I've been thinking about the God Particle alot lately. Not that I really even begin to understand it. But it's been on my mind. Let me explain.
Some 15 or 20 years ago, I picked up a book called "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" by Richard Rhodes and couldn't put it down. It's a history of particle physics, laying the ground work for the Manhattan Project, the code name for the secret government project to develop the atomic bomb in time to stop World War II. This book introduced me to quantum mechanics and the men and women behind these theories. I was fascinated and read book after book on this subject, particularly about the scientists themselves. I couldn't get enough of Bohr, Fermi, Dirac, Einstein, Lawrence, Heisenburg, Oppenheimer and especially Richard Feinmen. I learned that the picture of the atom that I learned in grade school, high school, and even college was hopelessly incorrect- that electrons don't orbit around the nucleus like planets around the sun.
In fact, we really don't know what an electron is. Or exactly where it's supposed to be at a given instant. Quantum physics works in probabilities- that it's quite probably that a given electron will appear in a given location, but that's all. Probabilities. We can't know for sure.
And it gets worse. Light can exhibit the properties of a wave, like a pebble dropped into a lake- we all know how light waves scatter, reflect, and interact. But it also exhibits properties of a particle, which your old tube TV set was based on- firing photons from the "gun" to the screen to make an image. Which is it? A wave or particle? It can't be both... The answer? It depends on how you look for it. It seems you can actually impact it's very core properties by your own observation.
Faced with these difficult issues, Einstein made his famous quote "God does not play dice." This is not the last time we hear the name of "God" invoked...
As time went on, physicists identified four Fundamental interactions by which particles react to each other; "fundamental" because they can't be explained by any other interaction. These are as follows:
Strong Nuclear Force- how do all those positively charged protons in the nucleus keep from flying out?? Remember, like charges repel each other.
Weak Nuclear Force- how and why do atoms decay? What causes this thing called radioactivity?
Electromagnetism- what explains the electric and magnetic forces between objects?
Gravity- while our most familiar force, it has characteristics and properties that still baffle the greatest scientific minds.
Scientists are working on a theory that will unite these four fundamental forces into one giant equation, called the GUT or Grand Unification Theory. So far, they have been able to unite the first three into an equation, but have been unable to bring in gravity.
The math to unite these is complex, but has been highly successful. Over the years, the math has predicted that certain subatomic particles should exist, but have not been discovered yet. Many times, what that mathematics has predicted has been found by experiment. A fellow by the name of Steven Weinberg (with colleagues) was responsible for the equation that linked the first three forces into something called the Standard Model. As particles were discovered to match the Standard Model, Weinberg was awarded the Nobel Prize. He integrated his math with a fellow named Higgs, which resulted in a description of all particles along with their predicted masses. There is still one major particle predicted that has not been found. In simple terms, experimental discovery of this particle may explain why particles have mass. Which relates to their behavior with respect to gravity...which ties everything together!
Which brings us to the God particle. Otherwise known as the Higgs Boson. This is the missing particle!
As you've probably read, a giant super collider came on line in Geneva, Switzerland a short time ago that made the news. This thing is built in a tunnel 300 feet below the surface, and is 17 miles long. It may be the most complex feat of engineering and technology ever assembled by mankind, at the cost of several billion dollars. You can check out what this looks like here:
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2008/03/god-particle/achenbach-text
Now somewhere along the line, a physicist by the name of Leon Lederman called the Higgs Boson "the God Particle", and even wrote a book by that title. Higgs himself tells the story that Lederman wanted to call it "the goddamn particle", because it's virtually impossible to find. However, "the God Particle" is more marketable and it stuck.
As I thought about the God Particle, I wondered what my smarter, more intellectual friends on the Web were saying. So I did a search. I expected to find some pretty technical discussions, along with some intelligent conclusions that we as Christians, might draw from the God Particles discovery (if its found).
This proved as elusive as the God Particle itself.
I found very little discussion, and what I did find was shocking and discouraging. There were two major viewpoints that I uncovered.
