An Answer to a YouTube Video About the Nephilim and the Sons of God

 The following is a response to a video on YouTube. If you wish to view the video, go here.  

*****

I fully agree that the Nephilim were not the product of the union of the sons of God and the daughters of men. However, I do not agree that the sons of God are angels and that for a specific reason: angels are spirits - non-physical beings - and non-physical beings cannot produce physical children. It is true that angels often appeared in the form of men, as even the LORD Himself did. But that was merely an accommodation to the needs of the men with whom they were communicating. There is only one occasion of a spiritual being conceiving a child within a human woman and that is when the Holy Spirit conceived our Lord Jesus in the womb of Mary. But He did not take on human form and engage in intercourse with Mary so as to produce the Lord Jesus.

 

No doubt when angels appeared in human form the appearance was quite convincing for the men of Sodom were convinced that the angels who visited Lot were mere men. But we do not have any record in Scripture that angels appearing as men actually possessed human bodies capable of all the functions of a human body complete with the DNA necessary to provide the necessary genetic information necessary for the formation of a human. Nor do we even read that they had the power to take on a fully human body or that God ever granted them that power for any time.

 

You refer to 2 Peter section containing only 2 examples. But there are three, and it is the word "and" that makes it obvious:  Peter's point is that God is able to deliver the godly out of temptation or trouble (v.9). He shows this by three examples: He "did not spare" three groups - the angels that sinned  AND the ancient world AND the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah. While Peter does describe the groups contrasting to “the ancient world” (Noah and seven of his household) and “the cities of Sodom and Gommorah,” (Lot), he does not give a contrasting group to the angels that sinned. That is likely because by describing them as sinning angels it was obvious that "angels who did not sin" was the contrasting group. But he had to describe a contrasting group to "ancient world" for Noah was part of the ancient world, and he had to describe the contrasting group to "cities of Sodom and Gomorrah” for Lot was of the city of Sodom. If the sin of the sinning angels was to “leave their proper realm of authority and their own dwelling" (Jude 6) that has nothing to do with marrying and mating with humans.

 

Moreover, the sinning angels are described as having been locked up in chains of gloomy darkness in Tartarus. The people of Noah’s day were punished with the flood. The cities of Sodom and Gommorah were punished with fire and brimstone. The sinning angels were punished “gloomy chains of darkness in Tartarus,” not left free to roam the earth and marry and mate with human women.

 

Not much is said about angels in the Scriptures and in the absence of information much mythology has arisen about them. But one thing is clear about them: they are spirits. They cannot mate with humans.

 

There is another problem that arises when we accept the idea that the sons of God were fallen angels: The unions of the sons of God with the daughters of men produced offspring. I think it is safe to say that the alleged fallen angels must have been in complete human form or they could not have married human women and sired children with them. This would leave us with a population of human beings who did not have Adam as their father and were, thus, not participants in Adam's sin. "In Adam, all die," would not have applied to them for they would not have been "in Adam."

 

While it is true that we do not find any other OT reference to sons of God that does not refer to angelic beings, that does not require us to consider this occasion to refer to angelic beings. After all, this is the first reference to "sons of God," so is not dependent on what later uses of the phrase may have intended by the term. I believe that “sons of God” refers to those who professed to believe Jehovah to be God. My philosophy professor (James Grier, Cedarville College) spoke of the days of Enosh, son of Seth, son of Adam, when “men began to call on the name of the LORD” (Genesis 4.26) He commented that it could be translated (paraphrased?) as, “Then men began to call themselves by the name of the LORD.” I am not a Hebrew expert, but as a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary, he had studied Hebrew. I suppose he knew what he was talking about. Now, a group calling themselves by the name of the LORD would be similar to us calling ourselves “Christians”: we are calling ourselves by the name of Christ. It is my belief that “the sons of God” were the ones who “called themselves by the name of the LORD,” to wit, they professed to believe in Jehovah as God.

But in time, it became virtually impossible to distinguish between the “sons of God,” and “the sons of men,” and this was most evident in the fact that these “sons of God” chose for wives “the daughters of men.” Godliness was not their concern, only beauty and maybe the wealth and power that could be gained by a “good marriage.” It was likely then as it is now: wealth and power were mostly in the hands of those who did not believe God.

 

So, these sons of God were, at best, “Laodiceans” and at worst, like the Pharisees, Sadducees and so forth of the Lord’s day – and sadly, like many “Christians” of today. And this would explain the particularly violent and wicked times in which Noah lived – not even those who claimed to worship Jehovah did so from the heart. There was no essential difference between the sons of God and the sons of men. And it was then – when those who bore His name were no different than those who despised His name – it was then that God said, “My Spirit shall not abide in man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.”

