The fearful disciple shot back,
To servant girl, dignity lacked,
Not only once, but thrice was said,
‘This man on trial, cursed as dead,
I do not know his origin
His teaching, his fol-wers of men,
Who sat beside him, day and night,
Asking questions, inquiring light
On mysteries of things of old
Of whom the prophets patiently told.
I say again, this criminal
--my verdict comes; there is no lull—
You say accent betrays, hear this:
This Son of David, I will not miss.’
As dark foaming clouds spread abroad
Former blue skies, this man now thought
Of broken confidence now revealed
Concerning this man of Galilee.
With the pain of Gethsemane,
This broken man now groped to see
And so he wept, “God of Abraham
What have I done! Three years a sham
Of faith! Three years of patient grace
Now thrown back in my Savior’s face!
I promised! Swore! Though oth’rs would fail
To stand, my firm faith must prevail.
The Gates of Hell, now burst open,
Consuming the confession when
I said, ‘You are the Christ, Rabbi.’
You called me the Rock,” Peter cried.
“I’ve hewn myself, and been cast aside
Your steadfast grace, no longer mine.”
His heavy heart began to sink
As boulders hurled into the sea.
Then thoughts of doubts coupled his mind
About this man. “Recall the time
A week ago, donkey he rode
Worship given, majesty flowed
Our burdened yoke he came to break
He said he’d die, I knew he’d make
Our bondage loose. The Romans should
Have their reign toppled. I thought he could.”
Despair now turned to rage. “O God,
Reigning on high, worthy of laud,
Only I may but speak my mind
Of prom--ses made, you’ve failed this time.
The yoke we have is tyranny
Others outside of Galilee.
Kingdom you prom-sed has never come
And without this man, is it done?
Moments ago my faith denied
But about this man,” Peter cried,
“Messiah to die? Why, God, why?”
Stumbling past the desolate
Terrain, broken Simon now met
A memory from days before
Kind words to Peter from his Lord,
“Simon, behold, Satan has asked
Like chaff from wheat, he wants to cast
You from my side. You will not last.
But Simon, here is hope: I pray
That despite your fall, you will stay
And when you turn, point to my grace
For others, like you, won’t seek my face.
You see, my friend, my life I give
Sacrificing so they might live.
Simon, you’ll fail, but hear me say
O my friend, here is hope: I pray.”
Life sprang forth from this stony Rock
He knew Jesus—the one he’d mocked
With denial—was one who’d save
Man from trials, not others-made,
But trials within, inside the heart,
Addicted to pride one can’t depart.
Patterns of malice, fear, and greed
Peter now knew his enemies.
The Rabbi’s mission was to save
Not from Romans, but in the grave,
Defeat the dreaded foe within
Ways of the tyranny of sin.
At once the Rock began to see,
“I’ve been saved, I’ve been saved from me!
Rescued now from Satan’s grasp
Of guilt, his conscience free at last!
As morning on the Friday dawned
Peter proclaimed, filled with a song,
“I’m starting to see, why your Son,
Made as a man on earth to come.
Along I’ve thought, he crush our foes,
But pride is not the path he chose
Clothed not with flesh to wield a sword
Abstaining pomp, a baby born,
The God who thought and laughed and cried
Perfectly man who soon will die
To establish his throne and break
The chains of bondage. He will take
My fear and doubt, as perfect one,
Breaking bondage is why he’s come.
Thursday, December 24, 2009
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Faith
If you were asked to define what true faith is—a faith that God honors—what would you say?
Some might say sincerity is paramount: “The reliability of the source of our faith is not as important as the strength of our faith. Sincerity is essential, not what god(s) you serve. If a Muslim, Hindu, or Jew sincerely trusts in their god(s), then that is a faith that God will honor. After all, who are we to judge those in the jungles that have never heard of Jesus and yet genuinely worship their god?”
Others would center on one’s confession of Christ: “It is confessing with your mouth that Jesus is ‘Lord,’ and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead” (Romans 10:9). Verbal assent is needed. One must affirm the great truths of the Gospel, not simply hear them.
Certain folks will claim only a transforming faith in Christ is a true faith: “It is important to acknowledge, yes, but one needs to mean it. After all, even the demons affirm that Jesus is ‘Lord,’ and that God raised him from the dead (James 2:19). To affirm without conviction is empty and void. Above all, a transformation of the heart is needed to see the truths and really mean it.”