First, there were the Christian Wacko Contingent (CWC) that predicted the end of the world, based on the idea that the particle collider would produce a black hole that would in turn, swallow them up, along with their Aunt Matilda, her pet dog, and everything else. There were even several YouTube videos with these guys proclaiming "The END is NEAR". This didn't bother me so much, as it didn't actually come to pass, and I've seen my share of CWC's websites over the years.
What did, was the second viewpoint I encountered. This group, the Science Is Stupid League (SISL), posts blogs that start off "Dumb scientists. If they wanna find God, they should read the Bible. Yeesh. How stupid can they be, spending all that money, digging a hole, and thinking they'll find God at the bottom. " Then all their friends post comments in reply that say "Right on! They sure are stupid, snicker, snicker. God is gonna kill them, just like at the Tower of Babel."
Is this how dumbed down Christianity has become? As I read through these, I really was discouraged that Christians would be so negative about something they don't begin to have a clue about. They hear the name "God Particle" and immediately react, form an opinion, and get all their friends to agree to propagate the ignorance.
Finally, in the middle of one of these blogs with about 50 comments, a guy got on and said "Hey wait a minute...you guys really don't know what you're talking about." He went on to explain a bit about particle physics and the Higgs Boson and what it means.
He was immediately attacked.
But he persevered, with grace providing clear responses to their attacks.
Then he said something that struck a chord with me.
"I believe" he said, "that 'He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.'" Col 1:16
I don't really understand the weak force, or the strong force, or electromagnetism, or even gravity. And I can't fault scientists for developing theories...
But I do understand this: In Him all things hold together, whether at the subatomic level or the personal level, Christ is the author, creator, and sustainer of the universe. That's the Grand Unifying Theory of the Bible.
And one day, we'll all see the proof of this theory- Every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
Thoughts?
Eric
Update 10/01/08:
Remember the guy I mentioned above that won the Nobel Prize for his work on unifying the four fundamental forces, Steven Weinberg?
He did an interview last May with Newsweek magazine in which he was asked repeatedly about God, especially in relationship to what the Geneva Collider will uncover. His answers are quite revealing as to how a scientific atheist thinks. Two in particular stand out:
But won't some people expect to find the presence of a grand designer in that final theory? "That's what was thought at the beginning, but we see less and less possibility of that. The more we learn about the universe the less sign we see of an intelligent designer."
Are they also going to be disappointed about our position in nature, our purpose? "We don't see any purpose dictated to human beings in nature."
So Weinberg, an extremely intelligent Nobel Prize winning physicist, working on some of the most complex theories in the world, can't see any evidence of intelligent design in the universe, or any purpose in human life.
How sad.
You can read the whole article here: http://www.newsweek.com/id/128877/page/1
Monday, September 29, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Will We Ever Finish I Cor 7???
Hey There,
I apologize for not updating the blog recently. After Lindsey went back to Gordon and Joe went off on some mission trip thing, I've had a bit of a problem getting computer time in the evenings. Both Joe and Lindsey took their laptops with them, leaving the remaining four of us with one lousy stinking slow moving computer. Doesn't work very well in this crazy computer-dependant age!
So my solution is to bring my laptop home from work and use that! We'll see how it goes!
And speaking of this crazy computer age, I find that as usual, I'm on the falling edge of technology. Meaning that I'm behind the times! Way behind. Blogs started some years ago, and in my way of thinking, are still sort of new. And now that I finally started one, I find I'm totally out of date. See, one of my favorite blogs is one by Joe Carter (not MY Joe, but another one by the same name) called the Evangelical Outpost. I've been reading it most every day for a couple of years. Joe talks alot about current politics, about ethics, about world events, all from a Christian world view... and he has a pretty sharp sense of humor. I find his posts informative and challenging to my way of thinking.
I was surprised to find out about a week ago that good old Joe finds blogs a little too passe and has moved on to the next new thing- something called a Social Network (socnet). Check out his blog that describes what he is now doing and why.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/09/culture11-and-t.html
I'm disappointed! Not only do I find out that I'm totally old-school, but now I have to get used to something completely different if I want to interact with Joe... oh well.
