My Most Controversial Opinions and Millennials

 

I want to have a bit of a discussion about some of my most controversial opinions and how they are received by different generations, particularly millennials and boomers. I think there are some important insights in this discussion.

My most controversial opinions, according to the responses I get, are, ironically, things that pretty much every previous generation of Christians agreed on, at least before the middle of the 19th century:

• Men should provide.
• Men should lead the home.
• Women should keep the home.

• All who believe in Jesus are true Israel.
• There is no rapture.
• Psychology is more harmful than good.

I find that many millennial men and women see the first three as personal attacks, or even attacks on their mental health and the mental health of others. They immediately frame the views as unfair, mean, or harmful. Millennials have been trained to see traditional biblical standards as causes of low self-esteem, sometimes severe mental breakdown, or other socials ills. Pick the issue, you will find millennials who will respond this way. I have identified a few here, but the same will be true of gender issues, and a host of political issues.

The last three issues usually upset boomers. This generation, generally speaking, hears those positions as at least severely errant teaching, although some see them as basically apostasy. If you maintain these positions with determination and unapologetically, as every pastor should, they really can fly off the handle about it. Some boomers even see issues 4 and 5 as pillars around which the church should base its teaching and practice. Especially if Israel happens to currently be at war, which just happens to be a lot of the time.

The last point is usually seen as equally insulting to both most millennials and many boomers. Millennials were raised to see soul health as the sole providence of psychology (used collectively including all its diverse branches; counselling, psychology, psychiatry, psychoanalysis, etc.). Many millennials see people who are sceptical of psychology as people who are in need of deep therapy themselves, and often as unsafe persons, or simply as people out of touch with modern developments. They have placed psychology, in its various forms, as an authority in their lives, and one that people should submit to. I even know of people who refuse to engage with their own extended family over minor issues, because those family members have refused to go to therapy. These millennials see this as a reason to remove these people from their lives. Boomers were the generation that taught them that, though you will probably find more boomers who are still sceptical of the profession.

But theological positions noted above are all really standard Christian positions. There is nothing historically controversial about them at all. They are all well established and widely held within Orthodoxy, and really well represented across the denominations. None of these positions would have even caused much controversy in the vast majority of the church prior to about 1960. Though the white-anting of these views all began in the middle of 19^th century, within a few years of each other…how interesting.

This is just more evidence of the inverted culture we live in. When Christians find orthodox, moderate, and standard Christian teaching offensive, and often feel like biblical truth is a personal attack on them, you know the church has come to place the Baal’s and Asherah’s before the Lord in many areas of their life. But I’d like to process why this might be happening. Because this can give us insights into things that went wrong with these generations, that may help us correct them or help those coming up.

Why is this Happening?

One reason we see these kinds of responses is because people rarely evaluate a doctrine in isolation. They evaluate it through the lens of what they think the doctrine implies, especially about their identity and their worldview. For instance, "Men should provide" is often not heard as a statement about responsibility, it is instead heard as a statement about economic dependence, restricted opportunities, or unequal value. "Women should keep the home" is often not heard as a statement about vocation, it is instead heard as a statement about limiting women or confining them to a role. Keeping the home is the most important role a woman can fulfil, but many people have been conditioned by decades of propaganda that has framed home keeping as a lesser role. "There is no rapture" is often not heard as an exegetical argument, rather it is heard as an attack on a theological system people have been taught for decades; an idea many of them have personally placed their hopes in and expect to be fulfilled in their lifetime. "Psychology is more harmful than good" is often not heard as a critique of a discipline, it is instead heard as an attack on people who received help through counselling or therapy. In other words, controversy often arises because people mentally attach emotional baggage to the proposition.

