Question #1:
Hi Bob,
I recently finished the Song in the KJV and, has become a habit, checked NIV and
was still completely confused. I read your responses in the subject index which
clarified some. Your mention of a chorus helped shed light and related it to
other ancient theater forms with which I am familiar. My question is: Do you
believe what NIV calls "audience" (chorus?) is accurate as well as it's division
of voices? Keeping track of who is speaking in the KJV was very difficult.
In many places it was reading like a love lost teenager or soft porn. I have to
be more careful about what I take literally. I never understood the "Song of
Solomon" and reading of the love given that Solomon had about 700 wives and
untold concubines (which for me calls into question his wisdom) made me wonder
who his lover was. Your explanation that it is the church now makes sense. Still
don't completely understand the book but light is glimmering through. Thank you.
I pray that you and yours are safe and well.
In our Lord,
Response #1:
The Song of Solomon would be a very difficult book to teach verse by verse and
to parse all the very many complicated issues therein, some of which you broach
in this email. I certainly wouldn't want to sign off on the NIV's understanding
of each and every section. Having just finished reading the book in Hebrew, I
can tell you that things are more complicated – in terms of translation,
splitting up of "parts", and exact meaning – than meets the eye in an English
translation. It's not a project I would undertake willingly because there are so
many more profitable books to cover (in terms of what is beneficial to readers
of Ichthys) that even if I lived another 50 years (NOT gonna happen) it wouldn't
make my short list.
The bottom line of the book is the one previous interpreters have also seen,
namely, that it is best taken as an allegory of Christ and His Bride, so that we
can get a sense of how much He loves us – and how much we should love Him – from
reading this book. We are most important to Him and He should be most important
to us. How many of us really do love the Lord as much as we imagine we would
love the perfect soul mate?
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself. For no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as the Lord does the church. For we are members of His body, of His flesh and of His bones. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.” This is a great mystery, but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
Ephesians 5:25-32 NKJV
The poetry of the Song of Songs is lovely in Hebrew, but like much ancient
poetry it is difficult to render into English, and in this case the task is made
even more difficult on account of many "hapax legomena", that is, words which
only occur in this book (and so we have to guess at their meaning).
Hope you are doing well, my friend! Won't be long until it's planting time down
there, I reckon.
Keeping you in my prayers daily.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #2:
Hi Dr L,
Work has been fairly easy, so I have been trying to focus on my dailies.
Thanks so much for your care and prayers!
As I get older, I feel the desire to marry less. Now part of this is
probably because I have a pretty good idea what marriage is like (I
think). I have spent a lot of time over the years reading about what it
is like, and have read a few counseling and related books (to see where
it goes wrong, the weaknesses). And I am NOT knocking anyone who does
it. I just like the idea of the studies I do and learning more about God
and growing closer to Him (and some prayers and some related things).
And I think, so it would at the very least have to be someone who
pursues God (not just believes) via prayer and Bible reading/study. But
then I think, you don't really study together (or I have not seen an
equal benefit compared to solo, but maybe it is because I am
introverted). I find group tasks, if not work related with its
structure, tend to waste a lot of time. And I know women tend to be the
homemakers, which makes sense, don't get me wrong. But I don't want to
give up those hours of learning to homemake. (I mean I do a little for
myself, but much of the time my apartment is messy lol). Again I am not
knocking anyone. I mean I don't even want a house because I don't want
to give up that time and energy and have to take care of a house (again,
I am happy for people who have nice things I don't have). Would you
believe I have also lost almost all interest in fiction reading (outside
of Greek) for a long time? The only times I can get myself to read it is
when I remember Song of Solomon is sort of like fiction and is valuable.
The other thing is that when I read married people's day to day stuff,
there is just so much, it is exhausting for me to read about (to be
fair, you know I haven't had a real family growing up so it could be
that I am not used to the work and energy of that. I don't know if you
know, but for deaf and hard of hearing, when we put on a hearing aid we
get exhausted quickly even when we aren't doing anything and it isn't
noisy because there is still so much input to process that we are not
used to).
So anyway that has been simmering in my thoughts.
By the way, any Greek works to throw at me? Hopefully common ones so I
can use Perseus?
PS: I am putting this here to separate it out because it is important!
As people lose their vision or hearing, they often don't even realize it
because it is slow. But when you lose a lot and don't have all that
stimulation, it is like stopping exercise and you start to lose function
(this is for everyone all ages I am pretty sure). But when you are older
it can mean dementia (I don't think young people get that). I am only
saying this because I care about you very much, so please be careful
about your hearing and exercising your mind. I mean I think your mind is
on a much higher level than mine, so it is possible it wouldn't affect
you at all since you know and read in so many languages. But please be
careful? When I got glasses I was shocked by how much eyesight I had
lost and not noticed. Please take care of yourself.
I was rereading old stuff you wrote for book buying and now I feel like
what I wrote to you is a waste of time lol. Could you just respond on
how Song of Solomon should be classified (or send a link)? That is the
only real thing I think.
I do really hope you are well.
PPS: On the Song of Solomon, I just meant that my understanding is that
it is not literal, it is a parable; *allegory not parable. Right? And if
stories like that are useful, maybe fiction stories are too.
Response #2:
First, it's my pleasure to pray for you – thanks so much for your prayers for me
also!
I belong to the camp that sees Song of Solomon as an allegory about the love
between the Lord and His people, that is (in the way we would say it today),
about Christ and His Bride, the Church. Then there is also the fact that once we
we understand that relationship, there is a parallel for the proper love of
husband and wife for each other (cf. Eph.5:22-33). Working out the details for
this book would require much more time and effort than I personally am able to
give it. So there's not much on the site about this (links):
SS1;
SS2;
SS3.
On Greek, well, we're doing Aeschylus' Agamemnon in my upper level Greek class
in the spring. Of course, we're spending the entire semester on it, so that
might be slower than what you're interested in. Aeschylus is great, but very
difficult (especially the choral passages).
In terms of marriage, what you say makes sense. Paul says pretty much the same
thing:
But this I say, brethren, the time is short, so that from now on even those who have wives should be as though they had none, those who weep as though they did not weep, those who rejoice as though they did not rejoice, those who buy as though they did not possess, and those who use this world as not misusing it. For the form of this world is passing away. But I want you to be without care. He who is unmarried cares for the things of the Lord—how he may please the Lord. But he who is married cares about the things of the world—how he may please his wife. There is a difference between a wife and a virgin. The unmarried woman cares about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and in spirit. But she who is married cares about the things of the world—how she may please her husband. And this I say for your own profit, not that I may put a leash on you, but for what is proper, and that you may serve the Lord without distraction.
1st Corinthians 7:29-35 NKJV
Thanks for your concern about my health, my friend. The eyes and ears aren't
what they used to be, but they're still in pretty good shape. No indications of
any trouble on the brain front (no more than ever, that is ).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #3:
Hi Bob,
On Polygamy generally, I was writing up something about
it yesterday, as it sort of came up tangentially when I was covering God's
essential plan for marriage (as in, like, Genesis 2:23-24 and Matthew 19:4-6). I
hadn't done much research or thinking on the subject until now.
Here's something you've written in the past about it (from an email Q&A):
"So while certain things were tolerated in the Old Testament and even regulated (like slavery and polygamy), and while the same such things are not strictly prohibited in the New Testament (like slavery and polygamy), we as prudent, God-fearing believers in Jesus Christ should recognize that there is a difference between things which may be permitted but are very bad for us on the one hand, and God smiling upon such actions as we indulge ourselves in them on the other. Just as I would never advise another believer to be a party to slavery, so I would never advise a believer to be a party to polygamy. In fact, I would strenuously advise all believers to stay as far as possible away from both of these ancient “institutions”, because no good could ever come from either of them, and, on the other hand, much evil is sure to come to anyone involved in either of them."
If I understood properly, these statements would be true:
1) The Bible never calls polygamy (and/or having concubines) outright sinful
2) So polygamy falls into the category of "all things are permissible, but not
all things are beneficial"
3) But unlike some other areas which may go one way or the other depending upon
circumstances, polygamy is always suboptimal. No exceptions.
And we would say (singular) marriage itself is different:
1) The Bible is clear that marrying is not a sin (cf. 1 Corinthians 7)
2) Marriage too falls into the category of "all things are permissible, but not
all things are beneficial"
3) But unlike polygamy, marriage is not a universally suboptimal choice to make,
since God does not empower all to be able to remain single successfully (and
whether or not one is empowered in such a way is not exactly within one's own
control, but God's control). So people who can remain single should (and
marriage would be strictly suboptimal for such people, just like in the case of
polygamy---which is basically the point of 1 Corinthians 7), but not everybody
belongs to that category, is all, but only those "to whom it has been given"
(i.e., by God)---Matthew 19:11, and cf. 1 Corinthians 7:7.
This makes the two situations fundamentally different, correct? Just want to
make sure I understand the differences between the cases correctly.
Re: Avoiding legalism when it comes to teaching on polygamy?
I bumped into a good many positions that seemed to view polygamy as outright
sinful. I could link you to examples, but suffice it to say that that seems to
be "popular opinion", if you will.
It made me uneasy because the Bible never calls it outright sin, and we do have
great believers like Abraham (if you count concubines = Hagar), Jacob, and David
who certainly were involved in the practice. (Solomon too, but his case is
called out particularly harshly in scripture).
I don't feel comfortable sitting in judgement over these men, generally
speaking. Yet as I was writing up my other section re: God's plan for marriage,
I kept bumping into what one might term the "ideal". More or less, God's plan
for marriage in Genesis 2:23-24, Matthew 19:4-6, and Ephesians 5:21-33 seems to
be between just one man and one woman, and it seems impossible to get around
that in any way.
These statements seem to me to be very often bandied about when it comes to this
subject:
Monogamy is the path that is God’s ideal for marriage
God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman
I feel like I kept balking at these statements when reading them in other places
because they kept showing up alongside scathing judgement and condemnation of
the OT practice as outright sinful.
Yet, now that I've tried to separate them from that context, it seems to me like
we can affirm both of those statements as true without at the same time
considering polygamy sinful, just "permissible but not beneficial" = always
suboptimal, basically.
