Category: Reflections Articles

Let None Deal Treacherously
An examination of God’s Law (and the error of men) on the subject of Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage
(Article 2 of Series)

The Bible clearly states that marriage is a lifetime commitment. When a man marries a woman, they “become one flesh”, and Jesus said, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6). Further, Paul wrote, “For the woman who has a husband is bound by the law to her husband as long as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband” (Romans 7:2). Obviously, God considers marriage to be a lifetime commitment, the contract of marriage ending only at the death of a spouse. Continue reading “The Exception to the Rule: Fornication” →

Even a casual observer can see that the society in which we live has a cavalier attitude toward the marriage bond. Marriages are entered into, and dissolved, with alarming frequency. Recently, the National Center for Health released a report which found that 43% of first marriages end in separation or divorce within 15 years. Continue reading “The Rule: One Man, One Woman, for a lifetime” →

On several occasions the apostle Paul used the Greek athletic games to illustrate the need for zeal in the Christian life. Paul wrote to the Corinthians,

Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it. And everyone who competes for the prize is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown. Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified (1 Corinthians 9:24-27).

The word temperate here comes from the Greek word egkrateuomai and is used in the New Testament only here and in 1 Corinthians 7:9. In that passage it has reference to sexual chastity, and here refers to the training and self-denial that was a part of the 10-month training process of the Greek athlete. It literally means, to exercise self-restraint (in diet and chastity), (Strongs).

Thayer says the word means, to be self-controlled, continent… in a figure drawn from athletes, who in preparing themselves for the games abstained from unwholesome food, wine, and sexual indulgence.

Notice the following quotes concerning the athlete’s training, from ancient sources, taken from Wuest’s Bypaths in the Greek New Testament, pages 53-54.

Thou must be orderly, living on spare food; abstain from confections; make a point of exercising at the appointed time, in heat and in cold; nor drink cold water or wine at hazard. (Epictetus)

The youth who would win the race hath borne and done much, he hath sweat and hath been cold: he hath abstained from love and wine. (Horace)

They are constrained, harassed, wearied. (Tertullian, commending the example of the Greek athlete to Christians).

As Wuest states, “If we Christians would exercise as much care and self-denial, and rigidly hold to a life of separation as did the Greek athlete, what powerful, successful, God-glorifying lives we would live. Illustrations such as these were not lost upon Paul’s Greek readers” (pg. 54, ibid).

Paul here points out a contrast between the motivation of the athlete and that of the Christian. He writes, “Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown.” The perishable crown referred to here was called a chaplet. It was a woven crown of oak leaves, and was the sole prize given to the athlete. Consider how much time and effort, how much discipline and self-denial the athlete invested in order to attain such a small reward. Next, consider the value of the crown supplied to the victorious child of God!

At the end of his life, Paul talked about the crown that had been reserved for him. He wrote, “I have fought the good fight, I have finished the race, I have kept the faith. Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing” (2 Timothy 4:7-8). No doubt during the difficulties of his life, the hope of the crown sustained Paul. He suffered greatly for the cause of His Lord. He endured imprisonment, torture, shipwreck and treachery. He gave up everything he had held dear prior to his conversion. He did it for the Lord, with his eternal destiny in view.

Here he points out that the crown, the object of his life for Christ, was available not only to him, but to all who seek the Lord. But, it takes dedication and zeal. Going back to his message to the Corinthians, Paul wrote in verse 24, “Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may obtain it.” This does not indicate that only one Christian will actually get the crown of life; rather it indicates the type of zeal we must have to be acceptable to God.

The Christian race is not a “fun run.” We should not approach it as a hobby, something to do on a sunny day. Rather, it should be to us as competition is to the Olympic athlete. We must give ourselves to it totally, and deny all else that we may obtain the victory in Christ.

The Hebrew writer likewise refers to the Christian life as a race, and establishes the focus we must have in our efforts. “Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us, looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith, who for the joy that was set before Him endured the cross, despising the shame, and has sat down at the right hand of the throne of God” (Hebrews 12:1-2). We must set aside any encumbrance, and run the race with a narrow focus. In our lives, we must constantly look to Jesus. We must always consider the eternal reward of His presence, and never grow weary in the progress we make toward that goal.

I may not have the skill of the Olympic athlete, but I can have the zeal and focus to obtain the imperishable crown which God has reserved for those “who have loved His appearing.”

“‘For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence,’ Says the LORD of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously'” (Malachi 2:16).

Popular culture, left unchecked, can have an insidious influence upon the local church. This has always been so. The Corinthians, jaded by a culture of immorality and ungodliness, allowed a sexually immoral person to remain undisciplined. They rightly were admonished by Paul. “Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6). Paul instructed Titus to sharply rebuke the Christians on the isle of Crete, lest they be influenced to sin by their culture. “One of them, a prophet of their own, said, ‘Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.’ This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:12-13).

Popular culture had influenced the Israelite’s treatment of their wives in regard to divorce. In their conversation with Jesus they sought to justify their practice of indiscriminate divorce by saying, “Why then did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” (Matthew 19:7). Jesus rightly distinguished between the concession of Moses, for the purpose of regulating what was an abuse of the women, and what God had intended from the beginning. “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:8-9).

What once was allowed by concession is no longer so under the covenant of Christ. “Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead” (Acts 17:30-31). God has always hated divorce, but under the new covenant of Christ, he no longer tolerates it.

It is interesting to note that the disciples were astonished at Jesus’ teaching. They said, “If such is the case of the man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). Their attitude in this is very similar to that you hear expressed by some Christians today. God’s laws are too harsh! Surely it cannot be! Homer Hailey, in expressing the genesis of his false teaching on the subject of divorce and remarriage indicated his belief that the purpose of the gospel was to include, rather than exclude. As such, he felt that God would not exclude the divorced and remarriage who would come to Him, though they remain in that relationship. Others agree.

