Preaching Vision: Leading the Congregation to Godliness through the Pulpit

This is a paper I wrote for my Ministry of Leadership Class. I thought it was poor (it was one of the most difficult papers for me to write), but since I received high marks on it, I figured that I'd post it.

It is often said people need preaching. This statement is on the right track. Rick Warren notes, “Many pastors do not understand the power of the pulpit. Like a rudder on a ship, it will determine the direction of a church either intentionally or unintentionally.” People need good, faithful Biblical exposition applied to their lives, which leads them to see their current sinful state and have a vision of what can and must occur in their lives to lead them along the path of life toward godliness. Few people, let alone entire local churches, grasp a vision of future godliness from their own daily devotions or small-group Bible studies, toward which they should aim their lives. People need a vision of godliness toward which to orient their lives or they will live mundane, chaotic lives.

It is the Preaching Pastor’s duty to teach and exhort the congregation from the pulpit. “The congregation looks at the person behind the pulpit as the leader of the church, whether or not this is true. Consequently, the sermon is a primary vehicle that the leadership uses to cast its beliefs and dreams.” The pastor is to magnify God in his preaching to the extent that the flock he oversees comes to grasp God’s holiness, the standard of Christ Jesus to which Christians are being sanctified toward final glorification, and the practicality of the Scriptures, through which the Holy Spirit works for instructing the believer in all relevant matters. “God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit are the beginning, middle, and end in the ministry of preaching.” The pastor must help his people to understand how God desires them to live, and he must whet their appetites for God and godliness. The vision he imparts to them has to be exalted, yet reasonable, and with it he has to give pointed application for them as individuals and as a congregation. The pulpit is the primary means by which a Biblical vision is to be cast to lead the congregation as a whole toward godly living in Christ Jesus.

THE NEED FOR BIBLICAL VISION
The vision for the Christian life comes from knowing and properly applying the Scriptures. According to R. Albert Mohler, Christian preaching is grounded in revelation. “It is the preaching of a word that has been given; it is not the invention of a message that has been devised.” The preacher has the responsibility of interpreting the Bible, understanding its relevance for his church’s contemporary situation, and communicating to the church a vision of a glorified state and the means by which they attain this vision’s Biblical goals. Paul exhorts Timothy:

Continue in the things you have learned and become convinced of, knowing from whom you have learned them, and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. (2 Timothy 3:14-16)

Bryan Chapell writes concerning 2 Timothy 3:16-17: “God intends for every portion of his Word…to make us more like himself.” Every passage of Scripture is relevant for the contemporary hearer; it is not the job of the preacher to make Scripture relevant but rather to show its relevance for the present circumstances of the audience. “No text was written merely for those long ago; God intends for each Scripture to give us the ‘endurance and encouragement’ that we need today.”

The congregation needs to understand why they need the instruction of the Scriptures, where the Scriptures speak to their lives, and how God’s Word can and will help them. Chapell writes, “Since God designed the Bible to complete us, its contents necessarily indicate that in some sense we are incomplete. Our lack of wholeness is a consequence of the fallen condition in which we live.” The preacher must bring his audience to understand their depravity, the consequences of it, and how it is to be overcome. Chapell continues:

No passage relates neutral commentary on our fallenness. No text communicates facts for information alone. The Bible itself tells us that its pages instruct, reprove, and correct. God expects scriptural truths to transform his people. Faithful preaching does the same. The preacher who identifies a passage’s FCF [Fallen Condition Factor] for his congregation automatically gears them to consider the Bible’s solutions and instructions for contemporary life. Therefore, biblical preaching that brings an FCF to the surface also recognizes the need for application.

When the people see their fallen condition and understand how their own means are insufficient, and when they come to truly love God and comprehend the displeasure He takes in their sin, then they will have a sense of urgency to which a pastoral vision of godliness can speak—until that time, the good news of the gospel will be no more than stories and self-help suggestions. There is a paradox of grace in the Christian life: “the way down is always the way up.”

When people see their state of sinfulness, preachers are to lead them away from despair into repentance unto life (cf. 2 Corinthians 7:10). The pastor must give his congregation a vision of the Christian life—a vision of how they are to live now, in light of their future glorified state when Christ returns (cf. Colossians 3:1-17). John Piper writes, “The grand design of the Christian preacher is to restore the throne and dominion of God in the souls of men.” The vision is one of lordship and glory. It is both a plea for and an expectation of full submission to Christ. Bill Hybels notes, “As ministers, we all have to come to terms with the quality of fruit we’re producing. We have to decide what level of commitment we expect from the people we’re leading.” The pastor is to create in the people a picture of what life will be like when they commit themselves fully to the cause of Christ.

ONE COMMON VISION
The local church is exactly that: people who are near one another, able to take part in one another’s lives, and a called out “people,” not individuals gathering together. Gordon Cosby notes, “The preacher lives the life of the community along with all the other people in the community, and it is out of that common life and living out of the same biblical tradition—seeking to embody the gospel in the community—that the preacher then offers his or her gifts.” The full time pastor is immersed in the day-to-day life and ministry of the church, and he has the time and the training; by this virtue he is most qualified to lead and provide vision for the church. The community of faith needs a shared Biblical vision, and the pastor is the one set apart both by God and the congregation to provide and lead the congregation toward the goal of this vision. Aubrey Malphurs observes, “One of the primary functions of an organizational leader is the casting of the core values and vision.” He must hold them up before the congregation regularly.