Is that the correct appraisal of the matter?
Sinful vs. wrong vs. suboptimal?
Response #3:
On marriage and polygamy, polygamy is illegal in this country so we can probably
leave that one right there viewed from any practical point of view. If we want
to get theoretical, marriage is where the vast majority of the human race ends
up and the Bible anticipates that (marriage was invented by God for the entire
human race, not just believers (e.g., Gen.2:18: "It is not good that man should
be alone"). So we might say that celibacy and polygamy are on the opposite ends
of the scale with the former potentially beneficial to spirituality with the
latter potentially harmful. But even there it's only potential. After all, David
had multiple wives and was one of the greatest believers of all time; Abraham'
and Moses' situations are a bit different but these examples are still not in
consonance with either statement you provide: 1) "Monogamy is the path that is
God’s ideal for marriage" or 2) "God’s original intention was for one man to be
married to only one woman"; so it would be wrong to say that polygamy is a
guarantee of spiritual failure or of God's displeasure. But again, it's illegal
in this country and it's surely not God's will for believers to violate the law.
Furthermore, all one has to do to debunk the idea that celibacy guarantees
spiritual success or of God's good pleasure is to look at the history of the
Roman Catholic church: how many of the horrible things so many priests have done
over so many years might never have happened if they'd been married? Since
marriage is likely and hard to avoid for anyone wishing to stay clear of gross
sexual sin (1Cor.7:2), and since polygamy is illegal, I think we have better
things to spend our time on than worrying about this. As to the construct . . .
Monogamy is the path that is God’s ideal for marriage
God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman
. . . I object to the use of the word "ideal" in the first point since after
Eden marriage is anything but and "ideally" we could do without it. Marriage is
trouble, a necessary tribulation for the human race in general, but trouble none
the less (1Cor.7:28). One thing is sure: anyone looking for marriage to make
them happy is going to be very disappointed. Unhappy people are generally made
more unhappy by marriage. Happy people might be able to preserve some of the
happiness they bring with them into marriage, depending on their spouse (it
takes two to be anything like happy but only one to bring on unhappiness).
On the second point, I object to "original intention" for two reasons: 1) it
makes it sound as if God had to change His mind somehow, which is of course
ridiculous (to put the best spin on it); 2) while yes indeed our Lord makes the
point that "from the beginning" the two became "one flesh" so that it is not
appropriate to split what God has joined – but splits there are (since this is
not the garden of Eden). And what do the disciples say about all this and what
does our Lord respond?
His disciples said to Him, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” But He said to them, "All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given".
Matthew 19:10-11 NKJV
The above makes it clear, since our Lord doesn't disagree with their assessment, that indeed 1) it is better not to marry, but also that 2) this is impossible for all but the very few. So again, both points, especially taken together, seem to put marriage on a pedestal when in fact in scripture it is "a necessary trouble" even if not a necessary evil. It is better to be realistic about the issue. Romanticism has caused a lot of disappointment and led to a lot of bad decisions. Expecting too much from marriage is idolizing it, and that is never a good thing to do.
So we rejoice with all of our brothers and sisters who have made happy lives
with happy marriages . . . but for those who are not married it is best not to
underestimate the hard work, suffering and sacrifice that was necessary to
achieve that.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #4:
Hi Bob
Thanks for your reply. I was being vague with the intention of not
bothering you with it till after Christmas!
Truth is, I heard something unsettling that undermined me. I will lay
out what I know, on which I have been standing: “divorce” means divorce,
and “marries” means actually married, not some limbo. Deut 24, Paul’s
teaching, and if we can sometimes infer things from silence, both he and
Jesus did not say to undo these marriages, yet Paul spends a lot of
precious paper on instructing the Corinthians on how to sort out their
relationships, many of which must have been like mine in that culture,
and we have no record or mention of such divorces happening.
And this is what I mean by tenses, which I feel is important: I look at
Matt 19:9 where Jesus said that someone who divorces and marries another
commits adultery, and I read somewhere that’s a present indicative. I
understand the statement to indicate discontinuous adultery (if I may
call it such) because of that tense, and also that the committing of
adultery will take its sense from that of “divorces” and “marries
another” which are obviously not linear. Therefore it must be the act of
remarrying that is adulterous rather than the state of being remarried,
and so I am safe in my repentance.
I admit to never quite having got my guilty head round that marvel. I
feel like I’ve got my cake and eaten it, and can’t believe how fortunate
I am! Such is forgiveness, and yet if I’d not married again, I would not
be able to stay with him by marrying him now, I don’t suppose. It’s a
very strange position to be in, an uncomfortable gratitude. A touch of
imposter syndrome perhaps.
Here’s what unsettled me again: I was listening to Mike Winger who has a
YouTube channel and website called Bible Thinker. I have listened to a
fair few of his videos. And he agrees that remarried divorcees should
repent but stay married. Currently he’s working through a sequence on
Women in Ministry, and has reached the topic of 2 Timothy 2:12 “I do not
permit a woman to teach or have authority over a man….” He wanted to be
egalitarian and yet has found he has changed his mind to now be
complementarian, while not strict patriarchal. Here’s the matter: He
said that egalitarians put weight on “not permit” being a present
indicative and therefore they want to say that Paul’s prohibition wasn’t
for all time. However Mike thought that was not what was meant here, and
Paul does sound very emphatic. It’s hard to ignore. So I just heard
“present indicative” given a sense of continuation and broke out into a
sweat, and a big hole where my stomach should be! If a present
indicative can switch flavours, so to speak, what about Matt 19? I
started to feel insecure again, you see? Thank you for reminding me that
a little Greek is dangerous. Mike is not a scholar, but he does try his
best. What do you think please?
I bless you for taking pity on me. Thank you so much. I am too old to
cope with such stresses, and a hormone excess that predisposes me to
anxiety! I hear what you say about Satan and our weaknesses.
And may I share this about John 1:12-13? Just for the interest? Why do
you think it says we have been given the right to become children of
God, and not just to find we are, once we believe? It sounded like we
could fail to avail ourselves of that right somehow. Which of course
worried me! Then yesterday I came afresh to another reference to
children of God, the angels in Genesis 6 (seems to me they are angelic
beings 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude vv6-7). These are sons of God who left their
estate, took earthly women, and are fallen, (not sure what was cause and
what was effect as regards their rebellion since they also followed one
who wanted to be like God. And angels do not marry). They lost their
rights, they’re in chains, and yet we, through Christ, are given rights
to become sons of God, redeemed and translated out of our estate as sons
of Adam. That made me feel like I’d been missing something special about
being born again! A right is an important thing to be treasured, and a
huge honour. My jaw dropped at that thought!
I must leave you in peace and wish you a very blessed Christmas.
Thank you again
In Christ
Response #4:
When you say "divorce means divorce" I have no problem with that,
except that the word "divorce" doesn't actually occur in scripture;
divorce is an English word which is sometimes used to translate various
different words and phrases in the Old and New Testaments, so I don't
think that is helpful for figuring out precisely what is meant. We have
to look at the individual passages. When you say "marries means
actually married" there I would definitely quibble. "Marries" means
"marries"; "married" means "married". These are different words in
English and the same is true in Greek and Hebrew. Again, we have to look
at the passages. The Bible means what it means. People infer the wrong
things from it all the time, especially when they are looking at it for
"one issue" purposes. Better to read it all and learn it all so as to be
able to discern aright whatever it says in the entire context of
scripture.
Re: "relationships, many of which must have been like mine in that
culture". If you mean people who have divorced and remarried, that
is no doubt the case. But the culture of the ancient world was different
in significant ways on this set of issues. We have no polygamy to speak
of nowadays (it's rare and illegal, not true in antiquity). We have no
arranged marriages to speak of nowadays (it's rare and non-binding, not
the case in antiquity). Also, it's relatively easy to get a divorce
today in this country, but there are consequences. The rules were
different in antiquity, and that affects the comparison as well. One
could go on. So, again, we have to look at what scripture actually says.
Re: "we have no record or mention of such divorces happening". I
wouldn't put any weight on that since we have "no record" of most things
when it comes to Christian churches of the time. The only Christian
couple I can think of whom we know of by name are Priscilla and Aquilla.
And we only have a handful of names of any early Christians at all. But
most of the nameless early believers would have been married. How their
lives and relationships played out, we can speculate but not know. It is
true that Paul does spend "a lot of ink" on these issues in 1st
Corinthians chapter seven, but even so, obviously, he doesn't address
every possible aspect of them (as can be seen from all the ink I've had
to spill!). So, again, we have to look at what each scripture actually
says.
Re: "Therefore it must be the act of remarrying that is adulterous
rather than the state of being remarried, and so I am safe in my
repentance." Yes, that is what the passage says. "If anyone marries
. . . he/she commits" and not "If anyone is married to . .
. he/she is committing". If that were the case, 1) it would seem that
our Lord would have given further direction about getting divorced
(again) and getting remarried to spouse #1 (again), but He says nothing
of the sort; 2) it would seem that there would be something about this
in 1st Corinthians chapter seven as well; after all, there must have
been some large number of individuals who prior to conversion had been
divorced and remarried. But there's nothing about that either. I always
like to remind people about the reason for our Lord's words in context:
castigating hard-hearted men who were using the Law wrongly to advantage
themselves with no concern for the damage they were doing to innocent
partners – NOT to engender a new round of divorces and re-marriages.
On the Greek, it's not the tense that matters, it's the meaning of the
verbs. If our Lord had said "I do not permit a couple to stay married if
one is divorced" that would be different. I don't think there is
anything in either passage which is specially illuminated by the moods
and tenses in the Greek; one can grasp the clear meaning from any good
English translation – one just needs to actually listen to what the
verses actually say. Here are some links:
Undeserved Suffering in Marriage: Peter #35
Jephthah's Daughter, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage.
A conversation about divorce and remarriage.
Feelings of Guilt about Remarriage.
