Crossroad Online
Vapor Trails
Hi, this is Pastor Ken, I want to welcome you to my Thoughts on a Thursday Podcast where I take some regular occurrence or personal story from my life and connect it to a scriptural truth. So here are my thoughts on this Thursday, June 1st, 2023…Vapor Trails
A few weeks ago my wife and I were at our little cottage in the Blue Ridge Mountains. As I often do when we are there I took some time to sit on the deck and relax, taking in the warm sunshine, the gentle breezes carrying the fresh mountain air and the sound…of silence. I was basking in my perfect recipe for peaceful relaxation sitting with my feet propped on a small wicker ottoman and my head leaned against the back of the loveseat. My eyes as they often are when I have assumed such a position were closed, until…the silence was interrupted by the faint and far away sound of a jet engine. I opened my eyes scanning the bright blue sky, and sure enough there it was. The airplane was too far away to be seen, but the direction it had come from and that it was headed in, were no mystery. The vapor trail it left behind was as clear as the sky it was traveling through. On one end it kept extending following a silver pinpoint that was in actuality a very large metal fuselage. On the far end the trail widened and became less sharp in the sky. Interestingly, though I knew the plane was traveling through the clear sky at high speed, the vapor trail was not getting any longer, as it extended forward it equally dissipated behind. Then as soon as it had appeared, it was gone, out of my line of sight.
A familiar thought when I see one of those vapor trails appear while I am enjoying a healthy dose of R&R, once again escaped my lips. I turned to my wife and said, “There go important people, traveling to important places, to do important things.” I always find the contrast of those people’s supposed existence…to mine in those moments…striking. In my mind’s eye those planes are crammed full of business men and women jetting to their next important meeting, where they will either succeed or fail. I imagine the stress they must be under as that metal tube propels them forward toward the next big thing in their lives. I on the other hand am so relaxed in my setting that I wouldn’t trade places with them for any amount of money, fame or success. Everything they are flying toward and working so hard for, could be gone as quickly as that vapor trail disappearing behind them. And, that peaceful mountain view I am taking in…that’s going to be there for a while.
James wrote about the disappearing act we are all engaged in. He reminds us that essentially we are all here today and gone tomorrow. However, He also pointed out that though we will not remain on this planet forever, our existence will continue on…even long after that awesome mountain view I enjoy so much, fades away. Allow me to read James 4:13-17 from my favorite paraphrase, The Remedy. There it is declared this way…
Pay close attention – especially those who say “In the next few days we are moving to a new city and will live there a year, open a business and make huge profits.” You don’t know what the future holds. Your life is like a vapor trail: here one minute and gone the next. You might not even be alive in a year. So stop being so rigid with your preplanning – it only increases your stress. Instead trust God with your future and how things turn out. Learn to say, “If it is in harmony with God’s plan for my life, then that is what I will do.”, and you will worry so much less. As it is you focus on yourselves; you brag, boast, and try to control everything in order to advance your own agenda. All selfishness is destructive. Anyone who knows God’s methods of love but chooses selfishness deviates from God’s design for life.
I know that it is incorrect for me to assume every person on those planes in the sky above are headed to their next business meeting, to make their next pitch, and close their next big deal. Undoubtedly some are in route to their own vacation destinations to enjoy a little R&R themselves. No matter who they are, where they are headed or why they are going there, James has some words of wisdom good for us all.
So often we talk about our plans as if it is completely within our power to see them come to fruition. Are we even aware that if we make plans to do this or that and tell the people what we are going to do, we are putting ourselves in God’s position? We might simply think we are informing others of our plans, but if we express those plans without understanding they may only happen if God wants them to happen, we are speaking about them with authority we do not possess. The bible tells us that it is only in Him we live, move and exist. (Acts 17:28) Literally, that means I don’t even draw my next breath or experience the next pulse of my blood flowing through my veins, without His expressed say-so. Jesus said that without Him we can’t do anything. (John 15:5) In light of those scriptures and others like them, we can see just how foolish it is for us to say what we will do, or where we will go, as if we do so by our own ability or power. To think that way is to claim equality with God. As a result, it is a recipe for adding unnecessary stress to our lives. Anytime we make assertions about what the outcome of something will be, especially if that thing is not completely within our control (and nothing is completely within our control), we create our own stress-filled environment.
