Pastor Jim's Weblog

QUESTION from inquiring man: "Pastor Jim, how do you advise a divorced woman who comes to you for counseling and guidance regarding remarrying, in light of God's Word and specifically the Apostle Paul's teaching where he says 'not I but the Lord?'"

ANSWER from my "first thoughts" based on past and present counseling:

First let's consider what the Apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 7:10-11, to which I believe you are referring:

"To the married I give this command-not I but the Lord: A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife (TNIV)."

In this Scripture passage, the Apostle Paul is communicating an unqualified (not modified or restricted by reservations) statement in line with the will of the Spirit of God Himself-The Holy Spirit, based on the Written Word-the Bible-alluding to what was spoken through the Living Word-Christ Jesus. That is reason enough to pay special attention to what is being communicated.

Volumes have been written in answer to this type of question and much hard work has gone into the communication of such topics throughout the centuries. As a result, I could not expect to "do justice" in giving a thorough answer to such an important question. Nevertheless, I will "take a shot at it." Yet, for the sake of time-stewardship, I will limit my answer here to one that I hope is not only concise but clarifying, being willing to share more thoughts should there be the need or should we deem it helpful in our dialogue regarding this issue.

With issues like this one, I have to admit that I enter into a dialogue somewhat hesitantly as I'm very aware of many pastors and their people who tend to engage in what has been called "Pharisaical Gymnastics" (as you may or may not know about the Pharisees, the religious leaders with whom Christ so often had conflict due to their legalistic attitudes and their tendancy to be all about the truth and never about grace, whereas Christ calls us to walk not in legalism nor in licentiousness, but in truth, yet without being condeming, and in grace, without being compromising, as He did and still does (John 1:14). As a result, I'm answering your question with "fear and trembling" as I know The One to Whom I must give an account.

So, here goes:

Paul is alluding to not only what was spoken through the prophet Malachi hundreds of years before Jesus came to us in human form (see Malachi 2:14-16), but also what came out of the mouth of Jesus Himself while He walked upon this earth (see Matthew 5:32, 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18).

When I consider not only the historical, cultural, and literary context in which each of these passages is written (as a student of "hermeneutics" a fancy Greek word for "Bible Interpretation) and take into account the principle addressed by God's Word in each case, I find that I'd counsel a woman who asks this question of me in the same way in which I would counsel a man. I would share, in light of God's Word, that I believe marriage is not only ontological but also covenantal. As such, if a wife separates from her husband, she must remain "unmarried" (i.e. remaining single and celebate, not emotionally or physcially involved with another person-based upon the Greek word from which "unmarried" is translated) or else reunite with her husband.

Yet, if your husband has broken his covenant (i.e. has been unfaithful to you) and has not repented (i.e. has not truly had a heart that is sorrowful, being sorry not only in words but also in atttitudes, actions, and behavioral patterns towards rebuilding trust and a new "track record" that would allow you to see that he is truly repenting not only in words but also in actions), then in effect he is the one who "ended" the marriage (not necessarily the one who "filed" for divorce, but more likely than not the one who has "cheated," being unfaithful to his wife via breaking his marriage vows-in essence breaking the "covenant").

All of this is true in the reversal of roles (i.e. if it's a man who's wanting to remarry, and to the best of his knowledge his wife has been unfaithful to him).

Forgiveness (not getting revenge or "righting" the wrongs yourself rather than leaving the other person in God's Hands-Romans 12:17-21) does not equate to reconciliaton. I'd like to share this equation: Forgiveness (on the part of the offended) + Repentance (on the part of the offender) = Reconciliation.

If you reconcile, or pretend to be reconciled (in the sense of continuing to act as if nothing is wrong) with the other person before he/she has repented, then you may not be forgiving the other person but may actually be excusing or even enabling the other person to continue in his/her sin/sickness/harmful attitudes, actions and behavioral patterns, hurting not only others but himself/herself, allowing them to be stuck in their sins-which is anything but loving!