 

Believers are the salt of the earth. But when the salt has lost its taste, what good is it? It is fit only to be thrown out.  

 

What a warning to the American church!

Glorious Messy Freedom!

 

Political and social freedom, as I understand it, is messy – really, really messy. I do not say that lightly. I like external order for I lack internal order. That is, I have an appreciation for neatly organized spaces for my mind is a horribly cluttered space of whirling ideas. I like quiet spaces because my mind is a cacophony of voices all expressing their ideas at once. I already have enough mess and conflict created in my own mind that I do not want any more of it coming from outside of my mind.

 

But I also realize that I am not important enough as an individual that I should expect the world around me to conform to what pleases me. I realize that, even though I like neat places, there should be no law imposing my desire for neatness on others. My neighbor is free to cut his grass or not. He is free to make his kids put away their toys or to leave them strewn about the yard. (In an interesting twist, I am more likely to have a messy yard than any of my neighbors. But the psychological reasons for that are for another article – an article that will likely never be written!) I have no right to expect my neighbor to walk tiptoe around his yard, never turn up his radio to the point I can hear it, or never use a chain saw. It is expected we will respect one another so as to limit our sound during those times when people would normally be trying to sleep. But, otherwise, noisemaking is permitted within broad parameters.

 

I also have some very strong moral positions. I admit that I am not all that good at following them. However, I do have these moral convictions and I believe others should have the same positions as I do. However, I also recognize that I am not important enough that my moral positions should be imposed on everyone else. I believe homosexual activity is perverse and I do not like to be confronted with it. But I also acknowledge that it is not within my rights to insist that my opinion concerning homosexual activity should become the law of the land. I do not like seeing two men walking down the street holding hands or otherwise expressing romantic attraction. But, quite frankly, in a free society, it is none of my business.

 

Now, the last paragraph might have surprised or even offended some of my friends who share a similar moral code as I do. Now I am going to offend nearly everyone. I think racism is morally wrong. More than that, I think it is monumentally stupid. I suppose that I should define what I think racism is. Racism is the belief that any particular race is innately superior to others or inferior to others. Within the world of political thought, racism is the belief that some races are worthy of greater rights and privileges than others. Even if studies were to prove that one race scored lower on IQ exams than did another race, that has nothing to do with their dignity as a human being, nor should any individual within that race be prevented from applying to Harvard on the basis of that statistic, nor should Harvard lay their application aside on the presumption they are unfit to study there. (Don’t assign any significance to my example. I am unaware of any such study and would be suspicious of the results of such a study. It is simply one of the metrics by which some racists justify their racism.)

 

But, as opposed to racism as I am, I do not have the right to impose my beliefs about it on others. My neighbor is free to be a racist. And I am equally free to decide to have little, if anything, to do with him because of his racism. He is free to use racial slurs, put up racist posters, and be a stupid jerk if that is his desire. And, if he is a grocery store owner, he is free to make it an whites-only grocery store or a blacks-only grocery store. And I am free to not shop at his store. I am free to peacefully and non-obstructively picket his store or write letters to the editor saying that no one should patronize his store. But I have no right to expect that the government would write a law prohibiting him from running his business in a racist way and, much as I hate racism, I would stand up to my government were it to impose such a law.  Of course, my government did impose such laws, and as much as those laws may conform to my moral code, they do not conform to my political code.

 

As much as I oppose racism, I believe that if a group of whites wanted to buy land and build a gated community in which no blacks were allowed entry, they have the right to do so. Of course, I would never go in such a community: I would not visit anyone there and would likely not do business with anyone there. Amazon would have the right to not make deliveries to such a community. If I were a contractor, I would have the right to refuse to build, remodel, or repair any house in there.

 

Someone may say that I am being inconsistent for I take a very firm stand on abortion. My moral view is that there should never be any elective abortion. The only abortions allowed should be those in which the life of the mother is put at grave risk. This is not a “health” exemption. This is not saying that the difficulties of gestation, giving birth, and raising a child should be sufficient grounds for abortion – not even the psychological stress that gestating and giving birth to a child conceived in rape. If there is any path to the child being born that would not lead necessarily to the death of the mother, that path should be taken. Period. And I believe that this view of abortion should be made a matter of law because it involves the life of a human being. The moment there is conception, there is a human being, and that human being must be granted all the rights and protection any already-born human being would have. Abortion is not a legally private act, Roe V Wade notwithstanding. The woman’s decision directly impacts the life of another human being; thus her choices are limited in what she is legally at liberty to do.

