God wants His people to live and behave in a Christ like manner while in the world. We are not to be of the world. We are called instead to be the salt and light that the world desperately needs. As “salt,” our lives are to preserve righteousness and justice in the world, and as “light” we are to shine on Jesus while at the same time exposing the deeds of darkness.
This is especially true with regards to politics. Some are called to enter full time into politics. Like that of a pastor, no one should ever try to do so unless certain of his or her calling.
But the rest of us who are not called to be full time politicians, we have our own mandate from the Lord. In my previous blogs, I have mentioned four of them. Here they are again for review:
1. Remember Why We Exist – Simply: To make disciples of all nations (Matt. 28:19-20).
All Christians have the mandate to make disciples of all nations. We start with our own home turf. We start with our families, circle of friends, neighborhoods, places where we work, go to school, community, state, other countries and to the uttermost parts of the world.
What does it mean to make disciples? Lead an unsaved person to Christ and nurture that person until they can do what you just did for him or her. In other words, all disciples and followers of Christ must be able to reproduce themselves in others. Life begets life. Christians will beget other Christians. If this is not occurring, then a Christian is not living up to his or her full potential.
2. It is in God We Trust.
This is more than a slogan for us believers; it is a way of life. Government policies will at times infuriate us, but our trust is not in marches, not in demonstrations, not in numbers, and not in who has the best arguments. We know the truth because He lives within us. But are we willing to follow the truth and rely completely on Him even if the government we are sworn to live under changes for the worse?
3. Our Christian Duty Is To Submit
Jesus said to “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s; and to God the things that are God’s” (Matt. 22:21). Jesus and His apostles had many opportunities to rebel against the governing authorities, but they did not. In stead they submitted. Both Jesus and the apostles all died a martyrs’ death except for the apostle John who was exiled on a small island where he later died there. That’s submission. What little rights they had were removed.
Now remember this. If you ever want to know your Christian duty to the government, then here it is:
A. Submit (Romans 13:1)
B. Pay your taxes (Rom. 13:7)
C. Pray for your civil leaders (1 Tim. 2:1-2)
4. Our Commitment Is To Pray
Why are we to pray for our leaders? First, so that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity (1 Tim. 2:2). The idea here is simply this: When you pray for your leaders, you will not become embittered toward them. Instead you will be respectful. You will show compassion. You will be understanding. By praying for your leaders when you see how the wrong policies are being passed and all the lying and corruption that so often occurs, instead of being upset and wanting to rebel or protest, your prayers for your leaders will also have a positive affect on you and cause your heart of soften so you will lead and quiet and tranquil life in all godliness and dignity.
In other words, it is not civil policies that will bring about these positive changes in you, but God through your prayers for your leaders.
Second, pray for their salvation. One of the greatest ways you can honor and support your leaders is to get on your knees often and plead for God to save them. Nothing in this world is more important than having a relationship with Jesus Christ.
Do not get all excited over a victory of a Bill. This is so shallow and short sighted. Get excited over eternal matters – the salvation of someone in public office which leads to the expansion of Christ’s kingdom.
Now we come to the fifth and final principle.
5. Realize Where Your True Citizenship Is – Heaven!
We need to live out our lives with this understanding – we are citizens first and foremost of heaven, not of any country on earth.
Here is how Paul put it: But our citizenship is in heaven. And we eagerly await a Savior from there, the Lord Jesus Christ – Philip. 3:20 NIV
The earth is our temporary abode. Heaven is where we belong because it is where Jesus is. In fact, what did Jesus say to His disciples just before going to the cross? “In My Father’s House are many mansions. I go and prepare a place for you, so that where I am, there you may be also” (John 14:2). So there it is. Why would we want to set up camp here on earth as if this will be our home when Jesus has a much better place awaiting us in heaven?
In fact, the fact that Jesus is in heaven waiting for us (Acts 1:11; 1 Thess. 4:16) is something that ought to always be in our minds when we think about the need to jump in and get overly involved in politics. Our fellow countrymen, the Old Testament saints, where do they now live and wait for us? In heaven (Heb. 12:23).
You want to know where your name is recorded? Guess? In heaven (Luke 10:20; Rev. 13:8). You want to know where the bible tells you to store your treasures? In heaven (Matt. 5:12; 6:20; 1 Pet. 1:4). That is, you do the kind of works, live the kind of life that will earn you great rewards in heaven for you to enjoy. Don’t keep yourself up at night or at every waking hour seeking to earn for yourself a lucrative life here on this dying and temporary place where the bible says that “Satan is the god of this world” (2 Cor. 4:4).
While in Egypt for four hundred years, Israel was seen to be a people in a foreign land. They were aliens and God had a much better place prepared for them (Acts 7:6). For those who understood this, it made their tough life a lot more bearable because they saw beyond Egypt to the Promise Land.
Before God called us into His wonderful family, we were known as aliens in terms of our heavenly citizenship (Eph. 2:19). All that has changed now if you indeed have trusted Christ as your Lord!
When Peter addressed his readers, he labeled them as “aliens” (1 Pet. 1:1; 2:11). He was writing to Christians who were suffering immensely. Therefore, he reminded them that their suffering was part of their temporary abode. He reminded them to understand why they are treated as strangers. They are strangers in this world! Therefore, do not be surprised if you are treated like one. You are not home yet.
