If you asked me to list the top 10 most unforgettable characters I've met in my life, Carl Sandberg would certainly be among them.
Carl was a student of theology, and a contemporary of mine. He finished his undergraduate at the same tiny college I attended, but a year before me. He told me that he had been a Communist in Chicago, as was his father, when his attention got arrested by the preaching of a street team from a charismatic church. He began attending this church, where he was subsequently converted.
He became a bit uncomfortable with the emotional antics of this church group, and found his way into a very narrow baptist church: the General Association of Regular Baptists. For those not acquainted with this church, may I say they are as jealous of orthodoxy as the OPC, and sometimes just as cantankerous. They seem willing to doubt the orthodoxy of every other denomination, with the possible exception of the OPC. The reason for this exception was the early association two of these professors had with J. Gresham Machen.
Carl told me that at this point in his life he was drifting more and more into reformed thinking as a result of his study of the Bible. In fact during Greek class at the Baptist school, he was called upon to translate Acts 9:18 and he read: "and he stood up and was baptized". Against accusations of misinterpretation, Carl said he merely translated it.
Eventually someone at L. A. Baptist said he ought to be an Orthodox Presbyterian instead of a baptist. He said, "What's that?" And that is how he was introduced to the OPC.
Carl always had a controversial point of view, and accompanied his views with a controversial attitude.
Someone who knew Carl better than I said, "As far as personality alone is concerned, he should have remained a Communist."
At Westminster Seminary, following a class taught by Meredith Kline, Carl approached the professor, telling him of a book he read in which the author reconciles the Egyptian dating with that of the Bible. Dr. Kline seemed fascinated with the idea and so he asked how he does this. Carl said the author proposed that Egyptian dating was off by several years. In response Dr. Kline threw back his head, laughed, and announced, "He's out of his mind!" Then he picked up his bulky brief case and stalked out of the room. Carl was left with his mouth hanging open.
Speechless was not a frequent posture of Carl. He had a way of interrogating, rather than questioning, when he raised his hand in class. Van Til and Clowney were frequent beneficiaries of Carl's whetting encounters. The major exception was his appreciation of Professor John Murray. In fact he once wrote me a note during class, saying, "Why don't we hear this good stuff in our home churches?" I don't know where he attended church, but my home church did teach me good theology. Immediately after I read the note I found the good professor standing next to me with his hand outstretched. Into that hand I deposited the aforementioned note, being grateful that it was flattering rather than derogatory.
A mutual friend of Carl and another student, Alan Wyat, anticipated with apprehension the sparks that might fly when these two fiery personalities finally met. The occasion, as best I can recall, was the return of a borrowed hauling trailer. One of the principles offered an outrageous opinion about a current event. The other countered with a psychiatric evaluation of the speaker, and suddenly the fat was in the fire. These were now Christian men, in whom the Holy Spirit had begun, but by no means completed, the work of sanctification. Therefore there were no fisticuffs. But there were barrages of verbal exchange that raised concern for all in the room.
Neither of these men completed the course of seminary with me. To the best of my knowledge they both dropped out of Westminster. Subsequent careers of either man are not known to me. I read that Carl was a teacher in a Christian school in Virginia, but that exhausts my information.
Thursday, January 30, 2014
Sunday, January 12, 2014
A singing church
The genius of corporate worship is the reciprocal communication between God and His people. God speaks to His people and they respond. When God speaks to us, it is by the reading and preaching of the bible at this point in history. We have no prophets to give us new revelations of the Spirit.
When the people of God respond corporately it is usually in the singing of a hymn or Psalm or in words we recite together. That's the idea of it being "corporate" which by definition means: "shared by all the members of a group".
There is the public prayer that should include each worshipper who joins his consent by saying, or thinking "amen". This is sometimes a written prayer or a memorized prayer (such as the Lord's Prayer) which everyone recites together, but in corporate worship this is usually done by one leader on behalf of the congregation.
Are you with me? Okay, today I want to focus attention on the matter of congregational singing. It is an important way in which worshippers participate in corporate worship.
We emphatically and vociferously deny the entertainment model for public worship. The pastor or others who may be on the platform are NOT the entertainers, and the congregation is NOT the audience. As soon as this model is adopted, corporate worship exists no longer. There might be delightful Christian entertainment. There might be a fine Christian lecture. But there is definitely NO corporate worship going on. This is why no one applauds the choir or other musicians in public worship.
