• Biblical Families is not a dating website. It is a forum to discuss issues relating to marriage and the Bible, and to offer guidance and support, not to find a wife. Click here for more information.

The Bible & Family

Doc

Member
Real Person
The concept of family is extremely important in the Bible, both in a physical sense and in a theological sense. The concept of family was introduced in the very beginning as we see in Genesis 1:28, "God blessed them and said to them, ‘Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground.'" God's plan for creation was for men and women to marry and have children. A man and a woman would form a "one flesh" union through marriage (Genesis 2:24), and they with their children become a family, the essential building block of human society.

We also see early on that family members were to look after and care for one another. When God asks Cain "Where is Abel your brother?" Cain's response is the flippant "Am I my brother's keeper?" The implication is that yes, Cain was expected to be Abel's keeper and vice versa. Not only was Cain's murder of his brother an offense against humanity in general, but it was especially egregious because it was the first recorded case of fratricide (murder of one's sibling).

The Bible has a more communal sense of people and family than is generally held in Western cultures today, where citizens are more individualized than people in the Middle East and definitely more so than the people of the ancient near East. When God saved Noah from the flood, it wasn't an individual case salvation, but a salvation for him, his wife, his sons and his sons’ wives. In other words his family was saved (Genesis 6:18). When God called Abraham out of Haran, He called him and his family (Genesis 12:4-5). The sign of the Abrahamic covenant (circumcision) was to be applied to all males within one's household, whether they were born into the family or are part of the household servant staff (Genesis 17:12-13). In other words, God's covenant with Abraham was familial, not individual.

The importance of family can be seen in the provisions of the Mosaic covenant. For example, two of the Ten Commandments deal with maintaining the cohesiveness of the family. The fifth commandment regarding honoring parents is meant to preserve the authority of parents in family matters, and the seventh commandment prohibiting adultery protects the sanctity of marriage. From these two commandments flow all of the various other stipulations in the Mosaic Law which seek to protect marriage and the family. The health of the family was so important to God that it was codified in the national covenant of Israel.

This is not solely an Old Testament phenomenon. The New Testament makes many of the same commands and prohibitions. Jesus speaks on the sanctity of marriage and against frivolous divorce in Matthew 19. The Apostle Paul talks about what Christian homes should look like when he gives the twin commands of "children obey your parents" and "parents don't provoke your children" in Ephesians 6:1-4 and Colossians 3:20-21. Furthermore, we see similar New Testament concepts regarding the importance of family in the process of salvation in the book of Acts when on two separate occasions during Paul's second missionary journey, entire households were baptized at the conversion of one individual (Acts 16:11-15, 16:31-33). This is not to condone infant baptism or baptismal regeneration (i.e., that baptism confers salvation), but it is interesting to note that just as the Old Testament sign of the covenant (circumcision) was applied to whole families, so also the New Testament sign of the covenant (baptism) was applied to entire households. We can make an argument that when God saves an individual, His desire (from a moral/revealed will perspective) is for the family to be saved. Clearly, God's desire isn't just to save isolated individuals, but entire households. In 1 Corinthians 7, the unbelieving spouse is sanctified through the believing spouse, meaning, among other things, that the unbelieving spouse is in a position to be saved through the witness of the believing spouse.

From a covenant perspective, membership in the covenant community is more communal than individualistic. In the case of Lydia and the Philippian jailer, their families/households were baptized and made part of the church community. Since we know that baptism doesn't confer salvation, which is only by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8-9), we can assume that not all were saved, but all were included into the community of believers. Lydia and the jailer's salvation didn't break up their families. We know that salvation can be a strain on a family, but God's intent isn't to break up families over the issue of salvation. Lydia and the jailer weren't commanded to come out and be separate from their unbelieving families; rather, the sign of the covenant (baptism) was applied to all members in the household. The families were sanctified (set apart) and called into the community of believers.

