Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Paul: 1 Corinthians 7, Part 1)

Posted on December 21, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“Now concerning the things of which you wrote to me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband… I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry.  For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:1-9).

Paul had received questions from the brethren at Corinth.  The words “now concerning” may highlight some of these questions (1 Corinthians 7:1; 7:25; 8:1; 12:1; 16:1-2; 16:12,  see also – 1 Thessalonians 4:9; 5:1).

“Paul, is celibacy the best course?  Should marriage be avoided?”  It seems that they asked something like this.  Why would they ask this?  Was it due to the influence of early gnostic type beliefs?  Was it due to some misunderstanding of something Paul had said (e.g. 1 Corinthians 7:26)?

Paul answered: (1) It is good to remain celibate and unmarried.  “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1).  The word “touch” is referring to sexual contact (cf. Genesis 20:6; Proverbs 6:29).  It is here used for marrying ( 1 Corinthians 7:1 cf. 7:8, 26-27), since the sexual relationship is a natural consequence of the marriage. “It is good for them to remain even as I am” (1 Corinthian 9:5).  (2) This advice was given due to the present distress (1 Corinthians 7:26).  They were facing an unusual wave of persecution.  The Bible does not frown on marriage.  It teaches, “It is not good that man should be alone” (Genesis 2:18).  “Marriage is honorable” (Hebrews 13:4).  Paul, himself, later wrote, “I desire that the younger widows marry, bear children, manage the house” (1 Timothy 5:14).  (3) There is no sin in marrying.  “It is good for a man not to touch a woman.  Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality (fornication KJV), let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:12).  “It is good for them to remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry.  For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:8-9.  Note: The words “with passion” are supplied by the NKJV.  They are not in the original language.  However, such does seem to accurately express the thought).  “He does not sin; let them marry” (1 Corinthians 7:36 cf. 7:38).  It is better to marry than to be sexually immoral (commit fornication).  It is better to marry than to be consumed with lust.  (4) Those who are married should not cease from sexual intimacy (1 Corinthians 7:3-5).  They owed such to each other. Moreover, the effect of withholding of this part of the marriage relationship could be temptation. Let it be pointed out – Noah begot children even though he lived in violent and wicked times (Genesis 7:6 cf. 6:3 cf. 5:32).

Some have suggested that – since it says, “Nevertheless, because of sexuality immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2), and “It is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Corinthians 7:9) – all marriages are permitted.  However, this cannot be true.  Jesus said that some marriages result in adultery (Matthew 19:9).  Paul said that there are some who need to “remain unmarried or be reconciled” (1 Corinthians 7:11).

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Paul: Romans 7)

Posted on December 17, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“Or do you not know, brethren (for I speak to those who know the law), that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives?” (Romans 7:1).

Paul wrote to people who knew about law (the definite article, “the,” is not present in the original language before the first occurrence of “law”).  He was speaking about law in general.  How long does a law (any law) have dominion over a man?  The answer is: only so long as that law is “on the books” and only so long as the person is alive.

The law (the definite article, “the,” is present before the second occurrence of “law”), the law of Moses was binding on a man only as long as he (or it) lived.  Roy Deaver commented, “‘He liveth’ is the translation of the Greek dze, present, active, indicative, third person singular, of dzao.  Note especially, third singular.  ‘Third person singular’ with reference to the Greek verb may be translated ‘he, she or it’ as the context demands.  If, in this present situation, we translate ‘it liveth’ instead of ‘he liveth,’ everything falls in place… Paul is talking about the fact the Law of Moses died” (Deaver, Romans: God’s Plan for Man’s Righteousness, p. 218).

“For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives, but if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband.  So then if, while her husband lives, she marries another man, she will be called an adulteress; but if her husband dies, she is free from that law, so that she is no adulteress, though she has married another man”  Romans 7:2-3.

Paul used marriage as an illustration.  How long is a woman bound by the law of her husband?  The answer is so long as he lives.

The general rule is this: If she marries another while her husband lives she will be called an adulteress (Romans 7:3 cf. Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18).  The exception for fornication is not mentioned (Matthew 19:9).

However, she is free to remarry if her husband dies (Romans 7:3).  “A wife is bound by law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband dies, she is at liberty to be married to whom she wishes, only in the Lord” (1 Corinthians 7:39).

“Therefore, my brethren, you have become dead to the law through the body of Christ, that you may be married to another – to Him who was raised from the dead, that we should bear fruit to God” (Romans 7:4).