With all of this in mind, if a reasonable amount of time has transpired and the "unrepentant" person has not yet repented, nor shown any hope of repenting, or any admission of the infidelity, and if you have done everything in your power, with God's help, to examine your own heart (repenting where you need to repent, seeking forgiveness where you need to be forgiven, and "turning over a new leaf" in your own attitudes, actions, and behavioral patterns to the extent to which it is necessary according to the guidance of not only God's Word but also God's Spirit even through God's People-the church-who have His Spirit in them-and any consensus in their thoughts and even particularly the thoughts of your shepherd/pastor/spiritual leader, under the Great Shepherd, with Psalm 139:23-24, Matthew 7:1-6, and Hebrews 13:17 in mind), then you can remarry faithfully (i.e. "in the faith," marrying someone who shares your faith in Christ-if that's Who your faith is in).

For Christians, when it comes to remarriage, it's a "must" in regard to not being unequally yoked (see, for example, 1 Corinthians 7:39, especially in regard to understanding that in God's eyes, only "death" was supposed to determine eligibility for remarriage, which explains why having sex with anyone other than one's spouse is the equivalent of adultery-a "legal piece of paper" doesn't change a spiritual, ontological union).

With the above in mind, remarriage is pretty much the same as adultery, as Jesus clearly communicated (and which I think is logically and psychologically understandable), because you would then, by divorcing your spouse, practically "force" or at least "enable" your spouse to be involved with someone else (in the case that your spouse was faithful to you), which is the same as someone who is currently married to you becoming emotionally and physically involved with another (i.e. adultery).

Thankfully, although we have God's truth, we are also invited to receive God's grace (Romans 3:23, 6:23; Ephesians 2:8-9, etc.).

Yet, in all of this, I'd say that we must remember that God grants us His forgiveness as long as we don't take His forgiveness for granted. If we do, we may be demonstrating a soul that isn't saved in the first place, and so doesn't belong to Christ anyway (John 3:3, 16-17, 14:6), planning to sin (i.e. to quit on a marriage, or to manipulate the other person who you no longer "love" in such a way that he or she wants to cheat on you or feels no choice but to cheat on you so that you can "legitimately" divorce them-but God sees right through all of our deception, yet offers His redemption, if we truly have repentance).

I hope this is helpful to you in your quest and your journey with Jesus who embodied not only grace but also truth (John 1:14) and calls His followers to do the same out of love not only for themselves but even more importantly for others.

I welcome any further question(s) or dialogue.

Yours in Christ,

Jim

I read your blog. That was an excellent piece you wrote in response to why God allows suffering. But I have to admit, I'm still a bit confused. It seemed that one of the central tenants in your piece--having the freedom to choose between right and wrong, good and evil, as a means to enriching one's life, and as a teaching agent God gives us in order to get us on the "right" path and learn from our mistakes--doesn't seem to apply to the man who ran over his child with his car. After all, the man didn't "choose" to run over his child. Yes, it was ultimately due his negligence that his child died (and what an absolutely terrible thing to happen, by the way: I couldn't imagine this ever happening in my life), but the fact that the man killed his child has nothing to do with "choice" or "freedom". And I understand that your point about how tragedy can actually bring benefits (even though they may not seem readily recognizable) is ultimately another part of God's plan for the inevitable good of mankind. But how did running over that poor innocent child benefit that man in any way whatsoever? Even if there were some eventual identifiable, or at least conceived of "identifiable" "benefits" as a result of such a tragedy, surely the tragedy itself wasn't beneficial at the time of the child's death. And given that there apparently was no culpable fault on the man's part in the event, and he had no incentive for ending his child's life, again, I don't see why this unspeakable event had to happen at all. Additionally, I think that even if some recognizable benefits could be discerned from the man killing his own child, a person would be hard-pressed to make the case that these alleged benefits were worth the death of an innocent, since there would be way too much subjectivity involved in making such a claim.

Jim Solomon's response:

(Name of man who wrote), I "hear your heart" and am "with you" on the seemingly senseless tragedy, as I too would rather die than see my children accidently face death or see them die at all for that matter!

