Divorce and Remarriage - Part 3

On day one we looked at Luke 16. Yesterday we looked at a number of Scriptures to continue to discover a Biblical Theology of Divorce and Remarriage. Today we'll look specifically at remarriage and critique some faulty conclusions others have made.

The Biblical View of Divorce and Remarriage -- Part 3

What about remarriage? Truthfully the Bible doesn't say nearly as much about remarriage. I'm not sure why. Nonetheless, the fact remains that little is said of it. We know that if a person's spouse dies, the survivor is free to remarry (1Cor 7:39). We can say for certainty that if the divorce is NOT Biblical, then the two are not free to be remarried except to each other (Matt 19:9). However, nothing concrete and clear is said of those who are left after a Biblical divorce.

Brothers and Sisters, where Scripture is silent, we must be as well. Now it is a generally accepted throughout Christian history that remarriage after a Biblical divorce is not forbidden nor sinful. After all, Jesus says "except sexual immorality" in Matt 19:9, and Paul says "a (believer) is not under bondage" in 1Cor 7:15. Not under bondage means, well, NOT UNDER BONDAGE. Certainly it's a reasonable position, even admitting that we lack a concrete passage dealing with remarriage save for 1Cor 7:39. Many great expositors and students of Scripture have taken this position.

John Piper takes a different position. I pause to take a deep breath, and look on in horror as I am forced once again to disagree with Piper, whom I admire and appreciate as a great brother in the Lord. One of these days I'm going to write a tribute to John Piper because he has had an indelible influence on my life and I'm tired of taking him to task. He's right way more often than he's wrong and when he is wrong it is infrequent and on secondary matters.

At any rate, Piper wrote this paper. With all due respect, he's wrong.

I won't pick apart his paper piece by piece, but I will take a few things he says here and show you good examples of eisegesis. Eisegesis is when you inject a meaning into Scripture instead of allowing Scripture to speak for itself and determine it's own meaning.

Take, for example his deconstruction of Matthew 19:

"Before we jump to the conclusion that this absolute statement should be qualified in view of the exception clause ("except for unchastity") mentioned in Matthew 19:9, we should seriously entertain the possibility that the exception clause in Matthew 19:9 should be understood in the light of the absolute statement of Matthew 19:6, ("let no man put asunder") especially since the verses that follow this conversation with the Pharisees in Mark 10 do not contain any exception when they condemn remarriage."

Later he says:

"I began, first of all, by being troubled that the absolute form of Jesus' denunciation of divorce and remarriage in Mark 10:11,12 and Luke 16:18 is not preserved by Matthew, if in fact his exception clause is a loophole for divorce and remarriage. I was bothered by the simple assumption that so many writers make that Matthew is simply making explicit something that would have been implicitly understood by the hearers of Jesus or the readers of Mark 10 and Luke 16.

Would they really have assumed that the absolute statements included exceptions? I have very strong doubts, and therefore my inclination is to inquire whether or not in fact Matthew's exception clause conforms to the absoluteness of Mark and Luke."

For one thing, as I said in part 1, we can not look to Luke 16 as an authoritative Scripture on divorce and remarriage in light of the fact that it was not the thrust of Jesus' point in Luke 16. Mark 10, however, is different and much like the need for reconciliation between Matt 19 and Luke 16, we must also reconcile Matt 19 and Mark 10.

I have a problem with Piper's reconciliation because he is writing a portion of Scripture out of Matthew by essentially erasing it by saying it must conform to Mark 10. Rather, a better handling of Scripture would be to say that Mark 10 leaves some things unsaid, and Matthew 19 says those things. That way BOTH portions of Scripture can say all they need to say and are harmonized perfectly. Pipers method requires an eraser. My method requires a reverence for all of Scripture.

Piper makes some conclusions at the end of his paper and says the following:

"In the New Testament the question about remarriage . . . it is determined by the fact that:

Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God (Genesis 2:24; Matthew 19:5; Mark 10:8),
Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship (Matthew 19:6; Mark 10:9—this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding, Matthew 5:32; Luke 16:18; Mark 10:11),
God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses (Romans 7:1-3; 1 Corinthians 7:39),
The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary (Matthew 19:10-12,26; 1 Corinthians 10:13),
Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come (Matthew 5:29-30)."

Let's take him point by point, shall we?

1. "Marriage is a "one-flesh" relationship of divine establishment and extraordinary significance in the eyes of God."

This is true. However, to be fair to Scripture, there are instances where this one-flesh relationship ends. If it being one flesh meant that it were always to remain that way, then 1Cor 7:15 and 1Cor 7:39 would be out of place. So while the statement is true, it is limited.


2. "Only God, not man, can end this one-flesh relationship —this is why remarriage is called adultery by Jesus: he assumes that the first marriage is still binding"

Not so. In a 1Cor 7:15 situation, did God end the marriage or did the unbelieving spouse? Is the believer under bondage?


3. "God ends the one-flesh relationship of marriage only through the death of one of the spouses."

While it's true that He does end it that way, by His word he also allows for other endings. Again, you can't erase Jesus' word in Matt 19 or in Matt 5 simply because the statement was incomplete in Mark 10 or Luke 16. You also can't say that Jesus is placing a bondage on those in marriage with Mark 10 and Luke 16 and say that 1Corinthians 7 is wrong to say that a believer is not under bondage.


4. "The grace and power of God are promised and sufficient to enable a trusting, divorced Christian to be single all this earthly life if necessary"

No argument here.


5. "Temporal frustrations and disadvantages are much to be preferred over the disobedience of remarriage, and will yield deep and lasting joy both in this life and the life to come"

And here is where I have my biggest problem. Piper, and those who agree with him, are taking a poor interpretation and poor handling of Scripture and turning it into a burden on their Biblicaly divorced brothers and sisters. They are putting on them a yoke that they put on no other group and a yoke that is not put on them by Scripture.

