Letter to a Fellow Blogger About Divorce

This letter is an e-mail written in response to a fellow blogger who has posted quite a few constructive comments of disagreement towards my view of divorce and remarriage for adultery and desertion.


Dear Fellow Blogger,

Your thought process is sound and clearly spoken from someone who has a passion for preserving the permanence of marriage, but I (realizing my own pride and stubbornness) think that you are missing the forest of the issue, for the trees of debate and rhetoric.

It seems that I won't be able to convince you to divorce or remarry (jk), but let me clarify a couple of thoughts about my perspective on this: (1) The debate does not rise or fall with the God divorced Israel analogy. Like most analogies, it can be overdone, and I think the thing I want to point out is the fact that God did in fact divorce Israel for her adultery. I don't think that having sex during the betrothal constituted adultery, because I, again, do not see any proof for the betrothal being the same as marriage. Furthermore, although I concede that a bill of divorce was written up for the severance of a Jewish betrothal, just like it was for a Jewish marriage, I do not concede that they were ever the same. To respond to what you said about this issue in your comments, sex was not the only issue (get your mind out of the gutter, please), but there was also the issue of living separately and the man not supporting the woman financially, as well as the lack of a physical union. I think another thing to consider is the fact that the words "husband" and "wife" are from generic Greek words which also mean "man" and "woman." Therefore, when the Scripture calls Joseph "husband" and Mary "wife," it could have equally been translated "man" or "wife." Don't want to "beat a dead horse" with this point, but I only say that to demonstrate that there is no Scriptural evidence for Jewish betrothal and Jewish marriages both being considered "married," as you claim.

I also don't think my view of divorce for adultery and desertion is synonymous with the Pharisees' view "that leads to an epidemic of adultery." Sin is the ultimate cause of any divorce (although the divorce itself may not be sinful); not one's view of divorce or remarriage.

I must admit that this debate is a classic example of how people see things completely differently, because Mark nor Luke's omission is a problem for me. I believe that they state the general principle, and Matthew states the exception. Exceptions do not negate the general rule in any event. Furthermore, I think it is proper hermeneutics to interpret parallel accounts with the more detailed instance. Interpreters routinely follow this approach throughout the Gospels with respect to Jesus; why should it be any different with this?

My point with the "interruption" was to say that it really doesn't matter if the Pharisees interrupted, or if they "tricked" him, but that Jesus' words continued, and the subject matter did not all of a sudden change from marriage to betrothal. Once again, the Matthew 5 passage is very important in seeing this, because of Jesus' blanket statement in the middle of his Sermon on the Mount, which I do not believe is confined to a dispensational, Scofield-like, Davidic Kingdom Jew during a literal, thousand-year reign, but is in reference to all believers living in the kingdom now.

I have already addressed the Mark 10 situation, but let me just say that I do agree with the general rule that if a person divorces his spouse (of course for a biblically unwarranted reason) then they are committing adultery if they remarry.

In closing, the remarriage thing to me is consistent with the idea of a biblically warranted divorce. I see in both exception passages that the general rule of no divorce and no remarriage is still intact, but the exception applies to both parts of the sentence. Grammatically it seems to be logically inconsistent to confine that to only one part of a cause and effect sentence. In fact, without the exception, the sentence in Matthew 19:9 reads, "I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife...and marries another woman commits adultery." The effect of the adultery is caused because the first marriage is still considered to be valid. If, however, marital unfaithfulness occurs (as in the exception), then the passage logically indicates that the first marriage would, in fact, be nullified by divorce, and therefore remarriage would not be committing adultery.

Finally, I know that this is a sensitive issue for a lot of people, and I am thankful that we can open up this debate in a friendly way on this blog. If any of my comments have been condescending, I apologize for them. My humor, though aimless at times, is often used to blunt the sharpness of my words. I appreciate your candor and thoughtful responses, and look forward to continuing discussion in other blogs (I think this one may have had it). For now, though, we may have to do as the great Will Farrel has said, "Agree to disagree."

For Holy Matrimony,
Jason Grizzard

Brief Explanation of the Old and New Testament Church

I know that for some of you this might fly in the face of what has been popularly taught today, because there are many that would say that the church is only during the NT, and I actually believed that for many years. To be honest with you, when I first went to college, we used to argue whether the church started at Pentecost or with Jesus' ministry. I came to find out that neither answers were right. My study of the Bible, moreover, has led me to believe that the church comprises of all believers throughout history (during Old and New Testaments). Although this might seem novel to some, this position has actually been held predominately throughout the history of the church. Let me give you some Scripture for why I believe this:
- (Ephesians 5:25) “Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her…”
- (Matthew 16:18) “…I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.”
- (Acts 2:47) “And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.”
These passages assert, of course, that God has one, singular people in the New Testament. I only wished that Christ had died for those in the Old Testament, too. Well, I believe he did, because the pattern of God calling out a people to worship him is not confined only to the NT. In fact, there are several OT examples where it is clear that God thought of his people as a church, or “a called out assembly,” as the word “ekklesia” denotes.
- (Deuteronomy 4:10)(God said to Moses): “Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children.”
The word “assemble” here is the Hebrew word from which we get our Greek word for church in the NT. Therefore, it is not unimaginable that some of the NT writers would refer to the OT people of Israel as a “church.”
- (Acts 7:38) Speaking of the Israelites, Stephen calls them “the assembly (or church) in the desert.”
- (Hebrews 2:12)(Quoting Christ from Psalm 22:22) “He (being Jesus) says, ‘I will declare your name to my brothers; in the presence of the congregation I will sing your praises.”
He is saying that he will declare the name of believers to the church gathered in heaven.
- (Hebrews 12:1) "This “great cloud of witnesses” which stretches back into the earliest eras of the OT according to the preceding context, has to include those who are the church in heaven in 2:12.
- (Hebrews 12:23) Speaking about NT believers who worship, the writer says, that they come into the presence of those in heaven: “to the church of the firstborn, whose names are written in heaven.”
This truth should not surprise us when you consider that in the New Covenant Jewish and Gentile believers have been made “one” (Ephesians 2:14), they are “one new man” (v. 15) and “fellow citizens” (v. 19), and “members of the household of God” (v. 19).

