Rhode Island & Walden Pond: How They Shaped the Way Americans Think About Church

person sitting on bench under tree

It has been said that there are two men who did more to shape the American psyche and culture than anyone else:

#1: Roger Williams, Founder of Rhode Island

Roger Williams moved from England to Boston in the 1600’s to be part of the Puritan colony of Massachusetts

The Puritans’ goal was to create a pure church, free from politics, corruption, and compromise.

Roger Williams loved this idea… the only thing was: after a while he noticed some things in the church there in Boston that he didn’t really like. Things such as how baptisms were carried out, and how the church was managed.

So, do you know what he did?   He left.

Roger moved down south of Boston and established his own colony, with its own church, in what is now Providence, Rhode Island.

But then, guess what happened… After a while, Roger found some things he didn’t like about this new church, and some of the people there (the very church he himself had founded!). And so, Roger Williams left that church as well, and established another church nearby.

And then he left that church too…

Every church he started, he eventually left – because he found things he didn’t like… and they never completely matched his vision for what a perfect church should be, which is particularly interesting since he was the leader of these churches.

Roger Williams ended up alone, still having faith, but completely withdrawn from Christian community.

#2: Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau was a writer, who famously encouraged us to “march to the beat of our own drum.”

He lived in a hut, next to Walden Pond, and would write about going for walks in the forest alone.

Thoreau expressed a very powerful theme for Americans: we take care of ourselves, we work for ourselves, we answer to ourselves — and when it comes to church, we do that for ourselves too.

Thoreau shaped American culture by putting the self at the heart of the American psyche.

His biographer put it this way:  Henry David Thoreau “stands as the most powerful example…of the American mentality of: self-trust, self-reverence, or self-reliance.”

But here’s the thing:  if you look at Thoreau’s life, you don’t find a happy person. He struggled to engage in long-term, meaningful relationships with others, and at the end of his life he had no friends.

Rugged Individualism + Personal Religion = Selling Us Short

The “rugged individualism” of Thoreau plus the “personal religion” of Roger Williams shapes American culture to this day.

Like fish in water, it is hard for us to imagine things any other way, but thankfully God’s Word gives us God’s vision for what the Body of Christ, the gathered, redeemed People of God, AKA: the Church is intended to be and called to be. And when understood, it becomes clear that our culture of rugged individualism + personal religion is selling us short. God has something better for us!

See the article: A Culture of Loneliness and What to Do About It 

I love this quote from Scottish theologian Sinclair Ferguson:

We are not saved individually and then choose to join the church as if it were some club or support group. Christ died for his people, and we are saved when by faith we become part of the people for whom Christ died.

This Sunday at White Fields Church in Longmont, we will continue our Vision series by looking at God’s vision for the church. If you are in the area, we would love to have you join us!

For more on this, check out the book: A Fellowship of Differents: Showing the World God’s Design for Life Together by Scot McKnight

Calvary Live Schedule Change

sound speaker radio microphone

Switching from Mondays to Fridays

Starting this week (January 24, 2020), I will be hosting the Calvary Live call-in show on GraceFM on Fridays from 4:00-5:00 PM Mountain Time.

Calvary Live is a show where listeners can call in with questions about the Bible, theology, and Christian living, as well as with prayer requests.

The program airs on 89.7 FM along the northern Front Range (Cheyenne, WY to Castle Rock, CO) and on 101.7 in Colorado Springs. It is also syndicated on Hope FM (Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Maryland) and Truth FM (Tennessee).

Calvary Live also airs live online at gracefm.com, and we regularly have listeners from all over the US and abroad.

Join me on Fridays on Calvary Live! Call in at (303-690-3000) or text (720-336-0897).

Book Review: A Framework for Understanding Poverty

A Framework for Understanding Poverty 5th edition 9781938248016 1938248015This book: A Framework for Understanding Poverty, was recommended to me by Aaron Campbell, who pastors a church in urban Philadelphia: https://antiochphilly.org

While the book is written primarily for educators to understand and help students in poverty, the research and principles outlined in the book have a much broader application.