When Moses had exiled himself to Midian after snuffing out the life of an Egyptian, he lived as an alien (Acts 7:29). Why? God did not want him to become so comfortable there that when the time came for him to move on and become the leader of the Israelites and their deliverer out of Egypt, he could pack up and leave quickly and without little effort.
Why do you think it was so hard for Lot and his wife to leave Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 19:14-16)? When the angels of the Lord told Lot’s sons-in-law to leave, they thought he was joking (v. 14). When they told Lot to leave the next morning, both him and his wife hesitated (v. 16), and so the angels had to grab them both by the hand and literally drag them out of their doomed city.
But Lot’s wife never understood how she was to live her life in such a place. She was committed. She was a home girl. She was fixated with her home, her residency, her way of life. When after she was forcefully removed from Sodom, she still couldn’t resist. She look back one last time to the place she called home and immediately was turned into a pillar of salt (v. 26).
This is no way for any believer to live in this world. We ought not to live life on this side of heaven so that when the rapture occurs, Jesus literally has to drag us away from our present manner of life. Don’t we want to be with Jesus? Don’t we want to experience the mansion in heaven that He has built for us? Don’t we want to fellowship and enjoy the company of those who also are citizens of heaven as well? Don’t we want to escape the pollution and evil of this world when God’s calls and offers a way out? We won’t if we live our lives not as aliens on this planet.
Finally, when God brought Abraham into the Promise Land told him that one day his descendants will inherit it, Abraham still was not satisfied. He lived as an alien and looked for even a better place, whose builder and maker is God (Heb. 11:9-10).
Now why am I emphasizing all this? Because if you and I understand that heaven is where we belong, then you will understand why Jesus said to us while living on earth, “Seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness” (Matt. 6:33). Why should we seek another kingdom when we are already part of one – a better one? The kingdom that we are a part of now is not our permanent home. Heaven is, therefore, seek heaven’s will and its righteousness, which is another way of saying, “Seek eternal matters and not go after temporary ones.”
Okay, on this fifth principle, my point is this: The world is and will go to hell in a hand basket. In other words, things will not get better, but worse. America will eventually fall and succumb to liberalism, socialism and godlessness. The church will eventually apostate and go the way of the world – that is the false church, not the true remnant of God.
So what are we to do? Sit back and be passive Christians? No. Instead, we are to:
1. Fulfill the Great Commission Mandate of Matthew 28:19-20 and lead as many people to Christ and nurture them in the Lord.
2. Trust Completely in God. He is in full control of everything in heaven and on earth.
3. Submit to our government – pay your taxes.
4. Pray for your leaders in public office. Pray for their salvation and pray so that you will also have the right kind of heart toward them as a temporary citizen on earth.
5. Live your life as aliens.
Keep your life simple down here. Don’t live your life as if you are setting up permanent camp. Don’t be like Lot and his wife where God has to literally drag you away and out of the world.
In a remarkable series of trades, one 17 year old Californian. Steven Ortiz, was able barter a cell phone all the way up to a Porsche. Source: CNN News.
The cell phone was traded for an IPod Touch. The IPod begat a dirt bike. The dirt bike begat a laptop computer. The series of trades eventually led to a Toyota 4runner, a Ford Bronco SUV, and ultimately, the coveted Porsche. It's all very impressive.
I couldn't help but to think of the popular Dale Evans song, "Trading My Sorrows." The lyrics include these words:
"I'm trading my sorrow. I'm trading my shame. I'm laying it down for the joy of the Lord"
"I'm trading my sickness. I'm trading my pain. I'm laying it down for the joy of the Lord"
What are you willing to trade? Are you willing to trade your life on earth, your luxury, your job, your status, your home, your way of life for something better? Are you willing to trade your sorrow and shame for the joy of the Lord? He has something better for us. But we won’t want it, if we choose to live our life on earth as anything other than what God has purpose for us.
Friday, July 30, 2010
Thursday, July 29, 2010
Rethinking Divorce and Remarriage
I want to address a subject that is both hard and controversial to say the least. I have known Christians on both sides of the fence – those who preach that once a person is divorce for reasons other than adultery, the couple can never remarry anyone else while their former spouse is alive. However, if any one of the members has an adulterous affair after a divorce, then that gives the innocent party the freedom to seek remarriage.
I also know Christians who are on the opposite extreme and preach that one can divorce his spouse for whatever reason is necessary.
To be honest, for many years, I have taken the first position. This was for me the most natural way to understand Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 5 and 19. But, until recently, with a little more prayerful and closer examination of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5, I have amended my position for a more balance view.
Now let me explain and as always, follow the reasoning that I am using as I approach the Scriptures. Then you can decide how you want to take the words of Jesus as you too read it.
Here is the passage in question: 31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery – Matt. 5 NIV
Okay, so based on the words of Jesus, these are the primary elements of Jesus’ teachings about divorce and remarriage.
1. No one is able to lawfully divorce his or her spouse unless adultery was the issue – “marital unfaithfulness”
2. If one does divorce a spouse for issues other than “marital unfaithfulness,” then the person asking for the divorce will place the other spouse in a position of committing adultery if he or she chooses to remarry.
3. And the innocent party who marries a divorce member for reasons other than “marital unfaithfulness,” will likewise become guilty of adultery.