Another reason this happens is that many Christians today are formed by multiple authorities simultaneously: Scripture, church tradition, family culture, political ideology, therapeutic culture, and social media. They may say that biblical truth is their greatest concern, but they are thoroughly unaware of how they were raised in a form of Christian doctrine that is utterly alien to Church history and in many ways actually opposes what Christianity historically was. Some have even been trained to see the Church throughout history as almost universally suspect, anyway, so appeals to history to evaluate their doctrine fall on deaf ears. This is a form of modern supremacy, or chronological snobbery, but those doing it are often unaware that is what they are doing.

So, when one of those authorities conflicts with another the person often experiences tension. The doctrine then feels threatening because it threatens a larger worldview, not just a single belief. It becomes more than a disagreement, it becomes an attack on their identity. This is especially true today, in a society where identity is among the chief gods of the modern culture.

Generally speaking, the different generations get upset about different historically Orthodox doctrines. There are obviously exceptions in each generation, but these generational divides provide us with interesting insight, so they are worth delving into.

Millennials

Millennials were formed during the triumph of therapy culture. Think about how therap infused even pop-culture in the 90’s. Star Trek Next Generation put a psychologist on their bridge. Shows like Fraser and the Sopranos were touch stones of the millennial generation, and both shows explicitly centred around a psychological framework. Home Improvement, a prominent comedy of the 90’s, was presented as a masculine centred family comedy, but if you rewatch it you will see that it is a clever feminist reframing of men, based around psychology, and Tim ‘the tool man’ Taylor quits his job at the end of the show so his feminist wife can pursue her desired psychology career. This message was just dumped on this generation from every direction.

The dominant cultural message was not merely, "What is true?" but "What is healthy?" and often what feels harmful, hurtful or emotionally damaging. This message became a mantra of the millennial generation. As a result, many Millennials instinctively evaluate ideas according to psychological impact before the consider their theological accuracy. In other words, they immediately think about how the idea makes them feel, and they may never even get to evaluating its validity. That it makes them feel bad is enough for them to know it must be wrong. This is their guiding philosophy, at least for many.

This does not necessarily mean that they reject biblical authority. Rather, many in this generation have been trained to believe that biblical authority and psychological flourishing must always align in the way modern psychology defines flourishing. So, when they hear traditional teachings on family structure, they often ask questions like, "What effect does this have on people?" before asking "Is it true?" That is a very different starting point from previous generations. And it blinds them to their ability to correctly identify rebellion against God on many issues. But they simultaneously often feel superior to previous generations while doing this at the same time.

We were taught about post-modernism and political correctness in schools. But many millennials did not realize they were being formed to live out these principles through therapy culture. Therapy culture cares more about “Your truth” rather than the truth. Therapy culture cares more about not offending someone than speaking what is true. Boomers pushed these ideas, but millennials were moulded by them. Many more than others.

Boomers

Boomers on the other hand were converted, discipled, or matured during the period when dispensationalism was highly influential, prophecy conferences were common, and evangelical publishing was dominated by futurist end times views. And you can understand why. They were born after the biggest, most apocalyptic-like war in history, then the founding of a country called Israel, the rise of the beast-like communist states, the invention of the nuclear threat, and more. Their generation had many reasons to consider that the times and ages were coming to an end in their day. As a result, positions like a future ethnic-Israel focus or a pre-tribulation rapture can feel foundational to them rather than secondary. These ideas were in the air they breathed in many churches. When someone challenges those views, the challenge can feel larger than it actually is, it can feel existential.

These are generalizations of course. Many boomers were strongly grounded in the secure walls of orthodox bible teaching and not drawn to the novel doctrines of their age. However, many, many were, and many of these people take criticism of their views not just personally, but as an attack on the foundations of Christianity itself. The rapture is not just a biblical possibility it is part of a framework that places the country called Israel at the centre of world events and in their eyes confirms the validity of God’s word. This is a big deal for them, and you can understand why.

So, what is happening here is that people have been largely reshaped by the cultural zeitgeist of their days, therefore they see authority quite differently. Millennials see affirming feelings as an intrinsic responsibility of any truth teller, and if he can’t do this, then he probably should not speak. Boomers see Israel as central to both world events, bible teaching and eschatological timelines, it is a linchpin, not just an idea. Imagine some young guy telling them they are wrong about fringe beliefs they thought were central and have held for most of their lives.

