Re: Justice or Mercy in the Law of Liberty
Sure, you are correct that preference is one thing. That is a personal conscience issue. But if one were to imply that this all that is allowed by God that is totally another thing.
No error is made in seeking a virgin. Yet no error is done in taking to oneself someone who is, just like all of us, being restored, and is restored by the grace of God.
Theologically, all of us were vile, stained, and prostitutes before the holy Christ. Yet he took us to himself and is restoring us to himself in grace. With the Bible using the metaphor of marriage our union with Christ it looks like this on a personal basis and corporate basis:
Personal Union with Christ Metaphor
1. We are lost, fallen, depraved, stained, and defiled.
2. The Father makes an arrangement/selection of someone for his Son Christ.
3. Christ pays the price for the person
4. Christ sends another of himself, the Holy Spirit, to take his bride unto himself and draw her to himself.
5. The Holy Spirit draws and renwews the one bought by Christ and places that person in Christ, seals the person, and gives unto that person a positional righteousness.
Corporate Union with Christ Metaphor
1. The bride of Christ is fallen, depraved, sinful, and defiled.
2. The Father has agreed with the Son that if he dies for the people that he will elect in the Son a people to take unto himself. The agreement is reached and redemption and selection are set for a people.
3. The Spirit draws that body of people unto Christ.
4. The Spirit works with that entire body of people making them holy.
5. At some unknown hour Christ returns to fetch his bride and he takes all of the bride back with him physically to where they all unite in one place together and then celebrate the marriage feast of the union. The bride is given unto Christ as spotless, pure, radiant virgin (even though she was historically defiled in the past).
Therefore, we must look at the thrust of the Bible and follow the metaphor theologically within our daily practice. If someone, and I'm not saying this is what is being said but just providing a theological basis for a right belief, does want a sound theology they must consider this marriage metaphor of the Bible.
If a person were to say: it is ungodly for a man to take unto himself anyone other than a virgin or widow then the marriage metaphor of Christ is broken. The theological principle is that by grace alone we, the bride, are being restored unto Christ, the groom and head. Thus one cannot without error say that a man cannot take unto himself someone who is not historically pure because Christ takes us, his bride, who are by far nowhere close to being historically pure. When we come to Christ we are made pure, but it is not on our basis but on the basis of grace where we are cleansed and restored, and thus given to Christ clean. We were once in union with Satan and then we were brought into union with Christ.
In application it would then mean this: a man may take unto himself someone who has been historically defiled so long as that person is now clean in Christ. Historical sin in one's past no longer rules and reigns if Christ has now taken that person unto himself by grace which is more powerful than any sin. If Christ has accepted that person and cleansed that person then we too can follow in the footsteps of Christ and take a person he has taken. To say otherwise would, of course, cast a blight on the character of Christ who himself has taken unto himself as a bride a people who are not historically clean but now by grace are considered and seen as clean.
Furthermore, a man can has the liberty in the Lord's law of liberty of mercy and grace that he can give grace unto a woman and be an aid to her healing from her past. This is a choice to choose and love like Christ chose to love in mercy and grace.
If someone demands and makes it an absolute requirement in all cases in all places at all times that a Christian cannot marry someone who has been defiled in the past then such a theological position attempts to tarnish the very work of the Lord. It suggests that we must act in a way that even he, Christ, did not act or require. I suppose it is like the Pharisees who were acting in such ways that by the extra rules they were acting and living by far more than was required of God himself. Pride was their root problem. But if Christ can restore us to take us into himself how much more so can he make a person with historical sin clean enough for a man to marry who also still has sin in his past as well? That is the marvelous nature of grace, which is so often lost in man's religion of self-effort and pride. Christ saw the grace of the Father enough to cleanse us so that we could be in union with him and his Father. Thanks be unto the Lord for such grace. Grace is the sweetest sound to the ear for a saint for without it none of us would have any hope and any relationship at all.
