What Every Husband Needs to Know
There is a book in circulation entitled What Men Know About Women. Its pages are all blank! We have often heard some frustrated male sigh, “I’ll never be able to understand women.” Yet the Apostle Peter said, “Ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge.”78 This is a most amazing paradox. God tells men to dwell with their wives according to knowledge—an understanding of their basic nature and needs—but most men know very little about the makeup and mechanism of the female of the species. Could this be one of the reasons why so many marriages are floundering?
If God says that men are to live with their wives according to knowledge, then obviously they can know something about them, popular opinion notwithstanding! The first thing they need to know is stated in the very verse we have just quoted: “Giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel.” The woman is the weaker vessel. That doesn’t mean she is mentally, morally, or spiritually inferior, but simply that she is physically weaker. She may be less susceptible to disease and may even have a longer life span than the man, but the fact remains that she is not as large or as strong physically. God made her that way with the intent that the weaker would depend on the stronger.
Because the wife is physically weaker, she depends on her husband for provision and protection. His task is to provide food, clothing, shelter, and defense, while she is especially adapted by God to bear children and to provide them with the warm affection and tender care which they need. However, the very equipment which God gave her to assume that role is likewise the cause of a second area of weakness—her emotions. A woman must sometimes struggle with sudden and unexplainable changes in mood. These are chemically precipitated by hormones which form part of her reproductive capacity. This emotional vulnerability makes her especially dependent on the man God gives her. It seems to be the underlying idea in God’s words to Eve: “You shall welcome your husband’s affections.”79 She looks to him with an inner yearning to meet her basic needs. She was made for him, and so her life centers in him. God wants us husbands to “dwell with them according to knowledge,” then and act on the basis of that knowledge, “giving honor unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel.” The God who created these tremendous emotional needs in women intends that husbands should meet them.
Some of you are asking, “What about women who have no husbands? Who will meet their needs?” God will bestow the gift of celibacy on those women whom he intends to remain single. Furthermore, a woman’s needs can be met by the Lord himself. In fact, every Christian woman, married or single, needs to maintain a close personal relationship with Christ. However, this does not excuse a husband from his responsibilities to his wife. God’s normal way of supplying a married woman with the security and satisfaction for which she yearns is through her husband.
How does the husband do it? How can any man satisfy a woman’s basic needs? This may sound like a gross oversimplification, but one little four-letter word is actually the complete answer to this entire complex problem. The husband’s primary responsibility in a Christian marriage is to love his wife. “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it.”80 “Husbands should [love] their wives … as part of themselves.”81 “A man must love his wife as a part of himself.”82 “You husbands must be loving and kind to your wives, and not bitter against them.”83 All of these verses require agape, that highest level of love that keeps on giving even when it gets nothing in return and seeks only good for the one loved regardless of the personal cost or sacrifice.
This gives an entirely new meaning to the misunderstood doctrine of male headship. Headship is not some masculine doctrine cleverly designed to bolster the husband’s sagging ego. Headship involves the husband’s solemn obligation to establish an atmosphere of love in which the basic needs of his wife are fulfilled—an environment in which she is free to grow and develop into all that God wants her to be. Her submission will then be the voluntary response to his loving leadership.
The key word here is response. The woman is a responder. This is the obvious role of someone who depends on another person. Flowers depend on sunshine and rain; when they get it, they respond by blossoming into gorgeous beauty. This is how God made a woman too. She responds to what she receives. If she receives irritability, criticism, disapproval, unkindness, indifference, lack of appreciation, or lack of affection, she will respond with a defense mechanism, such as bitterness, coolness, defiance, or nagging. Some women turn to drinking or submerge themselves in social activities.
But if the woman receives love she will respond with love, and will blossom into the most beautiful creature under God’s heaven. When a man claims that his wife doesn’t love him anymore he is unwittingly admitting that he hasn’t loved her as he should have. If he had, she would most likely have responded with love in return. A man gets from his wife what he invests in her. He cannot force her to love him, but he can show love to her and enjoy her loving response. Thus the responsibility for a successful marriage rests initially with the husband. He makes the first move—that of loving his wife with the totally unselfish love of Jesus Christ.
“If she’d only quit nagging, I could love her more.” If that’s what you’ve been telling yourself, then you have it backwards! The husband must take the initiative. Love is a mental attitude which is received by an act of the human will from the source of all love, God Himself. It does not depend on the worth or the actions of its object, but simply on the ceaseless love of a changeless Lord. A wife may be sweet or sour; the house may be clean or cluttered; supper may be tasty or terrible; but none of these should affect a husband’s love. He is to love his wife “as Christ loved the church.” We know all too well that Christ’s love for the church wasn’t prompted by anything wonderful He saw in us, but instead by his own intrinsic nature of love. Now He makes this same love available to every Christian husband who wants to make his marriage work.
“Husbands, love your wives as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it.” Calvary, where Christ scarifically gave Himself, was the greatest demonstration of love in all of human history. Sacrificial self-giving is the very essence of love. Now God asks of every Christian husband the same self-giving love. That’s important to remember—love gives. It will involve giving the material things a wife needs as finances permit, and perhaps even a little gift now and then that says, “I really care. I think about you when we’re apart.” It doesn’t have to cost much money, but it does reassure a wife of her husband’s love.
Love will also involve helping. Sometimes a husband develops the strange notion that his home is a castle and he is the king. His wife’s task is to provide for his comfort and to protect him from all unpleasant circumstances. He rises majestically from dinner, sinks gloriously into his overstuffed chair, and entertains himself with the newspaper and television while his wife cleans up the kitchen, straightens up the house, helps the children with their homework, and puts them to bed. Any encroachment on his lordship’s time is met with howls of protest. Most wives work hard, maybe even harder than their husbands, and no husband ought to be above helping with the housework and the children. If the wife is really the weaker vessel, then wiping the dishes, sweeping the floor, supervising the children, cleaning the windows, or dozens of other little helpful acts are just other ways of saying, “I love you.”
Self-sacrificing love will involve the giving of time. Some husbands are too busy to run an errand, fix a gadget, or devote an evening to their wives alone. They are saying in subtle little ways, “You’re really not worth very much personal sacrifice,” and this is like spraying weed killer on a beautiful flower. But when the wife begins to wilt and reflect the same attitude toward her husband, he is usually quick to complain about it. Problems like this will be solved when the husband begins to show the love of Christ.
Love may involve giving up things. Often a husband has interests or hobbies in which his wife finds no pleasure. Usually compromises can be made: she may develop special interests of her own, he may restrict his activities somewhat, or they may plan other special activities together. But if all reasonable attempts to solve the conflict fail, then God intends for the wife to know that she holds the most important place in her husband’s life, that next to the Lord Himself she is above everything and everyone. That does not give a wife the right to demand that her husband give up something to “prove his love,” but it does lay upon every Christian husband the need for assuring his wife that he loves her above all else.
Christ-like love will involve reassurance and encouragement. Some men refuse to tell their wives that they love them. “I told her that when I married her, and she knows it’s true.” Yes, but a woman requires reassurance. Her whole life is wrapped up in the security of her husband’s love, and the Lord wants her to be assured of it in every possible way. She needs to know that he cares—that he appreciates the things she does to please him, like maintaining his home and cooking his meals. She needs to know that he comes home because she is there—not just for meals and a bed! One of the most prevalent complaints of wives is that their husbands take them for granted, treating them as if they were maids. Here is what one woman said she needed most from her husband: “I need to feel needed, that what I am doing for him and for our children is important to him. Then, I want to be appreciated for the things I do.” Most wives try hard to please, and they need to know that their husbands approve of their efforts and appreciate them.
Of all the things God wants a husband to give his wife, none is more important than what Christ gave—His own personal being. “Oh, I’d die to protect my wife,” some would protest. Giving ourselves may not demand dying for our wives, but it certainly demands living for them, and that is the very thing many husbands are unwilling to do. They exclude their wives from their lives. They think working hard and providing an abundance of material things will make their wives happy. And while they are at work getting rich, their wives are at home with aching hearts, yearning to share their husbands’ lives as God intended them to do, yearning for the appreciation, approval, attention, and affection which God intended them to have, yearning for the sympathetic understanding their God-given natures demand.
One woman wrote, “My husband needs to let me know that he is aware of my problems and understands them. I need to feel that we are working together toward a common goal.” The one word that occurs most frequently when wives are discussing what they need from their husbands is understanding. No amount of material things can take the place of a husband who listens to his wife with undivided attention when she unfolds her heart, who tries to understand even her most complicated moods, and who lets her know that he loves her even during her most illogical and unreasonable moments.
That costs something; in fact, it costs everything. It demands total self-sacrifice. That is exactly what it cost Christ when His love led him to Calvary. If you are not willing to pay that cost, then you made a dreadful mistake when you promised a woman you would love her until death. God says she is part of you. You are one flesh.84 She needs to be treated with the same loving care and concern with which you treat your own body. “So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh, but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church.”85 The word nourish means to supply the food and clothing which the body needs. The word cherish literally means to keep warm, but also includes the idea of tender, loving care, the kind of care a trained nurse would give to her own children.86 Some men are like little boys; they want their wives to feed them when they are hungry and soothe them when they are hurt, just as their mothers did. Biblically, that comes closer to the role of the husband toward his wife than the role of the wife toward her husband.