By looking at two certain passages in Scripture, I am convinced that true saving faith is not mere sincerity or mental acquiescence, but it is ground in the reliability of the object of faith and thus giving it glory.
Revelation 14 unpacks the nature of faith. Three angels give messages to the unbelieving world. The first angel, we are told, comes bringing an eternal gospel to proclaim to every nation and tribe and language and people. He then speaks, explaining what the content of this gospel is. Surprisingly, he says, “Fear God and give him glory…and worship him! (vs. 6)” I take the first two phrases, “Fear God and give him glory,” as complementary. By fearing God, revering his name, one will give him glory. The command to worship him is the overflow of fearing God. The good news proclaim in Revelation 14 is to look away from ourselves and look to God alone.
But is this an adequate definition of faith? Giving him glory is nice, but isn’t that more for mature Christians? After all, isn’t the verbal acknowledgment of faith all that God really requires?
Not necessarily. A look at the nature of Abraham’s faith will give some light. Paul writes, “No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God” (Romans 4:20). As he (Abraham) continued to look to God to fulfill his promises (this is faith), he gave glory to God. Why? Because faith is always looking away from yourself to someone else. It is acknowledging one is helpless and needs someone else to step in. Because God is capable and able and worthy of being trusted, he is therefore glorified whenever someone believes in his name. Faith always brings glory to God.
Therefore, I am not convinced that faith is only verbal acquiescence or “really meaning it.” It is looking to a sufficient and worthy object—God—and trusting him to do for you what you are incapable of doing yourself. The sincerity of our faith will waver—Abraham’s certainly did!—but it must be rooted in someone that is able to save.
Our God is mighty to save! Give him glory as you look to him today.
Some might say sincerity is paramount: “The reliability of the source of our faith is not as important as the strength of our faith. Sincerity is essential, not what god(s) you serve. If a Muslim, Hindu, or Jew sincerely trusts in their god(s), then that is a faith that God will honor. After all, who are we to judge those in the jungles that have never heard of Jesus and yet genuinely worship their god?”
Others would center on one’s confession of Christ: “It is confessing with your mouth that Jesus is ‘Lord,’ and believing in your heart that God raised him from the dead” (Romans 10:9). Verbal assent is needed. One must affirm the great truths of the Gospel, not simply hear them.
Certain folks will claim only a transforming faith in Christ is a true faith: “It is important to acknowledge, yes, but one needs to mean it. After all, even the demons affirm that Jesus is ‘Lord,’ and that God raised him from the dead (James 2:19). To affirm without conviction is empty and void. Above all, a transformation of the heart is needed to see the truths and really mean it.”
By looking at two certain passages in Scripture, I am convinced that true saving faith is not mere sincerity or mental acquiescence, but it is ground in the reliability of the object of faith and thus giving it glory.
Revelation 14 unpacks the nature of faith. Three angels give messages to the unbelieving world. The first angel, we are told, comes bringing an eternal gospel to proclaim to every nation and tribe and language and people. He then speaks, explaining what the content of this gospel is. Surprisingly, he says, “Fear God and give him glory…and worship him! (vs. 6)” I take the first two phrases, “Fear God and give him glory,” as complementary. By fearing God, revering his name, one will give him glory. The command to worship him is the overflow of fearing God. The good news proclaim in Revelation 14 is to look away from ourselves and look to God alone.
But is this an adequate definition of faith? Giving him glory is nice, but isn’t that more for mature Christians? After all, isn’t the verbal acknowledgment of faith all that God really requires?
Not necessarily. A look at the nature of Abraham’s faith will give some light. Paul writes, “No distrust made him waver concerning the promise of God, but he grew strong in his faith as he gave glory to God” (Romans 4:20). As he (Abraham) continued to look to God to fulfill his promises (this is faith), he gave glory to God. Why? Because faith is always looking away from yourself to someone else. It is acknowledging one is helpless and needs someone else to step in. Because God is capable and able and worthy of being trusted, he is therefore glorified whenever someone believes in his name. Faith always brings glory to God.
Therefore, I am not convinced that faith is only verbal acquiescence or “really meaning it.” It is looking to a sufficient and worthy object—God—and trusting him to do for you what you are incapable of doing yourself. The sincerity of our faith will waver—Abraham’s certainly did!—but it must be rooted in someone that is able to save.
Our God is mighty to save! Give him glory as you look to him today.
