Saturday, February 17, 2018

He who is able to accept this, let him accept it

Divorce and remarriage touch the lives of women and men, the saints in Christ. Often divorce and remarriage ravages the lives of one or the other of two people who were once intimates. The scriptures reveal for us this subject of divorce and remarriage for our study, discussion and learning. These accounts in the scriptures also reveal something about those who lead, teach and preach. Generally, particularly the unaffected, do not think about this human experience as having been devoid of anything to accept or to receive.

The Old Testament scriptures relate the example of Ezra and Nehemiah and their response concerning the unequal yoke of mixed marriages among the children of Israel. There is the example in the New Testament of the Pharisees who approached Jesus with their questions on divorce. These examples are not to be dismissed as some ancient practice or a theological discussion. They reveal and equip with a response those who lead, teach and preach the word of the Lord concerning ourbrothers and sisters who are affected by divorce and remarriage.


The questions posed by the Pharisees and the response from Jesus to their questions was the backdrop for the disciples to reveal their own mistaken conclusions. Jesus responded to their mistaken and extreme conclusions with wisdom, knowledge and compassion. The response to the Pharisees and the disciples from Jesus was not in the manner of what the saints are given by scholars and theologians. His response did not involve the convoluted hypotheses, speculative scenarios involving a man and a woman or original language word definitions in isolation often heard concerning divorce and remarriage. The response from Jesus was about accepting what one has been given. These words do not ever receive attention in the discussion or in words of encouragement to those who have gone through divorce and are now entering into marriage again. As I alluded in the opening this brief article spans the entirety of the written revelation of the word of God. I admit there is a seeming contradiction between a scope that purports to be brief and entire at once. The approach to the scriptures is not a single verse here or single word there. Instead, it is an orientation from the scriptures for the reader concerning this human experience in which either a relationship ends or a relationship starts a new between a man and a woman.

There are two separate instances which reveal a teaching and a practice concerning the union of a man and woman, that is, the marriage union. Both are followed by an indirect and an direct response.

an indirect response to the actions of Ezra
The first instance involves the mixed marriages in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. These are related in Ezra 9 and Nehemiah 13, respectively. The existence of these mixed marriages came to light as the children of Israel were returning to Jerusalem after their seventy years in captivity. The matter was brought to the attention of Ezra and Nehemiah who led two different groups among the returning exiles. Ezra, who was a priest, called for the dissolution of those marriages. [1] Nehemiah, [2] who was not a priest, expressed his anger at the Jews who had entered into those mixed marriages.

Nehemiah was mindful of the scriptures. He exhorted the Jews about King Solomon's own mixed marriages, but it appears that it was the priests on whom Nehemiah focused his attention. It was the priests to whom he limited the dissolution of marriages. Ezra may have directed the dissolution of the mixed marriages to the priests, only, but it seems that he may possibly have extended it to all the people. [3] Nehemiah then purified the priests.

Nehemiah, like Ezra, had prophets whom he could have consulted in Jerusalem. However, Nehemiah, like Ezra, is not known to have consulted the prophets. Ezra allude to the scriptures concerning the commandment admonishing Israel not to give the daughters  to the neighboring nations nor to take the daughters of the neighboring nations for their sons. The scripture notes that Nehemiah states “I consulted with myself” and with nobles and rulers concerning another problem, namely, the practice of usury which was forbidden in Israel. Ezra may not have consulted nobles and rulers, but he listened to them, not the prophets, when the leaders laid the burden on him as his responsibility to resolve the problem of the mixed marriages. Ezra and Nehemiah consulted the Lord through prayer for guidance in their work, but neither one of them sought the counsel of the Lord through his prophets concerning the matter of the mixed marriages.

a plausible disparity
There is a  plausible disparity involving the scope of the dissolution of those marriages between the actions of the two men. I believe it was a real time lesson for Israel’s learning by the Spirit as to what the Lord  had commanded, how that commandment was violated and how men, specifically, Ezra and Nehemiah, thought to resolve the problem of having violated the commandment of God. Could it be any less of a lesson and admonition for the saints in Christ to examine carefully and learn from those actions in the light of the written word of the Lord?