I'm still left with Pyromaniacs, another amazing blog site that I check out every day. These guys are way cool- a little too over-the-top in-your-face Calvinists, but challenging, entertaining, and VERY funny. Their graphics and pictures are GREAT. Check them out- in particular, scroll down and read the blog from Sept 12- it comments on an article from a major Canadian newspaper (The Globe and Mail) that makes the premise that because Sarah Palin has a child with Down's Syndrome, then people will stop aborting babies with Down's Syndrome and will actually HAVE them instead. Very scary article...
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
Now on to I Corinthians chapter 7.
I woke up on Sunday morning a little discouraged. We're STILL in I Cor 7. This is really dragging. What more is there to say? I'm tired of this chapter. Time to move on....
That's what I was thinking.
Then I got reading the section for that morning's class- vs 17 to 24.
17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
It repeats three times that we should remain in the situation that God calls us in. And Paul uses two practical examples from the Corinthian's day- circumcision and slavery.
I got thinking about slavery. Paul basically says to not let that bother you. You're a slave. So what. You can still minister right where you are. Paul was in chains and he ministered. He didn't whine and cry and make excuses like I would do. He got down to business. And his chains were used by God in a remarkable way.
So I thought more about how we make excuses about out situations, so we don't have to minister. And I thought about the bigger context of the chapter (marriage), and how we sometimes make excuses about our spouses even. "If only I wasn't married to person xyz- then I could really be the Christian that God wants me to be..." Paul doesn't leave any room for that excuse either. Similar to all mankind, we are without excuse.
So this excited me about the chapter and about the verses. Maybe chapter 7 isn't so long after all!
Let me know what you think.
Eric
I apologize for not updating the blog recently. After Lindsey went back to Gordon and Joe went off on some mission trip thing, I've had a bit of a problem getting computer time in the evenings. Both Joe and Lindsey took their laptops with them, leaving the remaining four of us with one lousy stinking slow moving computer. Doesn't work very well in this crazy computer-dependant age!
So my solution is to bring my laptop home from work and use that! We'll see how it goes!
And speaking of this crazy computer age, I find that as usual, I'm on the falling edge of technology. Meaning that I'm behind the times! Way behind. Blogs started some years ago, and in my way of thinking, are still sort of new. And now that I finally started one, I find I'm totally out of date. See, one of my favorite blogs is one by Joe Carter (not MY Joe, but another one by the same name) called the Evangelical Outpost. I've been reading it most every day for a couple of years. Joe talks alot about current politics, about ethics, about world events, all from a Christian world view... and he has a pretty sharp sense of humor. I find his posts informative and challenging to my way of thinking.
I was surprised to find out about a week ago that good old Joe finds blogs a little too passe and has moved on to the next new thing- something called a Social Network (socnet). Check out his blog that describes what he is now doing and why.
http://www.evangelicaloutpost.com/archives/2008/09/culture11-and-t.html
I'm disappointed! Not only do I find out that I'm totally old-school, but now I have to get used to something completely different if I want to interact with Joe... oh well.
I'm still left with Pyromaniacs, another amazing blog site that I check out every day. These guys are way cool- a little too over-the-top in-your-face Calvinists, but challenging, entertaining, and VERY funny. Their graphics and pictures are GREAT. Check them out- in particular, scroll down and read the blog from Sept 12- it comments on an article from a major Canadian newspaper (The Globe and Mail) that makes the premise that because Sarah Palin has a child with Down's Syndrome, then people will stop aborting babies with Down's Syndrome and will actually HAVE them instead. Very scary article...
http://teampyro.blogspot.com/
Now on to I Corinthians chapter 7.
I woke up on Sunday morning a little discouraged. We're STILL in I Cor 7. This is really dragging. What more is there to say? I'm tired of this chapter. Time to move on....
That's what I was thinking.
Then I got reading the section for that morning's class- vs 17 to 24.
