Jesus, Divorce and Remarriage by Gordon Wenham

 

Jesus, Divorce and Remarriage by Gordon Wenham is a nice very summarized look at this controversial topic.  A concise, examination at what God's Word teaches us about how we Christians are to look on divorce, remarriage, and of course, marriage itself. It doesn't really deal with modern Christian views on divorce, as the goal of this little book is to focus on what Jesus taught about divorce and remarriage and what the popular views were at that time.  

Now, though  informative background information regarding the contemporary views of the people Jesus is talking to is interesting, the most interesting parts to me were where the Biblical texts are focused on.  Jesus' teachings in particular (In Matthew 5, 19, and in the other Gospels).Wenham makes you really look at what Jesus is saying, getting past the clutter of our preconceived notions of what He must, in our view, be saying.  We see that Jesus goes after terms like "murder" and "adultery"  reveals what these concepts really entail;  what really amounts to "murder" or "adultery" before God. The people, even the scholars of the day didn't really understand.  The book points out that, in defending the life-long union of marriage, Jesus doesn't say that the term "divorce" should be removed from the vocabulary, or that it doesn't exist, what He basically does is say to the religious leaders that 'divorce' doesn't mean what they thought it meant, and that the act of the divorce itself can be considered an act of adultery by God.  By pointing the religious leaders back to the beginning of Creation, the original design, ("In the beginning God created them male and female…what God has joined together let not man separate") He reminds them that Marriage was to be lifelong, the man and woman are really are no longer two, but one flesh in God's eyes. 

The religious leaders seem to take Jesus' pointing back to the beginning as an attack on the validity/concept of "divorce" altogether.   They bring up the law, that Moses allowed them to write a certificate of divorce.  But as Wenham says, "Jesus is not fazed by their appeal to the law. He argues that the need for a law on divorce proved their sinfulness, not their piety." And then Jesus tells them that marriage to a divorced person is adultery.  It is noted that He essentially tells these people that their thought that the one flesh union is ended by legal divorce and/or physical separation is completely wrong. "…The divorced couple, though separated from each other, are still related to each other in the one-flesh union".   

Apparently, though marital adultery is the 'adultery' of 'marriage', it is not the ending of a marriage; adultery doesn't put the man and wife asunder before God, rather it introduces someone else into the marriage who should not be included. Jesus didn't say that Moses permitted divorce because the marriage had been ended, before God, by whatever the wife did, rather He said that divorce was permitted because their hearts were hard. By implication, the marriage before God was actually still intact, but men didn't want live with that reality.  So divorce was allowed, but Jesus clarifies that the only time divorce isn't considered adultery (before God) is if there has been sexual infidelity (which clarification is the so-called 'exception clause' that takes place in divorce/remarriage discussions).  But Jesus does not give an "exception clause" to anyone marrying any divorced person.  Thus, though it is not always adultery to divorce/deliberately leave your spouse, it is always adultery to marry a divorcee (divorced for whatever reason).

Now, as with, pretty much, any book I read, there were some statements made in the book that I wasn't sure about.  I'll just bring up one:  Wenham brings up a question, which I'll paraphrase here: how many times should one forgive one's spouse?  What if they keep lying about their repentance?  Should one separate/legally divorce from them? What apparently some early Christians thought that one ought to divorce one's spouse (though not remarry) if they committed adultery, but if they repented they should accept them back. "…if the guilty party repents, the other party must welcome the restoration of the marriage. But there should be a limit on the number of times the innocent party is expected to forgive the unfaithful spouse; while Jesus spoke of seventy-times seven, Hermes(an early church leader) reckoned once should be the limit." Wenham seems to agree with Hermes that there should be a limit of some sort. And I understand the practical dilemma. But (I'm just going to think 'out-loud' here. not take a definitive stance) if forgiving once, or even ten times, is the limit for forgiveness of a person for a specific sin, then wasn't Jesus statement about forgiving seventy-times seven nonsensicall? At least seventy-times seven, though it is shocking to us, makes mathematical sense in one's mind; but if Jesus didn’t mean what He clearly said then that makes His statement irrelevant in the long run, merely a shocking statement without substance. God demonstrates forgiveness Himself to believers: How many sins do we think that has God forgiven us? One? One BIG one? Several? I would think much more than 70 times seven. So perhaps He even redefined the common view of 'forgiveness'? Clarified what it really looks like. Shocking us even there!  