I have an agent who has visited several reformed churches in our area, and he reports that in many of these churches the singing of the congregation is in serious decline. Special music groups do all the singing. Or the tunes are new and only the words are printed and no one has learned the tune.
Whatever the reason, more and more reformed worshippers are just standing there as the music is playing. They have not done anything together. They have not responded to God for His words to us. They are just standing there until the next item in the order of worship. This is a dangerous trend.
When a new hymn is introduced to a congregation, it ought to be taught. Sometimes this is done by adopting a "hymn of the month" which is sung every Sunday for a month. Sometimes there is another venue (like Sunday School) where it can be introduced and practiced until ready for corporate worship. Sometimes it can be reproduced--with music--and carefully taught during the worship period.
Every congregation member ought to be able to think about the words and join the praise thoughts incorporated in this new hymn, and that just can't be effectively done if he is groping for the note and reading unfamiliar words at the same time.
Whatever the solution, please let us not lose this important element of corporate worship.
When the people of God respond corporately it is usually in the singing of a hymn or Psalm or in words we recite together. That's the idea of it being "corporate" which by definition means: "shared by all the members of a group".
There is the public prayer that should include each worshipper who joins his consent by saying, or thinking "amen". This is sometimes a written prayer or a memorized prayer (such as the Lord's Prayer) which everyone recites together, but in corporate worship this is usually done by one leader on behalf of the congregation.
Are you with me? Okay, today I want to focus attention on the matter of congregational singing. It is an important way in which worshippers participate in corporate worship.
We emphatically and vociferously deny the entertainment model for public worship. The pastor or others who may be on the platform are NOT the entertainers, and the congregation is NOT the audience. As soon as this model is adopted, corporate worship exists no longer. There might be delightful Christian entertainment. There might be a fine Christian lecture. But there is definitely NO corporate worship going on. This is why no one applauds the choir or other musicians in public worship.
I have an agent who has visited several reformed churches in our area, and he reports that in many of these churches the singing of the congregation is in serious decline. Special music groups do all the singing. Or the tunes are new and only the words are printed and no one has learned the tune.
Whatever the reason, more and more reformed worshippers are just standing there as the music is playing. They have not done anything together. They have not responded to God for His words to us. They are just standing there until the next item in the order of worship. This is a dangerous trend.
When a new hymn is introduced to a congregation, it ought to be taught. Sometimes this is done by adopting a "hymn of the month" which is sung every Sunday for a month. Sometimes there is another venue (like Sunday School) where it can be introduced and practiced until ready for corporate worship. Sometimes it can be reproduced--with music--and carefully taught during the worship period.
Every congregation member ought to be able to think about the words and join the praise thoughts incorporated in this new hymn, and that just can't be effectively done if he is groping for the note and reading unfamiliar words at the same time.
Whatever the solution, please let us not lose this important element of corporate worship.
Friday, January 10, 2014
A simple errand
Our granddaughter had to fly to South Carolina to pick up her kids who were visiting their father over Christmas vacation. Stacy figured, "I'll wear flip-flops so they won't make me take off my shoes at security check. I will just take one extra set of clothes because I want to fly in relative comfort, without having a suitcase to pick up at baggage carousel. And I should leave my car in short-term parking. I'm coming right back tomorrow."
Then the storm struck. A seven hour delay in Huston was bad enough, but on the way home this would be intolerable. When she arrived in Charlotte, she discovered her return flight was scheduled to stop at O'Hare in Chicago, and nothing was going in or out of O'Hare by this time.
Grandma Christian picked her up to drive her back to her place (2 hours and then some). Finally negotiations were completed for a return flight that would bring her to Vegas--on Wednesday! Oh my goodness! Look at all that snow, and I'm in flip-flops. We have to stop at Wallmart and get some shoes.
Okay, let's give the kids a bath. Dad, you take care of little David. What do you mean he has spots? He can't have chicken pox, he's had the vaccine. Oh, you mean there are different types of chicken pox? By now, of course, both kids are breaking out in full color. Wait a minute. These kids are quarantined from public transportation until they are no longer contagious. That means we can't fly out on Wednesday.
She's crying, and she's laughing. What next?