17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches. 18Was a man already circumcised when he was called? He should not become uncircumcised. Was a man uncircumcised when he was called? He should not be circumcised. 19Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing. Keeping God's commands is what counts. 20Each one should remain in the situation which he was in when God called him. 21Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble you—although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 22For he who was a slave when he was called by the Lord is the Lord's freedman; similarly, he who was a free man when he was called is Christ's slave. 23You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men. 24Brothers, each man, as responsible to God, should remain in the situation God called him to.
It repeats three times that we should remain in the situation that God calls us in. And Paul uses two practical examples from the Corinthian's day- circumcision and slavery.
I got thinking about slavery. Paul basically says to not let that bother you. You're a slave. So what. You can still minister right where you are. Paul was in chains and he ministered. He didn't whine and cry and make excuses like I would do. He got down to business. And his chains were used by God in a remarkable way.
So I thought more about how we make excuses about out situations, so we don't have to minister. And I thought about the bigger context of the chapter (marriage), and how we sometimes make excuses about our spouses even. "If only I wasn't married to person xyz- then I could really be the Christian that God wants me to be..." Paul doesn't leave any room for that excuse either. Similar to all mankind, we are without excuse.
So this excited me about the chapter and about the verses. Maybe chapter 7 isn't so long after all!
Let me know what you think.
Eric
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
I Corinthians 7 and Divorce
Hey Everyone,
Thanks for being patient and hearing me out as I brought out some different ways of looking at a couple of the divorce passages. This is a challenging topic for me and been a real struggle to address. The problem is that I bring some ideas about divorce with me to the table and I read and interpret the scriptures based on those ideas. It's a problem we all face in different areas of study. This one is especially difficult because on the face of it, the scriptures seem quite clear- divorce and remarriage are allowed in only two circumstances. Otherwise, the parties involved have to carry the penalty of their sin for the rest of their lives. This seems to me incompatible with the gospel message, the love and grace of God, and the main thrust of Jesus' teaching. I certainly don't want to find a way "around" the scriptures- I want to find out their true meaning and application.
I'd like to start with the so-called "Laws of Divorce" in the Old Testament, something I referred to briefly on Sunday. Any book, article, or discussion on divorce often starts at this point. What is quite eye-opening to me is the brevity of the subject in the OT, and what the REAL subject of the passage is. The main area of scripture referred to is in Deut chapter 24. Have a read through the Laws of Divorce (NIV)...
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
What's the topic of this passage?
Divorce? Well...not the main topic.
The topic is REMARRIAGE. It's a very narrow case where a twice-divorced woman is not allowed to remarry to her FIRST husband. In fact, it could be that the woman isn't even twice-divorced- her second husband could have died. Still, she cannot remarry her first husband.
Very interesting. Many Christian churches teach that marriage is once-for-all, meaning that the first marriage bond can NEVER be broken- never ever. They go on to teach that even if people are married, divorced and remarried to other people, they MUST go back to their ORIGINAL spouses to honor God.
So much for that theory.
The other point about this passage is that it does not rule out divorce or remarriage. Just remarriage under a very narrow circumstance.
A huge amount of discussion has been had for centuries on exactly what is meant by the man "finding something indecent about her". Exactly what is "indecent"? Jewish scholars have debated and written volumes on this subject. Their intent was to try and discover the exact legal cases when divorce could be allowed and couldn't be allowed, based on their interpretation of "something indecent". The Jewish writings reveal that they would take case after case of divorce/remarriage and try to figure out exactly what was allowed and what wasn't. There were conservative Rabbi's that said "something indecent" could only mean adultery, the only grounds for divorce. Others said that it could be almost anything, giving the man especially, the power over the woman to get rid of her for any reason whatsoever.
Which brings us to Jesus' day. That exact debate was still going on. The religious powers were wrangling over a number of issues, trying to pin them down exactly. They were legalists- trying to discover what they could get away with and what they couldn't. Looking for laws to burden the people, or loopholes to allow them to get their way.