A Response to Comments About Divorce

There were two comments posted recently that objected to my position on divorce, and I would like to respond to those objections here, for the benefit of others who might have the same or similar thoughts. I also want to say that I appreciate the person who took the time to post his or her thoughts on the site, and I am grateful for your thoughtful comments. You are one who evidently is familiar with this debate, and I commend you for your informative arguments. Nevertheless, let me address your two thoughts, as much as I am able.

Jesus’ ‘First Answer to the Question of Divorce’
Let me say that I did, in fact, deal with the passage that Jesus quoted from Genesis 2. I did not bother to deal with it again in detail, because of my having already done it. Nevertheless, I concede that one may have misconstrued my exposition as rushing over the obvious. I think the context of the entire passage of Jesus’ words, however, is to be considered as his complete answer to the divorce question. If the conversation had ended at verse 6 then this would not be an issue, but the problem is that it continues. One could conjecture that Jesus had given his complete answer before the Pharisees’ second question, or they could surmise that he was interrupted and was not, in fact, finished, but all of that is really beside the point. The point is that he said more, and it doesn’t make much sense for Jesus to change the subject from marriage to betrothal at this point in the conversation. The question then arises, how do we know that this is talking about marriage, as opposed to a betrothal? Although I resist the urge to be overly dogmatic, there are several indicators in the passage: (1) The common word for marriage is used throughout the passage. (2) Although marriage and the betrothal are similar, the words for them are not synonymous (see Matthew 1:18; Luke 2:5). (3) The two passages that Jesus alludes to (Genesis 2 and Deuteronomy 24) refer to marriage, not a betrothal. I know there are good men who disagree with this, but I am compelled by what appears to be the plain sense of the passage. I do want to conclude this response by saying, also, that even if one agrees that Jesus added the exception clause because of the wicked trickery of the Pharisees, then how does one explain the fact that the exception clause is clearly stated in Matthew 5, aside from any Pharisaical trickery?

Israel and the Church vs. God and Divorce
To answer the question at face value, I have two responses. (1) There is one chosen people of God in Scripture, not two. I believe that the church did not begin at Pentecost, but is comprised of all of God’s called throughout the ages. I won’t go into the biblical defense for this belief, at this time, sense I gather that this person is in no disagreement with me about this (I just spoke about this to our own congregation, so I will follow this up with an explanatory blog about that subject). (2) Although there is one people of God, there are distinctions between national Israel and spiritual Israel. A case in point would be Paul’s argument for this very thing in Romans 9:6b, which says: “For not all who are descended from Israel (national) are Israel (spiritual).” That whole chapter really makes that point clear. Another example is given in Romans 11:1-5: “Did God reject his people (spiritual Israel)? By no means! I am an Israelite (national) myself, a descendant of Abraham, from the tribe of Benjamin. God did not reject his people (spiritual), whom he foreknew. Don’t you know what the Scripture says in the passage about Elijah-how he appealed to God against Israel (national): ‘Lord, they (national Israel) have killed your prophets and torn down your altars; I am the only one left, and they are trying to kill me’? And what was God’s answer to him? ‘I have reserved for myself seven thousand who have not bowed the knee to Baal.’ So too, at the present time there is a remnant (spiritual) chosen by grace.” There are other Scriptures, but I think these demonstrate the point I am trying to make. Therefore, I do believe that God divorced national Israel, because of her adultery. Because I do believe that the church is Christ’s bride, I do not believe that God has or ever will divorce his true bride. The difference should be apparent to us, because there were many in national Israel who were not part of God’s true people, but there is no one in the true church of Christ who is not part of God’s true people, i.e. they are the same. I want to add, in conclusion to this, one important piece of information worth mentioning. Hosea records that God’s reason for divorcing Israel was adultery, not fornication. For me, personally, this is not that significant, except that this word is of extreme importance to those who hold to no divorce, because of the word fornication being used in Matthew, as opposed to adultery. If, however, God divorced Israel for adultery, then it would seem to indicate that He was married to them, rather than just betrothed. If that is the case, then, the argument, of course, seems to, at least, weaken.