This is what I believed and this is what I have taught through the years. After all, this is what Jesus said so clearly and plainly in Matthew 5.
However, after a closer examination of the context – which is always a good thing to do when deciding on the interpretation of any passage in the bible, I have come to see that the above interpretation may not be the correct one.
Follow my reasoning: I noticed, first of all, that Jesus uses what must be seen as “hyperbolic” language. In other words, Jesus uses language that expresses “extremes,” and “exaggerations,” which was meant to illustrate a principle rather than a law.
For example, let me direct your attention to these verses:
Matthew 5:20: For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
The Pharisees and Scribes (or teachers of the law) were big on outward righteousness. They kept the rabbinic law down to the letter. When it came to outward righteousness, one could hardly find fault with them.
But Jesus wanted to show that they were two of the biggest sinners of all. Because although they could cloak their sin with their outward righteousness, Jesus would major on something more important – the heart!
So in essence, what Jesus is saying is this: “If you want to be part of My kingdom, then you must surpass the Pharisees and teachers of the law in their own outward righteousness.” How would anyone do this? By focusing on the inside of the person – the heart.
So Jesus begins with these examples of the heart:
First, you can approach God with a desire to worship Him, but if you remember (an emphasis on the heart) that your brother has something against you, then set your worship aside for the time being, first be reconciled to your brother (or sister) and then come back and fulfill your worship – Matt. 5:21-26
Second, if you are married and have had no extra-marital affair, don’t think you have never committed adultery. Because if you look on another woman to lust after her, you are guilty of adultery – Matt. 5:27-28
See the emphasis here on the heart and not mere outward conformity?
Then Jesus moves into what has got to be an illustration or better, a “hyperbole.” Jesus said this: If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell (vv. 29-30).
Now let me ask you this: Do you know of anyone, or any church that practices Jesus’ teaching of verses 29-30 in a literal way? Do you know of anyone who has said, “I have gouged out my eye which had been offending me in order to obey Christ?” Or, “I have cut my right hand or left foot off because these members of my body were offending me and Jesus said to do so, so I am simply obeying Him.” No one in their right mind will take this literally. This is Jesus’ way as a masterful teacher that He was to illustrate an important principle. Sin is harmful, not to just parts of the body, but the whole body. And unless it is drastically dealt with in a serious manner, it will contaminate the rest of the members.
Therefore, deal with sin seriously in a spiritual sense, as you would a harmful or dysfunctional member of your body in a physical sense.
So, I think you would agree with my reasoning here that Jesus is after the heart, right? And that what He says must be done is not to be taken literally.
Okay, now right after talking about the need to gouge out one’s eye and to cut off one’s hand if any of these members causes you to stumble, Jesus then talks about divorce and remarriage.
Now please keep the context in mind. Here is what Jesus said: 31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Now listen to the reasoning. Jesus is saying this: “Your righteousness must surpass the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees and all their outward acts. If not, you will not be part of my kingdom.”
Someone will then shout: “I have been married to the same person for sixty years and have not once cheated on my spouse. How is that Jesus?” The Lord’s answer would be, “If you looked upon another person with lustful eyes you cheated on your spouse!”
Therefore, if you “eye” (the avenue of lust) offends you, gouge it out (that is, deal with your lust issue seriously and decisively). If you “hand” offends you by touching another person inappropriately, cut it off (that is, deal with that issue seriously and decisively).
At this point you ought to be thinking, “Whoa, this righteousness stuff is way too hard. No possible way am I sinless. I am an adulterer. I commit adultery daily, weekly, and all the time – even in my sleep!”
It is in this kind of context that Jesus mentions divorce and remarriage.
Jesus is saying this: It is impossible to live up to God’s righteousness. Christ here uses divorce as an illustration for our consistent inability to live up to the standards of God’s perfection.
But there are other examples, such as: Have you ever committed murder? In the physical sense, probably not. But the bible says that if you ever hated anyone you are a murderer (1 John 3:15). Therefore, you can be married to the same woman and never commit outward acts of adultery and still be guilty of committing adultery in your heart – several times a day! You can not actually kill anyone, but still be guilty of committing murder in your heart several times a day!
You see the point? Jesus is focusing on the heart and making it impossible for anyone to live up to God’s righteous standards. Jesus is not trying to be literal in Matthew 5:31-32 and say that the only reason you are to ever get a divorce is because of adultery, and the only reason you can remarry is if your divorce was on the grounds of adultery. He was not seeking to be taken literally, but instead, Jesus was making a principle. That everyone has broken the principles of the laws, even if they had managed to avoid breaking a particular expression of the law.
Now listen: Although sin is always wrong and God hates it, some sin cannot be avoided on this of heaven. For example, God hates divorce, right? (See Mal. 2:16). But God still end up doing the very thing He hates:
“And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.” (Jer. 3:8; see also Isa. 50:1)
So for God to say “I hate divorce” helps us recognize that divorce, as a part of the fallen order, is a result of sinfulness in the world and it is this that God hates. It also helps us recognize that divorce is sometimes a necessary part of a fallen world due to sinfulness.
Let’s be consistent here. If we are to take literally Jesus’ teachings on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 5:31-32, then we must also in order to be consistent, take Jesus’ teachings on gouging our eyes and cutting off our hand when such members offend us. Any takers out there?