 

But at present, our laws are being written in a way that violates the rights of many. Some of the most fundamental rights like freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom of association are being stripped away by those who presently do not hold the levers of political power. Their self-righteousness in their quest to control the private morality of others is as self-righteous as the most tyrannical religion. But our Constitution was written specifically to limit the authority of those who hold those levers so that the rights of the weak are not trampled on by the power of the strong.

 

“How is the government trampling on anyone’s rights?” you ask. The most obvious example is the civil rights legislation that forces people to perform activities that violate their conscience: activities that are contrary to their own moral opinion. Florists, bakers, and photographers are forced to service gay weddings or risk huge fines, civil settlements, and the loss of their businesses. Therapists are being forbidden to offer counsel to those who desire to address their same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria. Doctors are being stripped of the right to participate in any government paid medical practice (like Medicare) unless they are willing to perform abortions and/or gender reassignment procedures. (That is part of the present “Equality Act” being promoted by the Biden administration.) Aside from the gross violation of the rights of these service-providers, there is a violation of the rights of others as well. Does not the same-sex attracted person have the right to seek help if that is what he /she wants? And imagine this: You are a retiree on Medicare and you have cancer. Right in your town is a surgeon renowned for his ability to remove cancerous growths in the body. But he refuses to perform gender-reassignment surgery. So you, a person who actually paid for your Medicare coverage by the money taken out of your paycheck over your entire working career do not have access to this doctor unless you are willing to pay out of your own pocket. Where is the freedom in that?

 

Right now, some are trying to address these violations of personal rights by lobbying for legislation that that allows exemptions for religious convictions. Tyrants are trying to get around those protections by severely limiting what religion means. And the organizations that are helping those who are being sued for supposedly violating someone’s civil rights are doing so only in the limited sense of protecting someone from having to engage in artistic expression that involves a violation of their morals.

 

But such a narrowly defined limitation of the government’s power to compel activity Is contrary to the Constitution and the concept of a free society. The answer to all of this is very simple: Set everyone free. Make it so that people can run their lives – which includes their businesses, churches, personal activities – yes, the entirety of their existence – however they want to. Let them be racist, “homophobic”, self-righteous, even hateful, so long as they do not violate the rights of another to pursue their lives as they see fit. And acknowledge that no one has the right to require another person to provide them with anything. No one has a right to force someone else to bake them a wedding cake, take their wedding pictures, or cater a reception for a gay wedding. Or a Muslim wedding. Or a Christian wedding. Or any particular wedding for any reason the service provider may have. All have the right to look for someone who is willing to provide those services, but no one has the right to force anyone to perform a service for them. 

 

No one has the right to tell a person they cannot fly a Confederate flag or even a Nazi flag in their front yard unless they bought said property with such restrictions already in place and as part of the purchase agreement.

 

Political liberty is not just about me being allowed to conduct my life as I please; it is about everyone being allowed to conduct their lives as they please whether or not it meets with my approval!

 

If you do not want the government to enforce someone else’s private moral system on you, do not try to make government enforce your private moral system on others. Freedom is grand, but there is no real freedom until everyone is free. And real freedom demands tolerance of those things you do not approve of. Not acceptance or approval, but tolerance. So if you want a politically and socially free society, you must be ready to tolerate a lot of things you do not approve of.

 

But that is a small price to pay for freedom.

Does the Bible Condemn Homosexuality?

An answer to a blog post on Theo Geek:

http://theogeek.blogspot.com/2008/02/homosexuals-shall-not-inherit-kingdom.html

It is only in recent times that "western" culture has considered the idea that homosexual attraction is normal and homosexual activity does not have at least some taint on it.  In our day, those who are afflicted with same sex attraction are trying to answer the Scripture's prohibition of homosexual activity by such efforts as are represented in the above-linked article, to wit, to take some of the Scripture's statements regarding homosexuality and question whether they are truly addressing the subject of homosexuality at all. It is never wrong to question our understanding of Scripture any more than it would be wrong to question our understanding of any area of knowledge; it is always possible that our understanding is wrong or at least capable of improvement.  But when doing so, we must make a full and honest investigation of it.

In the materials I have read, the questioning of the traditional Christian view of homosexuality centers on two things:  First, it is stated that the Old Testament prohibitions of homosexual activity are included with such laws as a prohibition on trimming the boundaries of one's beard, therefore, we need feel no more conscience-stricken over homosexual activity than we would over shaving. If that were the only Scripture dealing with homosexuality, then Christians would have a difficult time making a case against homosexuality.