Hope these responses help. Appreciate the thoughts on this important issue.

More Stuff About Divorce

I realize my last piece about divorce is something that left a lot to be desired in terms of the divorce debate. For instance, some would argue against my position, because it did not deal with some of the more basic objections to divorce, such as it being the breach of a vow, or it occurring as a law suit against another believer. There are many others issues with regard to divorce, such as the common one that God, in fact, hates divorce.

In addition to the myriad of objections against any divorce, there is the other side of the spectrum, as well. Other arguments emanate from our world of experiences: like, instances of spousal abuse (either physical or emotional) as well as child abuse. There is also the problem of ministry, and whether a divorced person has permanently severed his qualifications for the pastorate (or eldership) or the deaconate. There are many others. What I would like to do in this blog is bring some of these questions or objections to the forefront and try to answer them as clear and concise as possible. I am sure there are others, but for now I will try to deal with these common questions or problems, as they pertain to the subject of divorce:

1. What about divorce violating the clear command not to break a vow?
Although it is true that getting married involves taking marriage “vows,” it is also true that Jesus’ exception involves the one committing adultery as the one who breaks the vow to be faithful. The covenant at that point can be broken by the victim, as a result of the vow breaker. If breaking the vow was a violation of God’s law, then Jesus would not have allowed for it.

2. What about divorce being an act of taking a believer to court?
Well, let me say that, first of all, I think divorce should be settled out of court, if at all possible (“if it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.”). I also think, however, if a church is doing its job through church discipline (Mt. 18:15-19), then the spouse (and the church, if necessary) should be making every effort to restore the erring one to fellowship. If repentance is obtained, then the marriage should be salvaged, but if it is not, then steps should be taken to exclude the wayward spouse from the community of Christ, and their subsequent approach to him or her should be to that of an unbeliever (Mt. 18:17), and in that event it would involve a suit between a believer and an unbeliever. If that is the case, then it would not be a violation of 1 Corinthians 6:1-8, which strictly forbids the practice of taking other believers to court.

3. What if the church fails to do its job in responding this way?
This is a very real question these days, because the fact is most churches do not respond in this way, because it is difficult to hold people accountable in this way. Doing the right thing is seldom easy or convenient. To answer the question, though, I do think it is possible to follow the same principle of restoration from the vantage point of the wronged spouse. In other words, having been wronged in the event of adultery, the wronged spouse should seek repentance from their partner, as well as restoration for the damaged relationship. If the offending spouse does not repent, or respond favorably, then the spouse should seek to involve other Christians in the process. The point is that every effort should be made to salvage the marriage if it is possible, and then, as the final draw (not the first) the divorce should be sought.

4. What about the extreme case of spousal abuse, or even child abuse in a marriage?
Let me say that this is an unfortunate occurrence, and does take place even in “Christian” marriages. The first thing I would say about this is that I do not recommend any spouse who is being physically abused to remain living in the same house as their abuser, nor do I recommend any spouse to remain living in a situation where their kids are being physically or sexually abused. He or she should take immediate steps to remove them from the home, at that point. This issue in regards to divorce is a bit more complicated than some of the other ones. If the spouse is abusing anyone physically or sexually, then the knowing spouse obviously needs to “submit himself to the governing authorities” and report the violations to the police and/or state, because the infractions are not just “moral issues;” they are legal issues, as well. The person involving the police in this should also include their church leadership in this process immediately. The church leadership should be especially sensitive with this information, making careful arrangements to investigate the claim, without its content being divulged to the remaining membership. If the case is found or thought to be true, then the church should cautiously, and within the realm of what the law permits, proceed to seek restoration. The important point to remember here is truth. All of the assumptions we are making about this is that it is, in actuality, a true event. If the event cannot be confirmed, however, than the church is wise to take a neutral position with respect to the alleged offender, and try to minister to each party, as appropriate. Assuming, however, that the charges are true, and assuming that the offender is convicted of this, then the spouse (though not alone, and without the counsel and support of the church) should seek to salvage the marriage. If the sinning spouse does not repent and submit to recommended counsel from the leadership of the church, then the church should proceed with the process of exclusion from the membership. If expulsion takes place, then the offending spouse is to be treated as an unbeliever. If the unbeliever, at this point, decides to divorce (as will probably be the case in most instances), then the believing spouse is free to divorce and remarry. In any extreme situation like this, special grace and special discernment is called for to determine that steps are taken to ensure that the abuses do not reoccur.

5. But, doesn’t God hate divorce?
The Scriptures do tell us that God does hate divorce, and we have already talked about how divorce has come about through man’s sin and the Fall. The fact is, though, God himself is said to have divorced Israel for her adultery with other gods. The metaphorical divorce that God is said to have acted out is consistent with his exception clause in Matthew 5 and 19. But what is also expedient for us to know is that God eventually was restored to Israel in remarriage.

6. Should a divorced man be allowed to become a pastor or deacon?
If the man has been divorced for the biblically allowed reasons I have already set forth, then I would say yes, assuming he meets the qualifications of 1 Timothy 3. I do not believe the qualification “husband of one wife” refers to past or present marital status. I think it indicates the high faithfulness to one’s wife that is required of a pastor or deacon, and that is called for in Jesus’ raising of the standard with respect to adultery in one’s heart. The qualifications that have to be discerned by the church are “above reproach” and “have a good reputation with outsiders.” If the divorce was unbiblical, then it might be cause for him not to be above reproach, and it might also be indicative of an impaired reputation with unbelievers.