Most men take pretty good care of their own bodies. They get plenty of food, proper rest, adequate clothing, a break from the monotonous routine, some enjoyable relaxation, some time to themselves, and a certain amount of personal satisfaction in life. But are they as interested in seeing that their wives get the same? They should be, according to the Word of God, because their wives are part of them. A man’s care for his wife is, in effect, care for himself too, since both their lives are one.
That is exactly what Peter said in the verse with which we started this chapter: “You husbands must be careful of your wives, being thoughtful of their needs and honoring them as the weaker sex. Remember that you and your wife are partners in receiving God’s blessings, and if you don’t treat her as you should, your prayers will not get ready answers.”87 When a man takes a woman to be his wife he makes her part of himself; he cannot afford to shut her out of his life. When he refuses to obey God’s Word in this regard, a spirit of bitterness and resentment creeps into the marriage, spiritual power vanishes and an effective prayer life is hindered. Much of the spiritual impotence of believers can be traced to this very matter. It’s time for us to obey God’s Word again!
On one occasion a Christian husband told me some of his wife’s problems—a general discontentment, a proneness to pick and gripe at little things, and a constant irritability and unreasonableness. He had tried to improve himself in some areas in order to make her happy, but it was never enough. One day he blurted out, “That woman will find something wrong with heaven!”
We discussed her immaturity and insecurity, much of which seemed to stem from her family background. But one day I suggested that all of her problems might not be traceable to her parents. Maybe some of them grew out of her God-given need to be reassured of his love. I asked him to do everything he could to make her feel more secure in his love. He accepted my challenge and with God’s help began to make some changes.
He started to show his wife more affection, taking her in his arms as they passed in the house and telling her he loved her, even though it was not his natural inclination to be that demonstrative. He spent time with her away from the children, listening to her talk and making sympathetic comments. (He found that the best time to talk was while she was cleaning up the kitchen—the kids were nowhere to be found at that particular time!) He pitched in and helped while they talked. When she had had a bad day and got upset about some silly little thing that didn’t please her, he asked God to keep him calm and help him assure her of his love at that very moment, instead of angrily defending himself and sulking, as he once had done. The transformation that gradually came over her was amazing. Their marriage isn’t perfect as of this writing, but a woman who missed something very important in her childhood years is beginning to find in her husband the love that God intended her to have, and in that atmosphere of love she is growing into the beautiful person God planned for her to be.
Let me add just a brief word to wives. Let the indwelling Spirit of God motivate your husband in these matters. Don’t try to do God’s work for him. If you try to remake your husband yourself, the results will be far less than you hope for. It is not even your place to remind him of his responsibility. Instead, commit him to the Lord, pray for him, and be what God wants you to be.
Related Topics: Christian Home, Marriage
Hatred Between Jews and Samaritans
Hatred between Jews and Samaritans was fierce and long-standing. In some ways, it dated all the way back to the days of the patriarchs. Jacob (or Israel) had twelve sons, whose descendants became twelve tribes. Joseph, his favorite, was despised by the other brothers (Gen. 37:3-4), and they attempted to do away with him.
But God intervened and not only preserved Joseph’s life, but used him to preserve the lives of the entire clan. Before his death, Jacob gave Joseph a blessing in which he called him a “fruitful bough by a well” (Gen. 49:22). The blessing was fulfilled, as the territory allotted to the tribes of Joseph’s two sons, Ephraim (“doubly fruitful”) and Manasseh, was the fertile land that eventually became Samaria.
Later, Israel divided into two kingdoms. The northern kingdom, called Israel, established its capital first at Shechem, a revered site in Jewish history, and later at the hilltop city of Samaria.
In 722 B.C. Assyria conquered Israel and took most of its people into captivity. The invaders then brought in Gentile colonists “from Babylon, Cuthah, Ava, Hamath, and from Sepharvaim” (2 Kin. 17:24) to resettle the land. The foreigners brought with them their pagan idols, which the remaining Jews began to worship alongside the God of Israel (2 Kin. 17:29-41). Intermarriages also took place (Ezra 9:1-10:44;Neh. 13:23-28 ).
Meanwhile, the southern kingdom of Judah fell to Babylon in 600 B.C. Its people, too, were carried off into captivity. But 70 years later, a remnant of 43,000 was permitted to return and rebuild Jerusalem. The people who now inhabited the former northern kingdom—the Samaritans—vigorously opposed the repatriation and tried to undermine the attempt to reestablish the nation. For their part, the full-blooded, monotheistic Jews detested the mixed marriages and worship of their northern cousins. So walls of bitterness were erected on both sides and did nothing but harden for the next 550 years.
There are countless modern parallels to the Jewish-Samaritan enmity—indeed, wherever peoples are divided by racial and ethnic barriers. Perhaps that’s why the Gospels and Acts provide so many instances of Samaritans coming into contact with the message of Jesus. It is not the person from the radically different culture on the other side of the world that is hardest to love, but the nearby neighbor whose skin color, language, rituals, values, ancestry, history, and customs are different from one’s own.
Jews had no dealings with the Samaritans. With whom do you have no dealings'
Was the world populated through incest or did God create others besides Adam and Eve?
While some understand the reference to Adam in Genesis to be a general reference to mankind as a whole or the creation of more than one couple, most conservative scholars reject such a view and understand the Genesis account to refer to the creation of a literal Adam and Eve as a single couple. This is further supported by the NT. For instance Paul understood the OT to refer to a literal Adam and Eve (see Rom. 5:14; 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:12-13). He clearly understood the reference to Adam and Eve to the first man and woman.
As to incest, it was not considered a sin and was not prohibited for Adam and early man. If the race was to populate and fulfill the command of Gen. 1:28, there is little doubt that Adam’s sons and daughters had to have married their own sisters and brothers if the race was to populate the earth, but due to the purity of the race as evidenced also by the long length of life, there were no adverse effects as we see happening today. Gradually, as the effects of sin took its toll on the human race, marrying one’s own sister, etc., began to create hereditary problems.
Here is Ryrie’s comment on this issue from his book Basic Theology (1986 ed) which I would highly recommend.
Though by many inerrantists the question of where Cain got his wife would not be considered a problem at all, this question is often used by those who try to demonstrate that the Bible is unreliable in what it claims. How could it claim that Adam and Eve were the first human beings who had two sons, one of whom murdered the other, and yet who produced a large race of people? Clearly, the Bible does teach that Adam and Eve were the first created human beings. The Lord affirmed this in Matthew 19:3-9. The genealogy of Christ is traced back to Adam (Luke 3:38). Jude 14 identifies Enoch as the seventh from Adam. This could hardly mean the seventh from “mankind,” an interpretation that would be necessary if Adam were not an individual as some claim. Clearly, Cain murdered Abel and yet many people were born. Where did Cain get his wife?
We know that Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters in addition to Abel, Cain, and Seth (Gen. 5:4), and if there was only one original family, then the first marriages had to be between brothers and sisters. Such marriages in the beginning were not harmful. Incest is dangerous because inherited mutant genes that produce deformed, sickly, or moronic children are more likely to find expression in children if those genes are carried by both parents. Certainly, Adam and Eve, coming from the creative hand of God, had no such mutant genes. Therefore, marriages between brothers and sisters, or nieces and nephews in the first and second generations following Adam and Eve would not have been dangerous.
Many, many generations later, by the time of Moses, incest was then prohibited in the Mosaic laws undoubtedly for two reasons: first, such mutations that caused deformity had accumulated to the point where such unions were genetically dangerous, and second, it was forbidden because of the licentious practices of the Egyptians and Canaanites and as a general protection against such in society. It should also be noted that in addition to the Bible most other legal codes refuse to sanction marriages of close relatives.
But here is another issue to consider. If one accepts the evolutionary hypothesis as to the origin of the human race, has that really relieved the issue of incest? Not unless you also propound the idea of the evolution of many pairs of beings, pre-human or whatever, at the same time. No matter what theory of the origin of the human race one may take, are we not driven to the conclusion that in the early history of the race, there was the need for intermarriage of the children of the same pair?
Related Topics: Creation
A Great God Of Grace And Compassion
Related MediaIntroduction
A few years ago we had the privilege of studying together Psalm 145, a psalm that speaks of God’s greatness (vv.1-3), his goodness and grace (vv. 4-9), and his glory (vv. 10-12). In speaking of God’s goodness David points out specific qualities of that goodness. Paramount among them, as we saw, was a pair of Hebrew words that in twelve passages have reference to God’s character: grace/gracious and compassion/compassionate. This pair emphasizes both God’s undeserved favor and his tender, compassionate heart with regard to man’s needs. It should be noted that the Hebrew terms used for compassion/compassionate often have the understanding “mercy/merciful,” for they are capable of either meaning. The context alone determines whether the Lord is acting out of a sense of common mercy or whether he has some deeper motive such as heartfelt compassion or sorrow for another’s situation.
In this study we shall follow the lead of the NET, which, as in Psalm 145:8, often renders the Hebrew terms involved as “compassion/compassionate.”1 Having established the basic grounds for this study as being built around the coalescence of a pair of words expressing God’s grace and compassion, we shall explore the contexts where they appear as a formulaic pattern in order to draw a firmer picture the Lord’s great goodness, first from the perspective of the Old Testament and then from their application to Christ in the New Testament. A closing section summarizing our findings and their application to Christian living will complete the study.