Now, as Wenham rightly brings out, there is the BIG point that as Christians we are told in God's Word that we are to disassociate from professing Christians who are living ungodly lives and refusing repentance (1 Cor 5, and I understand that a whole church body should do that in such a case, but I kind of wonder if it would be absolutely imperative, say for a wife, to divorce her professing Christian husband who is living in sin. But I think that one might presume, based on how connected the couple is before God in marriage (pretty much becoming one person), that a spouse might be treated somewhat differently. Yes, if a professing Christian husband is committing adultery, and refuses to repent, then the church body should exercise church discipline/separation from that him as a body.  Yes, apparently, Biblically the offended wife may choose to separate as well, as that seems to be allowed based on Jesus' clarification that separation from a sexually unfaithful spouse would not be adultery. But I'm wondering if it obligatory on the faithful spouse's part to divorce? You have a few texts from the Bible we might take hints from: one is the person who is married to an unbeliever (1 Cor 7). Now, how much more 'spiritually' separated can you be from your marriage partner than having a spouse who is spiritually lost?  But interestingly, if the unbeliever consents to live with the believer that apparently allowed.  And then, perhaps more specifically to the point, you have Paul (apparently speaking for the Lord - "not I but the Lord") saying that couples should not divorce, but if they do, they are to remain unmarried or else be reconciled (Still 1 Cor 7).  

And then you have 1 Peter 3 which talks about how a wife is to respond if her husband is "disobedient to the Word", so he is apparently a professing Christian (it would seem strange to designate an unbeliever by that description as his being 'disobedient' would seem like a given). It doesn't say how he is disobedient to the Word. That statement is probably deliberately vague: 'disobedient to the Word'. That covers quite a lot of sins, and kind of seem like, "just fill in the blank", and yet Peter says that the wife is supposed to win him over without a word by her submissive behavior (1 Pet 3), not by separating from him, or even lecturing him from the Word. And then, husbands are supposed to love their wives like Christ loved the church (Eph 5:25), so would there ever be a point where Christ would refuse the church coming back to Him in repentance? So how should a husband act toward his wife who commits adultery many times and yet comes back sorrowful and repentant? Because of verses like those, I'm not so sure that divorce is obligatory on the part of the offended/faithful spouse, though church discipline may need to be administered by the church body.

Things like the above may be practical things we'll have to work through (perhaps, we should just cross that bridge when we come to it?). But we need to get down to what the text actually says and work from there, regardless of our practical difficulties. And Wenham does a good job at just looking at what Jesus says, not letting fears of what He might be saying cloud our vision.  Wenham states: "it is clear that Jesus is putting forward a more demanding ethic than his hearers had ever known previously.  Their righteousness must exceed that of the scribes and Pharisees…."  What Jesus is saying truly is initially shocking.   Jesus is essentially telling both contemporary 'sides' (Wenham explains those) of the divorce remarriage issue that they didn't understand marriage at all.  Just as His clarification that what amounts to 'lust' and 'murder' before God is truly startling and beyond self-righteous mankind's expectations, His clarification of "marriage" is just as startling.  I'll end with one more quote from the book that pretty much sums all up: "At no point does he (Jesus) concede that they may have a point. Marriage is permanent, full stop. So Jesus challenges all who want to follow him to embrace the principle of no remarriage after divorce. 'Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.'(Matt 19:12)".   

Many thanks to the folks at Lexham Press for sending me a free review copy of this book! My review did not have to be favorable.

My rating: 5 out of 5 Stars

*****

This book may be purchased at Christianbook.com and Amazon.com

Rediscovering Scripture's Vision for Women - by Lucy Peppiatt

Rediscovering Scripture's Vision For Women: Fresh Perspectives on Disputed Texts by Lucy Peppiatt is a book that, as the title indicates, attempts to look at Scriptures teachings of God's plan for women. 

As you may have guessed, these "fresh" perspectives ultimately attempt to lead the reader to think that Christian women do not need to keep silent in the church, can pastor churches, don't need to submit to their husbands…etc.  I have read some of it outloud to many of my sisters (I have seven sisters) and they were all joining me in criticizing the claims of this book.

