Is God’s Will Always Accomplished? (John 6:39)

“And this is the Father’s will which hath sent me, that of all which he hath given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.”  (John 6:39)

When studying this verse, the question that pops into my head is whether or not the will of God is always accomplished.  This scripture immediately causes me to think of how God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance (2 Peter 3:9).  It is clearly God’s will that none should perish, but is his will accomplished?  No.  Many perish everyday, because they refuse to repent.

I studied this more and found that, though it is clearly the will of God that none given to Christ will perish…one did (John 17:12).  Jesus didn’t fail; it was Judas’ choice.  In 1 Timothy 2:1-4 we see that God wills that all be saved and come to the knowledge of truth…but many don’t.  In Matthew 23:37-39, Christ desired to gather all Jerusalem under His wing…but they refused.  Also, the Scribes and Lawyers rejected the will of God for themselves by refusing the Baptism of John (Luke 7:30).

It is clear that God’s will is not always accomplished, and when it is not, it is because of the will that He gave man.

I don’t see this verse teaching that a Christian cannot fall away.  Rather, the main purpose is to show the heart and intention of the Father.  He loves us and desires that we ALL come to him.  But He did not create us to be robots.  He gives us the choice.

Another argument as to why this verse does not teach the doctrine of perseverance is the subjunctive mood.  This is very interesting.

The Greek verb, in the phrase translated “should lose nothing,” is “apolesw” — first aorist active subjunctive. The purpose of the subjunctive mood is usually to imply some level of uncertainty, and “generally represents the verbal action (or state) as uncertain but probable.”¹ This probability depends on certain objective factors or circumstances. Likewise, in the clause, “I should raise him up at the last day,” the verb translated “should raise up” is “anasthsw” —  aorist active subjunctive. This is a statement, not of result, but of intent  or purpose alone. Jesus communicated the Father’s desire that Jesus would eventually raise up all who saw Him and believed on Him. These verses do not state what absolutely WILL occur. Rather, Jesus relayed the wishes of the Father. The importance of this will become obvious when we compare Jesus’ final report to His Father regarding His completing this mission at the end of His earthly ministry. (http://pfrs.org/calvinism/calvin10b.html)

To me, it is clear that this verse is not teaching that a Christian cannot fall away.  Therefore, when studying passages that teach a Christian can fall away, John 6:39 should not cause us to have the presupposition that a Christian cannot fall away

Breaking “The Golden Chain”

In my Matthew class, I was given the following assignment:  In Matthew 11:25-27 Jesus uses language that is undeniably predestinarian.  But in 11:20-24; 28-30 the language of free will is unquestionably in view.  Does Matthew (and Scripture in general) suggest a balance between the two positions or an exclusivity of one or the other? Can the two work together?  If so, how?  This should spark some good discussion!

This post is a response to another student.  All the students agreed that Calvinistic predestination was unbiblical, but the student I am replying to said, “once we are saved, that is when the predestination makes an impact.”  He was referring to the “Once Saved—Always Saved” doctrine.  Here is my response to that.

Since everyone seems to be on the same page concerning election, I thought it might be good to bring up another “doctrine of grace”—Perseverance of the Saints.  The basic teaching behind this is that none who are truly saved can be condemned for their sins or finally fall away from the faith.

You said you think “once we are saved that is when the predestination makes an impact.”  Let me know if I’m misreading you, but I take it you are saying that once a person is saved it is impossible for him to fall away.

“29 For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the likeness of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.” (Romans 8:29-30, NIV 1984)

To Calvinists, these verses are often referred to as “the golden chain,” a chain in God’s sovereign plan going from unconditional election to certain glorification.  You’ve already shown that you don’t hold to unconditional election, so I’ll only address the latter half of the chain—the guarantee of final salvation and glorification for everyone who has come to the cross.

First, let me show you why I don’t think this is a correct interpretation of these verses.  Romans 8:13 says, “13 For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live.”  In this verse, Paul warns his readers that glorification is dependent upon a believer continuing to follow Christ.

The word “if” is important.  You saw it in Romans 8:13.  Keep your eye out for it in the following Scriptures as well. (In 11:22, take note of “provided that”)

In Romans 8:17, Paul says, “17 Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.”