Unlike much of the history of Western culture, the local church pastor is usually not the most respected, best-loved person in the community by virtue of his position. He must gain respect in the city in which he lives, and also in the church he serves. Haddon Robinson writes, “One way to build credibility with today’s congregations is to let people see that you understand their situation…. People want to listen to somebody who knows what the struggle is, but who has taken the Bible’s message seriously and knows how to hit.” The pastor needs to be honest with his congregation, and not appear as though he has a ‘holier than thou’ attitude. He has to identify with the people, and he also needs a working knowledge of the Scriptures, and the ability to apply them to the contemporary situation. John Stott exhorts preachers to be ‘bridge-builders,’ relating God’s unchanging Word to our ever-changing world. Malphurs writes, “Visionary leaders have a mental picture of what the transcendent, contemporary God has in mind for [their] people today. They carry in their mental billfolds a visual snapshot of what God can do in their ministries.”

The church needs to define its core values. When they are defined, the pastor is able to develop a vision for the church, for the values of the church drive it toward the goals in the vision. By uniting the church around the core values, the pastor is able to envision where the church is going, and how it is to get there. Derek Prime and Alistair Begg write, “We lead by our ability to convey a vision. Leaders must be forward looking. Although others within a church fellowship may be quite content with things as they are, leaders must be constantly seeking God’s way forward.” It is from their own vision of the future of the church that pastors understand the desperate need for change that exists. In their preaching, pastors must highlight the core values of the church and convey the vision, creating a sense of urgency about change by showing the current state of sinfulness and need of the people.

The ability to create urgency and cast vision for the congregation requires a leader who is immersed in the culture of the church, and one who intimately knows the people. Prime and Begg again note, “We lead by knowing what has to be done, when it should be done, and how it should be done. It is not enough simply to be ideas people, although that is part of leadership. Spiritual leaders should have an overall picture of the spiritual state of the church fellowship and its immediate and long-term priorities.” Only with this intimate knowledge can a pastor see the path upon which the church is treading and ‘feed the sheep’ and steer them in the direction they need to move.

The pastor has to be in great agreement with the people upon where they need to go. He has to believe in the vision so much that he exudes the vision. The pastor must not only preach the vision, but he also must be living it and striving toward its goals. He must be a leader outside of the pulpit as well as in it. He must be charismatic in his preaching, “animated, expressive, even passionate about [his] topic.” He must be authentic, embodying the vision “from core to crust,” believing what he says, and practicing what he preaches. His example will draw the congregation to more fully embrace the vision and will further his credibility in the eyes of the people. He will demonstrate to the people what the vision looks like, he will encourage enthusiasm, and he will promote unity among the ranks.

For real results to occur, the community must be unified in their vision. “The vision of your leader and the vision of your organization have to match. If they don’t, you either need a new vision for your organization or a new leader.” The church and the pastor need to agree upon where they are going, and what the desired end results will be. If there is not agreement, confusion will occur, as the pastor will be preaching them toward one goal and they will be focused on another, or the church may even split. A unified vision will yield godly fruit in the lives of the church and the individual members thereof, but a lack of unity, especially between the preacher and the congregation, will be disastrous.

THE SUPREMACY OF PREACHING
The task of bringing one common vision of godliness to the diversity of people in a local congregation of Christians is no small task. The preacher is responsible before God for his teaching (cf. James 3:1), and the current and eternal lives of many are dependant upon his faithfulness; but he must not be overwhelmed by the task before him. “The person who sees the difficulties so clearly that he does not discern the possibilities cannot inspire a vision in others.” He must inspire vision in his people to see them grow to maturity in the faith, and he has the primary responsibility in the church for motivating the community of faith to godliness. For this reason, preachers who are faithful are “to be considered worthy of double honor” (1 Timothy 5:17-18)—leading through preaching is no small task.
There are three main reasons why preaching is the primary means by which vision is communicated in the church: 1) vision is communicated in words, 2) vision needs to be expressed often, and 3) preaching is the foremost Biblical means of communicating vision.

The primary mode of communicating vision is in words. Aubrey Malphurs writes, “Visions are best communicated verbally, not visually. The power of the vision is in the hearing more than in the seeing.” Through verbal communication, a picture is instilled in the minds of the hearers of what can and must be, and “as passion is a ‘feeling’ word, so vision is a ‘seeing’ word.” People must see what they are to become—not visually, but conceptually. Aubrey Malphurs observes, “[If] the ministry’s constituency does not know what [their core] values are, if the leader has not taken the time to clearly communicate them, it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the organization to implement them.”

Vision is easily lost, and people are often burdened and disillusioned by the allurements of this world. The vision of the life of faith in obedience to the gospel must be preached in every sermon. John Piper writes, “What is at stake in pastoral admonition and in preaching is not merely the church’s progress in sanctification but its perseverance in final salvation.” Both the pastor and the congregation quickly lose sight of where they are going and how they are going to get there. It is thus essential for the central vision of the body to be emphasized regularly in the sermons. Rick Warren writes, “Vision and purpose must be restated every twenty-six days to keep the church moving in the right direction.”
People will often become overwhelmed by their current circumstances, and they will lose sight of Jesus Christ. The pastor must therefore often realign his congregation’s vision of Christ-likeness, the goal toward which they strive. Ken Blanchard recalls the words of Max De Pree, former chairman of the board of Herman Miller: “The top manager should be like a third grade teacher: You repeat yourself over and over until people get it right.” Only by constantly keeping the goal in sight will people be led from the ordinary ruts of life, through the pain of radical change, to take all the steps necessary toward abounding in faith, love, and hope. Malphurs says the vision “encourages people to look beyond the mundane and the pain of ministry [and living a godly life]. It keeps a picture in front of them that distracts from what is and announces what could be.” Jesus is our great example, and His likeness is the vision preachers must place before their congregations (cf. Hebrews 12:1-3, Romans 8:28-30).