However, let me "take a shot at" your thoughts here, albeit at a time when I'm not yet "fully awake" either as you said you weren't:

The thought that comes to my mind immediately is that the little boy's death was, yes, seemingly senseless, truly and terribly tragic, and may understandably even seem useless (at least in regard to any "benefit' for the dad and his family), yet maybe was "useful" or meant to be "beneficial" to us and to other people whom God wants to bless (i.e. other human beings who could sometimes use a strong reminder of the fragility of life so that they don't take their family members' presence and existence, or the life of anyone else for whom they care, for granted). Yes, just a somewhat "subjective" thought here, yet then we can ask "then why that poor man's son rather than someone or something else as the 'wake up call?'" What about that poor father? How can he find comfort? Somewhat "subjectively" here I'd say that we could ask that about Jesus, who was the only one who was truly and fully "innocent," without sin. How could God allow His one and only son to die due to others' choices (which led to others' sins, for which Christ died)? Why? Because Christ Himself chose to do it, out of love for us, so that we can be with Him. He didn't " have to" do it, and His Father didn't have to allow it, but they did, as they knew in the "long run" Christ would rise from the dead having made not only payment for our sins which otherwise would have separated us from God forever (Romans 3:23) but also having offered us power to overcome our sinful nature, more and more each day, as we rely on His Spirit rather than ours or anyone else's, the Holy Spirit of our Savior (Romans 6:1-23ff.), to rise above what would hold us below in our thoughts, words, actions and behavioral patterns, truly living a "new" life over time (2 Corinthians 5:17) and enjoy "true life" (John 10:10) for eternity. Although there was no immediate benefit for that Father (our Father in Heaven) who lost His one and only son due to tragedy, sickness, sinfulness, and selfishness on earth," they are both rejoicing now in the spiritual realm because of all the other brothers and sisters Christ now has through his creation and His sacrifice for them to live with Him forever (Luke 15:1-7) in a place where there will be no more sickness, no more sorrow, no more sadness, and no more suffering because of our Savior (Revelation 21)! The dad in our story can take "comfort" knowing that there's a Greater Dad in this universe who is here to comfort him, as He can more than empathize and will truly help an earthly dad like that realize, at least over time, that his Father in Heaven knows, understands, sympathizes, and will comfort and relieve this father on earth in a way that will hopefully bring him too to heaven (Hebrews 4:15).

Another point (I hope this one's helpful) is that you've raised a good point in also seeing that the tragedy of that little boy's death didn't seem to have anything to do with "choice." Yet, going back a bit further, there was a "choice" involved that led to that tragedy and other tragedies we see in a "fallen" world throughout the history of humanity. It was the choice of our "forefathers" or "forefather" Adam and his wife Eve to choose God's will over their own (Genesis chapter 3) resulting in consequences not only for them but for all of their descendants (us) whose "seed" of existence was in their bodies and whose spirits descended from theirs. That led to what we call the concept of "original sin," that human beings are born with a tendency to be selfish, then later can learn to be selfless (we never seem to need to be "taught" to be selfish, we do that on our own, yet I believe we do have a need to be transformed or "taught" to be "self-less" through our Savior and His Spirit at work in our minds and hearts). I used to think otherwise, based on societal claims and cultural "conditioning" (i.e. the "liberal" agenda that stands against ever thinking human beings are basically sinful and in need of a Savior but rather they teach that we're all basically "good," don't need a Savior, and simply need other influences, perhaps with the "help" of the government, to make the world a "better" place). That's a convenient belief system, as it would not require repentance (Proverbs 28:13) nor each person, one at a time, become a "better" person, but instead looking for some "system" by which the "world" would somehow become better.

So, again, my thought is that "choice" was involved, just not that dad's choice or our choice (in the "here and now" sense of the word), simply the choice of our ancesters Adam and Even. We could say "no fair," why should I have to suffer because of what they chose, living in a "fallen" world where senseless tragedies might occur as a consequence of their sins? Yet, I think that if we were in their shoes (or mocassens?) or in their place, if we're humble and honest about it, we would have to admit that we probably would have done the same (Romans 3:4). We're no better than they were. To think so would be to say that we would never have needed a Savior and so would never have needed to rely on Christ Jesus and not ourselves for our significance and our salvation and our very lives.

Sincerely,

Jim

Subject: Re: visitor's comment on August 30, 2009:

I read your blog but can't make sense of it. Freedom to choose provides no protection from bad things i guess even if you are religious so why bother, they fall apart just like everyone else. Shouldn't god be more interested in keeping the balance? I can't see how adding tragedy is the best means to draw us closer. i mean, with friends like that who needs enemies.

