Author: Uri Brito

Posted on

On Why Outwardly Peaceful Marriages End

Dear friend,

You asked me to add some thoughts about why relatively outwardly peaceful marriages end in divorce. This is a truly complex question that requires a lot of nuances and some healthy counseling. The reality is that every marriage goes through periods of hopelessness. Some go through great travail for years and some survive under one roof with no joy and little flourishing, but as you stated, some do end in divorce.

On average, marriages are usually dissolved/destroyed on the first year or the 21st year. The first year is usually self-explanatory since many couples enter into this sacred vow with no understanding of marriage or its rituals. They are provided no spiritual counsel as to the purpose and priority of the other. They enter into it–contradicting the sacred vows–irreverently and indiscreetly. Perhaps there was an unwanted pregnancy, or social pressures from community, or a decision to confirm what they have been doing–sinfully–for too long.

The good news is that contrary to the statistics thrown around that 50% of Christians get divorced, the number is actually much lower (but that’s for another post). This does not entail a victory lap, but a note of soberness. Why is it still that a large portion of Christian marriages end in divorce? Set aside abuse and other legitimate reasons for divorce, most marriages simply end as a result of “hiddenness.” It’s a repeat of the shameful nakedness in the garden. Habits and ideas are hidden to the point where shame becomes a reason for anger and strife and division in the household. When a sense of guilt enters, we hide from one another. This does not determine the end; in fact, these marriages can be redeemed, but Spirit intervention is crucial and the angelic voices of faithful friends must come into the picture.

In most cases, individuals persist in marriage relationships for the sake of children, and in the meanwhile they craft independent lives, and little by little the soul withers leading to the 21st year number I mentioned at the beginning. The 21st year of marriage is often how long it takes for parents to be empty-nesters providing the opportunity to do what they did not do for so long.

What is prevalent is that these individuals have been dying for a long time and divorce becomes the way out; for some it becomes the solution to find happiness once again, but invariably they find more loneliness and sadness. But if a couple is still in that phase of processing their lives together, and if they still find displeasure as to where they are, the good news is that discovering unhappiness/hopelessness together is the very first step to renewal.

In my vocation, I have seen many cases of renewal, but the one thing evident in them all is that both decided things are not as they should be and that hiddenness does not bring life. And that simple decision takes courage because you have to abandon your superficial image of “all-rightism.” No, it’s not all-right. Your marriage is worth fighting for under God; your spouse is worthy of your repentance. In most cases, divorce is not the solution to your woes, it’s the dreadful end of something that could have been a visible manifestation of goodness, truth, and beauty in the world.

Posted on

Jude Translation of Verse 4 with Notes

Jude 4 παρεισέδυσαν γάρ τινες ἄνθρωποι, οἱ πάλαι προγεγραμμένοι εἰς τοῦτο τὸ κρίμα, ἀσεβεῖς, τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ ἡμῶν χάριτα μετατιθέντες εἰς ἀσέλγειαν καὶ τὸν μόνον δεσπότην καὶ κύριον ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν ἀρνούμενοι.

Translation: For certain men have wormed their way in (the church), who long ago were marked for judgment, ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into licentiousness, and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.

Notes:

The “certain people” (τινες ἄνθρωποι ) listed in verse 4, are later referred to as “those who pervert” or “the ungodly ones.” Jude begins with a generic description and then puts a direct focus on their identity. Discussions over the identity of this group has led to three separate interpretations, namely, Gnostics, False Teachers, or the Zealots. Bateman takes the latter position convincingly, while others prefer to not take any of these routes and simply refer to them as “the others.”

Bateman notes (140) that during the Jewish revolt, the men and women were involved meaning that the temptation to embrace the cause of revolt goes to both males and females which may stimulate Jude’s profound distaste for this group.

In my younger days I would read about debates pertaining to the nature of that last phrase in Jude 4, namely the specific reference to our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ. The debate stemmed from concerns that Arminians could use that phrase to say assert that Christ also died for those who were condemned from old. It’s a cheap attempt to make limited atonement false. But it seems obvious that Jude is addressing the Christ that belongs to the Judean Christians and not those who worm their way in to seduce the flock; but even, if the reference to God’s Lordship were universal it would still only imply that there is only one way to know this God which is by forsaking zealotry and revolts, as Jude makes clear later.

An additional implication is that ἀσέλγειαν ought to be understood merely as “sexual immorality,” thus implying that the great sin being passed on to the Jewish converts is promiscuity. But if the case is made that we are referring to the Zealots, sexual immorality would not fit their description. As Bateman notes, “the Zealots were staunchly against sexual immorality…” (151). Thus, it is more reasonable to assert that ἀσέλγειαν refers to their acts being without restraint. After all, they hoped to revolt Rome which implied unrestrained actions.

Posted on

Jude Fragments: A Few Words on Warnings

Jude comes in very Hebraic form. In fact some of the language Jude uses echoes much of what is found in Hebrews 6 & 10. There are warnings to deliver men from the edge of death ( Jude 23) as Hebrews does. One of the questions raised in such occasions is whether Jude’s warnings like Hebrews are sent to Christians or whether it is merely hypothetical. If hypothetical, the warning itself serves little purpose. If, in some way, a covenant member cannot lose his status, the warnings of Jude and Hebrews and other places are null and void.

These warnings are given so we should not drift away. The idea behind a warning implies that some of you may let something slip from your grasp without realizing it; like a ring on your finger. This is why the author says that some will doubt the message of Jesus, and we are going to have to help some people by snatching them from fire. We will have to look at them and say, “Hey, this about your deliverance; you are being led astray by zealots and rebellious people. Don’t neglect such a great salvation.”

Perhaps it is helpful to stop here and make two observations on biblical warnings, so the message of Jude is not misunderstood. The first observation is that this is a covenant warning to God’s covenant members. This is not a warning to those outside the church. Those outside the church already neglect such great salvation. This is a real warning to those members who are covenanted to Christ. They have the benefits of Christ as Judas did, but yet some of them abandon the faith.

The second observation is that we do not need to compromise our convictions to believe this. Those elect to eternal life “cannot be separated from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus.” We affirm both of those realities. We need to fit the Bible into our theology, not our theology into the Bible.

These are real warnings to the people of God. You may have grown up in the Church, you may have been baptized into the Church, you may have received the benefits of the Church as a covenant member, but the question for you today is: “Are you slipping away, are you drifting far apart from the Church and her Messiah, are you neglecting the message of salvation, are you affirming Yahweh in your life, are you living as one who has been marked by the waters of baptism? Are you building yourself up in the most holy faith, keeping yourselves in God’s love? Take heed! Listen and cling to Jesus!

Everything Jude tells us in the opening two verses is everything we need for the rest of our lives. Strange lessons and symbolic ideas will fill your hearts with wonder as you read Jude, and may this wonder keep you from stumbling, so that mercy, love and peace be multiplied to you as we embark in this journey into Jude.

Posted on

Jude Fragments: Recent Scholarship on Addressees

Richard Bauckham in 1983 put Jude scholarship back on the map. According to Peter Davids in his Theology of Jude, Bauckham wrote to an audience already familiar with apocalyptic literature during the twentieth century and there was enough material by then to make various conclusions about Jude’s context. Once his commentary was produced a host of others came into the scene (252).

The dating of Jude has always proved complex. Bauckham dates him late in the first century creating a myriad of complications. Among them is the tricky business of whether Jude was addressing present concerns, future concerns, like Gnostics in the second-century, or catholic concerns of the church in general. In my estimation, late dating offers more problems than solutions.

For Davids, the addressees are familiar with Second-Temple literature since Jude seems to assume much in the letter. He further asserts that Jude’s concerns are primary of a Second Temple source and that his details cannot be all traced to Old Testament literature (259). For Jude, his assumptions are that his rhetoric will be persuasive for those whom he addresses. After all, these are people who “meet around meals” (Jude 12), so that a certain familiarity is expected fro moral tradition.

A favorable element of this Theology of Jude is that Davids breaks any consensus that Jude is directly speaking against false teachers. In fact, Jude “never refers those he critiques as teachers.” (260) There are references to the way they speak, but this can be applied generally to other groups as well. The focus for Jude seems to be on their behavior, even “verbal grumbling” (260), and not their teaching necessarily.

If this is the case, the reader will have to contend for another interpretation of whom Jude was rebuking and warning against. The “false-teacher” narrative is all too common, especially in the context of “contending for the faith.” Some commentators assume that Jude picks up similar motifs in Peter’s writing and continue in that trajectory, but what seems more evident is that Jude is addressing a different concern altogether. Davids offers no alternative, except to say that Jude is addressing the “others.” Namely, those who do not share Jude’s sympathies for the cause of Messiah.

Posted on

The Art of Joy

Our goal at this stage of societal cognitive dissonance is to offer the world something remarkably simple. In fact, it’s so simple that people may scoff at the idea. I refer to the indispensable tool in the Christian manifesto, the undying and unadulterated joy of the saint.

We live in what one scholar referred to as the age of “post-persuasion.” People truly believe that a few acronyms and some tearing of historical monuments, and a heavy dose of cussing and magical talking points will convince the other side to give up the cause. But if you stand in your house or on the street and show some displays of hearty laughter and good ol’ fashioned cheer, the nations will rage in perplexity.

That simple display on social media and public encounters has the effect of revealing something more profound in our way of thinking; it reveals our inward disposition that does not necessitate hate or heavy intellectual artillery. I am more convinced that the gentle sister who finds joys in life and who worships her Christ with sincerity has a far greater chance of changing the hearts of some than the outrageous zealot who opines six times a day on social media looking for a chance to win the war on ideas.

The beauty of this season is that ideas are clearer than ever, and the source of those ideas are clearer than ever. When Jesus came, the people of God spread his fame so that our joy may be full. In an age of post-persuasion, we have a powerful responsibility to smile during communion, to laugh with our children, and to amuse ourselves to life in God.

Posted on

The Book of Jude: Fragments on Intent of the Book

Jude is a real letter. Scholarship throughout the last 100 years seek find alternatives to Jude’s authorship as a way of consenting to modern impulse to deny the legitimacy of Jude. Yet, as Bauckham articulates clearly that Jude’s credentials are more than sufficient to fit this “epistolary sermon.” In fact, Jude seems to be deeply grounded in Jewishness. Though it may be shaped like a homily (not uncommon in the ancient world), it has the shape of a letter though it may have been read as a homily to a congregation.

The message seems to be very fitting for a specific situation. It’s not a catholic letter in the sense that it applies to all churches in all cases, though the implication is that, but rather it is addressing a particular issue; one which Jude’s hearers were dealing with in their day. There is a localized audience in mind when he pens these words.

Whoever Jude is addressing merits his distinct attention. We should not assume that the shortness of the letter implies Jude is taking the matter at hand less seriously, rather he can throw an effective punch with a few sober words.

It is also crucial to understand that the harsh argument in the middle of the book is not the center of Jude’s argument, rather it prepares for the real argument which is the central appeal in verses 20-23. This is not a hate-filled missive but a genuine attempt to call the hearers to understand their time in redemptive history and see that they are living in apocalyptic times filled with danger for the days of judgment are near.

Posted on

Jude fragments: Who is Jude Addressing?

There are three interpretations of whom Jude is addressing in his short letter. The first group of scholars believe Jude is addressing Gnostic teachers. Most of these scholars are not of an evangelical persuasion and consequently they believe Jude was written in the second-century addressing a future group of Gnostic false teachers. There are even some who affirm that Jude is speaking prophetically in the first-century about a group of Gnostics who will create schism in the church in the second-century.

The second group believes that Jude is addressing false teachers who have slipped into the Christian community bringing with them their false views of the world including a vast resume of sexually immoral practices. These teachers seek to tear the Gospel with their rebellious ways and Jude urges Christians in the first-century to contend for the faith and help those who are easily seduced by such false doctrines. Commentators like Bo Reickea suggest that Jude’s language parallel II Peter’s exhortation against false teachers, and thus Jude continues the same trajectory but with different concerns. As a side note, many commentaries combine II Peter and Jude assuming that both are tackling the exact same agenda against false teachers.

The third group, which I find myself compelled, is that Jude is not addressing false teachers (though there is an implied aspect), but he is mainly equipping the church to detect zealots who seek rebellion in the days before the destruction of the temple in AD 70. The revolts in the mid 60’s would support this assessment since Jude’s Judean audience in the 60’s would be surrounded by zealots wishing to overthrow Rome and start a war. These zealots posed great danger to the cause of Christ and Jude urges them to contend for the faith. These revolutionaries are not intent on preserving the cause of Christ, but they slip into Christ’s community and seek to instill a spirit of rebellion turning faithful Christians to a cause which can bring no good for the Church.

  1. In the Anchor Commentary, Reicke suggests that Jude’s book was written in later first century  (back)
Posted on

Our Hebraic Foundation

Denying the Hebraic foundations of our faith is one of the most destructive elements of modern hermeneutics. The New Testament authors are so steeped in the language of their forefathers that we need to presuppose the entire Old Testament corpus as the context of their declarations. There are no New Testament texts that act independent of the Hebrew Scriptures. Indeed, to begin in the New Testament is a short way of saying we are continuing in God’s great story.

The divisions we make are by and large superficial when they fail to see the inherent continuity of God’s work in creation and his people. Therefore, to understand John is also to say we understand John’s Hebrew world.

The deficiency in our reading stems from isolating Scriptures from one another and distancing ourselves from the very root of our faith. Paul’s world is constantly playing the old world of Abraham as background music to his literature. We would do well to grasp this reality and cultivate understanding of the world that shaped the Pentecost-led church and still shapes all of life.