Category Archives: Ministry

Contextualizing the Gospel

02 Friday Jul 2021

Posted by in Ministry, Preaching

≈ Leave a comment

The idea of contextualizing the gospel is not new to me.  In his book Center Church, Timothy Keller cites a wonderful example of contextualization from the gospel narratives.  In Matthew, the sower casts his mustard seed in a “field” (Mt 13:31); in Luke, the seed is sown in a “garden” (Lk 13:19); and in Mark, the seed is cast on the “ground” (Mk 4:31).  According to scholar Craig Blomberg, the Jews grew mustard on the farm, while the Mediterranean Greeks grew mustard in gardens.  Both Matthew and Luke were apparently contextualizing the generic wording of Jesus (“ground”) for their specific audiences, so that they received the “same impact as the original audience” (Keller 95).

When I site this example with college students, I often ask them, “What did Jesus actually say—field, garden, or ground?”  The answer, of course, is none of the above.  Jesus spoke in Aramaic and all those words from the gospel narratives are Greek words.  Yes, the New Testament has accurate translation; and yes, the ipsissima vox of Jesus is present; but there is also cultural flexibility for different audiences, even if that meant that Jesus spoke the same parable at different times using different words and the gospel writers chose which version best suited their purpose. 

The point to learn here is that the Gospel message—and even its very narrative—is not language-bound or culture-bound.  While given to us in words, even inspired words, both from the lips of Jesus in Aramaic and from the gospel writers themselves, the gospel message itself is bigger than words.  The transcendence of the gospel is necessary for the mission of the gospel.  Jesus Christ is for all peoples and all languages.  Even the inspired writings of the New Testament bear witness to this universal scope and transcultural ability of the gospel, which will ultimately triumph.

Surprisingly, this contextualizing flexibility is also found in the New Testament epistles.  The apostle Paul, missionary to the Gentile par excellence, tailored his message for different thought worlds.  We definitely see this practice in the book of Acts, where Paul speaks narratively in the Jewish synagogue but dialectically on Mars Hill; but until recently, I had not noticed the same thing happening in his letters.  Please consider the following examples.

When the Judaizers were troubling the pagan converts from Galatia, Paul penned the letter to the Galatians.  The style and emphases reflect the Jewish concerns for law, covenant, history, and righteousness.  Later, Paul seems to have generalized this approach in writing a systematic and logical gospel to the Jewish-and-Gentile church at Rome.  Here we have a specific letter (Galatians) followed by a generalized treatment of the same gospel (Romans), written in the same thought world or system of symbols.

Similarly, late in Paul’s career, he heard from Epaphras that the small church planted by this faithful pastor was troubled with Gnostic teachings about cosmic layers of deities in contrast to the one Christ, Jesus the Lord.  In writing the letter to the Colossians, Paul appears to have utilized some Gnostic language of invisible powers to present “the cosmic Christ” (as one book, When Helping Hurts, labels Him).  As with Galatians and Romans, Paul then took this specific letter of Colossians and generalized it into the letter of Ephesians, which may have been a circular letter (the opening address has some manuscript variants).  What flexibility!  Given two different thought worlds confronting the church—the Jewish world of the Judaizers and the pagan world of the Gnostics—Paul was enabled in the Spirit to articulate the same gospel using two different sets of language symbols.  In fact, and this may be the most remarkable trait here, the same author accomplished this feat, and even systematized or generalized the message, but without changing the gospel one bit.  Again, this flexibility in the gospel wording is necessary for the gospel mission, because it will triumph in all languages with all their thought worlds.

These examples from the New Testament challenge us to preach better.  As pastors, do we know what thought worlds are troubling our people?  Can we articulate the gospel using the language of those thought worlds?  The Reformers did.  The Bible does not speak of merit, but the Roman Catholics certainly did in the era of Trent, especially when they applied the “extra credit” from the treasury of the saints to the release of temporal punishment through indulgences.  Ironically, such a transaction is a pure imputation; therefore, the Reformers could assert that we are saved eternally through the imputation of the merits of Christ.  This is not the language of the New Testament, but it is the fundamental message of the New Testament gospel.  We have an exciting challenge awaiting us in the pulpit this Sunday morning!

