities also have an impact on marriage: we are in this course to learn how to be better husbands, wives, and parents. If we did not have cognitive ability, we couldn’t do that. Partners often need to retrain the way they think about their spouses. Without cognitive ability that would be impossible.

Read More

We know from a multitude of Scriptures that God is a supremely moral Being.

E.g., Leviticus 19:45: “I am the LORD who brought you up out of Egypt to be your God; therefore be holy, because I am holy.”

God’s moral law arises out of his character. Our moral capacity has great implications for the family relationship: I can choose how to interact with my wife—am I going to beat her or am I going to go and have an affair?—and I can choose how to interact with my wife—am I going to teach them to be moral and am I going to use spanking out of anger rather than a teaching method?

Read More

The First Thing We Need to Understand about the Home is that God Created Marriage

We learn from an examination of the Scriptures that God created man in his own image. “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.’ So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen 1:26-27). What does it mean that man is made in the image of God? There have been a variety of ideas put forward in the literature as to the meaning of this concept. I don’t want us to think about the various ideas different scholars have put forth, but I want us to think about the most likely meanings. Some believe that the divine image sets man apart from the rest of God’s creatures by emphasizing his dignity, which must be recognized and respected by one’s fellows. While there can be no doubt that man’s bearing the divine image should cause us to view all people with dignity, this is not what I believe is the main idea of the text.

Some believe that this refers to man’s being the apex of the creation. Man stands above the other creatures God has made. The reasoning for this idea comes from Psalm 8:5-8: “You made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor. You made him ruler over the works of your hands; you put everything under his feet: all flocks and herds, and the beast of the field, the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, all that swim in the paths of the seas.” The word translated “heavenly beings” in verse 5 could be translated “God.” Thus, the idea could be that although man is lower than God, he is only a little lower than God. Being the apex of creation, man has dominion over all other living things. I still, however, remain unconvinced that this is the main idea in the text.

It is my conviction that this refers to man’s moral, cognitive, and social attributes.

Read More

A close corollary to having unrealistic expectations from marriage is having myths concerning marriage. The National Marriage Project of Rutgers University has published “The Top Ten Myths of Marriage.” REMEMBER THESE ARE MYTHS!

One: Marriage benefits men much more than women.

Contrary to earlier and widely publicized reports, recent research finds men and women to benefit about equally from marriage, although in different ways. Both men and women live longer, happier, healthier and wealthier lives when they are married. Husbands typically gain greater health benefits while wives gain greater financial advantages.

Having children typically brings a married couple closer together and increases marital happiness.

Many studies have shown that the arrival of the first baby commonly has the effect of pushing the mother and father farther apart, and bringing stress to the marriage. However, couples with children have a slightly lower rate of divorce than childless couples.

The keys to long-term marital success are good luck and romantic love.

Rather than luck and love, the most common reasons couples give for their long-term marital success are commitment and companionship. They define their marriage as a creation that has taken hard work, dedication and commitment (to each other and to the institution of marriage). The happiest couples are friends who share lives and are compatible in interests and values.

The more educated a woman becomes, the lower are her chances of getting married.

A recent study based on marriage rates in the mid-1990s concludes that today’s women college graduates are more likely to marry than their non-college peers, despite their older age at first marriage. This is a change from the past, when women with more education were less likely to marry.

Couples who live together before marriage, and are thus able to test how well suited they are for each other, have more satisfying and longer-lasting marriages than couples who do not.

Many studies have found that those who live together before marriage have less satisfying marriages and a considerably higher chance of eventually breaking up. One reason is that people who cohabit may be more skittish of commitment and more likely to call it quits when problems arise. But in addition, the very act of living together may lead to attitudes that make happy marriages more difficult. The findings of one recent study, for example, suggest “there may be less motivation for cohabiting partners to develop their conflict resolution and support skills.

People can’t be expected to stay in a marriage for a lifetime as they did in the past because we live so much longer today.

Unless our comparison goes back a hundred years, there is no basis for this belief. The enormous increase in longevity is due mainly to a steep reduction in infant mortality. And while adults today can expect to live a little longer than their grandparents, they also marry at a later age. The lifespan of a typical, divorce-free marriage, therefore, has not changed much in the past fifty years. Also, many couples call it quits long before they get to a significant anniversary: half of all divorces take place by the seventh year of a marriage.