Piper has to write an entire position paper in which he ignores parts of Scripture to come to this conclusion. No one can point to a scripture or passage that deals with remarriage in a way that he concludes. Rather, the texts must be massaged and compromised in some cases, to come to his conclusion.

No, divorce for flippant and stupid reasons is not Biblical. One can certainly be sure that remarriage in those cases is exactly what Piper and his compadres are claiming it is. But they cannot ignore Scripture nor can they make a rule where Scripture does not.

Treating Matt 5 and Matt 19 on their own, letting them speak for themselves plainly, we see a clear exception. The same is true for 1 Corinthians 7. This cannot be ignored even if other passages do not have the same clauses. The best interpretation of these passages, without doing them harm, is to take them at their word.

There are exceptions to divorce and the subsequent remarriage clauses that follow are also subject to those exceptions. God has shown tremendous grace to believers in those circumstances and our attitude ought to reflect this grace. We ought to be like Christ and make exception where He does. Moreover, there is a lack of clear teaching dealing directly and solely with remarriage in the circumstances of Biblical divorce. Scripture is silent.

We should take the hint.

In closing, I'd like to beg you, my dear readers, to pray and help my fellow divorced believers. Especially those who are also single parents. It is a lonely place to be. One thing I was struck by when I began being social again after my own marriage fell apart was that modern American Churches are overwhelmingly geared toward families. I often felt out of place, misunderstood, and as if I was falling through the cracks. For me, there were long times of despair and sadness. I thought that no woman would ever understand or want me again. I questioned whether God wanted me.

I'm happy to report that God's grace is amazing. I remain a single man, but I am, thankfully, past the initial stages of depression. Others, however, never find their way out. Single parents and divorced believers need our affection and love. They need to be cared for and helped. They need to see Christ's care for them manifested in His people. The last thing they need is an additional burden not found in Scripture. Yes, many of them will remain single and scarred, but some will not. After these past few days, I hope that you'll see that in some cases, that is a good thing and an occasion to praise God with our divorced brethren, not an occasion for rebuke.

Tweet

Divorce and Remarriage - Part 2

Yesterday (click here for part one) we looked at Luke chapter 16 in beginning to lay a framework for a Biblical Theology of Divorce and Remarriage. Today we'll look at other Scriptures and continue to allow Scripture to speak to us on this matter.

The Biblical View of Divorce and Remarriage -- Part 2

When we consider Luke 16:18 in light of other verses, we are presented with a problem if we emphasize that Jesus was teaching about the doctrine of divorce and remarriage in Luke 16. Take Matthew 19:19 for instance.

Here the pharisees ask a very clear question in Matt 19:3. Jesus answers by teaching God's view of marriage. To the pharisees, this didn't really answer the question so they ask a more specific question in Matt 19:7. Jesus' response in Matt 19:8 responds with a rebuke, and his teaching in Matt 19:9 couldn't be more clear.

Let's look at that verse:

"And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery." - (Mat 19:9 NKJV)

Look again at Luke 16:18 . . .

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from [her] husband commits adultery. - (Luk 16:18 NKJV)

Very similar verses aren't they? However, there is one difference that makes both these statements a seeming contradiction. That little clause in Matt 19:9 that says "except for sexual immorality". Luke 16:18 is a sweeping, all encompassing, statement, and Matt 19:9, because of that clause, is not a sweeping, all encompassing, statement.

As I said in my series on hermeneutics, God is a perfect communicator. If we take both verses as being the final doctrinal statements on divorce and remarriage, we have a muddled and murky mess. Is it ok to divorce and remarry in the case of sexual immorality of not? However, if we allow Scripture to speak for itself and don't emphasize a point that is not emphasized by the context of a Scripture, these two verse are thoroughly harmonious.

This is the exact situation we are facing here. Matt 19 is Jesus answering a direct and clear question about divorce and remarriage. Luke 16 is Jesus teaching about self-righteousness. Clearly we can take a look at how divorce and remarriage could play a role in a self-righteous life and to do that, we ought to give precedence to Luke 16. However, to build a doctrine on divorce and remarriage, and not on self-righteousness, we have to give Matt 19, and scripture like it that deals directly with marriage, precedence.

Now, my dear readers, I want to briefly talk about another matter that has great application here. I want to warn you about being "red-letter" Christians. We've all seen, and most of us probably own, Bibles with the words of Jesus in red. Some Christians want to give priority to those words. While they are certainly not less important, I tell you the truth that they are not MORE important either.

2 Tim 3:16 says:

"All Scripture [is] given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness," - (2Ti 3:16 NKJV)

The greek word for "all" is πᾶς ("paws") which Vines defines as "radically means "all." Used without the article it means "every," every kind or variety. " It is the same word used in Matt 4:4 when Jesus emphasizes that man lives on EVERY word of God (and not on bread alone). So when it is used here in 2 Tim, we can see clearly that God is putting all Scripture on the same plain. When you think about it, this makes sense. After all they are His words whether He spoke them in person or "inspired" them through another writer.

How does this apply to our topic? Well it becomes clear then that we must give equal weight on a topic to everything Scripture has to say about it. When we've done that, we have to accurately plot the boundaries and direction of those Scriptures and see what all of Scripture is teaching us in harmony with it's various parts.

So then, when we look at divorce and remarriage we may not ignore 1st Corinthians Chapter 7. Paul begins the chapter by giving general principles for marriage. He reminds us that marriage is a good thing, that we ought to treat our spouses well, give ourselves to our spouses (yes, he means physically), and finally says that while marriage is fine, singleness is better. In fact, to that last comment, he says that marriage is much better than "burning with passion".

Then in verse 10, Paul gets into divorce and remarriage. First he spells out very clearly that divorce is not an option to fix a bad marriage. All of chapter 7 so far has been written to the believers in Cornith who want to marry one another. He just finished talking about two believers burning in passion for one another, and continues that it is not right for two believers to depart their marriage.