I see religious people as some of the most narrow minded and insensitive I've ever known- they talk a good story but there no different. Besides, every body tells you there religion is the right one and everyone else is wrong-

I didn't mean for you to go out of your way to respond to my question with that long complicated answer, but thanks

My (Jim Solomon's) Response:

I totally "hear you" on what you're saying as I've felt the same exact way for many years (as a former Roman Catholic turned Agnostic turned Protestant Minister-after being in the business world for several years in Boston, a place where faith in Christ is often considered "intellectual suicide!").

Yeah, I'd say the only protection from bad things comes eternally rather than temporally in a fallen world. I too wish it were "now" and not only "then" when it comes to protection from bad things. Yet, I've also come to see that we'll be where we are going much longer than where we are now. One guy whose writings I've appreciated, Henri Nouwen, who taught theology over at Yale and was interestingly enough a "Jesuit Priest," had said "Life on this earth is but a brief interruption of eternity" right before he unexpectedly died (ironically, he was speaking on "Death and Dying" at the San Diego Hospice Center when I heard him say this, during my graduate school years out in San Diego).

Yes, I agree that it's hard to imagine that tragedy is the best means to draw us closer-I can't see how it is-except that I haven't seen, with us stubborn human beings, a way that works better (at least not in my experience, as I think of when I lost a best friend to a drunk driving accident, eventually lost my dad to Leukemia, and have lost many other friends since-it all was a "wake up call" to me when it comes to eternity). So, yes, I truly "hear you" and agree with your sentiments.

I too see "religious" people as some of the most narrow minded and insensitive people I've ever known-they do often talk a good story but they're no different, I think because there's been a lot of evil done in the name of God (amongst not only Christians but also Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Shintuists, and the many, many "less known" religions of the world) or even in the name of Christ but not in the Spirit of Christ, as not everyone who says they are a Christian really is and not everyone who says they know Christ have His Spirit in them (or, as my wife often reminds me, "just because you're in McDonald's doesn't mean you're a hamburger"). (Name of visitor to website), I used to literally run in the opposite direction when "religious people" approached me. I guess that's why I'm so against "religion" in the sense of all the man-made "do's and don'ts" and "rules and regulations" of "religion" and have chosen to reject religion (and all the ones I've studied and/or "tasted") but accept a relationship with God through faith in Christ. Once I rejected religion but accepted that relationship, I began to have more hope, as the hope was no longer in other human beings or "religious leaders" who have let me down but instead became a hope in the Only One in my experience who will never let you down.

Thinking of you,

Jim

Subject: Re: visitor's comment on September 1, 2009:

But you are a minister now and part of the religious establishment you talk against- there must be rules you have to keep to keep your good standing, right? And if folks don't believe what you do you kick them out or they just leave. I suppose the religion thing gives some comfort when life gets messy but I agree that too many fanatics have caused more trouble because of their religion than seems right- everbody wants to bring you into their camp- the jehovehs or mormons, whoever, but if god exists then it should be easier to know- Jesus was supposed to return and set things right but thats been a long time now- maybe he figures it would just be more the same when he gets back so whats the point.

Thanks for taking the time it's been a trip

-(visitor's name)

On Mon, Aug 31, 2009 at 1:00 AM, Jim Solomon <pastor@newhope-cc.com> wrote:

I'd have to say "yes' and "no" at the same time to that first thought you've expressed. I definitely have accountability to keep any "good standing," as there is a denominational official above me to help me remain "healthy" theologically and relationally in my interactions as a servant-shepherd-leader of God's people, but there's also a lot of freedom (within certain boundaries) to lead our congregation based upon who we are as a unique spiritual family within the larger family of Christians (as no two churches are exactly alike, just as no two people are alike). I guess that's why I chose The Alliance (the team of churches to which our church belongs-more on them at www.cmalliance.org) as they seemed to be the team of churches that had more "pro's" than "con's" in my perspective anyway. My supervisor in The Alliance, a man named Rev. Dr. Richard Bush, sometimes even says that we're the most "non-denominational denomination" in the sense that each congregation is somewhat "independent" yet each pastor is not a "lone ranger" as you could sometimes experience in churches that have no affiliation, sometimes unfortunately leading to building their own kingdom or "man's kingdom," rather than God's kingdom (as their leaders have no true accountability above them or around them). There's a lot more I could share in this regard, but I've probably already written more than what you might have wanted to hear (we can always talk in person on these things even more if you'd like).