Let's now turn our attention to the theological concept of family. During His three year ministry, Jesus shattered some prevailing notions of what it meant to be part of a family: "While Jesus was still talking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, wanting to speak to him. Someone told him, ‘Your mother and brothers are standing outside, wanting to speak to you.’ He replied to him, ‘Who is my mother, and who are my brothers?’ Pointing to his disciples, he said, ‘Here are my mother and my brothers. For whoever does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother’” (Matthew 12:46-50). Now we must clear up some misconceptions with this passage. Jesus is not saying that biological family isn't important; He is not dismissing His mother and brothers. What He is doing is making the clear theological point that in the Kingdom of Heaven, the most important family connection is spiritual, not physical. This is a truth made explicitly clear in John's Gospel, when the evangelist says, "Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God—children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God" (John 1:12-13).

The parallels are quite clear. When we are born physically, we’re born into a physical family, but when we are "born again," we are born into a spiritual family. To use Pauline language, we are adopted into God's family (Romans 8:15). When we are adopted into God's spiritual family, the Church, God becomes our Father and Jesus our Brother. This spiritual family is not bound by ethnicity, gender or social standing. As Paul says, "You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise" (Galatians 3:26-29).

So what does the Bible say about family? The physical family is the most important building block to human society, and as such, it should be nurtured and protected. But more important than that is the new creation that God is making in Christ, which is comprised of a spiritual family, the Church, made up of all people who call upon the Lord Jesus Christ as Savior. This is a family drawn "from every nation, tribe, people and language" (Revelation 7:9), and the defining characteristic of this spiritual family is love for one another: "A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another" (John 13:34-35).
 
Good post Doc. I would, however, like to see the issue of the salvation of women addressed directly on this forum. It seems like a 'hot potato' of a topic, but what are we supposed to believe in regards to our salvation as women?

I Timothy 2:15 But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety.

We can't deny the scriptures, nor the fact that there were always women who were good or evil within a man's household, irrespective of what he was. Lot's wife was lost from her own disobedience, though she was from a 'community of believers' you might say.

It seems to me you have given extra credit to the individualistic to soften the issue for your culture... we have to be careful about interpreting according to our level of tolerance.

Then again, I realize I'm emphasizing only one aspect of all the good things you shared...
 
Very nice writeup Doc. If I may ask, wouldn't it be better to say "It is not necessary that all where saved" rather than "we can assume that not all were saved," it makes the same point, but doesn't bother with making assumptions.

The individualism of Canada and the US is a cause of great frustration for me, it is so difficult to connect to people in these cultures it seems like a constant battle with isolation.


@ Beta

I know of three interpretations of that passage, and only one stays reasonable when the rubber hits the road.

1: Women in general will be kept safe through their childbearing if they continue in said virtues. That is, their labour will be easier and they will not die in it. It is an interpretation true to the context and the grammar but in practice it simply isn't true. Godly women do die in labour sometimes, and wicked women do have easy travail sometimes.

2: Women individually receive some part of their salvation through personally bearing children if they continue in said virtues. This one has problems in both practice and fidelity to the text. First off the root from the term women is not actually in this verse but inferred from the last and that kind of messes up the flow of this interpetation, and second it offers little to no grace for barren women or godly girls who die young.

3:Adam was not deceived but the woman (Eve) being deceived was in the transgression but salvation came through childbearing if they continue in said virtues. That is, Eve bore Seth, and a woman bore each in the line of Christ right down to Mary who bore Jesus Christ himself. Salvation came though Jesus who was born through Mary. Salvation came through childbearing for they (Adam and Eve and all their decendents) that continue in faith, charity, and holiness with sobriety. This fits with the larger context of what is being said and is true to experience as well.
 
http://net.bible.org/verse.php?book=1Ti&chapter=2&verse=15

NET Bible Note said:
"But she will be delivered through childbearing, if she continues in faith and love and holiness with self-control."

Or “But she will be preserved through childbearing,” or “But she will be saved in spite of childbearing.”

