In Its Entirety

Today is Father’s Day. And, as you can imagine, I heard a Father’s Day sermon at church. The speaker was a church member who was a director head of a ministry at the church, whom I will refer to as “Jim” in this post. Brother Jim was the guest speaker today for the Father’s Day message.

His sermon was basically about fathers being examples for their children, teaching them about the kingdom of God, the things of God, as well as modeling that in their lives. “First things first” seemed to be the mantra of the sermon.

However...as you can imagine, there’s always gonna be a criticism. Usually, I rarely just comment on church experiences for the sake of so doing. Normally, I have a point in mind that I wanna make here at the blog. And today’s sermon feeds right into that “need” of mine to correct wrong thinking in the church.

Brother Jim started to talk about how tradition can keep us from doing what is right, and he pointed to Matthew 15, where the Pharisees reinterpreted honoring their parents (Mosaic Law) as, “we can dishonor our parents ON THE CONDITION THAT we’re taking the money we would give to them and give it to the temple” (Matt. 15:3-6). He used this to then launch into a discussion of how, as believers, we go against what God’s Word says. This suddenly turned into a rant about the issue of divorce, where some people feel the need to divorce, but God’s Word tells us, “what God has joined together, let no man separate” (see Matt. 19:5-6, NKJV).

And then he used his own life as an example of how his wife went against how most people interpret the Word of God: he said,

“my wife knows what it’s like to be abused, called every name in the book, etc. She knows what it’s like to lose job after job, with me leaving the house on Friday and not being found until the following Tuesday. She knows what it’s like to go to the grocery store to buy groceries or to the bank to pay bills and be told, ‘There’s no money in the account.’ And there was no money in the account NOT because we didn’t have enough...but because her husband was a drug addict. Yet and still, SHE STAYED. Why? did she stay because she believed I would get saved? Did she stay because she thought I would be a better husband? No---she stayed because GOD’S WORD TOLD HER TO STAY.”

Really? God’s Word told her to stay? His only proof for this was Matthew 19:5-6---

“‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matt. 19:5-6, NKJV).

Now, on the surface, this looks convincing. I mean, does it not say, “What GOD has joined together, LET NOT MAN SEPARATE”? However, there’s a problem. This is a prooftext FROM the passage, NOT the passage in its entirety. Let’s zoom out from these verses and look at how they fit into the larger context.

After Jesus words in verses 5 and 6, the Pharisees question Him: “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” Jesus said, “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (v.8).

True, divorce was not an original part of God’s plan. However, does Jesus condemn divorce? Not entirely. Read these words:

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, EXCEPT FOR SEXUAL IMMORALITY, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery”(v.9).

Notice the words in caps? “Except for sexual immorality...” These are the grounds within which divorce is allowed. The word for “sexual immorality” in the Greek is “porneia,” which can mean here “fornication, unchastity, unlawful sexual intercourse,” according to the Zondervan “Reader’s Greek New Testament, Second Edition.”

So, back to brother Jim. Jim did not expound the text in its entirety; instead, he picked out verses 5 and 6 and neglected verse 9. This is a result of bad exegesis. Verses should never be read out of context in this manner.

Secondly, Jim overlooked the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 7 regarding Christians who are married to unbelievers:

“But to the rest I, not the Lord, say: if any brother has a wife who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let him not divorce her. And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him...but IF THE UNBELIEVER DEPARTS, LET HIM DEPART; A BROTHER OR A SISTER IS NOT UNDER BONDAGE IN SUCH CASES. BUT GOD HAS CALLED US TO PEACE. For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (1 Corinthians 7:12-13, 15-16, NKJV)

In the words of Paul here, if an unbeliever decides to leave their Christian spouse, the Christian spouse should let them---because we are called to be at peace, not to war and fight and retaliate. Throughout my life, I’ve heard some people say, “Well, these are the words of Paul; Paul is the one who said this, not Christ.” Well, Paul did say them: however, Paul also said, “and I think I also have the Spirit of God” (1 Cor. 7:40), which shows us that he certainly believed what he was saying was in line with the Word of God. So in such cases of unbelievers filing for divorce or adultery, divorce is permitted.

These are two instances biblically, where exceptions for divorce are permitted; why then, did brother Jim not touch on these? Why did he claim that ANY divorce is unbiblical? And why did he make it seem as though any divorce for the two permitted reasons above is just “mere tradition” of a godless society??

