Eternal Perspectives

At Theologica, Michael Patton’s theological discussion community and superb waste of time, Rom 7.14-25 has been tossed around as a proof-text for contradictory arguments. Some say the passage proves that Christians do and will struggle with sin during our time on earth; others say that it proves that Christians do not sin but a foreign, ego-alien entity within them is responsible for the sin.

Here’s the passage in the NASB:

14 For we know that the Law is spiritual, but I am of flesh, sold into bondage to sin.
15 For what I am doing, I do not understand; for I am not practicing what I would like to do, but I am doing the very thing I hate.
16 But if I do the very thing I do not want to do, I agree with the Law, confessing that the Law is good.
17 So now, no longer am I the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
18 For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not.
19 For the good that I want, I do not do, but I practice the very evil that I do not want.
20 But if I am doing the very thing I do not want, I am no longer the one doing it, but sin which dwells in me.
21 I find then the principle that evil is present in me, the one who wants to do good.
22 For I joyfully concur with the law of God in the inner man,
23 but I see a different law in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin which is in my members.
24 Wretched man that I am! Who will set me free from the body of this death?
25 Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord! So then, on the one hand I myself with my mind am serving the law of God, but on the other, with my flesh the law of sin.

Of the two interpretations mentioned above – the interpretations of this passage are, indeed, legion – I hold to the former: Christians wrestle with and often subdue, by the grace of God and the Holy Spirit within, the sin nature or sin principle within them. Contrary to the teachings of David Needham, Dwight Edwards, Neil Anderson, and others, we are responsible for our sins and we are the culpable agent in the perpetration of our sins.

In a discussion at Theologica regarding Christian sins, a young man who has taken the humble screen name of Seraphim declared, “My question is, is it YOU that is sinning after you are saved?” (shouting with all caps in the original). He follows the misguided theology of others in absolving himself of responsibility for sin, adducing vv. 18-20 as support for his position.

The errors and absurdities of such a position are too numerous to address here – or any place else, if stewardship of one’s time is important – so allow me to target one thing: the notion that because we do not willingly do something we are therefore not responsible for it.

To cut to the chase and restate the title of this post, sin as presented in Rom 7 can best be understood as a compulsion or, in everyday language, an addiction.

Those who have suffered or are suffering from any type of compulsion will understand what I am saying. Compulsions, by definition, are repeated behaviors designed to meet some perceived need and are neither willed nor intended by the individual. Such addictions are ego-dystonic: they are not desired by the individual and are experienced as intrusive, i.e., as originating from within but not as a conscious decision that one has made.

This, I think, is the facet of personal, indwelling sin that Paul discusses in Rom 7. Sin can have the quality of being an unwanted but seemingly irresistible power, whether obsessive (thoughts) or compulsive (deeds). Many sins are volitional, of course, and we sadly but willingly accept full responsibility for our choice. Sins born out of our addiction to sin, however, feel foreign and as though we are not responsible.

But we are responsible, even as a drunk driver is responsible for the destruction that might be birthed by his addiction to alcohol. Addictive sin is our sin and no one else’s. We have an addiction; it is our addiction by virtue of our previous connection with Adam’s race even though we are now members of the Second Adam’s race. We have been born again but, as Paul says, we have this experience or life in a physical body not suited for the task. Our bodies are psuchikos, not pneumatikos, as will be the case in our future, glorified state.

Our psuchikos or soulish bodies are the traveling clothes handed down from Adam, not Christ, and as such they continue to possess the consequences and tendencies of Sin – not “sin,” which is an act – but “Sin,” a principle that remains within us. We are whole beings, not divided up like some sort of living pie into various functions and forms. And as long as we remain in this soulish bodies, our struggle with Sin will continue.

Happily, there is no condemnation for those of us in Christ Jesus, for he has saved us from the consequence of Sin: eternal death. And even in this lifetime God has given us his Holy Spirit so that, even though Sin remains within us, we might be freed from the intractable pull of our incorrigible addiction to Sin.

Andy Crouch commands respect: he is “editorial director for The Christian Vision Project at Christianity Today International . . . a member of the editorial board of Books & Culture, and a senior fellow of the International Justice Mission’s IJM Institute.” As for training, he “studied classics at Cornell University and received an M.Div. summa cum laude from Boston University School of Theology.” When Crouch speaks, people listen.