This is what could conceivably take place: lusting itself would be an excuse for divorce since it is adultery (v. 28). As well, if you were to lust before you are married, and by lusting you have literally had sex with that person, then you are in God’s eyes joined to that person and are required to marry them (1Cor 6:15). So, if this is the case, is it then God’s perfect will for me to find the first girl I lusted after and be “rejoined” to her so that she does not commit adultery? Do you see how this would all end up? Insanity!
Now don’t get me wrong. Divorce is wrong and should by all means be avoided. But if for whatever reasons it cannot and a person remarries, sin may be involved, but it is not something that the grace and forgiveness of God cannot wipe away.
Forgiveness and grace is something that we can take literally and act upon. For the person who has lusted in the past, we offer forgiveness, not a bride. For the person who has hated his brother, we offer grace, not the death penalty. For the person who has been divorced, shouldn’t we do the same?
If you have been divorced and have remarried, by God’s grace and mercy enjoy the blessing of your marriage and build your family in a godly way. Don’t spend your time second guessing your decision to remarry. It will drive you nuts and create more problems than it might solve. After all, there is no decision that we make that doesn’t have some precursor of sin. As God’s providence finds its realization, we must understand that lives riddled with sin are all he has to work with. If this is not true, then grace is no longer grace.
I also know Christians who are on the opposite extreme and preach that one can divorce his spouse for whatever reason is necessary.
To be honest, for many years, I have taken the first position. This was for me the most natural way to understand Jesus’ admonition in Matthew 5 and 19. But, until recently, with a little more prayerful and closer examination of Jesus’ words in Matthew 5, I have amended my position for a more balance view.
Now let me explain and as always, follow the reasoning that I am using as I approach the Scriptures. Then you can decide how you want to take the words of Jesus as you too read it.
Here is the passage in question: 31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.' 32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery – Matt. 5 NIV
Okay, so based on the words of Jesus, these are the primary elements of Jesus’ teachings about divorce and remarriage.
1. No one is able to lawfully divorce his or her spouse unless adultery was the issue – “marital unfaithfulness”
2. If one does divorce a spouse for issues other than “marital unfaithfulness,” then the person asking for the divorce will place the other spouse in a position of committing adultery if he or she chooses to remarry.
3. And the innocent party who marries a divorce member for reasons other than “marital unfaithfulness,” will likewise become guilty of adultery.
This is what I believed and this is what I have taught through the years. After all, this is what Jesus said so clearly and plainly in Matthew 5.
However, after a closer examination of the context – which is always a good thing to do when deciding on the interpretation of any passage in the bible, I have come to see that the above interpretation may not be the correct one.
Follow my reasoning: I noticed, first of all, that Jesus uses what must be seen as “hyperbolic” language. In other words, Jesus uses language that expresses “extremes,” and “exaggerations,” which was meant to illustrate a principle rather than a law.
For example, let me direct your attention to these verses:
Matthew 5:20: For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.
The Pharisees and Scribes (or teachers of the law) were big on outward righteousness. They kept the rabbinic law down to the letter. When it came to outward righteousness, one could hardly find fault with them.
But Jesus wanted to show that they were two of the biggest sinners of all. Because although they could cloak their sin with their outward righteousness, Jesus would major on something more important – the heart!
So in essence, what Jesus is saying is this: “If you want to be part of My kingdom, then you must surpass the Pharisees and teachers of the law in their own outward righteousness.” How would anyone do this? By focusing on the inside of the person – the heart.
So Jesus begins with these examples of the heart:
First, you can approach God with a desire to worship Him, but if you remember (an emphasis on the heart) that your brother has something against you, then set your worship aside for the time being, first be reconciled to your brother (or sister) and then come back and fulfill your worship – Matt. 5:21-26
Second, if you are married and have had no extra-marital affair, don’t think you have never committed adultery. Because if you look on another woman to lust after her, you are guilty of adultery – Matt. 5:27-28
See the emphasis here on the heart and not mere outward conformity?
Then Jesus moves into what has got to be an illustration or better, a “hyperbole.” Jesus said this: If your right eye causes you to sin, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.30And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell (vv. 29-30).
Now let me ask you this: Do you know of anyone, or any church that practices Jesus’ teaching of verses 29-30 in a literal way? Do you know of anyone who has said, “I have gouged out my eye which had been offending me in order to obey Christ?” Or, “I have cut my right hand or left foot off because these members of my body were offending me and Jesus said to do so, so I am simply obeying Him.” No one in their right mind will take this literally. This is Jesus’ way as a masterful teacher that He was to illustrate an important principle. Sin is harmful, not to just parts of the body, but the whole body. And unless it is drastically dealt with in a serious manner, it will contaminate the rest of the members.
Therefore, deal with sin seriously in a spiritual sense, as you would a harmful or dysfunctional member of your body in a physical sense.
So, I think you would agree with my reasoning here that Jesus is after the heart, right? And that what He says must be done is not to be taken literally.
Okay, now right after talking about the need to gouge out one’s eye and to cut off one’s hand if any of these members causes you to stumble, Jesus then talks about divorce and remarriage.
Now please keep the context in mind. Here is what Jesus said: 31"It has been said, 'Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.'32But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.