Last but not least, he told his testimony regarding his wife remaining in their marriage. And I think it is honorable and noble. I think that Jim’s wife is a phenomenal woman who has been given such grace and inner strength by God Himself. But at the same time, I can give an example of a case where the wife stayed and the marriage ended due to her cold-blooded murder by way of her husband.

My mother worked with this woman, a friend of hers named “Shirley.” Shirley was a dear friend of my mother’s. Shirley and mom were real close, sisters in Christ, fellow sisters at heart, who could always talk about anything. Shirley started coming to work in the finance department with bruises on her, noticeable bruises. The women in the finance department began to talk with Shirley over lunch, to convince her to get protection, leave this guy, and tell the police what was going on. The women wanted her to leave her husband, to go get help for herself (to save her life) and for her husband. The women (including my mother) feared that Shirley would die at the hands of her husband if she didn’t. Shirley told them she couldn’t leave her husband because he vowed to kill her and her family if she left. For the sake of her family, she decided to stay in this unhappy marriage. Sometimes, you just don’t know what’s going on in the lives of people you meet, even if they do wear a smile...

Well, one day, her husband (a self-professed Christian), told her that he was quitting his drug habit. He wanted her to hide his drug money, not give it to him---even if he wanted the drug money. So Shirley did as asked; she refused to give him the drug money. One night, he came home and started asking again, but she resisted (as he had told her to do). He continued to ask, she continued to resist. She resisted until he got a baseball bat at home that he had, bashed her head in, until he killed her; and then, he sat down, Shirley’s body laying on the floor before him, and ate dinner as if he had done nothing wrong.

I know this story is chilling and so tragic; but I had to tell you this because I think the world needs to hear it. Brother Jim can easily stand in a pulpit and preach about how his wife stayed with her husband; but there are some cases when staying in a physically abusive relationship does more harm than good. Shirley was in her mid 40s at the oldest; and if she had ran from her husband and gotten governmental protection, she might be here with us today. Her attempt to protect her family was noble, but she lost her life in the process.

Shirley needed to flee her marriage. And I think that some spouses, because of the depravity of man, are forced to do so today. Divorce is not something that the world should applaud; it’s not something that we should chant for from the rooftops; but it is something that sometimes, serves as, in the words of Robert Frost, “the road less traveled by,” that some must take for their sake, the sake of their children, and so forth.

God can restore broken marriages. That’s the message I wanna leave with you in this post: that God can fix what is broken, even marriages headed down the drain. However, God will not fix every mistake humans have made on this earth. After all, if the power of human choice means anything, we have been given the right to make choices whether good or bad...and those choices have major impact on us and those around us (for either good or bad). Since humans chose wrongly in the Garden, we have suffered the consequences of it ever since...and divorce falls in this category of consequences. Failing to teach properly on divorce, or preach properly on the subject, only misleads those who sit under us.

I’m all for godly, successful marriages; at the same time, though, I’m for the truth of God’s Word. And a woman who has spent every night for the last 15 years without her husband (a husband who is sexually active with other women) has the God-given right to unite herself to someone else. After all, her husband divorced her through his adultery, did he not?

Not Yet Reconciled

“But why would a proponent of middle knowledge...want to maintain that this world contains no ‘pure loss’ if this is possible? The answer is related to the problem of evil. There are two basic theodicies. Proponents of the greater-good defense maintain that there is no unnecessary evil, no ‘pure loss.’ All events stand as necessary components in the unfolding of God’s perfect plan. Proponents of the free will defense, on the other hand, maintain that some evil is ‘pure loss,’ the result of human decision-making over which God voluntarily gave up control by granting humans significant freedom.

Now let us suppose—as happens to be the case—that some proponents of middle knowledge want to utilize the free-will defense. Then of course they need to maintain that God was not able to bring about the exact world he wanted, for otherwise there could be no ‘pure loss.’ Or, to state the general point differently, to the extent that the proponent of middle knowledge wants to utilize the free-will defense, she or he must opt for a weaker reading of T2—of God’s control—than that affirmed by the theological compatibilist or paradox indeterminist. The proponent of middle knowledge cannot have it both ways” [David Basinger, “Divine Control and Human Freedom: Is Middle Knowledge The Answer?” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 36, no. 1 (March 1993): 64].

In one of my recent posts, I discussed the issue of gratuitous evil and quoted some of Luis Molina’s words regarding the “greater good” theodicy. Molina stated in the quote that God only allows that which He can bring a greater good from. I stated in the post that 1 Peter shows us what gratuitous evil is and argues for its existence. If all evil is intended to exist by God with the purpose being “His glory,” then why does Peter tell us that there is “no credit” in suffering when we suffer for our own faults, but glory in suffering for Christ? Evidently, Peter was not a fan of the “greater good” theodicy. And I think Peter’s words are echoed throughout the rest of Scripture.