If instead we do as James suggests and say if it is the Lord’s will I will go here and do this or that, we aren’t saddled with the weight of making sure it all goes according to our plan. Does this mean we shouldn’t plan ahead? Of course not. There are all kinds of scriptures that say we should plan, save, and make provision for tomorrow. Proverbs tells us that in the house of the wise are stores of choice food and oil. However, we ought to express our plans with this exception…If it is the Lord’s will, I will…dot-dot-dot. The point of this is not as some might think to give God the option of vetoing or endorsing our plans. I think it is more profound than that. I think James is correcting our behavior that we might learn to seek the Lord more regularly for His plans, because that initiates a subtle but necessary change in us. When we seek the Lord’s desires before making our plans, we become outward thinkers. When we seek His will before determining our direction, we are putting Him above us as we should…and that develops selflessness.
Why is selflessness so important? Because selflessness is godly. When we are focused on where we are going and what we are going to do, the theme is we, which is selfish. If instead our desire is to know where God would have us go, and what God would have us do, the theme becomes He, which is selfless…just like He is.
So now, Asking God where you should go, and what you should do, before you declare to others…Go be Awesome!
Marriage and Divorce Vol. 7
Hi, this is Pastor Ken thanks for joining me once again for the Monday Marriage Message where we search God’s instructions to experience a highly successful marriage.
We are currently looking at the topic of Marriage and Divorce, and what God’s word has to say concerning it. This will be our seventh installment in that series. As I have mentioned previously, I understand this is a complex topic, and even as we search the scriptures for answers, it can be daunting. However, all truth originates with God, and if we are to know how to succeed in our marriages we must be willing to explore His truth. We have been exploring the conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees where this topic was discussed at length, and using that as our focal scripture. I mentioned that Jesus, desiring to speak primarily about the righteous subject of marriage, asked the Pharisees about the law hoping they would expound on Genesis 2:24. Rather they chose to focus on Deuteronomy 24:1-4 to defend their perspective concerning their ability to divorce.
As we made our way through most of that scripture phrase-by-phrase I pointed out some important details relevant to the correct interpretation of it, and mentioned that the Pharisees, as scholars of the law, would have been well aware of each of those truths.
- Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is case law not demonstrable law – it’s structure leaves no question as to its classification.
- In Old Testament case law, the directive is given only after the facts of the case are presented and no legislation should be derived from those facts-in-evidence unless it had been presented elsewhere in the law previously.
- To conclude that the facts-in-evidence equated to demonstrable law where none had formerly existed was an illegitimate reading of the law. This is important in this situation because several errant conclusions were being drawn (though I don’t believe they were arrived at unintentionally)
- Those from the school of Shammai (the more conservative group who I believe Mark wrote concerning) concluded that some indecency had to be discovered in one’s spouse to justify divorce. They errantly determined that the facts-in-evidence presented in the case law in Deuteronomy 24:1 equated to God-ordained grounds for divorce. This is supported by their initial question to Jesus, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?” I think they knew they had misrepresented case law as demonstrable law and were as Mark stated, asking this question for the purpose of testing Jesus. If He answered that it was not lawful they would have espoused their inaccurate reading of the law to be correct, if He would have said it was lawful, they would have pointed out that He apparently didn’t know case law from demonstrable law and shouldn’t be trusted as a Rabbi.
- Those from the school of Hillel (the more liberal group I believe Matthew referred to) also misconstrued the meaning of this scripture. They believed that the example of the second husband detesting his wife without a stated cause should be interpreted to mean that divorce was permissible for any reason a husband found himself displeased with his wife. They too, demonstrated this by their initial question to Jesus recorded for us in Matthew. “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” If Jesus had simply said no, He would have begun a heated dispute between the two groups of Pharisees and been the apparent cause of a large public disruption. If He had answered “Yes, any reason will do” the Pharisees from either group could have pointed out that the Rabbi obviously didn’t understand that case law was not demonstrable law.
- Both groups of Pharisees were misrepresenting that Moses had specifically instructed them as to how to obtain a divorce. Because the listed circumstances of the case included an accepted societal procedure used to validate divorce, The Pharisees were selfishly misappropriating it as Mosaic law. In order for the facts-in-evidence to contain such law, it would have had to already been “on the books” so to speak. This is not the case. The contents of the book of Deuteronomy have long been agreed to be a “Farewell Sermon” from Moses to the people just prior to his death and their entrance into the Promised Land. It is widely accepted to be a summary of much of the law found in the book of Exodus and does not contain any ‘new’ demonstrable law. As such, any legislation contained in Deuteronomy would need to reinforce law already existing in the Pentateuch. Although Leviticus mentions divorce 3 times, Numbers refers to it once and Deuteronomy makes note of it 2 other times prior to chapter 24 none of those examples give any instruction pertaining to the process for divorce. Without any prior mention of demonstrable or case law legislating the procedural format legitimizing divorce, one cannot be justifiably concluded from Deuteronomy 24:1-4.