Jesus’ death on the cross “abolished… the law of commandments” (Ephesians 2:15 cf. Colossians 2:14).  Roy Deaver commented, “The point made is clear: when the husband dies, the wife dies to the law of her husband (her responsibilities to her husband); when the Law of Moses ‘died,’ the Jews died to their responsibilities to that law.” (ibid, p. 219).

This section is not primarily about marriage, divorce, and remarriage.  However, it does provide us with another look at God’s plan for marriage.

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Old Testament/New Testament, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Our Purpose

Posted on December 14, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

Why are we here?  What is our purpose?

Some view life as a meaningless series of routines.  “We go to bed late, we get up early, we go to work, we drive home, eat and go to bed, to get up early, to go to work, to come home, ad nausea.  And, as if that were not enough, we are plagued with making ends meet financially, fighting off the latest virus, hoping to avoid some dreaded disease, mistreated at home, and then we die.  Every aspect of life seems vain.  It is like striving after the wind” (Steven Lloyd, Coping: A Biblical Approach, p. 2).

Some live their life with purpose, but the wrong purpose.  There are those who make their chief aim in life amassing wealth and acquiring possessions.  The Bible says: “We brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we can carry nothing out” (1 Timothy 6:7 cf. Luke 12:20).  There are those who make it their chief aim to enjoy life.  The Bible says: “Moses, when he became of age, refused to be called the son of Pharaoh’s daughter, choosing rather to suffer affliction with the people of God than to enjoy the passing pleasures of sin, esteeming the reproach of Christ greater riches than the treasures in Egypt; for he looked to the reward” (Hebrews 11:24-26).  There are those who make their chief aim in life physical fitness.  The Bible says: “Bodily exercise profits a little, but godliness is profitable for all things, having the promise of the life that now is and of that which is to come” (1 Timothy 4:8).

Man was created with purpose.  God told the Israelites, “Everyone who is called by My name, Whom I have created for My glory; I have formed him, yes, I have made him” (Isaiah 43:7).  Jesus instructed, “Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works and glorify your Father in heaven” (Matthew 5:16).  Christians are taught, “You were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit which are God’s” (1 Corinthians 6:20);  “Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God (1 Corinthians 10:31).  The church is to bring glory to God (Ephesians 3:21).  

The word “glorify” means “to praise, extol, magnify… to honor, do honor to, hold in honor… to cause the dignity and worth of some person or thing to become manifest and acknowledged” (Thayer).

Sometimes even Christians fail to understand, or stay focused on, their purpose.  Our ultimate purpose is not: (1) Numbers.  We should be interested in gaining souls for Christ.  However, numbers can be gained by things other than the truth.  (2) Unity.  We should be interested in maintaining Christian unity.  However, some ignore truth to maintain church unity.  (3) Knowledge.  Tim Nichols, “Gaining knowledge is not the goal.  It is an essential step on the greater path to the greater goal, but not the goal any more than putting on one’s shoes is the goal of one who begins a long journey (Ephesians 6:15).  Many things could be the motivation for gaining knowledge (even of the Scriptures), which could make it an unworthy goal… Those who seek knowledge in order to gain the admiration of men, to merely enjoy wining arguments and wielding intellectual power of others, or even because they love the academic challenge of working with ideas and making the pieces fit – have not yet properly aimed their knowledge quest” (Nichols, Article – The Goal: Glorifying God).

Our purpose is to glorify God.  T. Pierce Brown has written, “The Christian life is not merely the sum of isolated acts of work and service where one offers part of his life and abilities to God, spending the rest on himself and his own interests.  All you are and have and do is God’s and should reflect honor and glory on Him… Many of us who have been intensely involved in personal evangelism have often taught, or at least implied, that the only way you can glorify God is by winning souls to Christ.  That is not so.  There is no question in my mind that it is one of the best, most important and rewarding way to glorify God, but I take the position that you can eat, drink or play golf to the glory of God.  Does not the housewife need to know that the monotonous rounds of trivial deeds that are boringly repeated day after day do not need to be mere trivial deeds, but can be to the glory of God?  Do you know that if a woman cleans her house to impress her neighbor with the fact that she is a good housekeeper, it may be for her glory rather that God’s?  But if she does it to prepare the house more suitably to function for (1) fellowship of Christian brothers and sisters that they may be better strengthened for love and service to God and man or, (2) to provide a more fitting place to have a friend or neighbor in for Bible study, free from the distractions of a cluttered world, she thus glorifies God… The results of this awareness and purpose in one’s life are staggering!  … Life is no longer a boring monotonous round of duties, but rather a joyous, purposeful, meaningful course of action.  Now there is a cohesive, unifying force which gives purpose, meaning and value to all that you do.  That force is to strive to consciously do whatever you do for the glory of God!” (Brown, Article – What Are You Doing Here?).