Now listen to the reasoning. Jesus is saying this: “Your righteousness must surpass the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees and all their outward acts. If not, you will not be part of my kingdom.”
Someone will then shout: “I have been married to the same person for sixty years and have not once cheated on my spouse. How is that Jesus?” The Lord’s answer would be, “If you looked upon another person with lustful eyes you cheated on your spouse!”
Therefore, if you “eye” (the avenue of lust) offends you, gouge it out (that is, deal with your lust issue seriously and decisively). If you “hand” offends you by touching another person inappropriately, cut it off (that is, deal with that issue seriously and decisively).
At this point you ought to be thinking, “Whoa, this righteousness stuff is way too hard. No possible way am I sinless. I am an adulterer. I commit adultery daily, weekly, and all the time – even in my sleep!”
It is in this kind of context that Jesus mentions divorce and remarriage.
Jesus is saying this: It is impossible to live up to God’s righteousness. Christ here uses divorce as an illustration for our consistent inability to live up to the standards of God’s perfection.
But there are other examples, such as: Have you ever committed murder? In the physical sense, probably not. But the bible says that if you ever hated anyone you are a murderer (1 John 3:15). Therefore, you can be married to the same woman and never commit outward acts of adultery and still be guilty of committing adultery in your heart – several times a day! You can not actually kill anyone, but still be guilty of committing murder in your heart several times a day!
You see the point? Jesus is focusing on the heart and making it impossible for anyone to live up to God’s righteous standards. Jesus is not trying to be literal in Matthew 5:31-32 and say that the only reason you are to ever get a divorce is because of adultery, and the only reason you can remarry is if your divorce was on the grounds of adultery. He was not seeking to be taken literally, but instead, Jesus was making a principle. That everyone has broken the principles of the laws, even if they had managed to avoid breaking a particular expression of the law.
Now listen: Although sin is always wrong and God hates it, some sin cannot be avoided on this of heaven. For example, God hates divorce, right? (See Mal. 2:16). But God still end up doing the very thing He hates:
“And I saw that for all the adulteries of faithless Israel, I had sent her away and given her a writ of divorce, yet her treacherous sister Judah did not fear; but she went and was a harlot also.” (Jer. 3:8; see also Isa. 50:1)
So for God to say “I hate divorce” helps us recognize that divorce, as a part of the fallen order, is a result of sinfulness in the world and it is this that God hates. It also helps us recognize that divorce is sometimes a necessary part of a fallen world due to sinfulness.
Let’s be consistent here. If we are to take literally Jesus’ teachings on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 5:31-32, then we must also in order to be consistent, take Jesus’ teachings on gouging our eyes and cutting off our hand when such members offend us. Any takers out there?
This is what could conceivably take place: lusting itself would be an excuse for divorce since it is adultery (v. 28). As well, if you were to lust before you are married, and by lusting you have literally had sex with that person, then you are in God’s eyes joined to that person and are required to marry them (1Cor 6:15). So, if this is the case, is it then God’s perfect will for me to find the first girl I lusted after and be “rejoined” to her so that she does not commit adultery? Do you see how this would all end up? Insanity!
Now don’t get me wrong. Divorce is wrong and should by all means be avoided. But if for whatever reasons it cannot and a person remarries, sin may be involved, but it is not something that the grace and forgiveness of God cannot wipe away.
Forgiveness and grace is something that we can take literally and act upon. For the person who has lusted in the past, we offer forgiveness, not a bride. For the person who has hated his brother, we offer grace, not the death penalty. For the person who has been divorced, shouldn’t we do the same?
If you have been divorced and have remarried, by God’s grace and mercy enjoy the blessing of your marriage and build your family in a godly way. Don’t spend your time second guessing your decision to remarry. It will drive you nuts and create more problems than it might solve. After all, there is no decision that we make that doesn’t have some precursor of sin. As God’s providence finds its realization, we must understand that lives riddled with sin are all he has to work with. If this is not true, then grace is no longer grace.
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
Was Jesus Always The Son?
So Christ also did not take upon himself the glory of becoming a high priest. But God said to him, "You are my Son; today I have become your Father – Heb. 5:5 NIV
Let me begin by asking you a question: Is Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God? How would you answer?
You would most likely answer by saying “yes, of course He is.” It might surprise you to note that the answer is actually yes and no. You ask, “What do I mean?”
Well, first of all, let me affirm that I believe Jesus to be the eternal God. Jesus is fully God and possesses all of God’s attributes and full and complete essence.
But where I am not so sure – and notice I said, “not so sure,” is whether Jesus has always existed as the Son to the Father for all eternity.
If Jesus always was the Son to the Father from eternity past, then we would also have to conclude that God has existed as Father to the Son.
But are these terms merely designations meant to somehow enable us to better relate to God? You see, we cannot think of the Trinity as God No. 1, God No. 2, and God No. 3. Thus one God, eternally existing in three persons and not having some personal designations for these three Persons other than number one, two and three. So, for our own sake, God may have given the titles and designations – “Father” and “Son” as concepts for us to relate to and understand better. You see, God wanted to reveal Himself to us. He wants us to know Who He is. So, in helping us to relate to Him and to understand Who He is, God chose two important designations – Father and Son to enable us to understand the nature of God better and to relate to it out of our own experiences.