It is not surprising that such attitudes would become more pervasive with the passage of time. We too live in a culture that tolerates ungodliness. The call to righteousness is thought by the worldly to be extreme, narrow and unseemly. The order of the day is to tolerate! Tolerate the homosexual, tolerate the pagan, tolerate the promiscuous. The only intolerable action is to be intolerant!

Such an attitude has influenced Christians in our time. It seems that the first issue where this has been seen is that of Divorce and Remarriage. For a number of years false teachers have advocated a broader fellowship of those in adulterous relationships. Many have called for the fellowship both of the sinner, and the errorist who gives him a rationale for his behavior. But, other false doctrines are also being tolerated. Some now are calling for a more understanding treatment of those in institutional or premillinial error, others claim our “hermeneutic” is too radical, and there is a call to equivocate on the literal nature of the Genesis record with regard to the amount of time it took for the work to be done.

Jesus clearly stated the principle of duration with regard to marriage. It can be simply stated as “One man, One Woman, for a Lifetime.” Further, Jesus clearly stated the one exception that would allow for a divorce with His blessing. “Except for sexual immorality.”

Any position that redefines, softens or diminishes this teaching is false. Individuals who take these false positions will always have adherents, for there will always be individuals who think God’s ways to be too harsh, and who desire to follow their own predilections. But, as Job, we must learn to humbly submit to His wisdom and will. “Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said: ‘Who is this who darkens counsel By words without knowledge? Now prepare yourself like a man; I will question you, and you shall answer Me” (Job 38:1-3). We have no right to question God’s will, our place is to accept it.

Conclusion

Man believes that he may enter into the marriage contract for a season, and break it at his pleasure. While he may indeed have the legal right, God indicates that divorce is not acceptable. “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate“ (Matthew 19:6). Jesus stated that those who divorce do so because of the “hardness of your hearts.” While the stigma of divorce has for the most part left our society, and the legal procedure is easily secured, God nevertheless still hates divorce. As his children, we must reject the world’s influence, and heed His will.

“Behold, children are a heritage from the LORD, The fruit of the womb is a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior, So are the children of one’s youth. Happy is the man who has his quiver full of them; They shall not be ashamed, But shall speak with their enemies in the gate” (Psalm 127:3-5).

The Genesis account reveals God’s intention that man “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it;…” (Genesis 1:28). The account also reveals that the sexual act is to be between a man and his wife. “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). Concerning the sexual nature of the husband/wife relationship, the writer of the letter to the Hebrews commented, “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (13:4).

Obviously the desire of God is for children to be raised in what has been termed the nuclear family. A family that is intact, with father and mother fulfilling their roles, gives a child an opportunity to be happy and well developed. In this way he can one day take his position as a productive member of society, and a faithful follower of God.

Children who are born out of wedlock, or are the victims of broken homes, do not have the same advantages and opportunities. There is something missing in their upbringing, and it puts them at a grave disadvantage.

Recently Hillary Clinton, the former first lady and current senator from New York, wrote and published a book called It Takes a Village. The title of the book is taken from an old African proverb, and indicates that all members of society need to be involved and concerned about the welfare of our children.

The book mirrors the present societal belief that non-traditional homes can be as effective in raising children as the nuclear family, consisting of father, mother and children. As such, career women are having children out of wedlock, and taking their children to daycare almost as soon as they have been borne. Homosexuals are petitioning for the right to adopt, and are raising their kids to be accepting of their perverted lifestyle. Divorce is rampant in society, and it is the norm rather than the exception for a child to be shuttled from one “home” to another as their parents vie for their affections. In all of this, it is contended that we can effectively raise our kids if we all “work together.” In reality, this attitude toward the family is destructive, and the proof is evident even by a cursory examination of our culture.

At best, the “village” concept can be defended as a desperate attempt at salvaging our children after the damage has been done. It cannot be defended as an equally effective alternative to the home as defined by God.

Children Need Daddy

In Ephesians 6:4, the apostle wrote, “And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord.” The father is to be the source of discipline in the home. Too often the mother’s efforts to instruct and limit the children are undermined by an absentee or uninvolved father. Children need instruction. As they grow and mature, they need the proper instruction to know what limitations they must respect with regard to God, family, and society. God has given the father that responsibility in the home. Men must not abdicate their place.

The most important lessons a father can teach his children revolve around their responsibilities to God. Israelite parents were told to teach their children God’s will. “And these words which I command you today shall be in your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, when you walk by the way, when you lie down, and when you rise up. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates” (Deuteronomy 6:6-9).

Children Need Mommy

There is no more special love than that of a mother for her children. It is a natural affection, which emanates from the wellsprings of the heart. The prophet Isaiah compares it with the love of God, “Can a woman forget her nursing child, And not have compassion on the son of her womb? Surely they may forget, Yet I will not forget you” (49:15).

A child must have the foundation of his mother’s love. It enables him to face a cruel and dangerous world. That love must be reinforced daily by word and deed. Mothers who give their children to a daycare, or even to grandparents to raise do a great disservice to their children. We have too many families concerned with giving their children the latest video games, the largest homes, and the finest clothes, and not enough mothers and fathers who recognize that they can best help their children by giving themselves! Mother’s, your child needs you!

Conclusion

God gives the child instructions to “Obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1). His willingness and ability to do this depends much upon the faithfulness of mom and dad, as they seek to raise him in the “training and admonition of the Lord” (cf. 6:4). As the wise man said, “Train up a child in the way he should go, And when he is old he will not depart from it” (Proverbs 22:6). No, it doesn’t take “a village” to raise a child, it takes a mom and dad!

“So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them” (Genesis 1:27).

“And Adam said: ‘This is now bone of my bones And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.’ Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:23-24).

These two verses show that men and women were created by God. Further, the relationship that resulted from the creation of the two genders is likewise instituted by God. Jesus said, “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6).