This verse is notoriously difficult to interpret, though there is general agreement about one point: Verse 15 is intended to lessen the impact of vv. 13-14. There are several interpretive possibilities here, though the first three can be readily dismissed (cf. D. Moo, “1 Timothy 2:11-15: Meaning and Significance,” TJ 1 [1980]: 70-73).

(1) Christian women will be saved, but only if they bear children. This view is entirely unlikely for it lays a condition on Christian women that goes beyond grace, is unsupported elsewhere in scripture, and is explicitly against Paul’s and Jesus’ teaching on both marriage and salvation (cf. Matt 19:12; 1 Cor 7:8-9, 26-27, 34-35; 1 Tim 5:3-10).

(2) Despite the curse, Christian women will be kept safe when bearing children. This view also is unlikely, both because it has little to do with the context and because it is not true to life (especially life in the ancient world with its high infant mortality rate).

(3) Despite the sin of Eve and the results to her progeny, she would be saved through the childbirth – that is, through the birth of the Messiah, as promised in the protevangelium (Gen 3:15). This view sees the singular “she” as referring first to Eve and then to all women (note the change from singular to plural in this verse). Further, it works well in the context. However, there are several problems with it:
[a] The future tense (σωθήσηται, swqhshtai) is unnatural if referring to the protevangelium or even to the historical fact of the Messiah’s birth;
that only women are singled out as recipients of salvation seems odd since the birth of the Messiah was necessary for the salvation of both women and men;
[c] as ingenious as this view is, its very ingenuity is its downfall, for it is overly subtle; and
[d] the term τεκνογονία (teknogonia) refers to the process of childbirth rather than the product. And since it is the person of the Messiah (the product of the birth) that saves us, the term is unlikely to be used in the sense given it by those who hold this view.

There are three other views that have greater plausibility:

(4) This may be a somewhat veiled reference to the curse of Gen 3:16 in order to clarify that though the woman led the man into transgression (v. 14b), she will be saved spiritually despite this physical reminder of her sin. The phrase is literally “through childbearing,” but this does not necessarily denote means or instrument here. Instead it may show attendant circumstance (probably with a concessive force): “with, though accompanied by” (cf. BDAG 224 s.v. δία A.3.c; Rom 2:27; 2 Cor 2:4; 1 Tim 4:14).

(5) “It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved, but through faithfulness to their proper role, exemplified in motherhood” (Moo, 71). In this view τεκνογονία is seen as a synecdoche in which child-rearing and other activities of motherhood are involved. Thus, one evidence (though clearly not an essential evidence) of a woman’s salvation may be seen in her decision to function in this role.

(6) The verse may point to some sort of proverbial expression now lost, in which “saved” means “delivered” and in which this deliverance was from some of the devastating effects of the role reversal that took place in Eden. The idea of childbearing, then, is a metonymy of part for the whole that encompasses the woman’s submission again to the leadership of the man, though it has no specific soteriological import (but it certainly would have to do with the outworking of redemption).
 
Hmm,

3.
[a] σωθήσηται shall be saved is the term used throughout the new testament when talking about spiritual salvation. Its seen 5 times in the book of Romans alone, its seen in the gospels spoken by Christ himself, and in Acts and Corinthians. The future tense is relating to salvation and no one I know of (and I doubt at all) believes the future tense is relating to the birth of the Messiah here. This is a fairly disingenuous argument by that site.

Its not odd in the context of the force of the preceding verse, " and Adam was not beguiled, but the woman being beguiled hath fallen into transgression" It has womens part in the fall and womens part in salvation. Singling out women concerning salvation here is no more odd than singling out women concerning damnation in the previous verse.

[c] As far as I can tell this is a non-argument.

[d] διὰ denotes to channel an act through something, the person Jesus came through the process of childbearing. Consider Romans 10:17 "So then faith by hearing, and hearing by the word of God". It is not hearing itself that has the power to bring faith, but God has chosen it as a means to bring his word to mankind and thus by hearing comes faith. In the same way God choose the incarnation, through the process of birth and all as the means to bring Christ into the world, and with Christ salvation.