1Cor 7:12 gives a clue that he's now talking to a different group of people when Paul writes "But to the rest . . .". Also, look at what he says there in continuing his thought "I, not the Lord. . . " This plays off of 1Cor 7:10 where he writes "Not I, but the Lord . . .". What does this mean?

Well, it's not a denial of inspiration, that much is clear. Otherwise, this letter to the Corinthians would not be a part of Scripture. Paul is not giving his human opinion here. Instead what it means is simple, what he said in verse 10 was something Jesus had already said (e.g. our text above; Matt 19). Now in verse 12, Paul is saying something new. Stop and think about that for a minute. What we are seeing is the progressive revelation of Scripture. God was not done saying all He had to say about this topic much as He was not done speaking about Eschatology (or whatever other topic) until the rest of the New Testament was written.

What then, does God tell us? 1 Corinthians 7:12-16 is very clear:

But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]. But God has called us to peace. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save [your] husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save [your] wife? - (1Cor 7:12-16 NKJV)

Verses 12 & 13 tell us that it is not impermissible to have an unbelieving spouse, and if they want to live with you, a believer, then divorce isn't an option for you. There isn't a mention of problems in the marriage or any other extenuating circumstances here. The question is simple, does your unbelieving spouse want to live with you; yes or no? If yes, then you should continue to do so.

Verse 14 tells us why. The unbeliever is sanctified by your presence in the marriage and your children are holy. This does not mean that the spouse is saved by your presence there, otherwise they wouldn't be unbelieving. It means that your spouse is blessed by you being there. As God blesses the believer, that grace is spread to the unbeliever too. They get to take part in some of the good things coming your way.

As for the children, well, you needn't worry about them either. The fear may be that they would be corrupted and turned away from God by the presence of an unbeliever. While their salvation is far from guaranteed by these circumstances, Paul is instead emphasizing the blessings your children receive by having you, a believer in their life. It is, after all, a far better situation than children growing up in a home where no one is a believer.

My dear readers, I have stop here and marvel at God's goodness in this matter. Look at the optimism of this Scripture in the face of a terrible situation. God is comforting believers in this situation, reassuring them that it's going to be OK and that He remains in complete control. This optimism is reinforced a few verses later as well (1Cor 7:16). What a tremendous God we serve! Oh how He loves you and me!

However, what happens if the unbeliever wants to depart the marriage? Verse 15 is our answer:

But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such [cases]. But God has called us to peace. - (1Cor 7:15 NKJV)

It couldn't possibly be more clear. If you are a believer married to an unbeliever who wants to end your marriage, let them go if that's what you think is best. You're not bound to them in that situation. This doesn't mean that we should just be dispassionate about it. We are called to love our spouses (e.g. Eph 5:25) and we can't do that without their being some sort of emotional involvement. Yet, if it comes right down to it, you aren't bound to such a marriage as a believer.

Now, we've looked at three verses of Scripture in depth. There is much more in Scripture about this subject and much of it speaks in far broader terms than our focus here.

What we find in Scripture are some principles about divorce:

• God hates divorce. (Mal 2:16)
• God doesn't want anyone to get divorced if they can help it. (1Cor 7:10-12)
• God forbids divorce except in two cases, adultery (Matt 19:9 & Matt 5:31-32 and abandonment (1Cor 7:15).
  
  
  

Tomorrow we'll finish up this Mini-Series and talk more about remarriage. I'll also take to task those, including John Piper, who would burden Biblically divorced believers with a yoke not put on them by Scripture.

Tweet

Divorce and Remarriage - Part 1

Few topics impact me on such a personal basis as this one. I am a divorced man; a single father raising my 10 year old son (who is the second greatest thing to ever happen to me). I won't speak much about my divorce here because I believe it would be disrespectful to my ex-wife and to my son (both of whom read this blog from what I understand).

However so that you know that I am not a Christian blogger living in sin; I will say that my divorce was Biblical and that I was under the authority of elders in my old church when we split. They mourned the loss, but understood and approved of what was happening in my marriage. When I moved to Pennsylvania and joined my current church, the elders here were informed of the situation and echoed the approving sentiments of my previous church.

At no time have I relished the thought of my marriage ending, but there are situations where there is little choice as to how to proceed. God always hates divorce, and he hated mine, but his hatred of it does not mean it is ALWAYS sinful.

And that's all I'll say publicly about that.

The Biblical View of Divorce and Remarriage -- Part 1

Good day all!!

There are certainly very few circumstances where God is permissive of divorce. In fact, one of the doctrines that Jesus taught about and rebuked the pharisees over was their doctrine of divorce. It was prevalent problem in the world in those days, both in Israel and in the greater secular world, just as it is a problem today in the church and in the greater secular world.

In those days, it was believed that a man could divorce his wife for any reason he saw fit. The Greeks in Paul's day divorced and remarried seemingly at the drop of a hat. It was much the same in Israel and was largely due to the Pharisees typically narrow legalistic view of righteousness. Essentially, if there was a loophole, the Pharisees would find it and exploit it to make sin seem ok. Mostly this was because they reduced their faith down to a religion of do's and dont's. They believed that if they just did enough religious things they would be seen as righteous in the eyes of God.

The result of this was an apostate and sinful mess. They were fastidious about eating all the right things, saying all the right prayers, wearing all the right clothes, going through all the ceremonies, etc., but their lives were filled with self-righteousness, idolatry, and yes. . . divorce.

Obviously, we're going to focus on that last point for this mini-series. Jesus spoke rather clearly about divorce in Luke 16:18. Since we are big believers in Hermeneutics around here, let's take a look at that verse.

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from [her] husband commits adultery." - (Luk 16:18 NKJV)

This verse comes in the middle of a long session of teaching which begins probably at chapter 15 and ends at chapter 17 verse 10. Luke 16:14 tells us that Jesus' teaching in verse 18 is a response to the Pharisee's "deriding" of Jesus. The greek there is ἐκμυκτηρίζω ("Ek-to-more-ee-zo"), which Thayers Lexicon tells us has a meaning of scoffing and sneering (Vines concurs). It's the same word used in Luke 23:35 where the people scoffed at Jesus as he hung on the cross. That Luke 23 verse kind of gives you a picture of the attitude Jesus was responding too here in Chapter 16 doesn't it?