With that understanding we can now look at the actual legislation found at the conclusion of this passage and determine what its true meaning is. Deuteronomy 24:4 Then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
The law given in response to the circumstances of the case is simple; If a man divorces his wife and she remarries, he is not to marry her again later regardless. The stated reason for this law is slightly more complex. Marriage was always intended to be a covenantal relationship that reflected the image and likeness of God. Divorce mutates that design, and is the reason God said He hates divorce in Malachi 2:15, a scripture we will look at more closely in a future episode. This particular scriptural statute however emphatically dictates that once the woman in this situation remarried, her former husband was never to marry her again no matter what may come in the future. It clearly says, that to do so would be an abomination before the Lord. Let’s consider the reasoning for such strong language.
In Deuteronomy 24:1-4 the reason given for the initial divorce was indecency – this indiscretion would not have been adultery or fornication as the legal remedy for those at the time was death by stoning. The indecency referred to here would have been a lesser offence. The Hebrew word used in the statute is Er-vah and literally means nakedness and might indicate that the wife had shown too much of herself to another man or in a public setting. It’s possible that she have spoken some indecent thing to another man, whatever the case was it was less egregious than the sexual act of adultery, which would have as I said a moment ago carried a penalty of capital punishment. Jesus made it clear in our focal scriptures that anything short of adultery is not considered grounds for divorce in God’s eyes.
Mark recorded that after the conversation with the Pharisees had presumably concluded His disciples asked Him more about the matter privately. There we read that Jesus said to them that if a man divorced his wife and married another he committed adultery, and that if a woman divorced her husband and remarried that she would be committing adultery. (Mark 10:11-12) I believe that Jesus was reinforcing for His disciples that God considers marriage a life-long covenantal relationship that is not designed to end except by the death of a spouse. Earlier Jesus had told the Pharisees that in marriage a man and a woman are joined and made one by God, and that mere man should not try to undo what God has done (Mark 10:8-9).
Matthew records that Jesus had more to say to directly to the Pharisees who had asked Him if they could divorce for just any reason. Matthew wrote that Jesus told them that if they divorced for anything short of pornia – sexual immorality, and remarried they would be committing adultery. He added that if they married a divorced woman they would also be committing adultery. (Matthew 19:9) There are several theories as to why the book of Matthew is the only one of the synoptic gospels that includes the exception clause for pornia. My belief on this distinction centers around the theory that there were two different groups of Pharisees each asking Jesus their own questions. Allowing that to be accurate, the more conservative of them (spoken of in Mark) would have been experiencing a much lower rate of divorce than the more liberal group written about here in Matthew. I shared in previous episodes that there is far reaching belief among biblical scholars that those of the school of Hillel were using their interpretation that any reason for divorce was permissible, to divorce and remarry with regularity. Many of those scholars go so far as to say that this group of men were using their twisted version of Mosaic law to justify rapid divorce and remarriage, exclusively to satisfy their sexual desire for multiple partners. They felt that as long as they were married while having sexual relations it was permissible by the law so long as they divorced one woman before marrying another. I believe that when Jesus addressed these men He specifically said that pornia (adultery) was the only true grounds for divorce for multiple reasons.
- He wanted to drastically narrow and correct the parameters for divorce that these men had so dramatically widened.
- He wanted to identify that the condition of their perverse hearts and minds toward the God ordained institution of marriage was indeed sinful.
- I believe that He wanted to make the irony clear that the only reason God accepted for divorce was precisely what these sinful men were using a perverted view of the law to accomplish. Jesus had previously stated that if a man even lusted after a woman, God who reads the heart, saw it as the same as if he had actually committed the physical act (Matthew 5:28). I think Jesus was making it abundantly clear to these men that using the law to cover their tracks did not in any way absolve them of the guilt of being adulterers.
- Finally, I find it interesting that by making these statements concerning the consequences of marriage, divorce and subsequent remarriage, Jesus was explaining how the woman in the Deuteronomy 24 example became defiled by the 1st husband who divorced her, and why this was an abomination before the Lord!