We see him give another warning in Romans 11:21-22, “21 For if God did not spare the natural branches, he will not spare you either. 22 Consider therefore the kindness and sternness of God: sternness to those who fell, but kindness to you, provided that you continue in his kindness. Otherwise, you also will be cut off.”  Remember, he is talking to Christians. He didn’t say, “Otherwise it proves you were never grafted in.”  If you do not continue in His goodness, you will be cut off.

After reading these verses, it makes no sense to me that Paul, in Romans 8:29-30, was saying that once someone is saved, that person is guaranteed final salvation.  The context of Romans make it impossible for this to be the proper interpretation.  So what is the correct interpretation?  There are several, from a non-Calvinist perspective, that I think make more sense.  I’ll just give the one to which I hold.

Paul uses the past tense of called, justified and glorified.  Therefore, he is giving this series from the perspective of one viewing it from the end of human history.  He is just saying that ALL Christians who have experienced final salvation (or glorification) were obviously foreknown, predestined, called and justified.

I am confident that Paul is not teaching unconditional election and guaranteed glorification for the believer. The context doesn’t allow for it.  To be clear, I do believe in the eternal security of a believer. We have full security that we will never fall away from the faith…if we continue in Him.

The Harmony of Predestination and Free Will

In my Matthew class, I was given the following assignment:  In Matthew 11:25-27 Jesus uses language that is undeniably predestinarian.  But in 11:20-24; 28-30 the language of free will is unquestionably in view.  Does Matthew (and Scripture in general) suggest a balance between the two positions or an exclusivity of one or the other? Can the two work together?  If so, how?  This should spark some good discussion!

In order to answer the questions posed for this discussion board, I must first address the framing of the questions.  Craig Blomberg has it wrong.  It’s undeniably NOT predestinarian.  At least, not if he means that Jesus is saying that some people are predestined to heaven, and some to hell.  We need to look at the context.

In verses 20-24, Jesus is obviously angry with those who rejected Him and were unwilling to repent.  He is talking to the crowd who murmured about John the Baptist (11:7) after seeing John’s disciples come to Him asking if He was “the one who was to come.”  He is addressing, “this generation”—the Jews who rejected Him as Messiah.

It is important to note that His anger is directed at their unwillingness to repent.  Tyre and Sidon did not repent either (11:22), and He was saying they were in deeper trouble than those two cities!  Why?  Because they saw God in the flesh, performing miracles to confirm His word, yet they still refused to repent!  He even said that Sodom’s judgment would be more bearable than theirs (11:24).

Now, if the doctrines of limited atonement, irresistible grace and unconditional election were true, why was Jesus so angry?  If He predestined them to reject Christ, then He has no reason to be angry.

Jesus is not talking about Calvinistic predestination in this passage.  In verse 25, Jesus said that the Father has hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children.  In other words, He has hidden these things from the proud, and revealed them to the humble.  “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble” (Proverbs 3:34; James 4:6).  In verse 27, Jesus is simply saying that he reveals the Father to the humble; not the proud.  He is the predestined way to the Father (John 14:6), and only the repentant—the humble—can come that way.

Verses 28-29 make this even clearer.  Who is it that Jesus is calling?  All who are weary and burdened—those who are broken.

This theme is not only found in Matthew, but it is echoed throughout Scripture.  Can predestination and free will work together?  Absolutely!  They always work together.  But a proper definition of predestination would be that God always predestines the way—He never predestines the person.  The way of salvation has been set in stone (John 14:6).  It cannot change.  It is predestined that those who repent and trust Christ, will be saved.

Context is crucial.  When you see the big picture of what Jesus was doing in chapters 11-12, it is clear that He is dealing with a wicked generation of people who rejected Him and refused to repent.  This cup of rejection reached its tipping point in 12:24 and Jesus nailed them.  They had constantly rejected the work of the Holy Spirit, which is to bring conviction (Jn. 16:8) and point to Christ (Jn. 15:26).  Now they verbalized it.  Anyone who rejects the Holy Spirit—and refuses to confess and repent—cannot be saved.  They were a lost cause.  That is why Jesus went to parables in chapter 13.

Combatting the Cults: God the Son (Exodus 3:11-14; Isaiah 43:10-13; John 8:51-59; 10:24-33)

11 But Moses said to God, “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh, and that I should bring the children of Israel out of Egypt?” 