7. If someone has already divorced unbiblically, what should they do now?
If someone has divorced unbiblically, then they should make every effort to remarry their spouse, and give the relationship back to God. If remarriage has already taken place for either of the spouses, then the one should repent of their divorce, and start living for God in the status that they now find themselves. If they are remarried, then they should give their current marriage to God and make every effort to sanctify it before him. If the person is not remarried, but their previous spouse is, then I believe they can remarry (since adultery is not perpetual in Matthew 5 and 19).

8. Would you perform a wedding of someone who has been divorced?
Yes, if they had divorced within the biblical permissions. If they had not, then it would highly depend on their situation, and if they recognized their former divorce to be wrong, and what steps had been taken since that divorce.

What I Believe About Divorce

Well, here it comes- the divorce issue. It is something that pastors can’t avoid, because it is something that is so prevalent in our world today-and not just our secular culture, but our church culture, as well. In fact, the statistics for Christian break-ups for the first time in modern history are very close to the ones for unbelievers. We could discuss all day about different strategies for reclaiming marriages, and certainly well-thought-out plans of action are needed to abate this epidemic. We could also talk about how it got this bad in the first place, and go into an in depth probe of how our culture has infected our church, but my goal here is different. My desire in this blog is to set forth as cogently as possible what I believe about the propriety of getting a divorce or not. In other words, for those who find themselves in marriages that are seemingly irreparable, does God permit a way out of the situation, or what?

Let me, first of all, say that this is a very difficult answer to what has become a very common question. I would add, however, that for many (sadly, a lot of Christians these days) this question is seldom even asked. The consequence is that lives are unnecessarily torn apart in the event that the marriage quite possibly may have been rescued. The most basic question to deal with in this and any situation is to ask, what does the Bible teach concerning this issue, assuming for believers that this is their basic rule of faith and practice? Let me also state that this is by no means an exhaustive defense of what I believe, but something that I have tried to abbreviate for the sake of someone reading it. I am in the process of working on a more comprehensive paper with respect to this, but here have sought to summarize what I believe and on what basis. In doing a piece of this brief nature, I understand I am opening myself up to opposing arguments and objections that may not be dealt with here, or in an exhaustive way. For the sake of my purpose here, I am willing to endure that, and actually welcome any comments for the sake of plural benefit.

Let me begin with what I believe is the foundation of our understanding about marriage: Genesis 2:24 à “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” This verse is foundational to our understanding about marriage, because it relates the original design God has for the home. It is not merely a descriptive verse of the relationship between the first husband Adam and his wife Eve, but rather a prescriptive verse that is applicable to all future husbands and wives. This is hardly contestable, since Adam did not even have a father and mother to leave. It is important, however, to outline several truths that are present here that may serve as an important point of reference in our future discussion about marriage and divorce. (1) This is clearly the design of God. Furthermore, it must be remembered that this foundational ideal does not deal with any sinful situations or exceptions, because of the clear and simple fact that sin has not even entered the world at this point in Genesis. (2) This truth sets forth the primacy of marriage as superior over every other human relationship, even that of parenthood. (3) The unity that is described by the word “cleave” (or “united”) and the term “one flesh” describe a covenant act between the man, the woman, and God (Mal. 2:14-16a). (4) The oneness that the two share involves sexual intimacy, as well as a spiritual intimacy. Although these thoughts are rather sketchy and only entail a cursory explanation, they are indicative of the divine design behind marriage, and what the marriage arrangement should look like.

The second passage I want to deal with is one of the three most disputed in the divorce debate, Matthew 5:31, 32 à “It has been said, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife must give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I (Jesus) tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery.” I want to briefly address this text, and save some of my more substantial arguments for when I deal with Matthew 19 (I know you can hardly wait!): (1) Taking this passage at face value, it at least appears to give an exception to staying married forever. (2) Although the Greek word “porneia” (translated here in the NIV “marital unfaithfulness” and in other translations as adultery or fornication), has been a hot bed of contention, the context (since it is marriage, after all) seems to support the idea of adultery. (3) Throughout this entire passage, Jesus has been contrasting commonly held beliefs with a new higher standard of life in the kingdom. Since that is the case, this saying of Jesus about divorce is consistent in that it raises the standard from divorce for practically any reason (including burning the toast) to divorcing only for marital unfaithfulness. (4) The reason it is so critical to remain married, except for adultery, is that by severing a marriage a person is actually guilty of causing their previous spouse to commit adultery, as well as themselves (Mt. 19:9). Although remarriage is also hotly contested, remarriage in the event of a divorce (right or wrong) is assumed to be the natural reaction.

