# Biblical Manhood - Voddie Baucham



## Wannabee

This is not a video series, so there's nothing to watch. But it's definitely worth listening to. But, men, wear steel toes...

[video=youtube;dDR3xCaXiXc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDR3xCaXiXc&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;MbpScDpGSoo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbpScDpGSoo&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;CACluJC19O0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CACluJC19O0&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;pgr26LtUz-Q]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgr26LtUz-Q&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;zm9jH4znRIo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm9jH4znRIo&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;Xx5K7nLIuGE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xx5K7nLIuGE&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;rhYIiJBnRDg]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rhYIiJBnRDg&feature=related[/video]

[video=youtube;KhF6GIWdsVY]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KhF6GIWdsVY&feature=related[/video]


----------



## Hebrew Student

Hey Wannabee!

I appriciate the posts of these messages, but I have some real concerns about some of the things that are said here.

First of all, the idea that a person who has a memory slip when he is reciting the ten commandments is not committed to God's law is simply ludicrious. What happens if he cannot remember _lo' tirtsah_, but he remembers that there is another place in the law that says that a murder _mot yamut_? Is he then to be labeled as uncommited to God's law?

Also, while it is true that God said that it was not good for the man to be alone, in chapter 3, he also said that, as punishment for Eve's sin, it would be not good for the man to be married. In Genesis 3:16 God tells Eve, "Your desire will be for your husband, but he will rule over you." There will be strife and sinful desires in the marriage relationship, and hence, because of our sin, just as it is not good for the man to be alone, it is not good for the man to be married. It was interesting that, up until his interpretation of Genesis 2:18, Dr. Baucham quoted Genesis 3 to understand Genesis 2, but there are clear echoes of 2:18 and 1:28 in 3:16. 

Also, if the same standard is required for Godly singleness and Godly marriage, one could easily say that we need to train up our children to be singles, because, since the standard is exactly the same, if they want to get married, then you will loose nothing.

Also, where is he getting this idea that we are teaching men to live a life of hedonism, and then just give the women the rest, by telling them to wait until they are at a high maturity level to get married? That is totally irrational.

Also, 1 Corinthians 7 is, again, a text that I find more and more misused. Burning with passion does not mean having sexual desire, but it is talking about not having self-control. It is talking about someone who is already sinning, not someone who simply has desires for a woman.

Also, Ephesians 5 is probably not talking about a husband "washing a wife with the word," but, rather, Christ washing the church. Paul loves to go off on tangents in his writing. I would say that is what is going on in Ephesians 5, and he has left the whole discussion of husbands and wives behind. The only thing that washes away sin is the blood of Jesus Christ, not marriage.

Also, it is true that Jesus is "engaged." However, this is a category error. We are not going to be up in heaven having sexual relations with Jesus, and we are not going to be working to make money, and cooking food, paying bills, etc. Hence, while there certainly is a picture of Christ and his church, that picture is mere imagry, and Baucham seems to be making the mistake of thinking that an image of something is equal to that something else. However, the problem is that this can easily be shown to be wrong when we see phrases like "The Lord is my Shepherd" and assume that God has a staff with which we wards off wild animals, and we are sheep who eat grass, and drink from streams. Hence, because Jesus is not engaged to enter an *earthly* marriage, it appears that there is no reason to assume that everyone else must be as well.

Also, why is it that asking your wife to wait until you graduate is saying that your education is more important to you than your marriage? I thought that, as protestants, our vocation was extremely important to our service to God. Isn't it much more accurate to say that the person is saying that my service to God is more important than my marriage?

Also, I don't know of anyone who is more Godly than David or more wise than Solomon, so, by that logic, everyone needs to get married. In fact, when you go back and reread David and Solomon's narrative, you find out that they were married! Hence, apparently, they should have never fallen.