On John 1:12-13, this is just another way to say the same thing. In other words, it wouldn't be correct to take John's phrasing to mean that we aren't children of God when we believe. If one wants to be technical about it, this is an epistolary tense problem, which is to say, John is writing to people of varied spiritual status who will read what he says later, and so he phrases it from that future historical point of view. If he were present, he would have probably said, "You have the right to become children of God!" or if speaking to believers only, "You are children of God! Becoming so was your right!" Compare what John says later on:
See what great love the Father has lavished on us, that we should be called children of God! And that is what we are!
1st John 3:1a NIV
Being born again is indeed a great privilege and right! We are bought
with the blood of Christ. Very nice observation on your part!
Here's a link on the issue of Genesis six:
Satan's antediluvian attack on the purity of the human line (the
Nephilim)
Wishing you and yours a very merry Christmas as well!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #5:
Hi Dr L!
How was your break? Mine was pretty good. There was one thing that I
wanted to ask. So I went to the Dinner with a friend at her place and
brought a dish I worked on for over an hour. And there were kids there.
Unfortunately one of them sneezed on it so I didn't get to try it. And
also one of the kids was playing with a knife, and the mother was trying
to pull it out of his hand, with the sharp edge IN HIS HAND. And also
afterwards, they ran around making A LOT of noise (there was no debate
in the group that they were loud). So I think, I would rather not do
that next time and either go to a dinner with no kids or just make
Dinner at my place and enjoy by myself.
But some would argue Christians should be forbearing of parents (bearing
each other's burdens) because families are so important, but don't they
need to meet us halfway instead of making all the adults almost servants
to the kids? Especially because you don't know how sick someone can get
from the sneezing germs and it isn't like the parents would pay for the
time off work they missed because someone got sick. This set up is
basically everyone is almost idolatrous (but maybe I am being
overdramatic, but if you HAVE to sacrifice your health and sanity to the
whims of parents who can't be bothered, I mean I only do that for God).
I know the Lord also loved kids and I don't know what He would think. It
is self absorbed, the conclusion I made before? I mean I don't blame the
kids directly of course.
Tell me if I am crazy.
Response #5:
It is a truism that other people's children can be annoying if not
well-behaved . . . but that our own can do no wrong.
My brother and I were PKs and my mom brooked absolutely no misbehavior
in public or when parishioners were over for dinner. She was not a
strict disciplinarian by any means, but in public settings there was
definitely the right way and the wrong way – and you found out PDQ if
you were getting anywhere near the wrong way. You would have had no
problem with any dinner with us.
It does seem that nowadays the whole idea of helping children learn
what's right and wrong through measured correction has been lost in
large measure, with some being overly strict to no apparent good result
and many more being unwilling to "train up their child" . . . putting
said child in a position to have to learn the hard way when their
parents are no longer running things.
So you're not crazy. But children, even the best of them, do require an
awful lot of patience, energy and love. Being a good parent is very hard
work. But it can be quite rewarding as well. The Lord has different
things for each of us, just the right things for those of us who humbly
seek His will through the truth, trusting Him to bring it all to pass in
the right way and at the right time.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #6:
Oh last thing because I forgot and you may find it interesting. So there is a
subreddit called Two X (women focused) where women post things related to the
woman experience (and there are millions of members, so you'll get hundreds to
thousands of replies to a post). Anyway I posted what happened because I wasn't
sure what to make of it or how women in older days would handle it. The vast,
vast majority said they would not eat food sneezed on by a kid (many of them had
kids too). And also that there used to be kid tables for kids (and I remember
this now myself), so this wouldn't have been an issue. Because I do remember
really young that us kids would not have been allowed to mess up the adult
stuff. At all. I don't mean to blame the kids. Just that a lot of parents seem
to force other people to deal with the kids >insert Greek word for tyrant here<
over everyone (which is not the kid's fault, since they don't know anything)-or
at least that is the effect of it (it seems like).
So I appreciate what you are saying. I just want to also add that "annoying" is
one thing, but something that can seriously harm another's health or ability to
put food on the table (especially now when many are on the margins of being able
to afford basic things) is more than annoying. If it were an adult doing this to
another adult (knowingly putting them at real risk of sickness just out of
laziness), we would say it was evil, right? Please don't take this the wrong
way. I am NOT blaming the kids, because they are just learning and don't have
habits down yet, and I can tell you I did 'actually' bad things knowingly as a
kid (which I regret). I hope I am not frustrating you. Anyway I will get back to
dailies and let you get back to your stuff!
Response #6:
On the issue of children, I do see what you are saying. The fault with
"out of control" kids lies first and foremost with the parents (that was
what I was trying to convey). If the kids are going to sit at the big
table, they need to behave like "big people". And if they don't, then
the parents need to take them in hand. And if they don't, they're not
doing anyone any favors in the long run (Prov.13:24; 23:13-14).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #7:
I continue to pray for you and your ministry daily. I thank the Lord so
much for you! If you could pray for me as well to better balance out my
spiritual production time. A few unspoken prayer requests in there as
well.
Forgive me for bringing this subject up again (I know myself and others
have really exhausted this topic over many years) but I am just trying
to understand these passages I mention below. My questions don't involve
or have anything to do with me. I don't consider myself gifted in the
area under discussion yet am very doubtful marriage will even occur at
this point since we probably have less than three years left till the
tribulation. Believe me, I'm ok with that. God knows what is best. I
know we are to live in the present and not base our decisions on future
events (we should also live as if the tribulation could or may begin
tomorrow), but I am not forcing the issue of marriage and have chosen to
remain in the state I am in. I'm not worried about it either. If God
wants it to happen, then it will occur. If not, well, there you go.
Marriage is hard to imagine for myself at this point. First, there is no
telling how long it would take for me just to meet someone from this
point forward. Then, how long would we date until getting engaged? On
top of that, even more time must elapse until the wedding. Quite
frankly, I feel I wouldn't be able to enjoy the marriage relationship
(mentally, physically, spiritually) much at all because who knows how
long the tribulation would have already been upon us. I'm starting to
think, "what's the point at this rate?" I mean, if the Lord still
intends it, well, I can't argue with that. But I'm perfectly fine
entering and enduring the tribulation single. To be honest with you
professor, I'm not cut out to have and raise kids, believe me, I know
myself well enough. That puts a huge damper on things because just about
every woman you know wants children, something I don't feel would be
good for me spiritually or mentally.
More to the point, I ask these questions simply because I just want to
understand what these verses are saying and not saying. I mean, we all
read our Bibles to understand the truth and apply it. So I chose to ask
for help after exhausting myself over these passages (leading to
burnout). I already know your advice: single, stay single- married, stay
married, etc., but I'm not asking about that. Again, I'm just trying to
understand these passages and harmonize any seeming contradictions
(there are, of course, no contradictions at all).
First, can we really say Matthew 19:9-12 is referring to a gift of
celibacy (as if that was the point)? I searched for other people's take
on these verses and the below is something that stuck out to me. Do you
think this person's explanation is reasonable/accurate?
Jesus told them something they found harshly difficult to abide by:
divorce for reasons other than marital infidelity, followed by
remarriage, violates God's commandment against adultery. The disciples
knew that the physical and emotional strains within some marriages were
so intense, it seemed like a mercy to exempt those folks from wrongdoing
if they divorced and remarried. But Jesus said, not so. But he
recognized that a lot of people will refuse to accept this and will
divorce & remarry anyway: "Not all men can receive this saying... he
that is able to receive it (the saying), let him receive it." In the
part about 'making oneself a eunuch for the kingdom's sake,' Jesus told
them that if one intentionally purposes to remain celibate ("to make
oneself a eunuch", as opposed to one who is forced by circumstance to be
one) so as to honor & serve God, it is a very good thing. But there is
no mention of a "gift of celibacy" in this passage, and IMO it's been
misconstrued by some.
https://forums.anglican.net/threads/is-celibacy-always-a-gift.5041/
Moving on from that, I was studying 1 Corinthians 7 and came up with the
following questions:
(1. In verse 26, does the present crisis refer to the final 2,000 years
of the church age (the last hour as John calls it in 1 John 2:18) or to
some present or impending crisis the Corinthians were about to face? Or
could it refer to both as a dual application?
(2. In verse 38, why does Paul state that the person who remains single
does better than the man who chooses to marry if most people are
supposed to get married because they lack the "gift of celibacy?" If
marriage is better for most (better to marry than to burn with
desire/passion), why does Paul come out and make it sound as if celibacy
is best for all? I know there is no contradiction here (it is only
seeming), but these verses throw me off. Was he applying it only to
those with the gift (as in, only if the shoe fits you are better
remaining single)? The problem is that it sounds as if Paul compares
someone without the gift to someone with it and still makes it sound as
if celibacy is always better. How do we harmonize these verses? It just
seems that in order to make this work, we would have to say Paul was
comparing two men who both had the gift because those who can remain
celibate should and are better off doing so. I'm confused. I know that
Paul is only giving his opinion as a concession since there are no
commands in these verses. But that doesn't have much to do with my
question because Paul's opinion is pretty much the same as a factual
truth since what he says is still divinely inspired and trustworthy. I
do also understand that Christians should never rush into marriage or
force it but wait on the Lord's timing. But it just doesn't seem like
that is what Paul means by saying the unmarried do better and are
happier as they are. It just sounds like he means "single for life."
(3. Finally, does verse 40 indicate that a person can lack the gift of
celibacy for certain times of their life but not others (or vice versa)?
Does God grant people this gift if they ask for empowerment even if they
don't actually have it? Or is it the case that (like real spiritual
gifts), once you have it, you have it for the rest of your life? In
other words, despite lacking the gift, can someone just say to God "I
want to remain celibate for life and pray that you will grant me the
ability to do so" and He would grant that request? We know that God can
do anything, but the question is WOULD He do something like that? Can or
does it even work like that?
Assuming the divorced widow doesn't have the gift of celibacy, why would
Paul think she is happier single for the rest of her life if she may be
better off getting married? If you don't have the gift because it is
better to marry than burn, wouldn't a person be happier and better off
getting married again? How do we reconcile verse 9 to verse 40?
In His grace and power,
Response #7:
Thanks for the kind words. I'm happy to discuss this with you.
I do think it is true that having children is a normal part of marriage
and that marriage is a normal part of life. That is something God has
set up for the entire human race, not just for believers.
