Obviously, the approach of Tripp and myself to the biblical text are world's apart. I would argue that both testaments argue for the high model of marriage that is demonstrated in the New Testament. Polygamy was extremely prevalent in the Old Testament, but this shows only that the text records history - without condoning sin. Actually, God's command in the garden of Eden was that a husband "cleave unto his WIFE (singular)." Actually, there are a great number of monogamous relationships recorded in Scripture: Adam and Eve, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, nearly every prophet who was married, Joseph and Mary, Zechariah and Elizabeth, etc. Deuteronomy 24 demonstrates a protection for wives who could not just be threatened with divorce and abandonment. I also have found no evidence that Jesus' Matthean condemnation of divorce was an added text, but I am still researching. Where Tripp and I find common ground is in holding a high position for marriage and both members of it. No biblical student (conservative or otherwise) can accept a situation where a wife or husband is mistreated or abused simply by clinging to one passage over another -- that is not the biblicist view.Tripp:
Kent does a good job articulating a very generous response as a biblical literalist. While I am not one, his reasoning demonstrates that the regular dismissal by more secular onlookers is regrettable. In fact, I think our conclusions from different assumptions with different nuances are similar. I would agree with the sentiment and prescription of his final paragraph when he says, "the husband who has abused his wife and demanded such an unbiblical brand of "submission" that he can ignore biblical commands for his life, has forfeited his right to expect the wife to submit to his leadership... and if he refuses the needed change, she should assume that her separation is permanent." Thanks Ken and thanks Drew.