Tag: postaday

Strong, Weak, and the Call to Build One Another Up

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Church health, Romans

One of the most misunderstood sections of Romans is Paul’s discussion of “the strong” and “the weak.”

The issue appears simple—food laws, holy days, personal convictions—but Paul reveals something much deeper: the danger of confusing personal conviction with spiritual superiority.

The “strong” were likely mostly Gentiles, confident in their freedom.

They felt they were superior knowing food sacrificed to idols was a farce, and they had no qualms eating it and praising the Lord for it.

The “weak” were likely mostly Jewish believers, shaped by Torah and conscience.

For them, such actions offended their sensibilities, and they felt victimized that others in the church wouldn’t adopt their practices on such issues.

The two groups hold polar opposite views.

And Paul does something surprising.

He refuses to tell us who is right.

Instead, he tells us who is responsible.

Acceptance Without Agreement

Paul opens Romans 14 with a radical command:

“Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters.”

Acceptance is not based on agreement with each other—it is based on our mutual standing before God.

The strong must not despise.
The weak must not judge.

Why?

Because God has accepted both.

Paul reinforces this by introducing a parallel issue—holy days.

Some observe them. Some ignore them.

Again, Paul refuses to pick sides.

Each must be fully convinced in their own mind. Each one’s beliefs and actions on these matters are done “to the Lord.”

Uniformity is not Paul’s goal. Unity is.

Living Before God, Not Each Other

Paul reminds the church that none of us live—or die—for ourselves.

Every decision we make is lived before God.

When we judge motives, we place ourselves in God’s seat. When we prioritize our rights and our desires over love, we forget who the church belongs to.

Paul’s warning is sobering:

“Why do you judge your brother or sister? … We will all stand before God’s judgment seat.”

Unity breaks down when we stop asking, “Does this honor God?” and start asking, “Do I like this?”

Rights, Love, and the Kingdom of God

Paul acknowledges freedom—but he reframes it.

The kingdom of God is not about eating and drinking.
It is about righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit.

The question is not, “Am I allowed?”
The question is, “Am I building up my brothers and sisters in Christ, or am I tearing down members of Christ’s body?”

True gospel freedom expresses itself through self-limiting love.

Paul’s call is not to abandon conviction—but to consider it less important than loving one another.

Christ, the Ultimate Example

Paul closes this section by pointing us to Jesus.

Christ did not please himself.
Christ bore insults.
Christ became a servant for Jews and Gentiles alike so that with one voice, God might be glorified.

This is what righteousness looks like in community.

Not power.
Not privilege.
Not control.

But peace.

And when the church lives this way, the gospel is no longer just proclaimed—it is visible.

“May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace as you trust in him.”

That is Paul’s prayer.
And it remains God’s invitation to the church today.

Unity in Diversity in Romans

When the Gospel Replaces Power with Peace

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Church health, Romans

Romans can be a complicated read.

It’s is not a letter you rush through. It is dense, pastoral, theological, and deeply practical. Trying to distill its message into a handful of lessons (in the way Romans is often taught) is a tall order…one I had to accomplish recently at an adult retreat for another church in our area.

In my experience, Romans is usually referenced, but not studied. It’s venerated for being “theological,” but never really wrestled with by church Bible studies.

But Romans was never written to be admired from a distance. It’s not supposed to be a theology textbook. It was written to shape a community.

And the struggle the Roman church faced is not all that different from the struggles our churches in the United States face today.

Before Paul ever gets into the weeds of doctrine, justification, or the Spirit, he is addressing a church fractured by power, privilege, and competing visions of righteousness. His aim is nothing less than replacing those things with the peace that comes from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

That purpose is captured succinctly in Romans 1:17:

“For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed—a righteousness that is by faith from first to last.”

If the righteousness of God is revealed in the gospel, then the gospel must transform us. God’s righteousness is not meant to be added onto our existing assumptions—it is meant to replace them.

Put simply:
If I want to be among “the righteous who live by faith,” I must adopt God’s definition of righteousness, not my own. And that only happens through faith in Jesus Christ, revealed through the gospel.

When “Righteous Community” Gets Complicated

Early in my ministry, I experienced firsthand what happens when a church says it wants to be righteous—but hasn’t fully allowed the gospel to redefine what righteousness looks like.

A church I was working for had been stagnant for a while. Leadership was dwindling. The preacher was nearing retirement. Elders were ill or passing away. Deacon was largely a title, not the description of “service” one would expect. Growth had long since plateaued.

A few months after being hired as a youth minister fresh out of college, I unexpectedly became the preaching minister.

We wanted to be a righteous community—followers of Jesus committed to growing the kingdom and reaching the lost. And once we started doing that, people showed up.

New residents. Longtime locals turning their lives around. Newlyweds. Newly remarried. Newly re-remarried.

People were being baptized, and attendance grew.

Then one Sunday afternoon, the phone started ringing.

One tearful call after another. People telling me they would never step foot in our church again—maybe any church ever again.

A longtime member had taken it upon herself to call these new people and tell them they were not welcome at “her church.”

That same day, an elder resigned after receiving threats from the same person—because, in her mind, leadership was letting “ruining” her church.

That story still haunts me. Not because it’s unique—but because it’s far too familiar.

When the church we know starts to look different, we can begin acting in profoundly un-Christlike ways. If we are not intentionally shaped by the gospel, we will default to protecting our preferences, our comfort, and our sense of control—and we will destroy our witness about Christ in the process.

The Problem in Rome

The Roman church faced its own version of this crisis.

The gospel had taken root in Rome, but history complicated everything. Emperor Claudius expelled Jews from the city, forcing Jewish Christians to leave (see Acts 18:2). Gentile believers became the majority. Leadership shifted. Customs changed.

Eventually, Jewish believers returned.

And when they did, the church looked different. Bacon was being served at the potluck, so to speak.

What they experienced felt like a loss of power, influence, and identity. And that perceived loss produced division.

Rome itself reinforced hierarchy:
– Citizens over non-citizens.
– Men over women.
– Free people over slaves.

And yet, when Paul lists the members of the Roman churches in Romans 16, the picture is stunning.

Women in leadership. Gentiles entrusted with Scripture. Slaves named alongside free people. House churches filled with diversity.

Phoebe—a Gentile woman—is the deacon letter carrier, interpreter, and likely the one who performed Romans before the congregations.

Paul could have solved the tension by sorting people into separate churches. Jews meet with Jews, and Gentiles meet with Gentiles. That’s the easy solution.

But Paul didn’t do that.

Instead, he wrote Romans pleading with both groups to be unified.

Because unity in diversity is not a problem to fix—it is the gospel on display.

The righteousness of God is revealed not just in what the church believes, but in how it lives together.

And therein lies the lesson for American churches. Instead of constantly attacking each other over minor differences in understanding, instead of separating along racial lines, instead of maintaining the “us versus them” identity wars in the pulpits, we should be united.

We serve one Lord.

We share one baptism.