What caused the Pharisee's to scoff? Immediately before verse 14 is "The Parable of the Unjust Steward". In this parable Jesus told us of a shrewd steward (a chief of the servants in those days) conniving and manipulating those around him to buy friendships. Upon hearing the news that he's losing his job, and finding himself suddenly destitute and unable to work, he calls some people's debts owed to his master. He reduces the debt, making those in debt pleased and now obligated to help take care of the steward. When the master finds out, he is actually impressed with the wicked steward and commends him for his shrewd dealings (indicating that he is also pretty wicked).

Jesus uses this story to teach three points:

1. Verse 8 - "the sons of this world are more shrewd in their generation than the sons of light." In other words, worldly people know the ways of the world better than some Godly people know the ways of God. Sad huh?
   
   
2. verse 9 - Jesus then plays off of that shrewdness by saying that the steward was wise enough to make friends for himself, albeit unrighteously. In much the same way we ought to seek to prepare for ourselves. MacArthur takes the viewpoint that the steward used his master's money to buy friends for himself and we should use our Master's money that will "accrue friends for eternity". Older commentators Jameson, Fause,t and Brown agree and say: "then, like the steward, when turned out of one home shall ye secure another; but better than he, a heavenly for an earthly, an everlasting for a temporary habitation. Money is not here made the key to heaven, more than "the deeds done in the body" in general, according to which, as a test of character--but not by the merit of which--men are to be judged" (I rely on commentaries here because I am not focusing on this point, merely trying to give a background for verse 18).
   
   
3. vv. 10-13 - Faithfulness transfers. If you are faithful in a small matter, you'll be faithful in a large matter, and vice-versa. The steward was faithful in his realm to deal in the way he was used to dealing and his master was pleased with him. Same goes for us; if we try to serve two master's, we won't succeed, but if we are faithful in the little things we are given by our master, we'll be faithful in the big things too.
   

Then we have verse 14. It's pretty clear: The pharisees didn't like what Jesus just said. They were probably pricked by the fact that they were constantly missing the forest for the trees. Jesus picks up on this in verse 15 saying that those things men applaud are an abomination to God. It's another rebuke (among so many in the Gospels) by Jesus of self-righteousness, and the particular self-righteousness of the pharisees. This kind of self righteousness that causes you to pray loudly in the public square but throw out your 14th wife at home because she spilled your dinner all the while making it sound oh so holy. Jesus is clear. That kind of thing is an abomination.

Luke 16:16 is a tough verse to exegete. It's debated constantly by people on different sides of various issues. For example, whole books have been written by men on what "pressing into it" means. I'm not in the mood for that kind of discussion, so I'll just give you my opinion here and move on. Jesus is saying that until John the "Law and the Prophets" were, and now the Kingdom of God is being preached. Which I believe means that prior to John mankind was told about the coming Messiah and now we preach about the Messiah who has come. Since He has come, people are "pressing into the kingdom" or wanting to be saved. It draws the contrast to the pharisees here. The pharisees fancied themselves to be the most righteous. Yet here was God in front of them and they were scoffing at him while those who didn't have the advantages of the pharisees were following Jesus. It's a scathing rebuke.

However, lest we think that Jesus is rebuking the pharisees by rejecting the Old Testament, we have Luke16:17 to set us straight. Jesus makes it clear that the law won't just go away. Personally, I think verse 17 is the lynchpin to understanding this whole passage. For one thing, it makes it clear that Jesus is dealing with the pharisees and their problem of picking out the behavioral aspects of the law (i.e. dietary concerns, etc.); even to the point of creating their own rules (i.e. hand washing rituals, etc.) while simultaneously looking for ways of ignoring the ethical laws and aspects of the law dealing with the heart (i.e. adultery, etc.). He reminds them, even warns them here, that those important heart issues don't go away just because they were careful to say the right prayers.

Ok, I've done a lot of background in order to deal with our text, which is verse 18. In defense of my own longwindedness, I did it because I think it is necessary to point out that verse 18 is NOT the point of Luke 16:1-18. Jesus certainly intends to say exactly what the verse says, and the verse is clear. However, is the subject matter of the verse the point that Jesus is raising? The answer is no, and we know this because it sticks out like a sore thumb.

Actually, to be more accurate it sticks out like an example and an illustration of what Jesus is saying to the the pharisees in verses 14-18. To paraphrase Jesus in our own vernacular:

"You pharisees are the same people who act holy and self righteous in public, but God knows what you are really like. You might make a big show out your own righteousness before people and they applaud you, but that kind of emphasis is an offense before God! Before John, there was only the hope of a coming kingdom, but now it's being preached and look at all the people who are pressing to be a part of it! But it would be easier to get rid of the whole earth than to get rid of God's law. Take divorce for instance; this lifestyle of yours filled with divorce and remarriage is nothing but adultery."

So much for the kinder and gentler Jesus modern Christianity wants us to believe. He comes down hard on those pharisees here.

However, I have heard some who have built a doctrine of divorce and remarriage on this verse. Tell me, do you think that it was Jesus' intention in saying this, or Luke's intention in writing this, to build a doctrine of divorce and remarriage on it?

I say no. I say that the point of Luke 16:14-18 is not divorce and remarriage, but rather self righteousness, and divorce was a very relevant example that illustrated the point.

Now, certainly if we can begin to build a doctrine of divorce and re-marriage in the Bible, and we can use this verse as a part of that. I would say that if we are to believe that we are righteous before God and think that our family life has nothing to do with that, we are much like the pharisees here.

If this were all the Bible were to say about this topic, then we would have little to go on in regards to marriage and divorce, however it would be clear. Nonetheless, it is far from all Scripture has to say about the subject. There are numerous verse in the Gospels alone.