But as the power of millennials is rising in the church and society, I want to talk about the reasons for their response some more.

Therapyism Overtook Our Culture

Millennials were the first Christian generation raised almost entirely after the therapeutic revolution had become the dominant framework for understanding human beings. I watched a recent movie with my family on the Holidays called Anaconda. It is a self-aware remake of an old 90’s movie. And it is the most explicit exploitation of millennial tropes and ideas I have ever seen, and I thoroughly enjoyed it as a result. Especially, when one of the films makers noted they should make sure that “intergenerational trauma” was woven into the story. The movie is explicitly seeking to make millennials laugh at themselves. And making them laugh about how many feel hurt by their parents landed in a particularly savage but clever way, because it is true that many millennials are obsessed with these ideas.

Historically, Christians tended to ask questions like, What is true? What is righteous? What is sinful? What is my duty? What has God commanded? How should I obey? These questions were answered in a way that created objective boundaries within which people functioned and could often flourish in society. Even when Christians failed to obey, those categories generally remained intact.

Therapeutic culture rearranges the hierarchy of questions and places feelings as supreme: Is it healthy? Is it harmful? Is it affirming? Is it validating? Is it emotionally safe? Does it damage self-worth? Notice the very significant shift. The centre of gravity has moved from moral categories to psychological categories. This does not mean therapeutic culture abolishes morality. It simply relocates morality.

Sin is redefined as harm.

Virtue is redefined as wellness.

Wisdom is redefined as self-awareness.

Salvation is redefined as healing.

The saint becomes the therapist.

The confessional becomes the counselling room.

The pastor increasingly becomes a life coach.

Boomers, and older Gen X, remember a time when this was not the predominant culture. You see this in Gen X movies like Lethal Weapon where the therapist is played for laughs by the damaged but entertaining Martin Riggs. But Millennials were, as we noted above, forged in this culture.

By the time Millennials were growing up every institution spoke the language of therapy: schools, television, movies, universities, HR Departments, and especially churches. Churches took on board psychology like it was a key to unlocking the New Testament. The culture’s views on psychology had changed so much that while in the early Lethal Weapon movies the police psychologist was played as a joke, by the last movie the best police had degrees in psychology. These themes were all over our society everywhere. It is remarkable that as many millennials resisted this as they did, because most did not.

A millennial could spend twenty years being taught a therapeutic anthropology, at a popular level of course, before ever reading serious theology, if they even ever did. As a result, many Christians do not merely believe therapeutic assumptions, they experience them as self-evident reality. For example, older Christians might hear, "Take up your cross" and think that sounds difficult. Many millennials hear, "That sounds psychologically dangerous." Those are not the same reaction, not at all. Even more relevant to our topic, when a millennial woman hears “submit to your husband” she often hears this as a dangerous position to put herself in that questions her self-worth. When a millennial man hears, “husbands must provide” and thinks about the fact that it hard, he will often think that it is no wonder that so many men are breaking down, “That is too hard man, too hard.” Too hard to achieve, and to harshly spoken at the same time. That is a common millennial response.

Feelings have become the ultimate authority. Even in young men and women from whom you would not expect it. Because they were enculturated in a society which made them think that way.

This is why when you say, "Men should provide" millennials do not hear that. They hear you say that women are being limited. Likewise, they do not hear, "Men should lead the home" as an obligation, they hear, "Someone's autonomy is being restricted." Why? Because therapy culture places autonomy, near the top of the moral hierarchy.

In fact, therapy culture can be defined as “autonomy culture”, because that is really what it is. The worst thing that can happen to a person is not sin it is loss of self-expression. The highest good becomes authenticity, not honouring your obligations. Therefore, any doctrine that introduces hierarchy, authority, obligation, sacrifice, submission, or duty immediately sounds suspicious. Not because millennials have carefully refuted the doctrine, but because the doctrine collides with their deepest held assumptions about human flourishing. They hear at the same time both the limitation on their desires, and also the lack of validation of their feelings, and these are the too greatest sins to this generation.