East versus West (Part 2)

02 Friday Jul 2021

Posted by in Culture, East and West, Missions

≈ Leave a comment

In preparing for the trip to Singapore, I read a recommended book on cross-cultural missions.  Wisely, the author warned of many differences between cultures, often between the West (in writing to a North American audience) and the rest of the world.  Among the differences, two stand out for discussion. 

First, the West has a linear view of life more than the East.  Interestingly, Charles Norris Cochrane, in his book Christianity and Classical Culture,points out that the West used to have a very cyclical view of history, viewed either as a pattern of repeated history or very literally as a repetition of events.  Christianity, however, especially seen in Augustine’s City of God, despised this view and presented the biblical view of historical progression, based on prophetic Scripture.  Even if this has now been twisted in the West into a cult of progression or a tyranny of efficiency, its roots are nonetheless Christian in nature.  Therefore, a missionary should not be ashamed of teaching a linear view of history as if it were merely western—it is biblical.

Second, regarding the famous individualism of the West versus the collectivism of the East, certainly both sides could claim some aspect of biblical worldview.  The church is a collective, but conversion is individualistic.  As Luther quipped, just as a person must die alone, so each must have his own faith—and woe to the one who dies without faith!  The New Covenant, as well, is very individualistic, in comparison to the tribal emphasis of the Old Covenant (Jeremiah 31:27-34), as delineated recently by Peter J. Gentry and Stephen J. Wellum in their large book, Kingdom through Covenant.  And if Cochrane is correct, Christianity contributed much to the development of individual personality in the West, both through its emphasis on the persons of the Trinity and its debates over free will.  The residue effects of this emphasis lingered through the Second World War, when a submarine came to the rescue of one “flyboy” downed at Chichi Jima, the future president of the United States, George H. W. Bush.  As told by a Japanese eyewitness years later, Japan would have never sent a submarine after one pilot (see James Bradley, Flyboys).

Therefore, two tasks present themselves.  First, I would like to know the relationship between Christianity and classical culture.  In some sense, the relationship between Christianity and classical culture is the key to understanding the West, just as the relationship between the Old Testament and New Testament is the key to understanding the Bible.  Second, for my own sake—since I live in the West—and for the sake of missions, I would like to know what aspects of western culture are due to Christianity and then to discern how these aspects have been distorted and perverted in modern times due to secularism.  Without this discernment, missions will be hampered by the bald objection, “You are imposing your western ways on the rest of the world.”  Perhaps we are, but if I can say that these aspects are biblical and that’s why they are now also western, I will have my defense.

Note: In addition to linear history, free will, and personality, Christianity also brought to western culture an emphasis on compassion in contrast to Caesar’s clemency (see Peter G. Bolt, The Cross from a Distance).  If I remember correctly, this emphasis on mercy was one aspect of Christianity that Nietzsche hated in his desire to bring the West back to pagan strength.  Herbert Schlossberg reports that both Arnold Toynbee and Christopher Dawson regarded this western incorporation of paganism as a sign of cultural decay (Idols for Destruction, p. 269).  Regarding free will, Thomistic scholar Etienne Gilson asserted, “It remains a fact that Aristotle spoke neither of liberty nor of free will…Among Christians, on the contrary, and especially among the Latins, liberty at once comes to the forefront” (The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, trans. A H. C. Downes [New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1936], 307).  Gilson attributes the rise of debates over liberty of exercise to the “moral preoccupation” of Christians (ibid., 308).

East versus West (Part 1)

02 Friday Jul 2021

Posted by in Culture, East and West, Missions

≈ Leave a comment

“You are imposing your western ways on the East!”

This charge of imperialism was recently waged against my colleague, after we returned from training Asian pastors in expository preaching.  It was not a surprise.  In fact, before I spoke, I myself had been thinking, “How can I teach pastors how to preach, when I have such a little idea of their cultural context?”

My personal response to my own question was twofold.  Subsequent reflection has added a third idea about East and West in general.

First, I believe in parity in the body of Christ.  As fellow disciples of Jesus Christ, we have only “one teacher” and we are “all brothers” (Mt 23:8).  As one body with many members, the church universal and local has a diversity of gifts, spread unevenly by the Spirit according to His will, in order that we would be mutually interdependent on one another.  “The eye cannot say to the hand, ‘I have no need of you,’ nor again the head to the feet, ‘I have no need of you’” (1 Cor 12:21).  We each bring our special gifts to share.  And even if we were as gifted in teaching and preaching as the apostle Paul himself, eager to “impart…some spiritual gift to strengthen” other believers, we could still purpose in all honesty “that we may be mutually encouraged by each other’s faith, both yours and mine” (Romans 1:11-12).