Preaching is the Biblical means by which a vision of Christ-likeness is to be primarily communicated. R. Albert Mohler comments, “When you hear people speak about how to grow a church, how to build a church, and how to build a great congregation, few and far between are those who say it comes essentially by the preaching of the Word. And we know why, because it comes by the preaching of the Word slowly; slowly, immeasurably, sometimes even invisibly….” Unlike most modern, trendy methods of quick, quantitative results, preaching vision to a congregation is not an immediate solution, but it is the Biblical one. Mohler again says, only the preaching of the Word “will produce maturing and faithful believers in the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Preaching alone can change the whole person—and sanctification involves the renewal of the whole person. John Anderson observes that preaching that will change a person holistically must be theological preaching. “We have divorced theology and the mind. We have also divorced understanding from the heart and from the affections and the will. But the biblical pattern is to move people to do what is right by moving them to think what is right, to understand what is right.” Good theology is the basis for a God-centered vision of the Christian life; thus the only vision that will produce a godly church is one that is based upon good theology that is well communicated.

The great power for conveying vision that the preacher possesses must be used carefully. Derek Prime and Alistair Begg observe:

Preaching, like other good gifts of God, has been abused. Some have used the pulpit as a coward’s castle from which they have made pronouncements without having to take public criticism in return. They have used it to forward their own ideas rather than gospel truth. But our concern is with the preaching of God’s Word, not the propagation of human ideas or opinions.

Preaching must be Biblical, and the vision must be well communicated. Prime and Begg note, “Considerable harm may be done to people if they are called upon to act without first possessing a proper foundation in their understanding for that action.” Preaching has and can lead to moralism, legalism, and many other teachings that are contrary to the Christian gospel of God’s grace. Preaching is the primary means by which God communicates the vision of the gospel to His people, but it can also be dangerous if it is abused or untaken lightly.

HOW TO PREACH VISION
Communicating a Biblical vision from the pulpit takes a great amount of energy from the pastor. His time must be spent meditating upon Scripture and considering what the passages are saying to his people. Linda Clader writes, “When we clearly visualize, imagine an experience, idea, or vision, we are able to communicate the vision more vividly to our listeners.” The goal of preaching a vision of godliness is to inspire the congregation by forming in their minds the same images we (as pastors) have in our minds. Only when they see things as we see them will they strive along with us toward the likeness of Christ Jesus.

The vision of godliness that is preached cannot be a proverbial ‘carrot’ that is perpetually dangled in front of the people but a goal to which they can never attain. The vision needs to be “a clear, challenging picture of the future of the ministry as you [the pastor] believe that it can and must be.” It must be clear, challenging, a picture of the future, something that is possible (constructed on reality), and what must be (God is behind the vision, will supply the power of the Holy Spirit to see it through, and the vision is what He desires for His people). The vision has to both inspire and be realistic. The vision should be preached with heavy words that sink deep into the souls of those who hear, causing them to meditate upon the profundity of what they have heard and to reach the conclusion that God is truly in this vision. The message must not be a ‘pep-rally’ of emotion that leaves emptiness in the people by the end of the week, nor a ‘straw man’ that merely leaves people feeling like something has been accomplished when no real goal is met. The vision must be radical, difficult, and demanding, in line with Jesus’ own preaching for action against sin and in submission to His lordship. Though we will never attain to the full measure of glory in this life, measurable growth in grace should be evident as we direct people’s gaze toward Christ.

When believers are focused on Christ, they see the end result and follow Him. The pastor must envision what his people will be like when they submit to Christ in order to help them to be better disciples. “Vision involves seeing what it is you’re supposed to be doing…. The vision activity involves seeing disciples as well as making them.” Christians desire to follow Jesus more closely. They do not want preaching that does not speak to them and teach them how to walk more closely with Him. John Stott reminds preachers to treat their listeners as real people with real questions. We must therefore “grapple in our sermons with real issues; and…build bridges into the real world in which they live and love, work and play, laugh and weep, struggle and suffer, grow old and die. We have to provoke them to think about their life in all its moods, to challenge them to make Jesus Christ the Lord of every area of it, and to demonstrate his contemporary relevance.” Building a bridge through preaching across the chasm between the life Scripture describes and demands and the postmodern world gives people a vision of true godliness for their own lives. When we build a bridge, they are able to cross it.

Preaching a vision of godliness to the congregation will appeal to their hearts. In preaching to people’s hearts, the pastor is not only trying to sway their emotions, but to impact the whole person through appealing to their minds; vision has to be based in theology. To preach vision, the pastor must have a vision of how his preaching will affect his audience. Sinclair Ferguson writes, “The ability to imagine the Word being taken from the Scriptures and screwed into the minds of the hearers is common to all lively exposition.” Preaching a vision that captures people’s hearts will instruct people in the truth, convict their consciences, restore and transform their lives, and equip them for kingdom service.

