I have been watching a six-part video series on how to cherish one’s spouse. I am amazed how much the speaker / author has to say about the subject. It got me to thinking, does the Bible actually speak directly to this topic? Here’s what I found:
So husbands ought also to love their own wives as their own bodies. He who loves his own wife loves himself; for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes it, just as Christ also does the church (Ephesians 5:28–29).
In this passage, husbands are called to love (agapaō) their wives. This involves promoting the good of another as a matter of choice. The phrase “nourish and cherish” can be used to describe an aspect of this love. Nourish (ektrephō) is only used here and a few verses later: Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up (ektrephō) in the discipline and instruction of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4). There is a strong element of “feeding” in this term. No one hates his body but supplies it with a steady diet of nourishment. Applied to a marriage, this suggests that a husband should nourish his wife, including nourishing her spirit, just as he nourishes his own body. He provides for her and feeds her soul.
The second term, translated “cherish,” is also used only twice in the NT. The other instance is here: But we proved to be gentle among you, as a nursing mother tenderly cares (thalpō) for her own children (1 Thessalonians 2:7). There are four instances where thalpō is used in the LXX in contexts involving communicating care and warmth. The core idea would be “to care for tenderly” or to “keep warm.” For husbands, Paul’s use of the word suggests that as a husband keeps his body warm (a Minnesota necessity when it’s 30 below!), so he is to provide the same tender care and warming influence to his wife. Do what is needed for her to flourish, to be protected from the elements, including what would cause her walk with the Lord to cool.
This should be put in the broader context. To “cherish” one’s wife is but one specific element in a list (from Ephesians 5) that includes nine responsibilities for husbands and two for wives. For a husband: Love your wife, give up yourself for your wife, sanctify your wife, cleanse her, present her holy and without blemish, nourish her, cherish her, hold fast to her, and love her as yourself. For a wife: Submit to your husband (as to the Lord and in everything) and respect your husband. “Cherish” is but one element in a more comprehensive list.
This certainly suggests caution against isolating one responsibility to the exclusion of another. For example, to promote his wife’s holiness is to put limits on what one does to cherish her. Don’t, in the name of tender care, fail to address unholiness in your partner but rather, where necessary, do the hard thing to help her make spiritual progress.
Further, there is some gender specificity here. “Cherish” is in the man list. “Submit” and “respect” are in the woman list, but not cherish. Paul considers it necessary for men and women to embrace gender specific responsibilities that make a marriage truly God-honoring. Men need to work at “cherishing,” hence Paul’s instruction. Women have some other areas where they need to focus their energies. When both do their part, their marriage will flourish.
I would think the speaker in the video series would cherish the opportunity to open up Ephesians 5:28-29. We’ll see if he does!
It's March 5 in Memphis and the snow has fallen here at Fleming Central. I love how it covers everything with a pristine white blanket. When the sun came out later today, the light reflected off the snow and bathed everything in glory.
God's grace is like snow! Consider the twin graces of confession and forgiveness. I call them graces because they are both gifts from God. God grants repentance when He opens our eyes to see our sin as He does. This gift, in turn, drives us to acknowledge our sin for what it is to Him and to others.
God's gift of forgiveness is an enabling grace. It equips us to impart to others the same gift we have received from Father. When the graces of confession and forgiveness work together, they can take something dark, cover it in a blanket of pristine white, and bath it in light.
This week, Byron Tyler aired a two-part program at WCRV that shows what happens when grace falls like snow on a marriage turned ugly. It was fulfilling for me to play a role to help Sean and Jenn put their marriage back together. But by the time I got involved, a glorious blanket of grace had already fallen. It was a sight to behold! Want to take a look?
Boris and Natasha’s marriage has hit a rough patch. Their most recent fight was long and heated. Both sinned against the other and the fight ended in angry silence. Now several hours later, Natasha is broken and ready to acknowledge her sin. Not Boris!
So, does Natasha need to forgive Boris even though he refuses to admit he blew it? In a previous post, we noted three core principles. ➊ Natasha should use God’s forgiveness of her as the model and inspiration for how she forgives Boris. ➋ It is true that God doesn’t forgive everyone, but ➌ for all who are in Christ, His forgiveness is full and free.