Let me deal with some of her claims.  First, her view of 1 Corinthians 11.  I find part of her introduction to her interpretation ironic:  "My own research has led me to study these verses in detail and to discover that the more obvious meaning of the text causes consternation and embarrassment among many, and even causes others to question Paul's understanding here."  So, of course the obvious reading can't be right if people are dismayed and embarrassed about it?  Anyway, she says that some believe these verses tell us that males are in the image and glory of God more than women, which she says cannot be true since Genesis tells us that both are said to be in the image of God.  This can be answered very simply:  One of my sisters pointed out that it only says that woman is the "glory of man" it doesn't say that she is his image and thus does not discount her still being the image of God.

 Anyway, After dealing with the problems she has with the "heirchialist view" the author asks, "Is it possible to salvage a better meaning out of these verses?"  Her "better meaning" is quite shocking to me.  She thinks that chunks of verses are just Paul repeating erroneous beliefs that the Corinthians held about man/woman relationships and that he's correcting those.  She doesn't give an exegetical reason, just gives you an edited (with italics and other punctuation) quotation of this section of Paul's letter to demonstrate how, in her view, it should be read.  And then she goes on to just assume you accepted that explanation.  No exegetical basis other than she thinks that Paul couldn't be saying what these texts, obviously, say.  She has a book written on 1 Corinthians 11, so perhaps she gets more detailed in that, but it certainly warrants a fuller explanation in this book.

Another one of her arguments is (as I understood her to be saying) that there is no subordination among the Persons of the Trinity.  Since the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are all of the same 'substance', all one God, then there can't be such a thing as 'authority' or subordination in the Trinity and therefore one shouldn't think that Christ set an example of submission that could be followed by wives.   I'll give one example: "It is true that Paul claims in 1 Corinthians 15 that at the end of time, God will be 'all in all,' and speaks of Christ being made subject to God (1 Corinthians 15: 28.  However, this is also in the context of the idea that all authority in Heaven and earth has been handed over to the son…Christ emerges triumphant at the end of time, having put everything under his feet.  This powerful picture of Jesus Christ is not quite the loving, courageous submission that is referred to in a few verses of Philippians 2 in relation to the incarnation….."   She seems to think that this means that God the Father is also put under Christ's feet! Excuse me?  This does not mean that the Father then submits to the Son. 

Texts like 1 Peter 3:1-7, are negated because, though Peter does tell wives to submit to their husbands, all Christians are supposed to submit to each other.  So that, of course, cancels out any command to wives to submit to their husbands.  Her reasoning is absurd!  Read just a few verses here:

"For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord…"(1Pe 3:5-6 ESV)

"Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord…."(Eph 5:22ESV)

Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit in everything to their husbands.

(Eph 5:24 ESV)

These texts are very clear, very specific commands to wives that they are specifically to submit to, not their fathers or mothers, not their fellow brothers and sisters in Christ, but they are to submit to their husbands in particular and look on him as their authority:

Peppiatt makes the claim that if men and women don't have the same earthly roles then there is "literally nothing to show for the claim that she has been saved into coequality with a man." This is might sound strange, but, there being no males or females in Christ does not mean that there are no male or female Christians.

The Bible does not indicate that salvation erases lineage or ethnicity (Paul emphasized in Romans 9-12 that God has a special plan to save Israel, an ethnic people, sometime in the future),and it does not indicate that our sex is erased at salvation. There being no male, female, Jew, Gentile, etc… in Christ simply means that we are all saved the same way: by the grace of God through the faith that He gives us.  We are not saved because of our works,  because of our sex, nor are we saved because of our societal position or ethnicity.  If you take it the way Peppiatt reads it, then we'd also have to assume that there are no children, parents, bosses, no political governors or any leaders in Christ.  "Children obey your parents" would be crazy because parents and children don't exist in Christ and children should not be required to submit to their brothers and sisters in Christ.  I’m talking absurdly here, I know, but this is how I see her reasoning playing out if brought to its logical conclusion.

The Bible NEVER indicates that everything physical about us is erased at our salvation, rather it seems to do just the opposite and shows us how we can utilize our God-ordained physical position for the Lord.  Remember, we are told by the Apostle Paul in Ephesians that " we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand, that we should walk in them."(Eph 2:10).  Why do we seem to think that these "good works" are all going to be exactly the same for everyone? Why do we think that it wouldn't be "fair" if God gives particular groups of people particular works? Actually, wouldn't that be rather special? To think that God put me in a specific physical circumstance and has given me particular good works to do in that circumstance!