In addition, what about the observations noted in our world? What about the tragedies that happen everyday? What about issues like divorce, which Jesus said was not so “from the beginning” (Mark 10:5-9)? What was Jesus saying when He refused to comment on the explanations regarding recent deaths of those in Luke 13?

“And Jesus answered and said to them, ‘DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT THESE GALILEANS WERE WORSE SINNERS than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? I tell you, NO; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell, and killed them, DO YOU THINK THAT THEY WERE WORSE SINNERS THAN ALL OTHER MEN who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you, NO; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish” (Luke 13:2-5, NKJV).

In John 9, we have a case where the man born blind from birth was healed by Jesus and vindicated as not suffering blindness as a result of sin. Jesus said that the man was born blind “so that the works of God should be revealed in him” (John 9:3, NKJV). In Luke 13 however, Jesus doesn’t say this. The Galileans whose blood is mingled with the sacrifices didn’t die so that God’s work could be manifested; those on whom the tower fell did not die so that God’s work could be manifested. Instead, we find Jesus silent on these matters. Perhaps these tragedies took place because of “pure loss” in our world...

What we find scripturally is that some events are allowed to happen because God desires to use them (He “permits” them to happen). However, there are other events like those of Luke 13 on which Jesus is silent. These events, then, do not serve a divine purpose. They are allowed because of the fallenness of our world.

Basinger’s quote above shows us that middle knowledge serves a purpose as related to Deity. Because God knows all things (including things that would have been certain in another world), He has a much stronger grip on world events than does the God of simple foreknowledge; however, in the grand scheme of things, He too, cannot violate the power of choice that He has given His creatures. If a person believes in true libertarian freedom, then that advocate of middle knowledge does not have a God who is the strong tyrant of the Calvinist system. But another point Basinger makes is that this God is also unlike that of the “paradox determinist,” one who advocates a God who determines the choices of humans. To them, the ideas of divine power and human responsibility are a “paradox,” a contradiction. My response would be the following, though: if these two biblical doctrines are “contradictory,” then what are we saying about God? To make these two contradictory is the same as saying that the Lord murders nations but then turns around and tells us to not commit murder (Exodus 20)—without realizing that the Lord’s execution of the other nations is because of righteous judgment. The problem is though, that the ideas have not been qualified. There is a solution, since these two concepts cannot exist in the same manner at the same time (according to the Law of Non-Contradiction). To accept “biblical paradoxes” is a dangerous thing. If the Bible shows us the nature and character of God, and the Bible contains “contradictions,” then what does this say about God? That God is contradictory?

If life consists of such “gratuitous” evil, then is God still sovereign? Yes, He is. Does the presence of such evil weaken the power of God? Absolutely not! But what it does show us is that there is a Lord who made man “lord” over the earth (Gen. 1:26-28, Psalm 8) and gave him true, genuine choices.

I think there is some truth to the idea of God’s middle knowledge. But I think that it has been employed (in some sense) as a way to give God “greater control” over our choices—and I’m rather suspicious of it. The writer of Hebrews was more right than he realized when he wrote, “but now we do not yet see all things put under him” (Hebrews 2:8b). If believers are going to take God as sovereign, then something has to account for the fact that the world had to be reconciled to God in Christ (2 Corinthians 5:19) and that this reconciliation is yet to be fully actualized in our world. That can’t be done if theologians continue to ascribe tighter control of humanity’s choices to God. With an increased tighter control, God comes to bear more responsibility for the world situation—and man even less...

"A Schizophrenic Godhead"

“Finally, exhaustive divine sovereignty appears to pit Jesus against the Father. Jesus washed the disciples’ feet and instructed them that Christian leaders were to emulate this style of leadership. In my opinion, the church leadership has not done a good job of fulfilling Jesus’ intention. But if the Father gets exactly what he wants, then what has transpired in the history of the church is PRECISELY WHAT THE FATHER INTENDED. If Jesus desires that Christians love and forgive one another instead of domineering over one another but the Father desires that we lord our power over each other (as witnessed by what actually happens), then THE DESIRES OF THE SON AND THE FATHER ARE AT ODDS, PRODUCING A SCHIZOPHRENIC GODHEAD. (If one posits a hidden will of God the Father behind the revealed will of God the Son, then the ‘revelation’ of God in Jesus is undermined)” (John Sanders, “The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence.” Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007, page 225).

Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary provides the following definition of “schizophrenic”:

2 : contradictory or antagonistic qualities or attitudes.

What John Sanders wants us to do is evaluate the argument. You cannot have two opposite things adjacent to one another, in the same respect at the same time. For example, a person cannot be both “short” and “tall” at the same time in the same way. “Short” and “tall” cannot remain unqualified absolute statements. To leave the phrase as “short and tall” is contradictory. If you revise the phrase as “shorter than her aunt, taller than her mother” you have solved the problem.

If Jesus’ visit on earth was about UNSELFISHNESS, while the Father promoted SELFISHNESS, then what does that say about the Trinity? As Sanders tells us, the Trinity becomes “schizophrenic”—divided in its nature. “Is Christ divided?” (1 Corinthians 1:13, NKJV) I think not. If Christ is not divided, then neither is the Trinity.

A House United

“If Jesus is the paradigm of providence, then God is fundamentally opposed to sin, evil, and suffering. Jesus is NOT REVERSING WHAT GOD HAD PREVIOUSLY BROUGHT ABOUT (for example, disease and suffering). If Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, then never again can Christians justify destroying people...the teaching of Jesus stands opposed to the theology that EVERYTHING HAPPENS JUST AS GOD DECREES IT SHOULD AND THAT GOD’S PURPOSES ARE NEVER FRUSTRATED” (John Sanders, “The God Who Risks: A Theology of Divine Providence” (Second Edition). Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2007, page 116).

I started reading John Sanders’ work several months ago; but life got in the way (as usual) and threw me off the trail. I put down Sanders’ book with the hopes of returning to it soon. After several months, I am returning once more to Sanders’ book, “The God Who Risks.”

Reading his quote above about sickness and disease renewed my passion for the problem of evil. How do we deal with the fact that evil exists in a world created by a good God? According to Sanders, “Jesus is not reversing what God had previously brought about.” I think Sanders’ words parallel Matthew’s words in his Gospel:

“Now when the Pharisees heard it they said, ‘this fellow does not cast out demons EXCEPT BY BEELZEBUB, THE RULER OF THE DEMONS.’ But Jesus knew their thoughts, and said to them: ‘EVERY KINGDOM DIVIDED AGAINST ITSELF WILL NOT STAND. If Satan casts out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then will his kingdom stand? And if I cast out demons by Beelzebub, by whom do your sons cast them out? Therefore they shall be your judges. But if I cast out demons by the Spirit of God, surely the kingdom of God has come upon you” (Matthew 12:24-28, NKJV).

Jesus was considered to have casts out demons by the ruler of the demons. And Jesus said that, should He do that, He would then be dividing the demons, not uniting them. In other words, He would be tearing down the same thing He was supposed to be building up!

Jesus is not casting out demons by demons here; He is simply entertaining the accusation of the Pharisees, and showing them how nonsensical it is. Their accusation of Christ would be the equivalent today of a football player from one team running to score a touchdown FOR THE OTHER TEAM! That makes no sense! If two teams are playing a football game, then doesn’t it make sense to believe that each player wants HIS OWN TEAM to win—not the OTHER team?

When Jesus engages their accusation, He does so to show them that no one in their right mind would do what they are claiming He’s doing; but the reason why they’re making such ridiculous claims is because they will claim He is ANYTHING OTHER THAN THE SON OF GOD! Even when such claims are nonsensical, the Pharisees will resort to them in order to continue their denial of Christ’s Messiahship.

Surprisingly, though, the Pharisaical spirit lives on in the twenty-first century...except today, it’s not literal Pharisees making such claims about Jesus—instead, it’s Christians who are making such claims. Our Calvinist brothers and sisters do this when they claim that, like Sanders said, God sends Jesus to reverse evil and disease THAT HE DESIGNED for His greater glory!! It is foreign to the idea of God. God is consistent in His nature and in His Word, and the idea that God would come to earth and “undo” what He did from the beginning is absurd. But if Christ were undoing what God had designed, then He would be working against the will of His Father...and now, Calvinists have created a fight amongst the members of the Trinity. This then, becomes unbiblical, as the Trinity members always have one mind and one will. Never is there a deliberation between them. They all act in agreement, all the time. Because they all act in agreement, the Trinity shows us a case of “A House United,” not divided. For if they be divided against one another, the Trinity as we know it would not stand.

There is more of Sanders to come; so stay tuned...