They would see this as traumatic and this is why they will discuss these issues in the language of trauma. Originally, trauma referred to genuinely severe experiences. Thinks like, combat, or abuse, or violence, or catastrophe. Today the concept is often expanded to include experiences that previous generations would have categorized differently. The practical effect is that disagreement increasingly gets interpreted through therapeutic categories.

A doctrine is no longer simply wrong, it is harmful, “Your teaching on women in the bible hurts women!” A sermon is no longer merely mistaken, it is damaging, “I am afraid of the effect on my family if you don’t affirm my strict interpretation of this passage.” A command is no longer difficult, it is traumatizing, “You can’t tell me to obey my husband, what right do you have to do that?”

This creates a situation where theological disagreement feels like psychological violence. That is why some reactions seem wildly disproportionate. The person is not experiencing an intellectual debate, they believe they are experiencing actual harm. And I mean they believe it. They really do believe that is what is happening to them.

And, what is worse, is that churches took this on board probably more than any other institution. It is important to note that millennials did not create this, boomers did. Millennials were forged in this changed outlook. Many churches slowly shifted from centring their teaching around repentance, holiness, obedience, and self-denial, toward things like healing, wholeness, recovery, or emotional health. None of those latter things are inherently bad, but they do become bad when they are made to become primary.

Theological disagreements are no longer debates over objective reality. They are situations in which emotional harm and damage can be done. They hamper someone’s healing, they delay their recovery, they have a negative effect on their emotional health. Therapy culture has neutered most of an entire generation, who now wince like vampires when a window is opened at noon, when they hear a long held Christian belief that disagrees with their identity and affects their emotional state.

Underneath the surface of these discussions is often this deeper conflict between two rival anthropologies:

1. The biblical view that man's fundamental problem is sin and his fundamental need is reconciliation to God.
2. The therapeutic view that man's fundamental problem is psychological injury and his fundamental need is healing of the self.

Once those two systems are distinguished, many otherwise puzzling reactions begin to make sense.

I think it is for this reason that millennials will be easily surpassed by upcoming generations. Firstly, boomers are holding power for so long that many millennials will never get the opportunity to wield it. But secondly, many of the younger generations can see how soft this has made millennial men and how aggressive it has made millennial women. They recognize the errors of the boomer and millennial generations and are reacting to them. Just watch younger people mock millennial feelings-based-writing in movies, or millennial social justice writing in video games. They despise the therapy generation in many ways. Though they will have their own floors, it is yet to be seen what they are - maybe their relentless rejection of the real world in favour or online spaces?

Would love to hear your thoughts on these issues.

As a cultural touch point I think this is the theme song of the millennial generation:

 

Millennial Men Are Broken

 

I see a lot of millennial men breaking under the pressure of life, giving up work, relying on their wives, or their parents, and almost completely shutting down as productive members of society.

Some snap out of it.

Many so far have not.

Some are incredibly resentful at those who challenge them. Some just have this look of pure defeat in their eyes.

Something really broke the millennial generation. You could probably identify a lot of causes, maybe I will write about some. A few that come to mind right now are: therapy culture, online culture, large scale immigration blocking their pathways to the same easy success boomers generally had, multiple financial crises happening at stages of their career development, medicalization of many mental health issues, the diversification of the work force blocking a lot of paths to success, and more. There are many causes of these issues.

But men, sometimes we just have to overcome, for the sake of our wives, our kids, our families, our descendants, we just have to get back up and keep going. Even when we don’t want to. Plenty of men in the past have done that.

This is not a guilt trip. It is just reality. You can choose to give up and you will not leave a legacy or mark pretty much anywhere, and certainly not when you are gone, as many men have. Or you can accept reality and seek to mold aspects of it to your will, as many men have done before you. Both kinds of men exist in every generation, I do suspect those who give up are more prevalent in ours.