12 So He said, “I will certainly be with you. And this shall be a sign to you that I have sent you: When you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain.” 

13 Then Moses said to God, “Indeed, when I come to the children of Israel and say to them, ‘The God of your fathers has sent me to you,’ and they say to me, ‘What is His name?’ what shall I say to them?” 

14 And God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM.” And He said, “Thus you shall say to the children of Israel, ‘I AM has sent me to you.’” (Exodus 3:11-14)

The phrase, “I AM WHO I AM,” in verse 14 is known as the Tetragrammaton.  A quick explanation is that this word in the Hebrew is JHWH.  There are no vowels.  Scholars have debated why there are no vowels.  I believe it is because the scribes reverenced the name of God so much that they left the vowels out when copying it.  There are different theories, but that’s not that important.  What’s important is that God revealed His Name to Moses in Exodus 3:14.

In the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), this phrase is translated Ego Eimi, simply meaning “I am.”  You find this same phrase in Isaiah 43:10,13.

10 “ You are My witnesses,” says the LORD, 

      “ And My servant whom I have chosen, 

      That you may know and believe Me, 

      And understand that I am He. 

      Before Me there was no God formed, 

      Nor shall there be after Me. 

       11 I, even I, am the LORD, 

      And besides Me there is no savior. 

       12 I have declared and saved, 

      I have proclaimed, 

      And there was no foreign god among you; 

      Therefore you are My witnesses,” 

      Says the LORD, “that I am God. 

       13 Indeed before the day was, I am He; 

      And there is no one who can deliver out of My hand; 

      I work, and who will reverse it?”  (Isaiah 43:10-13, Ego Eimi is in bold)

The reason Ego Eimi is so important is that it is the exact phrase used in John 8:58.  In context, Jesus is nailing the Pharisees for their hard hearts, and He is about to make even more clear what He has been saying the whole time: that He is God.

51 Most assuredly, I say to you, if anyone keeps My word he shall never see death.” 

52 Then the Jews said to Him, “Now we know that You have a demon! Abraham is dead, and the prophets; and You say, ‘If anyone keeps My word he shall never taste death.’ 53 Are You greater than our father Abraham, who is dead? And the prophets are dead. Who do You make Yourself out to be?” 

54 Jesus answered, “If I honor Myself, My honor is nothing. It is My Father who honors Me, of whom you say that He is your God. 55 Yet you have not known Him, but I know Him. And if I say, ‘I do not know Him,’ I shall be a liar like you; but I do know Him and keep His word. 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day, and he saw it and was glad.” 

57 Then the Jews said to Him, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?” 

58 Jesus said to them, “Most assuredly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I AM.” 

59 Then they took up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by.  (John 8:51-59, Ego Eimi is in bold)

Do you realize that when Jesus said, “before Abraham was, I AM,” He was claiming to be God?  Walter Martin explains why Ego Eimi from the Septuagint is so important.

He said, “In comparing this (“I AM” in verse 58) with the Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 43:10-13, we find that the translation is identical.”  In this passage, Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees.  They were all very familiar with the Septuagint.  So when they heard Him say, “before Abraham was, I AM.” there was no confusion about what He meant.  He was claiming to be equal with God!  That’s why they tried to stone Him (v. 59).

It’s important to note that most Mormons will agree with you on this.  However, Jehovah’s Witnesses won’t.  Walter Martin, in his book Jehovah of the Watchtower crushes their argument, and exposes their deliberate deception.

Jehovah’s Witnesses declare that the Greek rendering of Ego Eimi (I AM) in John 8:58 is “properly rendered in the perfect indefinite tense’ (I have been), not ‘I am’.”  To unmask this bold perversion of the greek text, we shall now examine it grammatically to see if it has any valid grounds for being so translated.