Jesus gives the Sermon on the Mount and blows them away with six topics in chapter 5 of Matthew that should put an end to their legalistic debates- God cares about the HEART. He focuses on not the final action, but the MOTIVE that caused the action.
You heard it said "don't murder". I say if you're angry at your brother, it's murder.
You heard it said "don't commit adultery." I say if your look at a woman with lust, it's adultery.
And it goes on, for six topics.
Look at the fourth one, about taking oaths.
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Many Christians read this and say. "Oh man. Jesus says 'no oaths'. What if I get called into court and have to swear on the Bible and all that. The Bible forbids it, so what will I do??"
That's not what Jesus is saying. The problem Jesus was addressing was not oaths, but TELLING THE TRUTH. See, people in his day had a practice of lying. They also developed a system, with the help of the legalists, to find loopholes around telling the truth. They'd say "It's okay to stretch the truth as long as I don't swear an oath." Then the rules got more complicated- a person could lie as long as he didn't swear by heaven. Or some were saying what really matters is swearing by God's throne. Others said it wasn't the throne, but the earth, God's footstool....on and on it went. Lying and finding a loophole.
Jesus said "Enough. Let your yes be yes and your no be no." IE, tell the truth for crying out loud. No more crossing your fingers behind your back and no more stupid OATHS!!!
So we read Matthew 5 and we see all this and what is our reaction? Sadly, we entirely miss the point and become just like the legalists. We try to establish a complicated set of rules, regulations, and loopholes based upon Jesus' words in that sermon.
Remember what Jesus said at the start
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
We read that and immediately think that Jesus was talking about his ACTIONS. He went about and didn't murder, commit adultery, divorce, swear oaths, etc. We then apply His words to our actions.
I think it goes deeper then that. Much deeper.
And there's more...
Did you know that the term "fulfill the law" had a specific meaning in Jesus' day? When a rabbi told his followers that he was going to "fulfill the law", they understood him to mean that he was going to "tell the law", or "fully explain the law"- give it's true meaning and intent.
So in one sense, especially to the Jewish hearers of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was saying "I'm not here to get rid of the law, I'm going to explain to you WHAT IT WAS REALLY GETTING AT- God cares about your heart!"
Have a think about that, read Matthew 5 and the six topics, and see if you have a different perspective.
So much more to say...
Let me just summarize my points on divorce and remarriage that I gave you on Sunday.
1. God's standard is life-long marriage.
2. Divorce is not God's standard, but is permitted because of the hardness of our hearts (sin).
3. Both the OT and NT permit divorce and remarriage.
4. Divorce is not an unforgiveable sin.
5. Divorce and remarriage must be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Let me recommend an excellent book on the topic:
"Divorce and Remarriage- A Redemptive Theology" by Rubel Shelly
This book was written with a spirit of grace coupled with a desire to bow to the Scriptures. Shelly looks at all the occurances of the topic in both the OT and NT in detail, but in a very readable way.
Also, another good book is
"Divorce and Remarriage- Four Christian Views" edited by H. Wayne House.
This book looks at the four predominant views in Christian churches. Here's the description:
Divorce. No one likes it, but it doesn't go away. Even among Christians, the divorce rate continues to climb. How should Christians approach this issue? May Christians ever legitimately divorce? If they divorce legitimately, may they remarry?Not everyone who appeals to Scripture agrees on how we should understand what it says about divorce and remarriage. In this book, four authors present their distinct perspectives. Carl Laney argues that the Bible indicates that marriages are always intended to be permanent, that there is never a need for divorce and that remarriage is never permissible after divorce. William Heth contends that while there are legitimate biblical grounds for divorce, there are no legitimate grounds for remarriage after divorce. Thomas Edgar defends the position that Scripture allows for divorce and remarriage in cases of adultry or desertion. Larry Richards holds that Scripture, while decrying divorce and the pain it causes, points to a God of grace who will not condemn those who divorce and remarry.Such a sensitive debate cannot remain abstract, so a case study accompanies each position, followed by critical responses from each essayist. The result is a thoughtful, helpful resource for all who wish to think biblically about a crucial issue confronting the church.