Tomorrow we'll examine some of those other verses.

Tweet

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 4 (A Wrap Up)

Good day all!

This is part four, and the final part, in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. If you missed the previous posts, click here for part one, here for part two, and here for part three. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Some Closing Thoughts

The past few days have been very challenging in a number of ways. Usually that statement is said in an attitude of sadness, but not for me, not this time. I enjoyed the challenge and believe that it was a fruitful couple of days.

I thought that today I might go through some of the things that have come up in relation to this mini series over the past few days.

• A Google search brought this link to my attention. It's interesting to me that they say the same words almost to the letter, including the "Oprah can't explain him" line. Do you think the results of this Hermeneutic have caused others to praise God, or did they just kneel down before a wafer?
  
  
• This is the church where the young man recorded his video. My impression is that it seems like a fairly solid church. Of course I say that only examining the website for a few minutes. Their stated doctrine seems fine, they have a fairly clear and good Gospel presentation, and they seem to have a certain reverence for God. However, one thing I did notice was that they do not preach in an expository manner. It's not indicative of a bad hermeneutic, but it is not a good sign nonetheless.
  
  
• John MacArthur offers this on Philippians 4. I figure that if my 10 minutes of exposition in part one of this series on Phil 4:6-7 was poor, then listening to MacArthur ought to clear up any misconceptions.
  
  
• A dear friend whom I am certain knows how to handle Scripture properly e-mailed me the following in regards to Numbers 14:13-14
  
  

  "The pillars of cloud and fire were actually visible manifestation of God's presence, and thus the point the boy was making is that Israelites traveled as if God held them by their hand: neck to neck or shoulder to shoulder so to speak. I would not go that far as to say it was Jesus, but I would say that it was the manifestation of God."

  
  
  He continues by pointing out that MacArthur writes:
  
  

  "As a spirit, God is invisible (Col. 1:15; 1 Tim. 1:17). He cannot be seen, though He has revealed Himself through physical manifestations. In Old Testament times God revealed His presence through fire, cloud, and the Shekinah (the visible manifestation of God’s glory; see 2 Chron. 7:1–2). The New Testament presents the ultimate revelation of God, when He became a man in the person of Jesus Christ. But God cannot be seen in His essential nature. “No man has seen God at any time,” wrote the apostle John; “the only begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him”" (John 1:18).

  
  I agree with my friend but point out that the video makes the claim that Jesus IS the Pillar of cloud/fire. This is simply not the case. To say it is a "visible manifestation of God's presence" is a statement I can get behind. God was making a clear demonstration that He was with Israel and was the one leading them through the desert. I just don't think that's what the boy was saying. He said the pillar is Jesus. It isn't. It's cloud and/or fire. It is there because of God and to indicate (which is what a manifestation is) God's presence, but it isn't the person of Jesus. Nonetheless, I appreciate my dear friend provoking me to think through what I said more thoroughly. Always nice to have iron sharpen iron (Prov 27:17).
  
  
• A professional blogger (whom I respect and read daily) made the observation that I was writing this series in a way that the only people who would understand me would be the people who already agreed with me. It got me to thinking and it will likely influence me in future posts. I put a poll on the Blog's Facebook wall today asking my fans opinions. Feel free to vote.
  
  
• A different friend of mine commented on my personal Facebook that he was glad I was writing this. He pointed out Mark 7:7 to Mark 7:13. I admit that it gave me kind of a spring board in writing part 3 which is why I used it there. Thanks CM, I appreciate the input.
  
  
• I made this and never used it. It would be a shame to have it go to waste:
  
  
  
  That guy is Rick Warren. I know, it's not very good. I'm not very good at visual art and whatnot.
  
  
• I said I'd have some closing thoughts yesterday and mostly I've treated this post as a "Crazy Random Stuff" post. Sorry about that. Let me put this bug in your ear. . . Dig into the resources that will help you to understand what God says in his Word. Think seriously about the points I've brought up here. I'm not saying I'm perfect, far from it, but God can use imperfect people to speak about truth. I hope that what I've done these past few days honors God's truth and will give you a desire to put away your own ideas and embrace God's ideas.
  
  
  

Tweet

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 3

Good day all!

This is part three in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. If you missed the previous posts, click here for part one, and here for part two. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Why Should You Care About Hermeneutics?

--The Westminster Shorter Catechism (WSC) begins with the question "What is the chief end of man?" The answer is "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever." The second question tells us how to do this by asking "What rule hath God given to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him?" The foundation of that question is, of course, that God HAS directed us on how to glorify and enjoy Him. The answer to this question is very telling: "The Word of God, which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments, is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him."

So, is the WSC correct? More importantly, do you agree?

I'll begin by stating a presupposition: Christians all agree on the answer to the first question. We agree that the chief end of man is to glorify God and enjoy Him forever. In fact, I'll go a step further and say that if you don't agree with that then you are probably not a Christian.

The second question, however, is where the problem lies, and what the thrust of this mini-series is emphasizing. A lot can be said of the question...
-HAS God given us direction in how to glorify and enjoy Him?
-Are we able to ascertain this direction?
-Is this direction understandable?

To me, the answer is obvious. If God wants us to glorify Him, and we are unable to do this on our own (Eph 2:4-5), that He would have to tell us how we may glorify Him. Otherwise, the task would not only be impossible, but utterly hopeless as well! So, God MUST have told us how to do this.

It follows then that we can understand what He has told us. If God be perfect, and He is, then He must also be perfect in communication. Being perfect in communication, are the problems we have in understanding His communication His fault, or ours?

However, if the problem in our 21st century church were merely that God is not being understood, then I would be writing a very different mini-series. I would instead be writing helpful hints and linking great articles from good men about how to understand God's word. Nonetheless, as I said last time, that isn't the problem. The problem is that most people are content with not understanding, and almost all of these people even prefer not to understand.