“This is not fair!!!” I hear you cry. Correct, life is not fair. There is just something to be said for accepting reality and seeking to be what we are called to be as men, providers and shapers of civilisations.

Always Was, Always Will Be

 

Jesus is writ large in the Old Testament:

Isaiah 42:

1 “Behold! My Servant whom I uphold,

My Elect One in whom My soul delights!

I have put My Spirit upon Him;

He will bring forth justice to the Gentiles.

2 He will not cry out, nor raise His voice,

Nor cause His voice to be heard in the street.

3 A bruised reed He will not break,

And smoking flax He will not [c]quench;

He will bring forth justice for truth.

4 He will not fail nor be discouraged,

Till He has established justice in the earth;

And the coastlands shall wait for His law.”

5 Thus says God the Lord,

Who created the heavens and stretched them out,

Who spread forth the earth and that which comes from it,

Who gives breath to the people on it,

And spirit to those who walk on it:

6 “I, the Lord, have called You in righteousness,

And will hold Your hand;

I will keep You and give You as a covenant to the people,

As a light to the Gentiles,

7 To open blind eyes,

To bring out prisoners from the prison,

Those who sit in darkness from the prison house.

8 I am the Lord, that is My name;

And My glory I will not give to another,

Nor My praise to carved images.

9 Behold, the former things have come to pass,

And new things I declare;

Before they spring forth I tell you of them” (Isa. 42:1-9).

As I noted, Jesus is writ large all over the Old Testament.

And so is his desire to bring all the nations into his congregation, assembly, or church. The word 'Gentiles" is often misunderstood. It simply means 'nations' or 'peoples'. There is in the Old Testament the singular Hebrew word 'goy', meaning nation, and the plural word 'goyim', meaning nations or peoples. Sometimes the term refers to every nation except Israel, sometimes it refers to all nations, including Israel.

Israel is a 'goy', a nation. Judah is a 'goy', a nation. Edom is a 'goy', a nation. Egypt is a 'goy', a nation, and so on and son.

Jesus will be a light to all nations.  

He will bring all nations into his church, his congregation, his people. As Paul notes in Galatians,

"26 For you are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. 27 For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise." (Gal. 3:26-29).

All who call on Christ are the inheritors of Abraham's promises. All who do not are not. This teaching finds its origin in the Old Testament. The multi-ethnic church was fulfilled in the New Testament, but as it is Christ's body it is writ large all through the Old, just like he is.

One people of God, one saviour, one way to inherit the promised land: through Jesus. The only way. This is the way. Always was, always will be.

All Bonds Are Breaking

 

In a country that allows no fault divorce, that is divorce for any reason, it is really irrational to think that a politician should be expected to keep their promises. 

If the most important promise does not need to be kept, why should the promises of bureaucrats who never have to even pass a basic morality test, be considered sacred, or even credible?

Conversely, a society which refuses to enforce the marriage bond with any seriousness will see every other bond in society increasingly fracture over time. It is unavoidable. 

The bond between man and wife. Parents and children. Customer and shopkeeper. Institutions and their people. Etc, etc. Every facet of society will increasingly fracture until every institution is no longer trusted. 

Those who want to repair this, must start with making the marriage bond sacred again.

Erza and Bad Marriages

 Did Ezra go too far in breaking up all these marriages?

In the comments on my previous article on Ezra, on Substack, someone asked me if I had considered whether Ezra went too far in breaking up the marriages between his people and foreign women. I answered that I had, but I decided not to add this into my previous article, because I have written about this in some detail in another context, and it would have made the previous article too long. But I think it is worth sharing, so I have decided to share and excerpt from a book I am working on, which discusses this situation and why we can be certain Ezra went too far.

Here is the excerpt:

Who is Ezra?