In general, while the West may offer training in academics, the East offers experience in persecution.  Each set of gifts can build faith, if offered in love.  Both need each other.  And both should respect each other heartily.  The book When Helping Hurts, by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert, was a big encouragement to me in this perspective.

Second, I believe that the Bible is the common property and heritage of all Christians.  If I do not know a culture, at least I know the Bible and can teach the Bible.  After all, as Gentiles, we have all been “ransomed from the futile ways inherited from [our] forefathers” (1 Pt 1:18) and have brought into the household of God with Abraham—the “father of many nations”—as our father (Rom 4:11, 16-17).  This is not to say, however, that we should adopt Jewish customs, any more than a believing, ethnic Jew today should cling to outdated customs of the Old Covenant.  While the gospel allows for cultural diversity held in faith and love (Rom 14), the ideal is actually a cultural flexibility to be “all things to all people” for the sake of the gospel (1 Cor 12:22).  Another book encouraged me greatly in this perspective: Conscience, by Andrew David Naselli and J. D. Crowley.

Now, with regard to expository preaching specifically, we do have to be careful.  As a concept, expository preaching—to expose the meaning of the text in a sermon (cf. Ps 119:130)—is non-negotiable.  The New Testament commands regarding gifts, “Whoever speaks, as one who speaks oracles of God” (1 Pt 4:10-11).  A pastor must “preach the word,” a message based (in context) on the inspired and profitable Scriptures, the sacred writings “able to make [one] wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus” (2 Tim 3:15-4:2).  In its basic idea, this is what expository preaching does.  The main idea of the sermon is the main idea of the text.

As commonly practiced, however, the concept is often narrowed to a particular method of verse-by-verse exposition through a book of the Bible.  Personally, I believe that any text, of any size and in any order, if handled rightly and in context, can provide the basis of an expository message.  Those preachers, however, like C. H. Spurgeon, who rely on the textual sermon should probably broaden their context at times to preach whole books in one message, otherwise the congregation will become familiar with a lot of trees but never the forest.  Similarly, those preachers, like D. Martyn Lloyd-Jones, who rely a lot of verse-by-verse exposition through a book should be wary of misapplying books (especially Hebrews, as if the congregation was dull and drifting), keeping application far off in the future (getting to Ephesians 4 next year), and lacking theological depth (there are few chapters on the Trinity).  A lack of variety often accompanies these pulpits and one searches in vain throughout the New Testament to find such an approach in the epistles.  The closest may be the series of expositions from the messianic Psalms in the book of Hebrews.

Perhaps the book of Acts is most helpful.  The same apostle—the apostle Paul—varied his approach based on his audience, preaching narratively in the Jewish synagogue and discursively on Mar’s Hill to the Gentiles (Acts 17).  In both approaches, Paul preached Christ.  Evangelism, of course, differs from pulpit ministry, but we see again the principle of cultural flexibility.  Within the church, however, the writings of Luke clearly show that the word of God is the authority.  Even arguments from experience, such as the resurrection of Christ (Luke 24) or the conversion of the Gentiles (Acts 10-11, 15), were ultimately resolved through recourse to the word of God.  The Bible is the authority.  Its message must be preached.

Therefore, in addressing an audience of Philippine pastors, I could not presume to understand their cultural context, but I could appeal to our common roots.  As Gentiles, we both have to relinquish our “futile ways inherited from [our] forefathers” (1 Peter 1:18) and now accept Abraham—the father of many nations—as our heritage.  Graciously, we have been incorporated into the household of God and are reckoned Jews (Galatians 3:29)—but as Romans 14 shows, this does not remove the need for discernment, because many aspects of Jewish culture were removed by the Cross and are tolerated as acceptable differences under the gospel.

Our American cities are losing their American identity—perhaps not good for America, but good for the gospel.  A secular globalism resembles the first century.  Chinese communism prepared the ground for the gospel.  We have the only true world-religion—Christianity is transcultural.

What Is a Sending Church?

01 Thursday Jul 2021

Posted by in Ministry, Missions

≈ Leave a comment

“Now there were in the church at Antioch prophets and teachers, Barnabas, Simeon who was called Niger, Lucius of Cyrene, Manaen a member of the court of Herod the tetrarch, and Saul.  While they were worshipping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, ‘Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them.’  Then after fasting and praying they laid their hands on them and sent them off” (Acts 13:1-3, ESV).