The same Spirit points us to the same Savior.

Our likeness far outweighs our differences. And that’s what Paul emphasizes to the Roman church.

“There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.”

Maybe if we will focus on Paul’s message in Romans, then our churches can begin to embrace the unity in diversity that proclaims the Gospel rather than our divided communities that preach against it.

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

The Apostle Paul and Divorce

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Marriage and Divorce, Scripture

Previously, we’ve looked at divorce thoroughly from the beginning of Scripture, up well into the New Testament. Those previous writings were God’s Divorce, Divorce in Israel – Part 1, Divorce in Israel – Part 2, Divorce in Israel – Part 3, Biblical Divorce and Jesus – Part 1, and Biblical Divorce and Jesus Part 2. If you haven’t read those entries, then you may find yourself lost as we navigate this next section that covers the Apostle Paul’s understanding of divorce.

Words Matter

In 1 Corinthians 7, we come across an important word that needs clarification. The Greek word ἄγαμος (pronounced “hog-a-moss”) is only found in the New Testament four times. All four of those uses are by Paul, and all four occur here 1 Corinthians 7. What this means for us is Paul’s usage of ἄγαμος should define its meaning for purposes of Biblical disucssion.

The woman of 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 has walked out on her husband for an unspecified reason, and their marriage has ended. The NIV here uses the word “separate” for this marriage, which is the same word Jesus uses in Matthew 19:6. This marriage is over, and the now divorced woman is said to be ἄγαμος, which the NIV translates as “unmarried.” Now that she is divorced, she is in a status of not having a spouse. She is unmarried.

In 1 Corinthians 7:8, Paul makes the same argument that Jesus does for being unmarried (ἄγαμος) as being a good idea.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 
The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Co 7:8–9.

Now what’s interesting here is that very few people seem to have any issues with single people getting married, nor widows. I recently performed a wedding of two widows coming together in the years after their respective spouses did. Nobody protested that wedding. Nobody argued they were not supposed to remarry, and I have a feeling that’s because Paul is very clear here…it’s perfectly find for widows to remarry. Verse 9 makes that clear. In verse 8 Paul states his preference…it’s good to stay unmarried, but nobody tried to talk these widows out of getting married because Paul wanted them to remain single. It simply isn’t an argument people make.

Yet when it comes to divorced people, this argument is often made. People exclaim that a divorced person can never remarry, and claim their statement as being Biblical.

But did you notice what Paul actually said?

8 Now to the unmarried (ἄγαμος)…It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry….
The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Co 7:8–9, emphasis added.

Did you catch that? Paul just indicated that the unmarried (ἄγαμος), regardless of how they are without a spouse, are able to remarry…they should marry if they find themselves longing for a spouse. This includes the divorced.

ἄγαμος refers to anyone who is in the status of not having a spouse. This would include the single who never married, those who are not quite marrying age yet, and the divorced. It doesn’t matter why you are unmarried. You are simply ἄγαμος if you have no spouse. And to this group, Paul says they should marry if they want.

“She must remain unmarried”

Now, back to a provision that Paul made in verse 11. It seems Paul is dealing with a specific issue—a real couple—in Corinth. After all, this entire discourse of Paul was because of “the matters [they] wrote about” to him (1 Cor 7:1). In the instance of verses 10 and 11, we have a woman who has walked out on her husband for no good cause it seems (listen to Dr. Michael Heiser and David Instone-Brewer for more detail). To that woman who has just up and left her spouse, Paul says her divorce is not legitimate, and her husband here should not divorce her either. They need to try to reconcile that marriage if at all possible.

And that’s the point, reconcile if at all possible. Marriage isn’t something we enter into lightly, and should never exit from lightly. And if the woman of verse 10 and 11 remarries, then she can no longer reconcile with her husband. Paul is encouraging this woman to not give up on this marriage because they did not have legitimate grounds for divorce. This is sin on the part of this woman, and Paul wants them to try to reconcile. And let’s be clear, they may not be able to reconcile. But if she remarries, then Deuteronomy 24 would clearly condemn them from being able to reconcile.

What About Previous Illegitimate Divorces?

As I recounted elsewhere, I know a couple that is happily married, and had been so for decades at the time this story took place. They had been out of the church for a very long time, and had finally come back to a church and began to worship and get plugged in. After some time had passed, some of the church leaders came to visit this couple. The church leaders told this happily married couple they should divorce even though their marriage was healthy because they had both been married previously. The church leaders never asked about their previous marriages, or details about why they were divorced. They had simply been married before, and been divorced. And while they were unmarried (ἄγαμος), they met each other, fell in love, and formed a God-honoring marriage that had lasted for decades (and still remains today). Apparently in the minds of that church, two divorces were better than one. That couple left that church and never went back, and rightly so in my opinion.

Let’s consider what else Paul has to say in 1 Corinthians 7 in addition to the fact that the unmarried (ἄγαμος), divorced or otherwise, are able to remarry.

17 Nevertheless, each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.

 The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Co 7:17.

Paul’s indication is regardless of your marital status, regardless of your past, stay where you are. If you’re single, stay that way. If you’re married, stay that way. If you were divorced and are now remarried, stay that way. If you’re recently divorced, stay that way. If you’re widowed stay that way. And just in case that statement wasn’t clear, Paul stresses it again.

20 Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them. 

 The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Co 7:20.

And again…

24 Brothers and sisters, each person, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation they were in when God called them. 

 The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Co 7:24.

And again…

26 Because of the present crisis, I think that it is good for a man to remain as he is. 27 Are you pledged to a woman? Do not seek to be released. Are you free from such a commitment? Do not look for a wife. 28 But if you do marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned. But those who marry will face many troubles in this life, and I want to spare you this. 

 The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), 1 Co 7:26–28, emphasis added.

Paul gives advice throughout this entire passage to stay in the situation you’re in, including the divorced among the church in Corinth. And Paul is clear that if they choose to marry, including the divorced in Corinth, they have not sinned.

Summary of Biblical Divorce thus far in 1 Corinthians 7

  • Paul speaks of the divorced as ἄγαμος, a Greek term that simply is the state of being unmarried. Within this group, Paul includes all people who are unmarried, regardless of the cause.
  • Paul says the unmarried (ἄγαμος) can, and should get remarried if they long for a spouse (1 Cor 7:8-9)
  • Paul cautions a particular married couple (see 1 Cor 7:1, and 1 Cor 7:10-11) that they should try to reconcile because their marriage was not legitimate. This is an attempt to keep Deuteronomy 24 from coming into play, and causing the marriage to not be able to be reconciled.
  • The wronged party here is the husband, and seemingly it would be up to him to decide if he is willing to take back his wife who has wronged him.
  • Specific couple aside, if someone is divorced and remarries, that in and of itself is not a sin (1 Cor 7:28, 36, etc.).
  • Current marriages should never be broken up due to previous divorces, because Paul commands everyone to stay in the situation (marital state) they are in when they come to Christ, and this should be the rule in all churches (1 Cor 7:17).
  • This does not disagree with Paul, or Jesus because both of them were tracking with the Old Testament rules surrounding divorce and remarriage.