Then the storm struck. A seven hour delay in Huston was bad enough, but on the way home this would be intolerable. When she arrived in Charlotte, she discovered her return flight was scheduled to stop at O'Hare in Chicago, and nothing was going in or out of O'Hare by this time.
Grandma Christian picked her up to drive her back to her place (2 hours and then some). Finally negotiations were completed for a return flight that would bring her to Vegas--on Wednesday! Oh my goodness! Look at all that snow, and I'm in flip-flops. We have to stop at Wallmart and get some shoes.
Okay, let's give the kids a bath. Dad, you take care of little David. What do you mean he has spots? He can't have chicken pox, he's had the vaccine. Oh, you mean there are different types of chicken pox? By now, of course, both kids are breaking out in full color. Wait a minute. These kids are quarantined from public transportation until they are no longer contagious. That means we can't fly out on Wednesday.
She's crying, and she's laughing. What next?
Friday, January 3, 2014
New Year's Resolution
Any resolve I might make that has to wait for January first, cannot be a sincere resolution. If it is something I should do, then I should start doing it the moment it comes to mind. Resolutions made December 31st must be the real thing.
If it is losing weight that I decide I must do (and really I should do that) then I should wake up this morning and say, "Today is the first day of the rest of my life. I have to stop sweets and extra helpings NOW." Then tomorrow morning, after I have pigged out the night before, I have to say the same thing. The starting line is now for anything seriously in need of change.
It is a daily resolve we undertake to kill a little more sin and learn to walk with Jesus a little better. That just can't wait for a calendar marker like the first of the year, or month or whatever.
Now after scorning the idea of making New Year's Resolutions, I must admit to resolving to attempt a through the bible read. The printed chart begins with January 1, and my contemporaries announced it just at this time of the year, so I jumped at the challenge.
I remember as a brand new Christian, resolving to leave the liberal church of which I was already a member. I was saved watching Billy Graham several weeks (months?) prior. But when the pastor preached about George Washington on Washington's birthday, I wanted to hear the word of God. It had become the right time for me to make the resolution, "By the grace of God, this is the last sermon I will hear in this church." And it was.
I also have made a resolution to write more blogs this year. No, it wasn't a New Year's resolution, but I thought I would share that with you.
If it is losing weight that I decide I must do (and really I should do that) then I should wake up this morning and say, "Today is the first day of the rest of my life. I have to stop sweets and extra helpings NOW." Then tomorrow morning, after I have pigged out the night before, I have to say the same thing. The starting line is now for anything seriously in need of change.
It is a daily resolve we undertake to kill a little more sin and learn to walk with Jesus a little better. That just can't wait for a calendar marker like the first of the year, or month or whatever.
Now after scorning the idea of making New Year's Resolutions, I must admit to resolving to attempt a through the bible read. The printed chart begins with January 1, and my contemporaries announced it just at this time of the year, so I jumped at the challenge.
I remember as a brand new Christian, resolving to leave the liberal church of which I was already a member. I was saved watching Billy Graham several weeks (months?) prior. But when the pastor preached about George Washington on Washington's birthday, I wanted to hear the word of God. It had become the right time for me to make the resolution, "By the grace of God, this is the last sermon I will hear in this church." And it was.
I also have made a resolution to write more blogs this year. No, it wasn't a New Year's resolution, but I thought I would share that with you.
Sunday, December 29, 2013
Did Jesus fail to bring peace on earth?
The angel announcement was "and on earth peace, good will toward men". At least that is the King James translation. Modern translations get it right, "peace among men with whom He is pleased." But even this needs a little explanation.
So many of our Christmas Carols were written when musicians had only the King James version to guide them, and so we are overwhelmed with the wrong message this time each year. It seems as though the birth of the Messiah was supposed to begin a universal reign of peace. In fact that is true, but not the way most people suppose. The Jewish conservative commentator, Dennis Prager, claims that is the biggest reason why he cannot consider Jesus to be the Messiah. After his birth there has not been an advent of world peace.
The word translated "good will" in the KJV is used elsewhere in the New Testament, and it always seems to refer to God's sovereign good pleasure. He is called the one who works all things after the counsel of his will (Ephesians 1:11).
For example, the word occurs in Matthew 11:26, "Yes, Father, for such was your gracious will." (ESV) In context Jesus is referring to God's hiding certain ideas from some people and revealing them to others. This was according to the sovereign good pleasure of God. In Luke 12:32 Jesus says to His disciples, "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."
