The Narrow Path Ministries

I was listening to a show in the archives from last month, in which birth control was discussed. As I recall, the last word was something along the lines of "if God says that children are a blessing why would anyone want to use birth control?" I assume that Steve was referring to Psalm 127, but if there are other places where this is said please let me know.

Is it correct to say "God says", when quoting from a non-prophetic Psalm of Solomon. Is this not just Solomon expressing his personal experience? Are there any places in the New Testament where non-prophetic wisdom literature is quoted as "the Lord says." Would it be fair to say that Paul didn't feel this way, since he never married? Is that not also a form of birth control, so that he could focus on his ministry?

Just trying to get some personal conviction on this matter...

Thanks.

Michael wrote:Is it correct to say "God says", when quoting from a non-prophetic Psalm of Solomon. Is this not just Solomon expressing his personal experience?

I believe Paul was referring to the whole Old Testament when he wrote:

"All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

Therefore, I think you could at least assume that Solomon was inspired by God when he wrote:

"Behold, children are a gift of the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one's youth. How blessed is the man whose quiver is full of them; They will not be ashamed When they speak with their enemies in the gate." (Psalms 127:3-5)

I believe that Solomon was inspired when he wrote those words, but I also believe that Solomon lived in a culture, or context, that may have contributed to the statement that he made. In other words, in Solomon's day (and for centuries before and centuries afterward), it seems to me that there were many reasons why it would have been a happy circumstance for a family to have numerous children that do not necessarily exist in our society today. These would include, of course, the blessings even small families enjoy related to the love and pride that children bring to a family. But, in an agrarian society, a large family would also provide more workers for the family business; more security in a sometimes dangerous and volatile setting; greater prestige within the community; and provide greater assurances of carrying on the family line--a weightier matter, perhaps, then, as compared to today.

In the early nineties, I had a vasectomy after my daughter was born, giving my wife and I a total of two children. We had made this decision based upon our original desire to have only two children (if we were blessed enough to have both a boy and a girl--which we did); our financial responsibilities; our perception of the general degredation of American society; and living space available, among other reasons.

When I consider other parts of the world where children are starving to death on an ongoing basis, or where war or civil unrest are a constant reality, I might question whether it is a blessing to have a quiver full of arrows in circumstances like these; or if Solomon had this in mind when he penned those words. I think "birth control" can legitimately be seen as a stewardship issue, as long as one does not violate the commandments of God in the process. I also believe that it is something that every couple needs to pray about and decide for themselves.

I think the Psalm is inspired, but I also think the new covenant changes things a bit on this subject.

In the Old Covenant, natural children were a key sign of blessing. To be a barren woman or a eunuch was akin to being cursed. But in the New Covenant, these 2 figures are spoken of more positively. I think this is partly because in our dispensation the emphasis is on spiritual rather than natural birth. In short, I think 'be fruitful and multiply' was a command to bear physical children under the Old Covenant, but I think it applies in a primarily spiritual way today.

Of course, that is not to say that having natural children is bad. It is good. It is just not commanded. I think the matter of using birth control within a marriage is up to the couple and their sense of the Spirit's leading in their lives. And I don't say that as someone trying to justify my own use of birth control measures. My wife and I don't use birth control and will be glad with however many children God gives us.

When God said we were to multiply and fill the earth, could it reasonably said that mankind has accomplished that? If not, how many more would it take?

wwalkeriv wrote: Therefore, I think you could at least assume that Solomon was inspired by God when he wrote:

I would agree that Solomon was "inspired by God", but I don't think that is the same thing as attributing what he wrote to what God said. Using that logic, one could, for example, take the words of Job's 3 counsellors, whom God rebuked, and say that God said them.

mattrose wrote:In the Old Covenant, natural children were a key sign of blessing. To be a barren woman or a eunuch was akin to being cursed. But in the New Covenant, these 2 figures are spoken of more positively. I think this is partly because in our dispensation the emphasis is on spiritual rather than natural birth. In short, I think 'be fruitful and multiply' was a command to bear physical children under the Old Covenant, but I think it applies in a primarily spiritual way today.

Matt, since this command was given not only thousands of years prior to the Old Covenant being instituted, but was given even before the Fall, why would we see that as being changed under the New Covenant? It seems that whatever commands were given by God prior to the Fall wouldn't reflect something subject to change.

I realize that some are called to remain single (Matt 19:12) by the Holy Spirit. But since the command in Gen 1 was given to "them", I presume that it is a command only for already married couples, not to be seen as a command that all must become married.

Also I realize that we will not marry in the resurrection (Matt 22:30), but we are living before the time of resurrection, just as Adam and Eve were.

Adam and Eve were a pre-resurrection, post-marriage human couple, just the same as any other married man and woman. They were not under the Old Covenant, and neither are we.

In practical terms I think you and I have the same view on birth control, I was just curious on your further insights into your take on this passage.

-Kyle

P.S. Even if we were to see this as being changed by the New Covenant, wouldn't a Christian couple having children and raising them to be Godly be a fulfillment of both the physical and spiritual aspects?

Michael wrote: I would agree that Solomon was "inspired by God", but I don't think that is the same thing as attributing what he wrote to what God said. Using that logic, one could, for example, take the words of Job's 3 counsellors, whom God rebuked, and say that God said them.

To understand the Bible I find that I need to apply some sound principles that begin with prayer. I usually pray and ask God to open my mind so that I can see what He would have me understand and not read the Bible looking for support to a position I already hold.

After that I usually apply several principles which include: considering the context of the passage, considering the background, consider the usage of the words given, how the passage conforms to the whole of Scripture, and I also use plain old common sense.

I'm not inferring that you don't understand the Bible, just explaining how I try to understand it.

KyleB wrote: Matt, since this command was given not only thousands of years prior to the Old Covenant being instituted, but was given even before the Fall, why would we see that as being changed under the New Covenant? It seems that whatever commands were given by God prior to the Fall wouldn't reflect something subject to change.

I don't just believe in the New Covenants fulfillment of the Old Covenant, but also the general concept of progressive revelation. I think the command to 'be fruitful and multiply' was a command for that time especially. The necessity of fruitfullness, multiplication, and of filling the earth would naturally decrease over time.

Also I realize that we will not marry in the resurrection (Matt 22:30), but we are living before the time of resurrection, just as Adam and Eve were.

We are living in the time of the resurrection, but the kingdom of God is to be invading this earth bit by bit. So we should expect that, more and more, kingdom realities will be seen more and more on earth. I myself think that 'singleness' as a vocation and/or gift will become more prominent in Christianity as time goes on.

P.S. Even if we were to see this as being changed by the New Covenant, wouldn't a Christian couple having children and raising them to be Godly be a fulfillment of both the physical and spiritual aspects?

Yep

mattrose wrote:We are living in the time of the resurrection, but the kingdom of God is to be invading this earth bit by bit. So we should expect that, more and more, kingdom realities will be seen more and more on earth. I myself think that 'singleness' as a vocation and/or gift will become more prominent in Christianity as time goes on.

That sounds strangely post-millennial -- are you ?