Next time as we continue our study of Marriage and divorce, we will look at the scripture I mentioned earlier found in Malachi chapter 2.
So now, growing more steadfast each day to honor your marital commitments to your spouse and your God…Go be Awesome!
Marriage and Divorce Vol. 6
Hi this is Pastor Ken and I want to thank you for joining me yet again for the Monday Marriage Message. This is the sixth edition in our study on the topic of marriage and divorce. Last week we continued to listen in on the conversation between Jesus and the two groups of Pharisees as they exchanged questions and responses about marriage and divorce. Jesus was trying to keep the Pharisees on track by speaking in terms of marriage while the Pharisees were trying desperately to focus solely on the subject of divorce .
When we last examined their exchange it was the Pharisees turn to speak. Jesus had asked them what Moses had written in the law concerning the subject. As I noted, Jesus desired the conversation surround the righteous topic of marriage and so He was referring to Genesis 2:24 For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh. Jesus then added additional commentary; “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh, Therefore, what God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Mark 10:8,9 & Matthew 19:6). The first of the two groups of Pharisees, wanting to remain on the topic of divorce responded to Jesus question; “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and to dismiss her” (Mark 10:4) and the second group responded by asking Jesus, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and put her away?” (Matthew 19:7) As I mentioned in last week’s podcast these responses from the Pharisees were an attempt to twist the law so that they could interpret it the way they wanted to and feel justified in divorcing their wives. The portion of the law they were referring to is found in Deuteronomy 24:1-4, and today we will look at that scripture, and see what it actually says.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife, 4 then her former husband who divorced her must not take her back to be his wife after she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the Lord, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the Lord your God is giving you as an inheritance.
There are several things that must be taken into account in order to accurately interpret what this portion of the law is dictating. First it must be determined what kind of law this is. What I mean by that is what form does the law take? Basically there are two kinds of laws found in the Pentateuch [ˈpen(t)əˌto͞ok] (the first five books of the Old Testament). The first is demonstrable law, in which we find absolute commands or prohibitions and are simply the statutes of God. We recognize these as the “Thou Shalt…” and the “Thou Shalt Not…” laws. The ten commandments are a widely known example of demonstrable law. The second form of law found in the Pentateuch is case law. This form of law is given beginning with a description of the conditions under which the law is applicable. These cases usually begin with Hebrew words that are most accurately translated “if” or “when”. Following the conditions where the law would apply again usually following the word “then” the legislation is laid out. A good example of case law is found in Exodus 21:33-34. There the law dictates that if a man digs a pit and does not cover it, and an ox or donkey falls into the uncovered pit, then the man who dug the pit must pay the value of the ox or donkey to its owner and he (the one who dug the pit) takes possession of the dead animal. The statute opens with the conditions and closes with the ruling. There is no legislation in the conditions under which the law is to be carried out. In other words, in the example we just looked at there is no law dictating that a man is to dig a pit or refrain from such activity. It is inferred that if a pit is dug it is not supposed to be left open, carelessly creating a hazard for others. However, it is not until after the scenario is fully laid out that the legislation is produced, he will be held liable for damages someone else incurs because of his carelessness.
Deuteronomy 24:1-4 is an example of case law. In order for the Pharisees to make the claims they did in reference to this passage, they had to take the portion they knew full well was the presentation of the particulars of the case and illegitimately conclude them to be demonstrable law. This was an inaccuracy that contained too many interpretive errors to have been committed ignorantly by scholars of the law. These men understood the difference between demonstrable law and case law. They knew the structure of case law and were well aware that the legislation found there was given only after development of the circumstances. I think it important for us to examine where they miss-applied their interpretation.
Let’s begin with the opening phrase of this example from case law. “When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some uncleanness in her… The first stipulation offered for the enactment of the legislation is that a man has married a wife. That is quite self-explanatory. The second fact in evidence is that it happens that (in other words, after they are married) she finds no favor in his eyes. The word favor here comes from the Hebrew word [hen] which means grace and is the same word found in the Genesis text “Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord”. Continuing on we find out that in this case, the wife has not found favor or grace in the eyes of her husband because he has discovered some uncleanness in her. This translation – uncleanness – comes from the Hebrew word [er-vah] that means nakedness or indecency, and is offered as the reason the husband has found no favor in his wife.