Irony of "Immediate--Application Amy"
Immediate-Application Amy: She immediately looks at a text asking what it is saying to her today.
Jacob teaches us that we should never have more than one wife; Ruth shows us that we should be aggressive in our pursuit of a husband; and Isaiah gives justification for walking around naked years at a time.
She justifies this approach because she wants to make the Bible real and alive. Slowly she see that this application is devasting, for she is unable to meet level of morality the Bible demands.
Whole-Picture Perry: Rather than asking how this text immediately applies, Perry seeks to understand the whole storyline of the Bible, asking what it is revealing about God, his nature, and his plan for humanity.
Jacob reveals God's sovereign election in the beginning stages of his forming a nation for himself. Ruth anticipates God's grace that he shows to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Isaiah's prophecies loudly proclaim that God is a holy and just God, bringing judgment upon Israel, yet he also gives hope a future "servant" that will draw all nations to himself.
He justifies this approach because he wants to be faithful to the text and understand God. Slowly he finds the nature of God and his plan to be more breath-taking than first imagined. The Bible becomes alive and beautiful as he discovers how he fits into God's plan.
Immediate-Application Amy sought quick insights that would inspire her and was left with few transforming truths.
Whole-Picture Perry put off immediate applicaiton and instead looked to what was God's sovereign plan. He found that the delay in application brougth more application than could ever have been desired.
Jacob teaches us that we should never have more than one wife; Ruth shows us that we should be aggressive in our pursuit of a husband; and Isaiah gives justification for walking around naked years at a time.
She justifies this approach because she wants to make the Bible real and alive. Slowly she see that this application is devasting, for she is unable to meet level of morality the Bible demands.
Whole-Picture Perry: Rather than asking how this text immediately applies, Perry seeks to understand the whole storyline of the Bible, asking what it is revealing about God, his nature, and his plan for humanity.
Jacob reveals God's sovereign election in the beginning stages of his forming a nation for himself. Ruth anticipates God's grace that he shows to the Gentiles through Jesus Christ. Isaiah's prophecies loudly proclaim that God is a holy and just God, bringing judgment upon Israel, yet he also gives hope a future "servant" that will draw all nations to himself.
He justifies this approach because he wants to be faithful to the text and understand God. Slowly he finds the nature of God and his plan to be more breath-taking than first imagined. The Bible becomes alive and beautiful as he discovers how he fits into God's plan.
Immediate-Application Amy sought quick insights that would inspire her and was left with few transforming truths.
Whole-Picture Perry put off immediate applicaiton and instead looked to what was God's sovereign plan. He found that the delay in application brougth more application than could ever have been desired.
Thursday, August 6, 2009
Is God a Coach or a Master?
One will only obey a coach part of the time in a short slice of the year. During the offseason the coaches advice is (usually) not followed. Only when it is convenient will the coach’s advice be heeded.
For a master, one cannot divide one’s life up so conveniently. Every aspect is under the control of the master, from recreation to the pace of work. No area of a slave’s life does the master not cry out, “This is mine!”
To have God as a coach is idolatry and enslaving.
To have God as a master is, ironically, freedom.
For a master, one cannot divide one’s life up so conveniently. Every aspect is under the control of the master, from recreation to the pace of work. No area of a slave’s life does the master not cry out, “This is mine!”
To have God as a coach is idolatry and enslaving.
To have God as a master is, ironically, freedom.
The Problem with Postmodern Relativists
Is that, in their assertation that real truth--if it exists--cannot be known, they leave behind the biblical position of a world over which God exercises his sovereign rule, including over cultural contexts (language, reader response, etc.).
On Choosing a Bible Translation
An inadequate question to ask is: "Is this translation readable?"
A necessary question to ask is: "Does this translation accurately portray the world of the Old and New Testament?"
Leeland Ryken makes a helpful point: "A good translation preserves the full exegetical or interpretive potential of the original biblical text. Conversely, a translation is inadequate to the extent to which it diminishes the interpretive potential of the original text" (The Word of God in English, p. 129).
A necessary question to ask is: "Does this translation accurately portray the world of the Old and New Testament?"
Leeland Ryken makes a helpful point: "A good translation preserves the full exegetical or interpretive potential of the original biblical text. Conversely, a translation is inadequate to the extent to which it diminishes the interpretive potential of the original text" (The Word of God in English, p. 129).