Biblical Divorce Series

  1. God’s Divorce
  2. Biblical Divorce: Divorce in Israel – Part 1
  3. Biblical Divorce: Divorce in Israel – Part 2
  4. Biblical Divorce: Divorce in Israel – Part 3
  5. Biblical Divorce and Jesus – Part 1
  6. Biblical Divorce and Jesus – Part 2
  7. The Apostle Paul and Divorce

Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

Biblical Divorce: Divorce in Israel – Part 3

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Christianity, Marriage and Divorce, Scripture

In my previous post, we looked at Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and learned about the debate surrounding this text in Jesus’ time (again, more on that later.) If you are new to this series, my encouragement to you before reading this post is to familiarize yourself with the previous posts in this series, starting with God’s Divorce. God is divorced, and is still perfect and sinless, therefore divorce itself is not sinful. That does not mean, however, that every reason for divorce is valid. The previous posts will help orient you to the purpose, and interpretive lens I’m using for this series. In this post, I’d like for us to consider texts in Ezra/Nehemiah and Malachi. But first a little background.

Ezra/Nehemiah Background: Cautionary tale, or blueprint?

Israel has been completely destroyed, and Judah has been in captivity for years. In Ezra/Nehemiah, God moves and enables a resettling of Jerusalem by those in exile. Though God is clearly behind the resettling, this does not mean every action taken by humans in this text is a representation of God’s will. If it is, then this text would serve as a blueprint for us to follow in our own societies. If you read the final chapter of Nehemiah, the reform is a failure. Nobody seems faithful, God’s Word is not honored, and violence seems to be the solution. Not exactly a picture perfect example of God’s ways being lived out.

Biblical texts sometimes serve as cautionary tales rather than blueprints to follow. We understand this with Jonah, but for some reason we struggle to see this possibility in other texts. Let me suggest that Ezra/Nehemiah is better read as a warning against trying to impose moral change through external behavior, than as a method we should seek to duplicate. For more on this, Carmen Imes has a wonderful article on the subject. The team at Bible Project also does well in illustrating the failed moral reform of these zealous individuals. Their hearts are in the right place, but their actions fall short of God’s ideal ways.

Malachi the prophet is a contemporary of the Ezra/Nehemiah story. Malachi clearly disagrees with the Ezra/Nehemiah approach on several points (one of which we will discuss here). This seems to validate the idea that Ezra/Nehemiah should be considered a cautionary tale. Let’s now look at the Ezra/Nehemiah text as it applies to marriage and divorce, and then we will explore Malachi’s scathing rebuke of Ezra/Nehemiah’s theology.

Ezra 10:1-5, 10

1 While Ezra was praying and confessing, weeping and throwing himself to the ground before the temple of God, a very large crowd of Israelites—men, women, and children alike—gathered around him. The people wept loudly. 2 Then Shecaniah son of Jehiel, from the descendants of Elam, addressed Ezra:
“We have been unfaithful to our God by marrying foreign women from the local peoples. Nonetheless, there is still hope for Israel in this regard. 3 Therefore let us enact a covenant with our God to send away all these women and their offspring, in keeping with your counsel, my lord, and that of those who respect the commandments of our God. And let it be done according to the law. 4 Get up, for this matter concerns you. We are with you, so be strong and act decisively!”
5 So Ezra got up and made the leading priests and Levites and all Israel take an oath to carry out this plan…

10 Then Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have behaved in an unfaithful manner by taking foreign wives! This has contributed to the guilt of Israel. 11 Now give praise to the LORD God of your fathers, and do his will. Separate yourselves from the local residents and from these foreign wives.”

Ezr 10:1–5, 10-11, Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible, Second Edition (Denmark: Thomas Nelson, 2019).

Again, I highly recommend Carmen’s article to understand what’s going on here. The problem with Judah in this text is not their marriages, but idolatry. Like Solomon before them, they have taken foreign wives and adopted their religious idolatry instead of being the “kingdom of priests” they have been called to be. Ezra has taught the people the Torah, and they have misapplied it to their situation. Even the Messianic line is full of foreign wives, including Ruth. (For more on Ruth, read Ruth: A Story of Hesed, and Looking at Ruth And Seeing God.) The problem is not foreign wives per se, the problem is how these foreign wives are bringing their idolatry into Israel, instead of being transformed into the likeness of Yahweh by Israel.

Notice that the suggestion of divorce comes not from Ezra, but from one of the men in the group. Notice also how the blame is shifted to the foreign wives. The suggestion is if the women and children were not around, then there would be no sin. It’s always convenient to blame someone else for our sins. Ezra goes along with this plan, and indeed calls these Israelite men to divorce their wives and send them and their children away. Ezra’s plan now creates a massive refugee crisis where there is no provision for these “widows and orphans,” as they now have to fend for themselves. And while Ezra’s plan is being carried out, Ezra and all of Israel has forgotten that the very God they serve “loves the orphan and widow, and [he] loves resident foreigners, giving them food and clothing. So you must love the resident foreigner because you were foreigners in the land of Egypt.” (See Dt 10:15-19)

The point I’m making is the sinfulness in the rationale of Ezra’s generation in regards to divorce. This same sinful rationale exists in our generation as well. When we want to do something, we find a verse or passage of Scripture, ignore the context, ignore other verses that conflict with our theology, and act in the way we want to. This is what the people suggest, this is what Ezra blesses, and this is what Malachi denounces.

Malachi 2:10-16

10 Do we not all have one Father? Did not one God create us? Why do we profane the covenant of our ancestors by being unfaithful to one another?
11 Judah has been unfaithful. A detestable thing has been committed in Israel and in Jerusalem: Judah has desecrated the sanctuary the LORD loves by marrying women who worship a foreign god. 12 As for the man who does this, whoever he may be, may the LORD remove him from the tents of Jacob—even though he brings an offering to the LORD Almighty.
13 Another thing you do: You flood the LORD’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer looks with favor on your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the LORD is the witness between you and the wife of your youth. You have been unfaithful to her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant.
15 Has not the one God made you? You belong to him in body and spirit. And what does the one God seek? Godly offspring. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful to the wife of your youth.
16 “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the LORD, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the LORD Almighty.
So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.

Mal, 2:10-16, The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011).

Notice the problem is that the women “worship a foreign god” (v. 11). Compare that to Ruth’s famous “your God will be my God” (Ruth 1:16) and you see the problem. It’s not foreign wives per se, but their idolatry. Ezra’s solution is to promote divorce. The logic is “if you sinned before by entering an idolatrous marriage, then violate your marriage covenant now to make things right. Don’t address the problem, just get rid of it!” Malachi’s rebuttal is to honor your commitments in marriage while being faithful to Yahweh. Malachi’s clear statement on the actions of Ezra and the men of Israel is that they have done “violence to the one [they] should protect.”