The effective communication of vision through preaching will whisk a congregation’s attention off of themselves and on to Jesus Christ. A vision that is Biblical, unifying, and communicated well inspires faith in God’s amazing grace, causing His people to bear the fruit of the Spirit, the life of Christ (Galatians 5:22-23). Congregations need preaching that reveals to them the future if they remain faithful—a vision of godliness that inspires the worship of the Triune God. Preaching is the ordained means, and a vision preached well gives direction to the church by which they can have Christian life, and have it abundantly.

Footnotes

Rick Warren, The Purpose Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message & Mission, (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995), 118.

Aubrey Malphurs, Values-Driven Leadership: Discovering and Developing Your Core Values for Ministry, 2nd Ed., (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 102.
John Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching, Revised Ed, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004), 23.

R. Albert Mohler Jr., “The Primacy of Preaching,” in Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching, 1-32, ed. Don Kistler, (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002), 4.
Bryan Chapell, Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994), 42.

Ibid., 41.
Ibid., 44.
Sinclair B. Ferguson, “Preaching to the Heart,” in Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching, 190-217, ed. Don Kistler, (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002), 198.
Piper, The Supremacy of God in Preaching, 27.
Bill Hybels, “Power: Preaching for Total Commitment,” in Mastering Contemporary Preaching, 113-125, ed. Bill Hybels, (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1989), 114.

Jim Wallis, “To the Limits of Vision: Preaching in the Community of Faith,” Sojourners August/September (1986): 33.

Larry Osbourne, “Clarifying the Pastor’s Role,” in Renewing Your Church Through Vision and Planning, 95-104, ed. Marshall Shelley, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 98.

Malphurs, Values-Driven Leadership, 93-94.
Haddon Robinson, “What Authority Does a Preacher Have Anymore,” in Mastering Contemporary Preaching, 17-26, ed. Bill Hybels, (Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1989), 19, 23.

John Stott, Between Two Words: The Challenge of Preaching Today, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982), 144.

Aubrey Malphurs, Ministry Nuts and Bolts: What They Don’t Teach Pastors in Seminary, (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1997), 95.

Malphurs, Value- Driven Leadership, 96.

Derek Prime and Alistair Begg, On Being a Pastor, (Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2004), 222.
Prime and Begg, 223.
Malphurs, Value- Driven Leadership, 102.

Marshall Shelley, “Fix Your Gaze: How a Leader Named Solomon Impacts Secular Washington with Vision and Wisdom,” Leadership Summer (2000), 24.

J. Oswald Sanders, Spiritual Leadership: Principles of Excellence for Every Believer, (Chicago: Moody Press, 1994), 56.

Malphurs, Ministry Nuts and Bolts, 113.
Ibid., 95.
Malphurs, Values-Driven Leadership, 91.
John Piper, Brothers, We Are NOT Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry, (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002), 109.

Warren, 111.
Ken Blanchard, “Turning Vision into Reality,” in Renewing Your Church Vision and Planning, 81-85, ed. Marshall Shelley, (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997), 83.

Aubrey Malphurs, Advanced Strategic Planning: A New Model for Church and Ministry Leaders, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999), 137.

Mohler, 17.
Mohler, 18.

John Armstrong, “Preaching to the Mind,” in Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching, 166-189, ed. Don Kistler, (Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002), 169, 171.

Prime and Begg, 124.
Prime and Begg, 126.
Linda L. Clader, Voicing the Vision: Imagination and Prophetic Preaching, (Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing, 2003), 116.

Malphurs, Advanced Strategic Planning, 140-142.
Malphurs, Ministry Nuts and Bolts, 109.
Stott, 147.
Ferguson, 193.

Ibid., 211.
Ibid., 200.

BIBLIOGRAPHY


Books

Armstrong, John. “Preaching to the Mind.” In Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching, 166-189. Edited by Don Kistler. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002.

Blanchard, Ken. “Turning Vision into Reality.” In Renewing Your Church Vision and Planning, 81-85. Edited by Marshall Shelley. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997.

Chapell, Bryan. Christ-Centered Preaching: Redeeming the Expository Sermon. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1994.

Clader, Linda L. Voicing the Vision: Imagination and Prophetic Preaching. Harrisburg: Morehouse Publishing, 2003.

Ferguson, Sinclair B. “Preaching to the Heart.” In Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching, 190-217. Edited by Don Kistler. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002.

Hybels, Bill. “Power: Preaching for Total Commitment.” In Mastering Contemporary Preaching, 113-125. Edited by Bill Hybels. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1989.

Malphurs, Aubrey. Advanced Strategic Planning: A New Model for Church and Ministry Leaders. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 1999.

Malphurs, Aubrey. Ministry Nuts and Bolts: What They Don’t Teach Pastors in Seminary. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1997.

Malphurs, Aubrey. Values-Driven Leadership: Discovering and Developing Your Core Values for Ministry. 2nd Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.

Mohler, R. Albert Jr. “The Primacy of Preaching.” In Feed My Sheep: A Passionate Plea for Preaching, 1-32. Edited by Don Kistler. Morgan, PA: Soli Deo Gloria Publications, 2002.

Osborne, Larry. “Clarifying the Pastor’s Role.” In Renewing Your Church Through Vision and Planning, 95-104. Edited by Marshall Shelley. Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1997.

Piper, John. Brothers, We Are NOT Professionals: A Plea to Pastors for Radical Ministry. Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2002.

Piper, John. The Supremacy of God in Preaching. Revised Ed. Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2004.

Prime, Derek and Alistair Begg. On Being a Pastor. Chicago: Moody Publishers, 2004.

Robinson, Haddon. “What Authority Does a Preacher Have Anymore.” In Mastering Contemporary Preaching, 17-26. Edited by Bill Hybels. Portland, OR: Multnomah Press, 1989.