Also, the "for this reason" in Genesis 2:24 is not "marriage." The phrase _'al ken_+imperfect is consistently used to explain to the reader that the events of the narrative are the reason why something is done in the present. For example, in the Pentatuch we have:

Genesis 10:8-9 Now Cush became the father of Nimrod; he became a mighty one on the earth. 9 He was a mighty hunter before the LORD; therefore [_'al ken_] it is said [imperfect], "Like Nimrod a mighty hunter before the LORD."

Numbers 21:25-27 Israel took all these cities and Israel lived in all the cities of the Amorites, in Heshbon, and in all her villages. 26 For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, king of the Amorites, who had fought against the former king of Moab and had taken all his land out of his hand, as far as the Arnon. 27 Therefore [_'al ken_] those who use proverbs say [imperfect], "Come to Heshbon! Let it be built! So let the city of Sihon be established.

And even outside the Pentatuch:

1 Samuel 19:24 He also stripped off his clothes, and he too prophesied before Samuel and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Therefore [_'al ken_] they say [imperfect], "Is Saul also among the prophets?"

2 Samuel 5:6-8 Now the king and his men went to Jerusalem against the Jebusites, the inhabitants of the land, and they said to David, "You shall not come in here, but the blind and lame will turn you away"; thinking, "David cannot enter here." 7 Nevertheless, David captured the stronghold of Zion, that is the city of David. 8 David said on that day, "Whoever would strike the Jebusites, let him reach the lame and the blind, who are hated by David's soul, through the water tunnel." Therefore [_'al ken_] they say [imperfect], "The blind or the lame shall not come into the house."

I could cite more examples, but I think that will suffice. Likewise, the Jewish translation the Jewish Publication Society's Tanach just translates _'al ken_ here as "hence." The reason is that this is setting up a paradigm for marital behavior. The "reason" here is not marriage, but, rather what God had done in the garden of Eden in bringing these people together.

Also, I would say that Genesis 2:24 has nothing whatsoever to do with Exodus 20:12 because the terms 'azab and dabaq are referring to ones covenantal commitments, not anything having to do with honoring your father and your mother. In fact, _dabaq_+_be_ in the Hebrew Bible generally means "to be committed to." Consider the following text:

Deuteronomy 30:20 by loving the LORD your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast [_dabaq_] to [_be_] Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the LORD swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them." 

Also, consider this text that has the exact same words as found in Genesis 2:24:

Ruth 1:14-16 And they lifted up their voices and wept again; and Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung [_dabaq_] to [_be_] her. 15 Then she said, "Behold, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and her gods; return after your sister-in-law." 16 But Ruth said, "Do not urge me to leave you ['azab] or turn back from following you; for where you go, I will go, and where you lodge, I will lodge. Your people shall be my people, and your God, my God.

In this context, it is very clear we are talking about commitments. Hence, I would say that Genesis 2:24 is not talking about literally leaving your father and mother, as if it had some relation to Exodus 20:12, but, rather, that it is talking about the transfer of commitment from your parents to your spouse.

Finally, I think the main objection that I would have to this message is incapsulated in Dr. Baucham's comment that, when he got married young, he said that his wife was his life. That is where the real danger of this kind of thinking is, because even in marriage our wife is not our life, but serving God remains a priority above all things associated with our wife. In fact, the very reason why we love our wives in marriage is not because they are our lives, but because we are serving God first.

Marriage is under attack in our society, and there is no question about that. However, we need to be careful that God is always the center of our life, and not marriage. Our commitment to God needs to be so much stronger than our commit to our family that Jesus says that if you do not hate your mother and father, you are not worthy to be his disciple.

As I said, Wannabee, I do appriciate these sermons, and I think there were many points about hard work, and love of God's law that need to be heard. However, I have some real concerns with this content, because I believe that we need to be careful not to exault marriage to a position it was never meant to be when we pull it up from the depravity of our modern culture.

God Bless,
Adam


----------



## BG

Great sermon, right on the money, as always.


----------