God HAS given particular people groups special works to do.  There are particular good works for Men, Women, Husbands, Wives, Fathers, Children, Slaves, Masters, Older Women, Pastors, elders, citizens…etc. and good works for everyone in general.  Our particular roles/good works may be hard, and our general good works are hard too, but that's where faith comes in, where dying to self comes in, where we take up our particular cross and follow our Lord.   

Remember what the Apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 12? I'll quote some of it:  "For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit. For the body does not consist of one member but of many. If the foot should say, 'Because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body,' that would not make it any less a part of the body…."(1Co 12:12-15)  As a woman I might say, "Because I am not a man, I do not belong to the body" Or, "Because I must keep quiet and not pastor a congregation I am not a part of the body".  Nope, I am still a part of the body even though I have a different role.  Paul goes on: "If the whole body were an eye, where would be the sense of hearing? If the whole body were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But as it is, God arranged the members in the body, each one of them, as he chose."(1Co 12:17-18)  We all are still unique in the body of Christ, with God ordained unique roles and positions. 

Peppiatt's 'exegesis' seems to consist in implanting doubt in people's minds as to how understandable Scripture actually is.  She really seems to desire to implant into our minds that what Scripture seems to be clearly, "obviously" saying might actually be obscure.    She focuses in on individual words and demonstrates that they can have a variety of meanings, and therefore the meaning that is normally fixed upon by most Bible translators is not necessarily the right one. She does the same with texts and passages as a whole: The obvious meaning is not necessarily the right one.  This really seems like a "Has God said?"(Genesis 3) scenario.  Peppiatt's hermeneutic is dangerous.  It can easily be utilized (and probably is used) by those who deny a literal six-day creation, those who view Christ as a mere man and not God incarnate, it could be used by children to justify their disobeying their parents, and could mess with salvation itself by lending to the proclaiming of "another Gospel" (Gal 1:8).

The author of this book has a very clear bias against the "obvious" meaning of Scripture texts that talk about women's  roles in Christ.  She says, "I encourage all Christian married couples to break away from and reject any expectation that the husband should occupy an authoritative role and the wife a submissive one…"    Remember, the Apostle Paul indicates that the husband and wife relationship is a picture of Christ and the church (Ephesians 5), the church is supposed to submit to Christ.  Christ does not submit to the church. We do not tell Him what to do, He tells us, We do not lead Him, He leads us. Husbands and wives mess up the picture when they do not follow their God given roles.  Wives submitting to their husbands, in particular, is emphasized in the Scriptures and treated very seriously. 

I'll sum this all up:  In this book, Peppiatt is doing exactly the opposite of what the Scriptures say older women are to teach young wives, "train the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be sober-minded, chaste, workers at home, kind, being in subjection to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed."(Tit 2:4-5 ASV)  Wives are given a particular duty by God: submission to their husbands.  This duty is to be taken VERY seriously so as not to cause the Word of God to be blasphemed, or discredited.

I have particular instructions given to me as a single woman.  I am not given the role of pastor or teacher of the congregation, I am to keep quiet and listen submissively.  Might it be hard to do sometimes? Sure! But again, that's where faith comes in, and faith isn't usually easy. Listening submissively in church is one of the particular good works that Scripture CLEARLY tells me in particular, to do,  therefore I know for sure that it's one of the particular works that God has "ordained" for me to "walk in".   It's not demeaning, it is special, it gives me a special role in the body of Christ, a special work of submission I can do to glorify Him. 

I received a free review copy of this book from InterVarsity Press.  My review did not have to be favorable.

My rating: 1 out of 5 Stars

*  

This book may be purchased at Amazon.com

Devotedly: The Personal Letters and Love Story of Jim and Elisabeth Elliot

I have liked pretty much any Elisabeth Elliot (Gren) book I have read (I've read about three or four I think, but not the ones on marriage or relationships).  When I saw that this book was published, I was quite excited.  This is a book about Jim and Elisabeth's 'love story', told through many of their letters to each other and their journals.  Their daughter, Valerie, put it together and added commentary.