Not quite one year ago, Crouch published his views in an article entitled “Learning from Fools,” (Christianity Today, February 2006, vol. 50, no. 2, p. 92); it was recently republished at Culture Makers. In this article he attempts to present his novel understanding of a pair of parables that he believes are “two of Jesus’ most misinterpreted parables.” (HT: Milton Stanley, Transforming Sermons).

I will not attempt to single-handedly refute Crouch on this matter: he has the approval of people on his side (understandably) and I am not a person who carries much weight; nevertheless, I will indulge in an observation or two. I will allow others, however, to provide the rebuttal: Brad H. Young, Norval Geldenhuys, Darrell Bock, and Walter L. Liefeld.¹ Crouch’s interpetation can be compared and contrasted with these biblical scholars.

These parables, of a man considering the construction of a tower and a king assessing a possible war, are found in Luke 14.28-33; three preceding verses are included since they provide the context for the stories.

25 Now large crowds were going along with Him; and He turned and said to them,
26 ‘If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
27 ‘Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
28 ‘For which one of you, when he wants to build a tower, does not first sit down and calculate the cost to see if he has enough to complete it?
29 ‘Otherwise, when he has laid a foundation and is not able to finish, all who observe it begin to ridicule him,
30 ’saying, “This man began to build and was not able to finish.”
31 ‘Or what king, when he sets out to meet another king in battle, will not first sit down and consider whether he is strong enough with ten thousand men to encounter the one coming against him with twenty thousand?
32 ‘Or else, while the other is still far away, he sends a delegation and asks for terms of peace.
33 ‘So then, none of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.’” – (NASB)

This passage has historically been understood to be a challenge by Jesus to his followers to consider carefully what they are about to do and the price that one must pay to be a disciple. Crouch, in parting with previous interpretations, sees it as a message about the opposite: “these stories are not about disciples, but fools”; Jesus is telling his followers that they need to “count the cost—not of discipleship, but of non-discipleship.”

Young writes,

The twin parables of the Tower Builder and the King Going to War (Luke 14.28-33) focus on the self-examination necessary to make a decision for surrendering to the call of Jesus . . .

“Jesus stresses the similarities between the word-picture of a king planning for war and the reality of an individual deciding to follow Jesus’ teachings. Would-be followers must enter the kingdom with open eyes, being fully aware of the demands.

“The focus of these two parables is the cost of discipleship. No one who begins the job and quits is worthy.”

Geldenhuys agrees while putting the parables in context:

The Saviour’s activities and words in Trans-Jordan had made Him amazingly popular with the masses, and great multitudes who had begun to look upon Him as the possible Messiah followed Him while He was on His way to Jerusalem. However, He desires to check this light-hearted manner of following Him, and so He turns to the multitudes and in a determined tone lays down His absolute demands for everyone who wishes to be His disciple and follower.”

Bock adds,

Jesus’ attention turns here to his followers, asking them to assess what discipleship requires. He wants them to be aware of what is required to walk the full route with him. His main point is that successful discipleship requires Jesus to be a priority in life. We must therefore count the cost of following him if we are going to finish the walk.”

Liefeld:

Jesus uses two different circumstances to illustrate his basic point: discipleship requires a conscious advance commitment, made with a realistic estimate of the ultimate personal cost. The practical nature of the circumstances Jesus so vividly pictures underlines the fact that Christian discipleship is not some theoretical abstract ideal but hard reality.”

Regarding the point of the parables being about the cost of discipleship, Crouch maintains that “Jesus’ first hearers would have known that label was exactly backwards.” He continues:

Make no mistake. The tower builder and the king are not models of discipleship. When does Jesus ever speak of discipleship as if it were a construction project, carefully calculated and accounted for, or a war, in which we marshal our own forces and find them adequate for the battle?

Jesus speaks of discipleship in building terms at the end of the Sermon on Mount, where he likens his followers to two men who construct houses, one on rock and one on sand. Even if he did not use a building metaphor elsewhere, this does not rule out his use of it here. After all, Jesus only once likened himself to light, water, the way, or a vine. Young says,

In the parable of the Wise and Foolish Builders, the first man constructed his home on the rock and the second used sand as a foundation . . . Mark, Matthew, and the church fathers attest to the tradition that by trade Jesus was a τεκτων, which is usually translated ‘carpenter’ . . .

“A rabbinic parable attributed to R. Jose the Galilean also uses the motif of the construction of a tower in an orchard. Clearly the building of a tower in a field was common.”