For those who do not know who Ezra was, he was a Levite of the priestly class descended from Aaron the brother of Moses, who lived in the exilic and post-exilic period. He was sent from among the Exiles to go and minister amongst the recently returned exiles in Jerusalem. Ezra himself tells us,

“1 Now after this, in the reign of Artaxerxes king of Persia, Ezra the son of Seraiah,… son of Phinehas, son of Eleazar, son of Aaron the chief priest— 6 this Ezra went up from Babylonia. He was a scribe skilled in the Law of Moses that the Lord, the God of Israel, had given, and the king granted him all that he asked, for the hand of the Lord his God was on him” (Ezra 7:1, 5-6).

Even though Ezra is never even mentioned in the New Testament, he is still probably one of the most influential men to have ever lived, and his influence is noted in the Old Testament, which is a book that is considered sacred to many faiths, especially Christianity. However, he often does not get the same credit as a Moses or Elijah. Yet he should, as he is the likely author of the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles, the book of Ezra and maybe even the book of Nehemiah. In fact, understanding the context of Ezra’s teachings in the books of 1 and 2 Chronicles will help us with our message in this chapter. This is no light task, we must tread carefully, wisely and with circumspection.

1st and 2nd Chronicles are powerfully written and insightful books which show that Israel was only ever granted the land if they demonstrated true faith and obeyed God. If they did not they would be vomited out (Lev. 18:26-28). According to Chronicles one of the reasons that God judged Judah is because it was an ally of Israel who set up Ahab and Jezebel as their leaders. Many of the bad things which happened in Judah were because the kings of Judah either married into the family of Ahab, or were descendants of the family of Ahab. They were the family of Ahab and Jezebel. Think about that. In fact, I read through these books again recently and I was shocked to note how influential the family of Ahab and Jezebel was in the falls of both Israel and Judah, and how much the books of Chronicles focused on this.

A good example of this is displayed through Jehoshaphat. He was a good king, but look at this dumb mistake he made,

“1 Now Jehoshaphat had great riches and honor, and he made a marriage alliance with Ahab…2 But Jehu the son of Hanani the seer went out to meet him and said to King Jehoshaphat, “Should you help the wicked and love those who hate the Lord? Because of this, wrath has gone out against you from the Lord.” (2 Chronicles 18:1, 19:2).

Jehoshaphat is noted as often doing what is right by the Lord in the Bible. However, this marriage alliance was a terrible mistake on his part. Jehoshaphat continually aligned himself with Israel, and God kept judging him for it,

“35 After this Jehoshaphat king of Judah joined with Ahaziah king of Israel, who acted wickedly. 36 He joined him in building ships to go to Tarshish, and they built the ships in Ezion-geber. 37 Then Eliezer the son of Dodavahu of Mareshah prophesied against Jehoshaphat, saying, “Because you have joined with Ahaziah, the Lord will destroy what you have made.” And the ships were wrecked and were not able to go to Tarshish” (2 Chron. 20:35-37).

Remember, and I have consistently reiterated this, Jehoshaphat was a good king. But his alliance with Ahab and Jezebel and Israel brought disaster on his people. Ahaziah, the king he allied with in this passage, was Ahab’s son.

Jehoshaphat’s son Jehoram made the same mistake,

“4 When Jehoram had ascended the throne of his father and was established, he killed all his brothers with the sword, and also some of the princes of Israel. 5 Jehoram was thirty-two years old when he became king, and he reigned eight years in Jerusalem. 6 And he walked in the way of the kings of Israel, as the house of Ahab had done, for the daughter of Ahab was his wife. And he did what was evil in the sight of the Lord” (2 Chron. 21:4-6).

In fact, Jehoram was worse than his father. He not only allied with the kings of Israel, he followed their ways. He imitated his father-in-law, Ahab more than his own father Jehoshaphat.

You are probably wondering, by this point, why we are looking at this history of the fall of Israel and Judah in our discussion about marriage here in this chapter. The answer is simple; Ezra weaves through his writings how devastating bad marriages can be. It is one of his most important themes. Bad marriages can even destroy nations.