This episode in Acts is the clearest example we have of what today is known as a sending church.  Of the five prophets and teachers in the church at Antioch, two were called by the Holy Spirit to mission work, and the church is said to have “sent them off” (v. 3).  By instigating this commissioning, the Holy Spirit is also said to have “sent out” these two men.  Perhaps as a result of this episode, the two men—Barnabas and Saul (also known as Paul)—are also said to be “apostles” (Acts 14:14), which means those who are sent out as official representatives.

What is a sending church?

Specifically, how much authority does a sending church have over the missionaries that are sent? 

For conscientious churches and their missionaries, this question cannot be avoided.  For example, must a missionary receive the approval of a sending church for a change of field or focus?  Does the sending church have the authority to call a missionary home or to account for various reasons?  Is the relationship between the missionary and the sending church one that demands submission, as a wife behaves to her husband, or as church members act toward their pastors?  What can we learn from the biblical record?

Before answering, two cautions are in order.  First, we must be careful of making one experience normative for all later occurrences.  For example, even though the Holy Spirit audibly selected these men by name, most churches today do not expect Him to be so explicit, even though they do expect Him to call men to mission work.

Second, we must also keep in mind that Paul is an apostle of Christ; therefore, not all that Paul experienced as a missionary would be true for all missionaries.

With these cautions in mind, let us consider the following observations.

First, it appears from the book of Acts that the relationship Paul and Barnabas sustained with the church in Antioch changed at the point of their commissioning.  Before Acts 13, for example, we see them directed by the church to take a gift to care for the saints in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30; 12:25).  We also see them serving in the local church as teachers, even as Barnabas had initially recruited Paul to do (Acts 11:25-26).  On a par with the other leaders, they were under the direction of the church as a whole.  However, when the Holy Spirit called them by name, He told the church to “set apart for me” these two men.  In other words, they were no longer leaders in the church there, and under the direction of the church, but were now under the direction of the Holy Spirit Himself.  Subsequently, we see Paul making decisions in the Spirit, and even being hindered by the Spirit from going in a certain direction (see Acts 16:6-10; 19:21).

Again, is this leading of the Spirit due to Paul being an apostle of Christ, or is it due to both men being sent out by the Spirit, even as missionaries today would be sent out?  Perhaps both men are said to be “apostles” in the book of Acts because they were sent out by the Holy Spirit, even as Jesus is said to be an “apostle” because He was sent out by the Father (Hebrews 3:1).

Pop the Bubble

01 Thursday Jul 2021

Posted by in Counseling, Ministry

≈ Leave a comment

Perhaps Spring Arbor University feels the same—at Hillsdale College, students often comment on The Bubble.  Isolated on campus, surrounded by same-age peers and same-old debates, students can be stifled and unprepared for the future.  Please, please, please—whether you are at SAU, Jackson College, or Hillsdale—come out of The Bubble.

Granted, the Bubble is busy.  Tempted by deadlines, it is easy to think, “I will engage in church life after college.”  After all, it is hard enough sometimes just to come on Sunday morning.

But what will change after graduation?  Will adding a spouse, some kids, a house, and a job equate to more time for church?  College is a great time to train for a lifetime of hard decisions.  Even more, college life will soon cease, but the church remains.  Students uninvolved in church often find the transition from campus life to church life difficult—but not if you begin now.

And will there be a lifetime?  What if the Lord’s return is soon, or your departure to Him?  The Proverbs say, “Do not boast about tomorrow.”  We should be ready either way: “I may live, so I will study hard; but I may die, so I will not live for studying.”

Think of it as an act of faith.  “Jesus, You know how pressed I am, but You give grace to the humble—surprising, unforeseen favor—therefore, I will bank on You, and put Your church first.”  One surprising grace is renewed energy.  The joy of the Lord is our strength, and ministry often brings joy.  Jesus said, “It is more blessed to give than to receive.”

Are you game for a try?  Even if you feel like Peter in the boat, reluctant and barely willing—“Okay, Lord, if you say so”—you may find your meager faith disproportionately rewarded with loads of fish.  God does give grace to the humble, and He does oppose the proud.  It is very unwise for us to ignore the Invisible Hand of God in our planning.  He often heals us as we step out in faith.

So, is it music?  See Pastor Rob.  Is it coordinating college ministry and helping with rides and events?  See Drew and Bekka French or Sam Ryskamp.  Is it working with teens?  See our youth director Joseph Parker.  Or children?  See Deb Scripter, or Abe and Becky Dane.  How about working with the very elderly, as I did during my graduate studies?  See Dave Burns for times at Hillsdale Medical Care.  Lots and lots of opportunities abound!  And even if you do not know your calling, now is the time to explore.  Discovery awaits!

A Marriage Blessing: Mary’s Anointing

01 Thursday Jul 2021

Posted by in Counseling, Ministry

≈ Leave a comment

“And while he was at Bethany in the house of Simon the leper, as he was reclining at table, a woman came with an alabaster flask of ointment of pure nard, very costly, and she broke the flask and poured it over his head.”

—Mark 14:3

A beautiful act has a way of captivating our attention, and of influencing us to duty through almost a side-door of reasoning.  Jesus said of Mary, “She has done a beautiful thing to me” (Mark 14:6).  Let your mind be filled with the beauty of this event.  Do not be in a rush; this is a fragrant event worthy of a long intake of breath.

Unmotivated by guilt before God or by fear before men, she freely gave her Lord a costly gift.  Like the woman who earlier anointed His feet, she too loved much.  In contrast to that earlier woman, who loved much because she was forgiven much, perhaps Mary loved much because she had been given much.  She had recently received her brother back from the dead.  Either way, it is evident she loved Jesus greatly.

It is also evident that she gave unreservedly.  She broke the white, white flask, and poured out very costly, very pure perfume.  The disciples estimated its value at three hundred denarii, which was about the value of a year’s worth of hard labor.  These same disciples called it a waste, thinking of the utilitarian value for such a sizable amount.  With so many poor, how could this woman waste such expense on one man, in one event!  And what would we say to a gift of twenty thousand dollars?  Surely a lesser amount would have honored Jesus as well!

Jesus knew the cost, but He did not consider it a waste.  He said, “She did what she could; she has anointed my body beforehand for burial.”  The perfume had a use, and it could only be considered a waste, if the coming death were denied, or the dying Person despised.  It is interesting to ponder whether the scent of this perfume lingered on Jesus’ body all the way through the coming days of mock trial and bloody execution.  Perhaps so.  At the very least, we know from another gospel that the aroma of the perfume filled the room.

Jesus linked this act to the gospel, saying that wherever the gospel is proclaimed, her deed would also be told in remembrance of her.  Just as the broken bread and the poured out cup were to be done in remembrance of Jesus, so the story of the broken flask and poured out perfume were to be told in remembrance of her.  Such close parallels lend themselves to a comparison between the love of Mary for Jesus and the love of Jesus for us.  Just as she poured out pure perfume from a pure flask, filling the room with scent, so did Jesus.  His very life, the life of God, was held in a pure body until the day of His death, upon which He poured it out freely, filling the world with the aroma of His love.  How fitting that Jesus emphasized the spread of the gospel in commenting on the remembrance of Mary’s act!

In contrast, our love is often measured and calculated.  We calculate how we will gain from this expenditure, and we measure it out lest we should expend too much.  Pure love does not act this way.  Pure love gives unremittingly, begging for the opportunity to give.  This was the way of the Macedonian Christians, full of grace, giving both themselves and their poverty in joy.  This was also the way of the apostle, who said, “I will most gladly spend and be spent for your souls.  If I love you more, am I to be loved less?”  This too was the way of Jesus, who became poor for our sakes, that we through His poverty might become rich.

John, the love of a husband should not be measured and calculated.  Like the love of Mary for Jesus, and the love of Jesus for us, you should be broken and poured out in love for your wife.  Little love will love little, and will be grieved if it is not returned or continues to be poured out.  Such love holds on tightly to personal goals and schedules, to personal honor and thanksgivings, and to personal space and pride.  Believe me, your home will not be filled with the aroma of Christ until all such grips are broken—indeed, until you are broken and poured out.  Do not measure your love or calculate your gain.  Be broken and poured out freely for your wife, anointing her with better perfume than she can wear.  The interesting thing of perfume is how it covers the stench of sweat and decay.  Such is the power of fervent love, which covers a multitude of transgressions!

This is not a feminine exercise, as if Mary’s love can be dismissed as a lady’s act alone.  If men are especially known for their task-orientation, Mary’s sister Martha surely lived up to that reputation.  No, this is a personal trait.  It is a trait of Jesus.  And it should be a trait of yours.  Believe me, we will detect the difference, whether such an aroma is present in your home or not.

A Marriage Blessing: A Godly Distraction

01 Thursday Jul 2021

Posted by in Counseling, Ministry

≈ Leave a comment

In the New Testament, there are several passages on marriage, each with its own emphasis and necessary for us to take to heart.  We could turn to Ephesians and learn of Christ-like love, or to 1 Peter and learn of understanding and honor, or even to the book of Revelation, to learn of the wedding feast.  Tonight, however, we will turn our attention to a different kind of passage, to give you perspective on the time frame in which you soon will wed a wife.

“Now concerning virgins I have no command of the Lord, but I give an opinion as one who by the mercy of the Lord is trustworthy.  I think then that this is good in view of the present distress, that it is good for a man to remain as he is.  Are you bound to a wife?  Do not seek to be released.  Are you released from a wife?  Do not seek a wife.  But if you marry, you have not sinned; and if a virgin marries, she has not sinned.  Yet such will have trouble in this life, and I am trying to spare you.  But this I say, brethren, the time has been shortened, so that from now on those who have wives should be as though they had none; and those who weep, as though they did not weep; and those who rejoice, as though they did not rejoice; and those who buy, as though they did not possess; and those who use the world, as though they did not make full use of it; for the form of this world is passing away. But I want you to be free from concern. One who is unmarried is concerned about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and his interests are divided.  The woman who is unmarried, and the virgin, is concerned about the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit; but one who is married is concerned about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.  This I say for your own benefit; not to put a restraint upon you, but to promote what is appropriate and to secure undistracted devotion to the Lord.”

—1 Corinthians 7:25-35

In wisdom, timing is everything.

For example, when opportunity knocks, you must not hesitate.

You must make hay when the sun shines; strike the iron when it is hot; and redeem the time, for the days are evil.

In many cases, the same action can be wise or foolish, depending on when it is done.

In the bear market, sell; in the bull market, buy (or is it the other way around?); but wait for the ball, then swing.

Our question tonight is: What does it mean to take a wife at the end of history?

In this passage, Paul is talking wisdom.  He clearly tells you that he has no command from the Lord.  There is freedom here.  He also tells you that he is giving you his opinion, as one who, by God’s mercy, is trustworthy.  In other words, you will not be told what is right, but rather what is wise, in light of present circumstances.  It is very situational.  He says, “I think then that this is good in view of the present distress…”

Ethically, if you are an idealist or a perfectionist, Paul’s counsel may be hard to accept.  He clearly tells you that while one choice may be better than another, they may both be right.  In hearing what he has to say, you must embrace the idea that choosing the lesser of two good options is not a sin.  It is not a sin to be less than idealistic.  By the way, you have already made such a decision.  You have already chosen the lesser of two good options, but you are not sinning.  What then does it mean to take a wife at the end of history?  It means doing something right that is no longer the best choice.

Time was when marriage was the best choice.  God looked upon everything that He had made, and saw that it was very good; but when He had looked on man, He saw that it had not been good for him to be alone.  Consequently, the Bible tells us that God took a rib, fashioned the woman, and rejoined her to the man, so that his flesh was once again complete.  It was good for him to marry.  The man may have lost his rib, but he gained his wife.

For many young men, it is definitely not good for them to be alone.  Single men often make money and live for themselves, buying big toys and caring for no one’s needs.  Once they marry—blessed be God!—they are forced to think on another, and soon, on several others, thereby making themselves tolerably useful in this world.  I know this happened in my life, and for that reason alone, it was a good choice.

But if in the beginning, God said that it was not good for man to be alone, here now at the end of history, Paul says that it is good for a man to remain as he is, even if that means not to seek a wife.  Though some may say that Paul is referring to some imminent persecution or to some other localized trauma, he writes in larger terms about “trouble in this life” and that “the form of this world is passing away.”  The wording of “this life” and “this world” seem global, not local.  He also says that the “time has been shortened”—apparently the timetable of world history—so that life as we know it is soon to pass away.  Eternity is upon us, making everything here relative.  Those with joys should not be elated, and those with sorrows should not be deflated, for these present circumstances are soon over.  Thus even those with a wife should act as single men, just as those with property and rights should not make full use of them, for soon we leave it all behind.

Timing.  It truly is everything.

So what does it mean for you to take a wife now, at the end of history?

First, taking a wife now will bring you trouble that could have been avoided (v. 28).  Given the times, you are about to face “distress” and you cannot avoid it.  The word “distress” literally refers to necessity, to a compulsive reality that will force you to experience trouble.  As in war and famine, when it clearly easier to be single, so also now, at the end of history, it is easier for a Christian to go it alone.  No details are given.  Just the fact of the matter is stated.

Second, taking a wife now will also bring you distractions that could have been avoided (v. 32).  You will have cares and concerns that will distract your attention away from Christ (v. 32).  While the single man can spend his time in perpetual prayer, like the widow Anna in the temple, the married man must keep one eye on Christ and one eye on his wife.  He must please both Christ and his wife.

It is interesting to see what marriage does to a man’s attention and focus.  I have seen a single man go from the simplicity of living in his truck all summer long to the citification of living with a woman who likes him dressed in suit and tie.  Colors, decorations, party planning, and flowers in the wallpaper all come with marrying a woman—things that single men are not concerned about.  How much better is devotion to the Lord that is undistracted!

Even physical intimacy is a distraction, though at first it may seem like the star attraction.  I remember my youth pastor making a comment in his thirties about sex as overrated.  As a teen, I was surprised by such an opinion.  However, if the studies are correct that men typically decline in interest beyond their teens, while women often rise in interest, then even intimacy can become a distraction over time—a fact that the apostle seems to acknowledge, when earlier in this chapter he wrote, “It is good for a man not to touch a woman” (v. 1).

Trouble and distraction—that is marriage at the end of history.  So what should you do?

First, you should marry your beloved with full confidence.  “Are you bound to a wife?  Do not seek to be released” (v. 27).  Since the apostle is addressing singles, and since the word “wife” simply means “woman” (Greek having no term for “wife”), this counsel probably refers to a binding betrothal commitment.  If so, you are specifically advised to follow through on your commitment to marry your woman.  It would seem that the apostle Paul is adverse to a change of plans, perhaps because changing plans does not reflect the faithfulness of God to His word—a thought Paul expresses to the Corinthians in a subsequent letter.  Therefore, embrace your decision as a right decision: “If you marry, you have not sinned” (v. 28).  To marry is right.  You should go ahead as planned.

Second, you should seek to please her.  One of the most freeing things about this passage to me, as a married man, is the open recognition that I live a divided life.  I must please Christ, and I must please my wife.  This recognition has helped my conscience at times when it has cried out to be solely devoted to the Lord.  I cannot, and Jesus does not expect this of me.  God be praised!

In history, there have been men who perhaps should have taken this recognition more to heart.  A. W. Tozer, for example, the famous preacher of the last century, seems to have been a man lacking in this area.  While being a phenomenal preacher, and an evangelist who turned many to a hearty pursuit of God, he woefully neglected his family.  Spending hours in his basement as an evangelical mystic did little for his wife, who said upon his death that Aiden loved Jesus, not her.  Even his biographer described him as a married monk!  Men, love Jesus and love your wife!  The Lord expects this of you.

Third, just as you should not live solely to the Lord, so you should not live solely for your wife.  There must be something different about your home now than was true of the saints of God under the Old Covenant.  While it may have been great for Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to have children, servants, and property, in the present age such things are extremely relative.  Yes, please your wife, but do not lead her into making the home your chief priority, as if, for example, having a multitude of children is more godly and blessed than having one or two.  Timing.  To have too many physical children of your own in this age may prevent you from caring adequately for the spiritual children of God’s house.  “Who are My mother and My brothers?” Jesus once asked, to which He answered, “Whoever does the will of God, he is My brother and sister and mother” (Mark 3:33, 34).  The form of this world is passing away, and in the age to come, we will be like the angels, neither marrying nor giving in marriage.

Trouble and distraction, but no sin.  That is marriage at the end of history.  Full confidence, pleasing her and pleasing the Lord, and doing both in light of Eternity.  That too is marriage at the end of history.

It is possible, therefore, for both Jesus and your future wife to be happy.  May it be!  God bless you both in knowing how to live when you live!  In Christ’s name, amen.