The second challenge to the standard Christian prohibition comes from articles like the one I have linked. They question whether the words in the New Testament often translated "effeminate" or "homosexual" actually mean homosexual.  Again, there is nothing wrong with questioning our understanding of the words of the New Testament, but we must always do so honestly.  Moreover, we must be careful that we have taken into account all the Scriptures which address homosexuality.

Even if we dismiss the Old Testament texts and the New Testament texts containing the disputed words,  there are at least two condemnations of homosexual activity remaining which cannot be honestly disputed.  The first is Romans 1.26, 27.  Beginning in verse 18, Paul begins to teach how that God's judgment often takes the form of removing the natural restraints of conscience so that they begin to approve of things that a proper conscience would condemn.  Among the sinful things from which God removes natural restraints is one described in vv. 26, 27 as giving people over to "dishonorable passions" which are described as women changing the natural use of the man into one "contrary to nature."  In verse 27, Paul describes the same activity among men as "having left the natural use of the female, they were inflamed with desire for one another, male with male..."  There is no doubt about the definition of any of the words in this text nor can there be any question that he is talking about sexual activity. Nor can one confuse the issue by claiming the text address only rapacious homosexuality. It is simple homosexual attraction/activity that is described. Furthermore, there can be no question that Paul is teaching that homosexuality is against nature and to be given over to it is evidence of God removing His restraining hand of conscience so that men and women descend ever further into depravity gaining for themselves a just condemnation.

The other passage is the 7th verse of the book of Jude. This passage not only describes homosexual conduct without using words whose meaning can be questioned, it completely discounts the argument of some that the sin of those in Sodom and Gomorrah was actually the sin of in-hospitality.  James refers to their sin as sexual immorality, using the word which has been brought into our language in the word pornography.  And if any wish to argue that "porn" in Greek can refer to any sort of immorality, Jude's next phrase makes it specific: the men of Sodom were “going away after strange flesh.”  This echoes Paul’s words about leaving the natural pattern of human sexuality (going away) and going for something unnatural (strange flesh). 

There is an irony in the text.  The word translated “strange” is the Greek word “heteros” from which we get our prefix for “heterosexual.”  In Greek, “homo” means “same” and “heteros” means “other or different.”  So what we refer to as homosexuals,” Jude calls “heterosexuals” or more strictly “hetero-fleshists.”  The difference in our use of the terms as contrasted with Jude’s is that when we use homo or hetero to describe a person’s sexual orientation and/or activity, we are comparing a person’s own sex to the sex to which he/she is attracted.  So homosexual means one who is attracted to and/or sexually engages with his/her own sex.  But Jude is using the word heteros as a contrast between what sex a person SHOULD be attracted to and/or engage with and the sex to which he/she is actually attracted to and/or engages with.  So, Jude was referring to men who were attracted to and/or sexually engaged with people of the sex “other than” the sex to which they were supposed to be attracted to.  In other words, Jude’s “hetero-fleshists” were homosexuals.  

So, even if everything said in the above-linked article is true (and I am not affirming that it is), there is still content in the Scriptures that undeniably sets forth homosexuality as a deviant form of human sexuality and is condemned by the God of Scripture as sin.

A Word About Marriage and Divorce

First, a disclaimer:  This post is not designed to discourage, shame or otherwise disparage those who have gone through divorce.  While I hold that divorce is a terrible thing, it is not the worst thing.  Sometimes divorce is the only thing a person can do.  Rather, this post is written as a word of exhortation and encouragement to those who may be struggling in their marriages.  All married couples struggle to a greater or lesser degree.  The endlessly-romantic marriage free of serious conflict is a myth.  It is worse than a fairy tale for there are many who actually believe this myth and are, therefore, ill-prepared to deal with the very real struggles of being united to another sinful human being.

I have written this in response to the news of someone’s divorce and the way it was announced.  I hope it is useful to some to provide some added strength at a time when they may feel so weak that it hardly seems worth trying anymore.  This essay does not cover the legitimate reasons for divorce; that is not its purpose.  I will say up front that I do not think anyone is required to live in a truly dangerous situation.  This is not written to encourage people to stay with dangerous spouses.