Marrying puts a woman at greater risk of domestic violence than if she remains single.

Contrary to the proposition that for men “a marriage license is a hitting license,” a large body of research shows that being unmarried—and especially living with a man outside of marriage—is associated with a considerably higher risk of domestic violence for women. One reason for this finding is that married women may significantly under report domestic violence. Further, women are less likely to marry and more likely to divorce a man who is violent. Yet it is probably also the case that married men are less likely to commit domestic violence because they are more invested in their wives’ wellbeing, and more integrated into the extended family and community.

Married people have less satisfying sex lives, and less sex, than single people.

According to a large-scale national study, married people have both more and better sex than do their unmarried counterparts. Not only do they have sex more often, but they enjoy it more, both physically and emotionally.

Cohabitation is just like marriage, but without “the piece of paper.”

Cohabitation typically does not bring the benefits—in physical health, wealth, and emotional wellbeing—that marriage does. In terms of these benefits cohabitants in the United States more closely resemble singles than married couples. This is due, in part, to the fact that cohabitants tend not to be as committed as married couples, and they are more oriented toward their own personal autonomy and less to the wellbeing of their partner.

Because of the high divorce rate, which weeds out the unhappy marriages, people who stay married have happier marriages than people did in the past when everyone stuck it out, no matter how bad the marriage.

According to what people have reported in several large national surveys, the general level of happiness in marriages has not increase and probably has declined slightly. Some studies have found in recent marriages, compared to those of twenty or thirty years ago, significantly more work-related stress, more marital conflict and less marital interaction.

Read More

Most of our expectations in marriage center on three areas

  1. Boundaries: Where does the line around the couple go? Who is in it, and who is out of it? Do both partners agree on how much interference will be tolerated by relatives and friends? How many and what kind of activities will you each do without the other partner?
  2. Investment: How much time and effort does each partner feel the other should be putting into the relationship? What expressions of caring do partners prefer? Gifts? Physical touch? Words of affirmation? Acts of service? Quality time? Are your expressions of love meeting the receiver’s needs and not just your needs?
  3. Control and Power: Is power shared? How? Who makes the decisions? Do both partners feel they have influence in the decision-making process? How do you communicate about important issues?

Therefore, we need to do four things about expectations in marriage:

  1. Be aware of what you expect. Unless you and your mate have been purposeful about discussing your expectations, you likely bring many to your marriage of which you are not consciously aware or you never made clear. Does your partner know yours? Do you know your partner’s?
  2. Be reasonable in what you expect. Just having an expectation does not make it reasonable or realistic. Is it an expectation you, as a couple, can meet or might it need to be adjusted?
  3. Be clear about what you expect. Expectations must be expressed. Love doesn’t turn people into mind readers. Be willing to express your expectations in a respectful manner. If necessary, evaluate, discuss, and adjust them. It isn’t the differences in expectations that are harmful, but the lack of communication about those differences.
  4. Be motivated to meet your mate’s expectations, even when you don’t have the same expectations. Early on in relationships, partners are attentive to knowing and meeting each other’s needs. Unfortunately, as our lives become busy with other things we sometimes forget to pay attention to those needs. Make a conscious effort to know and meet your partner’s expectations.

Read More

Scripture also uses the term “family” to refer to a group of people living together under one roof

“The ark of God remained with the family of Obed-Edom in his house for three months, and the LORD blessed his household and everything he had” (1 Chr 13:14)—Notice the close connection between “family” and “household.”

We must conclude that while the term “family” occurs regularly in the Old Testament and once in the New Testament—the term occurs 123 in the King James Version, only the occurrence in Ephesians 3:15 is outside the Old Testament—there is no definition of “family” given in the Scriptures.

While we don’t have a definition of “family” in the Bible, we do have clear directives concerning marriage, the interaction between husbands and wives, children, and their interaction with their parents and parents’ interaction with their children.