When Paul says in 1st Corinthians 7:7 "one [is gifted] this way, one
that way", he doesn't actually say that there is a "spiritual gift of
celibacy", and I believe in such discussions I have made that clear in
the past too. That is not to say that being supported by the Lord to be
able to stay single and not fall into gross sin does not mean that said
person who is supported is not being helped, given help from the Lord –
which we could call a gift – but that is not the same thing as having
the gift of, e.g., pastor-teacher. Some of us are gifted with robust
health, others not so much. But the former is also not a spiritual gift
per se.
Bottom line: if we need to or are going to be single, the Lord will
provide us with what we need for that. If we need to be married, the
Lord will provide us with a spouse in due time. These things are not
independent of what is going on in our own hearts and manifesting in our
behavior, however. Which is to say, if we are determined to be married,
we are probably going to get married (whether or not that is from God or
turns out to be a blessing is another matter). Also, if we are
determined to stay single the better to serve the Lord, He will honor
that . . . and He may give us a wife too, especially if we need one more
than we've been willing to admit.
I do believe the time is short, but what you say here about doing what
we purpose to do in following Christ is what we should do regardless of
the clock is exactly correct. If the Lord wants you married, that could
be a done deal in a week or less – or it could take years. We do not
know what is going to happen or how the Lord will work things out. We do
place our petitions before Him and trust Him to work things out for the
good.
I don't see any contradictions in all this. Matthew 19:9-12 it seems to
me is saying exactly what we find in 1st Corinthians chapter seven. Some
people purpose to stay single for the sake of the kingdom of God. But
many have done superbly well being married. I know such people. Peter
and James were such people (to name a few). And David had many wives.
As to the person on the Anglican forum, I don't know many (any?)
Catholics of whose salvation I am confident. So I always am loath to put
any credence in what unbelievers say. I will say that I have a
completely different understanding of the passage. The disciples thought
that not being able to divorce a woman meant disaster (how would she
then be obedient?). But our Lord in verses 11-12 is not speaking about
the divorce issue at all (which is what correspondent seems to think);
rather He is responding to the "better not to marry" comment and telling
them that not everyone can handle not being married, exactly as Paul
says.
As to 1st Corinthians 7:26, I take that in the first sense, not the
second (except that the crisis has been in play then and now and in
between).
As to "doing better" by not getting married, that is a godly thing to
say and the Spirit supported it. I would also wish everyone's default to
be "don't do it" rather than "go ahead and do it". It's better to look
before leaping, obviously. If we could do better with our fight by not
being married than by being married, how is that not obviously better?
But if we can't, then better to marry, approaching the subject with all
prudence – as you are doing.
Finally, again, I don't think there is a GIFT; rather, gracious divine
support to help us through in a single situation – as we are supported
with and in all of our needs.
So I believe all of this is a lot simpler than it is sometimes made out,
that it all passes the obvious "common sense" test, and with no
contradictions.
Keeping you in my daily prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #8:
Thanks for the response.
I already understood the "gift" wasn't the same as the type of gift(s)
each and every believer receives at salvation to serve the church
through ministry. Maybe the way I phrased things gave you that
impression? My initial understanding of it before I emailed you was that
it is an "enablement" from God. Are you saying that, in order not to
confuse people, we should avoid the phrase "gift of celibacy?"
Also, just to clarify, (in case you misread) I never said there were any
contradictions. I meant there were "seeming" but no actual
contradictions at all since Scripture never contradicts itself. Just
want to be clear there. I would never say such a thing.
Re: "It's better to look before leaping, obviously. If we could do
better with our fight by not being married than by being married, how is
that not obviously better? But if we can't, then better to marry,
approaching the subject with all prudence"
I take it this is the meaning of verse 38 (he who does not marry her
does better) and verse 40 (she is happier if she remains as she is)?
Tell me if this is right- Paul wasn't saying that it was better or best
for all or even most believers to remain single the rest of their lives
but that all should "wait it out" through time, patience, and spiritual
growth. Better to wait on the Lord's timing then go rushing into
something one is not ready for (or something that was never meant to
be).
You've mentioned many times that most believers (people in general)
aren't capable of living on their own their whole lives (they lack the
divine support or enablement to remain single for life). Therefore, most
of them should get married. However, they shouldn't force the issue or
rush it because that could cause great spiritual harm and/or compromise.
Therefore, they should stay single and wait on the Lord's timing through
dedicated spiritual growth. Undoubtedly, there are also probably more
people out there who have the enablement then we realize, so Paul didn't
want those with the "gift" to marry if they were/are capable of staying
single. He didn't want everyone plunging headlong into marriage (more
people assuming marriage was God's will for them than was and is
actually the case). The only way to discern the Lord's will is to wait
and see through spiritual growth. But so many believers today and in
times past "don't want to wait" and that is what Paul is pushing back
against here. Did I get this right? Am I understanding all this
correctly?
Your brother in Christ,
Response #8:
OK, no worries – sorry for any misunderstanding on this end. "Enablement"
(rather than "gift") is a good way to put it.
Yes, this is my interpretation of verse 38. Paul is just stating the facts, "all
other things being equal" . . . which of course they are not. He puts it this
way, as mentioned, to dispose believers toward being careful rather than being
rash.
So I think your last paragraph is right on the money. I would say though in
respect to what Paul "wanted", that he wanted Jesus Christ to be glorified and
for all of us to earn the best possible reward. Everything else is merely
practical: what's the best way to do that, given who we are and given what we
are capable of (and not)?
So, again, I think this is all a great deal simpler than it is sometimes made
out to be. Better to serve the Lord full out in this life, but what "full out"
means in terms of what we are able and willing to do as individuals varies
greatly. Marriage "is what it is", and going into it without illusions is
important, but plenty of believers have fought excellent fights for the Lord
with their lives while being married (and plenty of single people have not).
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #9:
Doc what's your Scriptural basis for saying abuse kills a marriage, even might be grounds for divorce depending on how bad it is? There are people who, with a straight face, unironically believe that if someone turns out to be abusive when you marry them, that if you don't see through their lies, it's basically your fault you're in that abusive relationship, and that you need to take the brunt of your foolishness and try to honor God with the relationship(!?). There's even all sorts of fire and brimstone spewed at people who divorce to escape from their abuse...it hardly sounds fair or just to put it lightly. So do you oppose these sentiments?
Response #9:
Well, if you're dead, there's no more marriage; and many abusive marriages end up in the death of one spouse. Further, the Bible anticipates separation (1Cor.7:11; 7:15-18). Can you find me anywhere in scripture where physical abuse of a spouse is justified? Here's the biblical standard:
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her, that He might sanctify and cleanse her with the washing of water by the word, that He might present her to Himself a glorious church, not having spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and without blemish. So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself.
Ephesians 5:25-28 NKJV
I don't believe any pastor-teacher worth his salt would counsel a woman
to remain in a situation where she is being abused. As to the scurrilous
screeds one finds on the internet, there is lots about this on Ichthys.
Try starting with the latest posting,
Marriage and the Bible XII,
and work your way back in the series from there.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #10:
Doc, I have a question, you don't have to put this one on your site if you don't
feel like it...
Some people claim ancient Israelites would have people available for marry
pretty much as soon as they were in puberty...was this just for people around
that age or with adults too like some of them claim? Several records supposedly
state that the Hebrews considered 20 to be the age of adulthood...how did this
work exactly?
Now I have no interest in anyone under 18 regardless, I find that disgusting
morally and otherwise, along with the part of these people who say that they
don't agree with it just because that's how it was done back then (and I assume
you'd be among that group as well), I just want to know the truth on this
because these claims have been bothering me for some reason.
Response #10:
As to "Some people claim ancient Israelites would have people available for
marry pretty much as soon as they were in puberty": All we know for certain
is what is contained in the Bible. I don't know of any biblical evidence for any
trend of ancient Israelites marrying any earlier than anyone else. It is
certainly true that in rural economies in the past people have tended to marry
earlier than is the case today – no high school, no college, people tended to
get on with life earlier. So even if there were some truth to what "some people
claim", it would be an apples and oranges comparison since things are different
today.
As to " Several records supposedly state that the Hebrews considered 20 to be
the age of adulthood...how did this work exactly?": The only things I know
of in scripture are the census for males "able to wage war" (20 years old and
older was the age for those to be counted: Ex.30:14; Num.1:3; 1:18ff.; 26:2-4;
also redemption values based on this age: Ex.38:26; Lev.27:3-5). Levites were
eligible to enter service at 25 (Num.8:24), and for tabernacle service at the
age of 30 (Num.4:3-39). Our Lord was "about thirty" when He began His earthly
ministry prior to the cross (Lk.3:23). These ages seem to me to be fairly
comparable to the way we see things today, so I'm not seeing any basis for using
scripture to shift our view of what is a reasonable and what an unreasonable age
to consider marriage.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #11:
Hi Bob, Greetings and I hope things are going well. I was just about to send you
a letter today corresponding in a totally different positive manner, but I will
save it for now to address an issue that reared its ugly head this morning. This
divisive relationship has been going on for two decades. Today, I received
another of a long line of “nasty grams" from __. __ sent one earlier this week.
The gist, along with all of the appropriate scriptures, and “thoughtful
preaching”, is that I (and my current wife) cannot go to heaven because we’re
living in sin, with no thought of repentance nor restitution. The charge ---
unlawful divorce, followed by unlawful remarriage. The reality is that I
petitioned for the divorce due to suffering unrelented severe physical, verbal
and emotional abuse, along with her abandonment to work things out. I never laid
a hand on her or abused her in any way. Remarriage in their book (the bible)
amounts to something like “perpetual adultery”, with the penalty of damnation to
hell. Now if that was true that would be a sobering thought --- eternal hell for
the “divorce and remarriage evil”. (as per a church tract I received a couple
decades ago). Thanks for the “hot tip” you guys. Now I can do A & B and this
will no longer be a “hangup”. Bob, I really know this is false, and they quite
possibly are in far more danger of the “heat” then they would like to admit to.