Likewise, there are ladies out there who have indeed sinned in their past. Historically they are defiled, like we all were in the past sinners. Some of the sin was purposeful choice and some by default but all still with historical sin. But with the marvelous grace of Christ these ladies can be restored, and are restored in Christ, just as we have been through a power that is more powerful than sin, namely through the love of grace of our beloved Lord whose love and grace conquers and is greater than all sin.
In summary a person has to choose one or the other as the thrust of his theology. Either justice must reign or mercy and grace must reign. They are exclusive and cannot be on equal grounds. If one chooses to read the Bible with the glasses of justice on then they will naturally gravitate towards the idea of justice and works and efforts as the key to what is good and allowed by God. Error is to be met with justice and condemnation. But if one chooses to read the Bible from a set of glasses called grace then they will recognize and see justice, good works and bad works, yet they will focus and choose to operate and allow others to operate within the sphere of mercy and grace. By the law of non-contradiction one cannot view the Bible without one theme taking precedence over another. So which one does the Bible suggest we, his mercy children, view as the supreme perspective to view all of life through? The Bible says: "so speak ye and so do, as about by a law of liberty to be judged, for the judgment without kindness [is] to him not having done kindness, and exult doth kindness over judgment" (James 2:12-13 Youngs Literal Translation). The ESV says: "So speak and so act as those who are to be judged under the law of liberty. For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy. Mercy triumphs over judgment."
When I stand before the Lord to give an account of my life I today have to choose how I want to be viewed by the overall attitude and actions I have lived in life. My goal, though imperfect as they are, is to stand there and be seen before Christ as one who loved in mercy above and over justice and judgment. I want to read the Bible, view life, and treat people I meet with the mercy and grace of Christ, just like he saw the law of mercy and grace as more important for his relationship with me. Christ chose to live in liberty and apply grace and mercy to me. Could he have treated me with justice by his own choice? Sure he could have. It would have been just for God to judge me and condemn me. It was within his right personally. But, he chose to apply mercy and grace. Therefore, since I am a mercy child, and since I'm commanded to love like he has loved me and since he has commanded that I act and live under the law of liberty, I want to view the world through the glasses of mercy which triumps and takes precedent over justice and judgment. Thus, I can, and any man can without error choose to treat people as Christ has so treated us (with liberty), which includes the taking unto oneself a bride who has been historically defiled. To restrict one's freedom and liberty and call it error in this area is to also call Christ's liberty and actions with us as error. This is how mercy children live and act because we are groomed this way by the groom, our head Christ. We view life, or at least attempt to, through the mercy glasses. That is one way in which we love as Christ has so loved us.
Dr. Allen
PS Over the years I've seen that those who live and view life through the lens of justice or in the sphere of justice that they tend to also be critical people, skeptical people, very harsh and ill spirited people. From my observations with disciples and students those that live by the law of justice they are also apparently at times are oblivious to their own sins in the past and present and tend to lean towards hypocrisy. They condemn others for their sin yet they do and act in like, if not the same, ways of those they condemn. Again, I'm not saying this is the case here with DTT or others posting thus far herein on this thread. I can't read the heart so I could not say for sure. But those who live with the justice focus most of the time don't even see it or know they are living in this way with a hypocritical, skeptical, critical, and judgmental outlook on life. Sociologically speaking from anthropological studies this seems to be a correct view of those who focus more on justice than they do upon grace and mercy. The focus of one's life makes a huge difference in how one relates to others in life. In personal relationships, church relationships, and in employment relationships these people tend to be hard to get along with as they tend to be judgmental, critical, quick to judge and discard others if they do not match up to their perceived view of what is just and holy. It is clearly a contrast to the way in which Christ would have us live as mercy children. Do mercy children acknowledge error and sin in one's life, past and present? Of course. To grant mercy implies there is something needed for mercy. But mercy children choose to make mercy a higher law than the lawe of justice.