These three principles are a helpful starting point. Now we’re ready to get to the practical question: “How is it possible for Natasha to forgive Boris for something that Boris doesn’t even admit exists?” The Bible does speak to this question in a number of places. These additional passages fall into two broad categories, those which limit the recipients of horizontal forgiveness and those which don’t. We will look at the former in this post and the latter in the next.
This post is a tad long, so here comes your executive summary. For you time-pressed Light-Workers, just read the next paragraph. Think of it as Lite-Work! But for those of you who want to understand the biblical basis behind this summary, just keep on reading.
Executive Summary: Natasha will not be able to give Boris her forgiveness for a sin he refuses to confess. But even if Boris has sinned in the most egregious way, Natasha does well to take her cue from Father, remain patient, and extend kindness toward her husband. She does so in order to give Boris maximum opportunity to repent of his sin and seek her (and God’s) forgiveness.
II. Limitation Verses – Some passages in the Bible support the idea of limits on or qualifications of horizontal forgiveness. These verses seem to support the idea that forgiveness should not be extended toward some sinners.
A. Specific actions trigger forgiveness.
Here are two passages which link one party’s forgiveness to another’s actions. ➊The story of the unforgiving servant illustrates how our heavenly Father forgives. The parable contains this statement: “Then summoning him, his lord said to him, ‘You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me’” (Matthew 18:32). Because the indebted servant plead with the lord, he was forgiven. It is worth noting that the servant’s pleading (as captured in verse 26) doesn’t sound like a true confession. But his words, at the least, imply an admission of his failure, an admission which his lord cites as the reason for his forgiveness.
➋ Jesus taught His disciples: “Be on your guard! If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. And if he sins against you seven times a day, and returns to you seven times, saying, ‘I repent,’ forgive him” (Luke 17:3–4). Note the two conditional statements in verse 3: If your brother sins, rebuke him; and if he repents, forgive him. Both sentences join a conditional statement to an imperative. The disciples are commanded to rebuke a brother, but only when he has sinned. Similarly, the disciples are commanded to forgive a brother when he repents of his sin. It is implied that a rebuke is unwarranted when a brother has not sinned and that forgiveness is unwarranted when a brother has not repented.
These two passages suggest that forgiveness, if not certain aspects of forgiveness, should not be conveyed by Natasha to Boris since he has not repented of his failure.
B. Some sins are “retained” by believers.
According to Jesus, believers have a choice between “forgiving” and “retaining” another’s sins: “If you forgive the sins of any, their sins have been forgiven them; if you retain the sins of any, they have been retained” (John 20:23). In this passage “retaining” a sin represents the opposite of forgiving a sin. “Forgive” is the word ἀφίημι (aphiemi) which has the basic idea of releasing a debt or letting something go. “Retaining,” from κρατέω (krateo), is about seizing or holding onto something. These antonyms are describing two antithetical responses to another’s sin, either releasing someone from his debt or holding him to it. Clearly, not all sin is forgiven.
So what does it mean to “retain” someone’s sin? No other NT uses of κρατέω (krateo) offer much practical help.
Matthew records a statement from Jesus that seems similar by its connection to forgiveness and by its contrast between “binding” and “loosing:” “Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven”(Matthew 18:18). In context, Jesus gives instructions concerning church discipline wherein a brother is confronted about his trespass. There are two possible outcomes: Either this brother listens or he refuses to listen. Each outcome has a corresponding result. The brother who listens is “won.” The “brother” who refuses to listen is to be treated as “a Gentile and tax-gatherer.”
“Loosing” and “binding” can be connected to these two results. For the brother who is “won,” loosening cuts the tie connecting this brother to his sin. He is forgiven: Those whom he has sinned against have chosen to deny his trespass the power to adversely affect their relationship. On the other hand, the “brother” who has shown himself to be a Gentile and tax-gatherer has betrayed his confession of Christ and is to be treated accordingly. For such a one, “binding” retains his connection with his sin.
Both John 20:23 and Matthew 18:18 envision a situation in which someone has betrayed his confession of Christ by a persistent refusal to admit his sin. Although a measured response is prescribed (see Matthew 18:15-19 for a step-by-step description of the progression involved), one who defies every attempt to “show him his fault” thereby gives evidence he does not belong to Christ. He is still connected to His sin. It defines him.