I was very disappointed by their relationship.  I had always had the impression that they were a model example in Christian pre-marital relationships.  After reading this book, I think that they are a horrible example to young men and women. I was quite shocked. 

They started out liking each other, but not being sure whether the Lord would have them marry. All fine and good.  But then when you get to them still not being sure whether or not the Lord would have them marry,(actually for a while,  Jim was quite sure that the Lord wanted him to be single)but they act all loverlike, with certain things they write in their letters and  in their physical relationship holding hands and other physical touching. 

In one instance, while they were still in the "maybe God wants us to stay single, not sure about getting engaged" stage, the daughter comments: "I still marvel at how little physical touch they'd actually experienced.  All they'd allowed themselves were a few embraces, hand holding, possibly a kiss on the cheek.  But how important to learn from my amazing parents that their absolute priority remained the love of God, dependence on God, and continual prayer for His leading."  Ummm…that was not right.  These were not brotherly embraces/hand holding/ kisses, these were romantic ones.  Hardly following what the Apostle Paul told Timothy, to treat the young women as sisters, "with all purity"(1 Tim 5:2)

In a letter to Elisabeth from Jim (again before getting a "word from the Lord" that they should marry). he talks about what happened some time before, when they had been together somewhere: he had been "feigning sleepiness, I crowded you against the clothing hung against the door - how your body stiffened as my hand made its way to being received by your fingers - how the whole of you slackened and my fingers were pressed to your lips. "  He goes on to say, "We will, I suppose, get used to each other, the feel and smell and look of one another…"

I don't understand that.  If marriage is not on the docket, how could you say that? How could you do that in all purity before God?

And then Jim writes in a letter, while they were still wondering about God's will for their relationship, "I dreamed about you last night.  Coming home last evening and reading your letter before I slept was like coming home to you, almost.  You came to me in bed serious and shivering.  I made you laugh and warmed you with my body.  Such things are seldom, and I enjoyed it because it seemed good and right, and not much like a dream…."

But what about what the Apostle Paul states in 1 Corinthians 7, where it is better to marry than to burn with passion? Jim was definitely struggling with 'burning with passion'(you see it even more clearly in other spots, even admitted as a struggle by himself, in this book).  It's not as though Elisabeth and Jim were strongly doubting whether the other was a Christian or not; rather they each, for the most part, were crazy about the other and their devotion to the Lord.  Their parents were not opposing the match either.  All signs, including the Bible itself, were pointing towards their needing to get married.  Pointing to God's will for them to be joined together in marriage before Him.  It's as though they didn't see Scripture as the authority unless it gave them some sort of assured feeling. Rather than heeding what it explicitly said about man/woman relationships, they waited for an extrabiblical sign/feeling.

Even Elisabeth's brother, Dave, kept warning Jim about playing with Elisabeth's heart.  But they both disregarded him, or anyone else who looked at their relationship critically.  Their daughter comments at one spot, "Though no one could seem to understand why they weren't' getting engaged and making plans to go to the mission field together…..she knew she'd put God first and knew my father was attempting to do the same thing…And as long as God's will was uppermost in each of their hearts, they were under no obligation to explain themselves to anyone or give out all the details of their prayer life and relationship dynamics". 

And then, when they finally get engaged, Jim seems to want even more physical contact and justifies it by saying that 1 Corinthians 7:1 (It is good for a man not to touch a woman) was speaking of "an unmarried man sharing another's wife", not a man engaged to be married.  The daughter quotes him, interspersing her own words,"'it does not apply to my play with Betty," which meant he could enjoy 'further liberty with her body' without being guilty of fornication, once they were engaged."  According to Jim Elliot's views, at the time,  it's okay for engaged couples to touching one another's bodies as long as they don't have sex?  Huh??? I am incredulous at several of his interpretations and applications of various passages.  I don't understand how this is keeping with the passage that says to "keep the marriage bed holy" (Heb 13:4).  

Being engaged means that the couple are set-aside for each other, no one else, but they don't belong to each other before God yet - so no playing with one another's bodies, even if it's not sexual.  God has not yet joined you together, so don't act as though He has. Wait until you are married.