Such is the sin of self-righteous, judgmental legalism. They mean well, and are
looking for an “attaboy” from Jesus, for bringing another rank sinner like
myself back from hell to heaven. I was in that church back in 1995, along with
my four daughters. Three of my daughters and myself escaped. Soon after leaving
I received the “official” disfellowship letter from the church. They stated
their righteous reason --- “unfaithful to the church covenant”. I just smiled,
torched the letter, while murmuring “good riddance to bad rubbish!” The most
unfortunate part here is that one daughter did not escape, but instead ended up
marrying a young man who also was a pastor in this very same church. This event
coupled with his narcissistic personality was certainly a recipe for disaster,
but I was praying for the best despite what I knew to be a toxic church
environment (did not yet know, the narcissism component). Well, my speculation,
unfortunately, proved true --- they became locked hard into this legalistic
program. All this self-righteous, judgmental stuff caused an estrangement
between us that made it impossible to have any relationship whatsoever. I heard
through the grapevine they quit the church, due to some internal division, but
now they opted for what seems like to me is even more sinister ---a “holiness”
church. (The name sounds good enough, but “there’s something rotten in
Denmark!”). This is what I like to call “religion run amuck”, which
unfortunately is par for the course in our Laodicean age, even though they would
claim to be red hot for Jesus. No shortage of “angel of light” frauds out there!
Thanks, Bob, for helping with my spiritual growth! I’m getting better at
“sniffing out” the false teachers and false approaches (it’s a veritable
pandemic!). The trouble with them has gotten worse, and I mean a lot worse.
[details of abuse omitted] They both need prayer --- for the miracle of being
rescued from this toxic brew, swimming in it for over 2 decades. However, I will
still believe that “with God all things are possible”.
Your friend in Jesus,
Response #11:
I'm very sorry to hear that you're having to deal with this heartache in your
family. But I am delighted to see how strongly grounded you are in the truth so
as to slough off these false teachings without letting them bother you overly! I
can tell you (and you will see if you read the links) that for some people this
canard about "constant adultery" for anyone who is remarried has caused all
manner of mental anguish for poor Christians who have been assailed by this
satanic false teaching. Why do people get into this? First, lack of respect for
the truth always leads to adopting some sort of lie – that is the explanation
behind most of what is going on in Laodicea. Second, never under-estimate the
power of the appeal of self-righteousness. After all, we see how strong it was
with Paul – until the Lord set him straight – and has always been with
legalistic types, whether Judaizers or Messianics or Roman Catholics or Mormons,
etc. – but I've never known a true believer in Christ who had this problem.
Believers, born again, born from above ones, know that they need God's mercy and
grace. Those who feel they are perfect love to go persecute those they feel are
not. It gives them some sort of sick pleasure to do so. And it can be profitable
too: when they find good-hearted believers who are vulnerable emotionally on
this score (and who lack a doctrinal backbone of truth), they can easily enslave
them. And once you give up everything to join Jim Jones or David Koresh or the
JWs or a holiness church, well, it's very hard to go back since you've burned
all your bridges and invested all you have. So why not take out your rage and
unhappiness on others. It's sick, but it's right in the devil's wheelhouse.
Moses was divorced and remarried. And I have a feeling we're going to see him
seated at Christ's right hand.
Jesus told the Pharisees that under the Mosaic Law – for those living under the
Law – that the act of divorcing one's wife for selfish reasons so as to be able
to marry a "new wife" now preferred then doing so was adultery – the ACT of
wrongly and selfishly remarrying under the Law. So many things to say about how
looking at this passage in the gospels closely shows easily that it has nothing
whatsoever to do with anything we're talking about today in the vast majority of
cases. Secondly, Jesus also gives the Law's exception: and that means that there
is legitimate divorce which does allow remarriage even under the Law. Thirdly,
we are NOT, of course, under the Law. Fourth, since it is the ACT of wrongful
remarriage which is adulterous, that is a sin – but all sin is forgiven when we
confess it. We may be disciplined for it, but we are not told to go out and make
amends for it. If a man commits, e.g., mental adultery with some woman he sees
in the street, is he damned until he tracks her down and asks for forgiveness?
It is similarly plain lunacy for a happily married couple with children to
destroy their lives and the lives of their children for the half-baked twisting
of scripture put out by self-righteous individuals who give no evidence of even
being saved themselves. And notice: Jesus did NOT tell the Pharisees who were
guilty of this horrible deed of throwing an old wife out on the street for no
reason other than to get a new one that they should now divorce wife #2 and go
back to wife #1. Why not? Because a marriage is a marriage in God's eyes. That
is clear from everything in the Bible. It is only people like this who assert
that "this marriage is not a real marriage". But in scripture, a marriage is a
marriage. And that is true even if there has been a divorce and a remarriage. So
these people are doing exactly what they accuse others of, namely, fomenting
divorce – and going back to the previous spouse is actually against the Law, "an
abomination before the Lord" (Deut.24:4)! Not to mention that wife / husband #1
may now be remarried – so they should get divorced too? In short, no rational
person would listen to such drivel. And no Christian who had a lick of spiritual
common sense would either. Unfortunately, there are a great many out there today
who in fact do not have that "lick". I praise God that you have it abundantly!
*I would also like to point out that the abusive and absolutely un-Christian
behavior you report of this couple speaks much louder than their words: "by
their fruit you shall know them" (Matt.7:16; 7:20).
Here are some links which will lead to many others:
Undeserved Suffering in Marriage: Peter #35
Jephthah's Daughter, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage.
A conversation about divorce and remarriage.
Feelings of Guilt about Remarriage.
Keeping you guys in my prayers daily, my friend – hope your health continues to
improve!
In Jesus our dear Lord.
Bob L.
Question #12:
Thanks, Bob. I'll be checking in tomorrow on the emails to ichthys. I always get an extra benefit to hear from others in the family. Had a good day in the dirt ( my PhD.----- post hole digger! ) helping an old friend build a shed off the garage. I'm a retired carpenter/builder, but I couldn't resist ( at 70yr. I have to pick my battles ). The best part was talking to him about the plan of God, and where we are on the clock. He's a very good Christian, and my hope is that I will be able have substantive bible study with him. Of course I mentioned ichthys and how well I have benefitted from your studies. We'll see where it goes from here. All the best, Your friend in Jesus,
Response #12:
Any time, my friend.
Good thing for you you don't live in Louisville (I would keep you very busy)!
Hope you had a chance to run a little truth by your friend.
Keeping you guys and your family in my prayers.
In Jesus.
Bob L.
Question #13:
I did hear that it was pretty rough in Louisville recently, but I'm glad you were not adversely affected by the unrest. With God's help we shall be able to navigate through any/all obstacles. I'm grateful all the time for His providence, through 'thick and thin'. He loves us so much and we love Him for who is and what He is doing for us in the perfect plan. We merely have to persevere in faith and follow Him faithfully. Even with all the ruckus I feel such a peace knowing our lives are in the Everlasting Arms! Thanks for your prayers. Keeping you and yours in my prayers as well. BTW, I really enjoyed yesterday's posting. Take care, Bob. Your friend in Jesus,
Response #13:
Good words!
Thanks for the encouragement too.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
Question #14:
Hi Bob, Hope you're well on all fronts. Just finished Pet. #35 ( 2nd.
X), and will be getting into #36 soon. They're great! Many thanks for
all you are doing for us sheep! These studies are imparting on me the
"solid food" necessary to keep growing in Him in the correct way. The
truth is all that counts, and that battle for it continues to rage on,
for all of us. Most recently, I received another "onslaught" on the
truth from __, which appears to be her "closing arguments" ( I hope!).
She's trying to extricate me from falling into hell with a "life
sentence", for my crime of divorce and remarriage, without "divorce to
repent" to get me off. Judgment time!......hell.... for me...unless?
This is the "heart of the matter," with no "meeting of the minds" here
at all. But , I do know the truth ( thanks to you, Bob!), so I'm not
"shaking in my boots", by what appears to be her "closing arguments", to
get me to have my heart pricked with godly sorrow to repent, and walk
free from my "life sentence".... a free man! "Go and sin no more" is in
her "closing statements", given after my possible acquittal! But I know,
all along, I'm not headed to "the Big House" super- max prison, because
God has ALREADY acquitted me, when I put my faith in His Son! ( John
3:18; Rom.8:1; Eph. 2:8-9, etc.). She presents a HUGE compilation of
scriptural evidence, to "hammer home" the impending verdict, if not
acted on by her "way" to escape the "life sentence".( quite a
prosecutor!). She certainly did a lot of exhaustive "homework" on this,
to come up with such a "compelling argument"! All , except for ONE
thing,...... it doesn't make "the case"....so no passing grade for her
efforts! .....It's thrown out of court! Nice try though! I don't think
she'll be going back to the "drawing board"......looks like the picture
is finished for her ( she has it all figured out, so why bother?). Too
bad it really isn't finished yet! Anyway, I did look at her two links,
which only seemed to be quite a list of disjointed scriptural evidence,
with"wild interpretation" added ( ie., ALL the evidence) to "make the
case". I know you have all the "ins and outs" down better than me,( I've
studied all your great links on it, thanks again), but I was wondering
what you make of it? (eg. their really "weird" definition of
fornication!?... per her tract "pasted" at the end of her writing; the
twist on 1 Cor. 7:2; the ungodly union termination "fix"; John the
Baptist losing his life for "preaching" on "this very sin" that H&H
committed; the "bring forth fruits meet for repentance" D to R
connection to J the B; the stolen $ --restitution theory, etc.) I got a
kick out of " My husband told him, "I teach what the Bible teaches" (
with a "big rubber band" stretch, I'd say), and her "closing statement",
"Let no man deceive you..... your eternal soul is worth too much!"(
would that be you and yours truly?). If she only knew who the real
deceivers are! Se La Vie!.... the constant battle for the truth.... the
heart of the matter. The devil's in the details!
Really there's no need to bother yourself with any of this......I know
you're also praying for their miracle with us. Thanks, Bob! Prayer with
thanksgiving works all the time, to get us through whatever is ailing
us, and also for the needs of all those in our circle. I thank you for
yours. You are in mine as well. Hope you have a great week! All the
best! Your friend in Jesus,
Response #14:
I'm sorry you have to deal with this, my friend. The evil one is always
busy harassing believers who are intent on growing spiritually. Issues
of family, relationships, sex and marriage are always profitable places
to hit, because there is no one who does not have some "sore spot" or
other in these areas.