One telltale sign that a man's teaching and explanation is mistaken or incomplete is when there are seeming, and I emphasize, seeming, contradictions.

There is no condemnation in the scripture against Ezra and Nehemiah. There is no condemnation intended in this article on either man for their decisions and their actions. Yet, as much as God had sternly admonished Israel not to enter into the equal yoke of mixed marriages Nehemiah was keenly aware that God did not send a prophet to warn Solomon about his marriages nor did God take action against Solomon. Nehemiah's reference to Solomon reveals his mindfulness of the scriptures more so than Ezra and is, I believe, the indirect response to the teaching and actions of Ezra.

The scripture testifies that Ezra had set his heart to study and practice the law of the Lord. Yet, it is significant and it is not to be overlooked that the scripture does not state that Ezra ever referred to the scriptures. Nehemiah’s own reference to King Solomon’s many wives becomes especially significant when we seek to understand and discern the will of the Lord from the scriptures themselves and not merely what two godly men did or did not do. Nehemiah’s response and solution (and possibly Ezra, too) to the mixed marriages by limiting it to the priests appears to stand. This seems especially true in the absence of any other parenthetical explanation by the writer such as for example, -but it was not the will of the Lord- or -but it was the will of the Lord. The conclusion of the matter concerning the mixed marriages in the sight of God, it would appear from the testimony of the scriptures, was not one which compelled God to step in and send a prophet as when he dispatched Nathan to go and rebuke King David for his adultery with Bathsheba and his murder of her husband, Uriah, the Hittite.

The recurring message of Ezekiel and the prophets to Israel upon their imminent return from captivity was that it was not because of their repentance, righteousness or their sake, but it was for the sake of “My holy name” [4] said the Lord. Even after their return they thought to purge “the holy race”[5] of the mixed marriages as their notion of righteousness without consulting the prophets, the servants of God, and were it not for Nehemiah the word of the Lord may have been out of sight and out of mind and dropped into the forgotten file.

the actions of those who lead and teach
There is a further and perhaps extended aspect in the response by Ezra and Nehemiah to the mixed marriages. The commandment of the Lord against mixed marriages and King Solomon’s many wives was as much of a factor as concerns Solomon’s own mother Bathsheba. Her husband was a Hittite, but the scripture suggests that she was descendant of Eliam, hence, not a foreigner. Nonetheless, Solomon’s father King David had lustfully and wrongfully taken her for himself through adultery and murder. It would be a grossly, grotesque distortion of truth to take my words here as some perverse subtle or hearty approval on the part of God of King David, a man after God's own heart, or King Solomon’s actions. Indeed, their actions may suggest something about the hearts of leaders in Israel. So, too, the actions of Ezra and Nehemiah, men of God, may suggest something about our hearts, and I include myself, among those who profess and aspire to teach and practice the word and counsel of the Lord God, but who can fail, as dismally did King David as the leader of Israel. Our failures can burden and inundate the lives of the saints on whom we impose our mistaken notions of piety and righteousness. Even worse, when those who profess and purport to lead, teach and preach cavalierly and appallingly counsel those affected by divorce and remarriage to “just play it safe” and remain single for the rest of their lives.

a direct response to the teaching of the Pharisees and the notions of the disciples
The second instance which reveals a teaching and a practice concerning the union of a man and woman involves an occasion when Jesus engaged with the Pharisees and scribes concerning divorce and remarriage. (Matthew 19) Then, the disciples, having heard the discussion, revealed their own seriously mistaken notion to which Jesus responded. promptly. Their reaction to what they heard from Jesus was in the extreme. Their solution to the problem concerning divorce and remarriage was, If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry. The ugly reality is that this mistaken notion is often the so-called safe response by some who lead, teach and preach for the saints in Christ.

The direct, corrective teaching response from the Lord Jesus to the disciples concerning eunuchs and the kingdom of heaven is a familiar one for many saints in Christ. Some of us can parrot it quite well. What is often overlooked is that the response is parenthetically enclosed between these two notable expressions,

1) Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom it has been given, and
2) He who is able to accept this, let him accept it."