Between arguments A and D it seems the author of this article is unfamiliar with the proponents of this view such as Gill or Clarke, as those problems are never created in either of their commentaries.

4. Timothy would certainly know Genesis 3:16, and this discussion certainly pertains to it. To call it a veiled reference seems odd to me. More importantly rendering the passage "But she will be saved in spite of childbearing" translates διὰ in the very opposite sense its translated the other 608 times. It is through the process of and it is not in spite of. Not even the three references they give (Rom 2:27; 2 Cor 2:4; 1 Tim 4:14) show δια to indicate an 'attendant circumstance'. It seems this one is least plausible of all, and renders the passage to mean very little.

5. "“It is not through active teaching and ruling activities that Christian women will be saved," Nor is it through teaching that men are saved, not all men are called to be teachers, and while all husbands may be called to rule their home, that does not save them either. τεκνογονία as indicating motherhood as a whole appears valid, though it seems there is no way to prove it was the authors intent. But the trouble here is that it has only 2 differences from view 1 on this list. 1st, instead of labour it talks about motherhood as a whole. This may be granted, but does not make the view tangibly different than #1. 2nd, it asserts it is "clearly not an essential evidence" of Salvation. The second assertion is to get around the key problem with view #1, but what is that assertion founded in? Nothing at all. The writer of this article makes a case for the somewhat immaterial point #1 then throws in very important point #2 off the cuff with nothing new to back it up. "she shall be saved in childbearing" Not a piece of that is non-essential.

6. "The verse may point to some sort of proverbial expression now lost," sends up minor warning bells for me. There are certainly lost expressions and things relating to scripture, but this passage does not have anything that indicates said loss. "in which" This sends up loud warning bells, if the proverb is lost then they should not know what is in it, this argument is an excuse for very thinly veiled eisigesis. The final nail in the coffin is when their interpretation kills all soterilogical value despite the fact that σωθησεται is consitantly used in verses of high soterilogical value.

View 5 is a 'lite' version of view 1, 4 and 6 I have not heard before, and I'm blessed that I hadn't. 4 takes the passage in the opposite direction that its going, and 6 is speculative nonsense...
 
In looking at 2 Tim 2:15, there are several things to keep in mind.

The first is that the use of the phrase childbearing is a synecdoche. It expresses the role of being a mother in its totality.

Then the next thing to admit is that the verse is not implying that a woman can be saved from sin simply by becoming a mother.

To get to the real meaning, it behooves us to back up and look at the preceding passages where the role of teaching men is divinely prohibited to the woman.

What then follows in the 2:15 passage is the author's defence of the position of the mother. He is saying that even though she cannot teach men, (and this because of both 1. Adam being made first and 2. that the woman was deceived by the devil) the role of being a mother is not be to maligned. The mother, if she is a godly woman, being supportive of the work of the gospel, will be saved even though she cannot be an apostle, pastor, or evangelist.
 
DocInFL said:
and was especially egregious because it was the first recorded case of fratricide (murder of one's sibling).


I don't think so, Set and Osiris were siblings.
 
Beta said:
I would, however, like to see the issue of the salvation of women addressed directly on this forum. It seems like a 'hot potato' of a topic, but what are we supposed to believe in regards to our salvation as women?

Women are saved in the same manner that men are, through faith in Jesus Christ (John 3:16)
Blessings,
Fairlight
 
Isabella said:
I don't think so, Set and Osiris were siblings.

Was this meant as some kind of joke ? If it was, it wasn't very funny.
Set and Osiris are mythical Egyptian gods....NOT to be confused with real people, like Cain and Abel.

Praying for Isabella....
Fairlight
 
Fairlight said:
Isabella said:
I don't think so, Set and Osiris were siblings.

Was this meant as some kind of joke ? If it was, it wasn't very funny.
Set and Osiris are mythical Egyptian gods....NOT to be confused with real people, like Cain and Abel.