Very informative and helpful.
Finally, when this topic comes up, people often quote a verse from Malachi "God hates divorce" and think the discussion is over at that point.
Did you know that God was speaking to a particular people at a particular time when He made that statement? In fact, if you read the passage, He was speaking about a particular TYPE of divorce that was going on, one common today. Have a read in Malachi and find out...you may be surprised!
Eric
Thanks for being patient and hearing me out as I brought out some different ways of looking at a couple of the divorce passages. This is a challenging topic for me and been a real struggle to address. The problem is that I bring some ideas about divorce with me to the table and I read and interpret the scriptures based on those ideas. It's a problem we all face in different areas of study. This one is especially difficult because on the face of it, the scriptures seem quite clear- divorce and remarriage are allowed in only two circumstances. Otherwise, the parties involved have to carry the penalty of their sin for the rest of their lives. This seems to me incompatible with the gospel message, the love and grace of God, and the main thrust of Jesus' teaching. I certainly don't want to find a way "around" the scriptures- I want to find out their true meaning and application.
I'd like to start with the so-called "Laws of Divorce" in the Old Testament, something I referred to briefly on Sunday. Any book, article, or discussion on divorce often starts at this point. What is quite eye-opening to me is the brevity of the subject in the OT, and what the REAL subject of the passage is. The main area of scripture referred to is in Deut chapter 24. Have a read through the Laws of Divorce (NIV)...
1 If a man marries a woman who becomes displeasing to him because he finds something indecent about her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, 2 and if after she leaves his house she becomes the wife of another man, 3 and her second husband dislikes her and writes her a certificate of divorce, gives it to her and sends her from his house, or if he dies, 4 then her first husband, who divorced her, is not allowed to marry her again after she has been defiled. That would be detestable in the eyes of the LORD. Do not bring sin upon the land the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance.
What's the topic of this passage?
Divorce? Well...not the main topic.
The topic is REMARRIAGE. It's a very narrow case where a twice-divorced woman is not allowed to remarry to her FIRST husband. In fact, it could be that the woman isn't even twice-divorced- her second husband could have died. Still, she cannot remarry her first husband.
Very interesting. Many Christian churches teach that marriage is once-for-all, meaning that the first marriage bond can NEVER be broken- never ever. They go on to teach that even if people are married, divorced and remarried to other people, they MUST go back to their ORIGINAL spouses to honor God.
So much for that theory.
The other point about this passage is that it does not rule out divorce or remarriage. Just remarriage under a very narrow circumstance.
A huge amount of discussion has been had for centuries on exactly what is meant by the man "finding something indecent about her". Exactly what is "indecent"? Jewish scholars have debated and written volumes on this subject. Their intent was to try and discover the exact legal cases when divorce could be allowed and couldn't be allowed, based on their interpretation of "something indecent". The Jewish writings reveal that they would take case after case of divorce/remarriage and try to figure out exactly what was allowed and what wasn't. There were conservative Rabbi's that said "something indecent" could only mean adultery, the only grounds for divorce. Others said that it could be almost anything, giving the man especially, the power over the woman to get rid of her for any reason whatsoever.
Which brings us to Jesus' day. That exact debate was still going on. The religious powers were wrangling over a number of issues, trying to pin them down exactly. They were legalists- trying to discover what they could get away with and what they couldn't. Looking for laws to burden the people, or loopholes to allow them to get their way.
Jesus gives the Sermon on the Mount and blows them away with six topics in chapter 5 of Matthew that should put an end to their legalistic debates- God cares about the HEART. He focuses on not the final action, but the MOTIVE that caused the action.
You heard it said "don't murder". I say if you're angry at your brother, it's murder.
You heard it said "don't commit adultery." I say if your look at a woman with lust, it's adultery.
And it goes on, for six topics.
Look at the fourth one, about taking oaths.
33"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.