God’s Grace and Compassion in the Old Testament
God’s grace and compassion are well known and often mentioned by the writers of the Old Testament. They often appear individually but are especially effective when they occur together. Thus in Psalm 103 David portrays the Lord as one who grants forgiveness, brings healing, and executes justice and righteousness for all. He then cites the capstone of God’s eternal goodness by declaring,
The LORD is compassionate and merciful (Heb. gracious);
he is patient and demonstrates great loyal love. (v. 8)
He goes on to discuss some of the riches of his grace and compassion (vv. 9-10) and subsequently points out the paternal nature of the Lord’s compassion:
As a father has compassion on his children,
so the Lord has compassion on his loyal followers.
For he knows what we are made of;
he realizes we are made of clay. (vv. 13-14; cf. vv. 4, 17-18)
As Futato remarks, “It is just like God to forgive! It is in perfect accord with the “unfailing love” that fills his heart. He forgives in response to our frailty.”2
In Psalm 111 the psalmist rehearses God’s grace and compassion for his people in providing for them in many ways that are profoundly astonishing:
He does amazing things that will be remembered;
the Lord is merciful (MT, gracious) and compassionate. (v. 4)
Thus his grace and compassion serve as a stimulus for a proper response by all believers (v. 7). A wise believer will therefore be faithful and obedient to the Lord and follow his leading:
To obey the LORD is the fundamental principle for wise living;
all who carry out his precepts acquire good moral insight. (v. 10)
The psalmists’ observations and praise for God’s person, character, and actions are not the sole basis for understanding that the Lord is a great God of grace and compassion. In revealing himself to Moses, God reassured him that he, Yahweh, is a “compassionate and gracious God” (Exod. 33:19. As Cassuto suggests, these qualities with which the Lord interacts with his people are “first and foremost.”3 A bit later the Lord declared to Moses that these qualities in his character are ever available and manifest themselves in patient, loyal love, and faithfulness (Exod. 34:6-7). The Hebrew word commonly translated “loyal love” was in earlier days rendered “loving-kindness.” In a sense that understanding remains rather appropriate, for the English word “kind” is ultimately related to a primitive root that lies behind the word “kin” (note also the German word kind—“child”). Thus in treating his people graciously and kindly the Lord viewed them “as though they were his earthly family so that his “loyal love” … takes on a nuance that in his great faithfulness to God’s covenant people there is warmth like that of a father to his children.”4 Even when his people are unfaithful, even rebellious, the Lord remains a God of graciousness and compassion. They may be unfaithful but in his loving-kindness he continues to be consistent in his character and actions and, therefore, faithful to his covenant with them and its standards. As Stuart observes, “However fickle and unreliable humans may be in their relationship to God, he is nothing of the sort but can be counted on in every situation and at all times to be completely faithful to his promises for his people.”5
For its part, however, God’s people must also keep God’s standards and commands (see for example, Deut. 13:12-17a). If they do, they can be assured that, “The LORD will…show you compassion, have mercy on you and multiply you as he promised your ancestors. Thus you must obey the LORD your God, keeping all his commandments that I am giving you today and doing what is right before him” (Deut. 12:17b-18). Although the context is dealing with a specific transgression, its potential penalty and its remedy, the underlying principle is nonetheless true. Indeed, it is no less true even today. Although the precise civil and ceremonial regulations in the Mosaic law were meant for historic Israel, the underlying spiritual and moral principles are timeless, and spring from and reflect God’s own nature as a just and righteous God: “For all his ways are just. He is a reliable God who is never unjust, he is fair and upright” (Deut. 32:4; cf. Dan. 4:37). Today’s believers, who have been, “created in God’s image, in righteousness and holiness that comes from truth” (Eph. 4:24) should “stand firm therefore, by fastening the belt of truth around your waist, by putting on the breastplate of righteousness’ (Eph. 6:14).
God’s Grace and Compassion in Connection with Sin and Repentance
The Old Testament records many instances of God’s consistent grace and compassion in the face of Israel’s all-too-frequent waywardness and failure to keep—even deliberately disobey-- his standards. Therefore, Nehemiah could point out the Lord’s forgiveness of God’s people in past days (Neh. 9:16-17a), while reminding God that for his part the Lord is well known for his kind and patient spirit: “You are a God of forgiveness, merciful (MT, “gracious”), and compassionate, slow to get angry and unfailing in your loyal love. You did not abandon them” (Neh. 9:17b). Breneman concludes that such is simply the way matters are: “Despite our sin, God is gracious; despite God’s grace, we continue to sin; despite our continuing sin, God continues to be gracious (Rom. 5:20). God’s forgiveness is something no human could devise but can experience.”6
God’s patient grace and compassion for his people continued throughout their history of spiritual infidelity. For example, during the ninth century B. C., Israel had a king named Jehoahaz who could at times display spiritual sensitivity (2 Kings 13:1-6). Because of his continued sponsorship of an old illicit religious state practice, however, God repeatedly allowed King Hazael of Syria to oppress “Israel throughout Jehoahaz’s reign. But the LORD had mercy on (MT, “was gracious toward”) them and felt pity for (MT, “showed mercy to”) them. He extended his favor to them because of the promise he had made to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. He was unwilling to destroy them or remove them from his presence” (2 Kings 13:22-23). Indeed, God is ever4 faithful to the promises in the Abrahamic Covenant, which in turn became the basis for a chain of divinely granted covenants, first in the Davidic Covenant (2 Sam 7:11-16; 1 Chron. 17:10-14) and then in the New Covenant (Jer. 31:31-37; 33:14-16; Ezek. 37;22-27). Although the New Covenant holds promise for God’s Old Testament people, it is already in effect for all believers in the finished work of Christ (Matt. 26:27-29; 2 Cor. 3:6; Hebrews 8).7
In a similar vein, Hosea records God’s compassionate heart in the continued record of Israel’s spiritual history during the eighth century B.C. Although the Lord pronounced judgment on his people for their infidelity, like a loving father he could not bring himself to destroy his child Israel entirely (Hos. 11:1-3). God’s rhetorical questions (v. 8; cf. Hos. 6:4) illustrate his heartfelt, warm, and tender feelings for his people despite the coldness of their hearts toward him:
How can I surrender you, O Israel?
How can I treat you like Admah?
How can I make you like Zeboim?
I have had a change of heart!
All my tender compassions are aroused!
I cannot carry out my fierce anger!
I cannot totally destroy Ephraim!
I am God and not man-- the
Holy One among you—
I will not come in wrath! (Hos. 11:8-9)
The Lord points out that because of his relation to his people, he could not bring himself to destroy them like the hopelessly rebellious and spiritually dead people of the cities of the plains (Gen. 19:23-28). Although the NET understanding of the first two lines of verse eight is fully justified, it is of interest to note that something of the great depth of the Lord’s feelings for his people is stressed more forcefully in the NLT: “My heart is torn within me, and my compassion overflows.”8 To be sure, his justice demanded that he must judge them and that judgment was coming. Nevertheless, he would spare them from complete annihilation.
His sentence against His people was thus a matter of the necessary carrying out of the requirements against a wayward child (cf. Deut. 19-23) and not a matter of human vengeance. Indeed, Yahweh is a holy god--One who desires to see that holiness resident and active in His people.9
Moreover, his “compassion overflowed with a desire for his people to come to him” (cf. vv. 10-11).
In the later eighth century B.C. after the fall of the Northern Kingdom because of its infidelity, King Hezekiah came to the throne of Judah. Hezekiah was noted not only for his faithfulness but also for his godly character. Thus the author of Kings records that:
He trusted in the LORD God of Israel; in this regard there was none like him among the kings of Judah either before or after. He was loyal to the LORD and did not abandon him. He obeyed the commandments which the Lord had given to Moses. (2 Kings 18:5-6)
As such he was a great reform minded king. Accordingly, the authors of Kings and especially Chronicles provide many details concerning Hezekiah’s reform policies. For example, in connection with the reinstitution of the Passover Hezekiah and his officials sent and edict throughout Israel and Judah summoning the people to come to Jerusalem for its observance, “for they had not had not observed it on a nationwide scale as prescribed in the law” (2 Chron. 30:5). In the edict itself all of God’s people were urged to submit to the Lord and serve him:
for if you return to the LORD, your brothers and sons will be shown mercy by their captors and return to this land. The LORD your God is merciful (MT: “gracious”) and compassionate; he will not reject you if you return to him. (2 Chron. 30:9).
Truly God’s great grace and compassion would surely be exercised, even toward his hitherto unfaithful people. Although he had to judge Israel for infidelity, in accordance with his promise in the Mosaic Law, there could be forgiveness and restoration (Deut. 30:1-5). Indeed, that which the Lord had pledged himself to do, could be applied to the situation in Hezekiah’s day.
The message in Hezekiah’s edict is in harmony with the words of the somewhat earlier eighth century B.C. prophet Joel to his people to return to the Lord with heartfelt repentance, for they were already beginning to experience God’s chastisement (Joel 2:12):
for he is merciful (MT. “gracious”) and compassionate, slow to anger and boundless in loyal love—often relenting from calamitous punishment. Perhaps he will be compassionate and grant a reprieve, and leave a blessing in his wake: a meal offering and a drink offering for you to offer to the LORD your God (Joel 2:13-14).