The next phrase is simply a continuation of the circumstances that lead to the prescribed ruling. and he writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house. If we are to avoid being confused, or misled by the Pharisee’s attempt at deceit in their conversation with Jesus it is crucial to understand that this is as I said a moment ago, only a continuation of the facts in evidence. It is in no way meant to stand alone as a legislative decree. Why is this important? The Pharisees from the school of Shammai were purposefully and errantly noting the wife’s indecency as God determined grounds for divorce. Furthermore, they were attempting to equate a scripturally mentioned tradition of putting a certificate of divorce in the hand of an undesirable wife and sending her out of the marital home with a God ordained procedure where there is no evidence one ever existed.
The second verse of this passage offers further information which will ultimately lead to the actual legislation. 2 when she has departed from his house, and goes and becomes another man’s wife, in this case the wife has been divorced because of some found-out indecency involving her past or perhaps in the present, and it has caused her husband to no longer favor her. Additionally, it becomes apparent that she has remarried.
Verse 3 continues on with further important information about the case. 3 if the latter husband detests her and writes her a certificate of divorce, puts it in her hand, and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife,… The circumstances now dictate that one of two alternative scenarios takes place. The first variable would be if her new husband detests her. The original Hebrew text intimates that this husband would have also decided that he no longer is pleased by his wife, but no specific reasoning is offered for his change of heart toward her. The school of Hillel took this to mean that his displeasure with her was (A) open to any cause he deemed valid, and (B) errantly as their counterparts did, determined that because the existing tradition of a certificate of divorce was mentioned the process surrounding it could be interpreted as a God given procedural format for divorce. Again in order to subscribe to this errant exegesis many other accepted rules of interpretation had to have been ignored.
Lastly, this passage offers the other variable that could lead to the need for a statute at the conclusion of the case. Or if the latter husband dies who took her as his wife,… This is not only the conclusion of the case requiring a legislation from God, but it also goes to pointing out some of the logical inconsistencies the Pharisees were using to stipulate that earlier described circumstances from the case law were in effect equal to demonstrable law. If their logic was followed to its conclusion, then the death of a husband before that of his wife would also have to be considered demonstrable law. In other words, if we take the first two scenarios and equate the enactment of a divorce with a command from God, then one could conclude that God commanded that husbands must die before their wife.
Next time we will continue with our brief look at this passage that the Pharisees tried to contort to indicate that Moses had commanded them as to how to enact a divorce proceeding. We will look at necessary evidence needed to hold to that belief and the blatant fact that it does not exist. We will also examine some of the other problems the Pharisees had with their own interpretation of this passage and how they ignored those facts. Finally, we will look at the actual legislative portion of this passage from the law and discover the true meaning of the statute.
Questions to Answer:
- Until now, have you thought that God gave the people of Moses time a prescription for divorcing a spouse?
- Have your thoughts on that changed any as you look closer at the scriptures used to support it?
- What do you think about the two different grounds for divorce that were utilized in this case law from Deuteronomy?
- Do you think all, either, or neither of them are valid?
Actions to Take:
- Discuss what you have learned so far in this study with your spouse.
- Talk about how you think this is problematic for people in our society
So now, Keeping the focus of your relationship with your spouse on the righteous subject of marriage…Go Be Awesome!
Are We There Yet?
Hi, this is pastor Ken and these are my thoughts on a Thursday…Are we there yet?
When I was a child we spent a fair amount of time as a family traveling by car. For the better part of the first half of my upbringing we lived in areas far away from our hometown in Western New York State. For several years we lived in Columbia, South Carolina where my father attended Bible College and then we moved to the Susquehanna Valley of Eastern Pennsylvania, where he pastored his first church. Occasionally, we would travel home from either of those far-away places back to visit family in familiar territory. Each of those trips took place in the car.
In preparation, mom would pack our clothes, sandwiches and drinks, as well as the other necessary things to keep my brother and I busy for the duration of the trip. Dad always had the task of figuring out the puzzle that was required to get all of it to fit in the trunk, so that the back seat could be left free for two boys to play, argue with one another, and sleep during the trip. It really did feel like a journey in those days. The national speed limit back then was still 55 miles per hour, and as much as we complain about the condition of roads now, they were much more difficult to travel then. Many of the four lane highways we use these days were only two lanes during that time. Consequently, the trip from Eastern Pennsylvania back home took 6 to 7 hours and when we were traveling to or from South Carolina…those car rides could last upwards of 18 to 20 hours. Even prior to the constraints of children’s car seats and safety belts, with all those hours to travel, my brother and I would quickly tire of being restricted to confines of the back seat. It usually didn’t take long for one of us to pose the question asked by every kid at one time or another, “Are we there yet?”.
