Does a difference in age matter between husband and wife?

Does a difference in age matter for believers considering marriage?

"The husband is the head of the wife" (Ephesians 5:23)" TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 5:23) and is therefore responsible to provide leadership in this relationship. The wife, while submitting to this leadership which God has established, is her husband’s "helpmate" (Genesis 2:18," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 2:18, JND) or "counterpart" (YLT). She is not subservient, for a wife and husband are equal partners, "heirs together of the grace of life" (1 Peter 3:7)." TARGET="_blank">1 Peter 3:7).

If the woman is several years older, her greater emotional maturity and wisdom, developed through the experiences of life, make it more difficult for the man to lead. If the man is considerably older, his leadership may become controlling, inconsistent with the relationship of a husband and his "counterpart." Admittedly, the initial difference in maturity is not always as great as the difference in age, especially when the younger person is over 40.

When a relationship begins to develop between a couple whose ages differ considerably, they should give special attention to the way in which leadership develops between them. If the difference in age causes them to assume roles outside the boundaries God has designed (the man as leader, the woman as counterpart), the couple is wise to quickly discontinue their relationship. Violating God’s design produces a troubled relationship.

It’s fair to consider that later a sizeable age difference may cause the younger spouse premature aging, bereavement, and loneliness.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Does "that day" refer to the same day in its three uses in 2 Timothy?

Does "that day" refer to the same day in its three uses in 2 Timothy?

This expression appears four times in Paul’s writings, three times within the four chapters of this epistle. It is safe therefore to expect a similar meaning and to consider each context to verify that. Paul seems to have "that day" in his mind as he closes his ministry and is about to depart.

In chapter 1:12, Paul is thinking of the gospel entrusted to him by the Lord. This "good thing" (verse 14) involved a stewardship both for Paul and now for Timothy to which it had been transferred. Paul had committed the keeping of the deposit of truth to the Lord and labored to pass it to others, particularly Timothy, in order to perpetuate it. Ultimately, though, he would have to give account of his stewardship (Luke 16:2;" TARGET="_blank">Luke 16:2; 1 Corinthians 4:1-4)" TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 4:1-4) to the Lord. "That day" was the day of review, the Judgment Seat of Christ. It is clear that the same occasion is on Paul’s mind in 4:8 when he speaks about the Lord giving him a crown of righteous in "that day," a day of rewards.

The meaning of the passage in chapter 1:16-18 may be decided by the meaning of mercy. W. E. Vine indicates that mercy assumes a need and "resources adequate to meet the need." "Mercy is His [God’s] attitude toward those who are in distress." In 1:15, Paul names two who turned away from him. In contrast, Onesiphorus deliberately associated himself with the imprisoned apostle (verse 17). He may now have gone home to heaven as a result of his boldness in standing by truth and Paul, its ambassador. Paul desires mercy for him in "that day" (verse 18), when the Lord would fully bless one who had suffered on earth for the sake of the gospel. Twice Paul uses an expression unique to this passage: "the Lord give" or "grant" (verses 16, 18). His wish was for divine resources to respond in the present to Onesiphorus’ household’s needs and to respond in the future to Onesiphorus’ costly faithfulness. "That day" will be a day of recompense.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the meaning of the text,

What is the meaning of the text, “Thou has magnified Thy word above all Thy name” (Psalm 138:2)" TARGET="_blank">Psalm 138:2)?