Now when you read the passage above, “God said, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten you.’” The words, “today” and “begotten” seems to suggest time.
If Jesus was God’s eternal Son in that He always existed as such to the Father, then why did He say, “Today” meaning at a time in eternity past? Also, why is the term, “begotten” used as well? The term itself signifies a beginning. In the mind of God it could refer to a time when the plan of redemption was brought into existence by the members of the Godhead. And it can also refer to Jesus’ birth or conception, where the eternal second member of the Trinity began to take upon Himself human flesh.
Here is what Hebrews 1:5 state: 5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father"? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him." 7In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire." 8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Now let’s take a closer look at what is being said here. First, there are no angels to whom God has called His Son. Therefore, this tells us something interesting about Jesus. For one thing, Jesus is not an angel. If He were, He would not be called a Son, according the opening words of verse 5.
Second, notice the phrase, “You are my son, today I have become your Father.” Also, “I will be His Father and He will be My Son.”
This was a statement made to Jesus and not to any of the angels. But here is what I see. Why would God say to His Son, “I will be His Father and He will be My Son?” If this relationship of Father and Son are eternal, wouldn’t it be better stated, “I am your Father and You are my Son?” Why say, “I will be your Father, and You will be My Son,” unless this relationship for our sakes occurred in time as a way to help us to understand and relate to God?
Third, the term “firstborn” is hard to comprehend in terms of seeing it as a designation and function of eternity. The term itself it a reference to “position” or “title,” and does not refer to order of time. In other words, to all other created beings, specifically here a reference to angels, Jesus ranks number 1, He is God’s firstborn. However, why was it necessary to tell the angels this and conclude that they must worship Him?
Wouldn’t the angels who were around before man was to have known this? Unless of course, something new and different was about to occur in the Godhead that would shake the minds of angels and cause them to be perplexed and wonder what to do. Unless this something new was the incarnation of Christ who was about to take upon Himself human flesh, something a member of the Godhead had up to this point NEVER done. And with the birth of Christ came the functionality of the title “Son,” and the functionality of the title “Father” to a member of the Godhead.
Fourth, the phrase, “Thy throne O God will be forever and ever.” And again, God is speaking to Jesus, “God, your God has set you above your companions.”
The writer begins by telling us, “But about the Son, He says.” So this is the Father talking to His Son. Now if the designation of the sonship of Christ was eternal (i.e. it has no beginning but always was), then why did God say to Jesus, “Thy throne O God. . .?” Why not say, “Why throne, O Son. . .” Could it not be that before the title “Son” there was no son (as a title or designation) just God?
Again, while speaking to Jesus, God says, “God (Son), your God (Father), has set you above your companions. Why didn’t God the Father simply say, “Son, your Father, has set you above your companions?” God was mentioning an occurrence that occurred in eternity past, and the terms used were not the terms “Father” and “Son,” but “God” and “God.” Therefore, could it be that Jesus’ sonship is not eternal, although His nature as God is?
But then again, I have this issue to wrestle with. Since God wanted to reveal Himself to us, wouldn’t He reveal to us aspects of His true essence? Since God has revealed to mankind His essence – that is, He is a triune God, and also His nature and function – that is, God is Father and Son, if these things are not true of God’s eternal essence, then why would God reveal a part of Himself that is not eternally and entirely true?
In other words, if the “sonship of Christ" is not an eternal aspect of His nature, and if the “Fatherhood of God,” is not an eternal aspect of His nature, then why reveal these things to us in the first place? Why would God reveal aspects of Himself that is not true and eternal to His nature? Are the only reasons for us to know these designations and concepts have to do with redemption? So in terms of redemption, we understand God as Father and Son, and once we get to heaven, these designations would then vanish and become meaningless?
Also, what was the name of the Son before His birth? Was it Jesus? We know that is His name now since His birth, but what was it before? Was it “Son?” So if the name Jesus was a name given to the Son at His incarnation, could it not also be that the title “Son” also pertains to the incarnation and not to the eternal aspect of any member of the Godhead?
The answer: I don’t know. I’m just thinking.
Let me begin by asking you a question: Is Jesus Christ the eternal Son of God? How would you answer?
You would most likely answer by saying “yes, of course He is.” It might surprise you to note that the answer is actually yes and no. You ask, “What do I mean?”
Well, first of all, let me affirm that I believe Jesus to be the eternal God. Jesus is fully God and possesses all of God’s attributes and full and complete essence.
But where I am not so sure – and notice I said, “not so sure,” is whether Jesus has always existed as the Son to the Father for all eternity.
If Jesus always was the Son to the Father from eternity past, then we would also have to conclude that God has existed as Father to the Son.
But are these terms merely designations meant to somehow enable us to better relate to God? You see, we cannot think of the Trinity as God No. 1, God No. 2, and God No. 3. Thus one God, eternally existing in three persons and not having some personal designations for these three Persons other than number one, two and three. So, for our own sake, God may have given the titles and designations – “Father” and “Son” as concepts for us to relate to and understand better. You see, God wanted to reveal Himself to us. He wants us to know Who He is. So, in helping us to relate to Him and to understand Who He is, God chose two important designations – Father and Son to enable us to understand the nature of God better and to relate to it out of our own experiences.