It is difficult to know what the author of the note on page 312 (NWT) means, since he does not use standard grammatical terminology, nor is his argument documented from standard grammars.  The aorist infinitive, as such, does not form a clause.  It is the adverb prin which is significant here, so that the construction should be called prin clause.  The term perfect indefinite is an invention of the author of the note, so it is impossible to know what is meant.  The real problem in the verse is the verb Ego Eimi.  Dr. Robertson, who is quoted as authoritative by the NWT (p. 775), states that eimi is “absolute.”  This means there is no predicate expressed with it.  This usage occurs four times (Jn. 8:24, 58; 13:19; 18:5).  In these places, the term is the same used by the Septuagint at Deuteronomy 32:39; Isaiah 43:10; and 46:4, to render the Hebrew phrase “I (am) He.”  The phrase then is a claim to full and equal deity.  The incorrect and rude rendering of the NWT only serves to illustrate the difficulty of evading the meaning of the phrase and the context.  (Walter Martin, Jehovah of the Watchtower, pg. 53)

There you have it; deliberate deception.  Walter Martin caught them red-handed.  Unfortunately, the Watchtower has since covered their tracks.  Unless you can get your hands on a very old copy of the NWT, you will no longer find that note on John 8:58.

It is very clear.  Jesus is God and He said it very plainly to the Pharisees.  That is why they wanted to kill Him.  For more proof, let us go to John 10.

24 Then the Jews surrounded Him and said to Him, “How long do You keep us in doubt? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.” 

25 Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father’s name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you. 27 My sheep hear My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me. 28 And I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; neither shall anyone snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of My Father’s hand. 30 I and My Father are one.”

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, “Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?” 

33 The Jews answered Him, saying, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God.”  (John 10:24-33, emphasis added)

Some cultists will say, “Well, if Jesus was God, why didn’t He just come out and say it?”  My answer:  “He did.”  We have already seen this in John 8:58.  Now, in John 10:30 He says, “I and My Father are one.”  It can’t get any plainer than that.  It is quite clear.  Jesus was either deluded, hallucinating, insane, deceived, or He really is who He said He is…God.  I choose to believe that He is God.

SCRIPTURES:

The Holy Trinity:

• The Holy Trinity

God the Father:

• 2 Peter 1:17

God the Son:

• John 5:16-27
• Revelation 1:8; 22:7,12,13; 22:16; 22:20; 1:12-16,17-18; Isaiah 44:6

God the Holy Spirit:

• Acts 5:1-4; 13:1-2

A Summary of The Sermon on the Mount

In my Matthew class, at Foothills Christian College, I was given the assignment of summarizing Matthew 5-7.  I had to do it in two pages, double-spaced, with one inch margins:

 

When Jesus saw the crowds, he went up the mountainside and taught them.  He started with the basics of the kingdom, which show that kingdom living is completely opposite from anything we would expect.  Blessed are the poor in spirit, those who mourn, the meek, those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the peacemakers.  Then, if we fulfill these first seven beatitudes, we will be persecuted because of righteousness.  This is a blessing though.  We can rejoice and be glad, looking forward to our reward in heaven.

We live in a fallen world, so we must be like salt, fighting the corruption.  In order for salt to work, it has to make contact.  Likewise, we are to be the light of the world.  We can’t hide it.  We need to let it shine; doing good works for all to see, so that God will get the glory.

The Lord makes it clear that He didn’t come to do away with the Old Testament; rather He came to set a higher standard.  The Law is still valid and, if we want to enter heaven, we must keep it in it’s entirety; we have to be perfect.  The new standard is that our righteousness must exceed the righteousness of the Pharisees, but this righteousness doesn’t come from outward observance of the Law.  God judges the heart.  Jesus is out to make a point that no one is righteous.  Everyone thought the Pharisees were, but he’s about to prove otherwise.

Jesus gives us six illustrations of this.  First, He said that murder is not just an action, but if we hate someone, we’re guilty.  He says the same thing about adultery.  If we lust in our heart, we’re guilty.  Despite the prevalent teaching of the day, that there were cases where divorce was lawful, Jesus said it is never lawful.  Matthew added the exception clause to explain that he wasn’t talking about the case with Joseph and Mary from chapter one.  The fourth antithesis is about oaths.  We shouldn’t make oaths, but let our ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and our ‘No,’ ‘No.’  The fifth is dealing with revenge.  It’s really an issue of humility.  We can’t give into our pride.  If someone embarrasses us, we must show them the light of Christ by not returning the favor.  Finally, we are to live like Christ by loving the people that our flesh wants to hate.

Chapter six starts with three examples of right vs. wrong motives.  When we give, pray or fast, we shouldn’t do it so others may see us.  If we do, that will be our reward.  But if we do these things to glorify Christ, our Father in heaven will reward us.