Friday, July 10, 2009
Should We Say "All I Ever Need is You" to our Wives?
Some time ago, James wrote us this question. I thought it would be helpful to put up as a main post:
"I have one question from you that I'm curious about. Since you said the song is idolatrous, if I same this song to my wife [singing "All I ever need is you"], would I be committing idolatry? "
To which I respond:
James,
I am so sorry that it has taken me a while to write back to you. I have not checked this blog (regrettably) for quite some time.
Concerning how we are to interact with others, the Lord Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26, ESV)
This is strong language. Now, I take it to be hyperbole mainly because we are commanded to love our children and wives in other places (Ephesians 5 & 6, for example). Nevertheless, the command to "hate" still exists, which I take to mean that our love for Christ must be so great that it makes our love for others seem as though it were hatred.
Idolatry is simply taking a good thing (wife, girlfriend) and making it a "God thing"--that is a bad thing.
Of course, saying things like "All I ever need is you" to your wife/girlfiend is NOT necessarily idolatry, if one's partner knows that they supremely love God. However, why would one say something like that if it has to die the death of a thousand qualifications, if "all you ever need" is really NOT "you"?
Let me put this a different way: What is love? Is it:
1.) Making much of another individual.
2.) Striving and caring with all one's energy to enable another to make much of God.
The first is idolatry. And I say that very purposefully. That is not love; it is elevating another finite human to the realm of all-sufficiency, when they simply are not.
The second is love. It is one that labors for his wife/girlfriend to see Christ as glorious in all things. And that is what is of most benefit to their soul.
"7But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." Philippians 3:7-9
"I have one question from you that I'm curious about. Since you said the song is idolatrous, if I same this song to my wife [singing "All I ever need is you"], would I be committing idolatry? "
To which I respond:
James,
I am so sorry that it has taken me a while to write back to you. I have not checked this blog (regrettably) for quite some time.
Concerning how we are to interact with others, the Lord Jesus says, "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple" (Luke 14:26, ESV)
This is strong language. Now, I take it to be hyperbole mainly because we are commanded to love our children and wives in other places (Ephesians 5 & 6, for example). Nevertheless, the command to "hate" still exists, which I take to mean that our love for Christ must be so great that it makes our love for others seem as though it were hatred.
Idolatry is simply taking a good thing (wife, girlfriend) and making it a "God thing"--that is a bad thing.
Of course, saying things like "All I ever need is you" to your wife/girlfiend is NOT necessarily idolatry, if one's partner knows that they supremely love God. However, why would one say something like that if it has to die the death of a thousand qualifications, if "all you ever need" is really NOT "you"?
Let me put this a different way: What is love? Is it:
1.) Making much of another individual.
2.) Striving and caring with all one's energy to enable another to make much of God.
The first is idolatry. And I say that very purposefully. That is not love; it is elevating another finite human to the realm of all-sufficiency, when they simply are not.
The second is love. It is one that labors for his wife/girlfriend to see Christ as glorious in all things. And that is what is of most benefit to their soul.
"7But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. 8Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ 9and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ, the righteousness from God that depends on faith." Philippians 3:7-9
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Working Through Divorce, Part 4: Understanding Different Views
View 2: Divorce Only in Case of Breaking the Betrothal, Incest, Etc.
John Piper is a well-known proponent of this view. Here is a helpful document by Piper presenting 11 points and detailed justification for why the Bible only allows for divorce in case of breaking a betrothal. I would encourage you to work through it; it is very thought-provoking, especially point 11.
1.) Luke 16:18 calls all remarriage after divorce adultery.
2.) Mark 10:11-12 call all remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the woman or the man who divorces.
3.) Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-8 teaches that Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ interpretation of divorce from Deuteronomy 24:1 and reasserted God’s original plan in creation that no human being separate what God has joined together.
4.) Matthew 5:32 does not teach that remarriage is lawful in some cases. Rather it reaffirms that marriage after divorce is adultery, even for those who have been divorced innocently, and that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become an adulteress before the divorce.
5.) 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable the person who divorces should not remarry.
6.) 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a spouse.
7.) Matthew 19:10-12 teaches that special Christian grace is given by God to Christ's disciples to sustain them in singleness when they renounce remarriage according to the law of Christ.
8.) Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not legislate grounds for divorce but teaches that the "one-flesh" relationship established by marriage is not obliterated by divorce or even by remarriage.