Jesus’ parable of a king considering war was particularly timely. The crowds wanted to make him king by force and Jesus may have been calling them to consider who it was that they would be up against: the full force of the Roman Empire.

Young also disagrees with Crouch’s dismissal of the builder and king as illustrations of disciples, saying,

One must carefully weigh the demands of discipleship in the same way that one plans a construction project based on a realistic estimation of the cost of labor and materials.”

Bock echoes Young’s words, arguing that Jesus uses these two parables to make his point about the cost of discipleship.

One is of a man who builds a watchtower over his land or over a city. Such an undertaking is expensive, and he must be sure such a project is affordable. Thus, it is best to estimate the cost before starting to build. How sad to start construction and not have the money to finish. All of us probably know building projects that started but did not get finished for lack of funds. What a waste to have half a building! Jesus drives the point home by picturing passers-by ridiculing the lack of closure on the project. In other words, moving toward successful discipleship takes reflection; it is not an automatic exercise. There is no positive testimony in a walk with God that is abandoned because the cost has not been properly assessed. Rather, it is tragic.”

Crouch’s perhaps views the passage in this manner in order to make a point that is seemingly important to him:

Biblical faith is the abandonment of our tower building, the surrender of our ambitions to foolishly fight our way to security.

“So Jesus invites the crowds following him to sit down and count the cost – not of discipleship, but of non-discipleship. Non-discipleship means believing that we will be able to complete our insane Babel of self-provision; non-discipleship means blindly rushing into battle as enemies of God, having vastly overestimated our ability to prevail. All this makes sense of the devastating words that immediately follow: ‘Any of you who does not give up everything he has cannot be my disciple.’”

The problem is not that this exhortation is untrue or unnecessary; the problem is that these two parables do not teach this and if we impose a different understanding upon them we lose what they actually teach. To make this point Crouch might have turned to the twin parables of The Treasure Hidden in a Field and The Pearl of Great Price: both teach the meassage of abandonment and forfeiture that he imposes on these two parables in Luke. It is, as I said, a biblical message: right message, wrong passage.

But the message Jesus sought to convey here in Luke was clearly understood by those who heard such demands on other occasions (cf. John 6.60-66, when the multitudes walked away from his demands) and understood him to be saying the same here. The conclusions of Young, Geldenhuys, Bock, and Liefeld are convincing:

They teach human responsibility. For Jesus, the disciples must consider the all-encompassing demands of his call . . .” (Young)

“It means that [a disciple] must give Christ full control over his whole life with everything that he is and all that he possesses, and that under His guidance and in His service he should deal with his possessions in the manner that is best. . . . The important thing is that whosoever desires to follow Him must be inwardly free from worldly-mindedness, covetousness and selfishness and wholly devoted to Him.” (Geldenhuys)

“Jesus’ attention turns here to his followers, asking them to assess what discipleship requires. He wants them to be aware of what is required to walk the full route with him. His main point is that successful discipleship requires Jesus to be a priority in life. We must therefore count the cost of following him if we are going to finish the walk. His will and the direction he leads are the lodestones of our lives. We must present our lives to him and reflect values that honor God.” (Bock)

“The practical nature of the circumstances Jesus so vividly pictures underlines the fact that Christian discipleship is not some theoretical abstract ideal but hard reality.” (Liefeld)

A Pew(ny) Commentary

It was approximately 40 days ago that I began this commentary on the Book of Jonah, the same amount of time that likely has passed since our patriotic prophet first began preaching in the streets of Nineveh. The climax of the events in the book seems to have already been reached: Jonah was called to preach, refused, was called again and obeyed, and the people of the city repented and judgment was spared. Happy ending; end of story.

But it does not end with three chapters, instead spilling over into four and alerting us that there is more to the book than just a chronicling of a prophet’s adventures in ministry. In Chapter Four we are allowed to view the heart of the prophet and, far more significantly, the heart of God.

1 But it greatly displeased Jonah and he became angry.
2 He prayed to the LORD and said, ‘Please LORD, was not this what I said while I was still in my own country? Therefore in order to forestall this I fled to Tarshish, for I knew that You are a gracious and compassionate God, slow to anger and abundant in lovingkindness, and one who relents concerning calamity.
3 ‘Therefore now, O LORD, please take my life from me, for death is better to me than life.’”

In order to appreciate Jonah’s attitude, it is necessary to re-read the last verse of Chapter Three:

10 When God saw their deeds, that they turned from their wicked way, then God relented concerning the calamity which He had declared He would bring upon them. And He did not do it.