Another problem we have in thinking about “family” is that people, even Christians, think of “family” in different terms. The only experience we have when we marry is our family of origin. If our mother always had supper on the table when our father came home or our father always brought home roses on Friday, it’s easy to see how we expect the same when we get married. On the other hand, if our father verbally abused our mother and our mother regularly gave our father the silent treatment, that’s likely what we’ll expect when we get married. Research has shown that adolescents and young adults develop expectations for family life from television, and that these expectations are associated with the degree of satisfaction they experience in their families. Previous relationships also teach us what to expect from marriage. What friends and former dating partners wanted or needed in a relationship may train us to think that everyone in a marriage acts that way.

Read More

At times, “family” does refer to a group of people with a common ancestry.

When the Israelites were unable to conquer Ai because Achan had taken spoil from Jericho, we read that the LORD told Joshua: “In the morning, present yourselves tribe by tribe. The tribe that the LORD takes shall come forward clan by clan; the clan that the LORD takes shall come forward family by family; and the family that the LORD takes shall come forward man by man. He who is caught with the devoted things shall be destroyed by fire, along with all that belongs to him. He has violated the covenant of the LORD and has done a disgraceful ting in Israel!’ Early the next morning Joshua had Israel come forward by tribes, and Judah was taken. The clans of Judah came forward, and he took the Zerahites. He had the clan of the Zerahites come forward by families, and Zimri was taken. Joshua had his family come forward man by man, and Achan son of Carmi, the son of Zimri, the son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, was taken” (Jos 7:14-18). Do notice, however, that family doesn’t include all people of common ancestry, but simply from grandfather to grandson.

In the narrative of Gideon, “family” is generally described much more closely to what we think of as the traditional “family.”

  • Jud 6:15: “‘But Lord,’ Gideon asked, ‘How can I save Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the least in my family.’”
  • “That same night the LORD said to him, ‘Take the second bull from your father’s heard, the one seven years old. Tear down your father’s altar to Baal and cut down the Asherah pole beside it. Then build a proper kind of altar to the LORD your God on the top of this height. Using the wood of the Asherah pole that you cut down, offer the second bull as a burnt offering.’ So Gideon took ten of his servants and did as the LORD told him. But because he was afraid of his family and the men of the town, he did it at night rather than in the daytime” (Jud 6:25-27). Notice the close connection between family and father.

Read More

The third definition given “The basic unit of society traditionally consisting of two parents rearing their children” sounds good at first.

This is where we will spend the majority of our time this semester, but even the traditional family—two parents rearing their children—poses a problem from a Christian viewpoint. It poses a problem because there are times when because of no immorality it is not possible to have two parents raising their children. Sometimes similar situations occur because of the unchristian actions of just one spouse—perhaps a spouse commits adultery or abuses alcohol or has a terrible temper he or she takes out on the children.

The third definition also poses a problem, for it adds the following: “any of various social units differing from but regarded as equivalent to the traditional family.” Again, this opens the door to people living in immorality having the same status as those living according to biblical principles.

How does the Bible define “family”?

Read More

The second definition “A group of persons of common ancestry” really doesn’t pose any moral problems. However, it does pose a problem as we think about families.

We Christians affirm that we all have common ancestry. Eve is the mother of all people: “Adam named his wife Eve [which probably means “living”], because she would become the mother of all the living” (Gen 3:20). The Great Flood destroyed all living things except those on the ark. Noah and his family are likewise the ancestors of all of us: “God blessed Noah and his sons, saying to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the earth” (Gen 9:1).

Each of us, therefore, not only has a common ancestry, but we can often find that we are related to most of the people we know. I’ve done some genealogical research and have found some interesting data:

  • My wife and I—even though we are from different parts of Kentucky and never met until we were both in our twenties—are 10th cousins 10 times removed.
  • I have traced ancestry and found the following people in a branch of my family tree: Queen Elizabeth II, George Washington, Jimmy Carter, Princess Diana, Alexander the Great, and Charlemagne. It is believed that every person of European descent in this country is descended from Charlemagne.
  • I even discovered that my wife is a very distant cousin of the elders’ wives where I preach.

The question is: “Are these individuals really a ‘family’“?

Read More