For Natasha, this principle teaches that there are circumstances where forgiveness is withheld and where sin is “retained.” But such an end is only reached after every effort (as spelled out in Matthew 18) has been exhausted to “win” another, Boris included. If Natasha has come to such a place with Boris, she should “retain” his sin, not forgive it. She should see in him one who stands in an extremely dangerous place. He is asking God to relate to him as a man still connected to and defined by sin. Natasha should regard Boris as an unbeliever.
C. Some sin is unforgivable.
Jesus declared a certain type of sin as “unforgivable:” “Truly I say to you, all sins shall be forgiven the sons of men, and whatever blasphemies they utter; but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” – because they were saying, “He has an unclean spirit” (Mark 3:28–30). A parallel passage in Matthew indicates that speaking against the Son of Man is forgivable; speaking against the Holy Spirit is not (Matthew 12:32, also see Luke 12:10). Note that the passage in Mark identifies the leaders’ lie that prompted Jesus’ response: They were saying, “He has an unclean spirit.” Jesus performed miracles in the power of the Holy Spirit. In order to discredit Jesus, the religious leaders resolutely defied the Spirit. They maintained that the Holy Spirit who worked through Jesus in His miracles is actually an evil spirit, the kind that should be steadfastly resisted.
In light of a passage like 1 Corinthians 12:3, this is a fatal hostility: Therefore I make known to you that no one speaking by the Spirit of God says, “Jesus is accursed”; and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit (1 Corinthians 12:3). To resist the Spirit is to resist the One who makes it possible for a man to confess Jesus and to thereby be forgiven. The reason that sin against the Spirit cannot be forgiven is that it thwarts the only One who can introduce a man to the means of His forgiveness.
Think of it this way. Joe has been diagnosed with terminal cancer. There is a doctor in another state who has recently developed an amazing cure for Joe’s cancer. Joe’s next-door neighbor happens to read about this doctor and his ground-breaking discovery. He thinks, “Maybe this could help Joe.” But he also recalls an incident last summer when he sought to help Joe by trimming the hedge and some trees on their adjoining property line. For some reason, Joe was offended by what he had done and wasn’t talking to him. But Joe’s neighbor also reasons, “Surely Joe would want to know about this cure.” So he goes to Joe’s front porch and rings the doorbell.
Joe hears the doorbell, looks through his peephole, but decides to ignore his neighbor. He scoffs to himself, “It’s bad enough I have cancer. I definitely don’t want to talk to a neighbor who thinks my yard is too shabby for his uppity taste.”
So Joe refuses to listen to his neighbor and thereby forfeits the opportunity to learn about a cure for his cancer. So is it with blasphemy of the Spirit. There is no forgiveness available for the sin of rejecting the Spirit who stands at the door to our hearts to show us sin’s cure. This summary by R. A Cole gets it right: This is the sin of the wilfully blind, who persistently refuse the illumination of the Spirit, oppose the Spirit’s work, and justify themselves in doing so by deliberately misrepresenting him (Mark: An Introduction and Commentary, Vol. 2, p. 145).
Note that the “unforgivable sin” produces the same effect as sin that is “retained.” The “unforgivable sin” is a tacit rejection of Jesus precipitated by an overt rejection of the Holy Spirit. Sin that is “retained” comes from a more overt rejection of Jesus manifested by persistent resistance to correction. These two sins, which are really just two varieties of the same sin, are refusals to admit one’s need of forgiveness.
In all likelihood, the altercation between Boris and Natasha involved the commission of lessor sins, sins that can be forgiven. But let’s assume, for the moment, that Boris has committed the “unforgivable sin” or that he has unalterably resisted the steps outlined in Matthew 18:15-17. The former, by definition, is unforgivable. The latter, for as long as Boris refuses to listen to the church, is also unforgivable. The commission of such sin by Boris is most grave. The Lord does not forgive him. Neither should Natasha.
This, however, is not the whole story. If Natasha cannot impart forgiveness to Boris, is there something else which she can offer him? The next principle will help us understand how Natasha can relate to Boris in a constructive way even if he has committed the most serious of sins.
D. We dwell in the day of God’s patience.
Numerous OT passages recount the words of men who have a reputation for godliness and who desire God to curse sinners. Here is a representative passage from the prophet Jeremiah: “Yet, O Lord of hosts, You who test the righteous, Who see the mind and the heart; Let me see Your vengeance on them; For to You I have set forth my cause” (Jeremiah 20:12). In this instance, Jeremiah is the speaker and he is asking God, his “dread champion,” to overthrow his persecutors. His words do not sound at all like the language of forgiveness. Jeremiah yearns for these unrepentant sinners to get what’s coming to them.