Well, here's another thought: I do have some "different" perspectives than what I had experienced in the past (i.e. our church doesn't "pass the basket" in regard to collections of offerings, as I'd never want anyone to give if they are motivated by guilt and obligation-like what I had experienced in "religion" in the past-rather than joy and thanksgiving. Besides, I believe giving is not just financial but it is giving of ourselves in service to others too (and that part I think is so much better than financial giving, as some people give money to different causes but they never give their hearts to other people or to God). Somehow God has provided for our church family to survive financially, at times even more than what we've needed so that we can give back to others in more need than us. People of New Hope give if they want to give, not because they are forced to give.

That leads to a thought I just had on your other comment: I "hear you" regarding when/if "folks don't believe what you do, you kick them out or they just leave," but I'd like to share a thought on that too, if I may: I tend to not kick anyone out, unless in their disagreement they are disrupting others in a way that may be not only distracting and/or discouraging but somehow destructive to others' sense of having peace to pace themselves in their own relationship with God and His people (including me as their pastor), moving at their own pace in their spiritual journey (as I am called to be a Shepherd afterall, underneath the Great Shepherd our Lord Christ Jesus). At the same time, there are people who have come to visit us whom I've sent right back to where they came from (especially if they were coming from another supposed Bible-believing church, thinking they were leaving a problem behind them but in actuality bringing the problem with them because the problem was something within them-i.e. bitterness or resentment stemming from unforgiveness of hurts they may have experienced elsewhwere). In those cases, if the person came needing "healing," and hopefully with a humble and teachable spirit rather than their own ax to grind or "agenda," then I welcome them with open arms. However, if they come trying to turn our spiritual family into what they wanted at their last one but didn't get, I usually have them go back seeking reconciliation with whoever offended them or whoever might have been offended by them, encouraging them to at least consider examining their own hearts rather than pointing the finger at someone else's. So, I tend to send other "Christians" back.

Yet, when someone is sincerely seeking, I can't even imagine not welcoming them and then letting them move at their own pace. If they don't believe what we do, some of them do eventually leave-you're so right about that. Sometimes that's hard for me, as I love them, yet I've learned to "let go and let God" lead them-it's so nice to not have to be God but to accept that Someone Else much better than me has that job :) and is in control even when things seem out of control (Psalm 46:10). Not long ago I had somebody leave, and although it was somewhat painful for me emotionally (as it was a family I've come to love and appreciate a lot-whose lives truly seemed "transformed" from the "gutter" to something so much better), God helped me to simply "let go" and trust that if you let somebody else choose their own path, it will often lead back to you. It's kindof like what God does with each of us. He invites us to join Him, but doesn't force us to do so. (Name of visitor to website), if you could use a good laugh (I hope you'll appreciate this, but please forgive me if you find it offensive), there's that saying "If you love someone, set them free. If they don't come back, hunt them down and shoot them!" I'm definitely not being serious with that statement! Yet, when that family left (not intending to hurt my feelings, but for reasons that I and my wife and another friend of theirs in the church didn't feel were "valid," as it was a wife making a decision that could wind up negatively impacting not just her but ultimately her husband and kids, not only temporally but eternally, as they were silent in what seemed like her own domination of decision making), I had to learn to "vow" in my heart to still be friends with them and do things socially with them (which they've said they want as they say they love me and my wife and our kids), even if they are never a part of our church family again. I'm hoping to still go running with the husband, and I hope my wife will still get together with his wife, though my wife and I are still "healing" from the hurt of feeling that someone left us or "divorced us" as their shepherds (via email of all things) rather than eye to eye and face to face.

(Name of visitor to website), again, I know I've probably given you way more than what you wanted here-sorry! Yet, I hope this just gives you a little more insight into my heart, as I'm praying for you to be blessed by the creator of your heart-as I can tell it's a "real" heart

Yours and His,

Jim

p.s. One last thought: I do believe Jesus is coming back, but as it's writtten in God's Word, "To the Lord a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years are like a day" so in a sense, from an "eternal" perspective, only a couple of days have passed since he rose from the dead and said He'll be back. He's patiently waiting and hoping for more and more people to come to Him before it's too late (see 2 Peter 3:8-9 if you will).

If you did want to get together in person, I'm "game" and can be reached at 203-770-3745. If not, that's okay too. God bless my friend.