The institution of marriage is under direct attack in our time. The sanctity and duration of the relationship is not recognized. The nature of marriage, a joining of a man and woman for a lifetime, is being redefined in some quarters. The role and responsibilities of the man and the woman are being redefined, distorted and confused. Children are often raised without proper instruction and guidance. The damage being done to this social institution is having a direct and deleterious effect upon the welfare of our nation.

The last 50 years have seen marked increases in juvenile delinquency, discipline problems in the schools, crime, sexual diseases, unwanted pregnancies, abortions, drug use and a dependence upon the government in what has become a welfare state.

In response to these problems, Americans have turned to the government, with largely unsuccessful and unsatisfying results. Taxes have increased, but the programs have had little effect as the problems continue to grow. It has gotten to the point that many have changed strategy, and now do not expect to find any solutions to society’s problems. Rather, they claim such misery is inevitable, and simply ask the government to doctor the “symptoms”, believing a cure to be impossible.

So, teachers have become wardens rather than instructors, governmental programs have been started to give away sexual prophylactics because ‘they’re going to do it anyway.” Sterile needles and a movement to legalize marijuana is the mantra of surrender in the “war against drugs.” Midnight basketball is found in the inner cities in an attempt to keep at least some kids away from crime and drugs. Though children must have parental consent to get a tooth pulled, a young girl can go to an abortion clinic and murder her unborn baby, while the government protects her “privacy” even from her own parents.

What is obvious in all of this is that the government does not have the answer, and our society must look elsewhere to find the cure for what ails us. The problem is not that a cure is not available, it is that families are not willing to take the “medicine” that God provides.

The Christian Home

A stark contrast can be seen between such troubled homes and those that are following the pattern supplied by God in his will. There are families which exist where the man is the head of the home, his wife is a homemaker, and the children are obedient and in subjection to their parents. The fact that these homes exist shows that it is possible to avoid the societal problems that are the rule in our time. The family must simply be willing to follow God’s plan rather than the wisdom of men.

The key in all of this is the decision a family must make to put God first. This decision most often comes from the head of the home, the man. The godly man will say as Joshua did, “But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15). But, even in cases where the man is not the spiritual head he should be, the wife still has the responsibility to influence her children in godliness and virtue. In so doing, Peter taught that the possibility exists for her husband to become obedient due to her righteous example. “Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives, when they observe your chaste conduct accompanied by fear” (1 Peter 3:1-2).

Regardless, a husband cannot be a good husband unless he is a faithful, dedicated Christian. Some may object to this assessment, but it is true. God demands that the man be the spiritual head. If he is not, he is abdicating his place with regard to the single most important responsibility he has to his family. Likewise the woman has to be spiritually minded. Her submission to her husband, and her daily instructions to her children are perhaps the single most important ingredient to a righteous home. Finally, children must be obedient to God first. Paul said, “Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right” (Ephesians 6:1). Proper allegiance to parents is inextricably tied to allegiance to God.

God First

As in all other relationships, God has to be first in the home. Our very purpose in life is to serve him, and we cannot be truly successful in any area unless we are righteous before him. This is the solution to our problems. If God is first in the home, the societal problems we see now will go away. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all” (Ecclesiastes 12:13).

Since the relationship between an husband and wife is a partnership, it is not surprising that many of the responsibilities each have may be identical. For example, just as the husband is to be selfless, affectionate and kind to his wife, the wife should be the same to her husband.

Paul told Titus in Titus 2:1-10 to give instructions to certain of the brethren in the church. To the older women he charged a responsibility to teach the younger women. They were to admonish them to “love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed” (vs. 4-5). This verse can be used as a template for discussing certain responsibilities peculiar to the wife.

The Godly Wife

The woman who is pleasing God with regard to her familial obligations is characterized by several important attributes.

Love (Philandros, Philoteknos). The love that is enjoined upon the wife by the apostle here is a different kind of love than that mentioned in Ephesians 5 as the man’s responsibility to his wife. Where that love (agape) had no specific reference to affection, and dealt with the responsibility of the man to treat his wife correctly, in this text affection is the primary thrust. The woman should have an affectionate love for her husband and her children.

The term philandros literally means “fond of man”; philoteknos likewise means “fond of children.” This is the only time these terms are found in the New Testament. The key here is the root philos, which indicates fondness or friendliness, and has reference to the tender feelings that a woman is to have toward her husband and children. The happiness a wife can bring to her home with such tenderness is so important in the lifetime commitment of marriage.

Below is a poem written by an elderly man as he looks back upon the tender love he received from his wife in their life together.

Embers

Warm by the fading embers of my dreams,
Which lived as lively fires long ago.
Still they comfort as though kindled yesterday,
I stir them gently, ever gently in my heart.

You are part of every ember which still warms,
And your glow is how I live from day to day.
I close my eyes and gently then I see,
All the years and years of embers warming me.

I carefully tend my thoughts of what has been,
They are but a feel of the life I’ve yet to know.
You have warmed my life and spirit constantly,
I’ve been gifted by your love surrounding me.

Roger E. Honzik

The final line of the poem is especially suitable for our study. “You have warmed my life and spirit constantly, I’ve been gifted by your love surrounding me.” This is the type of love a wife should have for her husband.

• Discreet and Chaste. The term discreet is a slightly different form of the same term found in verse four when the older women are told to admonish the younger women to be “sober”. Being discreet, or sober, indicates a woman who is in control of her emotions and actions. She has a sound mind, and is not given to excess. She will not embarrass her family.

• Chaste (hagnos) is defined by Vines’ as “pure from carnality, modest.” Happy is the man whose attraction to his wife is primarily to her character and personality rather than her physical attributes. A person’s looks have nothing to do with their character and righteousness. A godly woman is one who influences her husband by “your chaste conduct accompanied by fear. Do not let your adornment be merely outward; arranging the hair, wearing gold, or putting on fine apparel; rather let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the incorruptible beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is very precious in the sight of God” (1 Peter 3:2-4).