Through the late seventh-early sixth century prophet Jeremiah the Lord gave assurance of the continuance of his compassion for his people saying,
Indeed, the people of Israel are my dear children.
They are the children I take delight in.
For even though I must often rebuke them,
I still remember them with fondness.
So I am deeply moved with pity for them
and will surely have compassion on them.
I, the LORD, affirm it! (Jer. 21:20)
The message of the Lord’s loving, compassionate response to his people who call upon him in true repentance can even be seen during the exilic period. Through the prophet Zechariah the Lord declares that he will, “bring them back because of my compassion for them. They will be as though I had never rejected them, for I am the LORD their God and therefore I will hear them” (Zech. 10:6). Although he had judged his people, God remained available to the repentant cry of a righteous remnant.
In the light of the above passages, which reveal so clearly God’s character, it is comes as no surprise that many of the psalmists give testimony to God’s grace and/or compassion. Thus after his sin with Bathsheba David cried out to the Lord,
Be gracious to me, God,
according to your faithful love;
according to your abundant compassion,
blot out my rebellion.
Wash away my guilt,
and cleanse me from my sin. (Ps 51:1-2; HCSB)
God’s Grace and Compassion in Times of Suffering, Oppression, and Danger
Elsewhere David testifies to the Lord’s gracious compassion to the prayers of an oppressed and suffering believer in the midst of his painful experience (Ps. 86:7). Faced with oppression by some ruthless, godless men who are seeking his life, David cries out:
But you, O LORD, are a compassionate and merciful God.
You are patient and demonstrate great loyal love and faithfulness.
Turn toward me and have mercy on me!
Give your servant your strength!
Deliver your slave! (Ps. 86:15-16)
Of a similar sentiment are the psalmist’s words in Psalm 116:3-5:
I was confronted with trouble and sorrows.
I called on the name of the LORD,
“Please Lord, rescue my life!”
The LORD is merciful and fair;
our God is compassionate.
It should be noted in passing that in both of the above psalms the familiar formula of gracious and compassionate occurs in the Hebrew text (cf. HCSB).
In the troublesome and dangerous times following the fall of Jerusalem, Gedaliah, whom the Babylonians had installed as governor of the area, was murdered by a certain Ishmael ben Nathaniah (Jer. 41:1-3). Nethaniah did also other atrocities including multiple murders and the taking of many captives, taking them with him toward Ammon (vv. 4-10). Members of the surviving Judean army, headed by Johanan ben Kareah, managed to overtake Ishmael and his men and freed the captives (vv. 11-16). Hoping to avoid the Babylonians he and his forces headed for Egypt (vv. 17-18). On the way they met the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. 42:1-2) and said to him, “Pray that the LORD your God will tell us what to do” (v. 3).
When Jeremiah had received the answer to his intercessory prayer, he informed the people of God’s instructions in the situation. Johanan and his followers were to remain in the land and attend to its welfare (vv. 4-10). If they did so, God would see to their protection and welfare: Do not be afraid of the king of Babylon whom you now fear. Do not be afraid of him because I will be with you to save you and rescue you from his power. I, the LORD, affirm it! I will have compassion on you so that he in turn will have mercy on you and allow you to return to your land. (vv. 11-12)
Thus Huey observes, “The Lord would show them ‘compassion’(raḥam, a word that suggests tender, motherly love; cf. Gen 43:14; 1 Kings 8:50; its root is associated with the womb…). Because of the Lord’s compassion, ‘he’ (i.e., Nebuchadnezzar) would have ‘compassion’ and would restore them to their own land.”10 Under the existing conditions it was only natural for Johanan to fear a Babylonian reprisal against them because of all that had taken place. Yet as we learn here, we can realize that the Lord’s compassion is available and can be relied upon even in the most dangerous times and places. What is needed is for people to follow his will and trust in him. Unfortunately, God’s instructions and Jeremiah’s advice were not heeded. Johanan not only fled to Egypt but took with him several members of the royal family, and even Jeremiah and his scribe Baruch (Jer. 43:1-7). It was to prove to be a severe miscalculation.
God’s Grace and Compassion in Everyday Affairs
God’s grace and compassion are not limited to occasions of repentance, suffering, oppression, and danger. They are readily at hand at all times. Accordingly, Nehemiah could call upon the Lord for his compassion to be present and operative as he went before Artaxerxes I, the king of Persia. He wished to ask the king’s permission to journey to Judah so as to oversee the work of rebuilding Jerusalem (Neh. 1:11-2:5). Doubtless under God’s supervision and direction, Nehemiah’s request was granted. As Fensham remarks, “The Lord of history makes the decisions, not Artaxerxes.”11
God’s grace and compassion for his people did not expire with Israel’s past or then present conditions, however. Isaiah revealed that the Lord had plans for his people’s future as well. Indeed, in the Lord’s appointed time and way, “The Lord will certainly have compassion on Jacob; he will again choose Israel as his special people and restore them to their land” (Isa. 14:1). As the Lord had once rescued his people out of Egypt, he would bring them out of their captivity and back into their land. To be sure, his judgment was coming, but this was not to spell the end to his covenant commitments. As Oswalt observes: “Here the prophet reminds his hearers, both present and future, that whatever punishment may come, it need not mean abandonment. God will once again choose. So it is with the church.”12 Indeed, even the people of other nations will join them and nations once their superiors will become subservient to them (vv. 2-3). Although the time period for Isaiah 14:1-3 would appear to relate to exilic times, God’s compassion for his people extends far into the distant future. Elsewhere Isaiah records God’s declaration that despite Israel’s seemingly ceaseless infidelity, his compassion never ends: “I have seen their behavior, but I will heal them and give them rest, and I will once again console those who mourn” (Isa. 57:18). Although a different Hebrew term is used here, as we have seen above in connection with Hosea 11:8 (NET), it does in some contexts have the stronger force of compassion. The Lord thus informs his people that despite their wickedness that had brought his judgment upon them, he will yet comfort them. Although the precise time period intended is not distinctly mentioned, based on matters of context Smith’s explanation appears to be correct in saying,
“Everything that caused heartache, pain, violence, oppression, and loss in the past will be removed so that God’s healing power might transform this evil world and create a new world based on his grace. This is all the work of God. Thanks be to God! … Although on this present world the righteous may suffer and die (57:1-2), in the end the righteous will be revived, healed, comforted, and given eternal peace (57:18-19) in the presence of God at his Holy Mountain (56:7; 57:13).” 13
The Lord’s inclusion of non-Israelites in his concern and compassion for all humanity is also clearly seen in his dealings with Jonah and the Ninevites. Not only did the Lord restore a stubborn and disobedient Jonah to his prophetic mission (cf. 2 Kings 14:25), but he fulfilled his present assignment by bringing the king of Assyria and the people of Nineveh to a dramatic change of behavior. Therefore, God did not bring the harsh judgment against them that Jonah had warned would happen. Rather than being pleased with the success of his mission, however, Jonah was greatly disappointed and displeased. Sharing his reactions,
He prayed to the LORD and said, “Oh, LORD, this is just what I thought would happen when I was in my own country. This is what I tried to prevent by attempting to escape to Tarshish – because I knew that you are gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and abounding in mercy, and one relents concerning threatened judgment.” (Jonah 4:2)
Here we have the twelfth example of the combination formula of grace and compassion (cf. Exod. 33:19; 34:6; Neh. 9:17, 31; 2 Kings 13:23; 2 Chron. 30:8; Pss. 86:15; 103:8; 111:4; 116:5; 145:8). This formulaic expression is remarkable in that it illustrates the fact even in Old Testament days God’s tender mercies, and heartfelt grace and compassion could be extended to the gentile world. In Jonah 4:11 the Lord goes on to press this point to Jonah. He is not only a compassionate God who cares for his own chosen people Israel, but one is concerned for the welfare and good of all people. Since this is true of the Lord, should that not be a concern for today’s believers as well? The answer is a resounding, “Yes!” As we shall see, this concern is confirmed by Jesus and the writers of the New Testament.
God’s Grace and Compassion in the New Testament
That God’s grace is available to all and continues to be exercised through all time is well known and witnessed through the lives of many, many people. The New Testament attests to the fact that it is mediated through Jesus Christ (see, e.g., Tit. 2:11-13). Thus under divine inspiration the Apostle John wrote,
The Word became flesh and took up residence among us. We saw his glory—the glory of the one and only, full of grace and truth, who came from the Father….We have all received from his fullness one gracious gift after another. For the law was given through Moses, but grace and truth came about through Jesus Christ. (John 1:14, 16-17)
God’s grace in Jesus Christ was an essential part of the Apostle Paul’s greetings in his epistles to the churches (Rom. 1:2; 1 Cor. 1:3; 2 Cor. 1:2; Gal 1:3; Eph. 1:2; Phil. 1:2; Col. 1:2; 1 Thess. 1:2; 2 Thess. 1:2). It also appears in his closing remarks (Rom. 16:20, 24; 1 Cor. 16:13; 2 Cor. 13:14; Gal. 6:18; Eph. 6:24; Phil. 4:2; Col. 4:18; 1 Thess. 5:28; 2 Thess. 3:18). Likewise, the Apostle Peter began his epistles with a greeting commending God’s grace to his readers (1 Pet. 1:2; 2 Pet. 1:2).