The following thought-provoking and perhaps "age-old" question was emailed to me this week from a person whom God allowed to find this website:

"I found your website and am wondering why God allows such bad things to happen to people? Is he/she/it powerless to stop it or is it up to chance. Terry."

MY RESPONSE:

Dear Terry,

There is so much that can be said in hope of helpfully answering your heart-felt question. My response here may seem long, yet I know that volumes have been written on this subject. Nevertheless, please allow me to share some thoughts in the form of a "message" that I trust has been given to me, one who has also struggled with this question, to share with you:

I'd like to begin with a story: Several years ago, John had been shoveling snow on his driveway when his wife said she was going to move the car and asked him to watch their young daughter. As the car backed out, they were suddenly thrust into the worst nightmare that parents can imagine: their toddler was crushed beneath a wheel.

John never forgot what it’s like to hold a dying child in his arms. So deep was his initial despair that he had to ask God to help him breathe, to help him eat, to help him function at the most fundamental level. Otherwise, he was paralyzed by the emotional pain. But why did this have to happen? How could God allow this to take place? Where was God in this situation? And how could any of John’s non-Christian friends believe in a loving God when this happened to him, a loving guy?

Early on in what has become known as God’s Word given to us through the Hebrews, the Jews, some of whom came to know Jesus and others who chose not to know him, and written down by Moses, we read the results/consequences of humankind choosing our own will over God’s will for our lives. As recorded in Genesis chapter 2, verses 16 and 17, we read: “And the LORD God commanded the man, ‘You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die.’”

I believe we learn at least two timeless truths from this text:

First, Love allows freedom ( based on vs. 16).

Adam was created as a free being, and he was free to eat from any tree in the garden, not only the trees bearing good fruit, but even the tree bearing bad fruit, the tree that many theologians refer to as the “tree of death.”

We were created to be free. If God created a world in which there was no human freedom, He would have had to create a world in which there were no human beings. To be human is to be free, free to make decisions rather than to have those decisions made for us. Free to behave responsibly rather than respond robotically. Free not from making decisions but free to decide.

One of the most de-humanizing things a person can go through is a loss of his or her freedom to make choices, as freedom would not be freedom, if there were no choices to be made. In fact, many cults are formed because of the surrender of a person’s freedom to make decisions on their own. Somebody else makes those decisions for them. Isn’t that what made the “Taliban” so powerful?

As Walter Martin has said, in his best-selling book entitled the Kingdom of the Cults, “Cult mind-control includes controlling one’s behavior, thoughts, emotions, and information. It involves social isolationism, behavior modification techniques, and the autocratic leadership of a person who intentionally robs his followers of their freedom to make rational choices.”

When it comes to major decisions in life, it is often easier to let somebody else choose from various options for us. And yet, although it may be easier, it is never better, as it dehumanizes the person giving up their status as a free moral agent, which is the essence of being created in the image of God.

Now, if God is love, and love allows freedom, then freedom allows choices (vs. 17a).

Adam had a choice to make. He could choose to follow God’s will or his own will for his life. God told Adam, “you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil…” Notice, God didn’t say, you “can not” eat from that tree. He also didn’t tell Adam that he would not be “able” to eat from that tree. He simply said you “must” not eat of that tree. It’s the type of thing that a true friend is telling you when they simply say, “don’t do it,” or “don’t go there!”

I remember when, not too many years ago, my younger daughter, Ashley, was discovering the joys of human free will, willingly crawling around the house for the first time, she was free to touch many things. She could touch her dolls and teddy bears. She could touch her food. She could touch mommy and daddy’s feet as she moved throughout the halls of our house. But there were certain things that were “off limits.” In particular, she was told that she must not play with the electrical circuits. We understood why, but she didn’t. So what did she do? She proceeded to show great interest in the electrical circuits, and even those funny looking plastic covers that mommy placed over them. Was she able to touch the circuits? Yes. Was she willing to touch the circuits? Yes. But was she advised to do so-absolutely not! The message she received from her parents was “don’t go there!” But that could not stop her. She used her “freedom to touch anything” to touch the untouchable, and suffered the consequences as a result.

Why? Because choices have consequences (17b).