************

I use Facebook….a lot.  I connect with my friends there and keep tabs on some of my family.  I have three grandchildren who live far away, and Facebook lets me watch them grow up more than I would be able were it not for all the nice pictures posted there.  I also follow several people,  groups and organizations.  One of the people I follow is a Christian musician.  He and his wife have produced some great music together and separately.  I have been brought to grievous tears and wonderful joys by their music.  I have been emboldened in the faith and had my understanding of the gospel clarified and confirmed.  I have advocated their music to many of my friends and a good many of them also enjoyed their music.  I have watched them perform live at least twice.

Today, I was going through my “newsfeed” and saw these words posted posted by the husband of that couple, “It is with great sadness that we announce that after 13 years our marriage has come to an end.”

I was somewhat surprised and greatly disappointed.  I tried not to be cynical.  I read some of the comments people had to say in response.  Some were good, some were mean, some were self-righteous and others seemed to treat the announcement with a sort of self-righteous grace that forbids anyone from passing any judgment on the divorce.

It took me awhile to realize why I felt so uneasy about it.  I am not ignorant of the reality of divorce among true believers.  Divorce may represent a horrible inconsistency in two believers who have vowed before God to remain married, but the truth is, believers are not all that consistent!  The Scriptures do not teach us to excommunicate divorced brethren either officially or unofficially.  Sometimes divorce is legitimate.  Sometimes divorce is a great sin, like the other great sins of which God’s people may be found guilty.

But, something beyond any disappointment over the fact of the divorce was nagging me.  Then it occurred to me.  Note how the announcement of the divorce was worded: our marriage has come to an end.  It sounds almost gentle, passive, a little melancholy to be sure, but an unavoidable conclusion.  It is worded as a difficult but dignified joint decision.  They tried, they gave it all they had, but it just wasn’t meant to be.  They were not divorcing.  They were not actively involved.  Their marriage came to an end.

I hate it when politicians try to couch their failures in pretty words.  Their sins are called  mistakes, poor judgment, a lapse.  One politician, when asked about rumors of his infidelities, famously answered, “I have brought pain to my marriage.”  That sounds so much better than , “I cheated.”  “I exercised poor judgment,” sounds so much better than, “I acted like a pervert.”

But, as much as I hate it when politicians speak like that, it is what we have come to expect.  But believers?  Are we who believe supposed to couch our sins in politically-correct, soft jargon?  Yes, we sin, but dare we multiply our sin by softening its name?  Why did they not say it as it is, “We have decided to end our marriage”?

I do not want to press this too far for I realize we have heard this kind of talk for so long we may think that is the way we should speak.  Plus, it is not necessarily the couple who wrote up the announcement; it was likely a publicist.  The couple, themselves, may be very remorseful over what has happened.  Maybe their own words would have been much more plain. But the form of the announcement points out a disastrous attitude that has crept into the church of the Lord Jesus.  I am not surprised to find this attitude in the world but it is sad to see it in the church.  There is only one way for a marriage to come to an end and that is for the life of one or both of the participants to come to an end.   So, for this couple, their marriage did not come to an end, they simply decided to stop being married.  They have put a stop to their marriage before it reached its end.  That is what divorce is: the destruction of a marriage before it reaches its end.

For a thing to reach its end means that it has achieved its purpose or run its designated course.  Let me illustrate.  Often when churches sing a hymn, they do not sing the entire hymn. Maybe they think it too long or one or more of the stanzas do not fit their doctrine, so they do not sing all of the hymn. Now, imagine a hymn of four stanzas.  The song leader says, “Let us stand and sing the first three stanzas of hymn number so and so.” The congregation stands, sings the first three stanzas and sits back down.  Someone may describe that with the words, “The hymn came to an end and the people sat down.”  But that would not be accurate.  The hymn did not come to an end, the congregation simply quit singing before the hymn came to its end.

And, when two people divorce, their marriage did not come to an end, they simply quit being married before they got to the end of their marriage.  In divorce, marriages do not fall apart; one or both of the participants destroys it.

There are cases in which one of the participants has done all they can to build and maintain the marriage but the marriage has been destroyed by the other partner.   Sometimes the abuse becomes so bad that, as bad as divorce is, staying together is even worse.  But, I am afraid we have so softened the concept of divorce by the words we use to describe it that people see it as no big thing (or not as big a thing as it really is) and, therefore, they are not pushed to the limits of their endurance to try to make the marriage work.  They hit some troubles they are unwilling to work through or around, and they say, “Our marriage has come to an end.”  The result is not just sin, it is the destruction of something that could have been good – something that, with the grace of God, might have been salvaged to the benefit of all involved.  Instead, the easy way was chosen, kicking the problem out of the way rather than facing it head on and solving it.