9.) 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mean that when a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse he or she is free to remarry. It means that the Christian is not bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness. Separation is permissible if the unbelieving partner insists on it.
10.) 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 does not teach the right of divorced persons to remarry. It teaches that betrothed virgins should seriously consider the life of singleness, but do not sin if they marry.
11.) The exception clause of Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a person to be remarried. All the weight of the New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against this view, and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so that it does not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after divorce is prohibited.
John Piper is a well-known proponent of this view. Here is a helpful document by Piper presenting 11 points and detailed justification for why the Bible only allows for divorce in case of breaking a betrothal. I would encourage you to work through it; it is very thought-provoking, especially point 11.
1.) Luke 16:18 calls all remarriage after divorce adultery.
2.) Mark 10:11-12 call all remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the woman or the man who divorces.
3.) Mark 10:2-9 and Matthew 19:3-8 teaches that Jesus rejected the Pharisees’ interpretation of divorce from Deuteronomy 24:1 and reasserted God’s original plan in creation that no human being separate what God has joined together.
4.) Matthew 5:32 does not teach that remarriage is lawful in some cases. Rather it reaffirms that marriage after divorce is adultery, even for those who have been divorced innocently, and that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become an adulteress before the divorce.
5.) 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 teaches that divorce is wrong but that if it is inevitable the person who divorces should not remarry.
6.) 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:1-3 teach that remarriage is legitimate only after the death of a spouse.
7.) Matthew 19:10-12 teaches that special Christian grace is given by God to Christ's disciples to sustain them in singleness when they renounce remarriage according to the law of Christ.
8.) Deuteronomy 24:1-4 does not legislate grounds for divorce but teaches that the "one-flesh" relationship established by marriage is not obliterated by divorce or even by remarriage.
9.) 1 Corinthians 7:15 does not mean that when a Christian is deserted by an unbelieving spouse he or she is free to remarry. It means that the Christian is not bound to fight in order to preserve togetherness. Separation is permissible if the unbelieving partner insists on it.
10.) 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 does not teach the right of divorced persons to remarry. It teaches that betrothed virgins should seriously consider the life of singleness, but do not sin if they marry.
11.) The exception clause of Matthew 19:9 need not imply that divorce on account of adultery frees a person to be remarried. All the weight of the New Testament evidence given in the preceding ten points is against this view, and there are several ways to make good sense out of this verse so that it does not conflict with the broad teaching of the New Testament that remarriage after divorce is prohibited.
Monday, June 8, 2009
Working through Divorce, Part 3: Understanding Different Views
View 1: The “Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery or Sexual Immorality” View
This is the most widely held view among evangelicals. They argue that porneia generally refers to sexual immorality (cf. Mark 7:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5). Marriage and the consequential breaking of the marriage covenant, not simply breaking a betrothal, is assumed by Christ. His view is different from the more conservative Shammai school of thought because, in going back to God’s original design in Genesis 1 and 2, he stresses that marriage is to remain permanent. Furthermore, contrary to what is said in Deuteronomy, divorce is not only to be initiated by men, but Jesus’ words imply that both men and women cannot initiate divorce under the sin of sexual immorality.
This is the most widely held view among evangelicals. They argue that porneia generally refers to sexual immorality (cf. Mark 7:21; Gal 5:19; Eph 5:3; Col 3:5). Marriage and the consequential breaking of the marriage covenant, not simply breaking a betrothal, is assumed by Christ. His view is different from the more conservative Shammai school of thought because, in going back to God’s original design in Genesis 1 and 2, he stresses that marriage is to remain permanent. Furthermore, contrary to what is said in Deuteronomy, divorce is not only to be initiated by men, but Jesus’ words imply that both men and women cannot initiate divorce under the sin of sexual immorality.
Working Through Divorce, Part 2
The infamous exception clause. Things would be much easier without it.
Jesus says in Matthew 19:9, “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (ESV).
Jesus does not rule out divorce for any reason. Nobody argues with that. The question is not whether divorce is ever valid, but when and under what conditions it is valid. The debate largely centers on the exception in the above verse—“except for sexual immorality.”
Whether this is for true marriages or betrothals, here is an important observation: Jesus does NOT demand divorce; it is merely permitted. Contemporary Judaism required divorce in the case of sexual immorality; Jesus merely permits it. Thus, Jesus’ view of divorce was higher than even the conservative branch of Judaism in his day.