Sanders, J. Oswald. Spiritual Leadership: Principles of Excellence for Every Believer. Chicago: Moody Press, 1994.

Stott, John. Between Two Words: The Challenge of Preaching Today. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1982.

Warren, Rick. The Purpose Driven Church: Growth Without Compromising Your Message & Mission. Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1995.


Articles

Shelley, Marshall. “Fix Your Gaze: How a Leader Named Solomon Impacts Secular Washington with Vision and Wisdom.” Leadership Summer (2000): 24-30.

Wallis, Jim. “To the Limits of Vision: Preaching in the Community of Faith.” Sojourners August/September (1986): 32-35.

Read more »

Divorce and Remarriage in the Synoptics

In light of my lack of time, I thought I'd give my faithful readers (I love you mom and dad) I paper that I wrote for my ethics class. It's not as exciting as Together for the Gospel, but I do quote Piper a few times. Oh, and in a sidenote, I just read that internet use actually increases depression and loneliness--just thought you all should know (and reading my posts can actually lead to a loss of consciousness). So, here's the post.

The contemporary epidemic of divorce in the United States demands Christians to evaluate the teaching of Jesus on divorce as presented in the Synoptic Gospels. There has been no little debate recently upon Jesus’ view on divorce and remarriage; especially owing to the Matthean ‘exception clause’ and the lack of any exceptions in the parallel accounts in Mark and Luke. The majority view (also known as the ‘Erasmian View’) espouses “the biblical legitimacy of divorce and remarriage for the innocent party of a spouse’s adultery/sexual immorality,” while the minority views deny the legitimacy of remarriage after divorce in the case of adultery or the legitimacy of both divorce and remarriage in the case of adultery. Both views stem from a high view of Scripture and of marriage. This paper will consider the four texts on marriage and divorce in the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew 5:31-32, 19:3-12; Mark 10:2-12; and Luke 16:8), and the evidence of both positions will be weighed to draw a conclusion of which understanding is the Scriptural position.

Mark and Luke: No Exception?

John Piper, an advocate of the minority position, begins his understanding of Jesus’ teaching on this subject with the absolute statement of Luke 16:18 : “Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.” Piper believes that the New Testament prohibits all remarriage except in the case of the death of one’s spouse, and in his eleven supporting reasons against divorce and remarriage, he notes on Luke 16:18 that God does not view a marriage as terminating with divorce but considers the first marriage still valid, and any man who even marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. Since there are no exceptions mentioned, Piper believes that none of the first readers of the Gospel of Luke would have understood an exception to Jesus’ prohibition.

Mark 10:2-12 also yields no exception to the absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage. Piper notes, “Mark 10:11-12 calls all remarriage after divorce adultery whether it is the husband or the wife who does the divorcing.” It appears that both Luke and Mark knew of no ‘exception clauses,’ and according to R.H. Stein, “It appears that the Markan and Lukan accounts are closer to Jesus’ actual words,” which he believes are “hyperbolic.”

If Stein is correct and these sayings are Jesus’ original words and Jesus spoke them in a hyperbolic fashion (as He often spoke, cf. Luke 14:6), then it is not necessary to take Jesus’ words in Mark and Luke to be an absolute prohibition of marriage, but as a teaching tool to emphasize His point. Matthew’s ‘exception clause’ may then include the historical understanding of the context in which Jesus’ debate with the Pharisees took place (Matthew 19:3-9, Mark 10:2-10) and an application of what Jesus really meant. Darrell Bock observes, “This saying in Luke is not designed to be a detailed presentation of Jesus’ view of divorce; it merely sets out the most basic standard as an illustration of the moral tone Jesus desires.” James Brooks makes a good summary after considering Mark 10:2-12: “The effect of Jesus’ teaching is to condemn all divorce as contrary to God’s will and to set forth the highest standards of marriage for his disciples…. Divorce may sometimes be the lesser of two evils, but it is never pleasing to God or good in itself. It should not be looked upon by conscientious Christians as the preferred option.”

Matthew: Except Anything Indecent

Unlike the Markan and Lukan passages mentioned above, Jesus’ teachings on marriage (and divorce) in Matthew contain an exception clause: “everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity [Gk. Porneia], makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” (Matthew 5:32, emphasis mine). This ‘exception clause’ has been the main focus of the debate on Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. Various interpretations have been given as to both what is being permitted (divorce or divorce and remarriage) and the meaning of porneia.

The debate over the ‘exception clause’ has given an ample amount of discussion to understanding the Greek word porneia. This concession for divorce comes from Deuteronomy 24:1, “anything indecent.” Some scholars of the minority position have taken this to refer to incest, but no Jew would accept an incestuous relationship as a valid marriage. Porneia also does not mean exactly “adultery,” as other scholars have contended, since the Greek word moicheia would have been a more suited word choice. Carson notes, “Matthew has already used moicheia and porneia in the same context (15:19), suggesting some distinction between the words, even if there is considerable overlap.”

The minority view advocated by Piper has the most weight of all minority views. The term porneia is used as a defense of Joseph’s actions toward Mary in Matthew 1:18-20, where Joseph, though betrothed to Mary, not yet having a consummated marriage, resolves “to divorce” her. The ‘exception clause’ in Matthew is then showing how Joseph’s decision is just in light of Jesus’ absolute prohibition of divorce. James Montgomery Boice adds, porneia “is impurity in the woman discovered on the first night of the marriage, in which case there would have been deceit in the marriage contract.” Though this view makes reconciliation with Mark and Luke’s absolute prohibition, it unnecessarily constricts porneia’s meaning, and there is no clear tie between Matthew 1:18-20 and 19:9.

