But I’ve largely remained indifferent to whether there remains a future land promise (built e.g. on Gen 12 and a host of related passages), and I’m more than wary of Zionism, which I take to be a very misguided attempt to manufacture a fulfillment of God’s promises without understanding either the promises or the corollary conditions.

I still don’t claim to have a settled position on the land issue. But I was forced to lean toward it when I was struck recently by how much sense it would make. After all:

1. We know that a whole host of Israelites have savingly believed God over the years, both before and after the advent of Christ.
2. We believe in the resurrection of the body, not an eternal state of disembodied “spirituality.”
3. Correspondingly, we believe in the renovation of the earth, just as we believe in the renovation of the body.
4. Surely a renovated earth would have geography, and since the renovation is a renovation of this earth, it seems at least plausible – nay, overwhelmingly likely – that the new earth will have the land of Canaan.
5. Since everyone has to live somewhere – why wouldn’t believing Israelites live in Palestine? Why should that be thought the least bit “strange”?

Thank you for your question. I am glad to see that you are concerned to
follow the Bible in this way. I hope you don’t mind if I take a few
paragraphs to talk about this.

Paul mentions baptism which includes infants in 1 Corinthians 10.2. Of
course, he is referring to an Old Testament event, but as he continues, we
find that he says that the Red Sea and wilderness partaking of water from
the rock and manna were of the same pattern as baptism and the Lord’s
Supper. To be more precise: he uses the language of “tupos” in verses 6 and
11, which is more than “example;” it refers to a pattern or matrix. And this
pattern of Israel was set for “us” (new covenant believers, including
Gentiles), who partake of the Lord’s Supper (1 Corinthians 10.16-22).

The overall context of the passage has to do with faithful living, and Paul’s
point is basically this: Just as Israel was baptized and ate and drank
spiritual food and drink, and yet came under judgment when they tested
Christ, so too with us who fit into the same pattern: we are the body marked
by baptism (see 1 Cor 12.12-13), and we eat and drink spiritual food and
drink, but we must not provoke the Lord to jealousy as Israel did, or we too
will be subject to judgment.

So Israel (including the little children) experienced baptism in the event
of the exodus.

Baptism started long ago, under the old covenant. In fact, Hebrews 9.10
refers to the washings in the Mosaic law as “various baptisms.” Under the
old covenant, in the case of males, circumcision was an entrance into
cleansing, which granted one access to the tabernacle (later, the temple).
(The case was slightly different for females; instead of circumcision -
which obviously belongs to males – they were cleansed through the
purification of their mothers. I can’t go into that here, but it’s based on
Leviticus 12.) That cleansing could be lost in various ways (e.g. sin, as
well as contact with “unclean” things such as dead bodies etc) but was
restored largely by way of these washings. Part of the point of the fact
that under the new covenant there is “one baptism” (Ephesians 4.5) is that
that complex structure of cleansing is no longer necessary under the new
covenant. Rather than circumcision plus baptism after baptism after baptism,
there is now only one baptism.

With regard to your question, the point is that this one washing (new
covenant baptism) does not do away with the infant participation that had
always been the case with old covenant cleansing. That’s why when Peter
preaches on Pentecost, he proclaims baptism in the terms already known. He
says, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ,
for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy
Spirit.” And he grounds that statement with this promise: “For the promise
is for you and *for your children* and for all who are far off – everyone
whom the Lord our God calls to Himself” (Acts 2.38-39). That is an echo of
Old Testament passages such as Genesis 17:7 (where God says, “I will
establish my covenant between Me and you and your offspring after you
throughout their generations”). Peter’s hearers, familiar with the way God
worked throughout the Old Testament Scriptures, would have understood
clearly that God was continuing to work under the new covenant in terms of
believers and their children, just as He did under the old.

It is to be noted that this way of God’s working is not only for people with
Israelite ancestry. Israel was never strictly about blood; Gentiles often
joined with Israel even under the old covenant. In particular, when Israel
left Egypt under Moses, they left as a “mixed multitude” (Exodus 12.38),
meaning that many of those people were not of ethnic Israel. In connection
with 1 Corinthians 10, which I mentioned above, it is also important to note
that shortly after the Exodus, the people in the wilderness were living as
Gentiles in many basic respects. There was no circumcision between the
exodus and the entrance into Canaan 40 years later (see Joshua 5.2-5), and
even Passover was only celebrated the first year after the exodus. (Males
could only participate in Passover if they were circumcised.)

So it is no accident that Paul draws a parallel between Israel’s experience
in the exodus and in the wilderness and the experience of the Gentiles in
Corinth. They were both baptized with water, and their “spiritual” food was
bread (Israel’s spiritual food would normally include meat; for example, the
Passover lamb). As I said, while in the wilderness Israel was functionally
Gentile in many basic respects; and the inclusion of a “mixed multitude”
then pointed forward to the great “mixed multitude” that has come into the
people of God since the Pentecost after Jesus’ ascension. God is the
covenant God of believers and their children, now in the new covenant for
Gentiles, just as much as under the old covenant with Israelites.

That’s why it’s no surprise when the New Testament says that a household
head was baptized along with his/her household (for example, Acts 16.15,
33). So in 1 Corinthians 7.14, Paul describes the children of believers as
“holy ones” – “saints,” whereas the children of unbelievers are “unclean.”
You see that the term “unclean” draws from that old covenant language,
referring to those not eligible to worship God at the tabernacle; the
children of believers, on the other hand, are those who are cleansed for
worship. Which fits completely with everything we have already seen
regarding baptism above.

