[diamondnell]

I do not see Guy's comments as being disruptive at all. He makes a lot of points at once (and I confess I don't always read them all), but I think that's a risk he takes. We are not obligated to respond point by point. We may choose something with which to agree or disagree, and then go from there.

I don't agree with everything Guy says, but he is coming across as more dialogic (open to differing viewpoints and slow to discard them) than monologic.

[TL]

Disagreement is always tough.  However, everyone here is not only a tough 'cookie' but intelligent and full of compassion.  We have wonderful people dialoguing on these forums.  But this discussion has strained our strengths.  So, I'm going to ask everyone to do better than their best (I know how does one do THAT!)  and refrain from commenting on or critiquing on individuals dialoguing in this thread unless they are book authors   or you want to compliment/praise them.

And speaking of book authors, Fee was mentioned by Guy.  Anyone know what book Fee mentions this subject in?


Ephesians 4

Walk in Unity
1 I, therefore, the prisoner of the Lord, beseech you to walk worthy of the calling with which you were called, 2 with all lowliness and gentleness, with longsuffering, bearing with one another in love, 3 endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace.

[Guy Coe]

I am not far out in left field at all.  This kind of attempt to marginalize and "discard" is the most telling attitude of all.  To assume that because not many others are getting into the discussion, and the few that are are defending one kind of view or emphasis, means that there is a wide consensus on a given topic, is simply not the case.

The Fee reference was the one made first by KR.  I did not cite it mysteriously-- my purpose in stating it was to remind her that the book was making the opposite point-- that a suzerain treaty was something very distinct, and not "just" a contract.  Take a look at her post a few back to find the complete reference.

When another answer set itself up as saying that the NIV (as well as many others; take a look at how many of the translations say it the same way) was simply wrong in how it translated the Hebrews passage I cited, it seems to me that this is an assertion which must be regarded as highly suspect until it can be shown otherwise.  Unless we have access to one of the world's greatest language experts on these forums, statements like these should be seen for what they are. 

Logic should be met by logic, not ad hominem remarks.  This kind of disagreement should be a welcome feature, as long as we're all looking at the facts.  I believe in unity, but not the kind of false unity which is built upon any of us merely deciding to feign a false agreement on issues about which we think differently and feel passionately. 

"In the essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

[diamondnell]

So, I'm going to ask everyone to do better than their best (I know how does one do THAT!)  and refrain from commenting on or critiquing on individuals dialoguing in this thread unless they are book authors   or you want to compliment/praise them.

Will do. 

[diamondnell]

Logic should be met by logic, not ad hominem remarks.  This kind of disagreement should be a welcome feature, as long as we're all looking at the facts.  I believe in unity, but not the kind of false unity which is built upon any of us merely deciding to feign a false agreement on issues about which we think differently and feel passionately. 

I agree. Let's stick to the issues, and opinions about the issues.

[Don]

Well, I have some requests that need to be honored before I agree to participate in further discussions with Guy.

1. Allow discussions to focus instead of spiraling larger and larger.  Discuss a few verses at a time.
2. If a question is asked, it should be answered in terms of the question.
3. No question barrages.
4. Allow alternating questions.  By this I mean that whomever is asking the questions is controlling the conversation, so do not let one person control the discussion by asking lots of questions and not answering them himself.

I think these should be SOP for all discussions.

[TL]

"In the essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity."

Exactly!   and thanks for answering about the Fee book mention.

[Guy Coe]

Perhaps the reference I've cited numerous times should be quoted in part, as evidence that this is not just "my thing." 

The resource is here: http://www.bible-researcher.com/covenant.html

Covenant
(ברית / διαθηκη)
The Greek word διαθηκη (diatheke), usually translated “covenant” in English versions of the Bible, is a legal term denoting a formal and legally binding declaration of benefits to be given by one party to another, with or without conditions attached. In secular contexts it was most often used of a “last will and testament.” In the Greek version of the Old Testament διαθηκη was used as the ordinary rendering for the Hebrew word ברית.

ברית (berith) is also translated “covenant” in English versions, but, like διαθηκη, it also refers to legal dispositions or pledges which may or may not have the character of an “agreement.” Sometimes a ברית is more in the nature of a one-sided promise or grant.

When English readers see the word “covenant” in the Bible, it is important to bear this in mind, because the true sense is often missed if readers suppose that the word must refer to a reciprocal “agreement” or “contract.” The issue is important because misunderstandings along this line can have some serious consequences for theology.

This problem of interpretation has received considerable attention from biblical scholars and theologians. We recommended to students the full discussion of the matter by Geerhardus Vos in his article Hebrews, the Epistle of the Diatheke, reproduced on a separate page of this site. Below we also provide some brief comments from the works of Herman Ridderbos and Louis Berkhof.

Herman Ridderbos, The Epistle of Paul to the Churches of Galatia (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1953), pp. 130-31.

In the Septuagint διαθηκη is regularly used as the translation of the covenant of God (berith), rather than the apparently more available word συνθηκη. In this there is already an expression of the fact that the covenant of God does not have the character of a contract between two parties, but rather that of a one-sided grant. This corrresponds with the covenant-idea in the Old Testament, in which berith, even in human relations, sometimes refers to a one-party guarantee which a more favored person gives a less favored one (cf. Josh. 9:6, 15; 1 Sam. 11:1; Ezek. 17:13). And it is most peculiarly true of the divine covenantal deed that it is a one-party guarantee. It comes not from man at all, but from God alone. This does not rule out the fact, of course, that it involves religious and ethical obligation, namely that of faith and obedience (Gen. 17:9-10), and that thus the reciprocal element is taken up in the covenant. Still, such an obligation is not always named, and there is no room to speak at all of a correlation, in the sense that each determines and holds in balance the terms of the other, between the promise of God and the human appropriation of it. It is not the idea of parity, or even that of reciprocity, but that of validity which determines the essence of the covenant-idea.

This should suffice as inducement to read further for those who are interested.

[Elaine]

It seems to me that the main problem with the discussion of covenant in the marriage context is that marriage as we know it is different than when the Bible was written.  (ie. for one - we think of love, romance and attraction as part and parcel with marriage – hardly the case back then)  It seems that this makes any discussion of it “sticky”. 

To me, Christianity changed marriage in such a profound way that trying to discuss it as though it is identical with OT covenants is a bit like comparing apples and oranges…

I'm not saying we shouldn't discuss it.  Maybe it would be beneficial to discuss the ways marriage has changed in that regard.

[Guy Coe]

Isn't the "love, romance and attraction" of marriage what's highlighted in the Song of Songs?  Is it really completely foreign to the OT perspective, as found in God's attitude towards us?

One thing which has changed, though is not present as an issue in Song of Songs, is the "expanded" ability of a young woman to say "no" to a proposal of marriage.

[Elaine]

I didn't say it was "completely" foreign.  Obviously, some people in arranged marriages got "lucky" and actually liked and felt romantically/physically attracted to their spouse.  (I wonder what the percentages were on that.)

Marriage had components that we would consider abhorrent and outside the scope now - in the event of a childless husband’s death, the thought sexual relations with his brother to produce heirs and husbands having multiple wives because wife #1 was barren, etc.

[Guy Coe]

You are, Elaine, so right on to point out how worldviews affect marriage.

Here's something you don't see everyday, and it boggles my mind how this could be considered a 'win' for any of the parties involved:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M8x2oii4cIM