Now, I ask you. . . does this glorify God? Does it bring honor to God to take the means, the "rule" as WSC calls it, and to choose not to understand it? Of course not. Hermeneutics is that method by which we understand the Scriptures. A bad hermeneutic and we don't understand them at all, and thus, we don't understand how to glorify God. A good one, and God imparts on us the information He has always desired to tell us.

Why foolishly cling to that which does not glorify God?


--Psalm 119:160 says "The entirety of Your word [is] truth, And every one of Your righteous judgments [endures] forever."

Jesus echos this sentiment when He said: "Sanctify them by Your truth. Your word is truth." - Jhn 17:17 NKJV

The truth is an important thing. God, in His infinite wisdom, warns us in Mark 7:7 that teaching the commandments of men is a vain exercise. Paul solidifies this point in 1CR 3:19. Jesus then in Mark 7:8 establishes that the pharisees of His day were exalting their own traditions above the Word of God. Note that they had invented their own traditions and in Mark 7:9 Jesus tells us that they even rejected God's commands to keep their traditions. After giving an example, Jesus sums up the state of such men in a scathing judgement:

"...making the word of God of no effect through your tradition which you have handed down. And many such things you do." - Mark 7:13 NKJV (See Mark 7:11-12 for context)

Jews in Jesus day and prior regarded the Word of God to be sacred. In their worship, they would kiss their Synagogue's copy of the Torah before reading it. Men and Women alike would stand quietly as it was read. Sure, sometimes they were just going through the motions (as the Pharisees were), but the tradition had it's germination in a deep respect for God's word.

In Nehemiah chapter 8, we find a people who had been chastened by the exile of the Jews to Babylon and Persia. Here we have a tiny percentage of Judah returning to the promised land and trying to rebuild their society. They had learned their lesson and now hungered for God. Ezra opens the Word of God and the people stood (Neh 8:5). In Nehemiah chapter 9 it tells us that they would stand for 6 hours out of their day hearing from God's word. It was that important.

The question becomes obvious; how important is it to us? We don't stand when we hear God's word, and many are uninterested in UNDERSTANDING it too. Shouldn't the very words of God mean more to us? Isn't it worth our respect to take the time to properly interpret and apply it to our daily lives?

I say that it is.


-- No human being with an amount of honesty will dispute that we make many mistakes. Why then do we believe that we can do just fine on our own without taking the time to understand properly what God's word says? If we are mistake prone, aren't we mistake prone in our own ideas too? Proverbs has much to say on this:

Proverbs 1:7 tells us that "fools despise wisdom and instruction". Proverbs 3:5 tells us to "lean not on our own understanding."

Good Hermeneutics, by its design, is a VERY careful process. It has many steps, many checks and balances. Yes, we can make an error even following a good system to the letter, but we are much less prone to do so. It also becomes far less likely that we will make the kind of error that comes from hubris, instead we are more likely to merely make simple mistakes rooted in knowledge or judgement. We can't know everything and no system of hermeneutics can overcome that. However a good system can push a believer in the direction of making the errors smaller, more easily manageable. More importantly, it pushes the believer away from making errors that are cataclysmic to their faith.

Why? Because the believer is not despising instruction and is not leaning on his own understanding.

Sure, it is possible to lean then on the mistaken understanding of someone else. However, good hermeneutics will reject human intervention and allow the Word of God to speak for itself. Thus, the believer is leaning on God's wisdom through His word and not on man-made wisdom.

This is worth pursuing.


-- The writer of Hebrews tells us that the God's word is "sharper than any two edged sword" (Heb 4:12). In other words, it is a formidable weapon in the war we fight on this earth and in this life. Why then do many Christians decide not to use it?

My 10 year old likes to tell me about many of his guns. He owns an AK-47, a sub machine gun, a laser gun, a couple of P-90's, and something he calls a rocket booster (don't ask, I have no idea). My son has even shot me many times with his guns. Yet here I sit able to type this blog post to you. You would think that a man who has been shot by a "rocket booster" would need immediate medical attention. However, I assure you that I'm just fine.

You see my son's guns are toys. Replicas of the real thing. Some of them look very real. Some of them even shoot little plastic or rubber bullets. These toys give him hours and hours of fun pretending to save the world from invading aliens or hordes of soldiers looking to harm his dog or I. However, if a thief broke into my home tonight, I would not reach for one of my son's toys. It is limited and serves one purpose: to amuse my son. It has no real world value and in the end brings no useful or lasting purpose.

Many people spend much of their time crafting fun toys with Scripture that, like my son's guns, look much like the real thing, but pale in comparison. In the end, these exercises in man made theology create a lot of entertainment and make for interesting conversation, but have no redeeming value in the real world, and no useful or lasting purpose.

The Master's Seminary Professor Robert Thomas critiqued preterist writer Kenneth Gentry by using a similar analogy. Thomas said that he took his sons to Disney world and described a ride where they were in front of a 3D screen and sitting in a car like device that would shake, roll, and move in congress with the images on the screen. The ride, Thomas tells us, made his son quite ill and afraid. However Thomas tells us that he was not affected by the ride because he was felt safe in the knowledge that this was just a ride. The illusion was ruined for him. Thomas goes on to critique Gentry's sloppy hermeneutics claiming Gentry created an illusion to base his preterist claims upon.

Putting aside Thomas' opinion of Gentry, the basis for his critique is valid. If we are to create an illusion of a firm foundation, is that foundation really firm? Of course not. This is obvious, but what is not so obvious is the heightened sense of danger associated with illusions. When one has no illusions, one is not fooled, and even if one has no idea what reality may be, at least one does not need to be first shaken from a mistaken belief in order to embrace reality when it is found.

Just as it would be a disaster to believe my son's toys, however realistic they may appear, could protect my home, so we must see that a theology built to look like God's word, but absent of any basis in God's Word, would have equally disastrous effects on our faith.


--There is no wisdom in men (1 Cor 2:5). We are sinful wretched creatures (Eccl 7:20). Our hearts are dark and wicked (Jer 17:9). We don't, in and of ourselves, do anything good (Psm 53:3).