I apologize if that seems like a rather long and complex answer, but the
Bible is a very rich book, and must be read in terms of its own story, not
in bits and pieces. So I hope that is of some help. I can refer you to an
online essay I wrote about infant baptism if you ever wish to read more:

http://www.biblicalstudiescenter.org/ecclesiology/infantbaptism.htm

In the face of a feminist culture, the Church struggles to respond in a biblical fashion. Of course, many virtually cave in to the surrounding ethos.

Others, however, resort to various levels of patriarchalism. Given the mess of our society, this can look quite attractive.

And I suppose that my own viewpoint would be considered patriarchalism of a sort, as well. It’s a tag I’ve been given by unbelieving folk, at any rate. I’m appalled by women who neglect their families for the sake of getting “fulfillment” through their careers, and by a great deal else that characterizes our culture. And on a more general level, I’m disturbed by women who talk like men, adopt manly mannerisms, and are offended if a man wishes to defer to them by opening a door.

Assumptions of Hyper-Patriarchalism

Still, there are some (to put it prejudicially) oddities out there on the “patriarchal” side of things – oddities frequently arising out of questionable assumptions or insufficient attention to biblical detail.

Along these lines are certain notions that women are always supposed to be under the familial headship of a man. (An article written a few years back by a single gal ran under the headline, “My Daddy Owns Me.”) Either a female belongs to her father, or she passes into the hands of her husband. Appeal is made to biblical examples where women are given in marriage by family arrangement, along with more general appeals to obedience of children to parents.

Biblical Culture vs Common Assumptions

Now, while I am very sympathetic to some form of the courtship model, and am a strong advocate of a return to biblical respect for authority, there are certain problems with the assumptions noted above.

First, the general call for obedience to parents is equally encumbent upon both male and female, and the overarching command is honour of one’s parents, which in the case of adults is not going to look like adolescent obedience. If an adult male is not under parental headship, it is not at all clear why an adult female must be.

Second, it is simply not the case that a woman was always under familial male headship – or was supposed to be. The obvious counterexample is that of widows. In certain circumstances (poverty was obviously a big reality for widows), a widow could return to her father’s household – but she didn’t have to. And as far as remarriage, Paul explicitly says she may marry whomever she will, only in the Lord (1 Cor 7.39). (As an aside, note that he doesn’t tell her to ask her pastor to be her surrogate father, whether for the sake of finding and evaluating a potential suitor or anything else.)

Third, the apparent parental control of marriage in Scripture is in fact more limited than is sometimes supposed. We aren’t told, for example, that Isaac had to marry Rebekah; and as for her part, she was asked whether she would go with the man sent to find Isaac a bride. In truth, she left when her family was dragging their heels. In any case, there are a variety of courtship models displayed in Scripture, and it is not quite convincing to appeal to the handful of so-called “arranged” marriages as the norm. (Funny how nobody in the patriarchal camp champions Ruth’s womanly pursuit of Boaz as normative. Any woman who makes the first move is obviously “unfeminine.”)

Moreover, girls in ancient Israel apparently married at an average age of 12-16 years old. Which means that they were never single adults at all. Hence it is no real surprise that they were under male headship until they become widows. The real question is whether the norms applied to adolescent females ought to be applied to grown women who happen to remain single. (Another question is whether old covenant norms on this matter ought to be applied across the board into the new covenant situation, given the new accent upon singleness in the Lord’s service; more on this below.)

Looking beyond such issues to matters of whether women should be active in the business of society (yes, that is sometimes questioned), it is to be observed that the godly wife of Proverbs 31 is not only industrious within her own four walls, but carries out a real estate transaction on her own, and deriving from that field she makes sufficient living to plant a vineyard (Prov 31.16). She markets her goods (31.24) and bestows help upon the poor (31.20). She is, in short, a very public figure, and makes many big decisions of her own accord.

Patriarchalism vs Single Service

Tying these two threads together, it is to be noted that the New Testament, in particular, places a high premium upon single servants of Christ (e.g. 1 Cor 7.32-35), both male and female. There is a sort of hyper-Protestantism that is almost embarrassed by this, and it is a reality that doesn’t fit all that well with the notions considered above. Phoebe, for instance, travels widely – all the way to Rome – as a “deacon” of the church at Cenchrea, near Corinth (Rom 16.1-2). Contrary to the apparent assumptions of some, an unmarried woman is not consigned to (caricature alert!) sitting inside Daddy’s house reading and doing needlepoint; it may well be that God has very special, and quite public, service marked out for her.

In an age of feminism, the Christian counter should not consist in running to the opposite extreme, but rather in seeking to understand the whole Scripture, and to be faithful to it in all its facets. The role of women in our times has become virtually interchangeable with men – or at least, that is what is attempted – but our response must not be reactionary. Over against most of the cultures which has surrounded the Church throughout history, our faith has been liberating for women, providing them avenues of service that would not have been thinkable outside the body of Christ. It is untrue that kneejerk patriarchalism returns us to more pristine Christian practice; rather, it is more a departure into the non-Christian realm altogether.

Of course, this is not the problem of most of the Western Church. On the whole, our biggest problem is individualism; and just as the antidote to feminism is not hyper-patriarchalism, neither is the antidote to hyper-patriarchalism anything like the disrespect of all authority – whether parental or otherwise – that so epitomizes our times, even in the Church. I want to make it clear that the frequent carelessness of Christian children regarding what their parents may think of their boyfriends, girlfriends, or fiances, is a blight upon them (and in many cases, a blight upon their parents, for failing to nurture respect, for failing to parent with any sort of gravitas), just as the wife “wearing the pants in the family” is a blight upon both husband and wife. But we should not cripple the God-given power of women simply because of the common usurpation of power He has not given.

Our standard, after all, is not 21st century individualistic culture, not feminism, not patriarchalism, but the Word of God Himself.