• Homemakers. It is an unfortunate aspect of our society that a woman whose primary work is making a home is looked upon as less valuable or accomplished. This is completely untrue. While it is true that a woman can work outside of the home (see Proverbs 31), no woman can do so righteously if she neglects her home. Too often this is happening, even in the church. All women must understand that if they are entering into a marriage relationship, it will be their responsibility to be the homemaker. The work is given them by God.

• Good. Actually, the term is more accurately rendered “kind”. There is an old saying that you find from time to time on refrigerator magnets and the like. “If momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy!” It is the wife who is the emotional control in the home. If she is kind to her husband and children, the home will happy. A strident, sharp tongued woman can cause tremendous distress. “It is better to dwell in a corner of a housetop, Than in a house shared with a contentious woman” (Proverbs 25:24).

Conclusion

A wife has much incentive to be the type of woman described above. She will please her God by having this character. Too, this type of woman is loved by her family. “Her children rise up and call her blessed; Her husband also, and he praises her: ‘Many daughters have done well, But you excel them all'” (Proverbs 31:28-29).

As Joshua addressed the people on the eve of his death, after they had occupied the promised land, he made a statement which clearly shows the influence of a man as the head of his own house. He said, “And if it seems evil to you to serve the LORD, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15).

Joshua’s proclamation was a challenge to all of Israel, and indicates that a nation’s well being is largely attributable to the leadership of the home. As the head of the home, the primary responsibility of the Husband/Father can be summarized in this way. He determines by the force of his will, his good example, and his love for God and family, that his home will serve God. It can rightly be stated that any man who does not make it his primary goal to have a God fearing and obedient family will fail in his responsibilities to them.

Though the world is not comfortable in expressing the need for the man to head his home in this way, the godly wife will welcome it. She understands her need to submit to her man’s position as head of the home, and welcomes his careful and resolute determination to lead his family in the way of righteousness. “In the way of righteousness is life, And in its pathway there is no death” (Proverbs 12:28).

Regarding the husband’s treatment of his wife, Peter wrote, “Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7). The idea of the understanding and honor due the wife is indicative of her worth to her husband. A husband is to treat her in accord with the moral standard to which God has obligated him. He is to recognize her as physically delicate, and as an equally deserving spiritual being. As such, his behavior toward her is to be gracious and gentle. The abuse, both physical and verbal, that many wives suffer is the shameful behavior of men who are failures in the sight of God.

The Godly Husband

The man who is pleasing God with regard to his familial obligations is characterized by several important attributes.

• Selflessness. The entire concept of love (the agape kind) necessitates selflessness. Love, “does not seek its own” (1 Corinthians 13:5). Rather than seeking his own welfare, the godly husband is concerned with the welfare of his wife and children. He is willing to sacrifice that they may prosper, even to the giving of his own life. In fact, the picture of Christ’s sacrifice for the church is the standard to which God calls the man. “Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her“ (Ephesians 5:25).

• Kindness. The treatment of Ruth by Boaz is a beautiful picture of great kindness. Boaz treated her with great respect and deference when he first met her, and behaved honorably in taking her to be his wife. He was aware of her great sacrifice in staying with Naomi, and said to her, “The LORD repay your work, and a full reward be given you by the LORD God of Israel, under whose wings you have come for refuge” (Ruth 2:12). Not only did he take care of her physical needs in allowing her to glean “even among the sheaves”, but he also delighted to take her as his wife, and fulfill his duty as a relative of Judah. Such kindness is to be emulated by the husband to his wife.

• Affection. The Love song between the Beloved and the Shulamite expresses the appropriate affection that a man should have for his wife. The intimacy between them permeates his words to her, “You have ravished my heart, My sister, my spouse; You have ravished my heart With one look of your eyes, With one link of your necklace. How fair is your love, My sister, my spouse! How much better than wine is your love, And the scent of your perfumes Than all spices!” (Song of Solomon 4:9-10). It is significant that the Beloved expresses his love for her. It is not enough to love, the expression of affection is greatly needed by the weaker vessel.

• Courage. Finally, the husband and father must be virtuous! This is the sentiment expressed by Joshua in his address to Israel when he said, “But as for me and my house, we will serve the LORD” (Joshua 24:15). The ungodliness of the world clamors for compromise and conformity. It takes strong leadership for a family to remain pure in the face of such unrighteousness. The courage of conviction steels the godly husband and father to stand for what is right in the face of opposition. He will not allow his sons to be carried away by false teaching (cf. Titus 2:6-8); he will not allow his daughters to sully their reputation by immodest dress (cf. 1 Timothy 2:9-10); and his headship is not burdensome to his precious wife (cf. Ephesians 5:28-29).

Conclusion

The godly husband puts his family, and especially his wife, before all save God Himself. He especially elevates the needs of his family above his own. His position of authority and headship carries with it the potential for abuse, and he is ever cognizant of his great responsibility before God. He adores his family, but does not let his affection for them cloud his good judgment as he cares and provides for them. May God supply men such as this in all our Christian homes!

Southern Baptists, at their 1998 convention in Salt Lake City, adopted an addition to their statement of faith, which states:

“…A husband is to love his wife as Christ loved the church. He has the God-given responsibility to provide for, to protect and to lead his family. A wife is to submit graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”

Those who are familiar with the fifth chapter of Ephesians recognize this statement as a simple paraphrase of the Apostle’s words. Paul wrote, “Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything. Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (vs. 24-25). What is amazing is the response of many to the adoption of the phrase. It indicates how distorted a view our world has to the concept of submission, and to the marriage relationship as designed by God. Note the following:

Robert Parham, the executive director of the independent Baptist Center for Ethics, said, “They’ve made June Cleaver the Biblical model for motherhood.”

Robert Bock, pastor of the First Christian Church of North Hollywood said that the Baptist passage, “disregards 2,000 years of evolution of faith and the roles people have grown into.”