Malachi Influences Paul?

It would be easy to just dismiss this text as having to do with a situation that’s almost impossible to recreate today, and therefore of little significance to this study. However, I believe this is the wisdom that Paul draws upon on 1 Corinthians 7, which we will study in depth in future posts. Malachi’s reasoning on the matter would indicate that a divorce that is not founded upon Exodus 21 or Deuteronomy 24 is an invalid divorce. The goal may have been noble (to right a past wrong), but this is clearly not what the Torah instructed about divorce, and therefore the divorce is not valid.

Paul borrows this same logic when he tells the Corinthian church that “each person should live as a believer in whatever situation the Lord has assigned to them, just as God has called them. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches” (1 Corinthians 7:17 NIV). Prior to this, Paul encourages both men and women that if they are married to an nonbeliever, and the nonbeliever is willing to stay with them, then they should not divorce. However, if the nonbeliever no longer wants to be part of the marriage because of the faith of the other spouse, then Paul says “let it be so. The brother or the sister is not bound in such circumstances” (1 Corinthians 7:15 NIV).

Much more on 1 Corinthians 7 later, but understand that Paul does not want to break apart marriages because the couple is what some would refer to as “unequally yoked.” Their marriage should remain, just as Malachi instructed Israel. And in the case of abandonment (1 Cor 7:15, one party wants to leave), there is no shame attached to the other party, and they are free to marry again.

Summary of Biblical Divorce in Ezra/Nehemiah and Malachi

  • Ezra/Nehemiah promotes divorce in order to undo a previous wrong. Both Malachi and Paul show this to be faulty theology and sinful practice (Mal 2:14-16; 1 Cor 7:12-14).
  • Malachi shows that the reason for a divorce matters. With the case of Israel in Ezra/Nehemiah, divorce was not the correct answer. Divorcing someone in an effort to undo a past wrong is not a valid reason for divorce.
  • Though valid reasons for divorce do exist (Exod 21, Deut 24, 1 Cor 7:15, etc.), dissolving a current marriage due to a past sin is not a valid reason.
  • Paul uses this same logic to encourage believers in Christ to stay in the marriage they have if at all possible, because this honors the commitment they made and honors Christ. “Each person should remain in the situation they were in when God called them” (1 Cor 7:20 NIV).
  • If the marriage ends, however, due to legitimate reasons, or one spouse giving up on the marriage, “let it be so” (1 Cor 7:15).

Next time, we will explore the words of Jesus about divorce in their context, and in the larger Biblical context.

Biblical Divorce Series

  1. God’s Divorce
  2. Biblical Divorce: Divorce in Israel – Part 1
  3. Biblical Divorce: Divorce in Israel – Part 2
  4. Biblical Divorce: Divorce in Israel – Part 3
  5. Biblical Divorce and Jesus – Part 1
  6. Biblical Divorce and Jesus – Part 2
  7. The Apostle Paul and Divorce
Divorce and Remarriage in the Church

Biblical Divorce: Divorce in Israel – Part 2

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Christianity, Marriage and Divorce, Scripture

Last time, we discussed the significance of Exodus 21:9-11 on the discussion of a Biblical view of divorce. We noticed that the text provides the bare minimum standards for a marriage for the lowest level of citizenry in Israel. If those standards were not upheld, the woman had the right to end the marriage and go free. Today we take a look at the next text in our Old Testaments that deals with divorce. This time, we turn to Deuteronomy to look at an extremely important case law which Jesus was later questioned about specifically.

Deuteronomy 24:1-4

In Deuteronomy 24 we are presented with the unfortunate case of a woman who will be divorced multiple times, and a former husband that might seek to gain from this situation. To understand the complexity of this marriage, we need to abandon our cultural norms and embrace the norms of ancient the Ancient Near East (ANE for short), and ancient Israel in order to properly understand this text.

In most of the ANE, woman had no property rights at all. The famous Code of Hammurabi is a great example of the standard laws of the ANE, and shows pretty clearly that women in that culture were often considered as property of a man, with almost no discussion of them actually owning property themselves.

Now let’s consider the ramifications of such a worldview, setting aside for a moment the obvious lack of value this places on half of God’s image. Suppose a man goes away to war and isn’t seen again for quite a long time…years even. If his wife remarries another man, and later the original husband returns, his wife would still be considered his property. All the man would have to do is claim her back, claim any children she’s had in the meantime, and resume life as he sees fit. This is obviously a horrible situation for everyone involved to even have to consider, and yet it was the standard ANE situation when it came to marriage. Some unscrupulous men even manipulated this system for their advantage. This is why Deuteronomy 24 is so drastically different in ancient Israel. Let’s look at the text.

24:1 If a man marries a woman and she does not please him because he has found something offensive in her, then he may draw up a divorce document, give it to her, and evict her from his house. 24:2 When she has left him she may go and become someone else’s wife. 24:3 If the second husband rejects her and then divorces her, gives her the papers, and evicts her from his house, or if the second husband who married her dies, 24:4 her first husband who divorced her is not permitted to remarry her after she has become ritually impure, for that is offensive to the LORD. You must not bring guilt on the land which the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.

Dt 24:1–4, Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).

The “why” and “How” of divorce and Remarriage

The first thing we need to consider here is the “why” of this divorce. This has often been interpreted as being some sort of adulterous situation, however that’s not directly what the text states. The punishment for adultery was death in Israel, so there would be no need to figure out a divorce as the death penalty would obviously end the marriage. The Hebrew phrase is ערות דבר (ʿervat davar), with a literal translation of “nakedness of a matter.” The phrase has caused much debate in Jewish circles, both in ancient times and today. What everyone seems to agree on, however, is this phrase would certainly describe some sort of sexual impropriety, without necessarily being adultery. This could be a situation like Jesus and the woman at the well, which was completely innocent but could have caused people to talk and make accusations (note the call for the husband in John 4:16). In other cases, it could be dressing in appropriately, or having non-sexual yet still emotional relationships with other men. The point is, there is something in the woman’s actions that a husband would have reasonable grounds to protest. If these actions persisted, the husband would have a legitimate reason to end the marriage.

Pay careful attention to verse 2, because it is clear that remarriage of divorced persons was perfectly acceptable in ancient Israel. The verse does not qualify this statement, nor does it put provisions on what caused the divorce, or who was at fault, or any of the other stipulations many Christians like to add to conversations about remarriage after divorce. The text simply says that once the divorce is complete (she has left him), then she is free to go and marry again. Even when the woman is at fault, she is free to marry again, plain and simple. So simple in fact that there’s the possibility/expectation of her to marry a third time after her second divorce or being widowed (24:4).