One bad marriage in Israel, between Ahab and the Sidonian princess Jezebel, did not just destroy the kingdom of Israel, it also destroyed the kingdom of Judah. Think about that? Just stop and think about that for a moment. That is intense. Ezra is famous for his handling of what he considered illegitimate marriages in the book named after him, but he also wove this theology through his exploration of the fall of the twin kingdoms of God’s people.

Some people would rather not consider the political implications of the Bible. But that is because they have an unhealthy perspective on the Bible, politics, or usually both. To say politics should have nothing to do with a book that describes the founding of a nation, the setting up of political structures, and laws about how to enact justice, is simply to be dishonest. The Bible reaches into every aspect of life. The implications in the Bible of bad marriages are spiritual, practical and political. This is a massively important topic, and Ezra goes out of his way in his writings to address it directly.

Wrong Marriages (Ezra 9:1-4)

Now that we understand Ezra’s reading of Israel’s history this really frames what he writes in Ezra 9,

“1 After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites. 2 For they have taken some of their daughters to be wives for themselves and for their sons, so that the holy race has mixed itself with the peoples of the lands. And in this faithlessness the hand of the officials and chief men has been foremost.” 3 As soon as I heard this, I tore my garment and my cloak and pulled hair from my head and beard and sat appalled.”

Ezra’s perspective on Ahab and Jezebel adds real weight to our understanding of why he found this situation so concerning in his day. One of the advantages of reading through the Bible from cover to cover again and again is that as you go through it you make connections you did not really notice before. This is one thread I only noticed recently myself. Ezra continually weaves through 1 and 2 Chronicles how much damage to Israel the wrong marriages did. Imagine how a man with this perspective felt when we saw Israel doing this again? After everything they had gone through, they were making same mistakes on his watch.

He tells us exactly how he felt,

“O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift my face to you, my God, for our iniquities have risen higher than our heads, and our guilt has mounted up to the heavens. 7 From the days of our fathers to this day we have been in great guilt. And for our iniquities we, our kings, and our priests have been given into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, to plundering, and to utter shame, as it is today” (Ezra 9:6).

Ezra would have been terrified that they would be expelled from the land again. Because, in his view, his people had fallen into the same errors that brought them down in the past.

The whole point of the exile was not to destroy Judah, but to refine her, discipline her, teach her humility and the importance of abiding in God’s law and God’s ways. As Hebrews tells us, God disciplines those he loves. God used Babylon as a refining fire to teach his people to appreciate him and his commands. But many had not learnt the correct lessons. So, these marriages with foreign women horrified a good man like Ezra, and he was a good man, one of the true greats of the Bible and indeed of all history. Ezra deserves to be ranked up there with the topline heroes in history. It also should not surprise us that a man who had this perspective encourages what we see next.

Wrong Marriages Ended (Ezra 10:1-5…44)

We read in Ezra 10,

“While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children, gathered to him out of Israel, for the people wept bitterly. 2 And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. 3 Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law. 4 Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it.” 5 Then Ezra arose and made the leading priests and Levites and all Israel take an oath that they would do as had been said. So they took the oath…44 All these had married foreign women, and some of the women had even borne children.”

The whole assembly came together and decided to end these marriages. Not every single person in Israel, of course, but are large proportion of them. This solution is pretty intense, and they followed through on it as well. The foreign women and their kids were cut off from the people. What happened to them is anyone’s guess. One can hope God provided for them like he did for Hagar and Ishmael. One wonders if they took into account what God did for Harag and Ishmael while deliberating on this issue.

It must also be noted that Ezra did not enforce this on the people like some dictator or tyrant. He and the people agreed on this,

“3 Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children,... 4 Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it.” 5 Then Ezra arose and made the leading priests and Levites and all Israel take an oath that they would do as had been said.”

The congregation of the people came to this decision, and then they put the responsibility for executing it on Ezra and the other leaders. The passage mentions that a few people opposed this measure, including some priests (v.15). But it was obviously a popular measure. The exile had clearly changed the Israelites, even if they did not fully apply their lesson straight away, still it had refined them. They realized that they needed to take God’s law and wisdom more seriously.