There is a striking contrast between God’s mercy and compassion in His dealings with the Ninevites and Jonah’s unhappiness and anger. When God sees the repentance of the people, He responds by not destroying them; when Jonah observes that same repentance, he burns in anger.

What Jonah says next sheds light not only on his petulance but on the entire book: his flight from God suddenly makes sense given his unloving attitude. Jonah had a clear and proper understanding of God’s character; his Theology Proper was pristine. The problem was that the prophet did not have a corresponding heart of love and compassion. God is about to cure that in this chapter.

Jonah knew what God was like and what He was likely to do: he describes God as gracious, compassionate, longsuffering, full of lovingkindness, and forgiving. He not only knew God to be this way through his education but also through his experiences, for God had demonstrated these very virtues in His dealings with Jonah in the first three chapters of the book!

(more…)

Adrian Warnock, the preaching shrink, has thrown down the gauntlet once again. Here’s his challenge:

No, I haven’t gone sadistic. I would like to issue a challenge to bloggers – read Acts 15:28-29 and explain, using the passage context and the rest of the New Testament to demonstrate whether you feel that all the “requirements” of the Jerusalem council applies to Christians today or not. This time I will be declaring a winner – answers on a blog and to be linked to in the comments section of this post.

Setting

The place to start in understanding this pair of verses is the cultural-historical setting. Space, familiarity, and attention span limit the depth required but a bit of background information is certainly necessary.

First is the matter of chronology. It is likely that the Council of Jerusalem took place in 49 C.E. Paul, who was probably converted c. 33 C.E., was present at the council because of his apostolic mission to the Gentiles and the charge given him and Barnabus by the church of Antioch. By this time he had already begun to establish churches in Cilicia, Syria, Cyprus, and Galatia; in fact, the Letter to the Galatians may have been written just prior to the council.

The council was called because of Judaizers: certain Jewish believers came to Antioch, Syria, and taught that Gentiles needed to become Jews before they became Christians. After conversion, they argued, the Gentile believers needed to keep certain aspects of the Law even as the Jews did. Paul and Barnabas did not tolerate this teaching and opposed them forcefully. To resolve the matter, the church at Antioch sent the two missionaries to Jerusalem for a decision from the apostles and leaders there (Acts 14:26-28; Acts 15:1-2).

Context

Those present at the meeting, in addition to Paul and Barnabas, included the apostles and also the elders of the Jerusalem church. Recorded by Luke as having spoken during the council are Peter, Paul, Barnabas, and James; the words of James are those under consideration. Acts 15:19-21 is included in this discussion since it is a fuller description of the statement found in 15:29. James says:

19 Therefore it is my judgment that we do not trouble those who are turning to God from among the Gentiles,
20 but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
21 “For Moses from ancient generations has in every city those who preach him, since he is read in the synagogues every Sabbath.

By the time of James’ summation, the others at the meeting had already had their say. Peter began by telling of the vision he received and the conversion of Cornelius and his household (Acts 10:9-48). If the dating of the Epistle to the Galatians is correct, then Peter would have been rebuked by Paul not long before he spoke to the council (Gal 2:1-10). (more…)

The scene in Jerusalem in the days and weeks immediately following the descent of the Holy Spirit upon the disciples and the conversion of thousands must have been wild. People who had come from all over Europe, Asia, and Africa for the Feast of Pentecost were now staying longer than anticipated. There was likely a housing shortage and – without question – a financial crisis as the visitors stayed around to learn of the new faith in which they had trusted the eternal destinies.

To alleviate the monetary crunch, many of the new believers sold land and property and donated the proceeds to the apostles. This is first documented in Acts 4:32-37 when Joseph (aka Barnabas) sold some real estate and gave the profits to the church. His behavior was note-worthy enough to be recorded by Luke. Then follows the familiar story of the status-seeking couple Ananias and Sapphira:

But a man named Ananias, with his wife Sapphira, sold a piece of property, and kept back some of the price for himself, with his wife’s full knowledge, and bringing a portion of it, he laid it at the apostles’ feet.
But Peter said, ‘Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back some of the price of the land? While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not under your control? Why is it that you have conceived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to men but to God.’
And as he heard these words, Ananias fell down and breathed his last; and great fear came over all who heard of it. The young men got up and covered him up, and after carrying him out, they buried him.
Now there elapsed an interval of about three hours, and his wife came in, not knowing what had happened. And Peter responded to her, ‘Tell me whether you sold the land for such and such a price?’ And she said, ‘Yes, that was the price.’
Then Peter said to her, ‘Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out as well.’
And immediately she fell at his feet and breathed her last, and the young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her beside her husband. And great fear came over the whole church, and over all who heard of these things.