Posted in christian growth, Christian Influence, life, Man, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Jesus: Tested, Part 2)

Posted on December 8, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

Jesus made clear that God’s ideal for marriage did not include divorce.  His plan was for husband and wife to become one flesh: “Two individuals they are, two personalities; but they are one in love, in aim, in purpose” (Roy Deaver, A Study of Matthew 19:9, p. 5).

What about divorce?  Let’s continue –

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality (fornication KJV), and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).

The language sounds universal (cf. “whoever” John 3:16).  Remember that God’s ideal for marriage goes back to creation.  It predates the Law of Moses.  It predates the distinction between Jew and Gentile. 

General Rule

“Whoever divorces his wife… and marries another, commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).

I have removed the exception clause.  This allows us to clearly see the general rule.  The general rule is that divorce plus remarriage results in adultery (cf. “and” Mark 16:16).  It is not divorce alone which results in adultery (Though, we should be cautious even with this cf. Matthew 5:32).

The general rule works both ways.  Mark 10:11-12 reads “whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her.  And if a woman divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.” 

What is adultery?  Thayer: “To have unlawful intercourse with another’s wife.”  Associate Professor William L. Peterson (Religious Studies Program; Department of Classics and Ancient Mediterranean Studies), Pennsylvania State University: “Voluntary sexual intercourse between a married person and someone other than his/her spouse” (Personal letter to me, 1995).  Professor Ed. L. Miller (Philosophy/Religious Studies; Director Theology Forum), University of Colorado at Boulder: “That the verb mokeuo, ‘to commit adultery,’ and the noun moikeia, ‘adultery,’ involves sexual activity is apparent from too many passages (both Biblical and non-Biblical alike) to list” (personal letter to me, 1995).  Even when the word “adultery” is being used figuratively, it is still based upon the literal meaning.  Consider: “Thou… hast opened thy feet to everyone that passed by… as a wife that committed adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband” (Ezekiel 16:25, 32 KJV). 

Brother Tyler Young has suggested that the word “adultery” in Matthew 19:9 is being used as a synecdoche.  He has written, “When Christ spoke of divorce and remarriage resulting in a state of adultery, he did so because the sex act is a natural consequence of the marriage union… But simply because he focused on the sinfulness of that aspect of a marriage does not mean the only problem with divorcing and remarrying is unlawful sexual relations.  In this writer’s view, Jesus was using a figure of speech known as a synecdoche, in which a part of something is used to stand for the whole… Jesus chooses one aspect of the marriage relationship, one that is supposed to be peculiar to it – sexual intimacy – to condemn the entire relationship.  There is more to marriage than sex, and two people who do not have a right to be married to each other do not have a right to any aspect of the marriage relationship” (Young, Article: Living in Sin).  This is similar to how the Bible “Child bearing” is used of the role of women (1 Timothy 2:15).

The tense of the words seem significant.  The words “divorces” and “marries” are aorist tense; while “commits adultery” is present tense.  Professor Ed. L. Miller (Philosophy/Religious Studies), University of Colorado at Boulder: “The verb in question, moichatai, ‘commits adultery,’ is a present-tense verb and indicates an ongoing action.  It may in fact be contrasted with two previous verb-forms in the verse which are aorist – or simple past-tense and indicate a past one time action: apoluse, ‘divorce’ and gamese, ‘marry.’  I would say that the rendering ‘keeps on committing adultery, ‘preserves the force of the original” (personal letter to me, 1995).  Professor Craig Kallendorf (Department of International Studies), Texas A&M University: “Your letter of 4 October eventually made its way to me, since I am now teaching the New Testament Greek course.  I am trained as a Greek language specialist and not a theologian… the present tense here does not indicate a one-time action, but a continuous state of affairs (Personal letter to me, 1995). 

However, the present-tense in the indicative mood may be used for linear and punctiliar action (A.T. Roberson; Dana and Mantley).  Roy Deaver has written, “Though we recognize that there are certain instances of the ‘Aoristic present’ (pointed action in present time) the fact remains that the general, regular, normal, force of the present tense is continuous action in the present tie.  This cannot be successfully denied.  Therefore, if and when a person decides that a present tense verb is pointed action he will have to have good and sufficient and compelling reason or reasons for this conclusion… However, let me hasten to emphasize that my case does not depend upon whether or not moichatai in Matthew 19:9 indicates continuous action, that it does, in fact, have this meaning I have not the slightest doubt.  But, the point we make is this: repentance (among other things) demand one getting out of sinful situations!  All persons who sin by entering into a sinful relationship continue to sin by staying in that relationship.  For example, all persons who sin by entering the Baptist church continue to sin by staying in it” (Deaver, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, pp. 6-7).