Grace is simply a common subject and theme throughout the New Testament. Accordingly, Peter urged believers to “grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ” 2 Pet. 3:18). In passing, it may be noted that Peter’s admonition here serves to enclose (or bookend) this basic point in his epistle. As we pointed out above, Peter began his letter by commending God’s grace to his readers: “May grace and peace be lavished on you as you grow it the rich knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord” (2 Pet. 1:2). In his closing remarks Peter emphasizes that God’s grace becomes the channel through which the knowledge of the Lord becomes realized. Grace is thus the means of drawing near to the Lord.
God’s Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, was also a conveyor of divine compassion. Such was already predicted in Zechariah’s prayer at the birth of his son John (who became John the Baptist):
And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High.
For you will go before the Lord to prepare his ways,
to give his people knowledge of salvation though the forgiveness of their sins.
Because of God’s tender mercy the dawn will break upon us from on high
to give light to those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death,
to guide our feet into the way of peace. (Luke 1:76-78)
Although the NET’s “tender mercy” is a common translation of Greek words used in this verse, one of the Greek roots employed here is associated with a deep-seated, heartfelt emotion, hence can be rendered as “compassion.” Used here together with the noun “mercy,” the two words can be understood as “merciful compassion” (see, e.g., the HCSB).
Jesus was indeed to be a conveyor of divine compassion, a quality that can be seen in the scriptural accounts of his person and ministry. As Walter rightly observes, “The occurrences in Mark, Matthew (other than 18:27), and Luke 7:13 portray Jesus as one who compassionately takes an interest in those in need and helps them.”14 Thus in one case as Jesus and his disciples drew near to the city of Nain, they encountered a funeral procession held for a widow’s only son (Luke 7:11-12). As Jesus witnessed and understood the full significance of what was taking place, “He had compassion for her and said to her, ‘Do not weep’” (v. 13). He then proceeded to restore the young man’s life, much to the fear and amazement of all who beheld what Jesus had done (vv. 14-16). Jesus’ compassion not only served to restore the lad’s life, but doubtless was a source of the widow’s grateful rejoicing. In a similar way, on another occasion Jesus responded to the plea of a leper who begged Jesus to heal him. Contrary to the usual social custom disallowing contact with a leper, “Moved with compassion, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, saying, ‘I am willing. Be clean!’ The leprosy left him at once and he was clean” (Mark 1:41-42).
Indeed, compassion was a distinctive mark of Jesus character. Thus because of his concern for the needs of a crowd of some 4,000 people that had gathered to hear him teach and had nothing to eat, he miraculously provided food for them (Mark 8:1-7). As a result, “Everyone ate and was satisfied” (v. 8). Late in his ministry, as he and his disciples drew near to Jerusalem, two blind men heard of his approach and begged him to restore their sight (Matt. 20:29-33). In keeping with his concern for the needs of people, “Moved with compassion, Jesus touched their eyes. Immediately they received their sight and followed him” (v. 34). As Osborne rightly observes, “Jesus had great pity for the human dilemma and always responded. Most busy teacher-rabbis, let alone messianic pretenders, would never have ‘stopped’ in their rush to help the unfortunate, but Jesus does so every time.”15
Jesus’ Compassion as Displayed in His Teaching
The same Greek root we have been considering appears also in Jesus’ teaching, particularly in some of his parables. For example, in the parable about the unforgiving slave (Matt. 18:23-35) Jesus drives home the point that even as does God, so men ought to have forgiving, compassionate spirits. In the heart of the story Jesus portrays a slave who owed his master a sum of money that he was unable to repay. Therefore, his master ordered him to be sold along with his entire family and all that he had so as to repay the money. “Then the slave through himself to the ground before him saying, ‘Be patient with me and I will repay you everything.’ The lord had compassion on that slave and released him, and forgave him the debt” (vv. 26-27). The forgiven slave, however, in turn failed to forgive a fellow slave who owed him money (vv.28-30). When his master learned of this, he had the formerly forgiven slave imprisoned (vv. 31-34). In concluding his parable Jesus drove home the warning that God’s reprimand could await them should they prove to be insensitive and unforgiving toward their fellow man (v. 35). Indeed, if the Lord is compassionate, and shows grace and mercy to us as undeserving human beings, should we not also display the same spirit?
In his parable about the good Samaritan Jesus teaches that that people should feel compassion even for those with whom they normally have no dealings. In this story he tells of the desperate needs of a Jewish man who was beaten, robbed, and left “half dead” alongside the road (Luke 10:30-31). His severe condition was ignored by even passing Jewish religious leaders (v. 32). Yet when a travelling Samaritan, with whom the Jews had no dealings and even felt enmity towards, saw the Jew, he “felt compassion for him” (v. 33) and saw to his care (vv. 34-35). Jesus went on to instruct his hearers that they should display the same sort of compassion—sensitivity to the needs of all people, regardless of their background. Marshall properly concludes that being a good neighbor overlooks all personal distinctions: “Implicitly, racial considerations are shown to be irrelevant…. Both the giving and receiving of mercy transcends national and racial barriers.”16 Although this standard is very difficult for even sincere believers to follow, Jesus’ closing command (v. 36) is still the same: “Go and do the same.”
Summary and Applications
We have noted that the eternal God revealed himself to be a God of grace, mercy, and compassion. All three are expressions of his great love for the human world. We have seen that as a compassionate God he has a deep, abiding concern for all mankind and especially for those who accept him, believe in him, and follow him. We have noted that this is so despite man’s too often unfaithfulness. Even then he stands ready to forgive and receive a repentant person. We have also seen that God’s compassion can extend to and be exercised in man’s everyday needs and affairs. Indeed, the Lord’s compassion is a familiar theme not only in the Old Testament, but in the New Testament, especially in the life, ministry, and teachings of Jesus Christ.
The Scriptures plainly demonstrate that the Lord is the prime example to follow. God’s love is abundantly displayed in his great grace and compassion for man’s needs. So much did the Lord love the world that, “He gave his one and only Son so that everyone who believes in him will not perish but have eternal life” (John 3:16). In turn, God’s Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, affirms that in his love for man he willingly laid down his life in order that people may believe in and follow him (John 10:11-18). Moreover, Jesus’ love and compassion extended not only to the salvation of their souls, but to their everyday needs. Accordingly, the beloved Apostle John wrote:
We have come to know love by this: that Jesus laid down his life for us; thus we ought to lay down our lives for our fellow Christians. But whoever has the world’s possessions and sees his fellow Christian in need and shuts off his compassion against him, how can the love of God reside in such a person? Little children, let us not love with word or tongue but in deed and truth. (1 John 3:16-18)
Truly, as believers we should strive to be so concerned for the needs of our fellow believers that we stand ready to help at all times. Thus the Apostle Paul admonished the Colossian Christians: “Clothe yourselves with a heart of mercy, kindness, humility, gentleness, and patience, bearing with one another and forgiving one another…And to these virtues add love, which is the perfect bond (Col. 3:12-13, 14). 17
That believers should show genuine compassion for one another is readily understandable. But should our compassion be limited only to our fellow believers? The answer is, “No.” As Marshall remarks, “The need of the world is for food, clothing and jobs, for those who have these things to share with those who have not.”18 Moreover, we have seen above that God was concerned even for the needs of the Ninevites, who were enemies of the Jews (Jonah 4). As well, when Jesus was challenged by “an expert in religious law” (Luke 10:25) to explain what was meant in the law of God to “love your neighbor as yourself ”(v. 28), he taught through the narration of the parable concerning the good Samaritan that one’s neighbor extended to anyone who has a need. When the legal expert discerned what had been taught, Jesus challenged him saying, “Go and do the same’ Luke 10:37).
May we as today’s believers follow the Lord who is a great God, full of grace and compassion. May we heed Jesus’ challenge to be “good Samaritans.” May we follow Paul’s admonition by clothing ourselves “with heartfelt compassion” and so do our best to love our “neighbor.”
As the hymn writer Thomas Chisholm expressed it:
O to be like Thee, full of compassion,
Loving, forgiving, tender and kind,
Helping the helpless, cheering the fainting,
Seeking the wandering sinner to find!
O to be like Thee! O to be like Thee!
Blessed Redeemer, pure as Thou art!
Come in Thy sweetness, come in Thy fullness;
Stamp Thine own image deep on my heart.19
1 All texts in this study will be based upon the NET.
2 Mark D. Futato, “The Book of Psalms,” in Cornerstone Biblical Commentary, ed. Philip W. Comfort (Carol Stream, IL: Tyndale House, 2009)7:327.
3 U. Cassuto, A Commentary on the Book of Exodus, trans. Israel Abrahams (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1967), 439.
4 Richard D. Patterson, “Psalm 145: A Song in ‘G Major,” (Biblical Studies Press, 2009), 3.
5 Douglas K. Stuart, “Exodus,” The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2006), 716.
6 Mervin Breneman, “Nehemiah,” in The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 239.
7 For fuller details, see Andreas Kӧstenberger and Richard D. Patterson, Invitation to Biblical Intepretation (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2011), 178-87.