Now, let us try to deal with Matthew 19 in as concise a form as possible, and then we will try to tack on a couple of odds and ends, as well as summarize our findings. First of all, this is a loaded passage and time does not permit us to deal with every jot and tittle of it, so I again (in typical Jason fashion) am going to summarize this for you. I encourage you to go through and study this intuitively and diligently and come to your own conclusions, and then perhaps we can share notes, or even blogs. For now, though, let me try to post a few thoughts about this passage (whose entire context consists of vs. 1-12). (1) Although some incredulously assert that this is (as well as Mt. 5) only in reference to the Jewish engagement (or betrothal) period, the context is clearly divorce. In fact, the Jewish leaders asked the question, “Is it lawful for a man to DIVORCE his wife for any and every reason?” Moreover, they refer to the most famous Old Testament passage on divorce (from consummated marriage)- Deuteronomy 24. It is true that the Jewish betrothal was more binding than our own culture’s engagements, but it is not true to say that there was no difference between the two. While being engaged, the two lived separately; were forbidden to have sex; and the woman was still under the authority of her parents, all until the marriage was consummated. Even the example of Mary and Joseph being “espoused” to one another in Matthew 1 is very clear in its description of what type of relationship was being discussed. If this was, in fact, a discussion about Jewish betrothal, then it would have to mean that anyone (or any Jew, at bare minimum) could not ever be married again. This puts us in the absurd position of prohibiting someone from ever marrying who has never actually been married on the grounds of pre-marital sex. (2) The exception clause in v. 9 renders the most natural reading as that of adultery, in the same way as Mt. 5. (3) The disciples’ reaction is indicative that they held to the majority view of the people of their day. Jesus had in fact raised the standard of marriage from what they had believed and abolished the view of divorcing one’s spouse over any and every reason. Furthermore, he elevated the view of women in treating the husband as equally palpable in an immoral divorce (v. 9). There is a lot more to be said about this passage, but I am going to give it a rest for now, because my blog is turning into a bog.

So, is this the only exception to the permanence of marriage in Scripture? There is actually one more, and it is found in 1 Corinthians 7, from the pen of the Apostle Paul. Paul reiterates a lot of what Jesus taught in regards to the general design of God with respect to marriage (by the way, an exception does not negate or contradict a general rule). After having given the general principles and ideals for marriage, however, he deals with specific situations that have arisen. Most specifically, he addresses the very common Greek issue of a newly converted Christian being already married to a pagan, or unbelieving, spouse. Paul gives instructions for seeking to win the spouse to Christ, and commands against divorce. Nevertheless, he does bring up the possibility of the unbelieving spouse deserting or divorcing the believer. In that event, Paul says, the believing spouse should not fight the divorce proceedings (“let him do so”), but should allow it to take place. In this non-instigated circumstance, the believer is free to divorce, and I would also add is free to remarry (as is assumed in the exception clause of Matthew). The last part of v. 15 says, “A believing man or woman is not BOUND in such circumstances.” This word, although not the same word, is very similar in meaning to the word that is used down in v. 39 à “A woman is BOUND to her husband as long as he lives. But if her husband dies, she is free to marry anyone she wishes, but he must belong to the Lord.” It would be difficult to believe that if Paul had meant for the deserted believer not to remarry, then he would not have used a term which clearly indicates the same freedom to remarry as the one in v. 39.

Therefore, I would like to summarize my thoughts here, and make a few closing comments: (1) One man for one woman for one lifetime is God’s clear design in Scripture. (2) Divorce is the result of man’s hardness of heart and proclivity to sin; Moses’ permission to do so was merely a regulation of what was already being done. (3) Jesus reiterated the permanence of marriage with one clear exception, which is the most fundamental breach of the covenant of marriage- sexual sin. (4) In the event of the exception, it is permission to divorce, not a requirement to divorce. All efforts should be made according to Matthew 18 to reclaim the wayward spouse and salvage the marriage covenant. (5) Paul dealt, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, with a very culturally relevant issue that had come up with mixed marriages (not to be confused, please, with interracial), and he allows for divorce in the event of desertion. (6) Remarriage is assumed to take place both in the Matthean account, as well as the Pauline writing.

Well, I know that this is not exhaustive, even though I am sure you are exhausted, but it does deal with the basic interpretive issues at hand in divorce and remarriage. While I did leave out quite a few passages for the sake of brevity and clarity, and I did omit some practical issues that might arise as a result of this, I hope to do that in a follow up segment during the course of the next few days. Feel free to e-mail me your comments or thoughts or objections to this, though, so we can engage in some healthy dialogue. Thanks for indulging me, again. Later.