The Exception

“…except it be for sexual immorality (fornication KJV)…” (Matthew 19:9).

The exception phrase appears in Matthew (5:32; 19:9), but not in Mark (10:11-12), and not in Luke (16:18).  This has led some to deny that the exception phrase is genuine, and thus – to deny divorce and remarriage for any reason including, fornication.  However, the textual evidence does not support this denial.  Mark and Luke are simply setting forth the general rule without the exception being stated.  Consider: Genesis 9:6, “Whoever sheds man’s blood, by man his blood shall be shed…”  This is the general rule.  However, clearly there are exceptions.  This very verse authorizes capital punishment.  Consider: “Thou shalt not kill” (Exodus 20:13).  This is the general rule.  Yet, “whoever kills a person, the murderer shall be put to death…” (Numbers 35:30).  The words, “put to death” is from the same original term.

One exception is stated, fornication.  What is fornication?  Vine’s: “illicit sexual intercourse.”  Thayer: “illicit sexual intercourse in general.”  Arndt-Gingrich: “of every kind of unlawful sexual intercourse.”  Earl Edwards (Lecturer in Bible), Freed-Hardeman University: “It includes sexual intercourse with any person (of either sex) other than one’s spouse as well as intercourse with beasts (Ed. Jim Laws, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage – Spiritual Sword Lectureship book, p. 345).  All adultery is fornication (cf. 1 Corinthians 5:1; 1 Thessalonians 4:3-6), but not all fornication is adultery (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21; Galatians 5:19).  The N.A.S.B. falls short in translating the word porneia, “immorality.” 

Second Whoever

“…and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9).

Earl Edwards commented, “These words appear at the end of verse nine in the King James Version but many ancient manuscripts do not contain them… At any rate, approximately the same words do appear in Matthew 5:32, and in that passage the authenticity is recognized by everyone” (Ed. Jim Laws, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, p. 351).

The exception phrase does not appear in the clause.  Kerry Duke has written, “Matthew 19:9 is made up of two clauses, each which stands by itself as a sentence.  The first clause has the exceptive phrase.  The second clause does not.  Injecting the propositional phrase of Matthew 19:9a into Matthew 19:9b is a grammatically unwarranted procedure” (Duke, The Remarriage of A Divorced Couple, p. 35).  Again, “Epi porneia (on or for fornication – B.H.) cannot justifiably be injected into Matthew 19:9b any more than me epi porneia (not on or for fornication – B.H.).” (ibid, p. 40).

Further, James O. Baird remarked, “Since the definite article is omitted in the Geek, no specific woman is referred to, so the meaning must be any put away woman” (Baird, And I Say Unto You…, p.38)

Some seem to think that marriage is always right, if the two love each other. This passage does not agree.

This is Difficult

The disciples of Jesus thought this to be a very difficult teaching.  They said, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10).  This may have been said later in private (Mark 10:10).

Jesus pointed out that not all men could accept what they had said (Matthew 19:11-12).  Some men were born eunuchs (without such passion for the opposite sex).  Some men were made eunuchs by men.  Some lived as eunuchs for the Kingdom’s sake [This would include those who chose not to be burdened with a family (cf. 1 Corinthians 7:32-34).  This includes those who do not remarry, but live single (1 Corinthians 7:10-11, 39-40)]. The norm is to marry.

Let us teach our children, and those not yet married that marriage is for life.

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Textual study, Word Study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

In The News: Hezekiah’s Seal

Posted on December 3, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“On Wednesday (December 2, 2015), archaeologists in Jerusalem announced the discovery of a rare biblical-era seal… According to Hebrew University, the inscription reads: ‘Belonging to Hezekiah [son of] Ahaz King of Judah… the back side of the clay imprint of the seal had markings of thin cords that were used to tie a papyrus document (theatlantic.com).  “The bulla was found during excavations in 2009 but its significance was initially overlooked… only this year did Hebrew University archaeologist Reut Ben Arieh decipher the inscription on the seal impression and determine its significance” (timesofisrael.com).  This is not the first seal of Hezekiah to be found.  Dr. Eilat Mazer, the leader of the excavation said, “Although seal impressions bearing King Hezekiah’s name have already been known for the antiquities market since the middle 1990’s… this is the first time that a seal impression of an Israelite or Judean King has ever come to light in a scientific archaeological excavation” (inquisitr.com).