Poverty is a Theological Issue

Poverty is not only a political and economic issue, for Christians it is also a theological issue. What the Bible has to say on the topic of poverty goes far beyond the statement that “the poor you will always have with you.” (Mark 14:17)

Taken on its own, this statement of Jesus is often used to say that poverty isn’t something that we as Christians need to care about, since we will never succeed in eradicating it prior to the return of Jesus. However, taking a broader look at the Bible reveals that God has a lot to say about poverty.

For example, the books of the minor prophets, particularly Amos, chastise the people of God for not caring for the poor, and even exploiting them. See Amos: Faith that Works.

Amos is not alone in this message, however. We can say that poverty is a result of the fall, i.e. sin in the world. Like sickness, it is a symptom of the present fallen human condition which Jesus will ultimately make right.

Going all the way back to the Law of Moses and throughout the prophets, the message is that God’s people are to watch out for what is called “the quartet of the vulnerable,” i.e. the most vulnerable people in society, who in their case were: widows, orphans, sojourners, and the poor. Provisions were made in the Law of Moses to prevent systemic poverty and to provide for the needs of those who wound up in poverty as a result of their own choices.

Poverty is a Lack of Access to Resources

Ruby Payne describes poverty as a lack of access to resources. She explains that poverty is relative to location, but that there are certain behavioral patterns which characterize those in poverty which are true across cultures and national boundaries. Interestingly, to prove this, the author did research not only in urban settings in the United States, but also rural settings and internationally, including in Hungary and Slovakia, places I am very familiar with from having lived in North-East Hungary, near the border with Slovakia. I recognized some of the characteristic behaviors she described both in people I worked with in Eastern Europe, as well as in my own family of origin.

She began the book by dispelling many myths about poverty, such as that poverty is the result of laziness, or that it is limited to minority populations or urban areas. She then went on to describe some of the hardships those in generational poverty (two or more generations) face which often prevent them from escaping. Generational poverty can have damaging effects on the brain, as the constant struggle for survival and the presence of different kinds of predators can prevent the development of skills which are needed for the kinds of success in life which allows someone to escape poverty.

Understanding poverty as a lack of resources is important, because it means – as Payne states – that poverty is not mostly about not having money. It is most significantly about relationships.

The Importance of Faith Communities in Relieving Poverty

Payne states that the most important factor that can help those in poverty is for them to be part of a faith community. This is both because of the spiritual resources which provide hope, or “a future story” as Payne calls it, as well as the social and supportive aspects. This is part of the reason why Paul the Apostle is able to say that though he had no money, in Christ he was rich. For more on this, see the recent message I gave on this topic: The Soul Felt Its Worth

May we as the people of God have the heart of God towards those who are weak and vulnerable in our society, and may we act of His hands and feet!

I found this book very insightful, and I recommend it for anyone looking for a balanced and research-backed approach to understanding this important issue.

 

 

What Did John Calvin Mean By, “We must remember that Satan has his miracles too”?

image.png

In a recent post titled If Satan Has Been Defeated, Why Is He Still “Prowling Around”?, we looked at how Satan is not God’s counterpart, and certainly not his equal. How then can someone like John Calvin, who has a high view of God’s sovereignty and power, say that “Satan has his miracles too?

Calvin was referring to Matthew 24:24 – where, in his Olivet Discourse, Jesus states that during a time to come of great tribulation, “false messiahs and false prophets will arise and perform great signs and wonders, so as to lead astray, if possible, even the elect.”

The Context of Calvin’s Statement: A Response to Roman Catholic Criticisms About a Lack of Miracles in the Reformation

This statement is only part of a bigger statement by John Calvin. It is found in the “Prefatory Address to the King of France,” at the beginning of Institutes of the Christian Religion. In this section, Calvin is responding to Roman Catholic criticisms of the Reformation, one of which was that the Reformation lacked miracles, which they said proved that the Reformation was not a legitimate, apostolic, work of God.

In his response, Calvin said that the immediate purpose of a miracle like healing was to bring relief to the individual, but the ultimate purpose was to prove that the apostolic preaching was true. Calvin then argues that the Reformation is not a new revelation, but rather the reaffirmation of the original apostolic preaching, therefore it does not necessitate miracles to confirm its validity.

Calvin then takes it one step further by suggesting that many of the supposed miracles reported by the Roman Catholic Church may not be from God, but may instead be of the sort talked about by Jesus in Matthew 24:24, i.e. performed by false prophets by the power of Satan to lead people astray and deceive them.