Plagiarism of Some Thoughts on Race

There is an article that I ran across tonight while I was looking for some ideas on the internet about seeking racial harmony within the church, and I thought this would be beneficial to some of my readers, because it was for me. The article is a little dated, as it came out in 2000, but it is from John Piper, the pastor of Bethlehem Baptist Church since 1980. It is also pertaining to the upcoming MLK day of that year. Anyway, since he does a much better job of articulating things than I do, I figured it would be better to let him say it. Hope you enjoy it.
January 16, 2000; Ephesians 2:11-22
Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands - 12 remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. 14 For He Himself is our peace, who made both groups into one and broke down the barrier of the dividing wall, 15 by abolishing in His flesh the enmity, which is the Law of commandments contained in ordinances, so that in Himself He might make the two into one new man, thus establishing peace, 16 and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross, by it having put to death the enmity. 17 AND HE CAME AND PREACHED PEACE TO YOU WHO WERE FAR AWAY, AND PEACE TO THOSE WHO WERE NEAR; 18 for through Him we both have our access in one Spirit to the Father. 19 So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, 20 having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, 21 in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, 22 in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit.
Tomorrow is Martin Luther King Day. In 1983, the Congress established the third Monday of every January as a national holiday in honor of Martin Luther King, Jr. and what he stood for. King's birthday is January 15 and, if he had not been assassinated in 1968 in Memphis, Tennessee, he would have been 71 years old yesterday. Imagine what our recent history might have been had Martin Luther King lived during the seventies and eighties and nineties and trumpeted his vision during all those years!
Why do I mark this day with a sermon on racial relations each year? - this is the fourth year. There are more reasons than I can tell you. But let me tell you some of them. The main reason is in today's text, Ephesians 2:11-22 and it has to do with the glory of the cross of Christ. I will come to that in a few minutes. But there are personal reasons that might help you understand why it is something I feel a burden to do.
Growing Up White in South Carolina
Start with my growing-up years. I grew up in Greenville, South Carolina. You need to know something of the psyche of this state where I spent the first eighteen years of my life. The population of South Carolina in 1860 was about 700,000. Sixty percent of these were African Americans (420,000) and all but 9,000 of these were slaves.1 That's a mere 140 years ago. On December 20, 1860, South Carolina was the first state to secede from the Union, largely in protest over Abraham Lincoln's election as an anti-slavery president. And it was in Charleston, South Carolina that the Civil War began. Ninety-five years later, when I was nine years old in Greenville, the segregation was absolute: drinking fountains, public rest rooms, public schools, bus seating, housing, restaurants, waiting rooms and - worst of all - churches, including mine.
And I can tell you from the inside that, for all the rationalized glosses, it was not "separate but equal," it was not respectful, and it was not Christian. It was ugly and demeaning. I have much to be sorry about, and I feel a burden to work against the mindset and the condition of heart that I was so much a part of in those years. And it goes on. South Carolina today will not give state workers a holiday tomorrow and many pride themselves on flying the Confederate flag.
Another Little Boy
Across town from where I grew up, in the same city, five years older than I, another little boy was growing up on the other side of the racial divide. His name was Jesse Jackson. I learned last summer that his mother loved the same radio station my mother did: WMUU, the voice of Bob Jones University. But there was a big difference. The very school that broadcast all that Bible truth would not admit blacks. And the large, white Baptist church not far from Jesse Jackson's home wouldn't either. This was my hometown. And as an aside I ask, should we be surprised that some of the strongest black leaders got their theological education at liberal institutions (like Chicago Theological Seminary, where Jackson went), when our fundamental and evangelical schools, especially in the south, were committed to segregation?
Waking Up
God had mercy on me. In the year that I started seminary in California -1968 - Martin Luther King was shot and killed. These were explosive days and I was fortunate to have professors who cared about the issues and were committed to finding the Biblical perspective on racial relations. One of those professors, Paul Jewett, compiled a 200-page syllabus of readings for us called "Readings in Racial Prejudice." These readings were absolutely shocking. You can't read about the crimes of vicious hatred toward blacks and come away without trembling. The Introduction of that syllabus ends like this:
And now let us listen to the groans of Frederick Douglass, feel the lash with Amy, endure the satire of DuBois, and measure the wrath of Malcolm X; let us contemplate the pathos of black childhood and the tragedy of black womanhood. And let us not forget that "he who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it." And let us also remember that if God has given us a revelation of the true nature of man, surely we will render account if we do not live in the light of that revelation, and especially so if we are called to the holy office of the Christian ministry.2
Those were powerful days in my life. And now, thirty years later, by God's amazing grace, I am called to "the holy office of the Christian ministry," and God has given us a revelation of the true nature of man, and I will render an account of my life and ministry to God as to whether I have lived and preached in the light of that revelation. Hence some of my passion for this weekend and this message.
As secular as the Civil Rights movement was in the sixties, there is no denying the profound Christian impulses that throbbed at the center of it, especially in the life and background of Martin Luther King, Jr. - as imperfect as he was. One little glimpse of it can be seen in the way his father responded to King's receiving the Nobel Peace prize in 1964. King and other dignitaries were gathered in Oslo, Sweden, and about to celebrate, when the elder King stepped in and said,
"Wait a minute before you start all your toasts to each other. We better not forget to toast the man who brought us here, and here's a toast to God." Then in a quavering voice, he told what his son's prize meant to him. "I always wanted to make a contribution, and all you got to do if you want to contribute, you got to ask the Lord, and let him know, and the Lord heard me and, in some special kind of way I don't even know, he came down through Georgia and he laid his hand on me and my wife and he gave us Martin Luther King, and our prayers were answered."3
Called to Be More than We Are
Well, I want "to make a contribution" too, as Dr. King, Sr. said. So I asked God's help, and he came up through Minnesota - I don't even know how - and laid his hand on me and Noel, and gave us Karsten and Benjamin and Abraham and Barnabas and Talitha Ruth, and he gave us a church at the middle of a racially diverse city, and he gave us a people, and he gave us a fresh mandate four years ago for our church in these words:
Against the rising spirit of indifference, alienation and hostility in our land, we will embrace the supremacy of God's love to take new steps personally and corporately toward racial reconciliation, expressed visibly in our community and in our church. (Fresh Initiative #3 in Bethlehem's Vision Statement booklet)