Then, Jesus warns us to focus on eternal things.  We need to sow into the kingdom of heaven, not the world.  This might cause us to worry, but we can’t let it be so.  Jesus makes the promise that if we seek his kingdom and his righteousness, God will take care of us.

Chapter seven starts by showing us that we need to be careful not to be hypocritical in our judgments.  We are supposed to make judgments, but before pointing out sin in others, we need to be sure we are not guilty of the same sin.  Also, our standard must be the Word of God.

Jesus then assures us that our heavenly Father knows what we need.  If we are in need, we can pray to Him.  If it’s his will, he will give it to us.  With that being said, our God is incredibly gracious, treating us better than we deserve.  We need to do the same to others.

We are then told about two paths; the wide one leads to destruction and the narrow one leads to life.  Most people choose the wide path.  There will be some that lead others down the wide path, convincing them it’s the narrow path.  Many will think they are on the narrow path, yet when they stand before the Lord, their hypocrisy will be shown.

In closing, Jesus admonishes us not only to hear his words, but to put them into practice.  Those who do this will endure, but those who don’t will be swept away.

Jesus taught with authority.  This, above all else, is what amazed his hearers.  Never before in Israel had a man rose up to teach with such authority.

A Study on Baptism

The following is a discussion board assignment from my Matthew class at Foothills Christian College.

Assignment:

In Matthew 3:11, John the Baptist informs the Pharisees and Sadducees: “I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire” (NIV).

From your reading (and any extra research you would like to do), explain what baptism is and what the difference is between John’s baptism (water for repentance) and Jesus’ baptism (Holy Spirit and fire).

 

My Post:

Water baptism, according to Noah Webster’s 1828 Dictionary, is “the application of water to a person, as a sacrament or religious ceremony, by which he is initiated into the visible church of Christ.  This is usually performed by sprinkling or immersion.”  When a person is confronted with his sins, and realizes his wickedness, he has two choices:  He can either harden his heart and continue in his rebellion against God, or he can soften his heart and repent; dying to himself and placing his trust in Christ.  When a person makes the latter of these two decisions, water baptism provides this new believer with the chance to let everyone know what has taken place in his heart.  Blomberg described it as, “the outward sign of an inward change.” (pg. 79)

In Romans 6, we find a great illustration of what water baptism signifies.  Romans 6:1-4 says, “1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.” (NIV 1984)

There are several differences between water baptism and the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire.  The most obvious difference is that only Jesus can baptize someone with the Holy Spirit and with fire, whereas any minister can perform water baptism.

Secondly, unlike water baptism, the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire takes place inwardly; in the heart.  John Wesley said, “He shall fill you with the Holy Ghost, inflaming your hearts with that fire of love, which many waters cannot quench.  And this was done, even with a visible appearance as of fire, on the day of Pentecost.”  Scripture is very clear that this baptism takes place in the lives of all believers (1 Cor. 12:13).  There is also no doubt that this baptism takes place at the moment of conversion.  2 Corinthians 5:17 says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has gone, the new has come!”  He is now a new creation because he has died to himself and the Holy Spirit has taken residence in his heart. He has been baptized with the Holy Spirit, giving him new life. (Rom. 6:4)

In conclusion, the baptism of the Holy Spirit and fire takes place at the moment of conversion.  It is an inward baptism.  Of course, people will see the affects of this inward change by the radical changes in devotion and behavior of this new believer.  Water baptism is a church ordinance that shows what has taken place on the inside.

 

Here is a comment from a fellow student.  I thought it would be good to show his comment, as well as my response:

It is interesting that Webster’s dictionary would use the words “visible church of Christ…by sprinkling and immersion.” There are two things that come to mind with Webster’s definition. The first is a question; is baptism limited to the Christian religion? While most every place I have read seems to concur with that idea, In Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible, I read “Jews baptized their gentile converts, some Jewish sects practiced baptism as a symbol of purification.”(pp. 540 – 541)

The second thing that comes to mind is the question of sprinkling versus immersion. I grew up in a denomination that “sprinkled”. I have always heard that it is imperative when studying a translated document such as the books of the Bible that it is examined in context of the original language. In John Phillips, Exploring the Gospel of Matthew; he writes that the Greek word Baptizo means to dip or immerse. He said it was never intended for just sprinkling. (p.58) It is intriguing that such a seemingly important misunderstanding has persisted for so many years. We have allowed things like this to infiltrate into the church. I think as David Platt was trying to emphasize in his book Radical that the church needs to get back to Biblical principles.