There’s also information to be gathered from the way the divorce is carried out. 24:3 above uses the phrase “gives her the papers”, but I much prefer NIV’s clear rendering of “certificate of divorce.” This practice was highly unusual in the ANE, so much so that it seems this practice of providing a certificate of divorce for a woman was unique to Israel. In every Israelite marriage, a certificate was part of the ceremony (much like today), but this certificate spelled out what was required in the marriage. Examples of these certificates were found along with the Scriptures known as the Dead Sea Scrolls, and they contained the language of Exodus 21. These stipulations were written on a certificate, and given to the bride who kept it safe because this was her freedom if the marriage should go poorly. If her husband mistreated her, she would petition the husband or the town elders and give witness to the neglect. If it was clear that the accusations were valid, and the woman wanted to leave the marriage, then she was issued a certificate of divorce, a right that very few women in the ancient world could claim. The language would read “you are free to marry any man you wish,” and provided safety for the woman and any future husband, knowing a former husband could not reclaim them at some point in the future after abandoning them.

Why Not Remarry Here?

So why can the first husband not remarry his former wife here? After all, the woman is “free to marry any man” she would wish, except for her first husband in the example. Wouldn’t we hope they could patch things up and get back together? It seems like the Lord has a different view of the situation, calling it “offensive” and citing that guilt will be brought on the land. Notice this is not said about remarriage in general, but only in reference to remarriage to the original spouse (something that a number of churches teach as exactly what should happen, but I digress).

So why not remarry the first husband? A couple of suggestions have been put forward as to why, but in honesty the text isn’t clear on this matter. What is clear is this particular remarriage should not happen. One ANE law scholar, Raymond Westbrook, believed this situation has to do with the dowry, or bride-price. The theory is that if the original husband knew there was “something offensive” about this woman, remarrying her would be under false pretenses just to claim a second dowry from her before sending her away again. The point of Westbrook’s theory is that this law protects the rights of the woman.

Another scholar, Dr. David Instone-Brewer, cites the Shiite practice of mut’ah marriage. It does seem that there was at least some version of this practice carried out in the ANE, and seems to me to be a reasonable possibility of what Deuteronomy 24 seeks to forbid. If this is the case, once again this law would be designed to protect the rights of the woman. Here’s a description from the Wikipedia article linked above.

According to Shia Muslims, Muhammad sanctioned nikah mut’ah (fixed-term marriage, called muta’a in Iraq and sigheh in Iran), which has instead been used as a legitimizing cover for sex workers in a culture where prostitution is otherwise forbidden. Some Western writers have argued that mut’ah approximates prostitution.

Wikipedia entry for “nikah mut’ah,” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikah_mut%27ah

Several other suggestions have been put forth, but what is clear in every theory is that this law that forbids remarrying the original husband seeks to protect the woman. In a sense, this law reminds Israel that marriage is a serious endeavor and to treat it flippantly as a possible on again/off again affair is an offense to the Lord.

Marriage is fine. Divorce is fine. Jumping back and forth between the two and degrading the value of marriage is not fine.

Jesus and Deuteronomy 24

For now I’d like to return to the debate over the phrase ערות דבר (ʿervat davar). The NIV’s translation of “something indecent” is helpful here to understand the debate among rabbi’s in Jesus’ day. Both those who followed Hillel and Shammai accepted Exodus 21:10, and taught their disciples exactly what an appropriate amount of clothing, food, and marital rights would constitute a legitimate marriage. When we come to Deuteronomy 24, however, these two famed teachers of Scripture disagreed greatly. The Shammaites believed that Deuteronomy 24 dealt with a case of sexual indiscretion on the part of the woman as discussed above.

The Hillelites viewed this passage differently, separating the phrase ‘ervat davar into two separate items. To borrow the NIV again, Hillelites believed the text provided two valid reasons for the divorce—”something indecent” was interpreted to allow divorce for “indecent” actions, and “something.” What this would mean was if the woman acted indecently, then you could divorce her. Additionally, if she did “something” you didn’t like, such as forgetting to add onions to your scrambled eggs, then you could divorce her. Essentially, the Hillelites championed the “any cause divorce” from this passage, and by the time of Jesus’ ministry, this was the most prevalent cause of divorce in Israel.

Matthew 19 as Commentary on Deuteronomy 24

We will cover Matthew 19 in depth in a later post, but it is important to note the context of a Jesus’ comments there as a discussion about what Deuteronomy 24 allows. Consider the question Jesus is asked by the Pharisees.

Then some Pharisees came to him in order to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful to divorce a wife for any cause?”

Mt 19:3, Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2005).

The reason this discussion of “any cause” divorce would be interesting to the Pharisees is because it was the most common form of divorce in the Roman world of the first century. It was common among Gentiles, and even among the Hillelite followers in Judea. Because the question is a direct quote of the Hillelite interpretation of Deuteronomy 24, Jesus’ remarks need to be interpreted in light of his response to their question. In other words, Jesus is not offering commentary on Exodus 21, or Deuteronomy 21 or 22, or Malachi 2, or Jeremiah 3, or any other discussion of divorce in the Old Testament. He’s being asked about the Deuteronomy 24 interpretation of allowing divorce for “any cause”, and Jesus’ response is a resounding “no.” In Jesus’ interpretation, Deuteronomy 24 does not permit divorce for “any and every reason.”

Summary of Biblical Divorce in Deuteronomy 24

  • Deuteronomy 24 assumes legitimate reasons for the divorces mentioned.
  • Marriages in Israel could end based upon ערות דבר (ʿervat davar), with a literal translation of “nakedness of a matter.”
  • Jesus interpreted this text to refer to sexual indecency, and not “any cause” like the Hillelite school. According to Jesus, Deuteronomy 24 does not provide grounds for “any and every reason” or “any cause” divorces. There are legitimate reasons for divorce, but a divorce is not valid unless one of these Biblical standards are met (more on this in future posts).
  • In the case of divorce, the party at fault (in this case the woman) as well as the wronged party (in this case the man) could both marry again without qualification once the divorce was completed (24:2, 4).
  • The woman must be given a certificate of divorce in order to protect her rights to marry again. This was a right that was unique to Israel. Even if the woman was at fault in the original marriage, she was free to remarry another man.
  • Deuteronomy 24 places no limits on remarriage (three potential marriages are illustrated).
  • The only restriction on remarriage is for the original husband remarrying his ex wife. This is strictly forbidden, and is done most likely to protect the rights of the woman.

Next time, we will look at Ezra/Nehemiah in light of Malachi 2.

Biblical Divorce Series

  1. God’s Divorce
  2. Biblical Divorce: Divorce in Israel – Part 1
  3. Biblical Divorce: Divorce in Israel – Part 2
  4. Biblical Divorce: Divorce in Israel – Part 3
  5. Biblical Divorce and Jesus – Part 1
  6. Biblical Divorce and Jesus – Part 2
  7. The Apostle Paul and Divorce

What’s In A Name?

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Exodus, How to Read the Bible, Life, Scripture

“What’s in a name? That which we call a rose/ By any other name would smell as sweet.”

William Shakespeare, Romeo & Juliet

Juliet tried hard to convince Romeo that names don’t matter. To put it another way, for Juliet, who we are is not dependent upon a name, nor are we defined by a name. While I admire Shakespeare on many levels, on this point he’s wrong.