Jesus says in Matthew 19:9, “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery” (ESV).
Jesus does not rule out divorce for any reason. Nobody argues with that. The question is not whether divorce is ever valid, but when and under what conditions it is valid. The debate largely centers on the exception in the above verse—“except for sexual immorality.”
Whether this is for true marriages or betrothals, here is an important observation: Jesus does NOT demand divorce; it is merely permitted. Contemporary Judaism required divorce in the case of sexual immorality; Jesus merely permits it. Thus, Jesus’ view of divorce was higher than even the conservative branch of Judaism in his day.
Working through Divorce, Part 1
A foundational verse on divorce and remarriage in the Old Testament is Deuteronomy 24:1-4, which reads as follows:
When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance (ESV).
Notice a few things about this text:
a.) It presupposes that divorce is a reality and does not explicitly fight against it “He writes her a certificate of divorce”
b.) It conditions the reason for a divorce based upon the phrase “if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her” In other words, divorce for no reason is not justified in this text. The question now becomes how to properly understand “indecency.”
This passage became the nexus where all debates in Jesus’ time centered. Interpretations of “indecency” abounded. The two school of Pharisees, Shammai and Hillel, interpreted “indecency” as sexual immorality or simply not pleasing one’s husband, respectively. These debates are in view when Jesus is asked in Matthew 19 by the question, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”
Instead of replying directly to their question, Jesus ups the ante. He replies that divorce was only presupposed by Moses because of their hardness of heart, but it was not so from the beginning. God’s ideal for marriage is permanence. Therefore, as Andreas Kostenberger so effectively notes, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is “descriptive rather than prescriptive” (God, Marriage, and Family, 228).
So, Jesus says that understanding what “indecency” means is the wrong question, for it misses the purpose of Moses’ instructions and it bats a blind eye at God’s ideal of permanence for marriage.
“So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6, ESV).
When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, and if she goes and becomes another man’s wife, and the latter man hates her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter man dies, who took her to be his wife, then her former husband, who sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after she has been defiled, for that is an abomination before the LORD. And you shall not bring sin upon the land that the LORD your God is giving you for an inheritance (ESV).
Notice a few things about this text:
a.) It presupposes that divorce is a reality and does not explicitly fight against it “He writes her a certificate of divorce”
b.) It conditions the reason for a divorce based upon the phrase “if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her” In other words, divorce for no reason is not justified in this text. The question now becomes how to properly understand “indecency.”
This passage became the nexus where all debates in Jesus’ time centered. Interpretations of “indecency” abounded. The two school of Pharisees, Shammai and Hillel, interpreted “indecency” as sexual immorality or simply not pleasing one’s husband, respectively. These debates are in view when Jesus is asked in Matthew 19 by the question, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”
Instead of replying directly to their question, Jesus ups the ante. He replies that divorce was only presupposed by Moses because of their hardness of heart, but it was not so from the beginning. God’s ideal for marriage is permanence. Therefore, as Andreas Kostenberger so effectively notes, Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is “descriptive rather than prescriptive” (God, Marriage, and Family, 228).
So, Jesus says that understanding what “indecency” means is the wrong question, for it misses the purpose of Moses’ instructions and it bats a blind eye at God’s ideal of permanence for marriage.
“So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6, ESV).
Tuesday, April 21, 2009
10 Reasons Why Sexual Sin is Harmful
1.) Our body is God’s and is not to be joined with another woman outside marriage.
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)
2.) The sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral…will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
3.) God’s will for your life is that you are made continually into the image of God.
“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor.”
4.) We exploit and defraud others through sexual sin.
“That no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter.” (1 Thessalonians 4:6)
5.) To disregard and ignore commands on sexual immorality is a sin against one’s own body and against God himself.
“Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18)
“Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.” (1 Thessalonians 4:8)
6.) We should not continue in sin because we have been positionally raised with Christ. Just as Christ defeated the bonds of death, so also in Christ the damning nature of sin is crushed by the cross. Therefore, to continue in sexual sin is contrary to our positional nature.
“We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4)
7.) Continued obedience and sanctification is an inherent part of “working out” one’s salvation.
“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13).
8.) The wages of sexual immorality is death, complete separation from God.
“For the wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23)
9.) Sexual immorality is deceitful: rather than bringing the promised life, it brings death.