The Rt. Rev. John Shelby Spong, the Episcopal bishop of Newark, New Jersey, was even more scathing in his appraisal. “The Bible also says the earth is flat, epilepsy is caused by demon possession, slavery is a legitimate institution, women are the property of men and God orders the people of Israel to go to war and kill every man, woman and child from the nation of Amalekite.”

N.O.W. President Patricia Ireland said the resolution could be interpreted to offer “not just an excuse, but a grant of permission” to a man to abuse his wife.

While it is not surprising that Ireland would react as she did, seeing that she is a leader of the feminist movement in our society, it is disturbing to think that individuals who claim to be followers of Christ would be so virulently opposed to the concept of a woman’s submission to her husband. If we reject the concept of submission in the marriage relationship, we are arguing with God rather than man.

A simple reading of Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians (chapter 5) establishes the two most fundamental responsibilities God has given to each individual in marriage. In the remainder of this article, let us consider them briefly.

Husbands, Love Your Wives

“Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself for her” (vs. 25)… “So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies; he who loves his wife loves himself” (vs. 28)… “Nevertheless let each one of you in particular so love his own wife as himself” (vs. 33).

The greek term, agape, which is translated “love” in this text has reference to moral obligation. Though a husband obviously has tender feelings for his wife, the emphasis here is in his treatment of her. No man can claim to be loving his wife if he has not placed her interests before his own. His primary responsibility in the relationship is to actively seek her welfare. His failure in this is the primary reason why women have suffered so much throughout the history of mankind.

Husbands should consider the Apostle Paul’s description of love in his epistle to the Corinthians. “Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things” (1 Cor. 13:4-7). If a man’s treatment of his wife is not the same in type to Christ’s treatment of the church, it cannot be said that he is obeying this command of God.

Wives, Submit to Your Husbands

“Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (vs. 22-24).

The concept of submission is an important aspect of each facet of a Christian’s life. It characterizes his relationship to his God, his government, his elders, his parents, and even to his relationship with other Christians. “submitting to one another in the fear of God” (cf. Eph. 5:21).

Someone has to be the head of the home, and God has given that position to the husband. He is the head because of creation (cf. 1 Cor. 11:8-10). He is the head, ultimately, because God has given him that place in the home. Christian women have no right to question the place given to them in the home. Their place is not in any way an indication of inferiority, rather it is a simple statement of position. Just as one’s submission to the governing authority does not indicate an inferior person, submission in the home does not indicate inferiority in person (cf. Gal. 3:28-29).

Husbands, love your wives… Wives, submit to your husbands. You must, for your God demands it!

In Genesis chapter two, history records God’s words regarding the partnership of men and women. “And the LORD God said, ‘It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'” (vs. 18). In commenting on that partnership, the inspired writer records, “Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh” (vs. 24). Jesus, commenting on this passage of scripture, said, “So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 19:6).

These passages describe the divine origin of the marriage relationship, and express its sensible design. Despite man’s attempts over the years to modify the parameters of the marriage relationship, the principle established by scripture of one man for one woman for a lifetime will remain the foundation of humankind’s existence. Assaults upon the foundation of the home invariably have a deleterious effect upon societies, and have even contributed to the decline and fall of nations.

It is important for us to know the purpose and design of the marriage relationship, to keep this institution strong. A strong home leads to a strong nation, and more importantly, a strong church.

The Purpose of Marriage

Simply put, the marriage relationship affords a stable environment in which to raise children. Now, this does not invalidate childless homes, but it does recognize that God designed the husband/wife relationship to be the building block of society. “So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth” (Genesis 1:27-28). The husband/wife relationship is the most intimate in life, and in it alone is sexual activity appropriate and acceptable. “Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge” (Hebrews 13:4).

The Design of Marriage

As the primary purpose of the marriage relationship is to “be fruitful and multiply”, the relationship must be defined in sexual terms. Again, this does not mean that sexual activity is the only important thing between a husband and wife; much to the contrary; but it does indicate that in marriage alone is sexual activity acceptable (see Heb. 13:4 above).

Three things become immediately apparent as we recognize the sexual aspects of the marriage relationship. First, that marriage, by definition, is a relationship between a man and a woman. Setting aside the condemnation of homosexuality which is so common to scripture (cf. Romans 1:28-32), the purpose of the home is to procreate. This is impossible in a homosexual marriage, and is unnatural. Men may seek to change marriage, but God from the beginning said, “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (cf. Genesis 2:24).

Second, the obligation of sexual activity is found in the marriage relationship. So often the emphasis is placed upon the prohibition of sex outside of marriage, that there is a neglect in teaching the obligation of the individual within the marriage relationship. Paul did not neglect to teach on this delicate subject, and said in 1 Corinthians 7:2-5, “Nevertheless, because of sexual immorality, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman have her own husband. Let the husband render to his wife the affection due her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. And likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. Do not deprive one another except with consent for a time, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again so that Satan does not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” The sexual drive is so strong that specific instruction is given by the apostle to the obligation, (before God), which each spouse has to the other.

Third, sexual immorality is a horrible sin, and sufficient to destroy the marriage bond. Paul said, “Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body” (1 Corinthians 6:18).

Jesus indicated that sexual immorality, (i.e. fornication), is the sole scriptural cause for an individual to divorce his or her spouse. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery” (Matthew 19:9). Sexual immorality is so destructive to the marriage bond that Jesus allows the dissolution of the bond in such cases. Any other “cause”, coupled with remarriage, is unacceptable to Him.

Conclusion

While the husband/wife relationship is not exclusively defined by its sexual aspect, that is what makes it unique. Sex is a blessed privilege and obligation in that union, but is unacceptable in any other context. Men have largely rejected these facts, but the future welfare of our society is dependent upon our acceptance of this truth.

The home was established by God at the dawn of time. It is the most ancient of all God ordained institutions. In his conversation with the Pharisees in Matthew 19, Jesus said:

“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 be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (verses 4-6).