As a parent, I came to understand just how annoying that question can be. I can only imagine the number of times my parents heard it on one of our longer trips. In actuality, it is a good question to ask. Why? Because it indicates a level of trust. The child who poses that question believes they will at some time safely arrive at their destination, they just want to know when. It might be more accurately asked, “How much longer will this trip take?”, but it usually comes out as “Are we there yet?”. There was an occasion recorded in the Bible when I think Jesus would have welcomed the question, “Are we there yet?”.
In Mark 4:35-41 there is an account of one of the many journeys Jesus took with His disciples. Allow me to read it to you from the New Living Translation. 35 As evening came, Jesus said to his disciples, “Let’s cross to the other side of the lake.” 36 So they took Jesus in the boat and started out, leaving the crowds behind (although other boats followed). 37 But soon a fierce storm came up. High waves were breaking into the boat, and it began to fill with water. 38 Jesus was sleeping at the back of the boat with his head on a cushion. The disciples woke him up, shouting, Teacher, don’t you care that we’re going to drown?” 39 When Jesus woke up, he rebuked the wind and said to the waves, “Silence! Be still!” Suddenly the wind stopped, and there was a great calm. 40 Then he asked them, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?” 41 The disciples were absolutely terrified. “Who is this man?” they asked each other. “Even the wind and waves obey him!”
As I said a moment ago, I think Jesus would have preferred it if His disciples had roused Him to ask if they were there yet. Instead they abruptly woke Him up to ask “Teacher, don’t you care that we’re going to drown?”. After Jesus calmed the storm by commanding it to cease, He had a question of His own for His disciples. He asked them, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?”.
This was an interesting exchange, one that I think holds some important truths for us to consider. The beginning of this passage is key to understanding where the disciples went wrong, and why Jesus had to ask them if they still had no faith. Verses 35 & 36 say As evening came, Jesus said to his disciples, “Let’s cross to the other side of the lake.” 36 So they took Jesus in the boat and started out, leaving the crowds behind (although other boats followed). The scripture records that Jesus said Let’s go to the other side of the lake. This statement is very important. The men He said that to had recently seen Him do all kinds of miraculous things. They had been witness to Him enabling a paralytic to walk and completely restoring the skin of a person with leprosy. In fact, they had seen Him heal all kinds of illnesses and infirmities. They had even watched Jesus tell a man with a withered hand to hold it out in front of the entire synagogue congregation and when the man did so, his weakened hand full of atrophied muscles was fully restored and as strong as anyone’s. So when Jesus said, “Get in the boat guys, we are going to the other side of the lake”, they should have known they were going to get to the other side of the lake…come hell or high water! They heard clearly from Jesus what the destination was and there should have been no doubt in their minds about if they would safely arrive. The only question they should have had if any, would have been…“Are we there yet?”.
I firmly believe that the reason Jesus was able to take a nap, and that once aroused by His disciples he asked if they still had no faith, was because Jesus had zero concern they wouldn’t arrive at their destination. He said they were going to the other side and He knew they were going to get to the other side. His question to them was really one of, why they didn’t believe they were going to get to the other side. After all they had witnessed they should have understood…without any doubt…that when Jesus said something would happen, it happened, 100% of the time.
What about us? What do we do when this perfecting journey we are on with Jesus intersects with great trouble? Do we focus on the fact that Jesus said He will never leave us nor forsake us, or do we wonder where He is in our time of need? Do we remember that He promised that He would turn all things, even the really difficult ones for our ultimate good as He uses them to make us more like Himself, or do we wonder how much more we can take before we break. Do we by faith take joy in our various trials knowing that they produce endurance in us which makes us perfect and complete and leaves us needing nothing? Or instead do we wish we could avoid most of our troubles and just enjoy some smooth sailing?
Jesus’ disciples had to learn a valuable lesson that day. We walk by faith and not by sight, that means that faith is all about focus. Those men should have been focused on the trip, not the travel conditions. Jesus told them what the destination was…that ought to have been enough. I’m not suggesting they should have ignored the storm, only that it ought not have been their highest consideration. True faith would have allowed them to discuss what important ministry they might be doing once they reached the other shore and noting that the high wind and the waves would give them a remarkable story they could tell people about when they got there.
Paul reminds us that Jesus has determined and pointed out our final destination as well. Philippians 1:6 says, And I am certain that God who began the good work within you, will continue His work until it is finally finished on the day when Christ Jesus returns. Later in Philippians 3:12 Paul wrote of his own personal journey. I don’t mean to say that I have already achieved these things, or that I have already reached perfection. But I press on to possess that perfection for which Christ Jesus first possessed me. No, dear brothers and sisters, I have not achieved it, but I focus on this one thing: forgetting the past and looking forward to what lies ahead, I press on to reach the end of the race, (the journey) and receive the heavenly prize for which God through Christ Jesus is calling us.
So now, understanding that life is a trip, keep your focus on the destination instead of the difficulties…and go be awesome!
Marriage and Divorce Vol.5
Hi this is Pastor Ken, thanks for taking part in the Monday Marriage Message. This is the fifth episode in our series of study concerning marriage and divorce. For those who may be checking in for the first time we are primarily basing our study on a conversation between Jesus and the Pharisees recorded for us in Matthew 19 and Mark chapter 10.
Last week I took time for a sidebar from that conversation we are looking at so closely. I took the time to explain to you why I think it is so important for us to literally break that scripture down phrase-by-phrase. As we move forward my prayer is that the slow and methodical way we are working our way through this will be a blessing and not a frustration. God’s word is so jam-packed with truths, and His ways and thoughts are so much Higher than ours…as high as the heavens are above the earth…that slow and steady is the only way to not leave too much grain in the field.
The week before last I shared with you the two questions recorded for us in the gospels of Mark and Matthew that Jesus posed in response to the initial questions asked of Him by the Pharisees. There is irrefutable evidence that there were in fact two different factions of the Pharisees who disagreed with each other as to what constituted grounds for divorce. These schools of thought covered far more territory than simply marriage and divorce. They disagreed on matters of ritual practices, ethics and theology. They were known as the House of Shammai and the House of Hillel named for the sages who founded them. Those who followed Shammai’s teaching were the more conservative when it came to divorce and those who subscribed to the teaching of Hillel were the more liberal of the two. I shared with you a few weeks ago that I believe each group came posing a question intended to entrap and discredit Jesus. Mark records the more conservative question and Matthew recorded that the Pharisees asked about a more liberal view of divorce.
I shared with you in that episode that Jesus answered their questions without taking a side as they had hoped He would. Instead He responded to them with a few questions of His own. He asked the first group, “What did Moses command you?” and essentially asked the second group if they had failed to read what Moses had commanded and then quoted the portion of the law (Genesis 2:24) He was referring to in his question to their colleagues. By doing this Jesus was asserting that their question was actually one of Marriage and not divorce. He was pointing out that marriage was the God ordained institution, divorce was man’s created remedy when marriage became too difficult. Essentially Jesus was redirecting the Pharisees into an honest and truthful conversation.
In this edition we will look at the Pharisee’s responses to Jesus’ follow-up questions. When you look carefully at how they answered, it is quite telling and explains the condition of their hearts. Let’s read now what those recorded responses were. I will read each excerpt including the follow-up question Jesus posed and the answer the Pharisees gave. As before we will begin with Marks gospel where I believe Jesus is speaking with the more conservative group. Mark 10:3-4 says, And He answered and said unto them, “What did Moses Command you?” They said, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her”. Now from Matthew; the question to, and the answer from the more liberal group of Pharisees. Matthew 19:4-7; And He answered and said to them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and put her away”?
The way this conversation is framed is of significance if we want to have a complete understanding of Jesus view (or in other words, God’s view) of marriage and divorce. As I mentioned last week, it is critical to see the different twists and turns the direction of the conversation took. As I said a few moments ago, Jesus responded to the Pharisees’ question with follow-up questions of His own. He did this for two reasons. First, to avoid doing as they wished He might, and take a side that would be then used to discredit Him. Additionally, He did this to redirect the original flawed questions back to a basis of truth. His reasons for answering their questions with questions was to solidify truth rather than to confuse it with falsehoods. They, on the other hand came back at Jesus with retorts designed to drag Him back out into the weeds of their preferred distractions.