This is a curious thing: Peter asks the wife about the amount and she, perhaps fearful that she might betray or dishonor her husband – whom she still believed to be alive – stuck with the original story even though she knew it was a lie.

In short, she submitted to her husband.

What else could she be expected to do? It would be Peter, after all, who some years later would command wives:

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior. – 1 Pet 3:1-2

“Without a word,” Peter says. The word for “submit” in this passage (forgive me the word study) is hupotasso, the definition of which includes (among other things) “to submit to one’s control, to yield to one’s admonition or advice, to obey, be subject.” Clearly this is what Sapphira was doing. Why the harsh response to her?

Well, it would appear that there are at least two reasons. The first goes back to the sin of Achan in Josh 7:1-26. His sin defiled the entire nation at the beginning of their conquest of the promised land and he and his family paid dearly for it. Luke seems to be deliberately connecting Achan and Ananias in this regard, thus stressing the importance of purity and holiness in the church.

Second, and more to the point, Sapphira could not hide her sin behind the veil of obedience to her husband. Her offense was not merely against Peter, the now-recognized leader of the church. As the NIV Application Commentary says,

When we lie to the church, we lie to the Holy Spirit. We see the developing theology of the church here. In 5:11 we find the first of twenty-three times that the word ekklesia appears in Acts. Saul/Paul finds out later that when he persecuted the church, he was persecuting Jesus (9:4). Later he expresses the treasured teaching that the church is the body of Christ (1 Cor. 12:27; Eph. 4:12; 5:23). – emphases mine

To lie to the leaders of a church – including my own, local church – is to lie to the Holy Spirit; to persecute a church – a true church – is to persecute Christ. Sapphira had responsibilities that superceded her duties to her husband and her responsibility to obey the Scriptures regarding submitting to him. Her duty to God came first, not her less-important duty to her husband.

To me, this could have been parallel to Abigail’s disobedience to her husband in 1 Sam 25:1-42 rather than to Achan’s sin. Sapphira should have followed Abby’s example and “betrayed” her husband by telling the truth. She didn’t, however, and died because of it.

There are, then, limits to a wife’s submission to her husband. Sometimes exceptions to the rule are obvious; sometimes they are not as clear. As a husband, I would do well to ask myself why my wife is not submitting in such situations. As a wife, she would do well do ask herself to whom she owes greater allegiance.

For both of us, we must know the Scriptures well enough to understand the hierarchy of responsibilities and dutes we have. And we must pray for wisdom to know which to obey when there is a conflict between two of them.

A Pew(ny) Commentary

It was my contention, in a previous post of this series, that Jonah’s prayer to God fell short of biblical repentance. Whether or not you agree with my position has little bearing on the messages of Chapter Three of this remarkable look into the life of a patriotic, petulant prophet sent to preach a message of judgment to a wicked city in an evil country.

Before reading this present chapter, it is important to understand the difference between a missionary and a prophet. Missionaries, both in biblical times and today, were sent to deliver a message of good news and salvation to people in various places. They brought with them hope and the prospect of life.

Not so with the prophets. These mouthpieces for God, usually sent to God’s own people in Israel, Judah, or both, were sent to deliver a message that was unwelcomed by its recipients. Prophetic messages typically announced God’s displeasure and pending judgment on the people and the land. To have a prophet suddenly show up in your city or town was a bad tiding, indeed.

Chapter Three

How much time has transpired since Jonah was – literally – thrown up on some shore of the Mediterranean is not known. There is no reason to conclude that the prophet immediately went northeast to Nineveh; in fact, it is likely that he instead went to Jerusalem to pay the vow he had made upon his deliverance from the storm via the great fish (Jonah 2:9).

1 Now the word of the LORD came to Jonah the second time, saying,
2 ‘Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and proclaim to it the proclamation which I am going to tell you.’
3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh according to the word of the LORD. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, a three days’ walk.
4 Then Jonah began to go through the city one day’s walk; and he cried out and said, ‘Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown.’”