Jesus’ reference to the Genesis account of God’s creative work, and his subsequent divine commentary on that event, establish two very important points for our consideration. First, the institution of marriage has a divine mandate. Second, the parameters of the institution, as ordained by God, include a lifetime commitment to the arrangement.

A Divine Institution

The most important consequence of the understanding that marriage has a divine origin is that the design of marriage is not open to human modification. On December 20, 1999 the Vermont State Supreme Court ruled that it violated their state constitution to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couples in the state. Previous to this landmark decision, Gay and Lesbian lobbyists applied pressure to have their “unions” recognized as legal marriages. National politicians resisted the efforts, and responded by passing the “Defense of Marriage Bill”, which President Clinton passed into law in September of 1996. The measure limits the definition of marriage to those unions consisting to two individuals who are sexually opposite. However, many legal scholars believe this bill to be unconstitutional, and the jury is still out as to whether homosexual marriages will be given legal standing in the country.

While some men seek to redefine the parameters of the marriage relationship, it should be understood that such efforts constitute a usurping of authority. God designed marriage, and he defined marriage in the following way: “a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh” (Genesis 2:24). The woman was created to complete the man. She is not identical to him, but rather supplements him with her own unique characteristics (cf. Genesis 2:18). As the two combine, a synergism is created. (Synergism – cooperative action of discrete agencies such that the total effect is greater than the sum of the effects taken independently. Websters). Obviously, this effect is not possible in any same-sex union.

Other departures from God’s design, though not legal distortions, are nevertheless destructive to the institution. For example, some seek to destroy or modify the roles God has given to the man and woman in the marriage relationship. In Ephesians 5, Paul gave instructions to the wife, “Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is head of the wife, as also Christ is head of the church; and He is the Savior of the body. Therefore, just as the church is subject to Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” (verses 22-24). Some wives, perhaps from confusion, perhaps rebellion, are not in proper subjection to their husbands.

Likewise, Peter has instructions for the husbands, “Husbands, likewise, dwell with them with understanding, giving honor to the wife, as to the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life, that your prayers may not be hindered” (1 Peter 3:7). One obvious reason why women in our society have left their roles in the home is because of the mistreatment they have received from their husbands. The role of headship contains great responsibility. Too many men are not giving their wives proper respect and honor. They are selfish in their own desires and care too little for the precious partner they have chosen for life.

Unfortunately, such distortion of marriage has even influenced Christian homes. Christian husbands and wives need to carefully consider God’s requirements of them in marriage.

The Duration of Marriage

A final departure from God’s marriage design is seen in the proliferation of divorces in our society. Jesus, in indicating the divine nature of the marriage contract, said, “Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate” (Matthew 9:6). The prophet Malachi clearly stated God’s attitude toward divorce, “‘For the LORD God of Israel says That He hates divorce, For it covers one’s garment with violence’, says the LORD of hosts. ‘Therefore take heed to your spirit, That you do not deal treacherously'” (Malachi 2:16).

In contrast to God’s design, society, and even many brethren have rebelliously clamored for the right to divorce and remarry. Societal pressures have led the government to establish “no-fault” divorce laws. A summary of California divorce law found at the California State Library web site states the following:

“Three years after Governor Brown (Edmund Brown, 1966) urged reforming California’s fault-based divorce law, Governor Ronald Reagan signed the Family Law Act of 1969 into law, making California the first no-fault divorce state in the nation. Or, looked at by some in another way, ‘On September 5, 1969, with a stroke of his pen, California governor Ronald Reagan wiped out the moral basis for marriage in America.’ Since California’s historic divorce reform, every state has enacted some form of no-fault divorce.”

It is not surprising that brethren have been influenced by such ungodliness. Of course, rationalization is necessary for any who claim to love God, so abundant theories exist as to how one can “scripturally” get around God’s prohibition of divorce. Such theories ignore the plain truths established above. God hates divorce, and intends the contract between a man and woman in marriage to be a lifetime commitment. It is a directive we must obey!

God designed marriage. He defines the parameters of the institution, and man is bound to follow them. If man refuses, God will judge him for his sin. The world does not accept this… The Christian must!

One of the primary areas where division has occurred in the church in the past 50 years is in regard to the church’s obligations in benevolence. Some fail to make a distinction between what God obligates the individual Christian to do, and what he obligates Christians, collectively working in a local congregation, to do.

Recently, while reading The Arlington Meeting, a series of transcripts in book form from speeches made in a meeting between institutional and non-institutional preachers in Arlington, Texas in January 1968, I came across the following quote from Reuel Lemmons, now deceased former editor of the Firm Foundation, and a widely known and respected preacher in the institutional camp:

I want to make it clear that I believe that all commands are given to individuals primarily and when a command is given to individuals in which all the individuals which comprise a congregation are equally related, then that command becomes a church command to be carried out (and can be carried out) by the church. (pg. 150)

Lemmon’s quote indicates a common leap taken by individuals who wish to continue in unscriptural practices when their rationale for such practices are exposed. No doubt his inconsistency in argumentation is unintentional, but it nevertheless is present.

The most common expression of this rationale is that “whatever the individual can do, the church can do.” Stated in this way, the commands found in James 1:27 and Galatians 6:6, which are obviously given as instructions to individual Christians, can be used to authorize collective (church) action as well. Note the two scriptures:

“Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world” (James 1:27).

“Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all, especially to those who are of the household of faith” (Galatians 6:10).

The rationale supposes that since “whatever the individual can do the church can do” such passages give authority for churches to establish or support from their treasury institutional homes for orphans and the aged. The problem with this rationale is that while it seems logical to the mind of some, it is decidedly not scriptural reasoning. In fact, the Bible clearly makes a distinction between what are individual responsibilities, and responsibilities of the local church. The most familiar example of such a distinction is found in Paul’s instructions regarding the care for Christian widows in his first epistle to Timothy.