Interestingly however, Calvin does not disavow miracles entirely, but suggests that there were actually miracles that accompanied the Reformation. He then makes the concluding point that the test of miracles should be what they cause you to worship and trust in. Any miracle which causes you to trust in false doctrines or turn away from the Word of God, he says, are suspect in their origin.

This final point is a good one; you might remember that in Exodus, Pharaoh’s sorcerers were able to do replicate some of the miracles which Moses performed. The effect of these miracles was to cause people not to listen to God and repent, but to trust in false gods. I have witnessed a similar phenomenon amongst people in some circles today who seek signs and wonders; sometimes the signs they seek cause them to trust in things other than God, His Word, and the gospel.

You can read a larger excerpt of what Calvin wrote here, but here are some highlights:

In demanding miracles from us, they act dishonestly; for we have not coined some new gospel, but retain the very one the truth of which is confirmed by all the miracles which Christ and the apostles ever wrought.

But the mark of sound doctrine given by our Savior himself is its tendency to promote the glory not of men, but of God (John 7:18; 8:50). Our Savior having declared this to be test of doctrine, we are in error if we regard as miraculous, works which are used for any other purpose than to magnify the name of God.

And it becomes us to remember that Satan has his miracles, which, although they are tricks rather than true wonders, are still such as to delude the ignorant and unwary. Magicians and enchanters have always been famous for miracles, and miracles of an astonishing description have given support to idolatry: these, however, do not make us converts to the superstitions either of magicians or idolaters.

But our opponents tell us that their miracles are wrought not by idols, not by sorcerers, not by false prophets, but by saints: as if we did not know it to be one of Satan’s wiles to transform himself “into an angel of light” (2 Cor. 11:14).

We, then, have no lack of miracles, sure miracles, that cannot be gainsaid; but those to which our opponents lay claim are mere delusions of Satan, inasmuch as they draw off the people from the true worship of God to vanity.

Source: John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, cited in: The Reformation’s Lack of Miracles: A Response by John Calvin

Is There Only One Correct Way to Interpret a Given Passage of Scripture?

white ballpoint pen on book pages

In the Gospel of Matthew, Matthew explains how different aspects of Jesus’ life fulfilled Old Testament prophecies. However, upon examinations, some of these prophecies bring up interesting questions.

Yesterday I addressed one such question: Is There a Prophecy that Says that Jesus Would Come from Nazareth? – based on Matthew’s claim in 2:23 that Jesus was raised in Nazareth in order to fulfill what was spoken by the prophets.

The Issues: Authorial Intent and Multiple Meanings

Another verse in Matthew chapter 2 brings up a different issue: In Matthew 2:13-15, Matthew describes the flight to Egypt, when Jesus and his family fled to Egypt for several years because Herod wanted to kill Jesus. (See also: Advent Meditations: Jesus Was a Refugee) In Matthew 2:15, Matthew says that when Jesus returned from Egypt, it was a fulfillment of Hosea’s prophecy: “Out of Egypt I called my son.”

Here’s why this is interesting: When Hosea wrote these words, he was speaking of Israel as God’s “son” whom he brought out of Egypt in the Exodus. Hosea’s intention was not to speak of the Messiah. However, what Matthew is saying, assumedly under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, is that even though Hosea’s intent was merely to refer to Israel, he was also writing (by the inspiration of the Spirit) about the Son of God, i.e. the Messiah, whom we now know to be Jesus of Nazareth – even though he did not realize it at the time.

Furthermore, this means that there are two meanings and interpretations of this passage which are both correct: historically it speaks about God bringing Israel out of Egypt, and prophetically it foretells that the Messiah would sojourn in Egypt for a time.

Polysemy and Multivalence

There are several Old Testament prophecies which are used in the Old Testament in this way: while they have a historical meaning, which corresponds to the authorial intent of the original writer, they also have a prophetic meaning, which the author was unaware of, which found (or still will find) its fulfillment in the future.

For example, several passages in the prophetic books warn of an exile which is to come, but then conclude with a promise of the regathering of the people of both Israel and Judah to the land, as well as a time of peace and prosperity to follow. The return of the people to the land was fulfilled in the time following the Babylonian exile. It could also be said that this was fulfilled again through the Zionist movement in the 19th and 20th centuries. And yet, both of these were only partial fulfillments, since the ultimate fulfillment of promised kingdom of peace, justice, and righteousness will only see its complete fulfillment after the return of Jesus.

What this means is that many biblical texts are polysemic and multivalent. 

  • Polysemic: “multiple meanings”
  • Multivalence: “many appeals or values”

Scholars of textual hermeneutics, like Paul Ricoeur and Hans G. Gadamer explain the polysemy of biblical texts by saying that, unlike scientific formulas and computer codes, the texts of Scripture sometimes contain “surpluses of meaning.” [1]

This is why some texts in the Bible are not entirely controlled in their interpretation by their original human writers (i.e. authorial intent). The Hosea passage cited in Matthew 2 is a perfect example of this. What is notable here is that the different meanings do not contradict each other.

John Goldingay explains, “An element of polyvalence or irreducible ambiguity characterizes parts of scripture.” [2]

Thus, Scripture cannot be used to say anything we want it to, but we would be contradicting Scripture itself to claim that there can only be one correct interpretation of every passage in Scripture. What is important is that the different interpretations do not have contradictory meanings.

Above all, this should leave us in awe of the rich complexity and beauty of the Word of God, and it should leave us all the more convinced of its divine inspiration.

Multivalence and Multivocality

Multivalence means different appeals or values, and Multivocality means that Scripture speaks to different listeners in different voices that say different (but, again, not conflicting) things.

Christian Smith illustrates this by compiling a list of different lessons and applications which can be faithfully gleaned from Jesus’ encounter with the woman at the well in John 4:

  • Christians would do well to “get out of their comfort zones” in order to preach the gospel to those who are culturally different or who live in foreign lands, but are “ripe for the harvest”
  • A person who drinks of “the living water” that Jesus offers will never again “thirst” for the unsatisfying “waters” of “the world”
  • Jesus knows every detail about our personal lives, and loves us enough to confront us with hard questions in order to lead us to repentance
  • Jesus knows everything we have ever done, and still loves us and stands ready to forgive us
  • An effective strategy for evangelism is to build relationships, ask questions, and point people to Jesus
  • Those who have truly encountered Jesus and repented will naturally respond by telling others, i.e. evangelizing
  • The fact that Jesus was physically tired shows that he was fully human
  • The fact that the woman left her water jar to go and tell people in town about Jesus models the kind of priorities we ought to have in regard to possessions and the mission of God
  • By speaking to this Samaritan woman, Jesus reveals that he has come as the Savior of people from all the nations
  • Jesus’ reply to his disciples about hunger and food shows us the proper outlook on doing God’s will and God’s work [3]

Again, this is not to say that we can make Scripture say whatever we want; we certainly cannot. Yet any of these above messages – and more – would be faithful interpretations and applications of this text.

Considering Inspirational Intent

We must not only consider authorial intent, we must also consider the intent of the inspirer: God. To do this, we consider canonical, or biblical theology: i.e. the message and narrative of the Bible as a whole.

This is what Matthew is doing  in several instances where he re-interprets Old Testament passages and applies them to Jesus; he is considering the grand narrative and message of the Bible as a whole, as a story which – in all of its “sub-stories” – is about Jesus. He applies a Christo-centric hermeneutic, in other words; one that he likely learned from Jesus himself after the resurrection when Jesus “opened their minds to understand the Scriptures” (Luke 24:45), and “beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.” (Luke 24:27)

May God help us to understand, interpret, and apply His Word faithfully and accurately – according to His intent!

Celebrating Saint Nicholas

December 6 is Saint Nicholas Day, or the Feast of Saint Nicholas.

Whereas Americans tend to say that Santa Claus comes on Christmas Eve to deliver presents, for Europeans Saint Nick brings chocolate and some gifts on December 6.

“The Real Santa is Dead”

One of my American friends once told me that they don’t do Santa Claus, because they like to keep fairy tales out of their faith. That’s a fair point. However, when it comes to Saint Nicholas, we would do well to not lose the legacy of the historical person as we throw out the proverbial bath water.

To that end, my wife and I have always taken the approach with our kids of telling them about the real Saint Nick: the pastor and theologian who loved and cared for the poor in his community.

We explain to them that the reason there are so many Santas in malls and at events is because Saint Nicholas was such a wonderful person that people want to keep his memory and legacy alive, and they do that by dressing up in that red costume with the beard.

This led to a funny episode once, when we were waiting in line to have our picture taken with a mall Santa, and my son – 5 years old at the time – started talking to another kid in line and told him, “Did you know that the real Santa is dead?!” Needless to say, the kid was surprised and concerned to hear this news!

The Real Saint Nick

Saint Nicholas was born in the 3rd century in the village of Patara, in what is now southern Turkey, into a wealthy family. That’s right: no North Pole nor reindeer for the real Santa, but palm trees and white sand beaches.

His parents died when he was young, and he was taken in and raised by a local priest. Following Jesus’ call to the Rich Young Ruler (Mark 10:21) to “sell what you own and give the money to the poor,” Nicholas dedicated his entire inheritance to assisting the sick, needy and suffering.

He became a pastor, and was later made Bishop of Myra. He became famous for his generosity and love for children.

Nicholas suffered persecution and imprisonment for his Christian faith during the Great Persecution (303-311) under Roman emperor Diocletian.

As a bishop, he attended the Council of Nicaea (325), at which he affirmed the doctrine of the deity of Christ against the Arian heresy.

Homoousios or Homoiousios

The discussion at the Council of Nicaea was summarized by which word to use in describing Jesus’ nature: whether he was homoousios (of the “same substance” as God) or homoiousios (of a “similar substance” as God).

At the the Council of Nicaea, bishops from all over the world gathered to study the scriptures and address the Arian controversy which advocated for the term homoiousios, denying Jesus’ full deity. This view, which is also held today by the Jehovah’s Witnesses, was deemed heretical by the council of bishops based on examination of the Scriptures, which teach that Jesus is Immanuel (God with us), and is true God of true God.

The debate got very heated, and at one point Nicholas reportedly got so upset with he deemed to be blasphemy, that he slapped an Arian.

This is the real Saint Nick: Palm trees and white sand beaches, defender of the faith, and slapper of heretics.

Nicholas died in 343 in Myra. The anniversary of his death became a day of celebration, the Feast of St. Nicholas on December 6.

Where the Tradition of Gift Giving Comes From

Many stories are told about St. Nicholas’ life and deeds. Perhaps the most famous story is that of a poor man who had three daughters of marrying age. Because the man was poor, he was unable to provide a dowry for his daughters, which meant that they would not be able to find a descent husband and would either be married into further poverty or would have to become slaves.

After Nicholas found out about this family’s situation, he visited the family’s house at night, leaving them three anonymous gifts: bags of gold, which he tossed through an open window while the family was sleeping.

The story goes that they found the gold in their shoes when they awoke, which is the reason for the tradition in Europe that Saint Nicholas leaves chocolate in children’s shoes. Nicholas provided for these poor girls to help them break out of the cycle of poverty.

Rather than trying to make Christmas Santa-free, let’s take back the true story of Saint Nicholas and take hold of this opportunity to talk about a Christian man who loved Jesus, championed good theology, and exemplified Christ through compassion and generosity to the needy.

 

If Satan Has Been Defeated, Why Is He Still “Prowling Around”?

lion painting

In 1 Peter 5:8, Peter the Apostle told us: Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.

This is interesting because in Colossians 2:15, Paul the Apostle tells us that Jesus “disarmed the rulers and authorities and put them to open shame, by triumphing over them.”

If Jesus, through his life, death, and resurrection, defeated and disarmed Satan and the demonic powers, then how is it that the devil is still prowling around like a lion?

A Toothless Lion

Being that Satan has been disarmed, the real danger he poses is his “roar.”

A roar by itself can’t actually hurt you. Similarly, the devil can’t do anything to you without God’s permission (remember Job chapter 1). But whereas the devil needs God’s permission to harm you, you don’t need anyone’s permission to mess up your own life.

Jesus said this about the devil: “there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.” (John 8:44) Ever since the Garden of Eden, one of the devil’s main strategies for our destruction has been deception. The serpent couldn’t hold Eve down and force her to take a bite of the forbidden fruit in order to destroy her. Instead, he had to talk her into destroying herself by falling into a trap.

For a look at some of the common traps the devil tries to lead us into, check out this message on 1 Peter 5:1-13 titled “Know Your Enemy”

Suffering According to the Will of God

Twice in 1 Peter, Peter speaks about people who suffer according to the will of God.

If Satan has been defeated, then why has God not yet destroyed him? We know that Satan’s fate is sealed: his final demise has been foretold in Revelation 20:10.

But why let him continue to exist and do destructive things, including testing / tempting people? The reason is because although God is not the author of evil, he is a redeemer, who uses bad and even terrible things to accomplish good purposes and carry out his plans.

One of my favorite examples of this is found in the genealogy of Jesus in the first chapter of the Gospel of Matthew, where we see multiple stories of how God redeemed people and situations in the family through which Jesus came. Check out: Redemption: The Knots in Jesus’ Family Tree

For more on this, check out this message on 1 Peter 4:12-19 titled “Suffering and the Will of God”

The Ultimate Humiliation

One of the biggest mistakes people make when it comes to thinking about the devil, is that the devil is God’s counterpart.

When Paul says in Colossians 2 that Jesus put Satan to “open shame” through the cross, he using a metaphor which his ancient readers would have been familiar with: it’s the picture of what a victorious army would do to the soldiers of the army they had defeated. They would not only bind them and lead them, humiliated, through the streets of every town on the road back to their capital, but they would often be sold as slaves.

The ultimate humiliation for a defeated soldier was something they might consider a fate worse than death: being forced to serve as a slave those by whom they had been defeated. This, Paul says, is what God now does with the devil: in his sovereignty and providence, what God allows the devil to do, He then uses to accomplish good and His purposes.

Mike and I discussed this in more depth in our Sermon Extra video this week. Check it out:

Is Abuse Grounds for Divorce According to the Bible?

art blur close up colors

In Matthew 19 we read about a time when some Pharisees came to Jesus to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?” (Matthew 19:3)

The Pharisees, as usual, were attempting to trap Jesus with a no-win question, so that no matter what answer he gave, it would cause him to lose some of his followers. In the Law of Moses, Moses had allowed divorce for the reason of “uncleanness.” Human nature being what it is, people took advantage of the fact that the term “uncleanness” was open to interpretation, and they used it as a loophole, which afforded them the opportunity to “technically” keep the letter of the Law, while ignoring the heart of the Law. By the time of Jesus, people were in the practice of saying that basically anything could constitute “uncleanness,” for example: if a man saw a woman who was more beautiful than his wife, he could say that his wife was “unclean” in comparison to the other woman, and use that as grounds for divorce. If a man got angry at his wife, he could accuse her of being “unclean,” because her actions had caused him to sin by being angry.

The Big Two

Jesus combatted this flippant attitude towards marriage and divorce by taking people back to the design for marriage shown in creation, adding that divorce is permissible in cases of adultery.

Paul, in 1 Corinthians 7:15, gave another justification for divorce: abandonment.

Historically, Christians have recognized these two reasons as the two biblical grounds for divorce. The Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapter 24, Paragraph 6 states that “nothing but adultery, or such willful desertion as can no way be remedied by the church, or civil magistrate, is cause sufficient of dissolving the bond of marriage.”

What About Abuse?

Certainly God hates abuse. Throughout the Old Testament, God shows himself to be a God who is on the side of the abused and opposes abusers. In the prophetic books, such as Amos, when his own people become abusers, God makes it clear to them that because of what they are doing, He is opposed to them, and He calls them to repent and actively work for the welfare of the weak, the vulnerable, and the oppressed.

However, since abuse is not specifically mentioned in the Bible as a grounds for divorce, some Christians have wondered what the protocol should be for those in abusive marriages.

What’s important to note, is that even amongst those who do not believe that abuse is a biblical justification for divorce, almost no one would ever recommend a spouse to stay in an abusive relationship. According to a LifeWay Reseach survey, 96% of pastors recommend at minimum: separation, protection (such as restraining orders), and church discipline (for the abuser) in cases of abuse.

While it is quite alarming that 4% of the pastors polled said that a spouse should stay in an abusive relationship even when violence is present, it is important to note that even amongst those who do not believe that abuse is biblical grounds for divorce, the majority do advocate for separation. Assumedly, those who advocate for separation but not divorce are hopeful that repentance and restoration are possible and are committed to a high view of the authority of Scripture, believing that the Bible only gives the two justifications for divorce listed above.

Wayne Grudem and “in such cases”

Amongst those who have sought to identify a biblical justification for divorce in cases of abuse, most point to 1 Corinthians 7:15, which speaks about one spouse abandoning the marriage. The argument goes that abuse constitutes a form of abandonment. Many people, even those who hate abuse, find this line of thinking to be contrived and unconvincing.

Recently prominent theologian Wayne Grudem, Professor of Theology and Biblical Studies at Phoenix Seminary, announced at the annual meeting of the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that he had changed his position on divorce in cases of abuse based on his study of 1 Corinthians 7:15.

While he is still not persuaded by the “abuse is a kind of desertion” argument, he believes that another phrase in 1 Corinthians 7:15 presents a compelling argument for divorce in cases of abuse, namely the phrase, “in such cases” (ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις).

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not bound. (1 Corinthians 7:15)

The question is, does this phrase refer to: 1) only cases of desertion by an unbeliever, or 2) cases in which a spouse has done something that has similarly destroyed a marriage?

Interestingly, this Greek phrase does not occur anywhere else in the New Testament or the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament), but there are several uses of it in Ancient Greek literature, including 52 from the same time period as the New Testament. There are also several uses of the singular version of the word τοιοῦτος (“in this case”) in the New Testament.

Grudem’s analysis of the uses of these words in the Bible and in other Greek writings from the same time period has led him to the conclusion that “in such cases” refers to the cases in which a spouse has done something which, similar to abandonment, has destroyed a marriage, and that in such cases the latter part of 1 Corinthians 7:15 applies: the abused spouse is no longer bound, i.e. may divorce.

Grudem’s analysis has been met with very little criticism. You can read the outline of the presentation here, which includes a look at the different texts which use this phrase “in such cases” and what it means in those contexts, and why these led Grudem to change his position.

Looking for Loopholes or for the Heart of God

At worst, this could be used in the same way people used the idea of “uncleanness” in Jesus’ day: as carte blanche or a loophole big enough to drive a truck through. The same could be said though of the teachings of grace and forgiveness in the Bible, yet we must not reject nor downplay them just because they might be hijacked or misused – and I believe the same applies here.

Reader Questions: How Accurate are Bible Translations?

ancient antique architectural design architecture

I recently added a page on this site where readers can submit questions or suggest topics (click here for that page). Recently I received this question:

Hi Pastor Nick. I have heard you talk about your study of other languages and various Bible translations. Can you help me with a response to a Jewish man who is convinced the English translation is completely inaccurate and can’t be trusted?

Bible Translation Basics

I wrote a series on Bible Translation to explain some of the inherent difficulties in doing it, as well as some relevant issues related to some particular English translations:

  1. Making Sense of Different Bible Translations – Part 1
  2. Making Sense of Different Bible Translations – Part 2: the King James Bible
  3. Making Sense of Different Bible Translations – Part 3: Gender-Inclusive Language and the NIV

Response to the Question

I would start by asking which English translation he thinks cannot be trusted, and my next question would be why he believes they cannot be trusted.

There is not just one English Translation of the Bible, but hundreds of translations – many of which have been carried out by teams of scholars whose work was then reviewed, checked, proofread and scrutinized by other scholars in order to assure accurate translation.

Basically, his claim that a translation of the Bible into English (or presumably any language?) is not trustworthy is intellectually untenable.

These translations are made by groups of scholars who have devoted their lives to studying these ancient languages, cultures, and beliefs. Furthermore, there have been multiple groups over the past 2000 years who have translated the Scriptures into various languages, and these translations all say the same things. Where they differ is based on different possible translations of words or phrases in the original language, but there are a finite number of options, and the options are usually recorded in the footnotes or in textual commentaries. All that would be needed in order to refute a translation would be someone who could prove that they are in error. So a challenge to anyone who claims that a particular translation is not trustworthy or accurate would be to simply invite them to make their case publicly, and contribute their insights and knowledge to help make a better translation!

What is Inspired: the Original Text or the Translation?

It should be noted that we as Christians believe the original texts to have been inspired by God, not the copies or translations.

Article X of the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy explains it this way:

WE AFFIRM  that inspiration, strictly speaking, applies only to the autographic text of Scripture, which in the providence of God can be ascertained from available manuscripts with great accuracy. We further affirm that copies and translations of Scripture are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.

WE DENY  that any essential element of the Christian faith is affected by the absence of the autographs. We further deny that this absence renders the assertion of Biblical inerrancy invalid or irrelevant.

However, this does not mean we cannot or should not translate the Scriptures into languages other than the originals – to the best of our collective abilities – in order that people who do not speak ancient Hebrew and Greek (the vast majority of the world’s population) can understand God’s Word to them.

Bible Translation Has Precedent: the Septuagint and Jesus

Lastly, there is precedent in Scripture itself for the translation of the Bible into other languages. The Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, and it was widely used in antiquity. The New Testament writers often quote from the Septuagint and record Jesus as having quoted from the Septuagint. Being that Aramaic was widespread in Israel at the time of Jesus, we can be quite sure that Jesus would have spoken to crowds in Aramaic, meaning that when he referenced or quoted from the Hebrew Bible (AKA Old Testament), he would have translated those verses into Aramaic.

In conclusion, we can be quite confident in the translations that we have in English and other languages. While it may be helpful to acquaint yourself with the original languages, you can be sure that when you read your English translation of the Bible, you are getting the essence of the original text and its meaning, especially if you are supplementing your reading with textual commentaries.

What Does It Mean that “Judgment Begins at the Household of God”?

inside photography of church

In 1 Peter 4:17, Peter makes an interesting statement; he says: “For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?”

Judgment might seem like an odd word to use in regard to the people of God… Hasn’t Jesus already taken our judgment upon himself on the cross? What is Peter referring to here, and how should we understand this statement?

The Waters That Buried Some, Lifted Others

In 1 Peter chapter 3, Peter referred to the judgment that took place in the time of Noah, and said that the waters of that flood were a type, or a picture, of baptism. The judgment of the flood, which was a judgment upon human wickedness, did effect, touch, and impact even those who were believers. However, because those believers were in the ark, the waters of the flood did not crush them, but rather lifted them up.

The ark, in this case, is a picture of Jesus. When we climb into Him by faith, and are hidden in Him, He takes the brunt of the storm of God’s judgment, which, apart from Him, we would not be able to survive on our own. As we are in Him, the waters which destroyed those outside the ark actually serve to lift us up and they have a cleansing and purifying effect.

The Fire That Destroys Some, Purifies Others

Along with water, Peter uses another word-picture in this letter: fire, which is used to purify precious metals, like gold.

Paul uses this same analogy in 1 Corinthians 3, where he talks about how our actions in this life will be tested by God as by fire; those things which were pure in motive will withstand the test, and those good things we might have done for the wrong reasons will be burned away like wood, hay and stubble.

Essentially, Peter is saying that the judgment of God will have the effect on believers, not of destroying them, but of purifying them, and clarifying who is really in the faith.

This makes sense, especially in light of the fact that earlier in the same chapter (1 Peter 4:1-4), Peter called his readers to holiness and to separate themselves from the sins which formerly enslaved them.

Malachi’s Prophecy

In his commentary on 1 Peter, Edmund Clowney says that in these verses (1 Peter 4:12-19), Peter is alluding to a prophecy of Malachi:

See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,’ says the Lord Almighty. But who can endure the day of his coming? Who can stand when he appears? For he will be like a refiner’s fire or a launderer’s soap. He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; he will purify the Levites and refine them like gold and silver. (Malachi 3:1-3)

God’s judgment has a double purpose: to purify his worshipers and to consume the wicked.

In Hebrews 12, the writer says that it is proof of God’s fatherly love for us that He disciplines us.

Rather than cleansing us in purgatory, God’s cleansing of his people is a process which takes place in this life through our trials. Our suffering in this life does not atone for our sins, Jesus’s suffering did that for us, but God uses our trials in order to form us into the image of Christ (cf. Romans 8:29), purify us like gold, and prepare for us a weight of glory to be revealed.

Further Discussion

https://twitter.com/DominicDone/status/1199788112060112896

This week Mike and I sat down to discuss this verse in more detail. One of the things we talked about was how persecution and hardship has the effect of purifying the church and “weeding out” those who have come to Jesus for the wrong reasons. One example we bring up is my experience with the Roma (Gypsy) population in Hungary and the false promises of the “prosperity gospel.” Check it out: