Vine Abiders Podcast

If you have ever sat through an Easter sermon and walked away faintly dissatisfied with the explanation of why the resurrection matters, you are not alone. Preachers rightly treat it as the hinge of the Christian faith. Paul says that if it did not happen, we are still in our sins, so it clearly has something to do with the atonement. And yet the reasons usually given for it always struck me as thin.I once thought I understood this doctrine well. After a season of reading (the books are listed at the end), I have come to think my old view was not so much wrong as badly incomplete. The reality is stranger and far more important than I had been taught. Let me start with the three answers you have probably heard, and then build toward what I think is actually going on.Three Familiar AnswersFirst, that the resurrection vindicates Jesus’s teaching. Tim Keller put it crisply: if Jesus rose, you have to accept everything he said; if he did not, none of it matters. I more or less agree, but I would hesitate to make rising from the dead the thing that certifies a teacher’s words. The Antichrist, by my reading, will appear to rise from the dead too. More to the point, I cannot find an explicit teaching in Scripture that says we should believe Jesus because he rose. It feels more like worldly wisdom than a biblical argument. I will give Keller the benefit of the doubt, but it does not get to the heart of things.Second, that the resurrection proves Christ’s death accomplished salvation. John Piper frames it as proof that the death of Jesus was an all-sufficient price, that without the resurrection his death was a failure. In this model the resurrection is essentially a receipt: God’s wrath has been satisfied, so he raises his Son to show the transaction cleared. It is intensely cross-centered, and that is exactly what I want to challenge. The atonement could not have been completed until Jesus rose and ascended. If that is true, then the resurrection cannot merely be proof that the work was already finished at the cross. It is part of the work itself.Third, that the resurrection gives us hope of our own. This is the one you hear on Easter most often and at funerals, and it is the one I fully agree with. Christ is the firstfruits; because he rose, we have solid hope that we will too. But there is far more to say, and the deeper reasons are what I want to walk through.What Is the Atonement, Exactly?Before we can say why the resurrection matters, we have to ask a question most Christians never think to ask. What is the atonement?Most people would answer that it is Jesus dying for our sins on the cross. That is not wrong, but it mistakes the opening act for the whole drama. In the logic of the Old Testament sacrificial system, the death of the victim was never the moment of atonement. It was the preparation for it.This is not a controversial claim among scholars of Israel’s sacrificial system. The slaughter of the animal, by itself, accomplished nothing. Its purpose was to obtain the blood, and the purpose of the blood was to be carried to a sacred place and applied. The application was the atoning act, whether that meant sprinkling blood on the mercy seat on the Day of Atonement or on the various implements of the tabernacle. Leviticus 17:11 is about the only place in the Bible that explains why this works:‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you on the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.’The operative idea is that the blood by reason of the life that makes atonement.. We meet this theme early in Scripture, in the severe prohibition against eating blood. Blood carries life, and that is precisely why it makes atonement. Atonement is fundamentally about cleansing, and life cleanses because what it cleanses is the opposite of life, which is death.Here is the picture, and it is worth holding onto. At the center of the tabernacle dwelt God’s own presence, the pillar of cloud and fire between the cherubim. I take this to be the Holy Spirit, the same Spirit who will one day dwell in the temple of our bodies. The connection is close to one-to-one, and you will not fully grasp what the New Testament says about the Spirit until you see that the Spirit was that pillar of fire.Sin, which leads to death, defiled the place where this presence dwelt. (Leviticus 16:16–19)Atonement was the cleansing that kept it habitable, so that the Spirit would remain in Israel’s midst. When the nation sank into sin and the cleansing lapsed, the presence departed.So in the old system, atonement was not finished until the blood reached the sacred object. On the Day of Atonement the high priest, having first purified himself so he would not die, carried the blood into the Holy of Holies for one purpose: to place it on the mercy seat and withdraw. Until the blood touched that lid, no atonement had been made. Hold that thought, because it is about to do a great deal of work.The Lid of the ArkIf atonement requires blood on the mercy seat, then atonement cannot have been completed at the cross, because there was no Ark of the Covenant at Golgotha. That is not a clever objection of mine. It is the very point the author of Hebrews builds his argument around, and it is why Jesus had to ascend to where the true mercy seat is.The Hebrew name for that lid is kapporeth, from the same root that gives us Yom Kippur. It means, roughly, to atone. The Day of Atonement is the day, and the kapporeth is the place, of atonement. The phrase is almost circular: atonement is made on the place of atonement. The lid is so central that its very name is atonement.The New Testament writers refer to that same object with the Greek word hilasterion. Translated as “mercy seat,” it renders the Hebrew faithfully. Translated as “atonement,” it is also fair, since that is what the word carried. But some translations render it “propitiation,” meaning the satisfaction of a god’s wrath, and that I think is a mistake. Many of the translators, including those behind the King James, were Calvinists for whom atonement simply was the satisfaction of wrath, so substituting one word for the other cost them nothing. It costs us a great deal, because it smuggles a whole theory of the atonement into a word that never meant it.Hebrews and the Heavenly TabernacleThe book of Hebrews was written, in part, to explain how atonement works, and the author is insistent on a point modern readers tend to spiritualize away: there is a real tabernacle in heaven. The one Moses built was a copy and shadow of it. When I have tried to describe this to people, they reach for “in a spiritual sense,” but the writer of Hebrews means something more concrete. The cleansing capable of pouring God’s Spirit out on all flesh, as happened at Pentecost, could only be accomplished by a sacrifice offered not in an earthly sanctuary but in the heavenly original. He grounds this in Moses himself:Who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.And he presses it further: Christ entered not the holy places made with hands, the mere figures of the true, but heaven itself, to appear before God for us. Whatever reality you grant the earthly Ark, Hebrews ranks it below the heavenly one, which is the real thing.Around this the author builds a careful case. First he must show that Jesus can be a high priest at all, since he came from Judah, not Levi. His answer is that Jesus belongs to a different and older order, the priesthood of Melchizedek. Then he establishes the real sanctuary above. Then he explains why a new covenant was needed in the first place: the old one was limited at every point, by the mortality of its priests, the earthliness of its tabernacle, the blood of animals, all of which capped how far its cleansing could reach. A greater atonement required a greater priest and a greater place. He brings the threads together in chapter nine:But Christ being come an high priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made with hands, that is to say, not of this building; Neither by the blood of goats and calves, but by his own blood he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us... How much more shall the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself without spot to God, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?The whole new covenant hinges on a logical fact: that Jesus is a real high priest, and that there is a real place in heaven for him to do his work. This, I suspect, is what Paul means in 1 Corinthians 15:17, that if Christ is not raised, our faith is vain and we are still in our sins. Read against Piper, the difference is sharp. For Piper the verse means the resurrection confirms a finished transaction. For Paul it means something stronger: you are not forgiven unless Jesus is raised. That can only be true if the dying was not the whole of the atonement. A Christ who died but never rose and ascended is a sacrifice slaughtered but never presented, blood that never reached the mercy seat, an atonement left unfinished.There is one more strand here I want to flag without overreaching. A high priest also maintains the covenant through ongoing intercession, which Hebrews ties to Christ’s endless life: he is able to save completely because he ever lives to intercede. I do not yet understand this aspect as well as I would like, so I will only note the obvious point. A dead savior cannot intercede. The resurrection is the condition of his ongoing priestly work as much as of his finished sacrifice.How Jesus Becomes LordThe second reason runs through the whole New Testament and is easy to miss: the enthronement, the way Jesus comes into his lordship.This is delicate, because in one sense Jesus was already Lord before his ordeal on earth. Yet the New Testament returns again and again, not in a stray verse here or there but as a steady theme, to the claim that through his resurrection he is given something. He is appointed heir. He is declared Son of God with power. The passages are worth reading rather than summarizing, so let me set several of them down.Romans 1:4:And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.The verse ties the declaration to the resurrection. Was Jesus the Son of God before that? Yes, and we will come to it. But notice the qualifier: Son of God with power. Another important passage is as follows:And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth. Philippians 2:8-10The hinge is “wherefore.” Paul does not say Jesus was exalted alongside his humbling but because of it. The exaltation is the Father’s response to the obedience of the cross, and a reward genuinely earned cannot be something he already possessed in full. So this is not a return to a position temporarily set aside. It is an exaltation earned through suffering and issuing in a rule acknowledged everywhere, exactly the pattern the argument has been tracing. The one caveat: this need not mean the eternal Son changed in nature. The change is one of office and exercise, which is why it fits Orr’s middle view rather than the stronger claim that Jesus was not Lord at all before Easter.Ephesians 1:20 through 22 makes the same move more fully, speaking of what God accomplished in Christ:Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church.Here the two themes arrive together, resurrection and enthronement at the right hand, and Paul tells us what the new authority amounts to. It is dominion. Nothing in Christ’s nature changed. What changed was the throne and the power that go with it.The picture I keep returning to is a king and his son. In the ordinary course of things the crown prince is royal by birth but does not rule until the old king dies and authority passes to him. They are of one substance; the son will be king; but the power transfers at a moment. The analogy breaks at the obvious place, since God never dies, so instead the Father voluntarily hands the Son all authority, in effect saying, “You take care of it.” And this happens only after a particular sequence: resurrection, ascension, enthronement.Hebrews 5:8 through 9 carries the same logic, that something was gained through the ordeal itself:Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him.Whatever else is happening there, the Son who needed nothing nevertheless learned obedience through suffering and then became the author of eternal salvation. The nature held constant; an office was entered. Jesus says it of himself in Revelation 3:21, speaking to the churches:To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.He had to overcome in order to sit down with his Father on the throne. A change comes through the cross.Revelation 4 and 5 dramatize the whole thing. In chapter four the Father sits enthroned, worshiped without ceasing by angels crying “Holy, holy, holy,” surrounded by twenty-four elders, holding in his right hand a scroll sealed with seven seals. Then the scene turns on a crisis:And I saw a strong angel proclaiming with a loud voice, Who is worthy to open the book, and to loose the seals thereof? And no man in heaven, nor in earth, neither under the earth, was able to open the book, neither to look thereon. And I wept much, because no man was found worthy to open and to read the book, neither to look thereon.There is weeping in heaven, because no one is worthy. Then comes the resolution, announced by one of the elders: the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has prevailed. What John actually sees, though, is not a lion but a Lamb:And I beheld, and, lo, in the midst of the throne and of the four beasts, and in the midst of the elders, stood a Lamb as it had been slain, having seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven Spirits of God sent forth into all the earth. And he came and took the book out of the right hand of him that sat upon the throne.Before this the living creatures and elders had sung “Holy, holy, holy” to the Father. Now they fall down before the Lamb and sing a new song:Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation; And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth. And I beheld, and I heard the voice of many angels round about the throne and the beasts and the elders: and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands; Saying with a loud voice, Worthy is the Lamb that was slain to receive power, and riches, and wisdom, and strength, and honour, and glory, and blessing. And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.The slain Lamb becomes worthy to take the scroll because it was slain, and recieve the dominion of all things. Scholars handle the obvious tension here in different ways, and Peter Orr has usefully mapped them. At one end, Christ is fully Lord throughout and merely lays his lordship aside at the cross, so that the resurrection discloses what was always true without adding anything new. At the other end, the pre-Easter references to his lordship are anticipatory, so that when Jesus accepts the title “Lord” he is claiming what he will only truly hold once he receives the throne; the enthronement is what actually makes him Lord. In between, and this is where Orr himself lands, Jesus is truly Lord beforehand but enters his lordship in a fuller and more real way afterward. The one born Christ and Lord, whose lordship was silenced at the crucifixion, is made Lord and Christ through his literal enthronement at God’s right hand, like a prince who is royal by birth yet not king until the day of his crowning. Nothing changes in his nature, only his coronation.Because he humbled himself to the point of death, God highly exalted him. The resurrection and exaltation let him enter the full reality of his Davidic role.The Spirit Withheld Until the King Was CrownedThe third reason is the most surprising of all. The outpouring of the Spirit was deliberately held back until the King was enthroned.It is not simply that Pentecost had to wait for the cross. Jesus says something stranger than that. He tells the disciples plainly that it is to their advantage that he go away, because only if he departs will the Spirit come to them. Read that slowly. His leaving is not an unfortunate cost that the Spirit’s arrival makes up for. His leaving is the precondition. The implicit claim is bold: the universal outpouring of the Spirit on all flesh depended on Jesus being glorified, ascended, and seated on the throne. The whole case turns on Peter’s sermon in Acts 2, his explanation to a stunned crowd of exactly what they are seeing and hearing.One detail first, because it knits this section back to the first. The flames that rest over the disciples’ heads are not a random sign. The pillar of fire that led Israel through the wilderness and dwelt above the Ark was God’s own Spirit, and that is why fire attends the Spirit here as it did there. What had once filled a single sanctuary now rests on people, and it can do so because the atonement accomplished in the heavenly sanctuary has made them clean enough to hold it. The fire on their heads is the visible sign that the cleansing worked.Peter opens by reaching for Joel: God will pour out his Spirit on all flesh, on sons and daughters, young and old, menservants and maidservants alike. The point is that an ancient and almost impossible hope has finally landed. Under the old order the Spirit came upon a prophet here, a king there, and rested on him for a task. Moses had wished aloud that all the Lord’s people were prophets, that God would put his Spirit on every one of them. The prophets had gone further and promised it: a new covenant, with the law written on the heart and a Spirit set within, so that obedience would finally come from the inside out. The crowd at Pentecost would have known those promises well. Peter’s announcement is that the wish has come true in front of them, and then he tells them precisely how it happened:Therefore being by the right hand of God exalted, and having received of the Father the promise of the Holy Ghost, he hath shed forth this, which ye now see and hear... Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.The sequence is exact, and every step matters. Jesus is exalted to the right hand. There, in that enthroned state, he receives the promised Spirit from the Father. From there he pours it out, and the pouring is the very thing the crowd can see and hear. And because they can see it, Peter says, they may know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ. The outpouring is not merely a blessing that happens to follow the enthronement. It is the public evidence of it. This is the same Jesus who, for the joy set before him, endured the cross, overcame, became worthy to take the scroll, and sat down on the throne. The Spirit falling on the disciples is the proof, visible to anyone standing in Jerusalem that morning, that he is seated.If that inference feels like a stretch built out of one sermon, John states the principle flatly and removes all doubt. Commenting on an earlier promise of Jesus that rivers of living water would flow from the believer, John adds an editorial note:(But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)This is as plain a confirmation as the argument could ask for. Why had the Spirit not yet been given? Not because the disciples were unready, not because the time was not ripe in some vague sense, but for one specific reason: because Jesus was not yet glorified. The giving of the Spirit is made directly contingent on Christ’s glorification. And we already know from Peter when that glorification occurred. It was his sitting down at the right hand of God, the moment of enthronement, which could only follow the ascension, which could only follow the resurrection. So John 7:39 supplies the missing link in the chain. Peter shows us the enthroned Christ pouring out the Spirit; John tells us that the Spirit could not come at all until that glorification had happened. The two passages lock together. Pentecost, and I would argue the whole purpose of the new covenant, waited on the throne.Max Turner names the mechanism behind all of this as well as anyone:You cannot pour out the Spirit as the executive power of your reign until you are reigning. The throne must be occupied before the Spirit can flow from it. The outpouring is not a separate event that happens to come after the enthronement. It is the active expression of enthronement itself.There is one last implication, and it is the sharpest. Every one of those prophecies said that God would pour out his Spirit. It was always God’s promise, God’s act, God’s prerogative. So when Peter stands up and says that Jesus has poured this out, he is saying far more than that Jesus is enthroned. He is identifying Jesus as the one doing what only God said he would do. If Jesus is the agent of an outpouring that was always God’s to give, then Jesus stands in the place of God, at his right hand, fulfilling a divine promise as only the Son could. The Spirit at Pentecost is proof of the throne, and the throne, in turn, is a quiet but unmistakable claim to his divinity.Pulling It TogetherThree things, then, that the usual Easter sermon leaves out.The atonement was completed in heaven. In the logic of Leviticus, it was never made at the moment of slaughter but when the high priest carried the life-bearing blood into the holy place and set it on the mercy seat. The cross is the slaughter. Hebrews insists the heavenly sanctuary is a real place, and into it the risen Christ carried himself as the offering. This is why Paul can say that without the resurrection we are still in our sins. A sacrifice slaughtered but never presented atones for nothing.Something happened to Jesus’s status at the ascension. He is made Lord, declared Son with power, given the name above every name, seated with all authority in heaven and earth. The eternal Son did not become something he was not. The King who laid his lordship aside at the cross entered its full and active exercise, a crown prince crowned at last.The Spirit was always meant to be universal. Moses wished for it, Joel promised it, Jeremiah and Ezekiel made it the heart of the new covenant. But a Spirit poured out on all flesh required a universal cleansing, which only the completed atonement could provide, and it required a throne, since the Spirit is how an enthroned Lord rules and stays present to his people.So the cross opens the door, but the risen Christ carries the offering through it. The ascended Christ takes the throne, and from that throne the reigning Lord pours out his Spirit and draws his people into union with himself. Easter is not where the story ends. It is where the risen Christ steps through the doorway into the true sanctuary, and from there reaches back to bring us with him.Further ReadingThe ideas in this post lean heavily on the work of several scholars. If you want to go deeper, these are the books that shaped my thinking, roughly in order of how central they are to what I argued here.David M. Moffitt, Atonement and the Logic of Resurrection in the Epistle to the Hebrews. The technical work at the heart of everything I said about atonement being completed in heaven. Moffitt argues that in Hebrews, Jesus’s death does not by itself accomplish atonement. It is the presentation of his resurrected life and blood in the heavenly sanctuary that does. This is the dense, academic version, but it is the foundation.David M. Moffitt, Rethinking the Atonement: New Perspectives on Jesus’s Death, Resurrection, and Ascension. A more accessible collection that gathers and extends his argument, reaching beyond Hebrews into Matthew, Acts, and 1 Corinthians 15, with a foreword by N. T. Wright. If you only read one Moffitt book, this is the one to start with.Patrick Schreiner, The Ascension of Christ: Recovering a Neglected Doctrine. A short, readable book on why the ascension belongs in the gospel itself, not as an afterthought. Schreiner works through Christ’s ongoing ministry as prophet, priest, and king. A great on-ramp to this whole subject if the others feel too heavy.Peter C. Orr, Exalted Above the Heavens: The Risen and Ascended Christ. The source for my discussion of how Jesus “becomes” Lord, and the survey of scholarly views on what changed at the enthronement. Orr looks at the exalted Christ through his identity, his location, and his present activity.Max Turner, Power from on High: The Spirit in Israel’s Restoration and Witness in Luke-Acts. The basis for the third movement of the post, that the Spirit could not be poured out until the King was enthroned. Turner’s line about the Spirit as the executive power of Christ’s reign is drawn from this work.Related ReadingMatthew Thiessen, Jesus and the Forces of Death: The Gospels’ Portrayal of Ritual Impurity within First-Century Judaism. Not cited directly above, but closely connected to the post’s underlying logic that atonement is about life cleansing death. Thiessen shows how the Gospels depict Jesus destroying the forces of death and impurity rather than abolishing the Jewish law. Worth reading alongside the others. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

We’ve been going through the Sermon on the Mount, and in this post, we’re looking at Matthew 5:43–48: **“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you,so that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven;for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good,and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?Do not even the tax collectors do the same?If you greet only your brothers, what more are you doing than others?Do not even the Gentiles do the same?Therefore, you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”(Matthew 5:43–48 NASB)This passage is about how we are to love our enemies — and Jesus tells us that in doing this, we are to emulate God Himself. God causes the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust. He is merciful to those who love Him and also to those who hate Him. While we were still sinners, God loved us — and Jesus tells us that we are to be like that.Our love should be teleios — complete, whole, mature. It should encircle everybody — not just the good people, but the bad people too.Understanding “Love Your Neighbor”Jesus follows a familiar pattern here. He quotes something from the Old Testament Law, then clarifies or corrects a misunderstanding about it.In this case, He begins with “You shall love your neighbor.” That’s a direct quote from Leviticus 19:17–18, which says:“You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart;you may surely reprove your neighbor, but shall not incur sin because of him.You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the sons of your people,but you shall love your neighbor as yourself; I am the Lord.”(Leviticus 19:17–18 NASB)So “neighbor” in this context refers primarily to “the sons of your people” — likely fellow Israelites and Gentile proselytes who had joined the covenant community. In other words, “neighbor” meant people inside the camp.But notice something interesting in Leviticus: “You shall not hate your fellow countryman in your heart.” That’s a heart-level commandment.Sometimes people think Jesus raised the moral bar when He said that hatred is like murder or lust is like adultery, but the truth is that heart-level commandments have always been in the Law. Even in Leviticus, hatred of another person was sin.And it goes further: “You may surely reprove your neighbor, but you shall not incur sin because of him.” That means correction or rebuke must be done without hate or bitterness. It must be done with love — or not at all.That’s a strong rebuke to those who justify anger as “righteous indignation.” If you hold grudges, harbor resentment, or relish outrage, Scripture says that’s sin. Even if it feels justified, if it’s born out of anger and not love, it’s sin.“You Have Heard It Said... Hate Your Enemy”So what about the second part — “and hate your enemy”?That phrase, “hate your enemy,” isn’t actually found in the Old Testament Law. So what was Jesus referring to?There are two main ways interpreters understand it:Some believe Jesus was referring to the Old Testament’s commands to destroy Israel’s enemies.For example, in God’s instructions concerning Amalek:Then the Lord said to Moses, “Write this in a book as a memorial and recite it to Joshua, that I will utterly blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven.” Moses built an altar and named it The Lord is My Banner; and he said, “The Lord has sworn; the Lord will have war against Amalek from generation to generation.”(Exodus 17:14–16 NASB)And in Deuteronomy 7:1–6, God tells Israel to destroy the Canaanite nations and to “show them no mercy.” Those who interpret Jesus’ words this way believe these kinds of passages were essentially commands to “hate your enemies.”There’s also Psalm 139:21–22, where David says:Do I not hate those who hate You, O Lord?And do I not loathe those who rise up against You?I hate them with the utmost hatred;They have become my enemies.(Psalm 139:21–22 NASB)But even here, David concludes by saying:Search me, O God, and know my heart;Try me and know my anxious thoughts;And see if there be any hurtful way in me,And lead me in the everlasting way.(Psalm 139:23–24 NASB)So even David reflects on whether this hatred was righteous. It’s not a blanket endorsement of hatred—it’s a moment of inner wrestling before God.The other major view — and the one I lean toward — is that Jesus was correcting a rabbinic or cultural tradition rather than quoting the Old Testament itself.By the time of Jesus, certain Jewish sects and teachers — especially the Essenes at Qumran — had developed what might be called a theology of “sanctified hatred.” This was the idea that love and hate could both be sacred if directed at the right targets: love toward God and His people, and hatred toward sinners and outsiders.This concept is clearly reflected in the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly the Community Rule (1QS), which describes the Essene initiation oath:“To love all the sons of light, each according to his lot in the counsel of God,and to hate all the sons of darkness, each according to his guilt in the vengeance of God.”(1QS 1:9–11)Another Essene text known as the War Scroll (The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness, 1QM) uses the same dualistic imagery to describe an ongoing holy war between two opposing spiritual camps:“The Sons of Light shall battle against the army of the Sons of Darkness… the men of the pit shall not prevail against them.”(1QM 1:1–3)Meanwhile, rabbinic literature from later centuries also reflects similar sentiments about maintaining enmity under certain conditions. For example, Maimonides (12th century) wrote in Mishneh Torah, Hilchot De’ot 6:6 that a scholar may harbor resentment “until his offender asks pardon.” While written long after Jesus’ time, this reflects an enduring tradition in which hostility could be viewed as justified or even virtuous if directed toward the unrepentant.So by the first century, the idea that hatred could be holy — that one should “love the sons of light and hate the sons of darkness” — was part of the religious culture.That is the mindset Jesus could be confronting when He said:“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.”In other words, Jesus was overturning not Moses’ Law, but a living cultural tradition that had justified hatred as an expression of holiness.Love Your Enemies and Pray for Those Who Persecute YouJesus’ command isn’t just theoretical — it’s deeply practical.For years I treated commands like this as idealistic advice. But once I started taking Jesus’ words literally — believing that His commands were meant to be done, not just admired — things began to change.When I began to see “love your enemies” as a command to obey, not just an unreachable ideal, it became one of the clearest evidences that I was truly in the faith. The ability to love people I used to resent — even those who have wronged me — is a sign of transformation.Jesus gives both the command and the method:“Love your enemies” — and how? “Pray for those who persecute you.”It’s hard to hate someone you’re praying for.Why Praying for Your Enemies MattersPraying for your enemies does several things:* It softens bitterness and ends the cycle of rumination.* It re-humanizes those who’ve hurt you.* It slowly transforms hatred into compassion.If you find yourself replaying wrongs, take that thought captive and pray for that person instead.Paul echoes this in Romans 12:14 —“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.”Jesus Himself prayed for those crucifying Him:“Father, forgive them; for they do not know what they are doing.”(Luke 23:34)And Stephen did the same as he was being stoned:“Lord, do not hold this sin against them.”(Acts 7:60)When you pray for your enemies, don’t just pray that God would “fix” them or “open their eyes.” That’s good, but go deeper.Pray for their good — for their families, their health, their joy, their provision. That kind of prayer transforms your heart even more than it changes theirs.And if you really want to accelerate forgiveness, keep them high on your prayer list.Seeing Your Enemies Through CompassionIt helps to remember that everyone — even your worst enemy — was once a little child. Many have been deeply wounded or deceived by Satan.When you understand the tragedy of sin, and the horror of eternal separation from God, compassion naturally follows.Scripture says:“Do not rejoice when your enemy falls,and do not let your heart be glad when he stumbles,or the Lord will see it and be displeased,and turn His anger away from him.”(Proverbs 24:17–18 NASB)We’re told not to delight in the downfall of our enemies, because God Himself takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked:“As I live,” declares the Lord God,“I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked,but rather that the wicked turn from his way and live.”(Ezekiel 33:11 NASB)Why Love Your Enemies?Jesus tells us plainly why:“So that you may be sons of your Father who is in heaven; for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.”(Matthew 5:45)In other words, when we love our enemies, we’re acting like our Father. That’s what God is like — merciful, patient, compassionate.“The Lord is compassionate and gracious,Slow to anger and abounding in lovingkindness.”(Psalm 103:8)“Do you not know that the kindness of God leads you to repentance?”(Romans 2:4)“The Lord is patient toward you, not wishing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.”(2 Peter 3:9)And because this is who God is, this is who His children must become.“Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.”(Ephesians 4:32)“Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”(Luke 6:36)Be Perfect as Your Father Is PerfectJesus concludes with this line:“Therefore you are to be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.”(Matthew 5:48)For years, I was told this verse meant we could never live up to God’s standard — that Jesus was simply showing us our need for grace. But nowhere in the Sermon on the Mount does Jesus say that. There’s no wink or nod implying, “I didn’t really mean all that.”The Greek word for “perfect” here is teleios, which means complete or mature. It’s not about moral flawlessness but wholeness.Paul uses the same word in 1 Corinthians 14:20:“Brethren, do not be children in your thinking;yet in evil be infants,but in your thinking be mature (teleios).”And in Ephesians 4:13:“Until we all attain to the unity of the faith,and of the knowledge of the Son of God,to a mature (teleios) man,to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fullness of Christ.”So when Jesus says to be teleios as your Father is teleios, He’s calling us to a complete, mature love — a love that includes even our enemies.A love with no gaps.A love that mirrors God’s own.Freedom on the Other Side of ObedienceWhen you begin to take Jesus seriously in this — to pray for your enemies, to stop ruminating on bitterness, to release hatred — you’ll find freedom.This commandment is not just a rule; it’s a path to healing. On the other side of loving your enemies is release from bondage — freedom from the endless cycle of resentment and pain.Final ThoughtsJesus’ call to love your enemies is not optional advice; it’s the essence of discipleship. It’s how we know we’re maturing, how we reflect our Father, and how we’re set free.Take these words seriously. Begin to pray for those who’ve wronged you. Take your thoughts captive. And remember:“While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”(Romans 5:8)That is the kind of love He’s calling us to.Support the MissionIf you’d like to support the ongoing work of Vine Abiders and help us continue spreading the gospel, please visit JoyfulHeartsHome.com This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

TL;DRThe Reformers taught that God legally credits Christ’s perfect obedience to believers—an unchangeable courtroom verdict called imputed righteousness.But Scripture’s emphasis is not on a legal transfer; it’s on union with Christ—a living participation in His life. Our righteousness isn’t Christ’s moral record applied to us, but God’s righteousness shared with us through being in Him.In this view, salvation is relational and dynamic, not static or abstract. Remaining or abiding in Christ is essential; righteousness endures only as long as that union does. The call to holiness is therefore not optional but vital, because our standing before God depends on abiding in the Righteous One, not merely on a past declaration.On Imputed Righteousness and Union with ChristIf there was one doctrine that was a signature of the Reformation, held in especially high regard by Calvinists and Lutherans, it was the doctrine of Imputed Righteousness.Imputed righteousness, as taught in Reformed circles, is the teaching that Christ’s sinless life and perfect obedience to God’s law are credited to the believer’s account, as if they themselves had obeyed perfectly.The doctrine is usually expressed in judicial terms, meaning that when Christ’s righteousness is imputed or accounted to the believer, it is like a not-guilty verdict in a courtroom—a once-and-for-all change in the believer’s ledger.In this view, God in a sense no longer “sees” the sinner but His Son instead. In other words, righteousness is treated as a kind of legal fiction—God regarding us as if we had lived a perfect life, even though we have not.There are aspects of the way imputed righteousness is taught that have been held since the earliest days of the church, while other parts originate with Luther, Calvin, and other Reformers.First, let me be clear: I am not denying that righteousness is, in some sense, credited to believers through faith—Scripture plainly teaches this. As Paul writes:“Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.” (Romans 4:3)What I am questioning is how that righteousness is given. The Reformers taught that Christ’s perfect obedience is literally and permanently transferred to the believer’s account. I disagree with that mechanism.The righteousness we receive is not Christ’s moral performance credited to our name but is shared with us through union with Christ. And as we’ll see, that difference is not a small one—it has extremely serious implications.Union With ChristI would argue that in order to understand imputed righteousness, we need to first understand the doctrine known as Union with Christ.If you have read the New Testament, you have likely noticed the repeated phrases “in Christ” or “in Him.” The idea is that, in a mysterious yet very real way, Christians are joined to Christ; we are said to be a part of His body.It is one of the most common themes in the New Testament. For example, Christians are said to be crucified with Christ, buried with Christ, raised with Christ, seated with Christ in the heavenly realms, hidden with Christ in God, alive in Christ, a new creation in Christ, blessed with every spiritual blessing in Christ, redeemed in Christ, forgiven in Christ, justified in Christ, sanctified in Christ, triumphing in Christ, and more.I would argue that the idea of us being “in Christ” is not poetic language but a real thing that happens to a Christian upon salvation. We are literally in Him in the same way that the Holy Spirit is in us. And why not? This is, after all, exactly what Jesus prayed to the Father would happen in the new covenant:John 17:21–23“That they may all be one; even as You, Father, are in Me and I in You, that they also may be in Us, so that the world may believe that You sent Me.The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one;I in them and You in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, so that the world may know that You sent Me, and loved them, even as You have loved Me.”So the idea is that Jesus was in God in the same way we are in Christ.It is not a perfect analogy, but it is something like three Russian dolls: the largest one being God, the middle one Jesus, and the smallest one us.How Union Shares Every BlessingThe consistent New Testament idea is that all the blessings that we can claim as Christians are ours only because Jesus has been given those blessings by God, and we share in them if we are in Him—if we abide in Him.For example, the Bible says that we are co-heirs with Christ. Christ has been given the Kingdom by God, and if we are in Him, we also share in that inheritance:Ephesians 1:11“In Him we have obtained an inheritance…”(Notice it says “in Him.”)His rewards are our rewards. Jesus says it this way, speaking to the Father:John 17:22“The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one.”Another important example: Jesus has attained eternal life, and Scripture says that if we are in Him, we share in His eternal life.1 John 5:11–12“And the testimony is this, that God has given us eternal life, and this life is in His Son.He who has the Son has the life; he who does not have the Son of God does not have the life.”John 6:56–57“He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him.As the living Father sent Me, and I live because of the Father, so he who eats Me, he also will live because of Me.”John 14:19–20“After a little while the world will no longer see Me, but you will see Me; because I live, you will live also.In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you.”Abiding and Remaining in ChristThe union-with-Christ idea cuts both ways, though. The New Testament is full of passages showing that one who abides in Him can fall away, be cut off, or be spit out.“Every branch in Me that does not bear fruit, He takes away; and every branch that bears fruit, He prunes it so that it may bear more fruit.” (John 15:2a)Paul makes it clear that we can be cut off from the olive tree:“…if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.” (Romans 11:22)Abiding or remaining in Christ is spoken of as conditional over and over in the New Testament.“For we have become partakers of Christ, if we hold fast the beginning of our assurance firm until the end.” (Hebrews 3:14)“Yet He has now reconciled you in His fleshly body through death, in order to present you before Him holy and blameless and beyond reproach—if indeed you continue in the faith…” (Colossians 1:22–23a)I would even argue that when Jesus spits out the lukewarm believers in Revelation, that shows that those believers were at one time abiding in Him—in order to be spit out of Him, they had to be in Him.So let’s bring all this back to Imputed Righteousness.In the end, both the early church and the Reformers sought to explain how believers come to share in Christ’s blessings—chief among them, His right standing before the Father. The difference, as I said earlier, lies in the mechanism by which that sharing is understood to occur.The Reformers believed Christ’s righteous record was credited to the believer’s account as a legal declaration of innocence. In this model, the believer’s status before God changes instantly and irrevocably, as if Christ’s perfect obedience were transferred to their ledger.The early church, by contrast, understood salvation less as a legal transaction and more as a transformational participation in the life of Jesus.The exchange between Christ and the believer is not a legal swap of status but a sharing of blessings and rewards that Jesus is the rightful owner of—including eternal life. The believer’s transformation in status is not a fiction maintained by divine bookkeeping.In addition, for the Reformers, righteousness was a completed judicial act in which God declares the believer righteous once and for all. Within this legal framework, justification was understood as irreversible—just as a person acquitted in court cannot be tried for the same offense twice.The early church, however, understood righteousness not as something handed down but as something entered into—a participation in the very life of Christ. It was not a status that could exist apart from Him, but a reality that continued only through ongoing union with Him. In that view, righteousness could not be treated as permanently secured in the abstract, because its endurance depended on remaining in Christ, the source of it.Proof Texts for Imputed RighteousnessWith all that in mind, let’s consider the main proof texts for the Reformed view of imputed righteousness. Here I would point out that the doctrine of Union with Christ is arguably the main point of these passages. If you have never noticed it before, you probably will now.Philippians 3:9“…and may be found in Him, not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law, but that which is through faith in Christ, the righteousness which comes from God on the basis of faith.”There are key truths here that Christians of every tradition can affirm: this righteousness is wholly from God and truly found in Christ. Again, the real difference lies not in its source but in its means—whether righteousness is something legally transferred to the believer, or something personally shared through a living union with Christ.When Paul says he wants to be “found in Him,” this is not a decorative phrase. It is the controlling idea of the whole passage. The righteousness Paul describes is not stored somewhere outside of Christ and then credited to him; it exists only within that living union.The next phrase says—“not having a righteousness of my own derived from the Law.” Both sides would agree that the believer’s righteousness is not self-generated. The question is whether Paul means God declares the believer righteous because Christ’s record is applied forensically, or whether he means the believer shares in God’s righteousness through union with Christ.The latter view is more coherent in my opinion, and the context of Philippians 3 supports this: after renouncing his own credentials, Paul longs to “gain Christ and be found in Him,” linking righteousness to knowing Him and sharing in His life (3:8–10). This is not a legal verdict applied once for all, but an ongoing, relational participation in the life of Christ.Then Paul concludes with “the righteousness which comes from God.” Notice again: it is the righteousness from God or of God, not “of Christ,” as the Calvinist tends to read it. In the Old Testament this phrase “righteousness of God” spoke of God’s covenant faithfulness—His saving power that sets things right (more on that later).So when Paul says he wants to be “found in Him… having the righteousness from God,” he means that his life has been relocated inside Christ, the place where God’s saving power operates.Romans 3:21“But now, apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets.”This verse marks a turning point in Paul’s letter to the Romans. Everything before it (1:18–3:20) has been about human unrighteousness: both Gentiles and Jews stand guilty before God, unable to justify themselves by obedience to the Law. Then comes Paul’s great “But now”—a shift from human failure to divine initiative. Now, something new has been revealed which is “the righteousness of God.”For the Reformed tradition, they understand “the righteousness of God” as Christ’s righteous status that comes from God and is imputed to the believer through faith. Yet, it does not say “the righteousness of Christ,” but “righteousness of God.” In fact, you can’t find the phrase “righteousness of Christ” in the Bible at all.In the Old Testament background that Paul is drawing on, “the righteousness of God” typically refers to God’s own covenant faithfulness—His saving power to set things right, to act consistently with His promises.The righteousness of God was when God showed up or revealed Himself in history in order to rescue His people or judge their enemies in accordance with His covenant promises to them. This is a well-established point, and many theological papers have been written on this subject. Basically, “righteousness of God” is His breaking into history to save His people.Paul is picking up that tradition when he says, “The righteousness of God has been manifested”—that is, it has appeared openly in history in the person and work of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the promised Messiah to the Jews and salvation to the Gentiles. God has shown Himself faithful to His promises to Israel and merciful to the nations in Jesus.So when Paul says, “Apart from the Law, the righteousness of God has been manifested,” he does not mean that a new kind of righteousness has been imported from outside or credited to our files. He means that what the Law and the Prophets long anticipated—God’s own act of putting the world to rights—has finally broken into history. God’s righteousness is not a moral grade handed down from heaven; it is His saving faithfulness unveiled in Christ, into which believers are now invited to step by faith.2 Corinthians 5:21“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us, so that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.”Paul’s compact—and famously difficult—summary in 2 Corinthians 5:21 deserves careful attention. Like Philippians 3:9, this text locates everything in Christ—union is again the mechanism. But this passage is more complex than the others we have looked at because Paul’s overarching purpose in this section is not just to preach the gospel but also to defend his apostolic ministry, and that dual purpose makes 2 Corinthians 5:21 multilayered.So let’s take this one step at a time, starting with the first phrase:“He made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us.”He says Christ was made sin in some way. My view is that this phrase recalls the Old Testament imagery of the scapegoat on the Day of Atonement, where the sins of the people were symbolically transferred to the scapegoat when the high priest would lay his hands on it and confess the sins of the people. The scapegoat was then set free, and it bore or carried those sins outside the camp into the wilderness. In a parallel way, Christ identifies with our sins and carries them away, and we are forgiven by God.“So that in Him we might become the righteousness of God.”At first glance, Reformed interpreters often see here a clear statement of imputed righteousness—that our sins were laid on Christ, and His righteousness was legally credited to us. But the wording itself resists that interpretation.Once again, Paul does not say “the righteousness of Christ.” He says “the righteousness of God.”Then comes the verb: we become. Paul does not say we receive righteousness or that we are declared righteous, but that we become it.This “becoming” idea connects beautifully with 1 Corinthians 1:30:“By His doing you are in Christ Jesus, who became for us wisdom from God, and righteousness and sanctification and redemption.”Notice the parallel—Christ became righteousness for us, and we become righteousness in Him. The verbs mirror each other, expressing shared life, not exchanged records.The Righteousness of GodNow we have to ask the harder question: what does Paul mean by “the righteousness of God” in this case?In the Hebrew Scriptures, as I have already alluded to, the phrase “the righteousness of God” often refers to God’s covenant faithfulness, particularly regarding saving His people or judging their enemies:“My righteousness is near, My salvation has gone forth, And My arms will judge the peoples; The coastlands will wait for Me, And for My arm they will wait expectantly.” (Isaiah 51:5)“In Your righteousness deliver me and rescue me; Incline Your ear to me and save me.” (Psalm 71:2)So when Paul says we “become the righteousness of God in Him,” he means that God’s saving power is now being made visible through those who are preaching the gospel.That is not to say that God’s righteousness cannot be understood as justification here—it can, because that is what the righteousness of God was doing in this case, saving people. It’s just that Paul is doing several things in this passage, and so it gets a bit complex.The Ministry LayerWhat I mean is that Paul’s immediate aim in this section is to describe and defend his ministry—what it means to be an ambassador of Christ. Throughout 2 Corinthians, Paul defends his ministry against misunderstanding, showing that his suffering, weakness, and endurance are not failures but evidence of God’s power working through him.2 Corinthians 5:18–20“All this is from God, who reconciled us to Himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation…Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, as though God were making His appeal through us.”That phrase—“God making His appeal through us”—is the key to verse 21. Paul sees his and the other coworkers in the gospel ministry as the continuation of God’s reconciling work. God’s righteousness—His covenant faithfulness and restoring power—is enacted through human agents like Paul who are preaching the gospel.In this sense, “becoming the righteousness of God” means that Paul and his coworkers are instruments of God’s saving power—His righteousness. Their ministry extends God’s action into the world. As they preach, God’s righteousness is revealed through them.That being said, we should not restrict the “we” in these passages only to the apostles and other evangelists. Indeed, Paul’s logic here clearly extends to the wider church: what is true of his ministry is true of every believer. The church as a whole shares in that same ministry of reconciliation, to a certain extent at least.After all, there is a dual purpose to Paul’s statement here, which is what makes the verse so rich. “We” refers both to Paul and other evangelists as God’s agents of reconciliation—which is a continuation of his main point about the defense of his apostolic ministry—but it’s also a picture of justification through union with Christ, just like the other passages we have looked at.Imputed Righteousness and Eternal SecurityIf there’s a single place where the Reformed reading and what I have argued in this chapter truly diverge, it’s here: eternal security.In the Reformed system, imputed righteousness becomes the lynchpin for “once saved, always saved.” The logic runs like this: if God has legally credited Christ’s perfect obedience to my account, then my standing before Him can never change—just as a courtroom verdict cannot be changed.But if, as we’ve seen, the New Testament speaks of righteousness as a result of being in Christ—as a life shared by union, not a status possessed apart from Him—then the conclusion about irrevocability doesn’t follow.The permanence of our standing depends not on an abstract legal deposit but on remaining in the One who is our righteousness (John 15:1–6; Colossians 1:21–23).Here lies the practical divide. In a strict imputation-as-legal-transfer model, present sin cannot affect one’s standing before God—only one’s fellowship or “rewards.”But in the union model, sin threatens communion with Christ. We can grieve the Holy Spirit—even quench or extinguish the Holy Spirit—through our sin. The call to holiness, then, is not decorative or motivational; it is existential.“Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.”— 1 John 3:7–8So the point of this chapter is not to deny that God “reckons” righteousness to believers. Scripture uses that language clearly. It is to insist that such reckoning never floats free from union. Once union is central, the supposed pipeline from imputed righteousness to eternal security breaks.Rejecting “once saved, always saved” does not mean believers cannot have assurance. Scripture teaches that we can know we are in Christ if we are presently abiding in Him.“Examine yourselves to see whether you are in the faith; test yourselves. Do you not realize that Christ Jesus is in you—unless, of course, you fail the test?”— 2 Corinthians 13:5“We know that we abide in Him and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.”— 1 John 4:13“By this we know that we are in Him: whoever keeps His word.”— 1 John 2:5True assurance is not presumption; it’s the present witness of the Spirit and the evidence of a life that continues to abide in Christ (Romans 8:16; John 15:10).ConclusionIn sum, the question is not whether righteousness is God’s gift, but how God gives it.To be found in Him is to have His standing, His life, His Spirit, and His rewards—including eternal life.Thus, the church’s task is not to claim and rely on a past verdict of righteousness, but to abide in the Righteous One. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

Divorce, Remarriage, and the Teaching of JesusWelcome back to Vine Abiders. In our study through the Sermon on the Mount, we’ve come to Matthew 5:31–32—the words of Jesus on divorce and remarriage. It’s not an easy passage. In fact, this subject has followed me in a unique way.Last year I wrote a book on it—Remarriage After Divorce: A Biblical Defense of the Traditional Christian View. I didn’t publish it under my full name but under C.A. White, because I was hesitant to make it public. It’s a hard teaching. In America, almost everyone knows someone who has been divorced and remarried. Writing about it feels like a direct challenge to people we love.But the Sermon on the Mount won’t let us skip difficult words. Jesus’ next subject is divorce and remarriage, so today I’m going to walk through the main arguments of that book and summarize what Scripture and church history actually say.Three Views Within Evangelical ChristianityThere are three main positions in the church today:* The Permissive ViewDivorce is allowed in cases such as fornication or abandonment, and remarriage is permitted in those cases. This is common in modern evangelicalism.* The No-Divorce ViewDivorce is never allowed for any reason, and remarriage is only possible after the death of a spouse. This is relatively new and niche, though it has modern proponents.* The Traditional ViewDivorce may be permitted in limited cases, but remarriage while the former spouse lives is always adultery. This was the view of the early church and is the position I defend.The Witness of the Early ChurchFor most of church history, the consensus was clear: divorce might be tolerated in some situations, but remarriage was forbidden as long as the spouse was alive.William Heth and Gordon Wenham’s Jesus and Divorce puts it bluntly:“To list those who hold that remarriage after divorce is contrary to the gospel teaching is to call a roll of the best-known early Christian theologians… in all, 25 individual writers and two early councils forbid remarriage after divorce.”This wasn’t fringe. It was universal. The change came with the Reformation.How the Reformation Changed EverythingErasmus, an early reformer, was among the first to suggest that remarriage might be a “social good.” His reasoning wasn’t biblical but pragmatic—remarriage, he thought, could relieve social pressures and emotional pain.Luther went further. He argued that adultery was a capital offense in Old Testament law. Since adulterers “deserved death,” they could be considered dead in God’s eyes, and the innocent spouse was therefore free to remarry.Ironically, the same Luther who often dismissed the Old Testament as binding on Christians leaned on Old Testament stoning laws to justify remarriage. From there, Protestant teaching began to diverge from the early church.What Jesus Actually SaidWhen we read all of Jesus’ statements together, three related sins emerge:* Divorcing a spouse and marrying another is adultery. (Mark 10:11–12; Luke 16:18; Matthew 19:9)* Marrying someone who has been divorced is adultery. (Luke 16:18; Matthew 5:32)* Improperly divorcing someone makes them guilty of adultery. (Matthew 5:32)This isn’t just about divorce. The real issue is remarriage.Take Luke 16:18:“Everyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and he who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.”Notice the universality: “everyone.” There is no exception clause for remarriage.Or Mark 10:11–12:“Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery.”This passage makes clear that the sin applies to both sexes. Whether husband or wife initiates, remarriage is adultery.Matthew 5 and Matthew 19Matthew 5:31–32 is, in my view, the Rosetta Stone for understanding Matthew 19:9.In Matthew 5, Jesus says that improper divorce causes the innocent spouse to commit adultery when they inevitably remarry. The exception clause (“except for immorality”) protects the innocent party from being guilty of causing that sin. But it says nothing about remarriage being allowed.When we get to Matthew 19, the grammar is more difficult:“Whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman, commits adultery.”Does the exception apply to divorce only, or also to remarriage? The early church, whose native language was Greek, interpreted it to apply only to divorce. They never read it as permission to remarry.The disciples’ shocked reaction confirms this. They said, “If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” Their extreme response only makes sense if Jesus was teaching that remarriage after divorce is never permitted.Paul’s SummaryPaul echoes this perfectly in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11:“But to the married I give instructions (not I, but the Lord), that the wife should not leave her husband—but if she does leave, she must remain unmarried, or else be reconciled to her husband.”Divorce? Possible.Remarriage? Not permitted.Reconciliation? Encouraged.That’s the consistent pattern of Scripture.Deuteronomy 24 and the Logic PuzzleMuch of the modern debate about divorce and remarriage really comes back to Deuteronomy 24:1–4. This passage is the starting point for the Pharisees’ question to Jesus in Matthew 19, and it’s also where we see how easy it is to miss the original point. At first glance, the text seems to assume that divorce will happen — it takes for granted that a husband might write his wife a certificate of divorce if he finds “some indecency” in her. But the real emphasis is on what happens next: if she marries another man and that marriage ends (either by divorce or by death), she may not return to her first husband, “since she has been defiled.”The crucial detail is that the woman’s defilement comes not from the divorce itself, but from the remarriage. That is what renders her “defiled.” Some modern pastors try to argue that the defilement is tied to the first divorce or to the idea of returning to a former spouse, but that doesn’t make sense of the structure. The law is written like a logic puzzle: no matter how you trace the “if” statements, you end up at the same conclusion — it is the remarriage that introduces defilement.And notice how airtight this is. Even if the second husband dies (which would normally make remarriage permissible), the text still says she is defiled. The inspired conclusion is unavoidable: yes, divorce happens, but remarriage while the original spouse lives is prohibited.Did Divorce Always Imply Remarriage?This brings us to a critical modern question: does the right to divorce inherently include the right to remarry? Many scholars sympathetic to remarriage argue that it does. They suggest that in Jewish practice, a writ of divorce automatically carried with it permission to remarry — otherwise, what would be the point?But when we examine the actual evidence, that case falls apart. The scholar David Instone-Brewer is often cited as proving that ancient divorce certificates included the right to remarry. But in fact, only about one-third of the surviving documents say anything about remarriage. What do they all mention? The return of the dowry. That was the central legal function of the writ: ensuring that a woman’s inheritance was not stolen from her when she was sent away.So why do some certificates add a remarriage clause? Likely because, by Jesus’ day, remarriage had become the cultural assumption — even though it contradicted the law’s deeper logic. Writing “you are free to marry another” into a minority divorce documents was not proof that God had sanctioned it. It was a human addition, reflecting the Pharisees’ and Sadducees’ permissive mindset.And this is where the Essenes provide an important counterpoint. This Jewish sect — likely the one John the Baptist was associated with — taught that while divorce could occur, remarriage was not lawful. Their conclusion matched the plain logic of Deuteronomy 24. So, contrary to the “universal consensus” that Instone-Brewer claims, at least some Jewish voices in the Second Temple period stood firmly against remarriage after divorce.The Disciples’ Shock and the Eunuch TeachingAll of this context helps explain the disciples’ stunned reaction in Matthew 19. Jesus is not merely weighing in on whether “indecency” meant adultery or something trivial like burnt food. He is cutting through the Pharisees’ favorite debate and returning to the real point of Deuteronomy 24: divorce may happen, but remarriage is adultery.That is why the disciples respond, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” They realized the stakes: once married, you are bound unless your spouse dies. Divorce does not open the door to a new marriage. And this is why Jesus immediately shifts into the teaching about eunuchs — a teaching that only makes sense if His point was that some people will have to remain single for the sake of the kingdom.The Hardest QuestionThis leads to the most difficult issue: what about those who are already remarried while their first spouse lives?John Piper, who holds the same traditional view, argues that such people should repent in heart but remain in the remarriage, honoring their current vows. Others make similar arguments.But I struggle with this. Would we give the same counsel to someone in a homosexual marriage? Or to someone who made vows in a cult? Why should adultery be treated differently?I don’t pretend to have all the answers. This is why I hesitated to even release the book. I fear both saying too much and saying too little. But we cannot simply presume upon God’s mercy when His Word is this clear.Why It MattersPaul warns in Galatians 5 that “adultery, fornication, and uncleanness” are works of the flesh—and that those who do such things will not inherit the kingdom of God. This isn’t academic. It’s eternal.The early church took Jesus’ words at face value. The Reformers shifted the standard. And now we live in a time when the permissive view is almost assumed. But Jesus hasn’t changed. His words still stand.Closing ThoughtsI don’t share this lightly. I know the pain it causes, the personal stories it touches, the lives it unsettles. But faithfulness requires us to look at what Jesus actually said and not twist His words to fit our desires.If you want to go deeper, my book Remarriage After Divorce is available on Amazon, but I’ve also made the PDF and audiobook available for free on YouTube. Not because I want to profit from it, but because I believe this conversation is too important to hide.As always, I invite you to wrestle with Scripture, pray deeply, and abide in the Vine—even when His words are hard.Show Notes:Remarriage After Divorce by C.A. White on Amazon:https://www.amazon.com/Remarriage-after-Divorce-Traditional-Christian/dp/B0DPNBMLDBFree PDF of Remarriage After Divorce by C.A. White:Free audiobook on Youtube Remarriage After Divorce by C.A. White This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

The Consequences of Anger: A Study of Matthew 5:23–26Welcome back to the Vine Abiders study. We are continuing our walk through the Sermon on the Mount. Last week, we began looking at Jesus’ “new commandments” in Matthew 5:21–22, where He equates anger with murder. This week, we move into verses 23–26, which are still about anger, but focus more on its consequences.Recap: Jesus on Anger (Matthew 5:21–22)Jesus says: “You have heard that the ancients were told, ‘You shall not commit murder,’ and ‘Whoever commits murder shall be liable to the court.’ But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever says to his brother, ‘You good-for-nothing,’ shall be guilty before the Supreme Court; and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the fiery hell.”We asked the question: what are we going to do with Jesus’ teaching? He seems to be giving us new commandments to follow, which is very different from the way most evangelical churches present this passage. Luther and later Protestant tradition often taught that Jesus’ impossible commands were simply meant to show us we cannot obey. But the early church understood differently. Polycarp, a disciple of John the Apostle, said: “He who raised Him up from the dead will raise us up also, if we do His will and walk in His commandments, and love what He loved, keeping ourselves from all unrighteousness, covetousness, love of money, evil speaking, false witness, not rendering evil for evil, railing for railing, blow for blow, or cursing for cursing.”The early church was consistent. They did not teach sinless perfection. They did not teach salvation by works. They taught that salvation is free and undeserved, but that abiding in Christ means continuing in Him—keeping His commandments by the power of the Spirit. When Jesus says anger is equivalent to murder, He is stating truth, not exaggeration. Indulging lust means the only thing keeping you from adultery is opportunity. Indulging anger means the only thing keeping you from murder is opportunity. Virtue is not found in the absence of opportunity; it is found in resisting the desire itself.Anger as AddictionAnger is addictive. Biochemically, it produces dopamine just like alcohol, pornography, or gambling. The strongest dopamine rush comes when anger feels justified—when someone cuts you off in traffic, when rage-bait floods your feed, or when you see someone “get what’s coming to them.”For years I believed anger and lust could not be resisted, that temptation always led to sin. But I came to realize something simple and life-changing: “The first look is temptation. The second look is sin.” I can’t avoid seeing the girl walking down the street. I can’t avoid the initial spark of anger when I’m wronged. But I can resist indulging it. That’s the difference, and that’s where victory lies. Like any addiction, it’s hard at first, but resisting gets easier with practice. Resist the devil, and he will flee.The Fear of the LordNo one overcomes a loved addiction without something monumental motivating them. Meth addicts know it destroys them but keep using. Anger is no different. What then is strong enough to break its hold? The Bible tells us: the fear of the Lord.Isaiah 33:6 calls it “His treasure.” Proverbs 14:27 says, “The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, that one may avoid the snares of death.” Proverbs 16:6 declares, “By the fear of the Lord one keeps away from evil.”Do not let anyone steal this treasure from you. Many churches today downplay the fear of God, redefining it as mere reverence. But Scripture is clear: fear is fear. Jesus Himself warned about hell repeatedly, and the early church embraced holy fear as the path away from sin. Without it, the bondage of anger will never be broken.Anger and PrayerMatthew 5:23–24 says, “Therefore, if you are presenting your offering at the altar, and there remember that your brother has something against you, leave your offering there before the altar and go; first be reconciled to your brother, and then come and present your offering.”Jesus says reconciliation is a higher priority than sacrifice, even higher than prayer. Before you pray, forgive. Mark 11:25–26 reinforces this: “Whenever you stand praying, forgive, if you have anything against anyone, so that your Father who is in heaven will also forgive you your transgressions. But if you do not forgive, neither will your Father forgive your transgressions.”Peter writes in 1 Peter 3:7 that husbands must honor their wives “so that your prayers will not be hindered.” He goes on to say, “The eyes of the Lord are toward the righteous, and His ears attend to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”If you feel like your prayers are dead, consider whether unforgiveness is at the root. Scripture is blunt: God will not hear the prayers of those who will not forgive.Doors to the EnemyPaul warns in Ephesians 4:26–27: “Be angry, and do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger, and give no opportunity to the devil.” Anger gives Satan a foothold. Bitterness grieves the Holy Spirit. Cain’s story in Genesis 4 illustrates this. God told him, “Sin is crouching at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it.” Cain refused, and his anger led to murder.Hebrews 12:14–15 warns that bitterness can cause many to be defiled, and that those who refuse to pursue peace and sanctification “will not see the Lord.” This is not a minor issue. Anger, left unchecked, can destroy faith itself.Settle QuicklyJesus continues in Matthew 5:25–26: “Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. Truly, I say to you, you will not come out of there until you have paid the last penny.”The immediate context is debtor’s prison in Roman society. But the principle is broader. Settle disputes quickly, before they escalate. Paul echoes this in 1 Corinthians 6, rebuking believers for suing one another. He says, “Why not rather be wronged? Why not rather be defrauded?”The cure for anger is dying to your rights. If you cling to fairness, you will never find peace. But if you lay down your rights—if you turn the other cheek, if you let go of your coat as well as your shirt, if you walk the extra mile—you will be free.Practical StepsFear God. Recognize that anger can damn the soul. Reconcile quickly. Do not take believers to court. Esteem others higher than yourself. Pray for your enemies, especially those who fuel your anger. Practice losing arguments and letting others have the last word. It is healing to die to self.ConclusionAnger may feel justified, but indulging it is deadly. It blocks your prayers, opens doors to Satan, defiles the soul, and endangers salvation. But through the power of the Holy Spirit, through holy fear, and through humble obedience to Jesus, anger can be overcome.Take Jesus at His word. Reconcile quickly. Forgive freely. Live at peace with all people. The path away from anger is not weakness—it is freedom.Vine Abiders ResourcesPodcast: Apple & Spotify (search Vine Abiders)Livestream: Wednesdays at 7 PM EST (YouTube & Facebook)Long-form series: The Deformation Series on Substack This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

This is part 4 of a series that will later be turned into a video on this channel This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com

This is part 2 of a series that will later be turned into a video series and book. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit vineabiders.substack.com