The minority view holds that divorce does not break the original one-flesh union in God’s eyes, and thus Matthew 5:32 is not teaching that remarriage is lawful in certain cases, but that all remarriage is unlawful after divorce, even for the innocent party involved, “and that a man who divorces his wife is guilty of the adultery of her second marriage unless she had already become an adulteress before the divorce.”

Boice comments on Matthew 5:31-32, “Whoever divorces his wife for whatever cause at all (excepting ‘marital unfaithfulness’) causes her to commit adultery, presumably because she would find it necessary to remarry, and that whoever married her would also be guilty of adultery,” since he is marrying a woman who’s original marriage is still binding upon her.

While the minority view does a good job of reconciling Matthew with the absolute decrees of Mark and Luke, it does not adequately take into consideration the historical context of Jesus’ encounter with the Pharisees. When the Pharisees confront Jesus to test Him with the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” (Matthew 19:3), they are referencing a common argument concerning the meaning of Deuteronomy 24:1. The debate concerned the more liberal Hillelite reading of the text, permitting a man to divorce a woman and remarry another for anything he disliked in her, while the Shammaite reading of the text was more conservative, permitting (and commanding) divorce for sexual unfaithfulness. “Had Jesus said yes, he would have sided with one school of rabbis; had he said no, he would have sided with another school of rabbis….” The Pharisees desire to turn the crowds against Jesus by getting Him to submit to one position or the other. Jesus does not side with either legal decree, but gives a moral decree. A.E. Harvey argues, though Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage occurs in a form similar to legal discourse (“whoever does x must expect the consequence y”), Jesus is giving moral instruction. Jesus “is using the casuistic form simply to give solemnity to his teaching and draw attention in a pointed way to the serious consequences which may follow from apparently trivial acts…. [This teaching method] points to the seriousness of what is often thought to be a trivial act by exaggerating the consequences.”

The Deuteronomy passage in question and Jesus’ reference to the one-flesh union (Matthew 19:5) is best understood with a consummated marriage in view, and not just the betrothal period. Jesus’ recent entry into Judea from Galilee gives us another clue, since the Pharisees may have raised the question in light of Herodias’ illegitimate divorce from her husband Philip and remarriage to Herod Antipas, in an attempt to get Jesus on bad terms with Herod, and suffer a similar fate as that of John the Baptist. Marriage, not betrothal, would then be in view. With a consummated marriage in view, adultery may be the intended meaning of porneia.

Carson notes that, although stoning may have been rarely carried out in the case of adultery, “as a legal system, irrespective of whether it was enforced, the Deuteronomic permission for divorce and remarriage could scarcely have adultery primarily in view,” since the offending spouse was as good as dead— “but porneia includes adultery even if not restricted to it.” Adultery was a radical breach of the one flesh union, and therefore was not in question as ground for divorce. Jesus’ defense of marriage as a one-flesh union means that “sexual promiscuity is therefore a de facto exception,” permitting but not commanding divorce. Jesus’ New Covenant community, with their changed hearts and eschatological kingdom ethics, should not operate from the hardness of heart that brings about divorce, but should rather forgive the offending party, as Matthew 18:21-35 dramatically emphasizes.

With a view similar to Shammai’s, though not commanding divorce, why do the disciples respond as they do in Matthew 19:10-12? Piper believes that Jesus’ explanation to His disciples in 19:10-12 is that God gives special grace to those who remain single after divorce, rather than remarrying. This interpretation hinges upon Jesus’ teaching that “not all men can accept this” is based upon the prohibition to remarry, rather than the disciples’ exclamation “it is better not to marry” (Matthew 19:10). Craig Blomberg understands the disciples to think, “even with the exception clause… fulfilling marital obligations may be harder than remaining single.” D.A. Carson believes that “far from backing down at the disciples' surliness, Jesus freely concedes that for those to whom it is given ‘it is better not to marry’; and ‘The one who can accept this should accept it.’” He explains, “‘eunuch’ is a strange figure for continence after marriage, especially since if the divorced spouse died, the survivor could remarry.” ‘Eunuch’ is much more naturally read in this way.

Conclusion

While either of the positions held can be defended biblically, the evidence is in favor of the majority position: it is biblically legitimate for the innocent party to divorce and remarry in the case of habitual sexual immorality. Kostenberger rightly notes the main point of the Biblical teaching: “Jesus affirms both that God’s ideal for marriage is a lifelong, ‘one flesh’ union… and that, because of people’s hardness of heart divorce is permissible (but not required) under certain circumstances.” Jesus’ teaching is focused on the ideal of lifelong, monogamous marriages, not the legalistic (even pharisaical) determination of cases in which divorce is justified. It would be a wise decision for pastors and teachers in the church today to focus on Jesus’ emphasis in the text, giving their energies to that which He gives the most attention, rather than outlining to the laity when divorce is permitted and when it is prohibited. Only when the clergy give the people a proper passion for the ethics of the kingdom (i.e. a lifelong one-flesh union and practicing forgiveness amidst difficult, painful circumstances) will the divorce trends noted below be stymied.

Footnotes

Andreas J. Kostenberger, God, Marriage and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation, (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004), 254-255.
Piper, John, Divorce and Remarriage: A Position Paper, July 21, 198, accessed November 29, 2005, available at http://www.desiringgod.org/library/topics/divorce_remarriage/div_rem_paper.html, Background and Introduction.