Now when you read the passage above, “God said, ‘You are My Son, today I have begotten you.’” The words, “today” and “begotten” seems to suggest time.
If Jesus was God’s eternal Son in that He always existed as such to the Father, then why did He say, “Today” meaning at a time in eternity past? Also, why is the term, “begotten” used as well? The term itself signifies a beginning. In the mind of God it could refer to a time when the plan of redemption was brought into existence by the members of the Godhead. And it can also refer to Jesus’ birth or conception, where the eternal second member of the Trinity began to take upon Himself human flesh.
Here is what Hebrews 1:5 state: 5For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father"? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"? 6And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him." 7In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire." 8But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy."
Now let’s take a closer look at what is being said here. First, there are no angels to whom God has called His Son. Therefore, this tells us something interesting about Jesus. For one thing, Jesus is not an angel. If He were, He would not be called a Son, according the opening words of verse 5.
Second, notice the phrase, “You are my son, today I have become your Father.” Also, “I will be His Father and He will be My Son.”
This was a statement made to Jesus and not to any of the angels. But here is what I see. Why would God say to His Son, “I will be His Father and He will be My Son?” If this relationship of Father and Son are eternal, wouldn’t it be better stated, “I am your Father and You are my Son?” Why say, “I will be your Father, and You will be My Son,” unless this relationship for our sakes occurred in time as a way to help us to understand and relate to God?
Third, the term “firstborn” is hard to comprehend in terms of seeing it as a designation and function of eternity. The term itself it a reference to “position” or “title,” and does not refer to order of time. In other words, to all other created beings, specifically here a reference to angels, Jesus ranks number 1, He is God’s firstborn. However, why was it necessary to tell the angels this and conclude that they must worship Him?
Wouldn’t the angels who were around before man was to have known this? Unless of course, something new and different was about to occur in the Godhead that would shake the minds of angels and cause them to be perplexed and wonder what to do. Unless this something new was the incarnation of Christ who was about to take upon Himself human flesh, something a member of the Godhead had up to this point NEVER done. And with the birth of Christ came the functionality of the title “Son,” and the functionality of the title “Father” to a member of the Godhead.
Fourth, the phrase, “Thy throne O God will be forever and ever.” And again, God is speaking to Jesus, “God, your God has set you above your companions.”
The writer begins by telling us, “But about the Son, He says.” So this is the Father talking to His Son. Now if the designation of the sonship of Christ was eternal (i.e. it has no beginning but always was), then why did God say to Jesus, “Thy throne O God. . .?” Why not say, “Why throne, O Son. . .” Could it not be that before the title “Son” there was no son (as a title or designation) just God?
Again, while speaking to Jesus, God says, “God (Son), your God (Father), has set you above your companions. Why didn’t God the Father simply say, “Son, your Father, has set you above your companions?” God was mentioning an occurrence that occurred in eternity past, and the terms used were not the terms “Father” and “Son,” but “God” and “God.” Therefore, could it be that Jesus’ sonship is not eternal, although His nature as God is?
But then again, I have this issue to wrestle with. Since God wanted to reveal Himself to us, wouldn’t He reveal to us aspects of His true essence? Since God has revealed to mankind His essence – that is, He is a triune God, and also His nature and function – that is, God is Father and Son, if these things are not true of God’s eternal essence, then why would God reveal a part of Himself that is not eternally and entirely true?
In other words, if the “sonship of Christ" is not an eternal aspect of His nature, and if the “Fatherhood of God,” is not an eternal aspect of His nature, then why reveal these things to us in the first place? Why would God reveal aspects of Himself that is not true and eternal to His nature? Are the only reasons for us to know these designations and concepts have to do with redemption? So in terms of redemption, we understand God as Father and Son, and once we get to heaven, these designations would then vanish and become meaningless?
Also, what was the name of the Son before His birth? Was it Jesus? We know that is His name now since His birth, but what was it before? Was it “Son?” So if the name Jesus was a name given to the Son at His incarnation, could it not also be that the title “Son” also pertains to the incarnation and not to the eternal aspect of any member of the Godhead?
The answer: I don’t know. I’m just thinking.
Monday, July 5, 2010
Help! I am an Orthorexic!
In what is their latest attempt toward the insane, the psychiatric industry has now invented the most ridiculous disease ever: HEALTHY EATING DISORDER!
I want to know if there are shrinks for psychiatrists? There ought to be some. These people are nuts to the core! They are constantly making up what is now considered to be a never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity.
So let me see if I got this right, because I think perhaps I need to see a shrink. If I focus on eating healthy foods, then I am "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."
But apparently they can't just call it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart to the rest of us uneducated dummies. That's where most disease names come from. Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a Latin name and the rest of us are suppose to do an introspection of our lives to see if we are suffering from such.
"Orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics (this would be me – thank you very much!) commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."
So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes a person like me a mental health patient? According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you. Shoot, just ask my wife and she’ll tell you that there is something wrong with me apart from these things.
But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic and natural foods – they are the sick people of society!
I cannot remember a recent time within the last four years that I have ever eaten junk foods at McDonalds, Taco Bell, Wendy’s, etc. And yes, for not doing this I am a sick puppy which is a primary reason I am a Christian. Jesus said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, except those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32).