 

My Response:

I have done a little research on the immersion vs. sprinkling debate.  This is a debate that has been going on for some time.  Noah Webster included sprinkling and immersion in his definition of baptism because both forms were very prevalent when he wrote it (as they are today). I don’t know which he held to, but I do think he properly defined baptism.

Though I am firmly in the camp of “the dunkers,” I believe that an accurate definition of baptism should include sprinkling.  Why?  Because, though I would never perform a baptism by sprinkling, many do, and sprinkling does not negate a baptism.  The only thing that would negate a baptism would be an unregenerate heart.

After years of research, in 1828, Noah Webster finally finished his American Dictionary of the English Language. You can be assured he was familiar with George Whitefield—a preacher of righteousness—was one of the most influential men in American history. At times, he had to deal with the sprinkling vs. immersion debate. He believed in immersion, yet did not consider it something to fight over. Concerning this debate, Whitefield said, “Would it not be better for us to take care not to offend our brethren, not to raise one another’s spirits and corruptions, but rather, when we come together, talk of the heart, and enquire whether when we received the outward sign by sprinkling or dipping, we really received the thing signified in our hearts, and exemplify that thing signified, in our lives.” Whitefield was a man who understood the importance of staying focused on preaching the gospel of Christ, which is the power of God unto salvation.

That’s where I stand as well. However, I also believe that this has been a healthy debate and have been enriched in these discussions. We need to know what we believe and why. The Bible is clearly for immersion and so am I.

A Study on Divorce

The following is a discussion board assignment from my Matthew class at Foothills Christian College.

Assignment:

According to abcnews.com, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson stunned “700 Club” viewers last Tuesday when he said divorcing a spouse with Alzheimer’s disease was justified. http://abcnews.go.com/Health/AlzheimersCommunity/pat-robertson-alzheimers-makes-divorce/story?id=14526660

In Matthew 5:32 Jesus says, “everyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of sexual immorality, makes her commit adultery, and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” And again in 19:9, He repeats, “And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.”  Both Mark (10:11-12) and Luke (16:18) do not include the phrase, “except on the ground of sexual immorality.”  This is known as Matthew’s exception clause.

In at least 300 words (400 for Grad students) answer the following questions: Is there biblically any true justification for divorce (Adultery?  Alzheimer’s?  Spousal abuse?  Non-believer? Etc…)?  If so or if no, how can you back up your claim(s)?   What about remarriage?

 

My Post:

The one-flesh union created in marriage is permanent until death. Though I haven’t always held to this belief, I now believe that the Bible teaches that divorce or remarriage is never lawful under any circumstances. I used to hold to the belief that a divorce is lawful in the case of adultery. This is what I was taught as a new believer, but several scriptures caused me to question it.

First of all, God didn’t waste any time making it clear that marriage was permanent. In Genesis 2:24 he said, “That is why a man leaves his father and mother and is united to his wife, and they become one flesh.” Jesus would comment on this later (Mt. 19:5).

Then, in Malachi 2:16 God says that he hates divorce. For the context of what he’s dealing with, it would be helpful to read Ezra and Nehemiah. When the people of Judah came back to Jerusalem to rebuild the temple, they started divorcing the wives of their youth and marrying pagan wives.  So, God rebuked them. He hates divorce and in Malachi 3:6 he said, “I the LORD do not change.”

The scriptures above gave me reason to have some presuppositions when looking at “the exception clause.”

The OT was not the only place that caused me to doubt what I had been taught about divorce and remarriage. Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 left me wondering why they left out something so important. If God values marriage so much, and hates divorce so much, why did Mark and Luke not find it important enough to add the exception clause? My search finally led me to the following teaching.

Unlike the other synoptics, Matthew was written specifically to the Jews.  This is relevant because the Jews had a practice called betrothal, which was a legally binding contract, between a young man and woman, who had made a pledge to get married.  It’s similar to an engagement, but far more binding.  With a betrothal, the only way out was if the husband wrote his betrothed wife a certificate of divorce. There were two views on the grounds for this (Shammai taught there had to be a gross act of immorality and Hillel taught that pretty much anything was grounds for divorce).