There is an old saying that if you say something with confidence you will fool half the people most of the time. This is what the first group of Pharisees attempted to do. Their answer to Jesus question of “What did Moses command you?”, was, “Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce, and to dismiss her”. Notice the effort to deceive. It was meant to be a confident retort that contained a discrepancy they hoped Jesus and those listening in would not pick up on. Jesus asked what Moses’ command had been, they told him what Moses permitted. This realization is central to avoiding a common misunderstanding of this scripture. All too often I find that Christians are still being misled by the Pharisee’s intended deception recorded in this passage. Today it is still being read and simply accepted that the answer the Pharisees gave to Jesus question lines up correctly with the portion of the law they were referring to. They were twisting a scripture found in Deuteronomy 24 which we will look at in greater depth in a future episode. I think their answer was worded the way that it was, so they could skew their interpretation of the law to fit their selfish desires. They wanted to be able to divorce when their marriages did not meet their expectations. These conservative Pharisees may not have been as eager to open the grounds for divorce up as wide as their counterparts were, but they did want to be able to infer that divorce was a God given remedy for a problematic marriage.
As I have shared already I think this was one conversation that included three positions, the conservatives, the liberals and Jesus. Jesus having received a confident yet elusive answer from the first group asked the second a more direct question that included the correct answer to His question for those He had just been speaking with. He asked them, “Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no Longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together let not man separate.” This group tried to use Jesus own tactic against Him, and answered His question with another of their own. Knowing the passage of scripture from Deuteronomy 24 that the first group had referred to, and seeing their peer’s attempt at deception, they tried to continue with that same falsehood as if it were a truth. So they asked Jesus, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and put her away”? When we look at their response, the attempt to disguise a lie within an apparent truth is even more blatant than that of their associates. This is not all that surprising when you consider that this response came from those who wanted to be free to end their marriages for any reason they chose. Being further from the truth of God’s design for marriage they were willing to go to even greater lengths to avoid it. They asked Jesus to tell them why Moses had done something he had never done. There was never a command in the law as to how to enact a divorce. The more conservative Pharisees knew this and that is why when Jesus asked what Moses had commanded them, they told Him that Moses had permitted them to do something in terms of divorce. I believe the liberal Pharisees were well aware of that, but because of the condition of their hearts toward their own marriages, they were being overtly being dishonest, even with themselves, about the intent of the law.
If we do not take note of the inconstancies employed by the Pharisees in this passage, we can easily become deluded as well. As I said a few minutes ago, all these years later Christians are still being misled by the intentional inaccuracies the Pharisees were using in their argument with Jesus. What would cause the leadership of the Jewish people of the time to want to stray so far from the intent of the law they claimed to love so much? Why would they be willing to go to such lengths to misrepresent the truths contained in the law?
Their aim it seems was gaining the ability to extract themselves from unpleasant marriages and have the freedom to try, try again. This motive did not escape Christ as we will see farther along when He addresses that unrighteous mindset. We also have other contemporary non-scriptural writings on the Pharisee’s disagreement with each other concerning the subject. Those illuminate the Pharisee’s motives behind their search for caveats to God’s original intent of lifelong marital covenant. Some commentaries go so far as to suggest that the more liberal minded of the Pharisees were using repetitive divorce and remarriage as a legal loophole for a steady change of sexual partners. They were making a mockery of marriage just to satisfy their own sexually lustful desire for multiple women without breaking any laws. Essentially, the Pharisees wanted to be able to placate their sinful desires while imagining they were sidestepping consequence. Jesus was fully aware of their heart set and spoke to it directly as we will discover in a future episode in this series.
Questions to answer:
- Have you ever stopped to consider the intent of the Pharisees to circumvent the intent of the law by twisting the letter of the law?
- Does it surprise you that they were being stubbornly elusive to satisfy their own desires?
- When you consider the divorce rate today, do you think there is validity in our currently accepted “Grounds for divorce”?
- How many people do you know who you would say divorced a spouse for the explicit reason of being free in the future to try, try again?
Actions to take:
- Talk with your spouse about your personal commitment to remaining married for the rest of your lives.
- Discuss why divorce should never be looked at as an escape clause from an unhappy marriage.
- Pray that God will preserve your marriage and give each of you the grace necessary to work through your difficulties without walking away from the marriage.
- Commit to one another right now that no matter what difficulties or troubles lay ahead that you will walk into them hand-in-hand, and you will walk out of them hand-in-hand as well.
So now, recognizing the sanctity of the marital union God has gifted you with, commit yourselves anew to your “One Flesh” relationship…and go be awesome!