Sennacherib, King of Assyria, also mentioned Hezekiah.  British Colonel R. Taylor discovered Sennacherib’s annals (the Taylor Prism) in Nineveh in 1830.  It reads, “As for Hezekiah, the Judean who did not who did not submit to my yoke, I surrounded and conquered forty-six of his strong-walled towns and innumerable small settlements…” (Price, The Stones Cry Out, p. 272). 

This is not the only King of Judah or Israel that has been discovered in Archaeology.  On August 6, 1993, it was announced, “An Israeli archeologist has discovered a fragment of a stone monument with inscriptions bearing the first known reference outside of the Bible to King David, and the ruling dynasty he founded, the House of David” (nytimes.com).  “The Tel Dan inscription, or ‘House of David’ inscription, was discovered in 1993 at the site of Tel Dan in northern Israel in an excavation directed by Israeli archaeologist Avraham Biran.  The broken and fragmented inscription commemorates the victory of an Aramean King over his two southern neighbors: The ‘King of Israel’ and the ‘King of the House of David’” (biblicalarchaeology.org).  “A ruler of the Arameans probably Hazael is victorious over Israel and Judah.  The Stele was erected to celebrate the defeat of the two kings.  In 1994 two more pieces were found with inscriptions which refer to Jehoram, the Son of Ahab, Ruler over Israel, and Ahaziah, who was ruler over the ‘House of David’ or Judah.  These names and facts correspond to the account given in chapters eight and nine of 2 Kings” (bible.org). 

Jehu, King of Israel, has been found by archaeology. Archaeologist Henry Layard discovered a large black stone (The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III), in the ancient Assyrian city of Calah, in 1945.  “The store was a four-sided polished black (obelisk) of black limestone 6 ½ feet high.  On each side panel of the obelisk were carved five registers of relief sculptures depicting various scenes of tribute brought to the Assyrian court… the big surprise came when the lines above one register showing a figure kneeling before the Assyrian King was translated: Tribute of Jehu, Son of Omri…” (Price, p. 77). 

Jehoiachin, King of Judah, has also been found in archaeology.  “Shortly before World War II Ernst Weidner worked in a Berlin Museum on many uninspiring and unpretentious cuneiform records of a storehouse of grain and oil found with the palace compound of Nebuchadnezzar’s Babylon (The Babylonian Rations Tablet, B.H.)… To Weidner’s surprise he found the name of King Jehoiachin of Judah, together with his five sons and their Jewish tutor, as the recipient of grain and oil on several of these documents in the year 592 B.C., five years after Jehoiachin’s exile had begun” (Jackson, Biblical Studies in the Light of Archaeology, p. 20). 

These Kings were historical characters.  We’ve looked only at some of Israel and Judah’s Kings.  However, many of the people and places of the Bible have been confirmed by archaeology. 

Posted in Apologetics, Evidence | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Jesus: Tested, Part 1)

Posted on December 1, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“Jesus… came to the region of Judea beyond the Jordan.  And great multitudes followed Him… The Pharisees also came to Him, testing Him, and saying to Him, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?’” (Matthew 19:1-3).

How was this a test?  It was a test in at least three ways.  (1) It was a test of courage.  Herod Antipas governed this territory beyond the Jordan (Perea).  Herod Antipas arrested, and beheaded John because of what he taught on marriage, divorce and remarriage.  Would Jesus speak on this subject? If He did, would His words agree with John’s?  (2) It was a test of consistency.  Jesus had previously taught on this subject (Matthew 5:31-32).  John’s death came.  Would Jesus change His teaching?  (3) It was a test of character.  Multitudes were now following Jesus.  This subject was highly controversial.  Many agreed with Rabbi Hillel (d. 10 A.D.), who taught that one could divorce for small reasons, such as burning a meal.  Others agreed with Rabbi Shammai (d. 30 A.D.), who taught that one could divorce only for serious offenses, such as sexually immoral or indecent behavior.  Any answer had the potential of offending some in the multitude of Jesus’ followers.  Would He water down His answer to please the masses?

The Pharisees were trying to damage Jesus’ influence.  If He was inconsistent with John, they would expose this.  If He said anything that might anger Herod Antipas, they could report this to Herod.  If He was inconsistent with His earlier teaching, this could be exposed.  Moreover, the Pharisees knew that any answer Jesus gave had the potential of not pleasing some in the multitude.

Jesus was unlike many (cf. John 12:42).  He never compromised truth for the sake of popularity (cf. John 6:66-68).