I would like to ask these people for a Bible verse that counsels people
to get divorced. I have asked this question of many, and have never
gotten an answer – because there is no good answer. The Bible does not
counsel divorce – just the opposite! Why is that? Because a marriage is
a marriage, and no marriage should be dissolved if it can be saved in a
godly way. For two Christians who are happily married, counseling them
to divorce is the height of evil, for that would be a terrible sin
because it destroys the lives of others, not just one's own life.
"But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to sin, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were drowned in the depth of the sea."
Matthew 18:6 NKJV
And, apropos of this conversation:
My brethren, let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment.
James 3:1 NKJV
Here is the verse whereby the foul tribe who have adopted this false teaching as their shillelagh just love to beat the innocent about the head and shoulders (because they don't understand it, clearly):
"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced from her husband commits adultery."
Luke 16:18 NKJV
Notice that our Lord says "marries" – which means that there has been a
new, legal marriage. That is why our Lord in this context throughout the
gospels NEVER tells these men to divorce their new wives – or remarry
their old ones. Why not? Because even in the case of these horrible men
who cast aside the old merely to enjoy the new, "a marriage is a
marriage". God created marriage for the whole human race, and it is the
foundational institution of the family and the nation state (which is of
course one reason why it is under attack by the henchmen of the devil so
severely nowadays). Since "a marriage is a marriage", there can be no
question of adultery within it once contracted because adultery is
sexual activity between persons who are NOT married. According to our
Lord, it is the ACT of wrongly remarrying that is "an act of adultery";
but there is no solution to that except to confess that act. Divorce
would have been adding an evil upon an evil (which is why our Lord does
not command that). And if this is the case in this situation where the
men He was accusing were most definitely guilty of wrongful divorce and
wrongful remarriage purely to satisfy their lust, then it is doubly so
in all other cases, whatever the back-story. A marriage is a marriage.
For the crowd who are embracing the evil false doctrine to counsel
"wrongful divorce", it would have to be the case that "God doesn't honor
THAT marriage". But the Bible doesn't say anything about marriages not
being marriages, and for good reason. If it were the case as these
people claim that only some marriages were considered marriages, imagine
the confusion this would create. Who would we go to get a final
determination? And how would those theoretical people know absent an FBI
background check?
That is why God has left it to nation states to determine the rules of
marriage, because marriage is for all mankind, not just believers. And,
did I mention? A marriage is a marriage. So that his statement of our
Lord ALSO applies:
"So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
Matthew 19:6 NKJV
How in the world would this verse NOT apply to all believers who are
married? Regardless of previous status, divorces, remarriages, etc.? The
only way it possibly would not apply is if "not all marriages are
marriages in God's eyes". But the Bible says that "a marriage is a
marriage", and those rules are set out by the state.
If two people are married, they know they are married. How did they get
to that point? For this purpose it's not important. If they are married,
they should not separate or be separated, and any other opinion defies
scripture absolutely.
"What about Herod and Herodias?" Here is what John said:
Because John had said to him, “It is not lawful for you to have her.”
Matthew 14:4 NKJV
Why did he say that? Here's why:
If a man takes his brother's wife, it is an unclean thing. He has uncovered his brother's nakedness. They shall be childless.
Leviticus 20:21 NKJV
Under the Mosaic Law – the law of the nation state of Israel at the time
John made his statement to Herod – marrying one's sister-in-law was
essentially incest (the levirite law was an exception to this rule; but
Herod's brother was still alive). So, absolutely, it was "not lawful",
that is, it violated the Mosaic Law, for him to "have her". In other
words, it was not a legitimate marriage in the eyes of the state under
which all the interlocutors where living AT THAT TIME and for that
reason not a marriage to be preserved regardless. If a man or woman in
this country "marries" his/her
sister/brother/mother/father/brother/sister, it is likewise going to be
considered "not lawful" and be annulled. But this incest prohibition has
nothing to do with divorce and remarriage in general, which two things
have been common enough throughout human history and allowed in one form
or another by all governments at all times (as far as I am aware).
In other words, people who want to beat up on others out of a "holier
than thou" mentality, will usually pick some issue where they feel
themselves "not vulnerable" but perceive a weak spot in others. It's an
old story. And inevitably, even if said persons are saved (although that
is unusual, since rank legalism is antithetical to the grace whereby
alone we CAN be saved), they are usually far worse "sinners" in other
areas, merely hiding behind a veil of hypocrisy – which veil castigating
others makes more impenetrable (in their own eyes if not in reality).
Guilt is the devil's ace trump. Jim Jones didn't get all those people to
follow him to Guyana by preaching love and forgiveness. All cults count
on turning the tender consciences of the innocent against their owners.
I note in the other email you shared the story about that man who took
their horrible advice and wrongly divorced his wife (didn't Jesus just
tell us NOT to do that?!), that "he became like family to us, even lived
with us for a over a year" – that part I believe! Cults get victims to
destroy their lives by abandoning all of their previous relationships .
. . so that they have no place left to go and are forever after
dependent on the cult as the only validator of their horrible stupidity
and cruelty. I wonder what happened to that poor fellow? Nothing good.
That much I would bet the farm on.
So keep fighting the good fight, my friend! It would be right for you to
stay married even if it were an unhappy marriage – how much more so when
it is a happy one! God honors those who stand fast with the truth, even
when under assault. And I'm pretty sure for you that this is a case of
lobbing "spit-balls at a battleship".
Keeping you guys and your family in my prayers daily, my friend.
In Jesus our dear Savior,
Bob L.
Question #15:
Muchas gracias, Bob! I appreciate your continued support and the
dissertations you have very carefully presented on this issue. It really
helps to know "more" of the "ins and outs", shedding more light on the
heart of the matter..... the most important aspects of it. It's great to
know you have our backs, as we are going through several "battles" here
presently!
"Spitballs"?.....Ha!.......OK, you have a fair assessment as to my
feelings on their unimpressive "barrage". Looks like the loony "chickens
have come home to roost"..... but they inadvertently let the fox in,
ahead.... and behind them! ( fox starts with a "D"). The "bad things"
they are doing will come back to "bite and haunt" them. ( Rom. 3:8; 1
Cor. 4:6; 2 Pet. 3:16; James 3:1; 2Cor. 11:13-15; 2 Pet. 2:1; Rom. 10:2;
Rom. 14:13; 2 Tim. 4:3-4; and?). Thanks for your prayers on all our
needs and concerns! You are in ours as well. In Jesus,
Response #15:
It's my pleasure!
Keep fighting the good fight, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #16:
Just got another "nasty-gram" from my __. This in response to my addressing the
heart and truth of the matter of "divorce and remarriage" false teaching. It
appears it was a pointless and "pearls before swine" exercise, to contact her
with the truth.(did not "move the needle" at all in the right direction....
probably a lot in the zero direction, it seems). Before "going into combat"
messaging I prayed and asked the Lord's help for direction. I used a lot of your
input to me, some verbatim, in my email trying to "rescue'' her from "bad
places". (you say things better than me..... but didn't give her resource
citations "that is what my pastor says and teaches"... so she doesn't know
anything about you... not that it would matter to her anyway, for a "dyed in the
wool" COG holiness member). Never got an answer in the "nasty-gram", to what I
offered to refute their DtoR false teaching, Obviously, there is no correct
answer to wriggle out of it.... just the same deflection of "scare tactics" from
her. Now, from her new email: I don't "know" the true definition of sin; I've
chosen to do evil to "fit" my lifestyle, by refusing to believe COG teaching any
more; I'm now "attacking" the truth about the COG teaching on divorce and
remarriage; she's staying with it ...convinced of the "truth", by the "power of
God and the anointed Word of God". (what God is this?). Looks like her heart is
just too hard, presently, to see the light of the truth. (but maybe in her heart
of hearts? she might be at the "end of her rope"?). So, I'll keep praying for a
breakthrough (thanks for yours too, Bob!). 25 yr. is a long time for her to be
living in this "state" of self-righteous legalism".... while she is accusing us
as living in the ''state" of "constant adultery" for nearly 21yr., and on our
way to hell after our last breath (quite delusional and rebellious to the truth
of the matter!). The "game clock" is about to expire, with only condemnation
here, for __to stay subscribed to COG "spiritual brainwashing". How ironic! She
would be shocked to know she is only setting herself up for the "lake of fire",
by giving "evil" counsel!...... but we plan on enduring in faith, day by day
until the end, to win the victory!.... and thanking God for the truth, as well
as His love, forgiveness, mercy, and grace, to see us get through every
obstacle! He has truly kept us in His Everlasting Arms! (very happy to "know"
this Power and Anointing!...... believing in the teaching of the real Truth!).
Hope all is well on all fronts for you, Bob! Enjoyed your posting on the Church
this past weekend. More good insight to the current situation in Laodicea. Just
getting into Pet,#36. Thanks for all the hard work you are doing for us sheep,
to learn, believe, and apply the truth! (2 Pet. 3:18). In Jesus,
Response #16:
Some things (and some people), it's just better to stay away from. Those
who have "drunk the Kool-Aid" are unlikely to be persuaded that anything
they are doing or believing is wrong. Otherwise, their entire rigid
belief-system will collapse since it is founded on lies. This applies to
members of all cults and of all cult-like churches (Mormons, JWs, etc.).
There are a lot of "flavors" of the COG, but if I'm not mistaken, COG
"holiness" groups believe in "entire sanctification", and it sounds from
___'s email that her group is into that in spades. That is a vicious and
horrible doctrine that begets the worst sort of legalism. These people
say they believe in the Word of God, yet this false doctrine is nowhere
in scripture.
Believers are told not to sin, but they are also told how to deal with
sin (unnecessary if they ever get to the point of not sinning) and also
that Jesus Christ is our Advocate in terms of sinful behavior (1Jn.2:1).
One of the biggest problems with this "I don't sin any more" doctrine is
that makes anyone who accepts it a self-righteous hypocrite immediately.