Let me make another illustration.  A few days ago I decided to take some time off to relax a little.  It may seem strange, but I find it relaxing to drive around in areas to which I have never before been.  So I drove through the country for awhile, finally arriving in the NW section of Sioux City, IA.  I turned off the main road and began to drive here and there in the residential sections enjoying the architecture of the houses, both classic and modern.  On a few occasions, I came to a dead end in the road.  I was near the edge of town, so some of the roads simply quit.    Instead of facing pavement, I was facing weeds.  So, I turned around and went searching for another road to drive on.  The road had come to an end but my journey had not.  I did not throw up my hands in desperation thinking my relaxing trip had been ruined by the dead end.  I just sought another route.

It may be that some of you have come to a dead end in your marriage.  The both of you are in a car, so to speak, looking at weeds rather than pavement.  You may be thinking, “This is not what I signed on for.  This is not fulfilling.  I’m just going to get out and find a car going the way I want to go.”

Stop right there!  This may be the end of a road, but it is not the end of your journey together.  Turn back, find another road and keep going.  Keep looking for a different road until you die or the other person quits.  But, don’t you quit.  Don’t say, “Our marriage has come to an end,” when, in reality, you have simply come to the end of one road.  Maybe you took a turn you should not have.  Maybe you were just not paying attention.  Maybe you were put in the passenger seat and, more or less, got to this point through no fault of your own.  Then use this occasion to talk to the driver and encourage him/her, not to quit, but to find a different path.

Some of you may have come to the end of Romance Drive, and you think it signals the end of your marriage. Romance has come to an end so you think marriage has come to an end.  You remember how thrilling it was when you first met and how wonderful the early days or even years of your marriage were.  There was excitement.  He/she “made you laugh.”  But now, life is rather hum drum.  You are knee deep in children and bills.  Most nights end with exhaustion and falling into bed and to sleep with quick succession.  As the years go by, he looks less like Prince Charming and she no longer resembles Cinderella.

But, have you noticed how the story of Cinderella ends?  Cinderella ends just as the romance begins.  Why is that?  Well, first, because the conflict of the story has been resolved and the moral of the story properly revealed.  In literature, once the conflict is resolved, the story is supposed to end.  But there is another reason the story ends at the beginning of romance:  married life is too boring for anyone to read.  I don’t know anyone whose day-to-day life I want to read about.  The picture of Prince Charming putting that slipper on Cinderella’s foot is great, isn’t it?  But, despite what the story says, they did not live happily ever after.  They had their struggles.  I can see the same scene some several years later.  Prince Charming has a paunch and Cinderella is not in a gown but a worn out robe and as Charming bends down to help her put on her fuzzy slippers, he notices her feet are dirty, calloused and smell bad.  That’s when a real marriage starts.

Admittedly I have spoken with a little humor to illustrate the point.  But life is not usually humorous.  It can be very tiresome.  Marriages can become stale relationships devoid of any enjoyment.  But, that must not signal an end.  Rather, let it be, at most, an alarm, a warning that the present course is wrong and needs changing.

But, more than this, give up on the romance myth.  Romance is nature’s trick to insure the survival of the species.  I am not saying it is bad or that we should not enjoy romance when it is present or seek it when it is absent.  But recognize it for what it is: transient feelings.  Romance is fickle and changes with the wind; love is unchangeable and enduring.  I can say that I fell in love with my wife the first time I saw her.  However, it was not until sometime later that I began to love her.  Since that time, I have fallen in and out of love with her countless times, but, I have never ceased to love her.  Being “in love” with someone is a self-ward thing, a feeling of desire for something.  Loving is an other-ward thing, a determination of the will to do good for love’s object.  I love being in love with my wife, but I am determined to love her.  Maybe you have come to the end of being in love.  Fine.  Now start loving.

Another reason for divorce is often described as, “We have just drifted apart.”  This is a change of metaphors: cars don’t drift apart; boats do.  But it is a good metaphor for it points out, not only the problem but the reason.  You cannot drift apart if you are in the same boat. If you have drifted apart you never truly married yourselves one to another or at some point, you disconnected your lives from one another.  Marriage begins with vows and a physical union, but it is supposed to go on to a union of lives, an entanglement of destinies.  I suppose that children are the best example of this: no single person can make a child, it takes two and that child joins them.  A child is a true expression of the "one flesh" concept. But a child is only one expression of what it means to be "one flesh."  All of us know those who are so united in their marriages that you can hardly think of one without the other.  You almost never speak of one without the other.  They are, for all intents and purposes, one person.  But those who “drift apart” have failed to stay joined in the pursuit of life.  They each went their separate ways, unwilling to give up any of their own ways in behalf of the other.  They did not pursue a shared destiny and one day they looked up and found they were no longer near one another.