Galatians 1:15 is another instance of the use of this word. Here too it is all of God's good pleasure, and not of Paul's choosing that he was called to be an apostle. Again it refers to the sovereign, unconditioned determination of God.
You see what the angels were saying (singing?) to the shepherds that night was that God was giving peace to many people, namely all those who were beneficiaries of His sovereign good pleasure. Why this is not grasped by many is simply the fact that this pleasure is a subset of election. And those who assume that God's grace must be egalitarian despise the doctrine of election. Never mind that it is clearly taught in the Bible, it's not politically correct to favor one over another, and therefore it must mean something else.
I wonder what kind of a problem these same people may have with the fact that it is God who allows one soul to be born to an atheist family in the Czech Republic, and another soul to be born to a wholesome Christian family in the United States. While it may be true that your birth family does not determine your salvation, no one can doubt that there is enormous spiritual advantage for the one over against the other. This is only one obvious form of election. Continue to check the context of Matthew 11 and you will see that Jesus is thanking His Father for election. "I thank you, Father, for hiding these things from the wise and prudent." Ponder that a moment. God has hidden insight from cocky know-it-alls. "And for revealing them to babes." That is, for revealing these same things to those who are beginners in the Christian life. That's simply election at work.
In God's sovereign disposition he has given this earth shattering news of Messiah's birth to lowly pungent savored shepherds. They will derive the peace of God that lasts forever from this announcement. Glory to God in the highest! Indeed we must do that still. That is our purpose when we gather for public worship. To God alone be the glory. And peace--His peace--rests upon all those who put their faith in the Son He gave to be our Savior. It's not universal world peace. But that will come when Jesus returns. Be patient.
So many of our Christmas Carols were written when musicians had only the King James version to guide them, and so we are overwhelmed with the wrong message this time each year. It seems as though the birth of the Messiah was supposed to begin a universal reign of peace. In fact that is true, but not the way most people suppose. The Jewish conservative commentator, Dennis Prager, claims that is the biggest reason why he cannot consider Jesus to be the Messiah. After his birth there has not been an advent of world peace.
The word translated "good will" in the KJV is used elsewhere in the New Testament, and it always seems to refer to God's sovereign good pleasure. He is called the one who works all things after the counsel of his will (Ephesians 1:11).
For example, the word occurs in Matthew 11:26, "Yes, Father, for such was your gracious will." (ESV) In context Jesus is referring to God's hiding certain ideas from some people and revealing them to others. This was according to the sovereign good pleasure of God. In Luke 12:32 Jesus says to His disciples, "Fear not, little flock, for it is your Father's good pleasure to give you the kingdom."
Galatians 1:15 is another instance of the use of this word. Here too it is all of God's good pleasure, and not of Paul's choosing that he was called to be an apostle. Again it refers to the sovereign, unconditioned determination of God.
You see what the angels were saying (singing?) to the shepherds that night was that God was giving peace to many people, namely all those who were beneficiaries of His sovereign good pleasure. Why this is not grasped by many is simply the fact that this pleasure is a subset of election. And those who assume that God's grace must be egalitarian despise the doctrine of election. Never mind that it is clearly taught in the Bible, it's not politically correct to favor one over another, and therefore it must mean something else.
I wonder what kind of a problem these same people may have with the fact that it is God who allows one soul to be born to an atheist family in the Czech Republic, and another soul to be born to a wholesome Christian family in the United States. While it may be true that your birth family does not determine your salvation, no one can doubt that there is enormous spiritual advantage for the one over against the other. This is only one obvious form of election. Continue to check the context of Matthew 11 and you will see that Jesus is thanking His Father for election. "I thank you, Father, for hiding these things from the wise and prudent." Ponder that a moment. God has hidden insight from cocky know-it-alls. "And for revealing them to babes." That is, for revealing these same things to those who are beginners in the Christian life. That's simply election at work.
In God's sovereign disposition he has given this earth shattering news of Messiah's birth to lowly pungent savored shepherds. They will derive the peace of God that lasts forever from this announcement. Glory to God in the highest! Indeed we must do that still. That is our purpose when we gather for public worship. To God alone be the glory. And peace--His peace--rests upon all those who put their faith in the Son He gave to be our Savior. It's not universal world peace. But that will come when Jesus returns. Be patient.