Adam could have chosen God’s will, and lived. Instead, he chose his own will, and died. In the NIV, the second half of verse 17 says “for when you eat of it you will surely die.” The New American Standard version translates the Hebrew this way: “in the day you eat of it, you will surely die.” The King James Version says this: “for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Looking at the Hebrew, they are all basically saying the same thing, which I believe the New Living Translation captures clearly: “if you eat of it, you will surely die.”

Why do I mention all of this? Because it would be easy to assume that humanity was destined for doom before we were even given a chance. But we weren’t. We had a choice. We might say, “It’s God’s fault that we were able to sin.” Yet, it wasn’t until we disobeyed that we went from being “not able to sin” (while still being free) to being “not able not to sin.”

You see, the one negative command given in the garden is set in the context of divine care and provision. It is not a harsh restriction, but rather a symbol of the fact that crossing the God-given limits diminishes, rather than enhances, human well-being. When we try to be God, whether through redefining marriage, or through cloning human beings, or even deciding when it’s okay to get revenge on someone verses when it isn’t, we jump over that invisible fence that’s around the tree. God’s commands give us boundaries within which there is freedom. Adam and Eve learned this the hard way.

Genesis chapter 3 gives us the details of disobedience and its deadly consequences for all of humanity: Shame, Isolation, hurt and pain –in childbirth, in relationships, at home, at work and in life; the blame game and its victim mentality, husbands that are dictators rather than servant leaders, wives that are doormats rather than godly helpers, physical death, spiritual death in separation from God, rape, incest, abortion, infertility, persecutions, war, famine, starvation, aids, floods, earthquakes, and other natural disasters; drive-by shootings, terrorist attacks, Hitler, Stalin, and Osama Bin Laden. The list can go on and on.

The bottom line: We could choose God’s will and do good. Instead, we often choose our own will, and do evil, causing suffering as a result.

I remember a time when our older daughter, Amanda, was with me and Anne at the Newtown Pizza Palace. In the middle of the table at which we sat was a bowl of jalapeno peppers. She tried and tried to reach that bowl with arms outstretched from her high chair. She would grab the bowl, and Anne would move it back to the center of the table. She’d grab it again, and I’d take it away. Finally, noticing that Amanda would not be satisfied until she got a hold of that bowl of peppers, our waitress suggested that we simply let Amanda try one of those peppers, implying that Amanda would never want one again. Sure enough, she was right.

Now, as a loving dad, I could have simply removed that bowl from the table. But would that have been good? Not if I believe that being good includes sometimes letting Amanda learn for herself why disobeying daddy is bad for her.

The same is true for us older children and our relationship with our spiritual “dad,” also known as God. We sometimes have to suffer the consequences of poor choices in order to learn the benefits of good ones. And if our Father in heaven were not loving, He wouldn’t let us learn these lessons through which our trials can become treasures in our lives, and our pain can become gain in our understanding of good and evil, and the consequences of our thoughts, words, and actions.

Lots of people would rather believe that there is no God than to believe that He is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, and yet still allows us to suffer. But we have to ask ourselves: Does the presence of suffering necessarily mean the absence of God?

I believe it means just the opposite. It means that He is present, and wants us to be present to Him.

Peter Kreeft of Boston College put it this way: Would you agree that the difference between us and God is greater than the difference between us and, say, a bear? Okay. Then imagine a bear in a trap and a hunter who, out of sympathy, wants to liberate him. He tries to win the bear’s confidence, but he can’t do it, so he has to shoot the bear full of drugs. The bear, however, thinks this is an attack and that the hunter is trying to kill him. He doesn’t realize that this is being done out of compassion. Then, in order to get the bear out of the trap, the hunter has to push him further into the trap to release the tension on the spring. If the bear were semiconscious at that point, he would be even more convinced that the hunter was his enemy who was out to cause him suffering and pain. But the bear would be wrong. He reaches this incorrect conclusion because he’s not a human being.

I believe God does the same to us sometimes, and we can’t comprehend why he does it any more than the bear can understand the motivations of a hunter. As the bear could have trusted the hunter, so we can trust God. Proverbs 3:5, 6 says “Trust in the Lord with all your heart, lean not on your own understanding, acknowledge Him in all you do, and He will direct your path.” Sometimes we have no idea where the path is leading. But that’s okay when we know the One who leads it.

You see, God often permits what He hates to accomplish what He loves.