8 For a discussion of translation possibilities here, see the NET note. It should be noted as well that the Hebrew word rendered “tender compassion” is a different one from that which we have seen in the formulaic expression “grace and compassion.” It does occur, however, together with that formula in Joel 2:13 and Jonah 4:2. See further, Mike Butterworth, “nḥm,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A. VanGemeren, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) 3:81-83.
9 Richard D. Patterson, Hosea (Richardson, TX: Biblical Studies Press, 20-9), 108.
10 F.B. Huey, Jr., “Jeremiah, Lamentations,” in The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1993), 360. See further, the word of Mike Butterworth, “rḥm,” in New International Dictionary of Old Testament Theology and Exegesis, ed. Willem A, Van Gemeren, 5 vols. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997) 3:1093-95.
11 F. Charles Fensham, The Books of Ezra and Nehemiah, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids; Eerdmans, 1982), 157.
12 John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah: Chapters 1-39, The New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 312. See also the NET text note.
13 Gary V. Smith, “Isaiah 40-66,” The New American Commentary, ed. E. Ray Clendenen, 2009), 566, 567.
14 N. Walter, “splanchnizomai,” in Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, eds. Horst Balz and Gerhard Schneider, 3 vols. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 3: 265.
15 Grant R. Osborne, Matthew, Zondervan Exegetical Co0mmentary on the New Testament , ed. Clinton E. Arnold (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 749.
16 I. Howard Marshall, Commentary on Luke, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 450.
17 The NET’s “heart of mercy” is more appropriately translated “heartfelt compassion.” See the NET text note on Col. 3:12.
18 I. Howard Marshall, The Epistles of John, The New International Commentary on the New Testament, ed. F.F. Bruce (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 195.
19 Thomas O. Chisholm, “O To Be Like Thee.”
Related Topics: Character of God, Grace, Suffering, Trials, Persecution, Worship (Personal)
Should Christians Endorse The War? (2001)
Related MediaAren’t Christians supposed to turn the other cheek? Didn’t Jesus say to love your enemies? So how can a Christian endorse war, even if it is against terrorists?
This is a fair question. Let me make it clear that I do not endorse war indiscriminately. Many wars have been wrong. Often there are multiple factors that make it difficult to sort out the moral issues involved. But in spite of wrong wars in the past, I do think that there is a Christian case for fighting just wars. And I believe that the current war against terrorism is both just and necessary if we desire to live securely in peace.
If an intruder broke into my home and threatened to rape my wife or daughters, I would be wrong not to come to their defense with whatever level of force it takes to stop him. If he threatened to come back and do it again, I would be negligent not to take adequate measures to prevent him from doing so.
If I can justify defending my family from an evil attacker, then I can justify a police force to defend law-abiding citizens. And if the police do that on a local level, it is right for the national government to defend its citizenry from aggressors who threaten from outside.
The Bible teaches that God ordains civil governments to promote peace through upholding justice in society. Of the civil ruler, the apostle Paul says, “He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer” (Romans 13:4, New International Version). Obviously, the government must use some level of force to bring law-breakers to justice (they seldom turn themselves in willingly). This can even extend to the death penalty, according to the Bible (Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:4, “sword”). If it takes force to apprehend a violent criminal on the local level, by extension it is necessary for a government to use force to stop violent groups or nations from attacking its citizens.
During a recent press conference, a reporter asked one of the top government officials, “You say that the United States wants justice, not revenge. What is the difference?” The difference is, vengeance carries with it the idea of evening the score. It means paying back an enemy in like kind for what he did to us. They came on our soil and killed thousands of our civilians; we will go on their soil and slaughter thousands of their civilians to get even. I must admit that when I see people cheering the attacks on America, trampling on our flag, and shouting, “Death to America,” it makes me want vengeance. But vengeance is God’s prerogative only: “‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord” (Romans 12:19).
Justice, on the other hand, means bringing to trial those who have violated the law and imposing the appropriate sentences for their crimes. If it is not possible to capture them alive, they may need to be killed by police or military action. The objective is to make society safe for law-abiding people by bringing law-breakers to account. The penalties imposed must be severe enough to deter the law-breakers from repeat offenses and tempted lawbreakers from doing so. In the case of premeditated mass murder, death is the only appropriate penalty. The executed criminals will not repeat their offense. The death penalty sends the message to others that taking a life is such a serious offense (because innocent life is so sacred) that the offender will pay the ultimate penalty.
If my five-year-old doesn’t like what I ask him to do and defiantly throws a brick through a picture window, and I let him get away with it without appropriate consequences, I’m raising a terrorist. There must be severe consequences for severely wrong behavior. If not, terrorists will rule by terror, and we all will live in fear.
So what about turning the other cheek and loving our enemies? Read the context (Matthew 5:38-47). Jesus is talking about the need to bear with personal offences without retaliation, not about civil or national defense. As Christians, we should pray for the people of Afghanistan. We should help them with relief as we are able. But we should also support our government in its attempt to bring the terrorists and those who harbor them to justice. This is God’s ordained purpose for government. He is a God of love toward those who fear Him, but of justice toward those who do evil.
Related Topics: Character of God, Cultural Issues, Terrorism
What Christmas Has To Do With Hell
Related MediaDecember, 1997
A florist got the messages mixed up on the orders he sent out. A woman received flowers sent by her husband who was at a business meeting in Florida. She was puzzled to read on the card, “My deepest sympathy.”
But she was not nearly as surprised as the woman whose husband had just passed away. Her card read, “Hotter here than I expected. Wish you were here, too!”
We probably joke about hell because it is so uncomfortable to face squarely. I confess that it is one of the most difficult teachings in all the Bible. I would much rather set it aside or disbelieve it, but I cannot. Since Jesus taught it so plainly, I can’t claim to follow him and at the same time reject his teaching about hell. Frankly, it is no joking matter!
Jesus taught a lot about hell. Here I can only touch on some of what he taught. He said that it is better to pluck out your eye or cut off your hand or foot, if they cause you to stumble, than to be cast into hell, which he described as a place “where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched” (Mark 9:43-48). It is a place of “outer darkness” where there shall be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” He called it a place of “eternal fire” and “eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:41, 46). In his graphic parable of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man in hell is described as being “in torment.” He wishes that someone might “dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue, for I am in agony in this flame” (Luke 16:23, 24).
These descriptions are enough to show that Jesus did not picture hell as a wild party, a fun place to cavort with other sinners, as many jokes commonly portray it. He warned people of its agony in the most frightening terms. If Jesus knew what he was talking about, you want to avoid hell at all possible costs!
Many people think, “Yes, there is a hell and it is a terrible place. But I don’t need to worry about going there, because I’m a basically good person. The only ones who will go to hell are the mass murderers, child molesters, and that sort.”
Think again! Jesus indicated that if a man mentally lusts after a woman, he is in danger of his whole body being thrown into hell (Matt. 5:28-30)! If you are angry with someone, you are guilty of murder in God’s sight and are “guilty enough to go into the fiery hell” (Matt. 5:22). In other words, according to Jesus, we’re all in big, big trouble! We all are guilty enough many times over to be cast into hell.
By now maybe you’re wondering, “What does any of this have to do with Christmas?” Everything! Let me explain.
When Jesus was born, the angel announced to the shepherds, “I bring you good news of a great joy which shall be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a Savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Luke 2:10, 11). Have you ever thought about what it means that Jesus is called the Savior? What is he saving people from? Answer: God’s judgment, which is hell.
Savior is a radical word. People who just need a little moral uplift don’t need a Savior. People who are pretty good folks, but just need a little guidance, don’t need a Savior. The only people who need a Savior are those in desperate straits. If you are lost at sea in a small boat in a violent storm, you don’t need a little guidance. You need the Coast Guard to save you! You will perish if someone does not intervene. And if they do save you, you are overwhelmed with great joy!
In light of that, think about how Jesus described his mission: “The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost” (Luke 19:10). If you’re lost in sin, under God’s just condemnation because you have broken his holy laws, then the message of Christmas is “good news of a great joy”: The Savior has come! If you receive him, you are saved from God’s judgment. That’s the only way to have a truly merry Christmas.
Related Topics: Character of God, Christmas, Christology, Hell, Soteriology (Salvation)
Christ’s Resurrection Is The Foundation Of Christianity
Related MediaIt’s fascinating when engineers strategically place explosives and then set them off so that an old skyscraper collapses into a heap of rubble. With the Christian faith, you only have to set the explosives at one point: Blow up the resurrection of Jesus and the whole thing comes tumbling down.
That’s what the apostle Paul said. If you can blow up this one thing, you totally destroy Christianity. That foundation is the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Paul said, “If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, and your faith also is vain…. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins” (1 Cor. 15:14, 17).
What evidence is there for the resurrection of Jesus? Books have been written on this, so I can only be sketchy. First, there was the fact of the empty tomb. If Jesus’ tomb had not been empty, when the disciples began proclaiming his resurrection from the dead, their enemies would have simply marched to the tomb, produced the body, and the disciples would have been laughed out of town.
There are several ways to account for the empty tomb. Jesus’ enemies could have stolen the body. But they had no motive to do so. It was to their advantage to leave the body where it was, which is why they had Pilate post the Roman guard and seal the tomb.