Thursday, December 5, 2013
"Authentic" Lord's Supper?
A few years ago I posted this. Since it still gets a lot of hits, and because I think the story is rather fun, I post it again below.
It must have been in the late 70s while I was yet ministering in Modesto. Dan Morse was trying to plant an OPC work in the city of Sacramento, and for some reason I was available to supply for him when he was out of town. I think I had a minister in our congregation in Modesto by the name of Bill Fredericks. He probably supplied the pulpit in Modesto so I could minister to the new chapel in Sacramento.
Anyway, Pastor Morse had his congregation trained to expect the Lord's Supper every week. He sought to give more people ownership of the worship service by having them rotate the responsibility of bringing a bottle of wine for the Lord's Supper. They even used a common cup and tore the bread by hand. It was very interesting and quaint as an attempt at feeling like the original disciples. The cup was an ornate chalice which I was taught to rotate slightly after each communicant took a sip. As I rotated the brim of the cup I would wipe it with a clean napkin which I carried along the aisle for the purpose. Of course when you study the matter you would realize that it doesn't take that many communicants to cover the circumference of the chalice and begin to repeat using the same surface someone before had touched with his lips. But we used wine, so the theory is that the alcohol would kill the germs. If you are tempted to feel creepy in spite of these safeguards, then you must fall back on your trust in the ability of a sovereign God to protect you from whatever bacilli were remaining on the brim of that cup. Actually the service went rather smoothly, and I thought it was a more intimate communion when it was done like this.
The second time I filled in for Pastor Morse we were a trifle nervous because the lady who was scheduled to bring the wine had not yet appeared, and it was less than 10 minutes before the service was to begin. Bur relief broke out when she came in the door and handed me a bottle shaped brown bag. I took it to the chalice, pulled out the wine, and stopped motionless for a brief moment. She had brought apricot wine! Here we were eating torn pieces of bread and drinking from a common cup because it seemed so authentic--but then the whole mood was ruined because we were not using "the fruit of the vine". Of course the only thing to do (at that hour) was to pour the apricot wine into the chalice and proceed with the service as though nothing was amiss. I'm sure the service was only ruined for me. I've been told of hippies who used coke and french fries. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart, and I know this lady meant no disrespect by substituting apricot wine for the more bloody fruit.
It must have been in the late 70s while I was yet ministering in Modesto. Dan Morse was trying to plant an OPC work in the city of Sacramento, and for some reason I was available to supply for him when he was out of town. I think I had a minister in our congregation in Modesto by the name of Bill Fredericks. He probably supplied the pulpit in Modesto so I could minister to the new chapel in Sacramento.
Anyway, Pastor Morse had his congregation trained to expect the Lord's Supper every week. He sought to give more people ownership of the worship service by having them rotate the responsibility of bringing a bottle of wine for the Lord's Supper. They even used a common cup and tore the bread by hand. It was very interesting and quaint as an attempt at feeling like the original disciples. The cup was an ornate chalice which I was taught to rotate slightly after each communicant took a sip. As I rotated the brim of the cup I would wipe it with a clean napkin which I carried along the aisle for the purpose. Of course when you study the matter you would realize that it doesn't take that many communicants to cover the circumference of the chalice and begin to repeat using the same surface someone before had touched with his lips. But we used wine, so the theory is that the alcohol would kill the germs. If you are tempted to feel creepy in spite of these safeguards, then you must fall back on your trust in the ability of a sovereign God to protect you from whatever bacilli were remaining on the brim of that cup. Actually the service went rather smoothly, and I thought it was a more intimate communion when it was done like this.
The second time I filled in for Pastor Morse we were a trifle nervous because the lady who was scheduled to bring the wine had not yet appeared, and it was less than 10 minutes before the service was to begin. Bur relief broke out when she came in the door and handed me a bottle shaped brown bag. I took it to the chalice, pulled out the wine, and stopped motionless for a brief moment. She had brought apricot wine! Here we were eating torn pieces of bread and drinking from a common cup because it seemed so authentic--but then the whole mood was ruined because we were not using "the fruit of the vine". Of course the only thing to do (at that hour) was to pour the apricot wine into the chalice and proceed with the service as though nothing was amiss. I'm sure the service was only ruined for me. I've been told of hippies who used coke and french fries. Man looks on the outward appearance, but God looks on the heart, and I know this lady meant no disrespect by substituting apricot wine for the more bloody fruit.