Perhaps this statement will be more easily understood if we use an illustration. The Churches of Macedonia (i.e. the Philippians, etc.) had a good “name” with the Apostle Paul, as liberal givers from their very beginning (Philippians 4:10-16). Yet on an occasion when he sought their help for the supply of the need of poor saints in Juda, they did far beyond his highest expectation, as he tells us in 1 Corinthians 8:1-5." TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 8:1-5. In effect, he says of them: “They have magnified their liberality above all their name for it.”
Now, God’s “Name” represents the sum of His manifestations of Himself. As has been said by others, it is the product of His deeds, and is according to His historically manifested glory. In plainer words, it is His reputation for lovingkindness to His people, faithfulness to His promise, etc., as may be seen by its use in such passages as Exodus 16" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 16 and Joshua 7:9." TARGET="_blank">Joshua 7:9. David, who according to its title is the author of Psalm 138," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 138, has already known much of the name and fame of the Lord, both from the history of His people, and from His previous dealings with himself. But on the occasion for which he gives praise so fervently in this psalm, he feels that God has shown His faithfulness in keeping His word, even beyond all that past experience would have led him to expect, and so he says, “I will . . . praise Thy name for Thy loving- kindness and Thy truth; for Thou has magnified Thy word above all Thy name.”
Possibly the occasion may be that which is referred to in 2 Samuel 7," TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 7, where at least he is found speaking in a strain very similar. He says there, “Thou hast brought me hitherto; and this was yet a small thing in Thy sight, O Lord God; but Thou hast spoken of Thy servant’s house for a great while to come; . . . for Thy word’s sake . . . hast Thou done all these great things . . . to make Thee a name; . . . and let Thy name be magnified for ever” (2 Samuel 7:18-26)." TARGET="_blank">2 Samuel 7:18-26).
W.R.

Other pages in this section

About this site

What is the difference between being restored to the Lord and to other believers?

What is the difference between being restored to the Lord and to other believers?

Restoration brings a thing back to its original state. Old houses and old cars are frequently "restored." Our question deals with relationships between a Christian and his Lord or between two Christians. Restoration is necessary when relationships have been damaged. An offense will shatter a relationship. Drifting apart will damage relationships.

David prayed for restoration after his sin with Bathsheba. "Restore unto me the joy of Thy salvation" (Psalm 51:12)." TARGET="_blank">Psalm 51:12). Noteworthy in this psalm is David's confession of sin when he sought restoration. In Psalm 23," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 23, he wrote of continuing occasions when the Good Shepherd "restoreth my soul" (verse 3). He realized his tendency to stray from the Shepherd.

Christians, too, may drift apart or offend one another. Our Lord gave instruction in Matthew 18:15" TARGET="_blank">Matthew 18:15 for restoring a broken relationship. The two must meet together, seeking to clear up the matter between them. It is likely that, in most cases, mutual repentance, confession and forgiveness will be required. If an offense has caused damage, restitution will also be necessary.

There is no difference in the need for restoration, whether to the Lord or another saint. In both instances, the need must be acknowledged. One cannot be restored to the Lord who has not first been restored to his brother or sister (Matt. 5:23, 24)." TARGET="_blank">Matt. 5:23, 24).

J. Slabaugh
Other pages in this section

About this site

How large did Jacob's family grow in Egypt?

If Jacob's family "increased abundantly" (Exodus 1:7)" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 1:7) in Egypt for 430 years (Exodus 12:40)," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12:40), wouldn't their population have been much more than 2 million?

When they arrived in Egypt, the descendants of Jacob numbered 70 (Exodus 1:5)," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 1:5), not counting Joseph and his two sons, or the family's marriage partners. The "population growth rate" from the time Jacob received his wives was at least 7%. With only a 5% rate of growth, the population after 430 years would be almost 200 million.

This is one reason to take another look at the 430 year figure in Exodus 12:40." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12:40. This figure and the 400 years of sojourning and persecution in Genesis 15:13" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:13 must be understood with Paul's figure of 430 years from the promise of blessing through Abram's Seed until the giving of the law (Galatians 3:17)." TARGET="_blank">Galatians 3:17).

If we identify the beginning point of this period with Genesis 12:1-7," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 12:1-7, Abram was 75. 25 years takes us to the birth of Isaac (21:5), 60 more years to the birth of Jacob (25:26), and an additional 130 years to Jacob's arrival in Egypt (47:9). That's 215 years (25 + 60 + 130).

A 5% growth rate for the remaining 215 years of the total 430 years comes to around 2.5 million, a more reasonable figure. The following figures lend support to this.

According to Exodus 6:16-20," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 6:16-20, 4 generations (see Genesis 15:16)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:16) span the time from Jacob's entering Egypt until the Exodus: Levi, Kohath, Amram, Moses. Since Moses was 80 at the time of the Exodus (Exodus 7:7)," TARGET="_blank">Exodus 7:7), that brings the total years to 295.