I think the real question is “Do any names matter?” And the Biblical answer to that is a resounding “YES!” What we learn as we read the Bible is that who we are is precisely dependent upon a name—the only name that matters.

The Name

For an ancient Israelite, one name in particular mattered more than any other name.

Exodus is the retelling of God’s powerful rescue of Israel out of the bondage of slavery and oppression in Egypt. God uses a human, Moses, to be his representative before Pharaoh during this miraculous rescue. To Pharaoh, in essence, it is as if Moses is God, performing signs and wonders, and delivering the Divine message to Pharaoh, with Aaron as his helper (Exod 4:15-16).

This is an awesome task! To represent the God of the universe to someone who does not know God is a frightening endeavor, especially if you don’t really know the God you are representing!

Moses instantly feels inferior to the task, asking “Who am I that I should go to Pharaoh?” (Exod 3:11) God never answers the question directly, but indicates that God’s presence will be sufficient. Simply put to Moses, “I will be with you.” (Exod 3:12)

The second, and possibly the most informative question that Moses asks is how to acknowledge God before the people. Here is God’s reply:

God said to Moses, “I AM WHO I AM. This is what you are to say to the Israelites: ‘I AM has sent me to you.’ ”
God also said to Moses, “Say to the Israelites, ‘The LORD, the God of your fathers—the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob—has sent me to you.’
“This is my name forever,
the name you shall call me
from generation to generation.”

Exodus 3:14-15 NIV

The Meaning

There is a long rabbit trail here concerning the name(s) God chooses in this revelation to Moses. Without going too far down that trail, we need some clarification here. The Hebrew phrase “Ehyeh asher ehyeh” is what the NIV translates as “I AM WHO I AM.” Without totally nerding out on Hebrew, we should know that depending on how one views this phrase, it can mean variously “I AM WHO I AM,” or “I AM WHAT I AM,” or “I WILL BE WHO I WILL BE,” or any combination of these options. God’s revelation of being in this name shows that God is not dependent on anything, and everything else in all creation has its dependence upon God. You and I are human, we are tired, we are in a particular location at a particular time, etc. Simply put, we are finite. God simply IS.

And that’s the second name. What most English language Bibles translate as “LORD” in all capital letters, is the actually the 3rd person version of Ehyeh. Instead of “I AM”, the Hebrew name Yahweh (LORD) is means “HE IS.” (For more information on why the English translation does this, Bible Project has this great video.)

This name, Yahweh (LORD/HE IS), is the name of Israel’s God (Exod 20:2), the only god Israel is to worship (Exod 20:3), and the one whom his people are to represent well through bearing this name (Exod 20:7).

Bearing the Name

That last part, bearing or misusing the name of Yahweh, might be one of the most misunderstood commands of the Bible, and one that I intend to unpack a bit in my sermons over the next few weeks. But here’s the short take on what this command means:

  • Humans have always been designed to bear the image of their Creator (Gen 1:27).
  • Instead of bearing the image/name of their Creator, sinful humans decided to make a name for themselves (Gen 3:5; 11:4).
  • The Creator then decides to create a new people to bear his image/name in the world, thus growing his reputation/name as well as theirs, in the process of bringing blessing to all humans (Gen 12:1-3).
  • This new family commits to bearing the Creator’s name, Yahweh, and being representatives of the name/reputation of the Creator in the earth (Exod 19:5-6).
  • This is not a light responsibility, and must be taken seriously. Bearing the name of Yahweh in a careless way brings guilt upon the people (Exod 20:7).
  • (This point needs more unpacking, but…) That name/reputation has been transferred to Jesus, the name we must now represent, respect, and honor (Phil 2:6-11).
  • This Jesus (which means “Yahweh Saves”) is the physical representation of Yahweh (John 8:58 – I AM), and the name of Jesus is the only name that brings us salvation (Acts 4:12).
  • When we place our allegiance in the name of Jesus, coming to God through Jesus, we become chosen people, that priesthood of representatives in the world (1 Peter 2:4-10).

What’s in a name? EVERYTHING! And the name we need for salvation, the name we must bear carefully, the name we must represent to others is the name of Jesus.

Click here to view Matt’s sermons on Bearing God’s Name.

Gossip – the sin we’re ok with?

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Church health, Life, Politics, Romans, Scripture

I made the mistake of watching the “news” recently. As a rule I refuse to do this, but I was lured into watching the “news.” What I saw was a bunch of unfounded, unverified hearsay passed along in order to convince the viewer that they should be outraged about these same unfounded, unverified rumors. The Biblical term for such talk is “gossip.”

28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. 

 The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Ro 1:28–32.

Did you notice “gossips” appear in that list? I think most followers of Christ are really comfortable with calling most of those sins exactly what they are: sin. Yet it seems very comfortable for most people to be ok with gossip. And when the gossip is packaged and sold to us as “news” or “the real truth,” it becomes more palatable.

Still, if the message is intriguing or scandalous enough, we just might listen. And then we are happy to pass it on. Don’t believe me? Just look on Facebook, or Twitter, or any other social media platform. Americans love to “share” those shocking “articles” about politics, or some celebrity. We convince ourselves that others need to know this “truth,” but did we stop to check the validity of the claims? Have we actually done the research, or simply passed along what we were told?

We can rationalize it away, or try to find some reason to justify doing these things, but the Bible is very clear. Gossip is sin.

The most common area I encounter gossip is around actions that one deems inappropriate. Those actions may or may not in actuality be inappropriate, but the assumption of inappropriate behavior usually sparks gossip. From there the assumption is told to another, and then to another in hopes of building a consensus that this assumed inappropriate behavior is wrong. It gets even easier to do this sort of thing when dealing with a celebrity or politician. But acting this way is absolutely not acting like Jesus. I really like Bruce Waltke’s take on this.

“Now we come [to] ‘Do not bear false witness,’ in which we spare—we bestow on the other—the right to a reputation. We guard the other person’s reputation. We guard it against false testimony. I suspect all of us have violated this; we’ve gossiped about somebody. I think sometimes we hold court in living rooms, drinking cups of coffee. We talk evil of another person, with no due process at all. They’re not there to defend themselves. There may not even be witnesses, but they should not gossip about another person unless the other person is there to defend himself or herself. We’ve got to protect the other person’s reputation. Christians should never gossip.”

 Bruce K. Waltke, OT300 Old Testament Theology, Logos Mobile Education (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2018).

How about we consider what Jesus suggests?

15 “If your brother or sister sins, go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over.

 The New International Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2011), Mt 18:15.

When it comes to friends, family, or other Christians, this should be fairly easy. You make it a point to go directly to the person.

Not to the minister. Not to the elders. Not to your friends.

You go directly to the person you have an issue with. You just might learn that an assumption on your part was incorrect, or it’s possible your concerns might be validated. If there actually is a legitimate problem, then the two of you can address it without everyone else getting involved. This is how Jesus tells us to handle this situation.