And what is it He loves? What is it He desires? He loves you. And He desires to have a true relationship with you. He not only wants to be reconnected with you as your loving Creator but also wants you to walk closely with Him. He doesn’t want you to live half-dead, but wants you in His life, so that you may be fully alive. But you can’t be in His life until you give up your life to Him. As Jesus said, “Whoever tries to save His life will lose it. But whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.”

A loving God could tolerate horrible things like starvation, or abortion, or genocide, if He knows that in the long run it will draw you to Him.

And that leads to my final point. Love triumphs over evil!

Do you need proof of this? Look no further than the cross of Christ! Through the cross, God demonstrated how the very worst thing that has ever happened in the history of the world ended up resulting in the very best thing that has ever happened in the history of the world.

I’m referring to the “dei-cide.” The death of God Himself on the cross. At the time, nobody saw how anything good could ever result from this tragedy. And yet God foresaw that the result would be the opening of heaven to human beings. So the worst tragedy in history brought about the most glorious event in history. And if it happened there-if the ultimate evil can result in the ultimate good-it can happen elsewhere, even in our own individual lives. In the case of the cross, God lifts the curtain and lets us see it. Elsewhere, he simply says, “Trust me,” as He is the way, the truth, and the life, and those who trust in Him will be delivered not only from their own death, but the death of this world.

As Jesus said, “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. The popular talk show spiritualist, John Edward, helps people “cross over” from life to death. Jesus empowers us to cross over from death to life. We don’t need a medium, as we have a mediator. As Scripture tells us that there is only one mediator between man and God, the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2:5)!

If God removed all evil from the world, he’d have to remove all of us-or at least remove our freedom and reduce us to functioning robotically rather than relationally. We’d be puppets rather than people. This would mean that people would not be able to freely choose love. And that is what matters most to God-that you choose to be with Him, as a bride who is convinced, but not coerced! The church, all those who have accepted Christ as their Savior and who are willing to follow Him as their Lord, is called the “bride of Christ!” And who would want a bride that is only His by force, rather than choice? This may be one reason why God will allow whatever it takes for people to see their need for him, because He loves us.

One purpose of suffering in history has been that it leads to repentance. Look at what happened to the Ninevites in Jonah’s day, or the Israelites in Joshua’s day, or us Americancs in our day. On September 10, 2001, admitting publicly that you were a Christ-follower was poitically incorrect. On September 11^th, 2001, praying out loud to Christ, and singing God Bless America, became politically correct.

Why? Because pain and suffering are frequently the means by which we become motivated to finally surrender to God and to seek the cure of Christ, as Jesus said, “It is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sick…I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.” It sometimes takes us getting to that point where there is no one or nowhere else to turn before we turn to Him.

When I ask “why do bad things happen to good people?,” I am probably asking the wrong question, because there are no good people! According to Scripture, our good deeds are like filthy rags compared to God’s goodness. Our good deeds are stained with self-interest and our demands for justice are mixed with lust for vengeances. The image of God in us is defaced, but it is not erased, and God wants to resurrect us, but He can’t do that if we refuse to get out of the grave!

God is not as interested in taking away your pain as He is in bringing to you His presence.

The answer then to suffering is not an answer at all. It’s the Answerer. It’s Jesus Himself. It’s not a bunch of words (as Job found out). It’s the Word.

Jesus is here, sitting beside you in the lowest places of your life. Are you broken? He was broken, like bread, for you. Are you despised? He was despised and rejected by others. Do you cry out that you can’t take any more? He was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief. Do people betray us? He was sold out himself. Have those we love the most caused us the most pain? Jesus loved and yet was hated in return. Do people turn from us? They hid their faces from him, but He turns His face towards you as He asks you to give your life to Him by receiving His Spirit into your soul so that He will not only be with you now, but will also bless you by your being with Him forever one day in a place of no sickness, no sorrow, no suffering, and no sadness because of what has been done for you by your Savior (John 1:12; 3:16-17; 1 Corinthians 2:9; Revelation 21:4). Will you come to Him today (Matthew 11:28-30) so that you can rest (inwardly and outwardly) in Him tomorrow and rejoice through Him forever?


	Be sure to get in touch so I know you're out there! *New Hope Community Church* *Click on link below to return to New Hope main page* *http://www.newhope-cc.com*