“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 to dismiss her.’” (Mark 10:3-4).

They were correct.  The Law of Moses did allow divorce (Deuteronomy 24:1-4).

However, what else did Moses write?  Had they considered God’s design for marriage?

“And he answered and said to them, ‘Have you not read that He who made them at 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 be one flesh’?  So then, they are no longer two but one flesh.  Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate.” (Matthew 19:4-6).

Jesus returned to creation.  He quoted Genesis 1:27 in Matthew 19:4 and Genesis 2:24 in Matthew 19:5.  He said in effect, “This is God’s ideal for marriage: one man and one woman joined together for life.”  They were focused on divorce.  Jesus wanted them to focus on God’s ideal for marriage.

Two words are interesting.  The word in verse 5 which is translated “joined” (NKJV), “cleave” (KJV), and “hold fast” (ESV) means “’to join fast together, to glue, cement,’ is primarily said of metals and other materials” (Vine’s).  God’s design was for a lasting bond to exist.  The word in verse 6 translated, “joined” means “to yoke together” (Vine’s).  God’s ideal is for the two to walk together as one unit.

“They said to Him, ‘Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and put her away?’  He said to them, ‘Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:7-8).

The Pharisees returned to the subject of divorce, and pressed Jesus for an answer on Deuteronomy 24.  They said, “Moses commanded.”  However, Moses had never commanded such.  He permitted it.  Oliver Green commented, “The law did not command a man to put away (even – B.H.) an unfaithful wife, but it did command that he give her a ‘writing of divorcement’ if he did put her away.” (Green, The Gospel According to Matthew, Vol. 4, p. 222).

Jesus replied that Moses (the Law of Moses) allowed divorce.  He allowed divorce because of the hardness of your hearts. This was not a compliment.  Ancil Jenkins commented, “If divorce had not been allowed, two greater evils would have prevailed.  Some people would not have married, thus promoting immorality.  Others, not having an opportunity for divorce, would have killed their unwanted wives” (Jenkins, A Commentary on Mark, p. 101).  Such is possible.

However, “from the beginning it was not so.”  That is: Divorce was never God’s ideal for marriage.  The words, “it was not so” are from gegonen, which is in the perfect tense.  Roy Deaver provides a literal rendering – “but from the beginning it stands in the position of not having become thus” (Deaver, A Study of Matthew 19:9, p. 7).  God’s ideal for marriage has never been found in divorce.

“But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’  ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’; so they are no more two but one flesh.  Therefore what God has joined together let not man separate” (Mark 10:6-9).

God’s ideal for marriage is found in creation.  He created one man and one woman.  He planned for the two to be joined together in a lasting union, an enduring partnership.

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

Thrift Stores, Ringing Bells and Red Kettles

Posted on November 24, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

The Salvation Army operates thrift stores.  These stores resell donated items such as clothing, furniture, household items, and toys.  They even have trucks which will pick up donated items from  your house.  The revenue is used to fund their Adult Rehabilitation Centers, known as ARCs.  Many kind, generous people give to these stores.

The Salvation Army is most visible during the Christmas shopping season.  Volunteers and paid workers stand in front of stores ringing their bells, soliciting donations into their red kettles.  Across the nation, there are about 25,000 bell ringers.  Many kind and generous people volunteer to ring the bells.  Many kind and generous people give to these red kettles.  Almost $145 million was raised in 2014.  The revenue is used for Salvation Army charity work and disaster relief in the local community from which the donations came.

However, many who volunteer to ring bells, and many who give to The Salvation Army do so, not realizing that they are contributing to the work of a religious organization.  The Salvation Army is not simply a community charity (as Goodwill now is. Though, Goodwill used to be a work of the Methodist Church).

The history of the organization starts in England.  William Booth was a Methodist minister.  “He came to the conclusion that the masses of the non-church goers could not be reached through methods of the churches, so he resigned his pastorate, he began the Salvation Army.”  (The New Standard Encyclopedia).  He formed the East London Christian Mission in 1865.  The name was changed to The Salvation Army in 1878.

The Salvation Army is a religious group (Mead, Handbook of Denominations).  It is organized on military lines.  It operates in 127 countries with a worldwide membership of 1.5 million (Wikipedia).

What is its purpose?  Wayne Jackson has written, “According to its charter issued in New York State in 1899, the Salvation Army is an organization… whose paramount purpose ‘is to lead men and women into a proper relationship with God'” (Jackson, An Analysis of the “Salvation Army,” christiancourier.com).  Booth wanted to provide “soup, soap, and salvation” (salvationarmy.org).