When Jacob entered Egypt at 130, Joseph was 39. He had become governor at 30 (Genesis 41:46)," TARGET="_blank">Genesis 41:46), and after 7 years of plenty, his brothers came for corn in the second year of famine (45:6). Joseph was born, therefore, when Jacob was 91 (130 minus 39), at the end of Jacob's 14 years of service for Rachel and Leah (30:25; 31:38). At the time of Joseph's birth, Jacob had been married to Leah 7 years (29:21-22,25); he was 84 when married. Levi was Leah's third son, so Jacob would have been about 87 at Levi's birth. Levi, then, was 43 years old (130 minus 87) when he moved down to Egypt. Kohath had been born already (46:11), but would not likely have been 23 - likely closer to 3. His son Amrarn was born sometime in the next 110 years, since Kohath died at 133 (Exodus 6:18)." TARGET="_blank">Exodus 6:18). Amram died at 137 (6:20), so the time between entering Egypt and the birth of Moses must have been less than 243 years (110 plus 133).

If, instead, we make the reasonable assumption that Levi, Kohath, and Amram were, on average, 46 when their sons were born, then the total from Genesis 12" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 12 to Exodus 12" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12 is 430" TARGET="_blank">is 430 years. The sojourning in Exodus 12" TARGET="_blank">Exodus 12: 40 began when Abraham entered Canaan as a sojourner. The 400 years of being strangers and being persecuted by the Egyptians (Genesis 15:13)" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 15:13) began with Ishmael's mocking Isaac (Gen 21:9)." TARGET="_blank">Gen 21:9).

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Is a head covering and woman

Is a head covering and woman’s silence appropriate for every gathering in the assembly’s building?

While many aspects of the assembly’s testimony centers in its place of meeting, the building is not a church nor is it sacred. The building doesn’t sanctify the gatherings in it. If the believers use the building to met when they plan conference meals or discuss building plans or mail tracts, this is not an assembly meeting. On occasion, such gatherings may take place after an assembly meeting. If the ladies choose to retain their head coverings, that doesn’t make it an assembly meeting. In fact, being without a head covering in that circumstance is as appropriate as it is when a sister is walking down the street.

Biblical injunctions requiring a sister’s silence do not apply to such gatherings, because the Christians have not "come together in assembly" (1 Corinthians 11:18," TARGET="_blank">1 Corinthians 11:18, JND). In such a case, a woman’s wearing a head covering is optional and is in no way at variance with her entering into the discussions.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

How should I view abortion?

What is a scriptural attitude toward abortion?

By inspiration David teaches that life and God's purpose for life begins at conception (Psalm 139:13," TARGET="_blank">Psalm 139:13,16b). This context also reveals that the formation of the person, perfect or imperfect, and the length of life is determined by God.

In Galatians 1:15" TARGET="_blank">Galatians 1:15 Paul remarks that God determined his birth: "God... separated me from my mother's womb."

Is not the Lord Jesus our supreme example? He said to Pilate; "To this end was I born, and for this cause came I into the world" (John 18:37)." TARGET="_blank">John 18:37).

In 2 Kings 8:12" TARGET="_blank">2 Kings 8:12 we see a weeping prophet expressing the grief of the heart of God because of king Hazael of Damascus. Mentioned amongst the atrocities he would commit is the slaying of "women with child." While these were Syrians, enemies of Israel, God abhorred the crime of taking the life of mothers and children.

Christians believe the sanctity and divine purpose that gives life to every baby forbids acceptance of aborting a pregnancy. Questions will arise regarding the welfare of mothers. As sensitive as this matter is Genesis 35:16-19" TARGET="_blank">Genesis 35:16-19 guides believers as to divine purpose.

J. Smith

Other pages in this section

About this site

Does the believer have two natures?

Why do some question the use of the expression, the believers two natures?

Sometimes defining terms helps resolve differences. At issue is what constitutes a nature? If we accept that a nature is the essential characteristics and qualities of a person or thing, we can suggest three possible objections.

