The majority position held by the church for 1500 years was that one could divorce only in the case of unrepentant adultery, and remarriage was not possible until one's spouse died. The divorced party was always to remain celibate and unmarried until reconciliation could take place. Other than this, divorce was not permitted. It, therefore, functioned more like our idea of separation than a true divorce, since the church saw the one flesh union as being intact until death in one of the partners.
The Reformers came along and assumed the same interpretation of porneia that the Gentile church did, i.e., it refers to adultery. This wasn't ever questioned, and may therefore show why the New Testament does not mention the exception clause in any of the documents given to Gentiles (i.e., Mark, Luke, Romans, 1 Corinthians), but only the work written to Jewish Christians (i.e., Matthew) who would have understood the word differently.
In any case, this leads the church into believing that there was a basis for divorce. However, because there was no basis for remarriage, those who knew the church's teaching and were in submission to it kept divorces at a minimum, as people figured it was better to remain married than to be unmarried.
However, the Reformers, assuming the definition of porneia as adultery, settled on an innovation by arguing that remarriage was permissible. They did this by assuming the definition of porneia in Matthew 5 and 19 as adultery, and then arguing that adultery was punishable by death and death breaks the one flesh union. Hence, adultery breaks the one flesh union because it should be followed by execution.
The problem is that most magistrates at the time did not execute people for adultery (although it was still employed by some). These magistrates were viewed as wicked for not executing people on the basis of adultery, and thus, the sin of the remarriage while the spouse lives is on the magistrate, not on the "innocent" individual. Both Luther and Calvin argued for this, and many people coming out of the Reformation simply followed their reasoning.
Adultery was expanded to also include abandonment because it was assumed that one often only abandoned his or her spouse because they were off with someone else, committing adultery of mind and/or body.
The problem with the logic is manifold. First, porneia doesn't mean adultery in Matthew 5 and 19 as I've argued before. Second, it is contrary to what Christ argues about reconciliation in Matthew 18. It's a bit hard to reconcile with someone who is being executed for the sin, paying fully for it. Third, the Jews don't practice the death penalty for adultery by the time Matthew writes his Gospel, and the Roman government certainly does not. Yet, Christ's words are absolute about divorce and remarriage, and so are Paul's. There is no mention of blaming the government or that adultery is a legitimate reason to divorce anywhere in their words. Finally, although one could argue that the bulk of the blame is put on the person who divorces (e.g., "he makes her commit adultery"), the blame is not completely shifted away from the people involved. She is still committing adultery and considered an adulteress while her husband lives, and the person who marries her is considered an adulterer. The blame isn't completely shifted to another party who may be in the wrong and causing one to commit adultery through their rebellious actions. I would apply the same principle to any government that did not exercise what the Reformers viewed as responsible action.
Furthermore, abandonment is not viewed as adultery in the New Testament. If it was, then a man who fully abandoned his wife in divorce would be allowing her to remarry in the eyes of God. Instead, Jesus says she is an adulteress for remarrying and so is the guy who marries her. The expansion of adultery to abandonment is simply a rebellious act on the part of the Reformers who used more of their own reasoning when it came to the issue than their reliance upon the Scripture's reasoning about the subject.
So much for sola Scriptura on this issue. In fact, I see this as a glaring black mark on the Reformation. The Reformers simply wanted to justify remarriage, and their reasoning for it wasn't biblical nor ecclesiastical. It was not them restoring what had been lost, but coming up with something new. In that regard, it is one of the errors of the Reformation, an error that was rejected by the majority of the church for 1500 years before it, that should be discarded.
"Whenever a man takes upon him to make additions to the Scriptures, he is likely to end with valuing his own additions above the Scripture itself." J. C. Ryle
Saturday, June 30, 2018
Two Reasons Why Porneia Cannot Be Referring to a Marriage between Believer and Unbeliever
The word porneia in Second Temple Judaism can include marriages between believer and unbeliever. Since marriage is for the purpose of bringing up godly offspring, an unequally yoked marriage can be viewed as anticreational in that it threatens the covenant faithfulness of the children involved.
Hence, some might conclude that Jesus is talking about unions between believers and unbelievers when he uses the term porneia. Here are two reasons why I don't think this is the case.
1. If Jesus was referring to the union of a believer and unbeliever as porneia, then he would have been addressing he issue of an unequally yoked marriage. Yet, Paul, in 1 Cor 7:15 indicates that Jesus did not address this issue. If we understand that his switching between what the Lord commanded and what he commands as that which the Lord addressed in his earthly ministry versus what Paul is addressing now in the Spirit, then Paul would be arguing that the Lord did not address this union. Hence, porneia does not refer to this.
2. If the union between an unbeliever and believer is porneia, then Paul would be commanding, contrary to the Lord, that the two should remain together when it is up to the believer, and thus, that the believer should remain in a sexually immoral relationship/porneia. Yet, Paul argues that one should get married for the purpose of avoiding porneia, so why would he tell a believer to remain in porneia, especially if the Lord said it was legitimate to divorce for that reason.
Furthermore, the anticreational nature of it is addressed in that a believer who seeks to remain married to an unbeliever seeks to make his children "holy," and keeps the one flesh union intact. Hence, even this relationship can be creational and may be anticreational to seek a divorce from it, since the children are threatened as no longer being holy if the believer should be out of the household.
For these two reasons, I don't think it is legitimate to conclude that porneia in Matthew 5 and 19 includes marriages to unbelievers.
Hence, some might conclude that Jesus is talking about unions between believers and unbelievers when he uses the term porneia. Here are two reasons why I don't think this is the case.
1. If Jesus was referring to the union of a believer and unbeliever as porneia, then he would have been addressing he issue of an unequally yoked marriage. Yet, Paul, in 1 Cor 7:15 indicates that Jesus did not address this issue. If we understand that his switching between what the Lord commanded and what he commands as that which the Lord addressed in his earthly ministry versus what Paul is addressing now in the Spirit, then Paul would be arguing that the Lord did not address this union. Hence, porneia does not refer to this.
2. If the union between an unbeliever and believer is porneia, then Paul would be commanding, contrary to the Lord, that the two should remain together when it is up to the believer, and thus, that the believer should remain in a sexually immoral relationship/porneia. Yet, Paul argues that one should get married for the purpose of avoiding porneia, so why would he tell a believer to remain in porneia, especially if the Lord said it was legitimate to divorce for that reason.
Furthermore, the anticreational nature of it is addressed in that a believer who seeks to remain married to an unbeliever seeks to make his children "holy," and keeps the one flesh union intact. Hence, even this relationship can be creational and may be anticreational to seek a divorce from it, since the children are threatened as no longer being holy if the believer should be out of the household.
For these two reasons, I don't think it is legitimate to conclude that porneia in Matthew 5 and 19 includes marriages to unbelievers.
Friday, June 29, 2018
The Early Church on Remarriage after Divorce
The Shepherd of Hermes
I say to him, “Sir, permit me to ask thee a few more questions.” “Say on,” saith he. “Sir,” say I, “if a man who has a wife that is faithful in the Lord detect her in adultery, doth the husband sin in living with her?” “So long as he is ignorant,” saith he, “he sinneth not; but if the husband know of her sin, and the wife repent not, but continue in her fornication, and her husband live with her, he makes himself responsible for her sin and an accomplice in her adultery.” “What then, Sir,” say I, “shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case?” “Let him divorce her,” saith he, “and let the husband abide alone: but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery.” “If then, Sir,” say I, “after the wife is divorced, she repent and desire to return to her own husband, shall she not be received?” “Certainly,” saith he, “if the husband receiveth her not, he sinneth and bringeth great sin upon himself; … For this cause ye were enjoined to remain single, whether husband or wife; for in such cases repentance is possible.
Justin Martyr
All who have been twice married by human law are sinners in the eye of our Master.
Clement of Alexandria
"That the Scripture counsels marriage and allows no release from the union is expressly contained in the law, "You will not put away your wife, except for the cause of fornication." And it regards as fornication the marriage of those separated while the other is alive . . . "He who takes a woman who has been divorced commits adultery."
Mark Minucius Felix
We gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage. In the desire of procreating, we know either one wife or none at all.
Cyprian
A wife must not depart from her husband. Or, if she should depart, she must remain unmarried.
Lactantius
He who marries a woman who is divorced from her husband is an adulterer.
The Apostolic Constitutions
And the Lord says, "What God has joined together, no human is to separate." For the wife is the partner for life, united by God into one body from two. However, he who divides back into two that body that has become one--he is the enemy of the creation of God and the adversary of His providence . . . If a layman divorces his own wife and takes another --or if he marries one divorced by another--let him be excommunicated.
Tertullian
Being a heretic by his very nature . . . he holds to the view of remarriage.
Origen
But now, contrary to what was written, even some of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry--even when her husband was living, doing what is contrary to what was written. For it is said, "A wife is bound so long as her husband lives."
Jerome
Ambrose
"No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. 'If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce'; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another."
"You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: 'What God has joined together let no man put asunder"'
Augustine
“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery”
There are countless other examples, as well as councils that say the same.
The church's position seems to be the same as that held by the modern scholars Gordon J. Wenham and William E. Heth in their book, Jesus and Divorce. In their view, the exception clause in Matthew refers only to divorce, allowing the innocent party to be separated from one committing unrepentant adultery. The clause does not, however, appear after the phrase "and marries another." Hence, it was concluded that divorce is only permissible in the case of unrepentant adultery, but remarriage to another is never permitted while the previous spouse lives. This is a legitimate interpretation of the clause that does not violate five objections in the previous post.However, it is in tension with two of the seven: the response of the Pharisees is concerning divorce, not remarriage. They are shocked and are arguing that Moses allowed them to divorce at least for some reason. Likewise, Jesus' statement concerning the one flesh union is that it is inseparable because God has now made the two one and they are no longer capable of being divided into two. Hence, His command that no human is to separate what God has joined together is contrary to the idea that one can divorce a legitimate union for some reason because this would allow a human to separate what God has joined together.
I say to him, “Sir, permit me to ask thee a few more questions.” “Say on,” saith he. “Sir,” say I, “if a man who has a wife that is faithful in the Lord detect her in adultery, doth the husband sin in living with her?” “So long as he is ignorant,” saith he, “he sinneth not; but if the husband know of her sin, and the wife repent not, but continue in her fornication, and her husband live with her, he makes himself responsible for her sin and an accomplice in her adultery.” “What then, Sir,” say I, “shall the husband do, if the wife continue in this case?” “Let him divorce her,” saith he, “and let the husband abide alone: but if after divorcing his wife he shall marry another, he likewise committeth adultery.” “If then, Sir,” say I, “after the wife is divorced, she repent and desire to return to her own husband, shall she not be received?” “Certainly,” saith he, “if the husband receiveth her not, he sinneth and bringeth great sin upon himself; … For this cause ye were enjoined to remain single, whether husband or wife; for in such cases repentance is possible.
Justin Martyr
All who have been twice married by human law are sinners in the eye of our Master.
Clement of Alexandria
"That the Scripture counsels marriage and allows no release from the union is expressly contained in the law, "You will not put away your wife, except for the cause of fornication." And it regards as fornication the marriage of those separated while the other is alive . . . "He who takes a woman who has been divorced commits adultery."
Mark Minucius Felix
We gladly abide by the bond of a single marriage. In the desire of procreating, we know either one wife or none at all.
Cyprian
A wife must not depart from her husband. Or, if she should depart, she must remain unmarried.
Lactantius
He who marries a woman who is divorced from her husband is an adulterer.
The Apostolic Constitutions
And the Lord says, "What God has joined together, no human is to separate." For the wife is the partner for life, united by God into one body from two. However, he who divides back into two that body that has become one--he is the enemy of the creation of God and the adversary of His providence . . . If a layman divorces his own wife and takes another --or if he marries one divorced by another--let him be excommunicated.
Tertullian
Being a heretic by his very nature . . . he holds to the view of remarriage.
Origen
But now, contrary to what was written, even some of the rulers of the church have permitted a woman to marry--even when her husband was living, doing what is contrary to what was written. For it is said, "A wife is bound so long as her husband lives."
Jerome
I find joined to your letter of inquiries a short paper containing the following words:. . . it is commanded that when the first wife is dismissed a second may not be taken while the first lives"ask him, (that is me,) whether a woman who has left her husband on the ground that he is an adulterer and sodomite and has found herself compelled to take another may in the lifetime of him whom she first left be in communion with the church without doing penance for her fault.As I read the case put I recall the versethey make excuses for their sins.We are all human and all indulgent to our own faults; and what our own will leads us to do we attribute to a necessity of nature. It is as though a young man were to say,I am over-borne by my body, the glow of nature kindles my passions, the structure of my frame and its reproductive organs call for sexual intercourse.Or again a murderer might say,I was in want, I stood in need of food, I had nothing to cover me. If I shed the blood of another, it was to save myself from dying of cold and hunger.Tell the sister, therefore, who thus enquires of me concerning her condition, not my sentence but that of the apostle.Do you not know, brethren (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the woman which has an husband is bound by the law to her husband, so long as he lives; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her husband. So then, if, while her husband lives, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress.Romans 7:1-3 And in another place:the wife is bound by the law as long as her husband lives; but if her husband be dead, she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord.1 Corinthians 7:39 The apostle has thus cut away every plea and has clearly declared that, if a woman marries again while her husband is living, she is an adulteress. You must not speak to me of the violence of a ravisher, a mother’s pleading, a father’s bidding, the influence of relatives, the insolence and the intrigues of servants, household losses. A husband may be an adulterer or a sodomite, he may be stained with every crime and may have been left by his wife because of his sins; yet he is still her husband and, so long as he lives, she may not marry another. The apostle does not promulgate this decree on his own authority but on that of Christ who speaks in him. For he has followed the words of Christ in the gospel:whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced, commits adultery.Matthew 5:32 Mark what he says:whosoever shall marry her that is divorced commits adultery.Whether she has put away her husband or her husband her, the man who marries her is still an adulterer. Wherefore the apostles seeing how heavy the yoke of marriage was thus made said to Him:if the case of the man be so with his wife, it is not good to marry,and the Lord replied,he that is able to receive it, let him receive it.And immediately by the instance of the three eunuchs he shows the blessedness of virginity which is bound by no carnal tie. Matthew 19:10-12
Ambrose
"No one is permitted to know a woman other than his wife. The marital right is given you for this reason: lest you fall into the snare and sin with a strange woman. 'If you are bound to a wife do not seek a divorce'; for you are not permitted, while your wife lives, to marry another."
"You dismiss your wife, therefore, as if by right and without being charged with wrongdoing; and you suppose it is proper for you to do so because no human law forbids it; but divine law forbids it. Anyone who obeys men ought to stand in awe of God. Hear the law of the Lord, which even they who propose our laws must obey: 'What God has joined together let no man put asunder"'
Augustine
“Neither can it rightly be held that a husband who dismisses his wife because of fornication and marries another does not commit adultery. For there is also adultery on the part of those who, after the repudiation of their former wives because of fornication, marry others. This adultery, nevertheless, is certainly less serious than that of men who dismiss their wives for reasons other than fornication and take other wives. Therefore, when we say: ‘Whoever marries a woman dismissed by her husband for reason other than fornication commits adultery,’ undoubtedly we speak the truth. But we do not thereby acquit of this crime the man who marries a woman who was dismissed because of fornication. We do not doubt in the least that both are adulterers. We do indeed pronounce him an adulterer who dismissed his wife for cause other than fornication and marries another, nor do we thereby defend from the taint of this sin the man who dismissed his wife because of fornication and marries another. We recognize that both are adulterers, though the sin of one is more grave than that of the other. No one is so unreasonable to say that a man who marries a woman whose husband has dismissed her because of fornication is not an adulterer, while maintaining that a man who marries a woman dismissed without the ground of fornication is an adulterer. Both of these men are guilty of adultery”
There are countless other examples, as well as councils that say the same.
The church's position seems to be the same as that held by the modern scholars Gordon J. Wenham and William E. Heth in their book, Jesus and Divorce. In their view, the exception clause in Matthew refers only to divorce, allowing the innocent party to be separated from one committing unrepentant adultery. The clause does not, however, appear after the phrase "and marries another." Hence, it was concluded that divorce is only permissible in the case of unrepentant adultery, but remarriage to another is never permitted while the previous spouse lives. This is a legitimate interpretation of the clause that does not violate five objections in the previous post.However, it is in tension with two of the seven: the response of the Pharisees is concerning divorce, not remarriage. They are shocked and are arguing that Moses allowed them to divorce at least for some reason. Likewise, Jesus' statement concerning the one flesh union is that it is inseparable because God has now made the two one and they are no longer capable of being divided into two. Hence, His command that no human is to separate what God has joined together is contrary to the idea that one can divorce a legitimate union for some reason because this would allow a human to separate what God has joined together.
Seven Observations that Limit One's Interpretation of the Divorce and Remarriage Exception Clause in the Gospel of Matthew
1. According to Jesus, the two are no longer one flesh, and therefore, cannot be separated by humans. This means that no legal divorce in the eyes of men dissolves the one flesh union. Hence, Paul concludes from Jesus' teaching that the woman is bound to her husband as long as he lives, and is only free to remarry if he dies.
2. The response that is given by the Pharisees and the disciples indicates that no exception for remarriage is offered by Jesus.
3. Divorce between two believers is contrary to the forgiveness upon repentance taught in Matthew 18, regardless of the sin committed.
4. Paul interprets Jesus words to be absolute, and hence, he argues that the only two possibilities for someone who has been divorced is to either remain unmarried or be reconciled to one's spouse.
5. Marriage is a picture of the gospel and the relationship between Christ and the Church. Christ does not divorce the church and marry another, nor does the church divorce Christ and marry another. Christ would not be arguing that one can lawfully give a false gospel and false picture of Christ's relationship with the Church by divorcing and remarrying.
6. The other passages make the prohibition absolute. If Matthew presents Jesus as giving an exception, he contradicts the other passages. The Bible cannot contradict itself.
7. The one flesh union remains intact even after divorce/abandonement, since if the man or woman marries again, they are committing adultery according to Jesus. Likewise, anyone who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. This would not be true if the one flesh union was dissolved by divorce/abandonment. Hence, the man is still called the woman's "husband" even after she is divorced (1 Cor 7:11) and married to another man (Rom 7:1-3).
All of these limit one's options as to what Jesus is saying in the Gospels. The only options consistent with these observations are the following:
1. The exception of porneia refers to illegitimate sexual unions like incest (e.g., Herod with his brother's wife), and therefore, the divorce of an illegitimate marriage is different than the divorce of a legitimate one, the former authorized and the latter prohibited.
2. The exception of porneia refers to an illegitimate marriage due to the discovery that a woman had previously had sex with another man before marriage, but did not disclose it to her betrothed. He finds out during the betrothal (e.g., Joseph divorcing Mary at the beginning of the book until he finds out she is still a virgin), or on the wedding night (Deut 22:13-21 in the context where the Jews don't practice the death penalty for sexual offenses anymore). Hence, in a similar manner, divorce and remarriage is permitted in the case of this illegitimate marriage, but not one that is legitimate.
3. The word porneia refers to unrepentant whoring/adultery, but is an exception for divorce, not remarriage (Church Fathers, Wenham and Heth, Jesus and Divorce). If repentant, one would restore the marriage, and if not, one would remain unmarried in the hope of repentance and restoration of the partner to whom he or she is bound in one flesh. The issue with this one might still be the reaction of the Pharisees. Their response indicates that Jesus is saying there is no possibility of divorce. Jesus’ resonse itself indicates this, so it is the least likely of the options.
The observations above do not allow for divorce for any other reason, and they do not allow for remarriage under any circumstance.These three above are the only way to interpret Jesus' words in a consistent way with the observations above.
2. The response that is given by the Pharisees and the disciples indicates that no exception for remarriage is offered by Jesus.
3. Divorce between two believers is contrary to the forgiveness upon repentance taught in Matthew 18, regardless of the sin committed.
4. Paul interprets Jesus words to be absolute, and hence, he argues that the only two possibilities for someone who has been divorced is to either remain unmarried or be reconciled to one's spouse.
5. Marriage is a picture of the gospel and the relationship between Christ and the Church. Christ does not divorce the church and marry another, nor does the church divorce Christ and marry another. Christ would not be arguing that one can lawfully give a false gospel and false picture of Christ's relationship with the Church by divorcing and remarrying.
6. The other passages make the prohibition absolute. If Matthew presents Jesus as giving an exception, he contradicts the other passages. The Bible cannot contradict itself.
7. The one flesh union remains intact even after divorce/abandonement, since if the man or woman marries again, they are committing adultery according to Jesus. Likewise, anyone who marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. This would not be true if the one flesh union was dissolved by divorce/abandonment. Hence, the man is still called the woman's "husband" even after she is divorced (1 Cor 7:11) and married to another man (Rom 7:1-3).
All of these limit one's options as to what Jesus is saying in the Gospels. The only options consistent with these observations are the following:
1. The exception of porneia refers to illegitimate sexual unions like incest (e.g., Herod with his brother's wife), and therefore, the divorce of an illegitimate marriage is different than the divorce of a legitimate one, the former authorized and the latter prohibited.
2. The exception of porneia refers to an illegitimate marriage due to the discovery that a woman had previously had sex with another man before marriage, but did not disclose it to her betrothed. He finds out during the betrothal (e.g., Joseph divorcing Mary at the beginning of the book until he finds out she is still a virgin), or on the wedding night (Deut 22:13-21 in the context where the Jews don't practice the death penalty for sexual offenses anymore). Hence, in a similar manner, divorce and remarriage is permitted in the case of this illegitimate marriage, but not one that is legitimate.
3. The word porneia refers to unrepentant whoring/adultery, but is an exception for divorce, not remarriage (Church Fathers, Wenham and Heth, Jesus and Divorce). If repentant, one would restore the marriage, and if not, one would remain unmarried in the hope of repentance and restoration of the partner to whom he or she is bound in one flesh. The issue with this one might still be the reaction of the Pharisees. Their response indicates that Jesus is saying there is no possibility of divorce. Jesus’ resonse itself indicates this, so it is the least likely of the options.
The observations above do not allow for divorce for any other reason, and they do not allow for remarriage under any circumstance.These three above are the only way to interpret Jesus' words in a consistent way with the observations above.
Biblical Theology XXVII: Obadiah
The Book of Obadiah is most likely written during the Babylonian Exile, and makes reference to Edom's betrayal of the covenant people by helping their enemies loot Jerusalem. This is likely a reference to the Babylonian plunder of Jerusalem. The name 'obad/'ebed Yahu means "servant of YHWH," and may not be a literal name so much as the designation of this particular prophet. Edom is descended from Esau in the Bible, and as a fellow descendant of Abraham was often viewed as allied with Israel, often as a vassal state.
Theology: Edom represents the potential Gentile friends or enemies of Israel that may be condemned or saved depending whether they become faithful allies or enemies of God's people. In the Book of Obadiah, Edom has joined with Jacob's enemies and betrayed their brothers. Hence, they will receive the judgment of God as one of His enemies. The book, therefore, argues that the judgment of God over the nations is linked to Israel. To mistreat the people of God is to mistreat God, and will bring down His wrath. To do good to His people is to do good to God, and thus, will bring about blessing. In this regard, it recalls the promise to Abraham, "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you, all of the families of the land will be blessed" (Gen 12:3). Whereas the presence of God's people in the land would have led to blessing if they had been treated with favor, their mistreatment will lead instead to the complete destruction of those people.
Ethics: Given that the book rests in the midst of the Book of the Twelve, one might suggest that it functions the same way the other books do in that it is a warning that gives those who are being warned a chance to repent. Hence, the declarations of total destruction are contingent upon a lack of heeding the warnings in the book. This becomes all the more convincing in light of the fact that that the next book in the anthology is the Book of Jonah that warns Nineveh of impending doom, but offers no promise of God relenting if the wicked city should repent. However, when they do repent, God does relent.
In this regard, the book may function both as a means to save Edom rather than destroy it, and as a comfort to God's people who were unjustly betrayed by the neighboring state. The enemies of God's people, therefore, should repent and treat them favorable so that they may not be destroyed in a microcosmic or the macrocosmic judgment of God; but rather live at peace with Israel who will rule over Edom from Mount Zion when YHWH is the sole King over all of it. The hope of this is realized in Acts 15:15-17, where the Gentiles are repenting and serving YHWH via Jesus Christ. For those who do not repent, however, there is a promise of total annihilation, and so the book seeks to influence the behavior of the nations toward God's people today in light of the promised judgment to come.
Theology: Edom represents the potential Gentile friends or enemies of Israel that may be condemned or saved depending whether they become faithful allies or enemies of God's people. In the Book of Obadiah, Edom has joined with Jacob's enemies and betrayed their brothers. Hence, they will receive the judgment of God as one of His enemies. The book, therefore, argues that the judgment of God over the nations is linked to Israel. To mistreat the people of God is to mistreat God, and will bring down His wrath. To do good to His people is to do good to God, and thus, will bring about blessing. In this regard, it recalls the promise to Abraham, "I will bless those who bless you, and I will curse him who curses you; and in you, all of the families of the land will be blessed" (Gen 12:3). Whereas the presence of God's people in the land would have led to blessing if they had been treated with favor, their mistreatment will lead instead to the complete destruction of those people.
Obadiah argues that there will be nowhere to hide from God's judgment once this has occurred. Although Edom had its strongholds in the mountains, and the people likely trusted in the impenetrable nature of their secure dwellings, God will annihilate them from there. "Even if you were to soar high like an eagle, even if you were to place your nest among the stars,
I will cast you down from there!” declares YHWH (v. 4).
Part of that judgment is that God's people will be restored even when the nations deal with them treacherously, and their reward will include not only their own land, but that of their enemies as well. Their enemies will have no remnant upon the earth. In this regard, Edom really does represent all of the enemies of God's people throughout all of the nations, as this promise to rule over the other nations from Jerusalem is a staple promise in the Prophets.
“For the day of the Lord is approaching for all the nations!
Just as you have done, so it will be done to you.
You will get exactly what your deeds deserve.
For just as you have drunk on my holy mountain,
so all the nations will drink continually.
They will drink, and they will gulp down;
they will be as though they had never been. (vv. 15-16)
The "day of YHWH" refers to the day when all of the wicked nations that are opposed to God's people will be destroyed. The destruction of Edom is a microcosmic event that will occur before the macrocosmic event that involves the whole world. In Joel, the microcosmic event was made up of a locust-induced famine, but here it is the destruction of Edom's people.
Ethics: Given that the book rests in the midst of the Book of the Twelve, one might suggest that it functions the same way the other books do in that it is a warning that gives those who are being warned a chance to repent. Hence, the declarations of total destruction are contingent upon a lack of heeding the warnings in the book. This becomes all the more convincing in light of the fact that that the next book in the anthology is the Book of Jonah that warns Nineveh of impending doom, but offers no promise of God relenting if the wicked city should repent. However, when they do repent, God does relent.
In this regard, the book may function both as a means to save Edom rather than destroy it, and as a comfort to God's people who were unjustly betrayed by the neighboring state. The enemies of God's people, therefore, should repent and treat them favorable so that they may not be destroyed in a microcosmic or the macrocosmic judgment of God; but rather live at peace with Israel who will rule over Edom from Mount Zion when YHWH is the sole King over all of it. The hope of this is realized in Acts 15:15-17, where the Gentiles are repenting and serving YHWH via Jesus Christ. For those who do not repent, however, there is a promise of total annihilation, and so the book seeks to influence the behavior of the nations toward God's people today in light of the promised judgment to come.
Saturday, June 23, 2018
Biblical Theology XXVI: Amos
Amos is set around the time of Hosea just before the destruction
and deportation of the northern kingdom of Israel. The prophet is not a
professional prophet like those among the school of the prophets in Israel, but
was instead a shepherd and farmer of fig trees. He is ultimately told to get
out of the land (he’s from the south and goes up to the north to prophesy) by a
priest who complains to King Jeroboam II, and told not to speak against God’s “chosen
people” again. Hence, his ministry is rejected.
Theology: The judgment of God falls on the pagan nations for their abuse of
power over others and because they do not help their poor. The book then turns
to argue that Israel is under the judgment of God for this very reason.
Amos also argues that if the people are hearing a warning from the
prophets, God is about to judge them. It is not an idle threat or something far
off in the distance. Judgment is nigh if a warning has gone out. Hence, the people
are in grave danger of being destroyed for their distorted views of God and
their many injustices toward His people.
Various tragedies are means by which God nudges His people to
repentance so that they do not end up in final judgment. The book argues that
none of these warnings of calamity have been heeded, and hence, the greater coming
judgment is still about to fall. The final warning, as noted above, is the
warning of God’s Word through the prophet.
As is a common promise in the Prophets, those who repent have the
hope of being fully restored under the Davidic King who will reign over an
eternally prosperous land.
Ethics: Amos is a book about social justice, as it argues that God is not
pleased with any of the sacrifices and religious practices of His people if it
is not first accompanied by the worship of the true God (i.e., loving God) and
the care of the marginalized within the covenant community (i.e., love of the
people of God). Hence, to pursue the truth in terms of right theology and right
practice is true acceptable religion to YHWH. Anything less brings about His
judgment upon the people, and they are rejected as pagans. It is not a book
about social justice in the sense that it is often taught by the inclusive
American folk religion. God will hold each nation accountable for its own
crimes against the weak and the poor. The people of God are a nation to
themselves. They will be judged concerning whether they treated their marginalized
with care, and did not oppress others or commit atrocities in war. They poor
they are to take care of are their own. Israel, therefore, is being judged for
not taking care of its own marginalized people, and Amos argues that this is a
result of worshiping false gods.
To display the idea connected to Genesis, the image is a
life-giver, and when he worships the true God, he joins God in His life-giving
work; but when he worships false gods, gods who demonically become obstacles to
the life-giving work, they reject the role of the image and replace the work
that is to be done with false works (e.g., religious rituals that do not
preserve life by themselves, oppressive behaviors, or acts of benevolence
toward the wrong people, so that the people for whom they are responsible are
not taken care of). Hence, wrong practice is linked to wrong theology, so Amos
argues that the false worship of Israel has led to their mistreatment of the marginalized
among them, and hence, has brought horrible judgments, as well as an even worse
final judgment, upon them.
If they want to live they must reverse their false theology and
ethics by seeking both YHWH (5:4–6) and good rather than evil (v. 14).
Wednesday, June 20, 2018
Saturday, June 16, 2018
Biblical Theology XXV: Joel
Theology: The Book of Joel gives us the theology
concerning the “day of YHWH.” This is a day that God decides to bring judgment
upon His people. In Joel, that judgment takes the form of extreme famine, where
locusts have devoured all of the crops. This judgment is taking place because
the people have sinned against God, and are, therefore, no longer under His
protection. In the ancient Near East, the people are only under the protection
of deity when they remain in his or her favor. As long as they have the god’s
favor, the elements of chaos (e.g., invading armies, natural disasters, etc.)
are held at bay. The protection of the deity functions much like a damn holding
back mountains of water. When that favor is lost, the damn is broken, and the
waters of chaos flood in and destroy everything. The day of YHWH is the day He
decides to judge His people for their sins and no longer hold back chaos.
Ethics: The response to this coming judgment, as in
all of the prophets, is to repent. Repentance is said to look like a complete
focus of thoughts geared toward obedience to God, fasting (i.e., the sacrifice
of food/resources in order to take care of the poor among God’s people),
weeping and mourning (i.e., the external emotional signs that accompany
repentance. However, a caution is given to not confuse an emotional sorrow with
real repentance. Hence, Joel urges the people to “rend your mind and not your
garments.” This is defined as “returning to YHWH your God” (2:13).
The people have hope in this because God is “gracious and
compassionate, slow to anger, full of hesed, redirecting His favor away
from chaos” (v. 14); but it is not a sure thing that God will, in fact, turn
His judgment back (v. 15). This is a common theme in the prophets, and it
conveys the idea that God is not mocked. He may or may not forgive. He has the
discretion to do so or to refrain from doing so. No one, and no act (even an
act of repentance), controls Him. However, because of His character, there is
hope that He will turn from His wrath and bless the people instead. The hope of
repentance is that God will remove the threat of chaos and restore the people
and the land to prosperity.
Repentance is also corporate, not just individual (2:16),
and corporate repentance is to be led by the priests, who are to intercede for
the people (v. 17).
Joel is really a warning to Israel to repent before the day
of the Lord, i.e., before God withdraws His protection and lets chaos flood in.
In this regard, Peter’s use of Joel in the Book of Acts is consistent with its
theme. He warns them of the oncoming judgment for their killing of the Messiah.
They, however, do not repent, and God withdraws His protection. The chaos that
ensues when the Romans attack the city is, therefore, a result of God
withdrawing this protection on the “day of the Lord,” precisely, because it
functions the same way as it does in Joel. It is not because there is only one
day of the Lord, but because the day of the Lord is any day that God withdraws
His protection from upon His people and lets chaos come bursting in.
Joel also connects the day of the Lord judgment of locusts
to one or more in the future, where the people of God repent and are,
therefore, given the Spirit of God so that revelation becomes abundant. This is
the opposite of the judgment of God that withholds revelation from people.
Instead, even the children will prophesy, and all who call upon the name of the
Lord will be placed on the Lord’s holy mountain/Jerusalem and will escape the
judgment, and all of their enemies (i.e., agents of chaos) will be judged
instead.
Friday, June 8, 2018
On the Road to the American Genocide
I've been quite alarmed by the type of speech that has surrounded our culture since the election. If we keep going the way that we have, this speech will not evaporate in the air but solidify in the actions of horror. Words have great power. They can turn into beautiful things, but they also have the ability to become very ugly things, perhaps, much uglier than their original speakers intended.
I study genocides quite a bit, more in terms of how they begin. I do this largely because I'm curious how what seems to be a somewhat organized and civilized society can suddenly turn into one that condones and practices the mass murder of others. From what I can tell, it begins with a single sentiment:
Resentment toward a perceived or real oppressor.
One may think that it is the oppressor who often brings genocide, but in the mind of those committing genocide, they are actually the freedom fighters. They are the ones who are fighting to make their way to peace, and the main obstacles in the way of utopia are the oppressors who have stolen something or preventing a certain condition or environment that would bring in this utopian bliss. Whether it is prevention of wealth, health, equality, etc. the oppressors must be moved out of the way or this nirvana, where the oppressed are on top will never occur.
This resentment, then, begins to emerge in speech that degrades the humanity of the perceived oppressor. After all, anyone who would oppress others is a "monster," a "rat," a "dog," a "cockroach," a "Nazi." The terms are largely irrelevant. It's simply necessary to use some term that describes another human as less than human, or rather, not deserving of their humanity due to their perceived oppressive behavior.
Speech then turns into action as these oppressors are put in their place by the heroes of the resistance. Social shunning, job loss, defamation of one's character and name, laws created to protect the oppressed by limiting the rights of the oppressor are all justified as the oppressors are moved out of positions of influence and power and shamed into being subordinates.
At this point, violence is justified. A monster should be vanquished. A rat should be exterminated. A dog can be beaten. A cockroach should be killed. A Nazi should be punched in the face.
The final step, then, is simply to remove the oppressors from society physically. This can mean prison or death. As Oprah Winfrey said of old white people who are still racist, "Those people just need to die." There is no tolerance of those who cannot be re-educated quickly. They just need to die, and the wolf will lay down with the lamb, the new world will begin. And what a beautiful world it will be once all of that grass grows over all of the dead bodies of men, women, and children who were in the way of the visions of the KKK, Young Turks, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, the Hutu, ISIS, the ANC Youth League, ANTIFA.
The oppressed become the oppressors. They look much more like monsters and sub-human creatures seeking the blood of their victims than their perceived oppressors ever did. Like T'Challa says to his cousin in "The Black Panther," when his cousin's solution is to subdue the oppressors via war and genocide, "You have become them."
But it's OK, you see, they're making the world a better place. They just have to terrorize and slaughter a few million people like pigs first in order to get there.
The United States has sat comfortably for around 150 years now without a war on its own soil. That's quite a few generations that know nothing of the terrors of war. What this has created is a sort of obliviousness to the fact that such horrors are coming, and an unwillingness to entertain the idea that genocide could ever take place in our society. Yet, the resentment, and the verbal manifestations of the beginning stages of genocide, are already here.
The world can only bring solutions that end in murder because it has no basis to forgive. Even when it attempts to superficially forget about wrongs done, it holds them down deep within, unsatisfied and unplacated by a calm brought about by mere words. Furthermore, even when wrongs have not been done, but are perceived as existing, there is no basis for giving another the benefit of the doubt. Why be generous to a Nazi?
The church's responsibility is to give the world a basis for forgiveness, and that can only be brought about in the proclamation of the cross. Only then can wrongs be justly punished without the murder of so many. Only viewing people in Christ as new creations will bring peace, as only Christ can bring peace. Humanity must first be reconciled to God, become His life-giving images again, and then they will be able to be reconciled to one another.
But have no doubt, we are on the road to civil war and genocide. The resentment that has been fostered, and the words that have begun to form reality, have set our culture on that path. And there is now only one force powerful enough to stop it.
The rhetoric of murder has, and will never, become the utopia of radicals. It will instead create the ugliness of a bloody and destroyed world, and they will simply replace one oppressive regime with another; but the words of the gospel will become the beauty of paradise.
I study genocides quite a bit, more in terms of how they begin. I do this largely because I'm curious how what seems to be a somewhat organized and civilized society can suddenly turn into one that condones and practices the mass murder of others. From what I can tell, it begins with a single sentiment:
Resentment toward a perceived or real oppressor.
One may think that it is the oppressor who often brings genocide, but in the mind of those committing genocide, they are actually the freedom fighters. They are the ones who are fighting to make their way to peace, and the main obstacles in the way of utopia are the oppressors who have stolen something or preventing a certain condition or environment that would bring in this utopian bliss. Whether it is prevention of wealth, health, equality, etc. the oppressors must be moved out of the way or this nirvana, where the oppressed are on top will never occur.
This resentment, then, begins to emerge in speech that degrades the humanity of the perceived oppressor. After all, anyone who would oppress others is a "monster," a "rat," a "dog," a "cockroach," a "Nazi." The terms are largely irrelevant. It's simply necessary to use some term that describes another human as less than human, or rather, not deserving of their humanity due to their perceived oppressive behavior.
Speech then turns into action as these oppressors are put in their place by the heroes of the resistance. Social shunning, job loss, defamation of one's character and name, laws created to protect the oppressed by limiting the rights of the oppressor are all justified as the oppressors are moved out of positions of influence and power and shamed into being subordinates.
At this point, violence is justified. A monster should be vanquished. A rat should be exterminated. A dog can be beaten. A cockroach should be killed. A Nazi should be punched in the face.
The final step, then, is simply to remove the oppressors from society physically. This can mean prison or death. As Oprah Winfrey said of old white people who are still racist, "Those people just need to die." There is no tolerance of those who cannot be re-educated quickly. They just need to die, and the wolf will lay down with the lamb, the new world will begin. And what a beautiful world it will be once all of that grass grows over all of the dead bodies of men, women, and children who were in the way of the visions of the KKK, Young Turks, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, the Hutu, ISIS, the ANC Youth League, ANTIFA.
The oppressed become the oppressors. They look much more like monsters and sub-human creatures seeking the blood of their victims than their perceived oppressors ever did. Like T'Challa says to his cousin in "The Black Panther," when his cousin's solution is to subdue the oppressors via war and genocide, "You have become them."
But it's OK, you see, they're making the world a better place. They just have to terrorize and slaughter a few million people like pigs first in order to get there.
The United States has sat comfortably for around 150 years now without a war on its own soil. That's quite a few generations that know nothing of the terrors of war. What this has created is a sort of obliviousness to the fact that such horrors are coming, and an unwillingness to entertain the idea that genocide could ever take place in our society. Yet, the resentment, and the verbal manifestations of the beginning stages of genocide, are already here.
The world can only bring solutions that end in murder because it has no basis to forgive. Even when it attempts to superficially forget about wrongs done, it holds them down deep within, unsatisfied and unplacated by a calm brought about by mere words. Furthermore, even when wrongs have not been done, but are perceived as existing, there is no basis for giving another the benefit of the doubt. Why be generous to a Nazi?
The church's responsibility is to give the world a basis for forgiveness, and that can only be brought about in the proclamation of the cross. Only then can wrongs be justly punished without the murder of so many. Only viewing people in Christ as new creations will bring peace, as only Christ can bring peace. Humanity must first be reconciled to God, become His life-giving images again, and then they will be able to be reconciled to one another.
But have no doubt, we are on the road to civil war and genocide. The resentment that has been fostered, and the words that have begun to form reality, have set our culture on that path. And there is now only one force powerful enough to stop it.
The rhetoric of murder has, and will never, become the utopia of radicals. It will instead create the ugliness of a bloody and destroyed world, and they will simply replace one oppressive regime with another; but the words of the gospel will become the beauty of paradise.
Biblical Theology XXIV: Hosea
Hosea sets the tone of the singular anthology entitled, "The Book of the Twelve," or simply, the "Minor Prophets" by placing the prophets in the framework of lawyers who bring charges against Israel/Judah/the nations on behalf of God.
Theology: The theological contribution of Hosea is its teaching concerning the nature of the covenant that God has made with His people. In the ancient Near East, the covenants that most gods made with the people had to do with the deity protecting the people as long as they kept up his or her temples, brought sacrifices, etc. As long as these rituals were performed, it pleased the god and one could go on his merry way to live his life according to what he thought was right.
Theology: The theological contribution of Hosea is its teaching concerning the nature of the covenant that God has made with His people. In the ancient Near East, the covenants that most gods made with the people had to do with the deity protecting the people as long as they kept up his or her temples, brought sacrifices, etc. As long as these rituals were performed, it pleased the god and one could go on his merry way to live his life according to what he thought was right.
Hosea, however, presents the covenant
as something akin to the type of love commitment one makes in a marriage
covenant (and toward the end, as the type of obligation one sees in a
father-son relationship). What the book does for the reader, therefore, is to
describe the things that are faithful and unfaithful to that covenant in such a
way as to give the reader an understanding of what type of love God requires of
His people. In other words, Hosea helps us understand what love looks like in
relationship to God and others.
Contrary to our views of love as
romantic and emotional affections for someone, and contrary to their views of
loving deity that merely require the upkeep of temples, the tributes of holy
days, and the bringing of sacrifices, the book argues that loving God is a commitment to do what pleases Him, as it is revealed in the law. Hosea argues that Israel is unfaithful
like a wife who prostitutes herself is unfaithful when she goes after other
men. Israel is worshiping other gods along with YHWH, and merely thinks that
bringing sacrifices and offerings is sufficient to fulfill their obligations of
love to Him. Deity is the driving force in one’s life, and to go after other gods
is to have others becoming the driving force for what one does. Yet, YHWH demands the sole position as the
driving force in one’s life like a husband who demands the sole position as the
one to whom love is due.
According to Hosea, to be unfaithful
to God in this covenant of love,
therefore, is to break God’s commandments, regardless of whether the
superficial ritual activity is observed. Because of this understanding of love and the
nature of the covenant Israel has made with God, it has fallen under the condemnation
of an adulteress. Hosea, therefore, presents God as bringing Israel into court,
making accusation against her, rendering a verdict, and dealing out the
punishment (i.e., death, destruction, and deportation).
Ethics: Hosea helps the reader understand that to love God is to first
have Him as the primary driving force in one’s life over all others, and
secondly, to offer obedience, rather than affectionate gestures that are absent
of becoming a good person according to God’s law, as the sign of faithfulness to the covenant that
God has made with him. If God’s people have not been faithful in this way, they
will certainly be judged by God and removed from among His people. Yet, as with
all of the prophets, there is hope of restoration in repentance. If one turns
from his prostitution with other gods and the unfaithfulness of sin, God will
restore His people and put down their oppressors once again. They will again
seek God through the Davidic king, and be restored to the land. In this way, the judgment functions only as a purging of God's people so that only those who truly love God remain in eternal covenant with Him.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)