Praying for Isabella....
Fairlight



I am sorry but was 'this' post meant as a joke?
 
aww bella,

ya got that "stirin things up" annointing goin again? :D
 
No, I was just correcting a factual error, I think it was someone else who decided to stir things up by getting offended.

When we write things, it is important to be aware that a matter of different phrasing would make our essay more correct in terms of something that can be taken seriously by non biblical schlors as well.

It has nothing to do with stirring, I was pointing out something out, Doc can choose whether to adapt his essay or not, that is up to him, I don't mind if he doesn't and it won't affect me if he ignores it.
I don't know why anyone else feels the need to get offended by what I said though, it really is pretty defensive.

Bels
 
When we write things, it is important to be aware that a matter of different phrasing would make our essay more correct in terms of something that can be taken seriously by non biblical schlors as well.

Isabella,

Does this have to do with your particular religion you come from or believe? I'm not sure I am following you here. Set and Osiris?

For us here we affirm the factual history of the Bible; i.e. we believe the Bible is the accurate and precise version of history.

Therefore, we accept the histrorical accounts as set forth in Scripture and we also believe that natural history will also verify this as well.
 
Dr. K.R. Allen said:
For us here we affirm the factual history of the Bible; i.e. we believe the Bible is the accurate and precise version of history.

Therefore, we accept the histrorical accounts as set forth in Scripture and we also believe that natural history will also verify this as well.


Ok, so you mean Doc was writing a purely religious post? Because to me, that particular line did not make sense because I know fratricidal (as well as matricidal/patricidal) stories are actually quite common in the ancient world, some of which are far older than the Torah and that needed to be acknowledged. I don''t really understand this natural history thing you mean, if natural history has NOT verified it, why do you continue to say it is true and accurate? I find it all a bit confusing but I guess that it is not really meant to be understood by me. :D

Thank you for the explaination.

Bels
 
This is not the post for this as to go into your idea we would need to go through the discussion in apologetics as to why the Biblical historical narrative is actually true.

Many of the stories you refer to come from many of the foreign religious views of that time. For example, the writings of the Gilgamesh (2500-1300 BC) and the Leiden Hymns (1500 BC - 1200 BC) also have their own origins story about where history started.

All of this has to do with one's foundational epistemology. As I shared with you earlier, if you like I can refer you to one of the world's greatest books that is an apologetic work that shows why the bible, as well as the historicity of Christ, is scientifically true and can be verified beyond all resonable doubt.

My point for now is simply that our epistemology is based upon the view that God has provided a reliable record of key historical events in the perfectly inspired document we call the Bible, something that we can validate and verify sicientifically.

Therefore, the priority for those of us inside this site as an Evangelical umbrella rests upon the doctrine of Scripture as being factually true. You can read more about our position on this here if you like:

viewtopic.php?f=57&t=1808
 
If it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt, why doesn't everyone believe it?

I think it is pretty fair to say that the proof is beyond reasonable doubt to a believer but not to a non believer, which is fine but I think it is disingenuous to say that this is proof, if it was proof it would be all over the place.

I once read something that proported to show how true creationism was and it was pretty farcical. I think it depends greatly on what you are willing to believe.

Bels
 
There are many times in life Isabella where there is proof but people refuse to believe the proof or proofs. In many cases people are even unwilling to take the time to examine carefully the arguments of something from well qualified scholars in that particular field.

But in any case, facts do not change a person presuppositions. The Bible says this: "no one can come to me [Christ] unless it is granted him by the Father" (John 6:65), and in 6:44 the Bible says: "No one can come to me [Christ] unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day." Thus, it takes more than facts for someone to come to the belief or faith; it requires the actual work of the Holy Spirit to reach down into the spirit/mind/heart of a person and to change the inner disposition. Without this we can present facts all day over and over and over and the person will not see or understand the facts. Unless the Spirit breathes life into the person and makes them alive in their spirit the person will always and forever be blind to the truth. 1 Corinthians 2:14 says: "The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not ABLE to understand them because they are spiritually discerned."

In theology and philosophy there is something called "Presuppositional Apologetics." Some of the greatest minds in history have affirmed this type of apologetic (Dr. Cornelius Van Til, Dr. Gordon Clark [who wrote one of the best books ever in the field of logic], Francis Schaeffer, Dr. Carl H. Henry,, Dr. Gordon Lewis, and Dr. John M. Frame to name just a few) and in the basic thrust of the position is for the most part correct. All of the facts in the world will not change a person who has their mind made up against all facts that go contrary to what they want to believe.

Jesus addressed this when he spoke to the man in hell who wanted someone to go back from the dead to tell his family not to come where he was (Luke 16:19-31).

Jesus closed his message saying this: "if they will not hear Moses and the Prophets, neither will they be convinced if someone should rise from the dead." His point? All of the evidence in the world will not change someone whose heart and mind is opposed to the facts and evidence, even if the fact is someone rising from the dead, which he even himself later did. Then, and still today, people can see and witness the facts but still be so closed minded that they will not receive the truth or even come up with an answer to the facts being presented.

And thus, that is why I asked you if you would like to examine one of the greatest pieces of literature that gives the evidences, facts, and scientific case for the proof of the Bible's accuracy and of Christ's factual, historical, and real resurrection from the grave.

If you would like to examine it then great. This piece of literature I'm talking about shows the evidence that we do indeed have a historically reliable document, the Bible, that can be scientifically proven to be true and factually reliable.
 
Doesn't that take the onus off of you to prove your point 'beyond reasonable doubt' if your just going to say that anyone who doesn't see this evidence as conclusive is just unwilling to accept what they don't want to believe?

I think faith is a wonderful thing and so is education, I really admire what you do and I don't think it is necessary to try to scientifically prove it.
Why isn't it good enough to believe?

Bels
 
Well I never thought you ask but I'm so glad you did.

"Why is it not good enough to believe?"

There is a movement started by Soren Kierkegard, and he taught a type of irrational faith. He would say and teach things like" faith does not have to be reasonable or rational." At times he would say, "take a blind leap of faith."

That is awful ideology and very poor theology. Faith is grounded in reality and truth. As some scholars say, faith is grounded in facts that can be verified.

We can show facts that the Bible and the ancient manuscripts are valid and true. We can show facts that the Bible's historical records are factual by archaeological discoveries. We can can show facts that Christ actually lived, died, and arose again. We can show prophecies that were predicted hundreds of years ahead of time that actually were historically fulfilled by exact precision.

So why do we want more than just belief? belief is all that is needed for entrance into the life of Christ, but true belief brings with it growth in knowledge. And as Dr. Mortimer J. Adler says, to know something is to have the truth if it truly is knowledge. Our faith is grounded in facts, reality, and is knowledge based and is built upon the foundation of truth. Belief, if a correct and rational belief, must be grounded in reality. I know you said you do not believe in the law of universality, but you really do because you practice it every day. You believe in universal laws by nature without even thinking about it. The same applies to the life of faith. The Christian faith is a faith based upon fact, evidence, and solid logic because the God who gives to us that faith is a God of logic, a God of reality, and a real being that exists in his universe that he has created with fixed universal laws.

As for the removal of responsibility, some might reason, though wrongly, about this that it removes the weight whereby we can simply say well that person does not believe because they are unwilling. But the reality is we are commanded by Scripture to love, pray, and share the gospel. So if we truly do believe the Bible then we cannot simply just say oh well with an uncaring irresponsible attitude. As Paul did we must work to reason with people. Sure, we know that unless the Spirit moves in their heart that person will never believe. But we do not know who will or will not believe. We are responsible to share as we love the person and let God do whatever he so desires to do once we share.
 
I am happy for you Dr. I think you fouind the right space to be yourself! :D

Bels
x
 
Back
Top