The passage shows that not only is the congregation limited in its benevolent obligations to those who are saints (a pattern established clearly in scripture), it limits even the reach of the local church’s responsibility in this area. Paul states, “If any believing man or woman has widows, let them relieve them, and do not let the church be burdened, that it may relieve those who are really widows” (1 Timothy 5:16). So, collective (church) obligation is clearly distinguished from the obligation given to the believer (individual) in this verse. The passage clearly shows the error in the rationale “what the individual can do the church can do.”

Which has led to the revised statement of brother Lemmons, “when a command is given to individuals in which all the individuals which comprise a congregation are equally related, then that command becomes a church command…” The clause “in which all the individuals which comprise a congregation are equally related” must be added to avoid the obvious conclusion in 1 Timothy 5:16 that individual and collective action are not always parallel. You can’t establish authority for one by establishing authority for the other.

What should be obvious, and must be pointed out, is that there is no logical or scriptural reason for such a caveat. The only reason for such an added provision is to avoid the obvious conclusion that individual action and collective action are different.

Others have tried to add “clauses” to the rationale. They have said, “Whatever the individual does, in the spiritual realm, the church can do.” Again, a provision added to avoid the obvious (a church can’t get a job, engage in business enterprises, wage war, etc.). but, again, an arbitrary clause added to defend what cannot be proven, that individual and collective action are synonymous. Paul has clearly shown that it is not so!

As Christians we are commanded to practice pure religion, which includes benevolent activities (cf. James 1:27; Gal. 6:10). We are to follow the example of the Good Samaritan (cf. Luke 10) and be a neighbor to others whenever possible.

We must also recognize that the church is a spiritual institution, primarily concerned with the salvation of the souls of men, rather than the creation of a utopia on earth. The social gospel has no place in the Lord’s church. God has given the individual the primary responsibility of benevolence, “and do not let the church be burdened.”

It is seldom that I utilize the Sunday before the Christmas holiday to speak out against the unauthorized religious observances that are practiced by most churches on that day. I have no problem with pointing out this error, but often have another more pressing message to share.

However, from time to time it is important to note that Christ does not authorize the religious observance of Christmas, and such is not acceptable before God. Though many churches are organizing and participating in Christmas plays, cantatas, Nativity scenes, parties, etc., here at West Side we are not. The reason is simple. If there is a divine connection between the holiday and the birth of Christ, we should be able to turn in our New Testaments and find it. We cannot.

The question arises, when did men first begin to observe December 25th as the birthday of Jesus? A quick look at any reference work shows the origin not to be from God’s word, but rather from the 4th century. For example, note the following from Hastings Dictionary of the New Testament, on the Christian Calendar:

“We do not read of either of these days (Christmas and Epiphany) being observed as festivals in the 3rd century. The first mention of such a commemoration on 25th December is in the Philocalian Calendar, which was copied in 354 A.D., but represents the official observances at Rome in A. D. 336. We find the entry: ‘viij kal. Jan. Natus Christus in Bethleem Judae.” It is not indeed absolutely certain that 25th December was at that date observed as a feast; but it is highly probable that this was so, as the other days, commemorations of bishops of Rome and martyrs, seem to be noted in order that they might be observed.” (vol. 1, pg. 261)

Also, there is a pagan festival that has its observance on the same day. The winter solstice, (December 21st on our calendar, but December 25th on the Julian calendar which predated our own) is the date when the days begin to lengthen in the Northern hemisphere. As such, it was recognized as a day of great import to the sun-worshippers in Rome during the 3rd and 4th century. Pagans referred to that day as the “Birthday of the Unconquered Sun.”

Note the following quote from Hastings:

“But it is quite possible that when, in the 4th cent., the Christians began to observe the Nativity as a festival, they seized on the coincidence between the day as calculated by Hippolytus and the heathen feast-day, and Christianizing the latter as the Birth of the true Sun of Righteousness, showed a good example to the pagan world by making the day a true holy day.” (ibid, page 261).

You may observe that Hastings considers the adaptation of the Pagan holiday as showing a “good example”, and assumes that God has given authority for Christians to “Christianize” and to establish for themselves true “holy day[s].” Here we find the problem with the religious observance of Christmas. Some, unwilling to limit themselves to the will of Christ expressed in the New Testament, have taken upon themselves to establish new acts and days of worship. Time has passed, and with such passage this usurping of Christ’s authority has taken on a patina of orthodoxy. People today call for Christ to be put back into Christmas, when in reality the observance of Christ’s birthday was not even considered until 300 years after Christ’s death.

This being true, it is not surprising that many other aspects of Christ’s birth are distorted as well. The date itself is suspect, as it is not probable that Shepherds would have had their flocks in the fields at that time of year. Indeed, the custom of the Jews would necessitate the event to have transpired sometime during the late spring or summer.

Traditional observance of the day has included nativity scenes showing three wise men (while scripture is silent on the number, tradition has gone so far as to number and name the men), who met the Christ child in the stable, as he lay in a manger (rather, scripture indicates a time frame possibly 40 days after Christ’s birth, in a house. cf. Matt. 2:11-12). Other distortions, as well as the pagan origins of the Christmas tree, with the so called “Star of Bethlehem” put on top, and other man-made traditions, show clearly that the entirety of Christmas celebration has its origin in the mind of men.

The point is this, if God desired for us to celebrate the birth of Christ, he would have let us know in His word. He desired such an observance of the death of our Lord, and established a supper to commemorate that death (cf. 1 Cor. 11:26). We must “speak as the oracles of God” (cf. 1 Peter 4:11). We have no authority to establish religious institutions or holy days on our own authority.