Ibid., Eleven Reasons….
Ibid.
Robert H. Stein, Luke. The New American Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 420.
Darrell L. Bock, Luke, The IVP New Testament Commentary Series, (Downersgrove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), 270.
James A. Brooks, Mark, The New American Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1991), 158.
David Instone-Brewer, Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context, Grand (Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002), 158.
D. A. Carson, Matthew, The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. [CD-ROM]; (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998), v. 9.
Piper, Eleven Reasons….
James Montgomery Boice, Matthew, vol. 2, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001), 402.
Carson, v. 9.
Kostenberger, 242.
Piper Eleven Reasons….
James Montgomery Boice, Matthew, vol. 1, (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001), 91-92.
Craig Blomberg, Matthew, The New American Commentary, (Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992), 289.
Craig S, Keener …And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991), 38.
A. E. Harvey, “Genesis versus Deuteronomy? Jesus on Marriage and Divorce,” in The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel, Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, eds, (Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 63-65.
Kostenberger, 243.
Carson, v. 9.
Jones, David Clyde. Biblical Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994, 199.
Carson, v. 9.
Blomberg, 294.
Carson, vv. 10-12.
Kostenberger, 244.

Bibliography


Books

Blomberg, Craig. Matthew. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992.

Bock, Darrell L. Luke. The IVP New Testament Commentary Series. Downersgrove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994.

Boice, James Montgomery. Matthew. Vol. 1. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001.

Boice, James Montgomery. Matthew. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 2001.

Brooks, James A. Mark. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1991.

Carson, D. A. Matthew. The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. [CD-ROM]. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1998.

Davis, John Jefferson. Evangelical Ethics: Issues Facing the Church Today. 3rd Ed. Phillipsurg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2004.

Harvey, A. E. “Genesis versus Deuteronomy? Jesus on Marriage and Divorce.” In The Gospels and the Scriptures of Israel. Craig A. Evans and James A. Sanders, Eds. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Instone-Brewer, David. Divorce and Remarriage in the Bible: The Social and Literary Context. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002.

Jones, David Clyde. Biblical Christian Ethics. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1994.

Keener, Craig S. …And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1991.

Kostenberger, Andreas J. God, Marriage and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation. Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2004.

Stein, Robert H. Luke. The New American Commentary. Nashville, TN: Broadman Press, 1992.

Read more »

A New Post (Yah!) Mopping and Theology

As I was mopping the kitchen, a basic tenet from Systematic Theology came to mind: Scripture is the norming norm that norms all other norms.

Confusing? Well, the concept really isn't. What this means is that, everything else that is regarded as authoritative in life must be subjected to the authority to Scripture.

As Christians, we are a people of the book--the Bible--for it is the very Word of God. We do not worship the Bible, but rather highly regard the it because of the One who inspired it--every word, passage, and thought. We worship God--as He is revealed in Scripture--we thus revere His Word.

Practically what this means is that everything else in life is relegated to Scripture. Theology, the queen of the sciences (and so it is, for everything else in life will inevitably flow from our thoughts of God), is second to Scripture. Theology must flow from Scripture, and where it does not, it must be subjected by scrutiny to what Scriptures proclaims. We cannot make Scripture line up with our theologies, no matter how God-glorifying we believe them to be--we must form our theologies from Scripture (which, I might add, is theologically coherent).

Logic and rationale is even subject to Scripture. Some will object to this, others will say, "Well, no kidding, Christianity is anti-intellectual." Nothing could be further from the truth than such a statement. Christianity is actually the most rational worldview, for it lines up with the reality of God and that God has created. As Christians, we love logic and reason, for it helps us to understand God, the world, etc. Yet we are not enlightenment modernists--we do not believe that man's mind is the highest norm--no, humans are enslaved to sin--in every aspect. The human affections (heart), will, and mind (reason) are all ruled by sin--the image of God in man has been corrupted fatally, and so we do not and cannot (apart from the grace of God wrought by the Spirit -Romans 8:7-8) act or think freely--thus, human reason is not the ultimate norm.

All things must be subjected to Scripture--whether or theology (understanding of God), anthropology (understanding of man), soteriology (understanding of salvation), or whatever else we study (biology, geology, etc), must ultimately line up with Scripture. In an argument, the final word for a Christian is, "the Bible says so," for it is the reliable Word of the Sovereign Lord who cannot lie--and we ultimately do not win arguments with sinful humans by our words, but by the power of the almighty Spirit who works effectually as He freely wills -cf. John 3). We trust in God--the One who works all things according to His purposes (Eph. 1:11).

Even our experiences are subjected to the Word of God. As humans, we interpret our experiences through our worldview. Experiences are not the ultimate reality.

Our lives are therefore subject to the scrutiny of Scripture's light. We love according to Scripture, not the post-modern model of 'love.' Christianity is right theology in true love, and true love in right theology. Why? Because "right theology" is Biblical theology (not Biblical theology the practice of understanding Scriptures in their context according to the canon, but Biblical theology--understanding that is true to the Bible and its worldview), and true love is love as God loves (a holy love).

What Bible then do we call this Norm? Well, obviously the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts and each as it is in line with them. Therefore, since you are not Jesus Christ, who alone submitted Himself perfectly to the Word of God and His commandments (for He Himself is the Word of God--the incarnate God), acknowledge that you do not submit fully to the Word of God (I don't--though I try, by His Spirit who works within me), turn (repent) from your lack of submission (as it is revealed to you), and obey God. Internalize God's Word, and do it.