“[A forbidden woman] does not ponder the path of life; her ways wander, and she does not know it.” (Proverbs 5:6)
10.) Sexual immorality is idolatry—valuing one’s own desires over the desires of God.
“Do not be idolaters as some of them were…We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.” (1 Corinthians 10:7-8)
“Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit within you, whom you have from God? You are not your own, for you were bought with a price. So glorify God in your body.” (1 Corinthians 6:19-20)
2.) The sexually immoral will not inherit the kingdom of God.
“Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral…will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)
3.) God’s will for your life is that you are made continually into the image of God.
“For this is the will of God, your sanctification: that you abstain from sexual immorality; that each one of you know how to control his own body in holiness and honor.”
4.) We exploit and defraud others through sexual sin.
“That no one transgress and wrong his brother in this matter.” (1 Thessalonians 4:6)
5.) To disregard and ignore commands on sexual immorality is a sin against one’s own body and against God himself.
“Every other sin a person commits is outside the body, but the sexually immoral person sins against his own body.” (1 Corinthians 6:18)
“Therefore whoever disregards this, disregards not man but God, who gives his Holy Spirit to you.” (1 Thessalonians 4:8)
6.) We should not continue in sin because we have been positionally raised with Christ. Just as Christ defeated the bonds of death, so also in Christ the damning nature of sin is crushed by the cross. Therefore, to continue in sexual sin is contrary to our positional nature.
“We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life.” (Romans 6:4)
7.) Continued obedience and sanctification is an inherent part of “working out” one’s salvation.
“Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God who works in you, both to will and to work for his good pleasure.” (Philippians 2:12-13).
8.) The wages of sexual immorality is death, complete separation from God.
“For the wages of sin is death.” (Romans 6:23)
9.) Sexual immorality is deceitful: rather than bringing the promised life, it brings death.
“[A forbidden woman] does not ponder the path of life; her ways wander, and she does not know it.” (Proverbs 5:6)
10.) Sexual immorality is idolatry—valuing one’s own desires over the desires of God.
“Do not be idolaters as some of them were…We must not indulge in sexual immorality as some of them did, and twenty-three thousand fell in a single day.” (1 Corinthians 10:7-8)
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Love is the Key to Conquering Anxiety
In Romans 13:8, Paul writes, “Owe no one anything, except to love each other, for the one who loves another has fulfilled the law.” The one who loves has fulfilled the law. What does this mean?
Immediately after this statement, Paul then gives different commands: “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” All commandments (“any other commandment”) are consummated in loving one’s neighbor. I take that to mean that if I commit a sin of omission or commission, the root problem is not that I have a nasty habit I need to kick, but it is that I am not a loving person. Love is the issue, not mental or social conditioning.
Is it really this simple? Let’s take a test case. How about anxiety. We are commanded in Philippians 4:6 not to be anxious about anything. A positive command for anxiety is also given in Proverbs 16:3: “Commit your work to the LORD, and your plans will be established.” If I stray from this command and let the issues of my day overwhelm me, am I loving others?
I do not believe so. When I am anxious, I am not trusting God to provide for me. I am allowing the worries of my life to be ultimate, rather than God’s promises to provide for me to be ultimate. If my worries and concerns are supreme, and if my delight for God is diminished (I am not trusting him!), then how can this attitude point others toward Christ (This is what is most loving)? My attitude will be one of despair and self-pity, causing others to be drawn to my concerns, rather than have a heart-felt trust in God’s sovereign plan despite overwhelming circumstances. That kind of peace will glorify God, and that is loving others.
Today, fulfill the law, and by the Holy Spirit’s aid (Gal 5:22), love others.
Immediately after this statement, Paul then gives different commands: “You shall not commit adultery, you shall not murder, you shall not steal, you shall not covet, and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” All commandments (“any other commandment”) are consummated in loving one’s neighbor. I take that to mean that if I commit a sin of omission or commission, the root problem is not that I have a nasty habit I need to kick, but it is that I am not a loving person. Love is the issue, not mental or social conditioning.
Is it really this simple? Let’s take a test case. How about anxiety. We are commanded in Philippians 4:6 not to be anxious about anything. A positive command for anxiety is also given in Proverbs 16:3: “Commit your work to the LORD, and your plans will be established.” If I stray from this command and let the issues of my day overwhelm me, am I loving others?