We are called as a church to be something more than we are in living out a manifest, visible racial harmony at the center of the city. To help you see this, and to call you to it, I turn with you now to listen to one clear word from God about racial harmony in our church. This is the ultimate reason for preaching on this issue: God has something to say about it and about how we live together as a church.
"No Longer Strangers and Aliens"
First, let's notice how this text begins and ends. In verses 11-12 it begins with a description of the alienation between Jews and Gentiles -specifically Jewish Christians and Gentiles. "Therefore remember that formerly you, the Gentiles in the flesh, who are called "Uncircumcision " by the so-called "Circumcision," which is performed in the flesh by human hands - remember that you were at that time separate from Christ, excluded from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world."
Then in verses 19-22 the text ends with a description of the reconciliation between Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians. "So then you are no longer strangers and aliens, but you are fellow citizens with the saints, and are of God's household, having been built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, Christ Jesus Himself being the corner stone, in whom the whole building, being fitted together, is growing into a holy temple in the Lord, in whom you also are being built together into a dwelling of God in the Spirit."
List the changes and the way Paul exults in the change in relationships. First in verse 19 two negatives and two positives: 1) No longer strangers, 2) no longer aliens, 3) fellow citizens with the saints, 4) part of the same household of God. Then in verse 20 he describes the one common foundation of this new unity: "the foundation of the apostles and prophets" with Christ Jesus as the cornerstone. Then in verses 21-22 he says that this new unity of Jew and Gentile built on Christ's saving work and his apostles' teachings is a single building built for the unspeakable privilege of housing God. Verse 21: the church (of reconciled Jew and Gentile) is a temple. And what is a temple? Verse 22 tells us: "a dwelling of God in the Spirit."
That is what God is aiming at in our salvation: a new people (one new man, verse 15) that is so free from enmity and so united in truth and peace that God himself is there for our joy and for his glory forever. That's the aim of reconciliation: a place for God to live among us and make himself known and enjoyed forever and ever.
Now keep in mind here that the divide between Jews and Gentiles was not small or simple or shallow. It was huge and complex and deep. It was, first, religious. The Jews knew the one true God, and Christian Jews knew his Son, the Messiah, Jesus Christ. Then the divide was cultural or social with lots of ceremonies and practices like circumcision and dietary regulations and rules of cleanliness and so on. These were all designed to set the Jews apart from the nations for a period of redemptive history to make clear the radical holiness of God. Then the divide was racial. This was a bloodline going back to Jacob, not Esau, and Isaac, not Ishmael, and Abraham, not any other father. So the divide here was as big or bigger than any divide that we face today between black and white or red and white, or Asian and African-American.
Reconciliation and Unity out of Alienation and Separation
So here is the question: What happened between verses 11-12 that describes the alienation and separation between Jews and Gentiles, and verses 19-22 that describes the full reconciliation and unity?
Here we could preach for days. These verses, 13-18, are so rich and thick with doctrine that it would take days to unpack it all. So I will leave many questions unanswered and make one main point that I think is the most essential thing.
What happened between the alienation of verses 11-12 and the reconciliation of verses 19-22? The answer is that Jesus Christ, the Son of God died - and he died by design. Yes, he rose and is alive. But the emphasis here falls on his death. Where do we see it? We see it in the word "blood" in verse 13b: "You who formerly were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ." We see it in the word "flesh" in verse 15, ". . . abolishing in His flesh the enmity." And we see it in the word "cross" in verse 16, ". .. and might reconcile them both in one body to God through the cross."
The rest of the text is Paul's explanation of how the blood of Christ - his death in the flesh on the cross - removes the enmity between God and Jew, God and Gentile and Jew and Gentile, and, therefore, by implication, between every ethnic group of Christians who are in Christ who has become our peace. I won't go into that, as profound and wonderful as it is.
A New Creation - One New People
Let me take this one point and draw things to a close with it and apply it to us as a church. The point is that God aims to create one new people in Christ who are reconciled to each other across racial lines. Not strangers. Not aliens. No enmity. Not far off. Fellow citizens of one Christian "city of God." One temple for a habitation of God. And he did this at the cost of his Son's life. We love to dwell on our reconciliation with God through the death of his Son. And well we should. It is precious beyond measure - to have peace with God (Romans 5:9-10).
But let us also dwell on this: that God ordained the death of his Son to reconcile alien people groups to each other in one body in Christ. This too was the design of the death of Christ. Think on this: Christ died to take enmity and anger and disgust and jealousy and self-pity and fear and envy and hatred and malice and indifference away from your heart toward all other persons who are in Christ by faith - whatever the race.
Now here is one concluding implication of this. Paul says in Galatians 6:14 - and I hope we say with him - "May it never be that I would boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ." Is this one of the great aims of our church - never to boast save in the cross of Jesus? Does this not mean, among other things, that week in and week out we want the meaning and the worth and the beauty and the power of the cross of Christ - the death of Christ, the shed blood of Christ - to be seen and loved in this place? Do we not want that? Is that not why we exist - to spread a passion for the supremacy of God in the death of his Son?
And if the design of the death of his Son is not only to reconcile us to God, but to reconcile alienated ethnic groups to each other in Christ, then will we not display and magnify the cross of Christ better by more and deeper and sweeter ethnic diversity and unity in our worship and life? If Christ died - mark this! DIED - to make the church a reconciled body of Jew and Gentile, "red and yellow, black and white" and every shade of brown, then to glory in the cross is to glory in the display of the fruit of that cross.
And So . . .
At the risk of sounding trite on such a great theme and a great goal, I will give you some very practical exhortations:
1) Welcome newcomers every week. Make a weekly aim to welcome someone you don't know. The loneliest place in the week is in the commons with two hundred bustling people. Talk to the people you don't know.2) Invite people of different ethnic backgrounds to church with you.3) Be glad when different ethnic elements are used in the service.4) Ponder the cross of our Lord Jesus and what it means. 5) Pray toward more wisdom and sensitivity.
©Desiring God
Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way, you do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction, and you do not make more than 1,000 physical copies. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be explicitly approved by Desiring God.
Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. ©Desiring God. Website: http://www.desiringgod.org/. Email: mail@desiringGod.org. Toll Free: 888.346.4700.