Read more »

Pun Time!

If you have a weak stomach (like, bad jokes make you want to throw up), you may not want to read on. Seriously, this one hurts.

My prediction for the NCAA final tonight: If Noah can keep the heathen, I mean Bruins, out of the arc (ark), and at least two gators in it, they'll survive this crazy flood.

Pun time is over. For more bad jokes, just engage in conversation with me.

P.S. That one's for you, Uche.

Read more »

Quick to Complain, Slow to Praise

Louisville, as well as the entire region of Southern Indiana to Tennessee, experienced some
particularly violent weather last night. It hit East-side Metro Louisville around 11:00 PM, and lasted for about 15 minutes. Trees swayed almost-horizontal as Tornado/Air-raid sirens blared in the distance. My roommate John and I sat on the couch as we watched the weather man show all of the small pockets in the viewing area that had tornado warnings (and we received a great light-show courtesy of the Almighty). We also had some very small hail. After the storm passed over us a tornado warning was finally issued for Jefferson County.

Despite the bad weather in Kentucky, we did not see the brunt of the storm. Tyler came home and reported that some flower pots were blowing around at work, some funnel clouds were spotted in KY, and there were some roofs blown off houses, etc. But other states really had it bad. The last that I heard 27 people died and there was much devastation. God deserves all praise for sparing us and our possessions.

But today, I did not wake up in a spirit of exultation for God's faithfulness. Rather, with the water off until 2:00 PM, I was quite irritated. I was unable to take a shower or brush my teeth
(and, since I showered so late, I forgot to shave before work), and I was therefore unable to go out and accomplish what I desired to do. So what did I do? Did I praise God for my circumstances? (If you read the title, my next sentence will come as no surprise.) No. Rather than being content in for my lot, I grumbled about it. I did not consider the fact that this was allowing me to talk to a friend online with whom I had not spoken much for a couple of years, nor that I was able to look up many books that I need for some upcoming papers. I was not outwardly upset (punching holes through walls and tearing my clothes), but I was inwardly irritated and complained that I could not take a shower and do what I planned to do.

I did not consider that I still had an apartment--which many people could not say after last night's storms. I gave little thought to the fact that I and my loved ones are still alive. I did not rejoice that our electricity had not gone out (some are still without electricity in the Louisville area). Hard-hearted Lenny complained. Even at work I found myself a little irritated when residents needed assistance, keeping me from homework and sermon prep--that is, what I want to do. I don't thank God that I am given the opportunity to assist people and serve them (cf. Gal. 6:10,
Philippians 2:14 (sermon text), Col. 3:17), or that I have a job that pays my bills +.

I know that I am not alone--this is the problem of all of humanity except one Man. I continue having a self-centered attitude (for I dwell in the age in which the Spirit is in me--and thus He
puts light upon my sin/transgressions, bringing them to my attention that I may confess them and work on the problem, Philippians 2:12-13--another part of the sermon text--yet though I have the Spirit, the 'already,' I still dwell in the 'not yet,' in which sin is being eradicated but is and will continue to be (sorry Wesleyans) present in me during this age). So what am I (and you, and everyone else) to do?

There is only one solution: take the sin to the cross. But alas, how trite of an answer (if you go
to any Evangelical church, the answer to sin is 'leave it at the foot of the cross'). But this
answer is more profound than I just made it.

(Digression: When counseling a theologian on issues he/she may be having, please do not just give trite Biblical answers and quotations. This happens so often. Not to be arrogant, but theologians know the Bible--we study it. You probably aren't going to tell us something we do not know, nor give us citations we have not already considered. Please listen to us as we speak and only offer advice if asked for it or there is a major blind-spot. By offering advice, you're probably doing more harm than good. Be a friend, not a hero.)

So why take sin--such as grumbling--to the cross? Because the Christian life is one of repentance. When the Spirit sheds light upon your heart-condition, don't shove the problem back into the darkness and try to feign the Christian life (i.e. don't be a Pharisee). Your emotions are valid--they are from your heart. Don't try to sugar-coat them (though I'm not saying to blow up at people, or always even to show them). Acknowledge your sinful attitudes to God--confess them, for the Spirit has graciously made you aware of them. Walk in the light and seek to put to death these deeds by letting God work in you and by considering the positives of the situations--which have all been finely orchestrated and sovereignly predestined by God (it should humble us that we complain against what God has brought our way--that is pure, unadulterated unbelief--i.e. sin!).

Taking our sin to the cross acknowledges that we can do nothing about it on our own. Only God, in Jesus Christ the Lord, has defeated sin and cancelled the debt/IOU that plagued us--and the shame that we still feel because we hold onto sin rather than letting Christ take care of it. Confess to yourself, "That sin has been atoned for already," and conscientiously turn from it. Your heart is enslaved to sin; you cannot defeat it. Humble yourself, acknowledge that you cannot fight sin on your own power, and praise God that He does and cares for you enough to draw you out of it (Phil. 2:12-13). But do not continue in sin, for you are not a member of this age, but a child of God. You have died to sin in Christ--live like it (Rom. 6). And the next time you grumble, don't put on a happy face; fight the fires of sin with the ocean of the cross--confessing it and praising God for His forgiveness at Christ's expense, the Spirit's grace to bring it to your attention, and the power of God's grace that changes you. Only then might you learn to be content in all things.

Read more »