Many Christians read this and say. "Oh man. Jesus says 'no oaths'. What if I get called into court and have to swear on the Bible and all that. The Bible forbids it, so what will I do??"
That's not what Jesus is saying. The problem Jesus was addressing was not oaths, but TELLING THE TRUTH. See, people in his day had a practice of lying. They also developed a system, with the help of the legalists, to find loopholes around telling the truth. They'd say "It's okay to stretch the truth as long as I don't swear an oath." Then the rules got more complicated- a person could lie as long as he didn't swear by heaven. Or some were saying what really matters is swearing by God's throne. Others said it wasn't the throne, but the earth, God's footstool....on and on it went. Lying and finding a loophole.
Jesus said "Enough. Let your yes be yes and your no be no." IE, tell the truth for crying out loud. No more crossing your fingers behind your back and no more stupid OATHS!!!
So we read Matthew 5 and we see all this and what is our reaction? Sadly, we entirely miss the point and become just like the legalists. We try to establish a complicated set of rules, regulations, and loopholes based upon Jesus' words in that sermon.
Remember what Jesus said at the start
17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them."
We read that and immediately think that Jesus was talking about his ACTIONS. He went about and didn't murder, commit adultery, divorce, swear oaths, etc. We then apply His words to our actions.
I think it goes deeper then that. Much deeper.
And there's more...
Did you know that the term "fulfill the law" had a specific meaning in Jesus' day? When a rabbi told his followers that he was going to "fulfill the law", they understood him to mean that he was going to "tell the law", or "fully explain the law"- give it's true meaning and intent.
So in one sense, especially to the Jewish hearers of the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus was saying "I'm not here to get rid of the law, I'm going to explain to you WHAT IT WAS REALLY GETTING AT- God cares about your heart!"
Have a think about that, read Matthew 5 and the six topics, and see if you have a different perspective.
So much more to say...
Let me just summarize my points on divorce and remarriage that I gave you on Sunday.
1. God's standard is life-long marriage.
2. Divorce is not God's standard, but is permitted because of the hardness of our hearts (sin).
3. Both the OT and NT permit divorce and remarriage.
4. Divorce is not an unforgiveable sin.
5. Divorce and remarriage must be looked at on a case-by-case basis.
Let me recommend an excellent book on the topic:
"Divorce and Remarriage- A Redemptive Theology" by Rubel Shelly
This book was written with a spirit of grace coupled with a desire to bow to the Scriptures. Shelly looks at all the occurances of the topic in both the OT and NT in detail, but in a very readable way.
Also, another good book is
"Divorce and Remarriage- Four Christian Views" edited by H. Wayne House.
This book looks at the four predominant views in Christian churches. Here's the description:
Divorce. No one likes it, but it doesn't go away. Even among Christians, the divorce rate continues to climb. How should Christians approach this issue? May Christians ever legitimately divorce? If they divorce legitimately, may they remarry?Not everyone who appeals to Scripture agrees on how we should understand what it says about divorce and remarriage. In this book, four authors present their distinct perspectives. Carl Laney argues that the Bible indicates that marriages are always intended to be permanent, that there is never a need for divorce and that remarriage is never permissible after divorce. William Heth contends that while there are legitimate biblical grounds for divorce, there are no legitimate grounds for remarriage after divorce. Thomas Edgar defends the position that Scripture allows for divorce and remarriage in cases of adultry or desertion. Larry Richards holds that Scripture, while decrying divorce and the pain it causes, points to a God of grace who will not condemn those who divorce and remarry.Such a sensitive debate cannot remain abstract, so a case study accompanies each position, followed by critical responses from each essayist. The result is a thoughtful, helpful resource for all who wish to think biblically about a crucial issue confronting the church.
Very informative and helpful.
Finally, when this topic comes up, people often quote a verse from Malachi "God hates divorce" and think the discussion is over at that point.
Did you know that God was speaking to a particular people at a particular time when He made that statement? In fact, if you read the passage, He was speaking about a particular TYPE of divorce that was going on, one common today. Have a read in Malachi and find out...you may be surprised!
Eric
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