What do they believe?  They have an organization structure which is foreign to the New Testament (soldiers, corp officers, including – envoys, cadets,  lieutenants, captains, majors, lieutenants colonels, colonels, commanders, commissioners, chief of staff, and a general).  They have a method of fund-raising which is foreign to the Bible (cf. 1 Corinthians 16:1-2).  They accept women preachers (cf. 1 Timothy 2; 1 Corinthians 14).  They worship with mechanical instruments of music (cf. Ephesians 5:19; Colossians 3:16).  They believe in Hereditary Total Depravity (cf Ezekiel 18:20).  They believe in a direct operation of the Holy Spirit in conversion (cf. Luke 8:11-15; Acts 2:2:36-38; 8:12-16; 19:1-6).  They do not baptize.  They do not think baptism is necessary for salvation (cf. Acts 2:38).  Salvation is by faith only ( cf. Mark 16:15-16; James 2:24). They do not observe the Lord’s supper (cf. 1 Corinthians 11:23-26).  They believe that external rituals are unnecessary and dangerous.

My advice?  We can be benevolent on an individual basis (e.g. Luke 10:25-37).  We can be benevolent through the church (e.g. Acts 4:34-37; 6:1-7; 11:27-30; 1 Corinthians 16:1-2; 2 Corinthians 9:13).  We can be benevolent through others (e.g. Philippians 4:18).  However, may we never help empower false teachers, or an organization of false teachers (cf. Romans 16:17; 1 Timothy 6:3, 5a; 2 John 9-11).  Let us not contribute to the Temple of Diana even if they do some deeds of kindness.  Let us do nothing which glorifies such organization that are in competition with the church.

Moreover, let us think beyond the physical.  Benevolence can help satisfy physical needs.  It can also open up opportunities to speak of spiritual needs (e.g. John 5:8, 14; Acts 3:6-7, 11-ff).  When we show kindness, it is an opportunity to tell others about why we do such.   It is an opportunity to tell others about Jesus.  It is an opportunity to tell others about Jesus.  It is an opportunity to address the fact that man has greater needs, spiritual needs.

Posted in denominations, Doctrine, Fellowship, Giving, Stats | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Let Us Give Thanks

Posted on November 22, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

The book of Psalms is filled with expressions of thanks to God.  The words “thanks” and “thanksgiving” appear 30 times in the book of Psalms.  Nave’s topical Bible classifies 37 Psalms as Psalms which offer thanksgiving to God (9, 18, 21, 23, 30, 34, 36, 40, 46, 65, 66, 68, 75, 76, 81, 85,91, 98, 100, 103, 105, 107, 108, 116, 117, 118, 121, 124, 126, 129, 135, 136, 138, 144, 145, 146, 149,).  It subdivides this as follows: (1) Thanksgiving for goodness to (the nation of) Israel (21, 46, 65, 66, 68, 76, 81, 85, 98, 105, 124, 126, 129, 135, 149).  (2) Thanksgiving for the goodness to mankind (23, 34, 36, 91, 100, 103, 107, 117, 121, 145, 146).  (3) Thanksgiving for (specific) goodness to individuals (9, 18, 30, 34, 40, 75, 103, 108, 116, 118, 138, 144).  You will notice that some of the Psalms are placed into more than one subdivision.

Let’s consider these three points –

1.  National Thanksgiving. Israel was to be thankful because God chose them (Psalm 135:1-4).  He delivered them from Egypt (Psalm 66:6; 81:10; 105; 135:8-12; 136).  He protected them (Psalm 46; 124).  He brought them back from captivity (Psalm 85:1-2; 126).  He provided them with daily benefits (Psalm 68:19).  He provided them with food and water (Psalm 65:9-13; 136:25).

America is not God’s chosen nation.  We do not have the same relationship with God that Israel had.  Due to the nature of providence (cf. Esther 4:14; Philemon 15), we cannot with certainty know the role God played in founding this country; though, we do believe that He is providentially in control (cf. Acts 17:26).  There are many things we do not know.  However, we are told that it is He who “makes the sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the just and the unjust” (Matthew 5:45).  He gives us, “rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness” (Acts 14:17).  It is “in Him we live we move and have our being” (Acts 17:28).  It is “in Him all things consist” (Colossians 1:17).  We should be a thankful people.