A first objection is that this expression is not biblical. Some point out that we have become "partakers of the divine nature" (2 Peter 1:4)." TARGET="_blank">2 Peter 1:4). This cannot mean we have been made to share in the "essential characteristics" of deity, because those characteristics are non-transferable. If this referred to a "new nature," we would hardly have expected the word "partakers." Peter would more likely state that we received it or that God imparted it, since "nature" seems to imply something that has now become native to a believer. The suggested meaning is that, as possessors of new life - eternal life, we share the quality of life possessed by God.

A second objection is that it is difficult to define any "entity" or nature imparted at salvation. What was imparted to us at salvation is a new principle and power. We have been made alive spiritually and have received eternal life. Our quickened spirit or mind now has a relationship with God and delights in righteousness (Romans 7:22, 23)." TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:22, 23). Because of this relationship, a new law or principle is now active in the believer.

In addition, the Spirit of God now resides within us. He empowers the believer to live righteously. This is a more intimate and effective provision than Old Testament believers enjoyed, yet they lived righteously as a result of having been made spiritually alive. Our minds have always been able to make moral choices, but when made alive spiritually our mind functions properly by responding to God and to righteousness.

A third objection is that "the essential characteristics and qualities of a person7 define that person. Is a believer, then, "defined" by "our old man" (Romans 6:6)," TARGET="_blank">Romans 6:6), his old standing in Adam, or by "the new man" (Colossians 3:10)," TARGET="_blank">Colossians 3:10), his new standing in Christ? The essential characteristics of a believer in Christ are "righteousness and true holiness" (Ephesians 4:24)." TARGET="_blank">Ephesians 4:24). Every believer is a new creation (2 Corinthians 5:17)" TARGET="_blank">2 Corinthians 5:17) and this defines his characteristics.

Many able teachers and commentators refer to the believer's two natures, so it is best not to crusade on this point.

D. Oliver
Other pages in this section

About this site

Could you explain "captivity to the law of sin," Romans 7:23?

Could you explain "captivity to the law of sin," Romans 7:23" TARGET="_blank">Romans 7:23?

Four laws are in the passage.

   1. "The law of God" is spiritual, holy, just, good (verses 12,14), While the law cannot justify (3:20), in chapter 7 Paul demonstrates that the law cannot sanctify.
   2. "The law of my mind" (verse 23) consents that the law of God is good (verses 16, 18).
   3. "The law of sin" is a principle which opposes the expression of God's law in the life (verses 17-20), even though the inward man delights in it (verse 22), and the mind of the individual willingly desires to comply with it. Frustration and failure confront him at every turn. Thus hedged in, he finds himself taken "into captivity" as a prisoner of war by this sin principle in his members. The problem lies within self: "but I am carnal, sold under sin" (verse 14). Carnal self cannot be controlled by even a spiritual law. Deliverance is found alone through the resources of the risen, glorified Jesus Christ our Lord (verse 25).
   4. "For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death" (8:2).

W. Skates

Other pages in this section

About this site

Are there two types of "rest" in Matthew 11:28-29?

Are the “rests” of Matthew 11:28," TARGET="_blank">Matthew 11:28, 29 two distinct “rests”, or does it mean that the rest is not obtained by soul approach, but by taking the yoke, and learning of the Lord?

I judge that two “rests” are indicated, or perhaps I should say, two distinct stages of rest: the one, rest of conscience for the soul who has never known true rest in Christ; and the other, rest from a restless will, unsatisfied desires and self-seeking service. The word for “rest” is the same in both cases (anapausiS—or up-rest), which might be illustrated by the action of the Good Samaritan: first he relieved the smitten one, pouring in oil and wine, and then set him on his own beast, brought him to an inn (set him down there) and took care of him. This latter action may denote the “rest” (katapausis—down-rest) of Hebrews 3" TARGET="_blank">Hebrews 3 and 4, where this root is always used, except in verse 9: “There remaineth, therefore, a rest for the people of God.” The word here means a “Sabbath rest” (Sabbatismos)—the true spiritual thought of the Sabbath—a resting from our own works. This does not describe a future heavenly rest, but a Christ-rest, to be enjoyed here and now by all the people of God.

W.H.

Other pages in this section

About this site

Main Menu