Jonah is sometimes pointed to as evidence of a “second chance” that God in His grace grants to rebellious children. That may be: it is true that Yahweh does forgive and offer additional opportunties to do the right thing, but it would be presumptuous for any true believer to sin now with the intention of obeying later. God is under no obligation to extend a second chance and frequently chooses someone else if we balk or refuse. Just because Jonah got a second chance does not give us any assurance that we will have a similar chance. To play now and pay later is a risky course of action to pursue.

As alluded to previously, Jonah may have been in Jerusalem when Yahweh commissioned him again and commanded him to go to Nineveh to announce His judgment. I, for one, would like to think that God waited for the prophet to return to the temple and fulfill the promise made while covered in the slime of gastric juices from the belly of a fish. (more…)

A Pew(ny) Commentary

In the first installment of this study, I looked at the first chaper of the Book of Jonah and provided some of the historical and cultural background necessary to properly understand this remarkable member of the collection we call the Minor Prophets. Before beginning this second post, I will summarize the first and include a few additional observations.

Before God called Jonah to a ministry in Nineveh, Assyria, the prophet had enjoyed success and (undoubtedly) some fame as a prophet in the land of Israel. It was Jonah who announced that, under the leadership of Jeroboam II, the nation would expand and once again enjoy great prosperity (2 Kings 14:23-27). This, of course, came to pass as the Assyrians weakened in power and withdrew their military influence from the region.

Told to preach a message of judgment to Nineveh, the capital of Assyria, Jonah ran – and sailed – in the opposite direction. He boarded a ship to Tarshish only to be tossed overboard and to become chum for a large, man-swallowing fish. Chapter One ends with our anti-hero swimming in the digestive juices of this fishy agent of God.

As will be revealed more fully in Chapter Four, Jonah ran because of his love for his country and his hatred of its enemies. We see in Jonah’s disobedience the same root we find in our own: it is not because we do not understand what God wants from and for us that we run away, but because we understand quite clearly what He desires. Like Jonah, we knowingly and willfully disobey God.

Living in a democracy, as many of us do, lures us into having the same sort of inflated, grandiose view of ourselves and our beliefs as Jonah seemed to have entertained. God, however, does not ask for either our opinion or our agreement: He tells us what He desires, gives us the grace and power to do it, and then promises to reward us if we obey. But I – and you – sometimes choose not to do so.

Paul discusses this struggle in his first letter to the church in Corinth. Reflecting on his own ministry, he says, “For if I do this voluntarily, I have a reward; but if against my will, I have a stewardship entrusted to me” (1 Cor 9:17). Either way, Paul is saying, our obedience to God is reflected in what we do and not merely in what we say or how we feel. Grudging obedience is better than honest disobedience.

Chapter Two

This chapter is a record of Jonah’s prayer and psalm to God from inside the fish that God prepared and sent to save him from certain drowning. Many commentators find a cry of repentance in these words, believing that the prophet has learned his lesson and is now willing to follow God no matter where the path might lead.

I, for one, have never understood Jonah’s petition in this manner.
(more…)

A Pew(ny) Commentary

Preface:

The Minor Prophets, so named because of their brevity rather than their importance, are timely reading for Christians today. These dozen men spoke powerful messages to their nations and leaders during times not too dissimilar from our own: materially prosperous, the countries of Israel in the north and Judah in the south were floundering spiritually.

It is profitable, therefore, to understand (1) what the message was to the people at the time and (2) to glean what these prophets may be saying to us thousands of years later. Their messages are generally disturbing; we, being comfortable, are in desperate need of disturbance.

The Book of Jonah is somewhat unique among these records. First, Jonah’s ministry in this book is to a foreign nation and not to either Israel or Judah. Second, instead of the focus being on the message God entrusted to him, this book examines the behavior and attitudes of the prophet himself. It is a valuable lesson, therefore, for Christians living in a time of national pride and patriotism.

Chapter One

1 The word of the LORD came to Jonah the son of Amittai saying,
2 “Arise, go to Nineveh the great city and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me.”
3 But Jonah rose up to flee to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD. So he went down to Joppa, found a ship which was going to Tarshish, paid the fare and went down into it to go with them to Tarshish from the presence of the LORD.

To understand Jonah’s behavior it is necessary to understand the times in which he lived. According to 1 Kings 14.23-27, Jonah was a prophet in Israel during the time of Jeroboam II. Though a wicked king, Jeroboam II was successful in expanding the territory and restoring prosperity to the nation to an extent not seen since the days of Solomon. This was a good time to be an Israelite.