Reflections On My Trip

Well, I admit that I have not blogged lately, and I am sure that ripple has been negatively felt throughout the world. I am now back, though, with a vengeance and desire to infect each of you with a passion for Christ. I did recently get back in town, having been away to a conference known as “the Together for the Gospel” Conference in Louisville, Kentucky. It was probably the best pastors’ conference I’ve ever been to, although I admittedly have not been to a lot in my short twenty-two months as a pastor. What was very interesting about the conference was the mixture of pastors who spoke, who were from all different perspectives, and yet together for the sake of the gospel.

There were quite a few benefits of the conference that I would love to share with each of you, but I know that most of us are more interested in watching reruns of Matlock (I hope I you’ll take that as a joke) than listening to these boring and mundane details. I would like to share with you a couple of things that were pressed home to me during the conference:

(1.) It is very essential in long-term pastoral ministry to build good friendships.
This was pressed home to me because of different things, but the most important was the fact that I went to Kentucky with my best friend who introduced me to several of his friends, and while I was there I saw an old friend from college that I haven’t seen in about eight years. Those times of companionship were the best parts of being there, although the preaching was really great, also. Being there was a reminder that we all need good friendships in the ministry. My friend and I who went to the conference have a very good friendship that I thank God for, because we can bounce ideas, thoughts, feelings, and doctrinal wrestles off of one another without being assassinated. I have truly been sharpened in my ministry by the “iron” of his friendship. What was also really breathtaking was the diverse group of men who hosted this conference: a Southern Baptist pastor, a Southern Baptist seminary president, a Presbyterian pastor, and a Charismatic Calvinist. The other speakers consisted of a non-denominational pastor, a General Baptist pastor, and a Presbyterian pastor. What was interesting about it was the fact that the four hosting men would sit down and have an open panel discussion about each “talk” with the one who had delivered it, and although they did not agree on a lot of things, they could come together with respect to the gospel. I really aspire to have good friends like that who can put peripheral differences aside and come together for the gospel. Unfortunately, I come from a movement where a lot of my friends would be prevented from being friends with me, because of their desire to fight battles that are unfortunately in the kingdom of Christ very trite.

(2.) While cultural sensitivity is always a concern in strategic ministry, it was important to be reminded that God is the one who blesses faithfulness to preaching the gospel and His Word.
I am sure some of you who might read this will now think I wasted a lot of money to go to Kentucky to find out this apparently simple concept. I, of course, did know it, but I most certainly needed to be reminded of God’s faithfulness to His Word and the message of Jesus Christ.


(3.) My Goal in preaching, life, and ministry is to unveil the glory of Christ.
If you know anything about me or the conference I went to, you can probably guess who preached this sermon, but it was exactly what I needed. In fact, the night he preached it, I felt like I was in the presence of the famous pastor Richard Baxter, who said, “to preach as a dying man to dying men.” I cried several times, feeling the overwhelming weight of conviction that God was putting on me. I also felt the enormous weight of the responsibility I have to show the people whom I have been entrusted with the glory of Christ. My great prayer is that I will be able to unveil the glory of Christ to my kids and the people with whom I come in contact.

(4.) My desire for sharing the gospel was renewed.
For those of you who might not know, the gospel is the good news about how God sent his Son (Jesus Christ) to save helpless sinners (like me) from their sin and hell so that He (God) could restore the glory of His name in having a relationship with us. My responsibility to talk about that was made more urgent to me this past week. I was reminded of how easy it is to ignore people who need to hear about Jesus Christ and how he wants to save them. I was convinced of my own neglect to share this with others, and my own responsibility to share this message as part of a pastoral mandate to “do the work of an evangelist.” Thanks for listening to my reflections on a good week in Kentucky.