Have you drifted apart?  Then, do not give up.  Row! Put up a big sail! Go full throttle on the engines and full speed ahead back to one another.  Tie your boats together. Better yet, embark in a single boat.  Work together. Chart a course together.  Through calm seas of boredom and troubled seas of unbearable trial, stay together!  Is your ship swamped?  Work together to right it.  Bail together.  Keep it floating.  Someday, you will be glad you did.

So far I have mentioned those matters which generally arise from simple selfishness.  It was not so much that the couple did something positively wrong, they simply did not pay attention or did not give effort to doing the right thing.  But, what of active harm to the marriage?  What if one of the partners cheats, breaks his/her wedding vows and commits adultery.  All the record of human history speaks with a single voice that this is the deepest of personal betrayals.  The violation of the marriage bed is the most egregious of violations.  Seeing that marriage is the pinnacle of human relationships, the violation of that relationship is the pinnacle of violation.

But, not even adultery means that the marriage has come to an end.  Something, indeed, has come to an end, but not the marriage.  Trust and all that goes with it has been broken.  Sexual unfaithfulness has brought many to the end of the road on their marriage. But it is not and end of the marriage.

In most cases, the infidelity is in only one partner, but sometimes both have strayed from their vows.  However, though they have broken their vows, that does not mean that the marriage formed by those vows is broken. Nor does it mean that it cannot be fixed with trust restored and even something better than before built up. 

What should you do?  Let me give my advice, based on what I have heard from others:  If you are the unfaithful one you must completely cut it off with your illicit partner.  I do not care how long it has gone on or how deep your emotional bond has become.  It is over.  Done.  End it.  It should never have started and there is no justification for continuing it.  If God has been pleased to keep you infidelty secret and no one else knows, keep your mouth shut.  Especially, do not unload your guilt on your spouse.  If he/she does not know, allow them to remain in blissful ignorance.  However, if they do know and confront you with it, do not try to lie your way out of it.  That will only increase the sense of betrayal.  Confess it and ask for forgiveness.  Do everything you can to restore the bond of peace, trust and love.  Return to your vows.  And, whatever course your spouse chooses, you must remain faithful.  Do all you can to rebuild what you have broken down and ask God for grace to help you.  You are definitely in a time of need. (Hebrews 4.16)

If you are the one who has been wronged:  This does not mean your marriage has come to an end.  No doubt you feel terribly betrayed and are likely hurt and angry enough for violence.  If you were to take this as a destruction of your marriage and initiate legal proceedings to dissolve the legal union, there are not many who would fault you for it.  Not even the law of God would fault you for it.  And, if you want to be under law, you are free to pursue that course.

But, if you are under grace – if you claim the forgiveness of sins through the blood of Christ – then there is a much more glorious course for you to take: forgive even as you have been forgiven.  You are hurt beyond healing – or so it seems.  But, your pain can teach you something: it can teach you how awful your own sin is in the sight of God.  (note: I do not mean that you share in the sin of your spouse’s failure as though it is partially your fault – only that all of us have sin before God).   Until now, you knew something of God’s view of your sin for you have been given grace to see the wrath of the Judge satisfied in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ.  But there is more to our sin against God than the mere violation of the command of a King – it is a violation of our vows to our Beloved.  Every sin is a betrayal of the God who made us, loved us and redeemed us with the blood of His Son.  Our sin hurts Him.  God put it in human terms.  As the Father is grieved by the waywardness of a son, so is God grieved by our sin.  As a friend is overwhelmed with sorrow by a betrayal (think Judas) so is our God brought to tears, as it were, by our sin.  As a husband is broken by a wife’s unfaithfulness, so was our Redeemer broken for our sins – every one of them.  I think of the scene at Lazarus’ tomb.  It is written that Jesus wept.  There has been endless speculation over why he wept.  Maybe the answer is complex, but I think it must include our Lord’s great grief over the sin that brought death – the sin that separated Him from His beloved and required His death to heal the breach.

You who have been cheated: how great your hurt must be!  Know that your sin has hurt your heavenly Bridegroom as much or more. Seek to be restored to Him by His grace and know that He will not turn you away though your sins and betrayals are many.  And, fresh with the knowledge of your sins forgiven, forgive your earthly spouse of all the hurt he/she has heaped on you.  Forgive, not just in the sense that you will not force them to go away.  Forgive them in restoring to them all the rights and privileges of marriage. Using the language of Scripture, have your spouse defiled the marriage bed?  The sooner you restore them to the marriage bed, the sooner it will be a pure bed again. Restore trust.  At the cost of our own vindication, set them up once again as the love of your life.