Another possibility is that the Roman guards stole the body. But again, they had no motive to do so. They weren’t concerned about this Jewish religious trial. The Jewish leaders, who were scrambling for ways to explain away the resurrection, didn’t accuse the soldiers of taking the body or allowing it to be stolen.
A third possibility is that the disciples stole the body. The Jewish leaders actually promoted this theory by bribing the Roman guards (Matt. 28:11-15). But there are many reasons the disciples could not have moved Jesus’ body. The tomb was secured by the Roman guard. The stone was large and heavy and could not have been moved without cooperation from the guards. The guards would not have risked their lives to allow the body to be stolen, even for a bribe. If the disciples had bribed the guards and stolen the body, they would not later have suffered beatings, imprisonment and even death to preach Jesus’ resurrection.
A second major evidence for Jesus’ resurrection is his many post-resurrection appearances to the disciples. These happened in varied circumstances to many different people. J. N. D. Anderson, formerly Professor of Oriental Laws and Director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies at the University of London, wrote, “The most drastic way of dismissing the evidence would be to say that these stories were mere fabrications, that they were pure lies. But, so far as I know, not a single critic today would take such an attitude. In fact, it would really be an impossible position” (Christianity Today [3/29/68], p. 5). He goes on to give several solid reasons for his assertions.
A third evidence is the changed lives of the many different witnesses. None of them were expecting a resurrection, in spite of Jesus’ repeated predictions of such. They were confused, frightened, and depressed after the crucifixion. At the first reports of the resurrection from the women who saw Jesus, the disciples were skeptical. But they all became convinced witnesses to the point that they boldly proclaimed Christ to the very audience that had crucified him. Many endured persecution and martyrdom. What could account for such dramatic change, if not the fact that they had seen the risen Jesus Christ?
A fourth evidence (and my list is far from exhaustive) is the unique person of Jesus Christ. Study the Gospel accounts of who Jesus was, what he taught, the miracles he performed, and the prophecies he fulfilled. As C. S. Lewis observed in Mere Christianity, no mere man, let alone a great religious teacher, could have said and done the things that Jesus did. The only options, said Lewis, are that Jesus is a liar, a lunatic, or Lord of all. Although formerly an atheist, Lewis became convinced of the third option.
If you’ve never done so, Easter would be a good time to go to a church that proclaims Christ’s resurrection. Read the Gospels. Carefully weigh the evidence. Your conclusion may, as it did with the apostles and as it has done with many millions since, dramatically change your life.
Related Topics: Devotionals, Easter, Resurrection
Companions By Covenant
Related MediaFebruary, 1998
When I was in seminary, I knew a man who married a woman he did not know. He had met her once and did not find anything objectionable. Since his parents and her parents had arranged the marriage, he agreed to it. In India, where this couple was from, that’s the way it’s often done. Before you knock their system, think about the results of ours! A quarter of a century later, they’re still happily married, by the way.
In our system, most marriages, even Christian ones, are built on a foundation of romantic love and strong sexual attraction (and often involvement). All too often, after a few months or years with all the pressures of daily life, the romance has long gone, sex is infrequent and not too exciting, and other problems have escalated. About then someone new comes along who seems romantically interesting and sexy. So the marriage dissolves and the partners try again with someone else. The missing or weak element in this system is lifelong covenant commitment.
The Bible brings together two crucial ingredients for satisfying marriage: covenant and companionship (see Prov. 2:17; Mal. 2:14). These elements are implicit in the original marriage in the Garden of Eden, where it is said that the wife was a helper suitable for (or, corresponding to) the man and that the man would cleave to his wife and that the two would become one flesh. They were companions joined together by lifelong covenant. The covenant is the foundation on which the companionship develops, the fence by which it is protected.
In the New Testament, Paul explains that marriage is a picture of Christ and the church. God’s gracious covenant is the basis for our relationship with Him. It assures us that He will not cast us off if we fall short or displease Him. The covenant is what holds the relationship together even when feelings may not be strong.
I’m not advocating covenant commitment without romance in marriage. That would be a drab situation. I am arguing that the covenant commitment is the basis for working on romance and companionship in marriage. The covenant is the glue that holds it together while the feelings fluctuate, as inevitably they will. The biblical command is not, “Men, marry your lovers,” but rather, “Husbands, love the woman you married.” The love is worked out on the foundation of the covenant.
This means that if a married couple says, “We don’t love each other any more,” the biblical response is, “Start working on it.” You are joined together by covenant before God for life. In that context, you can work at loving your covenant companion. Like a fire on a cold winter night, love must be tended and fed to keep burning.
A few years ago, Robertson McQuilkin resigned as President of Columbia Bible College and Seminary after 22 years there. His reason? To care for his wife, Muriel, who was suffering from Alzheimer’s disease. He could have put her in an institution, and many of his trusted, godly friends urged him to do this. But when it came time to make the decision, he was firm in his resolve to stand by his wife, even though it meant giving up his career and ministry. “She is such a delight to me. I don’t have to care for her, I get to,” he said. He explained further, “It was a matter of integrity. Had I not promised, 42 years before, ‘in sickness and in health … till death do us part’? This was no grim duty to which I stoically resigned, however. It was only fair. She had, after all, cared for me for almost four decades with marvelous devotion; now it was my turn. And such a partner she was! If I took care of her for 40 years, I would never be out of her debt.”
Dr. McQuilkin was startled by the response to his announcement to resign. Husbands and wives renewed their marriage vows, pastors told the story to their congregations. It was a mystery to him until an oncologist friend, who lives constantly with dying people, explained, “Almost all women stand by their men; very few men stand by their women” (Christianity Today, October 8, 1990, pp. 39, 40).
In February we observe Valentine’s Day, which is all about romance. Maybe we need to think instead about love--biblical love, covenant love. After all, covenant love is God’s love. In our marriages, it must be the cake. Romance is the icing.
Related Topics: Christian Home, Covenant, Cultural Issues, Devotionals, Love, Marriage
Some Thoughts On Consensus Leadership And Decision-Making
Related MediaDescription:
Consensus leadership refers to the process in a local church by which the elders make decisions by seeking the mind of the Lord, not by “voting their own mind.” The mind of the Lord will be revealed by an uncoerced unanimity among the elders, reached after thorough, biblically-based discussion and prayer. In some decisions, individual elders may not be in full agreement, but they may not have such strong disagreement as to prevent the group from taking action. But if an elder disagrees strongly or has a strong hesitation, either on biblical grounds or based on an inner sense that a decision is not from the Lord, then the rest of the elders should recognize his disagreement or hesitation as a check from the Lord and should withhold action. Then they must work through the matter with further discussion, prayer, and seeking of God’s will through His Word.
The key is corporate sensitivity to the Lord as He reveals His will to fellow elders. The Lord promises, “I will instruct you and teach you in the way which you should go; I will counsel you with My eye upon you. Do not be as the horse or as the mule which have no understanding, whose trappings include bit and bridle to hold them in check, otherwise they will not come near to you.” (Ps. 32:8-9.)
Our human tendency is to be too quick to act and not to labor in prayer and waiting upon the Lord. The vote system enables and encourages a body of leaders to bypass the arduous process of prayer and submission to the Lord and to one another. While the consensus system is much more cumbersome and time consuming, it provides the Lord the check that He wants on our human wisdom and self-will. It forces self-willed brothers to face their stubbornness and to submit to others. It requires difficult matters to be submitted to the corporate wisdom of all of the elders. If the 12 spies had operated on this basis, perhaps they would have reconsidered the viewpoint of Joshua and Caleb. The minority had God’s viewpoint; the majority had a wrong perspective. As far as I know, this is the only biblical example of decision-making by vote, and it did not result in the group knowing the mind of the Lord.
A split within the leadership will be magnified throughout the ranks of the church, as members choose sides. However, a unanimous decision by a group of spiritually mature men, reached after open discussion based on God’s Word and prayer, while not infallible, will carry a lot of weight and will not be challenged lightly. It will promote unity in the church (see 1 Cor. 1:10; Eph. 4:3; Phil. 1:27; 2:2; 4:2-3).
Assumptions:
- Christ is the Head of His church and He administers His church through a plurality of spiritually mature men who depend upon the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.
- The elders are spiritually mature, sensitive men who approximate the qualifications specified in 1 Timothy 3 & Titus 1. Especially, a man must not be self-willed (Titus 1:7), or he could thwart the entire process by always insisting on his own way. This is a potential weakness of the consensus system.
- God has one will for His church. The Holy Spirit who indwells each elder in the one body will not lead His church in two directions at the same time (see possible exceptions below).
- We are interdependent, not independent, in the body of Christ. Together we have God’s wisdom, but we must learn to submit to one another and to learn from one another. (See Acts 15:1-29 for the principle in action in the early church.)
Possible Biblical Exceptions:
Concerning the principle that God has one will for a local church and that He will not lead His church in two directions at the same time: Does the split between Barnabas and Paul (Acts 15:36-41) invalidate this principle? Paul and Barnabas did not seem to submit to one another and reach a point of consensus before taking action. Rather, Paul chose Silas and went his way, while Barnabas chose Mark and went his way. Although the text is silent on the matter, neither man seems to have submitted the situation to the elders in Antioch for their decision.