(more…)

Having explored the historical and cultural contexts of the first century c.e., as well as the teachings of both Jesus and Paul, this fourth post will examine the understandings and applications of the church at the present time. Much of the material will be drawn from Divorce and Remarriage: Four Christian Views, edited by H. Wayne House.

Four Views

House develops his book along four different approaches to the matters of divorce and remarriage:

No Divorce, No Remarriage;

Divorce, No Remarriage;

Divorce and Remarriage for Adultery or Desertion;

Divorce and Remarraige for a Variety of Reasons.

1. The first position – no divorce, no remarriage – is argued by J. Carl Laney. He believes that “marriage was designed by God to be permanent unto death, and that divorce and remarriage constitute the sin of adultery.” He begins his discussion by establishing a theology of marriage and offering a definition:

“While many have thought of it merely as a legal agreement, the Bible reveals that the marriage union involves much more . . . marriage could be defined as God’s act of joining a man and a woman in a permanent, covenanted, one-flesh relationship.”

Laney understands Deu 24.1-4 to be a concession, not grounds for divorce; further, he finds there a basis for disallowing remarriage in the event of a divorce. Of Jesus’ exception clause in Mt 19.9, he interprets the phrase as referring only to unlawful marriages:

(more…)

This is the third of five posts on the twin issues of divorce and remarriage as presented in the Bible. Part One examined the cultural context of the New Testament, paying careful attention to the teachings of the Pharisees.

Based on interpretations of Deu 24.1, the School of Shammai taught that a man could divorce his wife for “a matter of indecency,” whereas the School of Hillel understood the verse to allow for divorce for “any matter.” Neither school, however, limited the biblical grounds for divorce to this single cause: both understood the Old Testament (based on Ex 21.10-11) to allow for divorce for a stubborn, unrepentant refusal to provide food, clothing, and/or conjugal rights.

Part Two explored the teachings of Jesus, found principally in Mt 19 and Mk 10. In His debate with the two schools of Pharisaic thought, Jesus corrected misunderstandings and rejected the “any matter” ground of divorce advanced by Hillel. He argued that God had always intended marriage to be lifelong, that Moses did not command divorce but only allowed it because of hardness of heart, and that monogamy was God’s ideal, not polygamy. He also declared that marriage and having children was optional, not mandatory, that men as well as women could be guilty of adultery, and that divorce was allowable when there was a continuing lack of repentance by the sinning partner.

Through His silence, Jesus appears to have accepted the grounds for divorce which were not debated or questioned, i.e., those based on Ex 21. Thus, our Lord stressed the value and importance of marriage while upholding the Old Testament allowances for divorce under certain conditions.

Before turning our attention to the teachings of Paul, it is worth returning to the teachings of Jesus briefly to elaborate on His choice of words in His “exception clause.” Jesus says that anyone who divorces of the basis of the “any matter” grounds of Hillel is not legitimately divorced; thus, if he remarries, he is committing adultery. The exception is when “any matter” refers to immorality (Gk., porneia).

(more…)

The first post in this series started with an exploration of what constituted biblical grounds for divorce in NT times. The accepted grounds for divorce in the first century C.E., which provide the background for Jesus’Â’ interaction with the Pharisees on the subject, were four: adultery, provision of food, provision of clothing, and conjugal rights. This post will examine our Lord’Â’s teachings on the issues of marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

The key teachings of Jesus on the subject of divorce are found in the accounts of His conflict with the Pharisees in Mt 19 and Mk 10, with additional information gleaned from Mt 5:

Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESHÂ’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

They *said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He *said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery” – Mt 19.3-9 (NASB)

Some Pharisees came up to Jesus, testing Him, and began to question Him whether it was lawful for a man to divorce a wife. And He answered and said to them, “What did Moses command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man TO WRITE A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY.”

But Jesus said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, God MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE. FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH; so they are no longer two, but one flesh. “What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”

In the house the disciples began questioning Him about this again. And He *said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery” – Mk 10.2-12 (NASB)

“It was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCEÂ’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” – Mt 5.31-32 (NASB)

The first post in this series provided the historical context for this exchange between the three parties involved in the discussion: the School of Hillel granted divorces for “any matter” and the School of Shammai for “a matter of indecency.” Both based their position on their understanding of Deu 24.1. The two schools of Pharisaic thought came to Jesus to hear Him on the matter.

(more…)