You may say, “I can’t do that.”  That is likely true.  But, I do not call on you to use your own strength to do it.  Rather, relying on Christ, Who loved you and gave Himself for you in order to forgive your sins, forgive this sin your spouse has committed against you.  If you forgive as God, for Christ’s sake has forgiven you, you will not regret it.

This essay could continue for many more pages covering many more of the multiplied problems that people face in their marriages.  But, all can be summarized in this:  Let your marriage come to an end; don’t stop it short of its end.  I cannot guarantee a Hallmark Channel ending to your efforts.  But, however things pan out, you will be glad that you did not quit, that you let your marriage run its designated course and achieve its assigned purpose.  And, if both partners work at it, and God gives a full life, the time will come when you will look across the room at someone to whom you gave all your devotion and effort – and you will be glad you did.

Pride, Preachers, and the Word of God

When ye received the word of God which ye heard from us, 

ye received it not as the word of man, 

but as it is in truth, the word of God. 

1 Thessalonians 2:13

Pride is a great tool in the hand of Satan to make the preached word ineffective.  And nowhere do we see pride more in exercise than over this issue of the word of God being preached by sinful men.  If one has heard the word of God, he has heard it "from us," that is, sinful men called to declare the unsearchable riches of Christ.  Contempt for the preacher often leads to contempt for the word he preaches, and if it is God's word he preaches, how dangerous it becomes to show contempt. 

This Is My Beloved Son

God will glorify the Son.  John 13.32

I love to brag on my children.  In my eyes, they are among the finest of people, possessed of talents and qualities everyone should find impressive and want to hear about.  So, I often tell others about them.  I believe all parents should feel that way about their children and build them up in the eyes of the public.

How much more the heavenly Father!  How He loves and delights in His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ; and how determined He is to make that glory known to all the universe.  There is nothing about the Lord Jesus that the Father finds embarrassing, but in every point, Christ is the “spittin’ image” of His Father.  In righteousness, justice, grace, mercy, love, power, and glory, Christ matches His Father to such a degree that He could say, “He that hath seen me hath seen the Father.(John 14.9)  Therefore God has given Him the preeminence in all things;  has “committed all things into His hands;” has made Him, “head over all things,” has “seated Him at God’s right hand,” is “bringing all things in subjection to Him,” and has sent His Spirit into the world to testify of Him and empower preachers to declare Him.

We could rightly say that God is enamored of His Son, and to such a degree that He insists that all others be likewise enamored of Him.  To reject the Son is to reject the Father: to receive the Son is to receive the Father.  May God reveal to each of us the glory of His Son, that we may, with the Father, glorify the Son!     

Unbelief and Blessing

In my alarm I said, "I am cut off from your sight!"  

Yet you heard my cry for mercy when I called to you for help. 

Psalm 31:22

 The Lord must endure a great deal of unbelief from us.  We are often so alarmed by the things of this life that we say, or at least think, "I am cut off from God's sight!"  A slight turn in providence, a little trouble in life, a loss of spiritual enjoyment on our part, or the fall to some pet sin and we are ready to proclaim that we are lost, that God has lost His patience with us and that our sin has evidently become to much for His grace.  Thankfully, God has pity on us, recognizing that we are merely dust, easily blown about by the winds of trouble.  So when our doubtful, despairing plea for mercy rises to His throne, He hears it as though it were delivered in the full confidence of perfect faith and, in His time, comes to our aid, proving once again that all His promises can be believed at all times. 

With shamefacedness, all we who profess to believe must profess after this manner "Lord, I believe: help Thou my unbelief."  I have heard many a preacher blame their inability to work miracles on the lack of faith in those who wanted the miracles.  Our Lord is not so restricted.  He rescues those whose faith is so weak so as to be unable to keep them from the despairing cry of the Psalmist. 

My blessings have been too great and my faith too weak to allow me to think that the strength of my faith determines the greatness of my blessings.  I am rather forced to conclude that the greatness of my blessings is determined by the greatness of the God who gives them; and the certainty of my salvation does not change with the wavering of my faith, but is as unchangeable as the God who worked my salvation. 

It is a shame that God's people can prove to be so weak in faith, but it is a great glory to God that He is so strong in salvation despite the weakness of our faith.