We ought, then, to reject the wisdom of men and embrace the wisdom of God. God desires for us to have a right relationship with Him. He will not do this with respect to our conditions or through our means. We must abandon these things. We must embrace Him. This begins and ends with embracing God's word and really believing Sola Scriptura.

Christians, throw down the idols you have made with God's word! Abandon those things that you've embraced instead of His word! Allow the richness of His wisdom to speak to you uninhibited and unaltered. God has given you His word for this exact purpose. It is up to you to listen.

We'll wrap up this mini-series tomorrow with some closing thoughts.


(see part four here)

Tweet

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 2

Good Day all!!

This is part two in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. If you missed part one, click here. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Who Cares about Hermeneutics?

Unfortunately, very few care about Hermeneutics. This is a complete mystery to me. When I discovered Hermeneutics, it was as if God had opened up His Word to me in a whole new way. I was no longer confused by complicated passages. Even if I did feel confused by the Bible at times (Hi-ya second half of Daniel!), I felt empowered to be able to solve my interpretative problems. I had a sense of what I was doing with this book I hold in such high regard. It was exhilarating! God was demonstrating to me that His word was truth and I could trust it in every sense. Truths I had always believed, but somehow seemed mysterious to me, suddenly seemed within reach.

Most importantly, it helped me to really understand Sola Scriptura and to actually increase my reverence for the Word of God. I felt as if I had always been a clumsy child handling a precious artifact. Now I was an adept curator professionally making use of the ancient tool in my hand. It was a great feeling.

Unfortunately, it also "ruined my life". I say this tongue in cheek, of course. I remember remarking to my Pastor (my ever faithful mentor) that I was going to have a T-Shirt made that read "Hermeneutics Ruined My Life" because my life was quite literally never the same. This had its positive points as willful ignorance is a dreadful lot in life. Nonetheless, it had its negatives too. I began to use the things I've learned and realized, much to my horror, the depth of deception of "Christians" that believe ridiculous things and use Scripture (improperly) to justify those beliefs.

What was worse was that I tried to tell my fellow Christians that what they were doing was not right and I was hated for it. Truth be told it was one of the chief experiences that led me to call this blog "That Crazy Christian". Here were a group of people who claimed to hold God and His Word in the highest esteem. I thought that this news would be received like a thirsty man receives a canteen of water. Instead it was as if I had vinegar in my canteen. I was mocked, derided, scolded for being "haughty" and "proud", argued with, and abandoned by people who claimed to believe as I did, and in some cases, those I genuinely cared about.

I admit that I'm not always the best "people person" in the world. Did I make mistakes in how I approached some people? Sure! Could I do better in being a teacher? Yes! However, even knowing this and trying my best to act as Christ would, I was absolutely shocked, and terrified, by the response I received when I talked about this subject.

You see it wasn't that people didn't understand what I was saying. It wasn't that they didn't want to understand what I was saying. It was that they understood what I was saying and still didn't care. Some didn't care because, in their own eyes, they could do no wrong. Some didn't care because they were bored by the subject (which in and of itself is gut wrenching). Mostly though, people didn't care because. . . try though I might. . . my explanations as to why this mattered SO much fell on deaf ears. Deaf to the implications. Deaf to the ramifications. Deaf to the disharmony with their stated beliefs.

When I think back on it, and look at the current battles I have in this arena, I can only conclude that many Christians have made an idol out of their Bibles. The Bible is not Words of Life to the dying, living waters to the parched, to some people. No, instead it's a pliable lump of clay that is to be manipulated and shaped to say whatever they want it to say. It is, in fact, a God in their own image. Instead of taking it at face value and hearing from it the very Word of God in its purest and unadulterated form, they would rather make it to mean what they want to hear. They spend their Sundays singing about how they've "Surrendered All" and what a treasure the Word of God is, but then refuse to surrender their image of the Word to the real thing and instead melt down that treasure to fit their desires.

Harsh? Probably. The truth is harsh sometimes. To paint the complete picture, I think it's worth noting that many Christians act this way because they genuinely believe that by doing so they are honoring God. Which, to me, says that they at the very least desire to honor God. They think, for example, that it helps our cause to show Jesus in every book of the Bible. . . even the books where He isn't there. While I applaud the sentiment to defend the faith or to honor God, it must be pointed out that we don't honor God by mishandling His word.

Nevertheless, this minority of Christians who ignorantly ignore Hermeneutics cease to be ignorant when someone confronts them about their ignorance and shows them the right way. No doubt, this takes a patient and careful approach. It's not the easiest of concepts to grasp and it takes some time to see the truth.

However, once that confrontation is complete, the Christian has some hard questions. Do they really believe Sola Scriptura? Do they really honor God's word? Do they want to do the hard work of understanding the Word? Most of all, do they really care what that Word says?

I can say from personal experience, that most answer that last question with a resounding "no". So, to the church at large, there is nothing wrong with believing that Jesus is the "pillar of cloud by day and pillar of fire by night" even if the basis for that belief amounts to "I simply want to believe it". When you look at the fervor with which they defend their baseless points, you see just how deep this has gone.

Fervor tells us a lot. Someone who will casually defend that Jesus is Lord but passionately defend the honor of their local sports team obviously reveres that sports team more. It's what caused them to be wound up and an attack upon it touched a nerve.

It was the same way in the area of hermeneutics in my experience. I could disagree with them politically and most didn't care. I could be a Calvinist and they Armenian and still not many really cared much about that. Yet, the moment I told them that their handling of Scripture is wrong, I became enemy #1.

Apathy isn't the problem. In fact perhaps they care more about Hermeneutics than I give them credit for. They've adopted one even though they reject the notion that they need one. Funny how that works isn't it? One thing is for sure, what most didn't, and many do not, care about was adopting the proper one.

Tomorrow we talk about why this topic isn't merely a pet peeve, but as I have said, a battle for the heart and soul of the Church.

Stay tuned and stay faithful!