So the next time you’re a part of the conversation that steers toward talking about people who aren’t there, remember the wise words of a former First Lady.

Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people.

Eleanor Roosevelt

What do you mean it’s an elephant?

by Matthew Stidham, posted in How to Read the Bible, Women of Scripture

There’s an old story of three blind men who are led to different parts of an elephant. One feels the tail and thinks it’s a paint brush. One feels the leg and thinks it’s a tree. One feels the ear and thinks it is a large leaf. By the information that each person had they made their best judgement. But when they got together and compared information they realized that none of them had the full picture. Then they worked together to find the head which clearly revealed that there was an elephant in the room.

This Sunday, we will begin a journey through the First Testament in our Bibles, exploring 14 different passages. There are common themes in these texts, and all of them are themes included in John’s Gospel (which we will spend the winter and spring studying). To put it another way, we are surveying the First Testament with an eye toward passages that inform our reading of John’s Gospel. Some of these texts will be familiar, others not so much. Some are confusing, some may seem irrelevant to our lives today, and some have been the point of much controversy, both inside and outside the Church.

One of the things I’ve noticed about some of these First Testament stories is that we learn them as children, such as VBS or Sunday School, and then never really consider them in depth as adults. When we think of the story of Moses and the burning bush (which isn’t actually burning…), our mind goes to the flannel graph images and summaries of our childhood Bible class teachers.

I am so thankful for the teachers that taught me to love the Bible! They taught very difficult, adult Bible stories in a way that my childhood brain could comprehend and appreciate. But when they taught me to love the Bible, they taught me to always study the Bible as well. And what I’ve discovered, especially with this portion of the Bible, is that we rarely spend the time studying these texts that we should. And when we do actually study them, or hear them taught at an adult level, there’s a certain shock involved. We remember the faithfulness of people like Noah, Abraham, Moses, and Miriam. We forget that they were also drunkards, liars, murderers, and extremely jealous. The stories are far more complex than our childhood memories convey. And when we only focus on the children’s story version of the text, we can miss the point of the story altogether.

The issue is not with the texts themselves, but how we read the texts. All of us come to Scripture with existing biases. I read Scripture through the eyes of a white, middle class, married father of three, recently moved to southwest Missouri from West Texas. That is my perspective. Someone who is middle eastern, impoverished, single, living in Europe will see things differently than I do simply because of their background and surroundings. They view the world differently than I do, and that’s a good thing! Just read the story of the prodigal son(s) with someone from an impoverished country. Most of us read that story not realizing that a famine plays an important role in the story, and in the repentance of the son. People who have suffered from famine pick up on that right away.

Proverbs reminds us that there is wisdom in having “many advisors.” If I am looking at something alone, I only see things from my point of view. But if I talk about it with others with different views, I can begin to see more of the picture.

Some have suggested that addressing controversial texts does no good. “It means what it says and says what it means, and that settles it!” But it doesn’t settle things, does it? The greatest clarity of Scripture I have ever found has come when discussing the text with people who have differing views. Though I may not agree with everything they see, I always walk away with a greater understanding of their view, my view, and most importantly the Word of God. Just this week, a new detail stood out to me in Genesis because I was talking to someone about the text. I’ve been on a mission to re-read Genesis 50 times. I’ve spent considerable time with this book, and I noticed something I had never considered before simply because I was willing to sit down and discuss the text with someone. Basically, I missed the point of the text and only discovered this by talking about it.

I have no doubt that God will do powerful things for us over the next 14 weeks, and through us as we study his word together. I also believe that all of us will discover things that we haven’t seen in these texts before. My prayer is we listen to the voices of “many advisors,” reexamine our view in light of others, but most importantly, we consider what the Scripture actually says, and grow in the grace and wisdom of the Lord. And when we do this cooperatively in community, maybe then we will better identify the elephant in the room.

See you Sunday!

Paul: The Offensive Apostle?

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Uncategorized

Paul was offensive. But probably not in the way you think.

We’re looking at the Ephesian letter each Sunday morning during our sermon time, and Wednesday nights we’re diving a little deeper into questions from those sermons, as well as trying to get our minds wrapped around Paul’s way of thinking. We spent our last two class sessions talking about “the powers” that Paul writes about in this letter (Eph. 1:19-21, 2:1-2, 3:10-11, 6:12, etc.)

Without reteaching those classes here, let me summarize by saying that Paul, his audience, and those who wrote the Bible as a whole recognized that there are many powers at play in this world that are either good, or evil. And when we get tangled up in serving those powers rather than serving Christ, it’s a huge problem. Though you and I probably aren’t tempted to wander into a pagan temple, we do dedicate a lot of time and resources to serving our own comfort, entertainment, hobbies, etc. Paul would refer to these things, as well as other spiritual and cosmic forces, as “the powers.” And sadly, sometimes we do serve the powers over and above serving Christ.

One of those powers is culture. For Paul’s original audience, your home would be structured in a certain way because the powers that be have mandated it. Let’s look at a couple of examples from names you will recognize that will teach us how a household should be structured in Paul’s time.

“Seeing then that the state is made up of households, before speaking of the state we must speak of the management of the household. The parts of household management correspond tot he persons who compose the household, and a complete household consists of slaves and freemen. Now we should begin by examining everything in its fewest possible elements; and teh first and fewest possible parts of a family are master and slave, husband and wife, father and children.”

Aristotle, Politics, 1:3

Aristotle makes it clear that the “state” must be run a certain way to survive and function properly, and the key relationships within the home are “master and slave, husband and wife, father and children.” Paul addresses these exact relationships in Ephesians 6, but I want us to understand what “the powers” of the day believe concerning the household. Let’s turn once again to Aristotle for clarity.

“Of houshold management we have seen that there are three parts: one is the rule of a master over slaves, which has been discussed already, another of a father, and the third of a husband. A husband and father, we saw, rules over wife and children, both free, but the rule differs; the rule over his children being royal, and the ruler over his wife is based on natural constitution. For although there may be exceptions to the order of nature, the male is by nature fitter for command than the female, just as the elder and full-grown is superior to the younger and more immature.”

Aristotle, Politics, 1:12

The Jewish historian Josephus takes a slightly different view than Aristotle.

“The woman…is in all things inferior to the man. Let her accordingly be obedient, not for her humiliation, but that she may be directed; for God has given authority to the man.”

Josephus, Against Apion, 2:24

Now that we know the views held by “the powers” of Paul’s day, let’s hear the Holy Spirit’s wisdom on how a household should be viewed, as relayed to us by the Apostle.

“Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

Paul, Ephesians 5:21 NIV

As I said before, Paul was offensive, but not in the way you think. The idea that everyone in the household would submit to the other because of Christ is scandalous! This flies in the face of the structure of the Empire. According to “the powers” of the day, everything is for the man’s benefit. Wives, children, and slaves all serve at the pleasure of the man of the house and only exist to bring him comfort. Nobody structures their relationships this way! But for Paul, it’s crucial to understanding and living out the Gospel in our lives.