Monday, November 18, 2013
A normative text
The other day I saw a letter to the editor of the local paper, railing against "biblical" marriage. She asked what that is supposed to mean. Does it mean polygamy, since David was given multiple wives? Does it mean levirate marriage when a man is required to marry his brother's widow?
It occurred to me once again this proves a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In fact it was hard not to believe this was a case of being willingly ignorant. It turned out to be a tirade against those opposed to same sex "marriage" on biblical grounds. This spitting polemic was intended to make it sound as though the bible is very arbitrary and contradictory, and couldn't be trusted.
I was reminded of a marital question raised by the Sadducees of Jesus' day. In fact it was about levirate marriage. The scenario proposed that a woman was widowed by no less than seven brothers before she finally died. The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection, so the question "Who's wife will she be?" was intended to ridicule the doctrine of the resurrection.
Jesus' answer to the Sadducees was so profound and relevant for the author of this letter to the editor as well as many other sneering questioners. He said, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29) Wow! I feel the brunt of that answer. So often my problem with a bible concept is exactly that. I don't know the bible well enough, and I am selling short the power of God.
It is true that David had more than one wife. It's recorded because it is the truth, not because it is a guideline for pleasing God. The text about David is simply sober history. It happened this way, and so God tells it this way. That does not mean that God approved of what David did, nor does it give us leave to follow his example. Even though David was guilty of murder as well as adultery, when he repented, he was the man after God's own heart. And a man with multiple wives cannot throw some away after he repents. He must keep his responsibilities toward each of them.
The bigger question is "Is this a normative text?" That is to say, is this supposed to be an example for all believers to adopt as a rule for their behavior? Any who deal with ancient documents must learn to ask himself, "What did the author intend by these words?" Nine times out of ten the task is not that daunting. Even modern documents, like the morning newspaper, require some interpretation. And if you really want to know the author's intent, it is not that difficult to figure out.
Armed with a genuine interest in the bible's teaching about marriage, you will discover Jesus' words, "Have you not read that He who created them from 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 they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." These words are not simply reciting history. Any amateur interpreter gets the point that this is intended to be a guiding principle, an authoritative definition of marriage. This text is normative. It is designed to give us guidance for our lives.
It occurred to me once again this proves a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. In fact it was hard not to believe this was a case of being willingly ignorant. It turned out to be a tirade against those opposed to same sex "marriage" on biblical grounds. This spitting polemic was intended to make it sound as though the bible is very arbitrary and contradictory, and couldn't be trusted.
I was reminded of a marital question raised by the Sadducees of Jesus' day. In fact it was about levirate marriage. The scenario proposed that a woman was widowed by no less than seven brothers before she finally died. The Sadducees didn't believe in the resurrection, so the question "Who's wife will she be?" was intended to ridicule the doctrine of the resurrection.
Jesus' answer to the Sadducees was so profound and relevant for the author of this letter to the editor as well as many other sneering questioners. He said, "You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures nor the power of God." (Matthew 22:29) Wow! I feel the brunt of that answer. So often my problem with a bible concept is exactly that. I don't know the bible well enough, and I am selling short the power of God.
It is true that David had more than one wife. It's recorded because it is the truth, not because it is a guideline for pleasing God. The text about David is simply sober history. It happened this way, and so God tells it this way. That does not mean that God approved of what David did, nor does it give us leave to follow his example. Even though David was guilty of murder as well as adultery, when he repented, he was the man after God's own heart. And a man with multiple wives cannot throw some away after he repents. He must keep his responsibilities toward each of them.
The bigger question is "Is this a normative text?" That is to say, is this supposed to be an example for all believers to adopt as a rule for their behavior? Any who deal with ancient documents must learn to ask himself, "What did the author intend by these words?" Nine times out of ten the task is not that daunting. Even modern documents, like the morning newspaper, require some interpretation. And if you really want to know the author's intent, it is not that difficult to figure out.
Armed with a genuine interest in the bible's teaching about marriage, you will discover Jesus' words, "Have you not read that He who created them from 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 they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate." These words are not simply reciting history. Any amateur interpreter gets the point that this is intended to be a guiding principle, an authoritative definition of marriage. This text is normative. It is designed to give us guidance for our lives.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)