It seems to me that they should have done so. Perhaps the elders would have agreed that Paul and Barnabas should part ways amicably, being called to different types of ministry at this point. The church seems to have sided with Paul, since he and Silas were “committed by the brethren to the grace of the Lord” before they departed (Acts 15:40), but there is no such word concerning Barnabas and Mark, who pretty much pass off the biblical record at this point. On the other hand, years later Paul affirmed the ministry both of Barnabas and of Mark (1 Cor. 9:6; Col. 4:10; 2 Tim. 4:11), which may show that he admitted the wisdom of Barnabas’ approach in being patient with Mark after his failure on the first journey. In my opinion, the sharpness of the disagreement between Paul and Barnabas could have been softened if they had both submitted their quarrel to the elders, who had then sought the mind of the Lord.
Although there is disagreement among commentators on the following point, I believe that Acts 21 is another negative example where Paul should have submitted himself to what the Lord was revealing to others in the church, but he insisted on his own view. Acts 21:4 indicates that the believers kept telling Paul “through the Spirit” not to set foot in Jerusalem. This corporate testimony was further reinforced by the prophecy of the godly Agabus, Luke, and the church at Caesarea (probably including Philip’s prophetess daughters, v. 9), but Paul resisted their counsel (vv. 8-14). While God sovereignly superintended the situation, in that He used Paul’s imprisonment finally to get him to Rome, thus working things together for good, who can say what fruitful ministry Paul could have had if he had not been imprisoned in Caesarea for those two years? I argue that he should have submitted to the unanimous testimony of the brothers (who, the text specifically states, were speaking through the Spirit).
Application in Difficult Situations:
What do we do, practically speaking, if we reach an impasse, where one elder (or a minority of elders) feels very strongly in one direction, but the rest of the elders (the majority) disagree, and a decision must be made? Is there ever a time when we can move ahead in spite of the objections of one man (or a minority), or does any single dissenter (or minority) have complete veto power (a major criticism of consensus decision-making)?
Frankly, I’m not sure the Scriptures give us absolute guidelines for such situations. Normally, consensus can be reached by waiting on the Lord and discussing matters openly, from a biblical perspective. So we’re talking here about the rare exception. What do we do?
Any time we override a godly man’s strong, biblically-based (in his mind), prayerfully determined opinion, we really have to seek the Lord and examine our hearts with extra care. Prayer and fasting would not be inappropriate at such times. The fact that such a one disagrees ought to be a red flag that tells us that we are navigating dangerous waters. Caution is in order.
It may be that God is calling the man to a different work (as with Paul and Barnabas), so that we must agree to disagree. It may be that he is right, and time will prove him right; but we have to learn the hard way, and he has to patiently go along with us until such time as his viewpoint is vindicated. During such time, he must be careful not to rally church support for his point of view, and then to say, “I told you so,” when his view is proved correct. Of course, his view may be proved wrong, in which case he must humbly acknowledge his error, and the others must be careful not to put him down. No system of decision-making is foolproof because we all are fallen men who are in process. We must be gracious and forgiving to one another as we work together. In no case should we, as elders, force one of our members to go along publicly with an action that violates his conscience before the Lord.
Of course, if more than one dissenter is against the majority view, it raises the level of caution and the likelihood that we do not have the Lord’s mind on a matter (unless men are playing politics by building factions). In such cases, I would almost always rather default to not proceeding with a course of action than to risk erring by overriding the minority opinion. The only case where I would feel comfortable overriding the minority would be if there were some convincing evidence that they were deceived, biased, acting against Scripture, or self-willed. In such cases, there may be a need for disciplining the elder(s) in question and removing him (them) from office.
This system of corporate decision-making rests heavily on the assumption that each elder is a spiritually mature man of God, who knows the Word of God. A self-willed man like Diotrephes (3 John 9-10) will create major problems. If there is such a man among the elders (even if it is one of the pastoral staff), the other men must have the spiritual courage to confront him (Gal. 6:1) and, if necessary, remove him from office. Church politics, back-room maneuvering, gossip, and power plays are all built on the flesh. Godly consensus leadership takes place when men submit their wills to Christ as Head of His church, when they rely on the Holy Spirit through the Word, and when they are “devoted to one another in brotherly love” and seek to “give preference to one another in honor” (Rom. 12:10). “Be of the same mind toward one another; do not be haughty in mind, but associate with the lowly. Do not be wise in your own estimation” (Rom. 12:16). As we follow these biblical principles, Christ will be glorified in our midst as the rightful Lord of His church.
Related Topics: Ecclesiology (The Church), Issues in Church Leadership/Ministry, Leadership, Pastors
A Review of "Debating Calvinism" (Multnomah Publishers, 2004), by Dave Hunt & James White
Related MediaSomeone gave me a coffee mug for Christmas that has a picture of John Calvin and a quote from the great Reformer: “A dog barks when his master is attacked. I would be a coward if I saw that God’s truth is attacked and yet would remain silent.”
Please allow me to bark! James White does an admirable job of defending the truth in his part of Debating Calvinism, but Dave Hunt throws out so many errors in his sections that White can only pick the most flagrant ones to respond to. The sad thing is that those who are not well-read on Calvin will not spot Hunt’s many blatant doctrinal errors and his vicious misrepresentations of Calvin’s character and writings. Thus they may be tainted and miss the treasures that await the believer in the writings of Calvin and other Reformed writers (like the Puritans). I have read thousands of pages of Calvin’s writings, plus numerous biographies and works about Calvinism. On that basis and because of my personal correspondence with Hunt, I can categorically state that he is deliberately slandering the man and his teaching. I have told Hunt this directly and asked him to examine the facts, but he refuses to do so.
Throughout the book, White offers sound biblical exegesis of key passages, while Hunt responds with dozens of irrelevant verses, revealing that he does not understand the position he is attacking. He frequently stands verses on their heads, making them say the opposite of what they really say (John 6:44, for example). When he can’t do that, because it is so obvious what the verse says (as with Acts 13:48), Hunt says that it can’t mean the obvious because it would go against all the verses on the Bible about free will! But he never explains why Luke wrote it that way. He repeatedly accuses Calvinists of things that Calvinists themselves do not believe. For example, in spite of White’s clear correction, Hunt says that Calvinists deny that people have a will! Many more examples could easily be cited to show that Hunt simply misunderstands what Calvinism teaches.
But there are substantive differences between Hunt’s view of God and the biblical (Calvinistic) view. Hunt effectively robs God of His sovereignty (although he would deny this). He turns divine election into human election by insisting that it means that God foresaw who would believe and chose them. This means, of course, that God devised His eternal plan of salvation based upon what man would do, not upon His purpose and choice, as Scripture so plainly affirms (Rom. 9:11-18). Hunt dismisses White’s careful explanation of the Greek word for “foreknowledge,” and then accuses Calvinists of denying God’s omniscience! Amazing! Hunt’s view also undermines God’s grace, because it makes grace depend on something God foresaw that we would do, not on His unconditional favor (Rom. 11:6). Hunt asserts that all men can believe apart from God granting faith as a gift.
Hunt has the audacity to state, “It is not loving—period—for God to damn for eternity anyone He could save” (p. 260, italics his). In other words, if God has the ability to save a sinner, but He doesn’t do it, He is unloving. The only conclusion, then, is that God is impotent to save anyone without that person’s cooperation, which is what Hunt actually teaches! Strangely, Hunt is blind to the fact that his charge against God is precisely the one that Paul anticipates and answers when he presents the doctrine of God’s sovereign election, namely, “If God loved Jacob and hated Esau apart from anything that they did, then God is not fair” (Rom. 9:14). Hunt’s attempted dodge, that Romans 9 is about nations, not individuals, doesn’t solve his problem. Even if we grant the point (which is untrue), okay, so God granted the way of salvation to the Jews and shut out the Edomites. How does this make things fair for the Edomites (not to mention the Chinese, Africans, Indians, Australians, etc., etc.)?
Hunt repeatedly accuses Calvinists of making God the author of evil because we affirm that He ordains everything according to His sovereign purpose (Eph. 1:11). Hunt never explains an alternative, except that God permits (not ordains) evil. Calvin cited Augustine, who effectively answered this: “[Y]et he does not unwillingly permit it, but willingly; nor would he, being good, allow evil to be done, unless being also almighty he could make good even out of evil” (Institutes, I:XVIII:3). If God permitted evil unwillingly, you have moved into dualism (with an evil power at least equal to God), which is Zoroastrian, not Christian. But Hunt doesn’t bother explaining his view.
Hunt’s main problem is that he refuses to submit to God’s revelation of truth. He wants it all to be logical. But there are other difficult doctrines in the Bible that do not fit human logic, for example, the Trinity, and the two natures of Christ in one person. We can’t figure them out; we must submit to what God has declared, maintaining the fine balance of Scripture. The same is true of His sovereignty and man’s responsibility. They are both true. But God’s sovereignty prevails (Phil. 2:12-13). The crucial question is, who gets the glory in our salvation? Does God alone get the glory because salvation is all from Him, or does He share it with us because we decided on our own, apart from God, to believe in Christ? White’s view glorifies God. Hunt’s view shares God’s glory with the sinful, rebellious creature. It doesn’t take a Ph.D. in theology to figure out which view is right!
Related Topics: Book Review, Election, Predestination