All in all, I was VERY disappointed.  I was reading this book aloud with my sister, and I had to skip several spots, because they were indecent and made me blush.  Yes, Jim and Elisabeth seemed to be Christians, but that doesn't mean that everything that they did was Christ-like and should be followed.  I could not recommend this book to any couple because it does not promote true Godly pre-marital relationships.  I'll end with a section from 1 Thessalonians 4:"For this is the will of God, even your sanctification, that ye abstain from fornication; that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who know not God; that no man transgress, and wrong his brother in the matter: because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as also we forewarned you and testified. For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification. "(1Th 4:3-7)

I received a free review copy of this book from B&H Publishers.  My review did not have to be favorable.

My Rating:  1 out of 5 Stars

This book is sold on Christianbook.com and Amazon.com

Lies Women Believe - Nancy Demoss Wolgemuth

Lies Women Believe by Nancy Demoss Wolgemuth is a book that goes through various lies that women believe about reality and counters them.  Dealing specifically with many of the lies women believe about God, themselves, sin, priorities, sexuality, marriage, children, emotions and circumstances, this book is designed as a gentle, but firm exhortation to wake women up to see the truth.

I get the impression that many of the women's writings of today cater to women's excuses, unbelief and overall selfishness. We don't need to build up our self-love, "the truth is that we do love ourselves", we need to learn to deny ourselves.  "Our most common malady is not having a low view [of] ourselves, but having a low view of God."

I also loved how the author pointed out that the thought, "I can't help the way I am" because of - fill in the blank-,  is a lie.  She uses Eve as an example: it was not Eve's circumstances that accounted for her miserable condition, it was not that she had had a difficult childhood, been unloved,  abused by her husband, had uncontrollable emotional issues, physical ailments or any of the many excuses women nowadays love to turn too.  No, Eve had a great beginning in life, she was never physically or verbally abused and was in great physical and emotional shape.  And yet she still sinned.  

There were some things I didn't like, however.  For instance, there was some stuff in the "Sexuality" chapter that I was uncomfortable with, I skipped over stuff, and I didn't think the fictional 'Eve's diary' part was very edifying in that particular chapter either (there are some things I just don't need to imagine in my head).  I know that most (probably all) of the advice and counsel is good but I simply didn't think that it needed to be dealt with that thoroughly. 

Also, I didn't agree or see the sense of why she thinks that it is okay for Christians to turn to drugs to help with depression.  It just seems to contradict what she said earlier, about the bad habit people have of turning to movies, alcohol or fun activities to change their bad emotions into happy ones rather than turning to God and His Word first.  I mean, for a Christian, what if there were pills to deal with, not only depression, but lust, anger, pride and fear? Would taking a pill for stopping lust be "killing sin"? Or just sedating it?  I thought that the weapons of our warfare are "not carnal" (2 Corinthians 10:4).  What if a disaster or something happens and those pills are no longer made or we lost access to them? Would we have built up any spiritual muscle for the fight against those emotions?  Or will they manifest themselves stronger than ever because we didn't kill them daily we merely rendered them unconscious so that we didn't have to fight them?  As Wolgemuth says, "When we find ourselves suffering under the weight of negative emotions like anger, anxiety, bitterness, despair, hatred or condemnation, we must learn to look toward God's Truth, keeping our minds stayed on Him rather than simply trying to escape or swap out negative emotions with a feel-good substitute. "   I would add depression to that list.

But overall I thought that the book was very good. Wolgemuth counters the lies with Biblical truth very well, and gives a lot of good counsel.  Here are some more of the concepts that I really liked that are based in the truth:

When people think that you're not normal, they're right! You're not normal, you are a New Creation! You are a saint, not a sinner.

Wives are not their husband's mothers, and they should not act as though they are the Holy Spirit in their husband's lives.

We are not saved by our feelings, our feelings are not facts.  We look to how what God says is true, not to our feelings to figure out reality.

And lastly, the truth may not change your circumstances, but that's okay, it will change you. God is primarily making us holy, not 'happy' - this side of eternity.

Many thanks to the folks at Moody Publishers Newsroom for sending me a free review copy of this book! My review did not have to be favorable.

My rating 4 out of 5 Stars

This book may be purchased at Christianbook.com and at Amazon.com

So Close to Home by Michael J. Tougias and Alison O'Leary

So Close to Home by Michael J. Tougias and Alison O'Leary is a riveting account of the amazing, providential survival and reunion of a family after the ship they are travelling on was torpedoed by a German submarine. 