I do not believe so. When I am anxious, I am not trusting God to provide for me. I am allowing the worries of my life to be ultimate, rather than God’s promises to provide for me to be ultimate. If my worries and concerns are supreme, and if my delight for God is diminished (I am not trusting him!), then how can this attitude point others toward Christ (This is what is most loving)? My attitude will be one of despair and self-pity, causing others to be drawn to my concerns, rather than have a heart-felt trust in God’s sovereign plan despite overwhelming circumstances. That kind of peace will glorify God, and that is loving others.
Today, fulfill the law, and by the Holy Spirit’s aid (Gal 5:22), love others.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Relationships: Are You a Giver or Taker?
Note: From early February to mid-March, I taught a series of lessons on sexuality and relationships for the youth group at First Baptist Church in Webster, WI. This article, hopefully followed by a number of others, will draw from those talks.
Some men follow rainbows, I am told,
Some search for silver, some for gold
But I have found my treasure is in your soul
All I ever need is you
Without love I would never find the way
Through ups and downs of ever single day
And I won’t ever sleep at night until I hear you say
“All I ever need is you”
With these words, Kenny Rogers and Dottie West conclude their country hit song, “All I Ever Need is You.” The song is about romantic relationships, and we as humans, both young and old alike, naturally find ourselves identifying with the message. Of course, God has created love, and it is a wonderful thing is his eyes, but is this song an attitude a young man or woman should have in a relationship? Or, more pointedly, could one feel these words and truly be loving? I would suggest that although they seem innocent enough, these lyrics are NOT loving, but rather selfish and idolatrous.
To see how this works out, let’s look to the Bible. In the beginning of time, God made Adam and Eve, and he proclaims everything as being “very good.” Given as a test, a tree is placed in the center of the Garden, and God forbids the happy couple from eating of its fruits. After some time, the serpent comes along, makes God’s rules look terrible, and convinces Eve to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil. In the events following hereafter, we learn three things about relationships: Adam chose gift over Giver, a conflict between the sexes ensued, and a hope for redemption was administered.
We first learn that Adam chose gift over Giver. When Eve ate of the fruit, she disobeyed God. Adam, who was standing right beside Eve, was then presented with this fruit, and it was at this time that he had an incredible choice to make. On the one hand, he could obey God’s commands and trust him, or on the other hand, he could enter into sin with the gift given to him, his wife. He chose poorly. He turned to Eve and said, “I think I will find true life with you, obeying you, rather than obeying God and getting my life from him.” Sadly, Adam did not realize that Eve was given as an aid and complement rather than one that could fulfill.
Secondly, as soon as Adam placed Eve above the place of God, conflict ensued. Though he should have taken responsibility for what he had done, Adam cowardly places the blame on God and Eve (“The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate” 3:12). The woman is cursed, having a desire to manipulate men through beauty and sex, serving their own desires rather than the glory of God (3:16). The man is cursed in relation to his sphere, the field, where he will now struggle to provide for his wife and family. Idolatry in relationships did not pan out well.
Finally, we see hope for redemption. In Geneses 3:21, an animal dies to cover the nakedness of Adam and Eve. Their sin caused the death of another. All the progeny of Adam and Eve have found themselves elevating different things to the level of ULTIMATE, and this often includes the opposite sex. We are cursed, drowning in our inward-bent. Someone needed to become a curse, like the lamb, and die so that we could be released from that curse. That man was Jesus Christ. He came so that we could finally be givers and leaders and nurturers rather than simply takers, expecting others to satisfy us. In Christ, we can finally truly love our boyfriends/girlfriends, fiancé, or spouse by pointing them to God rather than self to find true fulfillment.
Are you looking to another boy or girl to fulfill you? Are you pining away for a relationship, thinking that you will only be satisfied if you have it? This approach did not work well for Adam and Eve, and it will not work well for you. Only when you trust in God as the wellspring of life (Ps. 16:11), are you then truly ready for a relationship, being a giver rather than just a taker.
Wednesday, February 25, 2009
Free Calfskin ESVSB
If you have not purchased the new ESV Study Bible, I would encourage you to save your money and purchase one. It is well-laid out, and the study notes and format are thorough without being overbearing. Great study aid!
Until then, check out this post by David Porter, where he is giving away one free Calfskin Premium Leather ESV Study Bible (retail: $239).
Until then, check out this post by David Porter, where he is giving away one free Calfskin Premium Leather ESV Study Bible (retail: $239).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)