This is a statement. This is a statement which is to be accepted by those who are able to accept it. The point, I believe, is that there is a decision and determination to made by the individual, man or woman, following their divorce and remarriage. They may decide whether they will remain alone and not remarry or to remarry. The three different eunuchs as described by Jesus, represent three different paths for them to choose and it is nobody but those individuals’ decision to accept it and to make it their own.

innate, outward and inward actions
What the three different eunuchs represent are life circumstances shaped by innate actions, outward actions and inward actions. More specifically, I believe, they are analogous to persons who, from birth and throughout their lives, have never had and do not have the need or desire to be joined intimately with another person, hence, it is an innate action since their birth. There are those who through the actions of men, for example, perhaps through a blotch medical procedure, act of violence or ceremonial ritual, have been rendered physically incapable of fulfilling the sexual union or procreation, hence, an outward action. Lastly, there are those persons who may be physically able and even willing to unite with another person, but they find themselves answering to a higher call such as ministry before the Lord and to the saints in Christ and those without God in whatever manner the Spirit leads them, hence, an inward action.

It is not that any of these eunuchs can not be joined intimately with another human being, but that each one has the capacity to choose to accept what is given to them.

Jesus does not exalt one choice above the other as being the best decision, or even, as too many are prone to dictate, which is the right decision.

to whom it has been given
Whatever path one chooses to take is as it has been given to him or her.

Do you wonder who, if not God Our Father, the giver of all gifts, is the one who does the giving?

If we notice the apostle Paul's use of the term gift [6] in his own message on marriage I believe we will be closer towards understanding, appreciating and rejoicing in the harmony of the word of the Lord. Unity and harmony resonate in the words of Jesus and Paul concerning our brothers and sisters who experience divorce and remarriage. The unfortunate reality is that it is the tendency of men to think that they have a higher standard of piety and righteousness than the Righteous One God. The fallout of that is the burden with which women and men are broken and crushed.

The commandment of the Lord is not burdensome. Jesus said,

"Come to Me, all who are weary and heavy-laden, and I will give you rest. 29 "Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and YOU WILL FIND REST FOR YOUR SOULS. 30 "For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."

The apostle Paul, by the authority of the Holy Spirit, delivered a similar admonition to Christians as did the Lord with Israel about being unequally yoked with unbelievers. Then, in what seems to be no less than the longsuffering of the Lord as in the manner of King Solomon the apostle Paul in I Corinthians 7 prefaces his words to men and women with his own emotional heartfelt burden for them as, I wish (7) by way of concession (6) I am trying to spare [trouble] you (28) and I say for your own benefit; and not to put a restraint on you. (35)

Even Moses said it to Israel,

10 if you obey * the LORD your God to keep His commandments and His statutes which are written in this book of the law, if you turn to the LORD your God with all your heart and soul. 11 "For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach. 12 "It is not in heaven, that you should say, 'Who will go up to heaven for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 13 "Nor is it beyond * the sea, that you should say, 'Who will cross the sea for us to get it for us and make us hear it, that we may observe it?' 14 "But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may observe it. (Deuteronomy 30)

conclusion
The Holy Spirit has amply equipped those who lead, teach and preach concerning those affected by divorce and remarriage. The response and solution is not left to the dictates of an individual and their own sense of indignation or notion of piety and righteousness. It is the word of the Lord, not mere godly men and women on their own, which is to guide the saints in all matters.

The example involving the unequal yoke of mixed marriages in the time of Ezra and Nehemiah and their own response is for our learning. The response given by Jesus to his disciples to their mistaken conclusions on his teaching as being excessive and extreme is for our learning. So much of what has been heard and continues to be parroted concerning speculative scenarios between a man and a woman and original language single word definitions in isolation have been mostly for showmanship, not for the understanding and edification of the saints in Christ.

Our times are hardly any more different than Ezra and Nehemiah's or Moses’ and Jesus’ time with respect to divorce and remarriage. Nothing new under the sun, Solomon said. Such is humankind. Today, there are men, specifically men who are no less men of God than Ezra the priest and Nehemiah who would presume to dictate to a man or woman what God has "given" them and what it is that they are to "accept" as their marital status in order for them to be accepted among and in the fellowship of the saints in Christ.

No comments:

Post a Comment