In 1942, the Downs Family, consisting of Ray and Ina Downs and two of their children, Lucille and Sonny Downs (their oldest son Terry was already in the U.S.), were making their way back to the United States from an eleven month stay in Columbia where Ray had taken a job with the United Fruit Company.  They began their journey home on a ship called the Heredia.

Their trip home was drastically interrupted. The night before they were to land at New Orleans, two torpedoes hit the ship.  The Downs' almost make it out onto the deck of this ship together but are separated by a lurch of the ship causing a surge of water to engulf them.  Ray is washed back inside the ship, while Ina, Lucille and Sonny are swept to various places on the decks and in the water, all find themselves separated from the rest of their family.

Ray is reunited with Sonny after a short while, Lucille is helped by the Second Mate of the Heredia while Ina struggles to survive on her own.  They all have encounters with sharks and suffer from long exposure to the elements.  All of them have to deal with their fears for each other, wondering whether the rest of their family is still alive and they all try to keep their composure during their ordeal.  Even little Sonny tries to be tough like his dad and succeeds in not breaking down.  The Downs' family ends up happily reunited, all of them amazed and grateful that they survived. 

Heavily intermixed with the story of the Downs family story are the accounts of several U-boat Captains and their crews, including that of the Captain of the U-boat that sank the Heredia.  The authors interweave these accounts by jumping off many  incidents in the Downs' story to lead into history and facts about German submarines, their crews and other ships they sank.  I found it very interesting that, unlike the Japanese, many German Submarine Captains were kind and friendly to survivors of ships that they sank.   The most amazing one is probably the account of the sinking of the ship called the Laconia which carried many civilians.  The Captain of the U-boat who sunk her surfaced and took on many survivors, helped any injured, and ended up obtaining help from other German U-boats who also took on survivors and all of them towed several lifeboats in their wake and helped to repair lifeboats.

I'm going give a couple of negative comments here: First, I just want to note that book had some foul language, but it is easy enough to scribble out and to skip over (I've been reading it out-loud to some of my siblings).  Sometimes I don't want to know what people said exactly the way it was said, even if it is actually history.

Second, I was saddened to find that, though Ray and Ina Downs' seemed to be professing Christians, they ended up divorcing later in life. If they hadn't been Christians I wouldn't have thought much of it.  But they were professing Christians, and as such they could have shown the kind of unconditional love toward each other that God showed toward them. That was not a good example of a Christian marriage, that they loved each other conditionally rather than unconditionally.  It is quite disheartening to think that they had the stamina to survive a ship's sinking, almost being drowned or eaten by sharks and yet they didn't have the stamina to choose to keep loving each other despite each other's flaws and keep their marriage covenant.  Perhaps I am getting too preachy here, but that was just really sad to find out. 

But all in all, I liked the book.   It was a very fascinating account of the sinking of the Heredia with lots of background history and information interwoven throughout the book.  It was very surprising to find how much German U-boat activity was happening in the Gulf of Mexico.  I had no idea that U-boats came SO close to the U.S.!  Looking at the map just inside the front cover of the book one can get a picture of just how close they got.  Some U-boats even gave potential German saboteurs a lift to our shores!  I learned quite a bit of extra World War II history.

Many thanks to the folks at Pegasus Books for sending me a free review copy of this book (My review did not have to be favorable)!

This book may be purchased at Amazon.com and also on other retail sites

NIV Zondervan Study Bible

When first received my copy of the NIV Zondervan Study Bible in the mail, my first impression was amazement over its size and weight, it is HUGE!  It is quite impressive on the inside as well, the text of the  NIV is laid out in a one column format instead of the usual 2 columns.  The cross references are placed on the side of the column and study notes on the bottom.  I loved the charts throughout, especially in the OT which included charts summing up what was in certain sacrifices and offerings, and charts on the Lord's appointed festivals, census results, Levite Numbers and responsibilities…etc.  Very helpful.  There were many photographs of Biblical areas throughout, and also pictures of various archeological finds having to do with many biblical events and people.  Those are quite fascinating and interesting.  