This is important because Matthew uses a word in the exception clause that deals with breaking a betrothal, not a marriage.  He uses the greek word, “porneia” which means, “fornication.”  Jesus’ words were, “But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness (porneia), causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery (moicheia).”

Though porneia was broad enough to sometimes include adultery, it doesn’t make sense in the verse. But it especially makes sense when you realize that porneia was the word used for a sin that gave grounds to end a betrothal.

Understanding this also makes sense of Matthew 1:18-19, when we are told of the account of Joseph having in his mind to divorce Mary. Why divorce her if they aren’t married? Because divorce was the only way to end a betrothal, and in Joseph’s mind, Mary had committed porneia, which gave him the grounds to divorce her.

In the provided article, John Piper brought out something I hadn’t seen. He said, “Matthew says that Joseph was “just” in making the decision to divorce Mary, presumably on account of her porneia, fornication.” Piper said this is the key reason Matthew added the exception clause, saying, “in order to avoid the jarring inconsistency between what he has said about Joseph and what Jesus says about divorce, Matthew inserts the exception clause in order to exonerate Joseph and show that the kind of divorce that one might pursue during a betrothal on account of fornication, is not included in what Jesus had said.”

Understanding this helped me to make sense of something that was previously complicating to me—the issue of divorce and remarriage. A correct interpretation of “the exception clause” makes it clear that neither divorce nor remarriage is ever lawful.

 

Here is a comment from a fellow student.  I thought it would be good to show his comment, as well as my answer:

Adam, I have found the same to be true in the scripture and have shared my thoughts in my post. I beleive divorce to be impermissable from the scripture, but for discussion how does God tolerate, or does he tolerate divorce? I think tolerating and permiting are two different ways of looking at the subject. What are your thoughts? Second question even though I beleive “no divorce, no matter what”, what about the case of someone in a very abusive situation to the point of life or death. How should one handle this case, possibly through short term seperation or what? I think this is a very hard subject to deal with in that situation, maybe in certain instances harder to deal with than adultery. Me personally I dont know because biblically I beleive “no divorce” but how would you explain this to someone in that situation? I know that is a lot of questions to talk about but I think it would be good to talk about this so we could learn how to handle this in a real life situation. Hopefully others will give there input as well.

 

My Response:

These are some good points and some good questions. First, let me address whether or not God tolerates divorce, even though His Word says that it is unlawful. If you don’t mind, I’m going to replace the word “tolerate” with the word “permit.” Though the words are basically the same, permit is used more frequently concerning this issue.

I listened to all of the audio files and read all of the articles provided for this assignment. MacArthur said that God never commands, nor condones divorce, but because of man’s sinfulness, He permits and regulates it.

Though I highly respect MacArthur, I found his three sermons on this issue to be a little confusing. He makes strong arguments for the permanence of marriage, yet he says that Jesus permits it. Now let me ask this question: What other sin is there that God permits? Does he permit murder or adultery? What about lying or stealing? I don’t think so. Many would say that Jesus permits divorce because he brought up the case law from Deuteronomy 24, where Moses permits divorce. Dr. Voddie Baucham, in his sermon, The Permanence View of Marriage, does a great job of explaining the context of what Moses was dealing with.

“The case law in Deuteronomy 24 is not about writing certificates of divorce. It’s about remarriage. Moses assumes the issue of the certificates because that is something that was already happening in Israel. He’s saying, “You sent your wife away. The marriage that she entered into was adulterous. If she gets out of that one, you can’t marry her again.” Moses is making a statement about remarriage. He’s not making a statement about divorce in Deuteronomy 24. That’s not what the case law is covering. He’s addressing the divorces that are now rampant among the people and he’s actually putting restrictions on the practice.”

Keep in mind, that in the six antithesis in Matthew 5, Jesus is saying, “You have heard that this was said…but I say this…” He was laying down a greater standard. Though Moses permitted divorce, Jesus does not. I hope that helps to answer your question.

Let me now address the case of someone in an abusive situation. This is an urgent issue, but is still not grounds for divorce. Even though I disagree with the two-clause stance of MacArthur and Carson, we would all agree that a woman abused by her husband should be removed from the situation, but divorce is still not lawful. They believe that the only two instances where divorce is lawful are adultery or abandonment. Therefore, the wife still cannot divorce in this situation. However, she should remove herself from the situation, press charges on him for abuse, and even get a restraining order. Her church should come alongside her and help her—especially if she has children. Then she should pray for her husband’s repentance and for her marriage’s restoration.