Authoritarian hierarchy is the way of the powers. But that’s not God’s way. That’s not Paul’s understanding of the world. All household codes were written to the male explaining how they should rule/control those in their household. But Paul takes a different approach. Paul will speak directly to women, children, and slaves, instantly elevating their status! And notice how Paul speaks: first to the wife, then to the husband. First to the children, then to the father. First to the slave, and then to the master.

Do you see how upside down Paul’s approach to the household is when compared to the household dictated by “the powers?” Paul’s words are shocking and scandalous in an empire that is sustained by keeping power through the structure of the home. When the house operates like the Empire, you support and perpetuate the Empire.

But that’s not the way of Christ. That’s not the way of God’s Kingdom. That’s not the leading of the Holy Spirit. Paul tells his readers that every relationship with every man, woman, and child, regardless of class, or status, is filtered through the understanding that we all submit to one another because of Christ. This is the Christian household. This is life in the Spirit.

Join us Sunday at 8:30am or 10:00am at Countryside Christian Church as we worship together, eat the Lord’s Supper together, and unpack these relationships further. You can also join our 10:00 service online.

In the meantime, consider what it means to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

Unity in Diversity in Romans

Christ Includes Everyone

by Matthew Stidham, posted in Acts, Scripture

The Spirit leads where He wants, and it doesn’t always match our plans.

In Acts 6 we read about the Hellenistic Jewish widows being slighted in the distribution of food. The suggestion agreed upon by all was to appoint 7 Hellenists to carry out that ministry, men who were full of the Spirit and wisdom. Within the list of 7 we encounter Stephen and Philip in other portions of Luke’s story. Today we look at Philip’s missionary career, likely something he had never planned to do.

After the first century “meals on wheels” problem became known, the Twelve continued with their ministry of preaching and prayer. This was their calling. The Seven were called to distribute food. And yet, it’s only a few verses later that Stephen, full of the Holy Spirit, is moved to preach about Jesus. The Spirit leads where He wants, and it doesn’t always match our plans. Stephen’s willingness to follow the Spirit leads to his death, and great persecution against the Church. But God used that persecution in order to spread the Gospel to other areas!

We next encounter Philip not distributing food, but preaching! The Spirit leads where He wants, and it doesn’t always match our plans. The persecution drove him into Samaria, and there, like Stephen and Jesus before him, began to perform signs such as casting out demons and healing the paralyzed and lame. Many men and women were baptized because Philip followed the leading of the Spirit to go wherever he was called. And wherever he went, he preached the Gospel of Jesus.

Next, we find the Spirit leading Philip to a road headed southwest out of Jerusalem. There Philip is told to talk to a man riding in a chariot. All we really know about this man is that he was an Ethiopian (likely a black-skinned man from what the Old Testament refers to as the region of Cush), he was the treasurer for the queen, and he was a eunuch.

There’s a lot to unpack here as we consider the theme of the disciples being “witnesses…to the ends of the earth.” This treasurer was likely a “God fearer,” similar to Cornelius. He had been to Jerusalem, but as a eunuch he would not have been allowed to enter the Temple. We could chase this rabbit a long way down the rabbit hole, but suffice it to say this was God’s way of telling Israel not to adopt the practice of castration in their communities. More on this in a moment.

For the treasurer to travel all the way to Jerusalem shows just how deep his faith is. I wonder how he felt being prohibited from entering the Temple upon arrival? Did he know he would be kept from joining the assembly before his journey, and traveled anyway? Or was this a surprise to him? For Luke, these details were not needed, and we are left to wonder.

What we do know is the treasurer had a copy (or partial copy) of the Isaiah scroll. Specifically, he was reading from the Greek translation of Isaiah 53:7-8.

This is the passage of Scripture the eunuch was reading:
“He was led like a sheep to the slaughter,
and as a lamb before its shearer is silent,
so he did not open his mouth.
In his humiliation he was deprived of justice.
Who can speak of his descendants?
For his life was taken from the earth.”

Acts 8:32-33 NIV

Now we don’t know every detail about what Philip told this Ethiopian treasurer. We know that he started with Isaiah 53 and began to preach the Gospel of Jesus, and his message must have included baptism. But I would guess that Philip also had this Ethiopian foreigner, this eunuch, read Isaiah 56.

Let no foreigner who is bound to the Lord say,
“The Lord will surely exclude me from his people.”
And let no eunuch complain,
“I am only a dry tree.”
For this is what the Lord says:
“To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths,
who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant—
to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name
better than sons and daughters;
I will give them an everlasting name
that will endure forever.
And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord
to minister to him,
to love the name of the Lord,
and to be his servants,
all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it
and who hold fast to my covenant—
these I will bring to my holy mountain
and give them joy in my house of prayer.
Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar;
for my house will be called
a house of prayer for all nations.” The Sovereign Lord declares—
he who gathers the exiles of Israel:
“I will gather still others to them
besides those already gathered.”

Isaiah 56:3-8 NIV

This is the same passage Jesus referenced when he overturned the tables in the Temple. This very practice of excluding “differents” is what so offended Jesus that he pronounced condemnation and destruction upon the Temple. The words of God recorded in Isaiah 56 remind us of God’s plan all along. It was never about God blessing one people group, but rather bringing blessing and salvation to all nations by working through one nation. God is not in the exclusion business. He wants everyone to be saved! The Spirit leads where He wants, and it doesn’t always match our plans.

Whereas the Temple authorities would have prohibited the Ethiopian eunuch from joining their assembly, Philip lays no such barrier.

As they traveled along the road, they came to some water and the eunuch said, “Look, here is water. What can stand in the way of my being baptized?”

Acts 8:36 NIV

What can stand in the way of my being baptized? Absolutely nothing! All are welcome in Christ’s Kingdom! He died for all people! And his table is open for all!

So what are you waiting for? What’s keeping you on the outside? Most people I’ve met think that they will be excluded, or not welcomed because of their past. They believe that even though they want to follow Christ and join his family, they won’t be accepted. But that’s not how our God operates! Our Savior doesn’t just save good people (and none of us are good), he saves messed up people like you and me!

Jesus died to save those who struggle with sexual sins, idolatry, homosexuality, theft, greed, drunkenness, foul language, and every other imaginable sin. As a matter of fact, that list describes the makeup of the early church! The difference is they were washed and made clean through Christ. They didn’t stay in their sins because someone welcomed them and taught them about Christ. You’ll never look into the eyes of someone Christ didn’t die for. You’ll never find someone God doesn’t want to save. So why would we ever turn someone away?

If you haven’t joined a church family, why not? Become a member of a community of Christ today! Get plugged in and get about the business of welcoming others into the family!

And if you haven’t accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior, and you haven’t committed your life to him, then the words of this Ethiopian eunuch apply to you. What can stand in the way of you being baptized? Absolutely nothing!

Join God’s family today!