This is not a uniquely Old Testament sentiment. Jesus once told a parable about a widow who pestered a judge for legal protection and, by her persistence, prevailed. Jesus then pivoted from recounting the judge’s conclusion to teaching about God. He said, “Hear what the unrighteous judge said; now, will not God bring about justice for His elect who cry to Him day and night, and will He delay long over them? I tell you that He will bring about justice for them quickly. However, when the Son of Man comes, will He find faith on the earth” (Luke 18:6–8)? The elect are described as crying out for justice day and night. Theirs is a proper request that will be answered swiftly at just the right time, “when the Son of Man comes!” In this passage, the elect have been persecuted, that is, they have been made the recipients of others’ opposition to the Lord. They cry out for justice and Jesus assures them that they will be heard!
Indeed, in another context, Jesus adds His voice to the chorus anticipating this day of judgment: “I have come to cast fire upon the earth; and how I wish it were already kindled! But I have a baptism to undergo, and how distressed I am until it is accomplished” (Luke 12:49–50)! Jesus yearned for justice to be served. But first He must be baptized, a reference to Calvary. The day of justice for which Jesus longed would come later.
Even now, the day of justice remains yet future but its soon coming is as sure as God’s Word: But by His word the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men (2 Peter 3:7). On this future date, all who are unforgiven will be judged. Those whose sins have been “retained” and those who have despised the Spirit of grace will reap exactly what they have sown. Justice will be served and the voices of those who dishonor the Lord silenced.
But for now, we dwell in a different day: The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance(2 Peter 3:9). Today, the unforgiven are not judged. God delays judgment in order to give everyman sufficient opportunity to repent. Today is the day of God’s patience and men’s opportunity. Jesus’ first advent heralded this season: “For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him” (John 3:17).
To dwell in the present day of patience means to occupy a place where unforgiven men are not judged. It would be foolish to think this day will last forever. But as long as today is the day of God’s patience, there is hope. In Romans 2, Paul addresses those who are storing up wrath for themselves. In verse four, he raises a question that shows how God presently relates to the unforgiven: Or do you think lightly of the riches of His kindness and tolerance and patience, not knowing that the kindness of God leads you to repentance (Romans 2:4)? God shows men kindness, tolerance, and patience precisely because His kindness assists men to come to a place of brokenness over their sin.
Even today, God expresses grace to unforgiven men in the form of patience and kindness. Regardless of Boris’s offense, Natasha should do no less. There are two categories of sins which constitute a de-facto repudiation of Christ, unforgivable sin and sins which have been “retained.” Even if these terms describe Boris’s sins, Natasha must take her cue from Father. She does well to recall the riches of God’s kindness and tolerance and patience when she herself was once unforgiven yet not judged. She does well to remember ways the kindness of God led her to repentance. She does well to extend the same, in a similar hope, to her husband even when he does not admit his sin.
Natasha cannot impart forgiveness to someone who has not asked for it. But she can impart other gifts to Boris. Stated in its broadest terms, she can relate to Boris in a way that gives him maximum opportunity to own up to his sin, a way that will be marked by kindness for which Boris is not worthy and patience that arises from grace.
Boris and Natasha are at it again. We don’t know how it all started. But one thing led to another; voices were raised; things thrown; doors slammed! Now Natasha has gone silent by locking herself in the bathroom and Boris is doing a slow burn on the back porch. Boris said and did things he shouldn’t. Natasha, too. They have hurt one another and each done what is wrong.
They need to put things right. In any given marriage, one party is often slower to reconcile. Boris is that one. In the bathroom, Natasha has come to see the ways she blew it. She is broken over her sin and wants to confess her sin to Boris and ask for his forgiveness. Boris is not there! He cannot get past the harsh words from Natasha that are still ringing in his ears. He does not see his own sins, only hers.
In an ideal world, Boris and Natasha would each acknowledge what they did wrong and ask for and receive the other’s forgiveness. Alas, Boris and Natasha do not live in that world. Natasha is prepared to do her part, but is limited in what she can do by Boris’s pride. So, is she off the hook for forgiveness until Boris can confess what he has done? Great question!