I’ll close with more from Dr. Voddie Baucham on this issue. When talking about how divorce is never lawful, he said, “Does this mean that we would ask people to stay in a situation and be beaten, and brutalized, and have their money spent recklessly? No. Not at all. We believe part of our pastoral responsibility, in the midst of a situation like that, would be to protect a person who is being abused. But we still couldn’t advise them to get a divorce, because those are not biblical grounds…and that’s whether we had a permanence view or not.”

A Study on Matthew 10:23

The following is a post from a discussion board assignment in my Matthew class at Foothills Christian College.

“When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. I tell you the truth, you will not finish going through the cities of Israel before the Son of Man comes.”  (Matthew 10:23)

In Matthew 10:1, Jesus called the twelve disciples to Him and gave them authority to drive out evil spirits and to heal every disease and sickness.  In 10:5 we see that Jesus sent out, and began instructing, these same twelve disciples.  11:1 starts with, “After Jesus had finished instructing his twelve disciples…”  So, reading Matthew 10:23 in context makes it very clear that Jesus was speaking to the twelve disciples for all of chapter ten.  To whom did this passage apply?  Though we can draw modern applications from verse 23a, verse 23b applied only to the twelve disciples.

When Jesus spoke of the cities of Israel, he was referring to the Jewish people of the cities of Israel.  He wasn’t talking about fleeing from city to city, seeking refuge.  He was basically saying, “When persecution comes, save your life and take the message of the kingdom to the next city.”  The persecution would be the means to take this message throughout the cities of Israel.

‘Son of Man’ was Jesus’ favorite term for Himself.  It was a perfect title to go along with His message that the kingdom had come “now…and not yet.”  The Son of Man had come…but not yet.  He had come to the earth, yet had not yet fulfilled Daniel 7:13-14.  The title was loaded prophetically.  Those who understood Scripture, who had eyes to see, would know what He was talking about.  Many would be left in the dark because of their ignorance.  Also, according to RCH Lenski, “In the use Jesus makes of this title two lines of thought converge: the one is lowliness, suffering, etc.; the other greatness, power, exaltation beyond men.” (Interpretation of St. Matthew’s Gospel, pg. 341)  So, this title also spoke of Jesus’ humanity and divinity.

In this passage, it is very clear that Jesus used ‘Son of Man’ to reference the Messianic prophecy of Daniel 7:13-14, which says, “13 In my vision at night I looked, and there before me was one like a son of man, coming with the clouds of heaven. He approached the Ancient of Days and was led into his presence. 14 He was given authority, glory and sovereign power; all peoples, nations and men of every language worshiped him. His dominion is an everlasting dominion that will not pass away, and his kingdom is one that will never be destroyed.”

I believe that this prophecy was fulfilled in Jesus’ ascension to the right hand of the Father, when the Son of Man came to the Ancient of Days in heaven and received power and authority.  There were three earthly signs of this heavenly coming.  One was the great commission, where Jesus commanded His disciples to take the gospel to all nations (Mt. 28:18-20).  Another was the outpouring of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost (Acts 2:33-36).  Another sign was the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. (Mt. 24).

Many believe that Jesus was only talking about this last sign, and not His ascension.  There is a very strong argument for that.  Wayne Jackson, in his article, What is the Meaning of Matthew 10:23, said that “the ‘coming’ event in Matthew 10:23 is the Roman invasion of Palestine, which occurred in A.D. 66-70.”  I like this idea a lot (especially because RCH Lenski echoes it), but I’m not 100% sold.  I don’t think it fits with Daniel 7:13-14.  It makes much more sense that this was fulfilled in the ascension of Jesus.

The jury’s still out on this one.  I’m looking forward to see what everyone else comes up with.

Here are some links about this issue:

• http://www.livingwordbible.org/Sermons/Matthew/Matthew10.23.pdf

• http://www.preteristarchive.com/Idealism/2008_dennis_matthew_10-23.htm

• http://www.christiancourier.com/articles/668-what-is-the-meaning-of-matthew-10-23

• http://genref.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/wrestling-with-matthew-1023/