No one can read the Bible carefully and imagine that any person
described therein was "no longer sinning" – except of course for our
ever sinless Lord Jesus Christ, and that is the whole point. We need
mercy, grace and forgiveness our whole lives long. When we say we don't
sin, we say we don't need God. And we cheapen the sacrifice of Jesus
Christ by equating our new "goodness" with His death for the sins we
committed before becoming hypocrites . . . and for the hypocrisy,
self-righteousness and all manner of other sins we are continuing to
commit but are now denying we are committing. It is very ironic, this
behavior of __, accusing you of committing sin when in fact you are not
doing so (not on this point; we all sin), even while she is sinning in
many ways through these actions even as she attacks you.
(8) If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.
(9) If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.
(10) If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
1st John 1:8-10 NIV
The other even bigger problem with this false doctrine is that it moves people who buy into it to glory in themselves and in their own righteousness, convincing them that they no longer need God's grace and mercy. If that way of thinking does not destroy true faith in Jesus Christ, at the very least it undermines it mightily – and I rather suspect that many people who gravitate to this sort of false teaching were never believers in the first place:
For they being ignorant of God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own righteousness, have not submitted to the righteousness of God.
Romans 10:3 NKJV
Keeping you guys and your family in my daily prayers, my friend.
In Jesus Christ our dear Lord and Savior,
Bob L.
Question #17:
As always, Bob, I appreciate your insight! In this case you have framed the picture perfectly (all the ins and outs) as to what's going on here .......COG...... a recipe for spiritual disaster.... for all who unwittingly fall prey! Chances for recovery are slim to none..... too much of their "kool -aid " drunk to overcome and recover, from believing their too many lies ( "entire sanctification", false tongues, institutional security, self-righteous legalism rules to be saved, etc.). She's on "spiritual life-support" now......we'll just keep praying God will rescue and heal her from this deadly "poisoning", precipitating down from a false church with it's poisonous "kool-aid" teachings. ( very sad....it is stage 4..... but with God all things are possible!). Thanks for all the prayerful support you are offering up for our family. You are in ours daily as well. I'm looking on the bright side! The Sonshine is coming...... (He's already here)..... we are patiently waiting for "that day!" ( Is. 60:1). Have a good weekend , Bob! Your friend in Jesus,
Response #17:
It's my pleasure.
I forgot about the charismatic element in that church – makes things all
that much worse in the divorced from reality department.
We'll keep on praying.
And thanks for your prayers too, my friend!
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #18:
Dear Dr Luginbill
You have been such a blessing, with all the work you have published, so
faithfully, and your replies to individual emails. Thank you.
I have long agonised about the (repented) sin of adultery from a sinful
remarriage, and you kindly answered me ( some time ago), as you have to
many. Thank you for your patience.
I have soldiered on, read and studied other biblical topics, as you
advised, but sometimes I find myself back in the weeds, rereading your
answers to this problem, since I know to find good biblical sense here.
I have studied them because my heart forgets the reassurance and I
return to the fear, agreeing with how this looks, in English at least.
But the Greek says differently, doesn’t it? I find myself longing to
know more about that. And I notice you don’t tend to spell that out! I
think that’s because you value the uncertainty as a discouragement to
sin in the first place, and that’s good.
The problem is that we generally (the agrammatical English speakers)
think that someone committing adultery outside their marriage only stops
when they’ve ceased and repented, turned back. And they extrapolate that
into a second marriage. They don’t believe the second marriage is real.
They don’t accept that divorce is effective.
Thinking us therefore adulterers, we are not going to heaven, but we are
going to the lake of fire. And that’s aimed at believers. So if not us,
who? Those who are unrepentant adulterers from within a marriage?
Someone who remarried (who shouldn’t) and didn’t ask forgiveness?
I suspect they do not accept that a contracted marriage has a social
pact implicit in the bond, nor that the rules of the land are active,
but rather rely only on the marriage being made by God.
I believed that the answer could be found in the Greek, even though
everyone just wanted to reassure me that Jesus loves me and it’s all ok.
That did not satisfy; I wanted to find it in the Word.
I noticed a sentence you wrote: Jesus says “he who marries…. [a
divorcee] ..commits adultery”, linking the act of marriage with
adultery. Not the state of being married. And I noted to myself: the
adultery is an historical fact once the marriage has been made. (Greek
tenses must be in play here?) It is contracting the marriage that is the
act of adultery.
This is alien to our way of thinking and is not believed (by many) to
allow someone forgiven this type of adultery to continue in their new
marriage with the relief forgiveness should bring. While you say
scripture doesn’t say we should break a second marriage, they infer that
it’s implied, or there’s no new marriage to break. If it’s no longer
adultery, it’s fornication, so stop it!
Your statement chimes with what I’ve read elsewhere, more technically,
that the phrase is in the present indicative, and context dictates that
“commits adultery” takes the same sense as “divorces” and “marries”,
that it is punctiliar, not continuous. And if Jesus had meant otherwise
he would have phrased it differently, I presume.
Have I got the right gist? No Greek scholar here!
Still, it is hard to understand, and my English-only brain can still
find a way to allow ‘marries’ to be punctiliar, while ‘commits adultery’
obviously should be continuous, because I remain in my new marriage (now
26 yrs on)! I jest at my own expense.
All of which makes me wonder whether we use the word ‘adultery’
correctly, or fully enough? In another sense, I could make an
adulterated mixture of one thing with another. It might be that I could
separate them again, or that it is now impossible (bringing an
unlooked-for sense to “one flesh”). By that way of thinking, taking
divorce to be effective and remarriage to be binding, this new mixture
is permanent, yet it is adulterated. I’ve ruminated much but never
thought of that before. Is that a fair way to interpret “adultery” as
associated with the act of remarrying? I can’t think how else to make
adultery punctiliar and not a state.
I’ve noticed there are some respected teachers still insisting this is
wrong, eg David Pawson, whom I gather was a good teacher, but now I
daren’t read him! Why are there so many opinions even amongst Greek
scholars and devout men? I presume more manuscripts are found and
clearer cases can be made, but it is a difficult fact that we don’t all
understand Greek although our eternal souls depend on it, so again I
thank you for your years of able study and teaching, and the willing
spirit that keeps you working on our behalf.
God bless you, sir. And thank you for reading this. I hope you might
reply again. And I hope and pray you and your family are keeping well in
these strange times.
In Christ, I hope and trust, and wobble from time to time
Ps 139: 2b and 23-24. He knows what I worry about and that I invite him
to put me straight, and get me safely home. I try to remember that.
Response #18:
It's good to hear from you, and thanks much for your kind words. I am sorry to
hear that this issue continues to nag at you, however.
Let's start with what's the most important. As our Lord said,
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son."
John 3:17-18 NIV
We see from this passage that the Father is not looking to condemn people but to
save them – so much so that He sent Jesus to die for all of our sins, the ones
we are not concerned about at all and the ones that bother us greatly. All sin
is sin and no one could be saved unless Jesus died for all of their sins – and
that is just what He did, all of your sins and all of my sins. So is anyone
condemned for their sins? What does the passage above say? Those who stand
condemned do so "because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and
only Son"; that is to say, "because they do not have faith in / are not
believers in" Jesus Christ. You believe in Jesus Christ. You are a believer. You
have eternal life. This is not about sin. This is about faith.
Of course believers should not sin – although we all do (1Jn.1:8-10). Believers
should pursue sanctification and get better at walking with the Lord day by day,
eschewing what is wrong and cleaving to what is right. Throughout the Bible,
everywhere it is mentioned (see BB 3B: Hamartiology:
the Biblical Study of Sin at the link), sin is a deliberate thing, an act, a
word, a thought. Sin is NOT a state of being. In scripture, "liars" are people
who habitually lie. So that the key characteristic of those excluded from New
Jerusalem is "everyone who loves and practices falsehood" (Rev.22:15). This does
not mean "everyone who has ever told a lie" because then the population of New
Jerusalem would be zero. But people who characteristically love what is false
and proclaim it as true show by their behavior that they are not believers –
like the people who are tormenting you.
Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.” “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
Matthew 19:3-12 NIV
There is nothing magic about this passage, nothing that can't be seen very plainly from an English translation. The problem is that people who are interested in their own agendas rather than in the truth of scripture take things out of context and misapply passages with abandon. What is the purpose of this passage? To rebuke the Pharisees who were using scripture to justify doing what they wanted to do – trade for younger wives – and still call it godly. Jesus rebukes their hypocrisy, letting them know in no uncertain terms that abandoning their spouses for others with a purely lustful motive is wrong, an act of adultery, in essence, when they marry that other wife. Notice what Jesus does NOT say. He does NOT say "you are committing adultery by being in a state of adultery as long as you continue in that marriage"; and He does NOT say, "so you need to divorce wife #2 and go back to wife #1". It would be bizarre if He had said that since the whole point of this passage is to condemn wrongful divorce.
*What right did the re-married Pharisees have to divorce new wife #2? None
at all! No more than they did to divorce wife #1. They were now
legally married to #2, so that regardless of the rightness or wrongness of that
second marriage it was now a marriage before God and man and should not be
broken up any more than the first one should have. Similarly, no married
Christian today has the right to end a marriage they have contracted absent
abuse or adultery, and certainly not because someone is making
them feel guilty about sins of the past. You cannot "fix sin". Only Jesus
could do that. You cannot "make up for sin". Only the cross could do that. You
cannot cure a wrong with another wrong – you can only amplify wrong . . . as
ought to be obvious to anyone with a lick of normal common sense, let alone
spiritual common sense. There is absolutely nothing in this passage that even
hits at any requirement to divorce; the whole passage is pointed the other way
entirely: stay married (regardless of the hows or wherefores or number of prior
marriages).
It is more than a little ironic that some preachers who are supposed to be
preaching grace and forgiveness are preaching instead salvation by works (i.e.,
you have to "do something" horrible to be saved). If they really believe that
constructing a sin-free life (as THEY define it) is what makes for salvation,
then they are wrong, liars, loving falsehood, the very ones who are the "dogs"
locked out of New Jerusalem . . . and confined to the lake of fire themselves
(the very thing with which they are wrongly threatening others).