In a recent training session for marriage mentors, someone proposed that the Bible teaches us to limit forgiveness of others to only those who confess their sins. The one advocating this view pointed out that God fully and freely forgives those who confess themselves as sinners and who ask to be forgiven in Christ; those who don’t acknowledge their sins and need for a Savior, reap wrath. So, he asked, why would our forgiveness of others be any different than Father’s? This viewpoint denies another our forgiveness until he confesses his sin to us. According to this view, forgiveness is only triggered by another’s actions.
I heartily agree the Bible teaches that God forgives sinners who acknowledge their sins and that we should do the same. But here’s the key question: Does the Bible teach that we should withhold forgiveness from those who don’t confess their sins? Do we forgive everyone or just some? The answer to this question has profound implications and the Bible doesn’t seem to clearly support just one possibility. So, it will take three posts to explain a nuanced answer that accounts for all the biblical data.
I. Guardrails - The Bible clearly teaches three key principles about forgiveness. Think of these as core principles that are not in doubt and which give us a secure starting point from which to launch our inquiry into the question of whom we forgive.
A. God doesn’t forgive everyone.
God does NOT forgive some individuals. In the parable of the unforgiving servant, Jesus explicitly connects the climax of the story to an observation about God: “And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until he should repay all that was owed him. My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart” (Matthew 18:34–35). The evocative image of a lord committing a steward to the torture chamber is held up by Jesus as an apt illustration of how the Father will respond to some. This sobering fact does not align with a politically correct view of God as a benign and tolerant deity. But it clearly affirms that enjoyment of God’s forgiveness is restricted to just some.
The writer of Hebrews describes the terrifying certainty of God’s judgment on those who persist in sin despite having heard the truth: “For if we go on sinning willfully after receiving the knowledge of the truth, there no longer remains a sacrifice for sins, but a terrifying expectation of judgment and the fury of a fire which will consume the adversaries. . . . For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God” (Hebrews 10:26–27, 30-31).
The writer of Hebrews is addressing those who have heard the truth, who have professed Christ, and who consider themselves a part of God’s people. But by their apostasy, they have blown their cover. For such ones, there is no hope of forgiveness since they have rejected the one true sacrifice which makes forgiveness possible.
B. Divine forgiveness is fundamental to salvation.
God’s “forgiveness” of our sins is synonymous with the provision of salvation. Here are two representative passages that make the point. ➊When Peter was led by God to share the gospel with the household of Cornelius, he explained that the receipt of forgiveness is the result of believing in Jesus: “Of Him all the prophets bear witness that through His name everyone who believes in Him receives forgiveness of sins” (Acts 10:43). ➋When Paul recounted to King Agrippa what Jesus said to him on the Damascus Road, Paul explained the mission given him: “to open their eyes so that they may turn from darkness to light and from the dominion of Satan to God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins and an inheritance among those who have been sanctified by faith in Me” (Acts 26:18). Paul is quoting Jesus who declares that forgiveness of sin is received by those who repent.
C. God’s forgiveness of believers models how believers should forgive others.
The Father’s forgiveness of us is presented as the inspiration for and example of how we should forgive others: “Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you” (Ephesians 4:32). God imparts full and free forgiveness to those who are in Christ. Let’s call this vertical forgiveness. Believers should deal in the same toward others. Let’s call this horizontal forgiveness. Vertical forgiveness should inspire horizontal forgiveness. One should lead to the other in a right angle movement of grace that emulates Father.
We should forgive like our Father. And Father doesn’t forgive everyone. Those who neither “turn from darkness to light” nor “believe in Him” will not receive His forgiveness. So however we try to help Natasha, our answer must begin in an affirmation of these three principles: Yes, Natasha, forgive like Father. It is true that Father doesn’t forgive some, but those who believe in Jesus receive His forgiveness.
Okay, so now we have a proper platform from which to dive into two different sets of seemingly contradictory verses. Once set suggests that forgiveness is limited to just some - we’ll look at those verses in the next post. A second set teaches that forgiveness should be extended to all – we’ll look at those verses in the third post in this series. Does God expect me to forgive someone who hasn’t asked for forgiveness? As you will see, this is indeed the burning question!
The 50% failure rate of marriage in the US is statistical bedrock. Many a pulpit has thundered with the numbers just before the latest marriage series. The art wizards at daily infographic have made a stark visual summary of the state of things. It’s depressing!
I sought relief in State of Tennessee records. In 2012, the latest year with data, there were 56,827 marriages and 27,742 divorces. Just comparing the numbers, for every 100 marriages in TN, there were 48.8 divorces. Seems to support the 50% stat. No relief here.
I pondered my own pastoral history. I have probably officiated at 30+ marriage ceremonies. Almost all of those couples are still together. Doing the math, less than 10% of marriages where I performed the ceremony have failed. That doesn’t square with the 50% statistic. (What if pastors had to make their marriage recall numbers public like the calorie labels on food? Just wondering.)
I am preparing to train a group of marriage mentors and someone mentioned a recent book by Shaunti Fieldhan,The Good News About Marriage: Debunking Discouraging Myths about Marriage and Divorce: Fieldhan thinks there are some gaping methodological holes in how the 50% statistic is determined. She concludes that the failure rate of first time marriages is between 20-25%. She also reports that among church-going couples, the number of marriages that end in divorce is closer to one in ten. Could she be right?
True, there are times when God denies us good things as a consequence of our failures. Being cast from the Garden of Eden is a preeminent example. But not every unfulfilled longing signals God’s displeasure. Quite the opposite! Sometimes God withholds the good He intends for us, for a season, in order to prepare us to receive His gifts. This deprivation is not a penalty but a blessing, a gift God bestows on those in whom He delights. It is designed to help us see what life is like without God’s good gifts, so that when those gifts are delivered, our praise soars.
This form of blessed deprivation can be clearly seen in the Garden of Eden. Shall we take a stroll? Genesis 2 provides an expanded account in narrative form of the events that were summarized in Genesis 1:26-28. In Genesis 2, God functions as a father. He brings Adam into existence, assigns him a place in life, gives him vital guidance and counsel, and then provides him with a suitable wife. The genealogy of Jesus found in Luke affirms God’s fatherly role when it references Adam: . . . Enosh, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, the son of God (Luke 3:38). I find the process that God employs to provide a wife for his son singularly instructive.
God could have taken a very different path. He could have created the man and woman simultaneously or formed the woman from Adam’s rib mere moments after Adam’s creation. Instead, man was created first. Although everything God had created to this point was good, it was decidedly not good that Adam was alone. Then God arranged for the man to embark upon a search for a solution to his “alone” problem.
Please try to put yourself in Adam’s shoes. (Yea, yea, he wasn’t wearing shoes, much less anything else.) Adam had never laid eyes on a woman; she hadn’t been invented yet. So he is searching for something he has never seen. Maybe it was an “I’ll know it when I see it” kind of search. Was God chuckling to himself in anticipation of the moment when He would give Adam that for which his son’s heart ached? All Adam knew was that this exhaustive parade of animals had gone nowhere. Adam would have been justified in thinking, “There is nothing I can see to solve my ‘alone’ problem.”
Adam’s heart was now prepared to receive God’s gift. God tells Adam to take a nap, then creates woman, and finally wakes up Adam for the big reveal. When God presents Adam with his bride, Adam is beside himself (I couldn’t resist!) and exclaims: “This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man”(Genesis 2:23, ESV). Did you catch the terms translated “at last” by many English translations? (The Hebrew is ha pa-am.) Adam takes a deep breath and says, “Finally!” Adam is relieved and overjoyed. His bride is perfect and more than worth the wait.
By God’s delay to solve man’s “alone” problem, Adam’s heart was prepared to greet God’s gift with greater joy. Does God know how to give perfect gifts when the time is just right, or what?
In the letter to the church in Ephesus recorded in Revelation 2:1-8, Jesus affirms this congregation on several counts: They are hard working, persevering, devoted to the truth, and intolerant of false teachers. There is one warning sign: “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love” (Rev. 2:4). The terms of Jesus' condemnation make it clear that the Ephesians' love has been trending in the wrong direction. They formerly possessed a "first love," but have lost it. Where you would expect someone to love the Lord more with the passage of time, the Ephesians actually love the Lord LESS. This is abnormal and definitely a sign of something serious!
Their sister church, Thyatira, demonstrated what should have been: “I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first” (Rev. 2:19). The "deeds" of the Thyatiran believers are specified in the four terms, love, faith, service, and perseverance. In all four categories, this church has made progress. For example, their love has grown stronger with the passage of time. They mark a bold contrast with Ephesus where love has waned.
What, exactly, happened in Ephesus? And how would one who has "lost his first love" go about reclaiming it? Answering these question has been rendered more difficult for our culture's preoccupation with a type of "love" that is nothing of the sort. D. G. Myers has a fine post on his "commonplace blog" exploring the literary expressions of this pre-occupation. He elucidates, "All the literary world loves a lover, especially if passion overwhelms his commitments and will." Our Western culture is awash in glorious depictions of love as this powerful and external force prevailing over good sense, honor, and restraint.
So, when contemporary Western Christians think of a "first love," they are quick to associate this phrase with the onset of an external force, something like the landfall of a hurricane. To "recover" a first love seems as attainable as conjuring the hurricane. How do you "recover" something that is not under your control, something that, in point of fact, controls you?
The problem, here, is created by a case of mistaken identity. The irresistible hurricane of passion is not love. It might be called as much by some, but it is diametrically opposed to what Jesus calls "love." In Jesus' dictionary, love is synonymous with unconditional commitment. This true form of love resists the hurricane; it boldly declares, "I will love you as a matter of choice. Despite whatever winds oppose that commitment, I will remain true to you."
Myers cites a McClatchy Newpapers post that provides a poignant illustration of the contrast between love that is commitment and "love" that destroys commitment. South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford has shown the latter by his adulterous relationship with an Argentine television journalist. The former shines forth in a statement by his wife, Jenny Sanford. Here is a key excerpt: "I believe enduring love is primarily a commitment and an act of will,
and for a marriage to be successful, that commitment must be
reciprocal. . . . I remain willing to forgive Mark
completely for his indiscretions and to welcome him back, in time, if
he continues to work toward reconciliation with a true spirit of
humility and repentance."
Only when we understand that the "first love" of which Jesus speaks is commitment love can we understand His appeal to recover it. He is asking the Ephesian believers to renew their commitment to Himself. He is asking them, as a matter of the will, to "love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength" (Mark 12:30). When this commitment of heart is increasingly evident in a person's life, he is moving in the right direction. When it becomes less and less evident, he is courting danger and vulnerable to the hurricane.
My counseling schedule reflects an increase of marriages in crisis in January and September. (Can you figure out why?) Lots of couples try to hold things together through the holidays, but when January hits - our national month for a reality check - many conclude (or can't agree) that the marriage is worth saving. These are the ones who don't seek counseling because they think, "What's the use?"
This is definitely a case of self-fulfilling prophesy. I have found that ANY couple who can at least agree to get outside help, has already made one of THE MOST IMPORTANT steps toward restoring the marriage. The couple that doesn't, in many (most?) cases, has concluded their relationship is "beyond hope." So they stop investing in it, which only accelerates and insures its demise.
Here's one of the things that gets me about those who decide to call it quits. When they stood before a minister and pledged their commitment and fidelity, they added a phrase like this - "for richer, for poorer, in sickness and in health." This phrase was intended to make something clear: "I am committed to you NO MATTER WHAT."
So when I hear of another couple calling it quits, I wonder what they meant when they made their vows. Most (all?) brides and grooms are not lying when they say "no matter what." But when they come to a certain January and decide it's over, their decision declares their vows as lies. Very few focus on their integrity crisis. They are not asking, "Do my words really mean something? When I give my word, can you count on it?" I wish they would. If our words don't mean something on an issue as profound as marriage, what will they be worth on any lesser commitment?
Maybe you are wondering if your marriage is worth saving. I can assure you, IT IS! But even more important, is your word worth keeping? Do you mean what you say and say what you mean? If you declared to your partner, I am committed to you "no matter what," then do whatever it takes to keep your word. Admit you're in trouble. Set your will to resolving the issues and strengthening the relationship. Get godly help. Prove that when you said "I do" you didn't really mean "I might."
What's Light-work?
If you want to talk about how life and biblical truth intersect, light-work is your place. Weekday posts get the conversation started. Then it's your turn to weigh in. Would you like to have fresh posts delivered to your email inbox? On the right hand side, scroll down to the box where you can enter your email address and click the button that says [get email updates]. Join the light-work brigade!
Recent Comments