I use to think that the worse profession to go into was being a politician. I would tell my kids, “You want to get back at your dad? You want to make me go nuts? You want to give me a serious blow? Be a politician!”
I think I’ll change that. “You want to upset your dad and get the last laugh? Be a psychiatrist.”
By the way, I am joking about the politician remark. The difference between a politician and psychiatrist is that “politicians” are included in the “sinners” category of Luke 5, whereas “psychiatrists” are in the “righteous” box. To the modern day psychiatry movement, Jesus had a “Messianic Nervosa Complexia” disorder. If anyone is to be granted by God eternal life, that person must come to the Savior for forgiveness of his sins. Well that cannot be done if all of issues are given a label that describes a sickness rather than a sin. The behaviors that are good are now labeled “sick” and the behaviors that are not good are consider common or normal.
When the devil fell, he had to turn himself into an angel of light and he did so by becoming the father of psychiatry. Anna Russell put today’s psychiatry in perspective with these words:
I went to my psychiatrist
To be psychoanalyzed
To find out why I killed the cat
And blacked my husband's eyes.
He laid me on a downy couch
To see what he could find,
So this is what he dredged up
From my subconscious mind:
When I was one, my mommy hid
My dolly in a trunk,
And so it follows naturally
That I am always drunk.
When I was two, I saw my father
Kiss the maid one day,
And that is why I suffer now
From kleptomania.
At three, I had the feeling of
Ambivalence towards my brothers,
And so it follows naturally
I poisoned all my lovers.
But I am happy; now I've learned
The lesson this has taught;
That everything I do that's wrong -
Is someone else's fault.
I want to know if there are shrinks for psychiatrists? There ought to be some. These people are nuts to the core! They are constantly making up what is now considered to be a never-ending attempt to fabricate "mental disorders" out of every human activity.
So let me see if I got this right, because I think perhaps I need to see a shrink. If I focus on eating healthy foods, then I am "mentally diseased" and probably need some sort of chemical treatment involving powerful psychotropic drugs. The Guardian newspaper reports, "Fixation with healthy eating can be sign of serious psychological disorder" and goes on to claim this "disease" is called orthorexia nervosa -- which is basically just Latin for "nervous about correct eating."
But apparently they can't just call it "nervous healthy eating disorder" because that doesn't sound like they know what they're talking about. So they translate it into Latin where it sounds smart to the rest of us uneducated dummies. That's where most disease names come from. Doctors just describe the symptoms they see with a Latin name and the rest of us are suppose to do an introspection of our lives to see if we are suffering from such.
"Orthorexia" disease, the Guardian goes on to report, "Orthorexics (this would be me – thank you very much!) commonly have rigid rules around eating. Refusing to touch sugar, salt, caffeine, alcohol, wheat, gluten, yeast, soya, corn and dairy foods is just the start of their diet restrictions. Any foods that have come into contact with pesticides, herbicides or contain artificial additives are also out."
So attempting to avoid chemicals, dairy, soy and sugar now makes a person like me a mental health patient? According to these experts. If you actually take special care to avoid pesticides, herbicides and genetically modified ingredients like soy and sugar, there's something wrong with you. Shoot, just ask my wife and she’ll tell you that there is something wrong with me apart from these things.
But did you notice that eating junk food is assumed to be "normal?" If you eat processed junk foods laced with synthetic chemicals, that's okay with them. The mental patients are the ones who choose organic and natural foods – they are the sick people of society!
I cannot remember a recent time within the last four years that I have ever eaten junk foods at McDonalds, Taco Bell, Wendy’s, etc. And yes, for not doing this I am a sick puppy which is a primary reason I am a Christian. Jesus said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, except those who are sick. I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance” (Luke 5:32).
I use to think that the worse profession to go into was being a politician. I would tell my kids, “You want to get back at your dad? You want to make me go nuts? You want to give me a serious blow? Be a politician!”
I think I’ll change that. “You want to upset your dad and get the last laugh? Be a psychiatrist.”
By the way, I am joking about the politician remark. The difference between a politician and psychiatrist is that “politicians” are included in the “sinners” category of Luke 5, whereas “psychiatrists” are in the “righteous” box. To the modern day psychiatry movement, Jesus had a “Messianic Nervosa Complexia” disorder. If anyone is to be granted by God eternal life, that person must come to the Savior for forgiveness of his sins. Well that cannot be done if all of issues are given a label that describes a sickness rather than a sin. The behaviors that are good are now labeled “sick” and the behaviors that are not good are consider common or normal.
When the devil fell, he had to turn himself into an angel of light and he did so by becoming the father of psychiatry. Anna Russell put today’s psychiatry in perspective with these words:
I went to my psychiatrist
To be psychoanalyzed
To find out why I killed the cat
And blacked my husband's eyes.
He laid me on a downy couch
To see what he could find,
So this is what he dredged up
From my subconscious mind:
When I was one, my mommy hid
My dolly in a trunk,
And so it follows naturally
That I am always drunk.
When I was two, I saw my father
Kiss the maid one day,
And that is why I suffer now
From kleptomania.
At three, I had the feeling of
Ambivalence towards my brothers,
And so it follows naturally
I poisoned all my lovers.
But I am happy; now I've learned
The lesson this has taught;
That everything I do that's wrong -
Is someone else's fault.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)