2.  Individual Thanksgiving. Individual Israelites, as well as Gentiles (cf. Psalm 117), were to be thankful.  God made man (Psalm 100:1-3).  He led His followers to good (Psalm 23).  He cared for them.  He was forgiving and merciful (Psalm 103:2-3; 117; 145:8-9).  “Bless the LORD, O My soul, and forget not all His benefits: who forgives all your iniquities…” (Psalm 103:2-3a).  He was slow to anger (Psalm 103:8).  “He has not dealt with us according to our sins, nor punished us according to our iniquities” (Psalm 103:10).  He was fulfilling.  “He satisfies the longing soul with gladness” (Psalm 107:9).

All of these points are still true for man today.  He is responsible for our existence.  He wants to lead us to heaven.  He is longsuffering toward us (2 Peter 3:9).  His desire is for “all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth” (1 Timothy 2:4).

3.  Specific Thanksgiving. Consider the following: “You have turned for me my mourning into dancing; You have put off my sackcloth and clothed me with gladness… I will give thanks to You forever” (Psalm 30:11-12).  “I sought the LORD, and He heard me, and delivered me from all my fears” (Psalm 34:4).  “I called on the LORD in distress, The LORD answered me and set me in a broad place” (Psalm 118:5).  “In the day when I cried out, You answered me and made me bold with strength in my soul” (Psalm 138:3).

God does not always give us what we request (2 Corinthians 12:7-9).  Moreover, when He does give us what we request, it may take time (Romans 1:9-10 cf. 15:22-24).  He always knows best.

He does answer prayer.  Do we thank Him for the good that we see Him working on our lives?  “Count your many blessings, name them one by one, count your blessings, See what God hath done!  Count your blessings, name them one by one, and it will surprise you what the Lord hath done’ (Song: Count Your Blessings by Johnson Oatman Jr.).

Posted in Appreciation, God's Providence, psalms, Thanksgiving | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage (Jesus: Sermon on the Mount)

Posted on November 19, 2015 by Bryan Hodge

“It has been said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’  But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality (fornication, B.H.) causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 5:31-32).

The context should be considered: (1) Jesus in this same sermon said, “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets, I did not come to destroy but to fulfill” (Matthew 5:17).  The Law would one day be abolished (Ephesians 2:15), that is – render inactive (Vine’s).  However, Jesus’ aim in this sermon was not to contrast Old Testament teaching and New Testament teaching.  (2) The context concerns the Scribes and Pharisees.  Jesus taught, “Unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the Kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:20).  This was primarily a contrast between what God wanted, and how the Scribes and Pharisees had perverted His message.  (3) Jesus taught some things which went beyond Old Testament teaching.  He taught that they should turn the other cheek, be willing to give up cloak, go the second mile, love their enemies, and practice The Golden Rule.

When a man divorced his wife, he was to do so with a certificate of divorce (Matthew 5:31 cf. Deuteronomy 24:1-4).  The Scribes and Pharisees were correct on this point.

They were great on legal procedure, but was this all that mattered?  Had they considered what divorce did to women?  Had they actively tried to discourage divorce?  Many then, as now, did not think past civil legality.

Consider a wife  living in the first century.  Her husband decided to divorce her; even though, she had not been unfaithful to him.  What happens to this woman?  The man  “causes her to commit adultery” (NKJV, KJV), “maketh her an adulteress” (ASV), “makes her commit adultery (NASB, ESV).  A suggested literal rendering is: He causes her “to be adulterized.”  How does he do this?  Here are two suggestions:  (1) Some have suggested that the meaning is that she was by the divorce “stigmatized as an adulteress” (Lenski, The Interpretation of Matthew’s Gospel, p. 232).  The difficulty with this view is that Israelites divorced for reasons other than adultery.  Why should she automatically be thought of as an adulteress? (2) A better suggestion may be found in her likely eventual remarriage.  Remember that it was very difficult for a woman, at that time, to support herself.  Donald Carson has written, “A woman so divorced found herself many times in practical necessity of remarriage to find support for herself…  She was under pressure to enter into a union which was illegitimate because she was not eligible to marry” (ed. Jim Laws, Spiritual Lectureship book: Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage, p. 362).  Wayne Jackson has commented, “Now the presumption is this: if a man just whimsically and capriciously throws his wife out – he divorces her – what will she likely do?  Go find another man!” (Jackson & Scott, Divorce and Remarriage, p. 34).

Moreover, what about the man who married this woman? Had these leaders thought about him. He was committing adultery by marrying this woman.  The present tense could be rendered “is committing adultery” or “keeps on committing adultery” (Jackson, p.35).

May we develop a concern for others.  May we consider how our action might affect others.  May our righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees.

Posted in Ethics, Marriage, sermon on mount, Textual study | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments