Remarriage After Divorce: Continual Adultery? Christ’s View
According to Jesus Christ and the New Testament, is remarriage after divorce continual adultery? Christ is clear that putting away or divorcing one’s spouse and marrying someone else when one’s spouse is still alive is a wicked sin, and the consummation of that second marriage is an act of adultery, making the people who commit that sin adulterers:
2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him. 3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you? 4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away. 5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. 6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. 7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; 8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. 9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter. 11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her. 12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery. (Mark 10:2-12)
A (very) small minority of people in Christendom teach not only that the act of remarriage is an act of adultery, but that one is living in continual adultery with a second spouse, and, therefore, needs to abandon that second spouse and go back to his or her first husband or wife. Some Amish groups that are confused on the gospel adopt this false teaching, as do some Mennonites (who also very largely are confused on the gospel by denying eternal security and confused on the church by denying the necessity of immersion in baptism). There are very few groups that get the gospel and the church correct that adopt this false teaching on leaving one’s spouse to go back to a former husband or wife.
The Lord Jesus Christ does NOT teach that someone should go back to his former husband or wife if he or she commits the sin of remarriage. The remarriage was a sin, one that should be repented of with sorrow. However, some sins, once they are committed, do not allow one to go back to what would have been right formerly. After Israel sinned by faithlessly refusing to enter the Promised Land (Numbers 14), God punished them by swearing that they would have to dwell in the wilderness for forty years. After they decided not to go up, it was too late for them to change their mind and go into the land. Some of them tried, and God was not with them:
39 And Moses told these sayings unto all the children of Israel: and the people mourned greatly. 40 And they rose up early in the morning, and gat them up into the top of the mountain, saying, Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the LORD hath promised: for we have sinned. 41 And Moses said, Wherefore now do ye transgress the commandment of the LORD? but it shall not prosper. 42 Go not up, for the LORD is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies. 43 For the Amalekites and the Canaanites are there before you, and ye shall fall by the sword: because ye are turned away from the LORD, therefore the LORD will not be with you. 44 But they presumed to go up unto the hill top: nevertheless the ark of the covenant of the LORD, and Moses, departed not out of the camp. 45 Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and smote them, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah. (Numbers 14:39-45)
The same situation takes place after a remarriage. The sin of divorce should not have been committed (Malachi 2:16), and the sin of remarriage should not have been committed (Mark 10:2-12), but once these grave sins have been committed, there is no going back. It is an abomination to divorce a second time and go back to a former husband and wife, according to the Lord Jesus Christ. How do we know this?
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Old Testament Taught It Is An Abomination To Do So
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 reads:
1 When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. 2 And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. 3 And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; 4 Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance.
As explained elsewhere on this blog by both Dr. Brandenburg and in my article “Divorce, Deuteronomy 24:1-4, Remarriage, and New Testament teaching,” Scripture is clear that going back to a former spouse after a remarriage is an abomination before Jehovah, something that God Himself hates. What is an abomination to Jehovah is not just a sin for Israel, but for all people at all times; as the Gentiles had defiled the land by abominations, so Israel must not defile the land by committing this abomination. Thus, it is clear that someone who has sinned by entering a second marriage should not sin again by leaving his current spouse to go back to a former one.
Remarriage-Go Back To the First Spouse?
Jesus Christ Did Not Teach One Should Go Back to a Former Spouse
Because The Passages In the New Testament Misused to Claim This Do Not Teach It
Luke 16:18 reads:
Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.
πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γάμων ἑτέραν μοιχεύει· καὶ πᾶς ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.
pas ho apolyōn tēn gynaika autou kai gamōn heteran moicheuei; kai pas ho apolelymenēn apo andros gamōn moicheuei.
The verb “committeth adultery” (μοιχεύει, moicheuei) is in the Greek present tense (cf. also Mark 10:11-12; Matthew 5:31-32). People with a surface-level understanding of Greek have concluded from this fact that one who has remarried is committing continual adultery every time the act of marriage takes place. However, the verbs “putteth away” and “marrieth” are also in the present tense, yet are clearly not continual and ongoing actions. As someone with a deeper knowledge of Greek will recognize, the present tense forms in Luke 16:18 clearly fit the syntactical category of the gnomic or timeless present—continual marriage ceremonies, continual divorces, and continual adultery are not at all in view, any more than the present tense verbs in Galatians 5:3; 6:13 specify continually getting circumcised or the present tense verb in Hebrews 5:1 specifies being ordained to the priesthood over and over again. An examination of pages 523-524 of Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) illustrates that the syntactical features requisite for identifying a gnomic present appear in this context. Luke 16:18 does not teach that those who have committed the grievous sins of divorce and remarriage should commit another abomination (Deuteronomy 24:4) by leaving their current spouses for the previous ones. Rather, in this passage the “present … [specifies] [a] class … of those who … once do the act the single doing of which is the mark of … the class … [as in] Luke 16:18” (Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in New Testament Greek, 3rd ed. [Edinburg: T&T Clark, 1898], 56-57). The destruction of one family unit through remarriage, the physical consummation of which is an act of adultery, is bad enough; it must not be compounded with a further abomination. Please see my study Reasons Christians Should and Can Learn Greek and Hebrew for more information on both Deuteronomy 24 and Luke 16:18.
Thus, Scripture is clear that one who has committed the sin of remarriage should not go back to his or her former spouse. God teaches that it is an abomination to do so. The Lord Jesus Christ, who revealed the Old Testament by His Spirit in His prophets, taught that it is an abomination in Deuteronomy 24:1-4. Christ did not contradict what He affirmed in the Old Testament in the Gospels. Remarriage while a spouse is alive is the wicked sin of adultery, but those who have committed that sin are now bound to remain with their new spouses until death do them part.
–TDR
Are You a Piglet?
Winnie the Pooh
This might surprise you, but I categorize personalities sometimes by Winnie the Pooh characters. Not everyone fits into the Pooh constellation, but many do, I’ve found. For instance, if I say, Eeyore, does that sound like anyone you know? I’ve known several Eeyores in my lifetime.
You’ve got Pooh himself, Owl, Rabbit, Tigger, Kanga, Roo, and Christopher Robin. Then Piglet. No one probably wants to admit being a Piglet, but many still are. You could probably write this paragraph itself, but someone wrote this description:
Piglet is a very timid piglet. He shows characteristics of anxiety and he stutters. He thinks of how any situation can go wrong and he argues with himself about what he should do if a situation does go wrong. For example, while trying to catch a heffalump,
Piglet thinks to himself how he can fake a headache so he will not have to face one of these creatures, in case it is fierce. Then he thinks to himself that if he fakes a headache he will be stuck in bed all morning, so he does not know what to do. These are the types of scenarios that make him anxious. He has thoughts that he creates that jump from one bad scenario to another. Piglet also shakes and blushes. His ears twitch when he is scared or nervous, which is often. He is usually very flustered.
Anxiety
A website used Piglet as an example of Generalized Anxiety Disorder. It says:
The average person reading The World of Pooh by A.A. Milne would be exposed to an accurate portrayal of generalized anxiety disorder in Piglet. Piglet trembles, twitches, and is shaky. Piglet also has exaggerated startle responses to things that scare him. He also shows symptoms of autonomic hyperarousal, like rapid heart rate and shortness of breath.
When Piglet is in stressful conditions his anxiety levels tend to elevate and worsen. This is typical of young people with generalized anxiety disorder. Children with this disorder may also show signs of being unsure of themselves. The book accurately portrays generalized anxiety disorder in Piglet.
You might agree with me that A. A. Milne wasn’t attempting to portray a psychological disorder. Milne just wrote maybe slightly exaggerated, perhaps even realistic, versions of a real person or types of people he knew. He did such a good job that people still use these characters as descriptors, hence Piglets.
Piglet
Certain people tend toward the Piglet disposition or outlook. When they watch Piglet, maybe his vulnerability has an attraction to them. He doesn’t seem like a danger or a threat. Piglet offers “helpful” criticism of ambitious, courageous action, opting for staying put in a safe confine. Many appreciate his suggestion of a very conservative cautiousness. The servant who buried his talents could have been a Piglet (cf. Matthew 25:14-30).
Being a Piglet belies biblical living, because of its sinful fear. Scripture commands many times, “fear not” (63 times) and “be not afraid” (30 times). That disposition disobeys also “be strong and of good courage,” which has many various versions in scripture. The problem is not trusting God for protection. He will not fail nor forsake you (Deut 31:6). God doesn’t want that from His children.
People will prefer a Piglet. A Piglet likely will not push them to take that courageous step of obedience. He’ll be there, maybe hiding, but there for them. They also might mistake this ungodly fear for humility, what scripture calls a type of voluntary humility (cf. Colossians 2:18). Someone thinks so poorly of himself, that he can’t do certain required biblical tasks, that this lowly self consideration is humility. It isn’t.
Weakness and Strength
For sure, the biblical paradox works. “When I am weak, then am I strong” (2 Cor 12:10). The end result of depending on God for strength is strength, not weakness. It follows Paul’s command, “Stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (1 Corinthians 16:13). It also follows what God commanded Job: “Gird up now thy loins like a man” (Job 38:3, 40:7).
When you watch the interaction of all the Pooh characters, Piglet just fits in. He provides a good laugh, because of his association with someone you know. Or maybe you’re laughing, because you think he is you. I get that. I’m laughing too. Maybe we’re laughing too much. It’s not good.
If a boy today acts rowdy and rambunctious, society might opt for drugs to control him. The state drugs thousands of American boys to turn them into Piglets. A Piglet in class, he’s considered the model boy student.
Helping and Changing
Almost all obedient Christian living requires being other than a Piglet. Some of the important tasks for God require rejecting Piglet attitude or disposition. Jesus wasn’t a Piglet. Paul wasn’t one.
Just because you are a Piglet, doesn’t mean you must stay a Piglet. Or an Eeyore for that matter. All of us have our own besetting behaviors, whichever poor or bad direction they move. A Tigger could be subject to the same type of analysis.
Scripture requires categorizing people into simple, wise, foolish, weak, feebleminded, and unruly, among others. A goal in ministry is to bring help and bear burdens. Biblical ministry can move someone out of the Piglet category with the right amount of cooperation from a true believer.
Watching a Slow Motion Car Crash: 2023-2024 United States
Preach the Gospel
My wife and I live in a mobile home in small town rural Indiana, evangelizing Decatur County as well as a 25 minute radius of our church building. I preach the gospel almost every day to someone. We do discipleship, Bible studies, and meet for church. Her and I exist in our own little bubble. We walk twice a day by fields of beans, corn, and wheat.
I do think that the work of our church here transcends other contemporary narratives. We keep our eye on the ball, staying focused on the real problem in the world and its actual solution. It glorifies God, gives Him pleasure. Someone might say our little lives here epitomize one of many micronarratives within a larger macro one. I could argue, however, that we represent the macro and the popular larger narrative equals the micro. The gospel overshadows politics or what occurs to a nation in a window of history.
No one in the future kingdom of Christ and then the eternal state will look back and think that the American government was the main theme. Neither will anyone in that kingdom consider the decline of the United States to be the major issue of that day. The way back to Paradise, lost in the Fall, comes through Jesus Christ.
Slow Motion Car Crash
As a backdrop to serving God in a church, I observe now a slow motion car crash. Two cars now careen toward each other and a future wreck. Maybe I could use another metaphor, like the trajectory of an asteroid in the path of earth on schedule to collide in November of 2024. It might not matter what your side of the political spectrum, you see this crash coming too.
I don’t write to say, “You read it here first.” You could have read it somewhere else first. However, I haven’t read yet about the collision of which I explain and describe. When you read it somewhere else, you might say, I read it first at What Is Truth. Who cares, really? As I write about this here, first or last, you might anticipate this inevitable demolition derby.
Trump
Donald Trump leads the polls on the Republican side. He embodies a large faction of the country, bigger than any single cohesive body of people. That car continues rolling forward at a larger than ever fifty plus percent of Republican voters. Even in Iowa and New Hampshire he dominates his opposition right now 16 months before the next presidential election.
As Trump moves along his path, so do four different legal prosecutions against him, all very suspect in nature, especially in comparison to others (I understand this will trigger a portion of the readers). Trump voters saw the Russia hoax impeachment. They also witnessed the Zelensky phone call impeachment. The government spied on his campaign. The Clinton campaign paid for the fabricated Steele dossier used for a FISA warrant. The FBI lied about it and then covered it up. And all that is less than half of everything Trump supporters know.
Still, Trump enemies continue to use the legal system to impede or stop Trump, what people call weaponization of government. Every prosecution looks shady, questionable, like political persecution. The present administration targets its number one political enemy. Nevertheless, the Trump car rumbles down the road, even gaining in momentum the more legal woes he faces.
Biden
Joe Biden comes from the other direction. Even though he couldn’t fill an average sized local gymnasium to see him, he tallied the most votes ever in 2020. Zuckerbucks influenced local election offices all over the country. Courts changed laws to favor ballot harvesting with little to no voter identification. Social media giants censored news unfavorable to the Democrat. In addition, lies, lies, lies, lies, and more lies.
The Biden car and the Trump car head toward each other. They’re moving fast, but they’re so far away, that it’s like watching from thirty thousand feet. The cars move at an imperceptible pace, yet moving on an identical line.
Criminal prosecution hovers around Joe Biden. Massive corruption on an unprecedented scale looks obvious. It seems like no repercussions for him. Like the Clintons, nothing will happen more than verbiage.
A crash looks inevitable. No one knows what will happen in 2023-24. Will they prosecute Trump and try to put him behind bars? Might the Bidens skate again or face their comeuppance? Could a third party enter the race?
The Great American Divorce
Many more questions remain. What would Trump supporters do if this government convicted him? Would they accept that verdict? With the way the progressives use the system like a banana republic, will people stand by and let this happen? A large percentage of United States citizens see their government as dirty. Those people are waiting and watching right now from that thirty-thousand feet. A big gap separates the two biggest factions in the country. The two sides are irreconcilable. One of them is especially unhappy.
The country doesn’t neatly divide like the north and the south in 1860. Both factions live in the same states. Red citizens are fleeing blue states to red ones. A few years ago some started calling this, the great American divorce (here and here) or American secession (here and here). Historian Victor Davis Hanson says we’re on the verge of our French Revolution. He also called it, “The Impending Thermidor Reaction in Jacobin America.”
The Only Remedy
To go back to the way I began this essay, I call this slow motion car crash just a backdrop to the most important. The belief and practice of an individual true church surpasses the miserable condition of the nation. It seems obvious a future collision is coming. No one knows the outcome of this monumental head-on crash, but scripture says the remedy is still the same, the gospel.
Elevation of the gospel starts with the church. Turn and look to the message of the cross as the prescription. Judgment must begin in the house of God.
James White-Thomas Ross Debate Review #3: Epistle Dedicatory
I was thankful for the opportunity to debate James White on the preservation of Scripture. I thought that the debate when well, as did numbers of others who stand for the preservation of Scripture. I have recently added a number of additional debate review videos. Dr. White claimed that the KJV translators, had they been alive today, would have been completely on his side in our debate, standing for modern Bible versions based on the Nestle-Aland Textus Rejectus and opposing the Received Text. His claim is astonishingly inaccurate, as the new debate review videos demonstrate. The video below, #3, examines the KJV’s Epistle Dedicatory, where, among other matters, the translators refer to the KJV as “one more exact Translation,” a more accurate version than the previous Bibles in English. Having their better translation was not a matter of indifference, but one of great “importance.” They thought their version was better, and that it was important that everyone recognize and act on that fact. So do KJV-Only advocates think today—they agree completely with what the KJV translators say in the Epistle Dedicatory on this issue.
You can watch debate review video #3 in the embedded link above, or see it on Faithsaves.net, YouTube or Rumble. Please subscribe to the KJB1611 YouTube and the KJBIBLE1611 Rumble channel if you would like to know when more reviews are posted. Thank you.
–TDR
Modernism Is Not an Acceptable Alternative to Postmodernism: Jordan Peterson
Early Experience with Modernism
Growing up in small town Indiana, no one exposed me to modernism. Without anyone telling me, I read the Bible as literal. Everything happened in it just like it read. When I was twelve, my dad took us all off to Bible college in Wisconsin when he was thirty-five years old, but he was never some theologian.
I interacted very little with modernism in college or graduate school. When I wrote papers, I provided alternative views to my position, so I read a little modernism then. Faculty did not assign modernist books to read in a fundamentalist college. The modernist books, I must admit, I used to pad my bibliographies, quoting them in selective fashion.
My theological separation divided the saved from the unsaved. People either received or rejected Jesus Christ. I did not categorize someone a modernist. He just rejected the truth, an unbeliever. Modernism held no attraction to me. If someone was a modernist, through my lens he was just an unbeliever.
More Mature Understanding of Modernism
In graduate school, I took a class, History of Fundamentalism, taught by B. Myron Cedarholm, because the normal teacher, Richard Weeks, was ill. In that class, I heard how that fundamentalism began as a movement in response to modernism or liberalism pervading and then controlling religious institutions. Modernism invaded Southern Baptist seminaries and the Presbyterian, Princeton Theological Seminary. None of this still mattered much for me. It registered as something written on paper, because I had no experience with it.
After marriage and a move to the San Francisco Bay Area to evangelize and then start a Baptist church, I came into recognition of modernism in a personal way, listening to a liberal radio talk show. I listened to the Ronn Owens Show and his interview with Uta Ranke-Heinemann, a female liberal theologian from Germany. She wrote, .Putting Away Childish Things: The Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Don’t Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith.
On a regular basis, I then encountered modernists in the San Francisco Bay Area. They went to modernist churches in almost every religious denomination. They often didn’t reject the Bible. Instead, they viewed scripture in a mystical way, not taking it literally. Modernists likely denied the supernatural aspects of scripture. Many times they allegorized the Bible to make it more malleable for their liberal cultural and social causes.
The Arrival of Postmodernism
As years passed, progressivism turned from modernism to postmodernism. Now postmodernists can make modernists seem at least moderate, if not conservative. Postmodernists rejected modernism. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I ask that you consider what I wrote in 2021:
Modernism then arose and said revelation wasn’t suitable for knowledge. Modernists could point to distinctions between religions and denominations and the wars fought over them. Knowledge instead came through scientific testing, man’s observations, consequently elevating man above God. Man could now do what he wanted because he changed the standard for knowledge. Faith for sure wasn’t good enough. With modernism, faith might make you feel good, but you proved something in naturalistic fashion to say you know it. Modernism then trampled the twentieth century, producing devastation, unsuccessful with its so-called knowledge.
Premoderns had an objective basis for knowledge, revelation from God. Moderns too, even if it wasn’t valid, had human reasoning, what they called “empirical proof.” Postmoderns neither believed or liked scripture or empiricism. This related to authority, whether God or government or parents, or whatever. No one should be able to tell somebody else what to do, which is to conform them to your truth or your reality. No one has proof. Institutions use language to construct power.
Postmodernism judged modernism a failure, pointing to wars, the American Indians and institutional bias, bigotry, and injustice. Since modernism constructed itself by power and language, a postmodernist possesses his own knowledge of good and evil, his own truth, by which to construct his own reality. No one will any more control him with power and language.
Dangerous New Acceptance of Modernism
Jordan Peterson
Modernists today very often stand with conservatives on certain principles. When I hear him talk about the Bible, and he does very much, Jordan Peterson sounds like a modernist. In recent days Peterson appeared in a new series on the Book of Exodus and apparently he wrote a book soon published on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. He talked about that in a podcast. In his conversation on Exodus, his interpretation of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in a talk about the book of Jonah, Peterson in recent days pushes his modernist position on tens of thousands of especially young men.
What excites many about Peterson’s talks is that he even talks about the Bible at all. He acts enthused about scripture. Peterson thinks the Bible is very important. He puts great effort into communicating his modernist position and interpretations of the Bible. Almost five years ago, I already warned about Peterson, still hoping he might change. He hasn’t and today he’s doubling down on his modernistic approach.
Modernism Versus Divine Verbal Plenary Inspiration
Jordan Peterson does not comment on the Bible like God inspired it. When I say inspired, I mean verbal plenary inspiration. God breathed out every word and all of them in the Bible (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Perhaps I will put more time into exposing the false interpretations and teachings of Jordan Peterson sometime in the future. In the meantime, please know that Jordan Peterson does not expose what Genesis, Exodus, or almost anything in the scripture actually says. He leads people astray with his false doctrine.
Don’t get me wrong. Peterson says many good things. You and I can rejoice in that. I’m happy he agrees with freedom of speech. He rejects a cancel culture. Peterson accepts a patriarchy. He does not, however, proclaim an orthodox view of God or the Bible, even though he refers to scripture all the time.
Paul Stands Against Peter and the Subject of Authority (Part Four)
God Uses Human Intervention
Take a moment with me to participate in a thought experiment. Paul stood against Peter to the face. Why would Paul stand against Peter if God predetermined or just determined everything in life? As a free agent, Peter chose not to eat with Gentiles, with whom before he had eaten. He chose wrong because he could. Paul wanted him to change course on that action. The Apostle Paul expressed limitation, temperance of Peter’s actions. God uses men to do this.
Scripture shows direct human-to-human interaction necessary for particular God-ordained change. God intervenes using human intervention. According to the plan of God, He uses men to change men. Galatians 2 is a tale of God’s authority to intervene. Someone goes his own sweet way and someone else stands against him to stop that path of harm. It’s not a violent interchange. It is peaceful. Paul uses truth in arguments to persuade. Peter changes. Happy ending.
Grace Dominated Obedience
God Gets the Credit
God doesn’t force anyone to do everything just like He wants. Pastors can try, but it won’t work that way. If they imitate God, they don’t force it. Grace dominates the believer’s life. This allows for effective pastoral authority. Regenerate men can obey because of God’s grace and true pastors function within that grace for those men to conform to Christ’s image. God of course then gets the credit for it, like the Apostle Paul mentions at the end of 1 Corinthians 1.
Christ the Master
Go back to Romans 14. Paul makes this point in Romans 14:4:
Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth.
Paul uses an illustration. Another man has a servant or slave in that day. Would you get away with holding his slave accountable to you? You expect him to obey you, when his Master is his judge. John Gill writes concerning these words:
[O]ne man has nothing to do with another man’s servant; he has no power over him, nor any right to call him to an account for his actions; nor has he any business to censure or condemn him for them, or concern himself about them. . . . [H]e is another’s servant, he is the servant of God: he is chosen by God the Father for his service, as well as unto salvation; he is bought with the price of Christ’s blood, and therefore not his own, nor another’s, but Christ’s.
About the second part of the above quote from Romans 14:4, Gill writes:
[T]he meaning of which is, either if he “stands”, that is, if he serves his Lord and master, of which “standing” is expressive; and continues in the service of him, whose servant he professes to be; this is to his master’s advantage and profit, and not to another’s: and if he “falls”, that is, from his obedience to him, as such who profess to be the servants of God may.
We Live Unto the Lord
Paul expands on this truth in verse 8:
For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.
We live unto the Lord, not unto any man. Whether we live, a positive outcome, or we die, a negative one, either way, we are the Lord’s, not someone else’s. This also relates to judgment and even the judgment seat, which is after this lifetime.
The Judgment Seat of Christ
Paul writes in verse 10:
But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.
The slave or servant will stand before His Master, Christ, for judgment by Him. A pastor should want not to impede or prevent a direct rapport of the Lord Jesus Christ with His servants. He can do this though by inserting himself in life matters in a judgmental manner. By judgmental, I mean in condemnatory treatment, which is manipulative.
Servants of Christ Serving Christ
Of course, pastors must step in. They must feed and protect. However, a pastor can make it more difficult for servants of Christ to serve Christ, because they inject themselves into judgment so extensively and vehemently. They don’t stand behind scripture as much as they stand behind force of personality and methodology. I’m not saying they won’t use the Bible, but their authority becomes the indispensable force of change.
I’ve been under a leader (in this case not a pastor) so severe that it seemed impossible to serve the Lord, because he made it so palpable that I was serving him. Someone doesn’t have to act in an identical way as him to operate in his manner. He blew his top. He threatened. It also meant hearing that he talked to others in a form of divide and conquer. I wasn’t his enemy — I supported him — but my popularity seemed a threat to him, so he tried to undermine it. In doing so, he really was hurting himself. I knew I could never stay under him as a leader because I wanted to serve Jesus Christ, not him.
Be assured, a church member might use some scheming tactic on a pastor too, to rule him from the below or under side. I fully acknowledge that. I’ve had that happen too. Scripture, including from the Apostle Paul, addresses both good and bad treatment of a pastor. Hebrews 13:17 says these members might cause a pastor to fulfill his office with grief, not with joy.
Treating Men with Respect
Especially Men of Good Will
I’ve read others use the terminology “good will” to describe a trait of a man who overall wants to do right. This man showed a long-time pattern of pursuing a right direction. He followed and continues in a favorable trajectory. He maintained good behavior toward God and others with some exceptions.
A basic human need God created in men is respect. Treating a man like a man means respecting him. One man in authority should approach another man with respect if he wants respect in return. This especially acknowledges past good will, not starting without good will in the exercise of authority. For a man of good will in need of course correction, a pastor should demonstrate respect of him while doing so.
Honor Due to All Men
If you are in authority, and you don’t think a man deserves your respect, you can still give it. You have a much better opportunity to restore someone if you go ahead and exhibit it. You can argue for showing respect. The Apostle Paul in Romans 13:7 says, “honour to whom honour.” Gill says about this:
[T]here is an honour due to all men, according to their respective rank and station, and the relation they stand in to each other.
Here is a common scenario. A pastor starts a confrontation of a man in a disrespectful manner. He renders dishonor to him. How do you think that’s going to turn out? The man responds poorly, maybe with some obvious irritation or worse. The reaction yields more disrespect from the leader. Everything goes down from there, because now both men feel disrespected. From there, interactions turn acerbic. It didn’t have to be that way.
Such a sequence of events one might call a cycle. These types of cycles do occur between people all the time. For the cycle to stop, both parties must admit at least the cycle occurred. It can’t be one or both sides assigning all the blame to the other. The cycle includes alternating wrongdoing that increases in intensity, until it comes to an abrupt ending.
When one retraces the steps, where did the decline begin? Someone may say, “When a man did something wrong, that necessitated confrontation from a pastor. If he never did anything wrong, it would have stopped right there.” Maybe. Everyone does things wrong. However, a genuine trial of wrongdoing follows due process. Without it, genuine God-ordained authority did not occur.
Why We’re Here
As a pastor, many times people didn’t and don’t do what I want. These people are not there to facilitate a successful career for me. The things they didn’t do might relate to their submission to Jesus Christ. What do I do? Do I blow a gasket at them, do I insult them, condemn them, say harsh things to them, or do I threaten them? I hope not. I should try to help them. That’s why I’m there. It’s not about me. They are servants of Christ for which He died.
You Can Lead an Evangelistic Bible Study!
You can lead an evangelistic Bible study! I have mentioned on What is Truth? before the series of evangelistic Bible studies that the FaithSaves.net website has made available. The seven studies themselves can be viewed here, where one can also see an example by video of how one can present them to the lost. The files can also be downloaded and customized with updated church addresses here. They are in use in various churches in the United States and in foreign countries.
If you have never led an evangelistic Bible study before, I have had the privilege of teaching an extensive series on how to lead one which you can watch. We have gone through study #1, on the nature of Scripture, study #2, on the one true Triune God, study #3, on God’s law and man’s sin, and study #4, on the Person of the Mediator, Jesus Christ, and His death, burial, and resurrection. Study #5, covering repentance and faith, has been started. So now you can not only see a video example of how to lead an evangelistic Bible study, have extensive written notes that can help you to do it, but also have extensive video teaching on how to do it.
Thus, if you are not trying to preach the gospel to the lost and to follow the pattern in Acts of regularly giving more and more truth to interested people until they either repent and believe or are hardened and do not want the truth anymore, what is your excuse? Is it one that will stand up at the judgment seat of the holy Christ who died for the sins of the world? Can Christ die for every person, but you do nothing or nearly nothing to preach the gospel to them, both through clearly explaining the entire gospel in single interactions and through evangelistic explanation in repeated, regular sessions–an evangelistic Bible study?
Of course, there are many ways to explain to the lost the glorious riches of God’s grace. If your church has a different evangelistic Bible study that they like better, that still presents the full-orbed truth, that is just fine. But you need to be doing something. Christ did not save you so that you could be in the pew-warming ministry, but so that you can be in the ministry of making disciples from every kindred, tongue, and nation (Matthew 28:18-20).
–TDR
Paul Stands Against Peter and the Subject of Authority (Part Three)
Authority of Scripture
To obey God and His Word, one must first believe in His authority and the authority of His Word. I believe in God’s authority and the authority of His Word. True New Testament churches submit to the Bible as their final authority. God and His Word also function through a hierarchy of authority. He uses men. In the first century, God spoke and ruled through apostolic authority. Peter and Paul were uniquely God’s instruments.
The Pharisees and Sadducees opposed the authority of Jesus. Jesus also attacked their faux authority. The Pharisaical view of circumcision and eating with Gentiles arose from their traditions, not from God’s Word. Jesus said, They “teach for doctrines the commandments of men” (Mark 7:7). Their teaching was devoid of God’s authority.
In spite of their insubordination to scripture, Jesus did not debunk the office of the Pharisees, just the opposite in Matthew 23:2: “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat.” According to Jesus, the Pharisees still sat in Moses’ seat. They held the office. They lost authority, however, by not obeying the Word of God, including that written by Moses.
In Galatians, the gang of false teachers, who traveled to Antioch from Jerusalem and said they associated with James, borrowed from the Pharisee’s tradition. These men mixed certain rituals and traditions with a true gospel to concoct their false one. The Apostle Paul writes against them in Galatians 2. They had no authority, either scriptural or ecclesiological, to overturn the doctrine and practice of the Jerusalem and Antioch churches. They looked out for themselves, not for God’s will or pleasure.
Pastoral Authority
God gives pastoral authority. Pastors need it for fulfilling the important God-ordained task of overseeing a church. God instructs members to obey pastors, assuming in scriptural and even non-scriptural matters. Pastors shouldn’t expect obedience to something unscriptural. Someone in a church may view a practice of the church to be unscriptural.
Our church did fundraising for our school. A church member challenged a method we used. He thought it was unscriptural. Our principal didn’t think so. I wasn’t sure. We dropped the method and lost money. It was the right thing to do.
When a pastor says, “I want everyone there at 9am,” that is a non-scriptural matter, but he has authority in it. 9am then means 9am. A member should take that seriously. If he wants everyone there at 9am, everyone should put their selves under that authority, the idea of “submit.” This unifies a body, all the body parts working together. Defying the authority as a pattern fits the definition of factious, even for not showing up on time.
Some of what I’m addressing relates to a pastor dealing with a pattern of disobedience. He wants to help someone. To do so, he comforts, exhorts, instructs, intreats, warns, and admonishes, the approach depending on the person and his response.
To deal with a matter well, a pastor must listen. He must hear a matter before he answers it (Proverbs 18:13). And even then, he wants to edify, correct, strengthen, and restore. Jesus said, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth,” praying to God the Father. The goal is to rely on God’s Word.
Forum for Challenge
Proving Everything
Depending on the Word of God does not mean depending on an opinion about the Word of God. “A pastor thinks this, so it is true.” It might be. I hope it is. However, scripture also says (1 Thess 5:21-22):
21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. 22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
Paul also wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:31-32:
31 For ye may all prophesy one by one, that all may learn, and all may be comforted. 32 And the spirits of the prophets are subject to the prophets.
The spirits of the prophets were subject to the prophets. A forum for challenge exists in a church. The Bible is the final authority.
Helping People Change
Room to Grow
Certain times I led toward a change of position in our church. Just because I took a new position, I knew that didn’t mean that everyone would believe it. It might take time for everyone to come along. Unity also matters in those occasions. Our church had taken a different position for awhile. I wanted everyone to change, but I didn’t require everyone to change. The bottom line during those times was not causing “divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine” (Romans 16:17).
Opinions and what Paul calls doubtful disputations (Rom 14:1) necessitate sorting. Not everyone applies scripture exactly the same. Sanctification occurs and tweaks viewpoints. Every disagreement is not a threat to or defiance of authority. It’s not rebellion. When it takes even pastors years to change on something, they can’t turn around and expect someone else to change in days or hours.
Harmful Approaches
Through many years, I have listened to numbers of various positions of pastors. We almost never agree on everything. Nevertheless, pastors will talk with great confidence and authority when they state their positions. Pastors might treat an issue like they’re Teddy Roosevelt after just climbing San Juan Hill. They’re raising the flag at the top of Mount Suribachi at Iwo Jima. Bluster and bravado or a stern countenance don’t equate with authority.
I may hear a man mock my position in his preaching, sometimes setting up straw man arguments. I might smile at the audaciousness of it, but mockery is not especially convincing. Calling people a liar definitely doesn’t persuade. Neither does characterizing the difference in an extreme or insulting manner.
Sometimes someone says God gave him peace. He may add, “I prayed about it.” Or, “I fasted over it.” If you disagree, somehow you oppose answers to prayer and the practice of fasting. A man expresses a feeling of peace. Scripture nowhere uses a feeling as a harbinger of truth.
Pastors can find many various means to provoke change. Someone might notice a modulation in the tone of voice. Cheeriness is missing. It isn’t friendly now. The eyelids are half mast. A pastor can send a message in the spirit of mean girl syndrome. Someone in is now out. If a person was a fish, he can’t swim in the small pond anymore. He’s relegated to the smaller adjacent puddle until he apprehends the message sent.
Longsuffering and Patience
“God is longsuffering toward usward” (2 Peter 3:9). “Charity suffereth long” (1 Corinthians 13:4). I think of the fellowservant in Jesus’ story in Matthew 18:29, who cried, “Have patience with me!” I don’t see a biblical pattern of cutting off people with a different position, cancelling them with little to no due process.
A kind of political cancellation and making phone calls, applying social and economic pressure, is not the method of pastoral authority. People will have difficulty seeing Jesus in an environment of possible expectation of punishment. Scriptural conviction can motivate loving service that will please the Lord.
God gives and uses authority. Romans 13:1 says, “For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.” At the same time, “My brethren, be not many masters, knowing that we shall receive the greater condemnation” (James 3:1). Especially church leaders should know that the final judgment of Jesus Christ, that’s what matters. “Ye masters,” forbear “threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven” (Eph 6:9).
Everyone of us will give an account to God (Romans 14:10). And God says, “destroy not him for whom Christ died” (Romans 14:15). Christ didn’t give authority to take His place as Lord or destroy the people He died for.
More to Come
God Does NOT Love Everyone? An Error of Hyper-Calvinism, part 3 of 3
Is it true that God does NOT love everyone? Hyper-Calvinism says “yes,” but Scripture says “no!” In part 1 and part 2 of this series, I summarized the first portions of my study God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error. This final part will summarize the final portion of God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error, to which readers are encouraged to refer for more information.
Hyper-Calvinism Employs Exegetical and Logical Fallacies
When Arguing God Does Not Love the Non-Elect:
Texts on God’s Hatred
Hyper-Calvinism may contend that some passages of Scripture prove that God does not love the non-elect. For example, the Bible states:
As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. (Romans 9:13)
The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity. (Psalm 5:5)
5 The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth. 6 Upon the wicked he shall rain snares, fire and brimstone, and an horrible tempest: this shall be the portion of their cup. 7 For the righteous LORD loveth righteousness; his countenance doth behold the upright.” (Psalm 11:5-7)
These passages clearly teach that God hates the wicked. But they do not say that God does NOT love them at the same time. Jehovah is perfectly capable of having love in one sense for a wicked person while hating him in a different sense. Indeed, Psalm 5:5 states that God hates “all” workers of iniquity, so even the elect, before they believe, are hated by God in one sense while being eternally loved by Him in a different sense. If God can love and hate the elect at the same time in different senses, He is perfectly capable of doing the same for the non-elect.
Furthermore, Romans 9:13 is not even about the individuals Jacob and Esau. Paul quotes Malachi 1:2-3, which speaks of God’s special blessings on the nation of Israel, blessings withheld from the nation of Edom. Consider Malachi 1:1-5:
1 The burden of the word of the LORD to Israel by Malachi. 2 I have loved you, saith the LORD. Yet ye say, Wherein hast thou loved us? Was not Esau Jacob’s brother? saith the LORD: yet I loved Jacob, 3 And I hated Esau, and laid his mountains and his heritage waste for the dragons of the wilderness. 4 Whereas Edom saith, We are impoverished, but we will return and build the desolate places; thus saith the LORD of hosts, They shall build, but I will throw down; and they shall call them, The border of wickedness, and, The people against whom the LORD hath indignation for ever. 5 And your eyes shall see, and ye shall say, The LORD will be magnified from the border of Israel. (Malachi 1:1-5)
Romans 9:13 never denies that God loved Esau—God is able to love sinners in one sense while hating them in another. More fundamentally, Romans 9:13 is not even about the individual people Jacob and Esau at all, except insofar as they are the progenitors of the nations of Israel and Edom.
These passages of Scripture are simply taken out of context by hyper-Calvinism.
Hyper-Calvinism Employs Exegetical and Logical Fallacies
When Arguing God Does Not Love the Non-Elect:
Texts on God’s Special Love
Advocates of hyper-Calvinism can also argue that Scripture speaks of God’s love in passages that limit His love to the elect. There are indeed passages of Scripture that show that Jehovah has a special love for His believing people. However, this no more denies that God loves the non-elect than does the fact that a Christian husband has a special love for his wife proves that the husband hates everyone else. Hyper-Calvinism needs texts of Scripture that affirm that God does not love some people, not passages that say God does love some people. There simply are no such texts in God’s Word.
Hyper-Calvinism Makes Further Exegetical
and Historical Fallacies
Hyper-Calvinism also makes other fallacious exegetical arguments. Indeed, hyper-Calvinism does not even accurately represent the teaching of John Calvin. Calvin, speaking about the rich young ruler in Mark 10:21, wrote: “Jesus beholding him, loved him [Mark 10:21]. … [A]ll the creatures of God, without exception, are the objects of his love. … God is sometimes said to love those whom he does not approve or justify … Christ … love[d] a man [like the rich young ruler] who was proud and a hypocrite, while nothing is more hateful to God than these two vices[.] (John Calvin and William Pringle, Commentary on a Harmony of the Evangelists Matthew, Mark, and Luke, vol. 2 [Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software, 2010], 398–399.)
Thus, the teaching of hyper-Calvinism that God does not love every individual grossly misinterprets Scripture while also misinterpreting history. Even John Calvin did not teach the hyper-Calvinist notion that God loves only the elect. Since neither the Bible, nor even John Calvin, taught this false idea, you should not teach or believe it either. Reject such a slander on the character of God and recognize that “God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). Please read God Does Not Love Everyone: A Hyper-Calvinist Error for more information.
–TDR
Recent Comments