Many of the study notes seem quite intricate and useful and exegetical.  Several of the pages are quite packed with notes.  There were various scholars writing the study notes for each individual book of the Bible and you can see the negatives and positives to that.  For instance, I was pleasantly surprised (shocked may be the better term) that the person who did the study notes in 1 Corinthians actually took the literal view of chapter 7, where Paul repeats, affirms and perhaps expounds upon, the Lord's command,  "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." 1 Cor. 7:10-11  The writer of the study notes comments:   vs. 11"...There are only two options for a divorced woman: (1) remain unmarried or (2) reconcile with her husband.  a husband must not divorce his wife.  Just as a woman must not divorce her husband; again Paul formulates no exception." Vs. 15, 'Let it be so.'   when a non-Christian spouse divorces a Christian spouse, the Christian cannot do anything about it.  not bound in such circumstances.  it is often suggested that this allows a deserted Christian spouse to remarry since the Christian is not 'bound' to the marriage that has been dissolved.  This interpretation is not plausible:  (1) In v. 11 Paul prohibits remarriage in cases where divorce has taken place. (2) The Greek verb does not mean 'bound'; it means 'enslaved' or 'under bondage.' (3) The thrust of the context is maintaining marriage.  (4) Paul speaks of 'freedom' for a new marriage only in cases when the spouse has died (v. 39; Rom 7:1-3).  If a non-Christian spouse leaves the marriage, the Christian spouse is not responsible for the divorce.  Christian spouses may not initiate divorce from non-Christian  spouses on religious grounds..."  But then where you turn to Christ's comments on divorce and remarriage in Matthew 7 and 19 you find the usual view espoused  (dissolution of a marriage before God in the case of adultery)by whomever wrote the study notes. 

 But now I must talk about the negative aspects of this Bible.  One is not so bad, but some may find it quite inconvenient, and that is that the font is (or seems to me) quite small, and that is aggravated by the fact that it is difficult to lift the book closer to one's face to take a closer look  because it is so heavy.  But if they made the font any bigger the Bible's overall size would be impractical and it would probably end up having to be treated like some old gigantic Bibles of the past where would you just designate a place for it to be left open on its own stand as it would be difficult to transport.

 

The second negative was that the person(s) who wrote the study notes on Genesis did not come down firmly on a literal 24 hour day creation.  For instance in the introduction to Genesis it is stated that, "The question of the age of the earth is not automatically resolved with the use of the seven days in 1:1-2:3.  In 2:4, Moses uses the same Hebrew word for 'day' to summarize all the work of creation…Of course, this does not mean that the term 'day' cannot refer to a 24-hour day in the seven days of creation.  But it may also serve other purposes."    And therefore of course, they also do not firmly promote a global flood in Genesis 6-7 but leave it open to the possibility of its being a regional flood.

 

The third negative is that the Bible has at least a few engravings, paintings and other forms of art picturing unclothed people.  I'll mention three of them  here: First there was a picture of a naked Adam and Eve holding a few tiny conveniently placed leaves…I don't get why they don't at least depict them in the clothing of leaves they had tried to make, or why don't they picture them when God clothed them with animal skins?  Why depict the father and mother of all mankind in what is now their shame???  It is STILL their SHAME, why is it okay for their offspring to have pictures of them in that state???????I don't understand that at all.  And then there was an engraving or something  showing  circumcision being performed on men and it was completely unnecessary, I didn't need to see that.   And lastly there was a painting in the introduction to Psalms that showed unclothed and scantily clothed Egyptian women musicians, the only connection to the Psalms was that they were musicians.   Why? Why choose that one?  I don't care if they are ancient archaeological finds and are considered 'a work of art', I don't care how old it is,  there are bad/immoral works of art from history just as there are bad works of 'art' today!  I don't understand how a person can think that pictures depicting naked people are justified to have in a Bible, rather I see it as an affront and a contradiction to the teachings of the Bible itself.  Think of Christ's statement:  "Ye have heard that it was said, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart. "(Mat 5:27-28 ASV).  What if a picture was placed beside it showing a lewdly dressed woman with the caption "ancient depiction of a prostitute", wouldn't that seem a little (sarcasm) contradictory? 

I'm sorry to have to be so negative but I simply had to say something.  I would have rated the study Bible higher if it hadn't been for the bad pictures. 

  

I received a free review copy of this book from the Booklook blogger program in exchange for my review which did not have to be favorable.