The Christian life is all about looking forward, not backward (Phil.3:13). We
can't change the past and we are never advised or commanded to try and do so. If
we have made a mistake, and error, committed a sin, our loving Father
disciplines us as children He loves to correct our behavior so that we won't do
it again (Heb.12:1ff.), NOT to exact retribution on us – that is for unbelievers
who reject Jesus Christ, and it will come in the end (Rev.20:11-15).
If Jesus wanted remarried people to divorce He would have said so – or had one
of the apostles say so. It's not in the Bible. If Jesus had wanted those twice
divorced individuals to go back to their prior spouses, He would have said so .
. . but this is what is actually in scripture:
If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 NIV
So much for going back. However, what even this passage does not say is, "and if
it does happen, then get divorced again" – because scripture is consistent on
counseling staying married whatever the "back history" is.
It's good to know that these people who disturb you with their false teaching
are perfect. Not only in marriage matters, but perfect in everything. Because by
preaching salvation to others only through sinless perfection and works of
supererogation (divorcing a loving spouse and going back to the [often bad],
former one), they are saying in effect that they are sinless and need do nothing
of the sort. Did they ever treat anyone badly in their lives? If they said an
unkind word to, say, their third grade teacher, have they gone and found her and
apologized and made amends through some equally onerous act of contrition? If
not, aren't they living "in a state of non-penitence"? Until they rectify this
sin, aren't they in danger of hell fire, just like the people they are
terrifying? It may not seem to be a "big deal" to them, but what about the
person they wronged? But maybe they've never ever committed any sin whatsoever.
So then I suppose they don't need the cross or Jesus Christ. That would explain
their desire to detach others from His love by enslaving them in fear – which is
the devil's chief tactic.
(14b) [Jesus became a human being] in order that through His death He might put an end to the one possessing the power of death, that is, the devil, (15) and might reconcile [to God] those who were subject to being slaves their whole lives long by their fear of death.
Hebrews 2:14b-15
But we know that these individuals are not sinless since no one is.
If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.
1st John 1:10 NIV
These people are liars who make God out to be a liar by misusing and abusing His
Word with the purpose of enslaving others to themselves . . . and to the devil.
I'm sorry to have to be so harsh, but the damage these soon-to-be followers of
anti-Christ are doing to good-hearted believers such as yourself is immense, and
I have no patience with it. Anyone reading the Bible would be able to see in a
minute that the message is one of peace, of life, of grace, of forgiveness – NOT
of damnation and sorrow and regret. The latter is for unbelievers only, not for
believers.
This I recall to my mind, therefore have I hope. It is of the LORD'S mercies that we are not consumed, because his compassions fail not. They are new every morning: great is thy faithfulness. The LORD is my portion, saith my soul; therefore will I hope in him.
Lamentations 3:21-24 KJV
You covered a lot of ground in your email, so apologies in advance if I failed
to treat anything here. Do feel free to write back.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #19:
Dear Bob, (if I may?)
Your speedy answer deserved my immediate attention but please forgive
me, I’m not well omitted) and it’s hard to apply myself sometimes. I had
to let your email sit.
I smiled because I realised I had lit the blue touch paper and you’d
sent a rocket up, because you feel so strongly about this, and that
helped me, but no, we didn’t talk about some of the thoughts I raised,
ie, am I understanding (a little) of what the present indicative,
context and mood means for me?
And that I’ve wondered about thinking of adultery in its broader sense
as a bad mixing, like a contamination effect, and in the case of a
divorce and remarriage, irreversible, like too much salt in the
adulterated soup, you can’t take it out. And it happens in the breakup
and remarrying, which makes sense to me of the ‘point in time’ effect.
That might also account for the woman’s defilement in Deut 24. Just me
musing.
Our medical NHS system is very much we take what we’re given, but praise
God, [omitted]
But thank you for your patience. I am sorely in need of that, I know!
God bless you.
Response #19:
"Bob" is fine (I've been called a lot worse!).
On the English word "adultery", this is a Latin derivative and none of
the connotations which come to mind from alternative English usage exist
in Greek (the Greek verb is moichao, so completely unrelated).
On tense/mood, the tense in, e.g., Matthew 5:32 et al., is present
indicative: "is committing adultery". But the question is "when and
how?" Our Lord answers that question directly but those who are
troubling you completely ignore what He says: "whoever marries [i.e.,
when he does so] . . . commits adultery", that is, in so doing, i.e., by
the act of marrying under those conditions. And once it's done, it's
done – just like a conventional act of adultery: it can't be undone once
done and neither can the act of marrying someone. So there is no going
back and fixing a sin that's been committed . . . in cases where there
was sin. Blessedly, our Lord does not deal with us in an accountant-like
fashion: He died for all of ours sins and all of our sins were worthy of
condemnation absent His dying for them on the cross, not just the ones
that seem to bother us.
If you, LORD, kept a record of sins, Lord, who could stand? But there is forgiveness with You,
That You may be feared.
Psalm 13o:3-4 NIV
We believers are forgiven when we believe in Christ and forgiven
thereafter when we confess our sins (1Jn.1:9). We can't "fix" sins of
the past. The good news is that we don't have to because Christ died for
them all. But the bad news is that if we TRY to, we are rejecting the
cross and substituting our own works instead – just like Cain did.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #20:
Dear Bob
Now that’s directly clear, thank you!! "whoever marries [i.e., when he does so]
. . . commits adultery", that is, in so doing, i.e., by the act of marrying
under those conditions. (Also noted not to get creative with the meaning of
adultery) Thank you so much. I will leave you in peace on this one. But I did
want to share this with you if I may:
I have recently learned the difference between a reasonable need to understand
something with important consequences, like ‘am I living in sin’, and an
unhealthy perfectionist drive to keep on checking, with much rumination and
bothering people for reassurance. I’m now pretty sure I have religious OCD, or
scrupulosity, thankfully only involving those traits (there are some nasty
variations I’ve escaped, thank God, but doubting one’s salvation is torment
enough!)
I did need to know the truth about this so that I can dare to ignore the need to
get it and take another look, because I’ve now looked at all sides, and I’m so
grateful you’ve turned over all the stones for me, so to speak. I may again
wobble, and will then reread what I know. That’s to be realistic, but I hope
this time is different. Things may be coming together. I feel the strength of
this knowledge is growing and the other speakers, who so anger you, are taking
their proper place. Yes I’ve felt reassured before, and I suppose I may relapse
again, but you’ve equipped me and we’ve been more specific this time so there
really are no stones left unturned. I have recognised that I fit this narrow
aspect of religious OCD and that was actually liberating, because I can
attribute this fear to OCD and not unrepented sin, acknowledge what’s going on,
and thus I can dare to put this thing in it’s place, which is an abnormal degree
of fear and worry I can safely ignore without coming to a fiery end. It isn’t
easy because there are some very well worn paths in my mind, but I will now feel
it is right to fight against their pull, rather feel that I am hiding from the
truth in so doing.
[omitted]
Yet not knowing any of that, you have been so patient with me, and I do so
appreciate it. I’m a worn out old biddy and you’ve got me back on my feet. And I
don’t feel a fraud anymore. I know I don’t deserve my life, or my husband, but
it’s OK. I’m beginning to relax. You have shown real love, thank you, brother.
God bless you and your family. You are in my prayers.
In Christ, yes! For sure
Response #20:
Thanks for the background, my friend. You have been through the wringer!
It's a testament to your underlying faith – and to the grace of God –
that you are coming through / being brought through this trial.
If it helps, you are not the first person who has contacted this
ministry with this "scrupulosity" problem, as you put it. It's more
common than you know – and fostered by the legalism so rampant in the
church-visible today which preys upon folks with this tendency. One
doesn't have to have been remarried or divorced to have this issue; one
only has to be human since all human beings have failed in one way or
another and are thus liable to the "guilt-bombs" the devil and his human
agents are so good at hurling.
I am also convinced that now that you are making progress, if you will
continue with a broad-based pattern of growth through this ministry
(besides Ichthys, Bible
Academy is also a very good place, also
Bible.docs; at the links), you
will find that this problem gradually becomes less and less urgent.
Keeping you in my daily prayers, my friend.
In Jesus,
Bob L.
Question #21:
I have been chewing on something in the back of my mind for a while now. Do you
know how a while back I asked you about prenups? And I wanted the right answer,
even if it is one that did not make me feel good. So I would try to put together
what I knew and have learned a long time ago, and looked online and arguments
for and against. And I think I finally have my thoughts on it. What I came up
with was this -and it is written as if to a guy asking me to sign one (and I
wrote out more details, but am shortening it here):
'I do bring some material things into a marriage. And certainly intangible
things. Hopefully knowledge, skills, wisdom, some spiritual. And I am throwing
in all the years and money I get in the future in a relationship with you. Maybe
I would get rich, maybe you would lose your money apart from me, or inflation
would eat it, or any number of things. Maybe you'd become disabled or something
serious and I'd end up sacrificing what ends up being worth more than that
amount of money. Or yes it could go the other way. I am throwing in for that
possibility. Having never had a real family, I don't think you can put a price
on having a companion with you. And a godly relationship can easily produce
spiritual fruit and blessing and good works worth far more than any amount of
money. And then I think, oh, you're putting yourself in a very advantageous
position to leave me whenever you feel like it and I think you are not willing
to do for me what I am for you.'
Anyway. That was the honest answer I came up with. Because I asked myself, if I
were rich, how would I picture it. And I'd want to make very sure that the man I
was marrying was a man of God. And then yes, a real chance at a godly
relationship with spiritual blessings-I pick that over money. Especially since I
believe almost all believers will have poverty periods in their life anyway
(which is good for them to learn not to rely on money).
I would really appreciate it if you could just tell me a little if I am seeing
it completely wrong. I ask to learn.
Response #21:
This is exactly the way I see things too. There's no biblical prohibition
against such a thing, but if a believer is going to get married, it needs to be
to a believer. And if a believer can't commit to "for better or for worse, for
richer or for poorer" to the other person, much better not to get married in my
opinion.
In Jesus,
Bob L.