(see part three here)

Tweet

Why Hermeneutics Matter - Part 1

Good day all!!

This is part one in a mini-series I'm doing on what I regard to be a matter for the soul of the Christian Church. While I believe that God will preserve His Word, as He always has, I note with much trepidation that it is not beyond God to allow many generations to pass with no heart for Him or His word. I write this in hopes that those who read it will awaken to the lack of fidelity to the things we claim to hold near and dear.

Ok, I'm just going to come right out and say it. . .

THIS:



. . . is terrible hermeneutics.

Now, before you start virtually stoning me let me say that I'm a single homeschooling father of a 10 year old boy. So, believe me, I understand just what an accomplishment it is for this young man to stand in front of his church, and indirectly, to stand in front of (to date) 800,000+ You Tube viewers, confidently and clearly reciting his lines. Not merely to trod through his part, but to do so PASSIONATELY and with conviction. Good for this kid, he clearly worked hard and deserves credit for a job well done. His parents should be proud of their little one. Most of all, in the end, it's certainly not this child's fault that the lines he's reciting reflect zero understanding of proper hermeneutics.

Three questions are probably on the average christian's mind right now:

• What are you talking about?
  

• Who cares?

• Why should I care?

Let me attempt to answer them...

What am I talking about?

Hermeneutics is the science of interpreting and applying Scripture. As Christians we ought to believe a few things in regards to Scripture. Namely:

1. God's Word is the Bible and the Bible is God's Word.
2. God is a perfect communicator.
3. The responsibility falls on the reader to interpret and apply the Word properly without altering the perfect communication from God.

Good hermeneutics assume the first two points and endeavors to take up the responsibility of the last point.

There are a lot of principles to Hermeneutics. Principles relating to the written word in general, principles relating to different types of written word (Psalms, prophesy, etc.), principles relating to consistency within the Bible, principles relating to application, principles for interpretation, and so on. One of the founding principles, and one so often violated, is the principle of single meaning. It is the principle that is being violated in the video above.

The principle of single meaning is simple; each individual Scripture can have only one single meaning. There are not multiple layers of meaning, there are not hidden meanings, there are not meanings for the time period it was written in and a different meaning today. There is just one meaning.

Another principle is that while meaning might be singular, the application is many. Now this is kind of nuanced, so I'll keep it simple.

Take Philippians 4:6-7:

Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God; and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus. - Phl 4:6-7 NKJV

If we go through the hermeneutical process of looking at the original language, understanding the context of the verse, examining the culture and history of the author and recipient, remembering our interpretative principles, et. al., we come to a simple interpretation.

"Don't be anxious. Bring everything, including your needs, to God in prayer always remembering to give thanks. Let God know what you desire and need. In this process, God's peace (that simply can't be understood, rather it must be experienced) will overcome your anxiety."

Now, for you professionals out there, I'm certain that my 10 minutes studying that verse probably wasn't enough to do a good job. However, that is beside my point. The point is that we can't look at Phl 4:6-7 and come to the conclusion that it means the above AND something else.

However, could I apply this verse to a person who has a fear of failing a test AND to a person who is never comfortable that they have enough money? Yes, yes I could. Because where a Christian has anxiety, this verse applies no matter what that anxiety may be about.

So, one might respond to me that what the child is doing in the above video is simply making different applications of the concepts he's talking about. To which I respond a resounding no.

Take one of his statements:

"In Numbers he's a pillar of cloud by day, and the pillar of fire by night."

We all remember that story in Numbers. God led the Israelites through the dessert through a very visible way.

And Moses said to the LORD: "Then the Egyptians will hear [it], for by Your might You brought these people up from among them, "and they will tell [it] to the inhabitants of this land. They have heard that You, LORD, [are] among these people; that You, LORD, are seen face to face and Your cloud stands above them, and You go before them in a pillar of cloud by day and in a pillar of fire by night. - Num 14:13-14 NKJV

Now, what part of that verse do you get the pre-incarnate Christ as being that Pillar of Cloud or of Fire? Yes, the pillars are definitely God's pillars, and they are indeed miraculous. Yet at the end of the day the meaning we conclude from that verse is that God put a visible pillar in night and day to lead Israel in an obvious way. It seems that God did this so that Egypt would see and tell the inhabitants of the land that they know for sure that God is with Israel.

That's it. That's what it means. Now, what application can we get out of it? Well, that depends on what needs to be said to whom you are speaking. Some possible examples would be that God is capable and willing to lead His people. We might also say that Israel had no excuse to deny God. We might talk about God's desire to be glorified or about His faithfulness to Israel. There is a LOT we can get out of the verse.

However just as we can't get out of the verse that God abandoned Israel, we also can't conclude that Jesus IS the pillar. He's not. The Pillar is cloud and fire. Not Jesus. It doesn't say that. Anywhere. To claim that it does say that is to inject YOUR OWN meaning into the text. Most of all, it shows a complete lack of hermeneutical fidelity to the text.

I remind you, this is just one statement in the video. It is replete with this kind of injected meanings.

I have only scratched the surface of this important text. Truthfully, I have only scratched the surface of hermeneutics itself. I recommend two books that can help you to dive in to the world of hermeneutics. Protestant Biblical Interpretation by Benard Ramm & Evangelical Hermeneutics: The New vs. The Old by Robert Thomas. (Also, if you google Robert Thomas+Masters Seminary Journal, you'll find some of the articles in his book. . . like this one.) Both are good beginners texts on the subject. Ramm reads like a beginners guide, and Thomas address many challenges to the field. These are the two books I read (one on my own, and the other in a Men's Bible study. . . Hi guys!). I am BY NO MEANS an expert, but my eyes are certainly open.

Now that you understand what Hermeneutics is (remember I'm only teaching ABOUT hermeneutics, not teaching hermeneutics itself.), you'll be well prepared for the next few days. Over the next few days I'll continue my quest to point out this glaring problem in the church today.

Stay tuned, and stay faithful!

(see part two here)

Tweet