In this we are not saying it is wrong to culturally and secularly observe a holiday. We can do so not only with Christmas, but also Easter, Halloween and Thanksgiving. So long as our observance is not religious, and our conscience is not violated, (cf. Romans 14:22, “Happy is he who does not condemn himself in what he approves”), there is no sin in exchanging gifts, observing secular tradition, and visiting with family at these times. Just remember the law of love, that we do not, in this liberty, cause a weak brother to stumble. “It is good neither to eat meat nor drink wine nor do anything by which your brother stumbles or is offended or is made weak. Do you have faith? Have it to yourself before God” (Romans 14:21-22).

Authority and Christmas
(The following short article appeared on the front page of the same edition of Reflections)

We often are asked why we do not, as a congregation, observe the birth of Jesus on December 25th. While many are calling to “bring Christ back into Christmas”, we have argued that Christ never belonged there in the first place.

Our problem is not with remembering with great appreciation the wonderful event. The Christ child’s entry into the world signified “good tidings of great joy” (cf. Luke 3:10). The angel said, “For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (vs. 11). This we do often, as we contemplate not only our Lord’s birth, but also his perfect life, sacrificial death, resurrection, and ascension back to the Father. Our problem is with any man (or group of men) who would take it upon himself (or themselves) to establish a religious holiday (holy day). Nowhere in scripture is there any authority for such a practice. It finds its genesis entirely in the mind of man. The Pharisees were one time guilty of establishing their own religious tradition. In response to their arrogance, Jesus said:

“Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying: ‘These people draw near to Me with their mouth, And honor Me with their lips, But their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men'” (Matthew 15:7-9).

Let us be willing to limit ourselves to worshipping God in ways revealed in His Will.

Just this past week I finished reading an interesting book, entitled Tuesdays with Morrie, written by Mitch Albom. The book developed from a series of conversations Albom had with his old college professor Morrie Schwartz, near the end of the man’s life. Schwartz suffered from ALS, a debilitating disease more commonly known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. It leaves the mind intact, but progressively destroys the muscles, bringing paralysis, then death. The conversations were held over a period of fourteen weeks, with the author visiting his former teacher each Tuesday until his death.

The book begins in this way:

“The last class of my old professor’s life took place once a week in his house, by a window in the study where he could watch a small hibiscus plant shed its pink leaves. The class met on Tuesdays. It began after breakfast. The subject was the Meaning of Life. It was taught from experience.”

Albom held his old teacher in high regard, and the respect and tenderness he feels for the man is obvious throughout the book. Morrie Schwartz is in many respects an amazing man, and showed tremendous dignity and grace while dealing with his terminal illness.

Schwartz taught sociology at Brandeis University in Massachusetts. He was an engaging man, emphasizing love and kindness to his students and friends. He had a sweet smile, a gentle manner and was well respected.

There is much wisdom to be found in the book. Aphorisms (a concise statement of a principle) came naturally to Schwartz, and many pearls of wisdom are found in the book, including:

“Accept what you are able to do and what you are not able to do.”
“Accept the past as past, without denying it or discarding it.”
“Learn to forgive yourself and to forgive others.”
“Don’t assume it is too late to get involved.”
“The most important thing in life is to learn how to give out love, and to let it come in.”

Albom wrote a list of things he wanted to talk about with his old teacher, which constituted the curriculum of their last “class.” The list contained the following topics: Death, Fear, Aging, Greed, Marriage, Family, Society, Forgiveness, and a meaningful Life.

While the book was very interesting, and no doubt has given comfort and pleasure to many who have read it, I could not help but be saddened at what the book did not contain. There was at no time a discussion of what would come after life. The extent of the discussion dealt with our existence on earth, with no thought to preparation for the life to come.

Of course, the reason for this is obvious. These individuals came from a secular background. Though Schwartz was Jewish, it is obvious from the book that he had little interest in religious matters. The writer, too, had a secular background that indicated a humanistic rather than a spiritual focus.

The book reminded me of the writer of Ecclesiastes, who wrote of the end of lives lived only in respect to the present, with no thought of eternity. “I have seen all the works that are done under the sun; and indeed, all is vanity and grasping for the wind” (1:14). While there is much wisdom to be found in Morrie’s philosophy of life, ultimately it is lacking in the most important area, a man’s standing with his Maker.

Late in the book, there is finally a reference to God. Less than a month before his death, the disease having ravaged his body, he gave a short television interview with Ted Koppel. After the interview, Albom notes a short exchange between the two:

Koppel was near tears. “You done good.”

“You think so?” Morrie rolled his eyes toward the ceiling. “I’m bargaining with Him up there now. I’m asking Him, ‘Do I get to be one of the angels?'”

It was the first time Morrie admitted to talking to God.

A final aphorism summed up the “Meaning of Life” according to Morrie Schwartz. In that last TV interview, when asked if he would like to say anything to the millions of watchers who he had touched, he said, “Be compassionate, and take responsibility for each other. If we only learned those lessons, this world would be a better place. ” Then the aphorism, “Love each other or die.”

While there is much wisdom to be found in those words, they ring hollow without the final consideration of eternity. The writer of Ecclesiastes understood it well, stating a principle that is inclusive of Morrie’s final words, but encompassing so much more. “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, For this is man’s all. For God will bring every work into judgment, Including every secret thing, Whether good or evil” (Ecclesiastes 12:13-14).

I wish that I could say that Tuesdays with Morrie was a comforting read, but it was not. Because Morrie and his student never discussed the most important thing, the book left me feeling only sad.

Christians have faith in God.  Basically, we believe that God exists though we have not seen Him.  Despite our inability to prove the existence of God by the use of our physical senses, we accept the affirmation of Scripture.  We freely admit that this is faith, “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

This does not mean that there is no evidence as to the existence of God.  Indeed there is.  “For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead” (Romans 1:20).  The argument of design is one that cannot be successfully refuted by those who deny God’s existence.  If there is no designer, why does structure and organization abound in the physical universe?  Why is it “cosmos” (ordered) rather than “chaos”?  Design demands a designer. Continue reading “The Faith of the Atheist” →