How often do we have to learn the hard way that we should have listened to God?

How many people have given you biblical counsel over the years, but you ignored it and then you learnt the hard way that you should have listened?

The people of Judah had learnt the hard way.

But to wrestle with our topic for this chapter, we need to ask the question: did they do the right thing? Do not misunderstand me, I am not going to argue that Ezra was a bad guy. He was truly a great leader and he was also in a high-pressure situation. We should not be so unfair as to expect perfection from God’s men in the Bible. The Bible is honest about the faults of its leaders. This should give us pause before we seek to imitate the men of the Bible. Just because a man in the Bible is a great man and does something does not mean he did not make serious mistakes. We need to evaluate their actions in light of the wider witness of the scriptures.  

Did Ezra Go Too Far?

Did Ezra go too far in sending these all these foreign women and children away? I think the answer is yes, he did, and I think the text makes this clear for us. If you don’t read chapter 9 carefully, or know the law of Moses very well, you can miss it. But look at what we read in verse 1,

“1 After these things had been done, the officials approached me and said, “The people of Israel and the priests and the Levites have not separated themselves from the peoples of the lands with their abominations, from the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Jebusites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, the Egyptians, and the Amorites.”

Ezra is here listing the nations from which the people of Judah have married foreign women. But do you see the issue there? He has added to the law. It is easy to miss this if you do not carefully examine what he said.

Ezra is referring to a couple of different passages from Deuteronomy here. The first one is in Deuteronomy 7:1-4,

“7 When the Lord your God brings you into the land that you are entering to take possession of it, and clears away many nations before you, the Hittites, the Girgashites, the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites, seven nations more numerous and mightier than you,…3 You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons, 4 for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods….”

If you look carefully, you will see that the list in Ezra and one in Deuteronomy are not the same. Moses does not mention the Moabites or the Ammonites in his list. In fact, the Moabites and Ammonites are kin to the people of Israel. They descended from Lot, who was Abraham’s nephew. However, they were warned about making alliances with them.

The second passage Ezra refers to is in Deuteronomy 23:3-8,

“3 No Ammonite or Moabite may enter the assembly of the Lord. Even to the tenth generation, none of them may enter the assembly of the Lord forever,…6 You shall not seek their peace or their prosperity all your days forever. 7 “You shall not abhor an Edomite, for he is your brother. You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land. 8 Children born to them in the third generation may enter the assembly of the Lord.”

Deuteronomy 23 does not actually say that Israelites could not marry a Moabite or an Ammonite. But even though this is the case, Ezra adds these two passages together, “12 Therefore do not give your daughters to their sons, neither take their daughters for your sons, and never seek their peace or prosperity…” (Ezra 9:12) and extends the ban on marriage to more nations. Do you see that? Ezra is here mixing Deuteronomy 23:8 with Deuteronomy 7.

Ezra clearly has good intentions, and he clearly loves the Lord and loves his people. However, he appears to have gone beyond the law on this point. His inclusion of Egyptians makes this even more clear. God said, “You shall not abhor an Egyptian, because you were a sojourner in his land.” Yet Ezra is horrified that some of his people had married Egyptians.

The Spirit of the law

We need to be really careful here. We are talking about one of Israel’s great leaders who may have written 3 or 4 books of the Bible, including the masterpieces of 1 and 2 Chronicles. But remember the Bible is honest about its heroes and shows us their good and their bad qualities. The Holy Spirit is the ultimate author of the word and he always brings us powerful truth. What we see here is that there appears to have been an over-correction.

Consider this. Who was David’s great-great grandfather? Boaz, who was married to Ruth the Moabite. We read in the book of Ruth, named after this Moabite, “21 Salmon fathered Boaz, Boaz fathered Obed, 22 Obed fathered Jesse, and Jesse fathered David” (Ruth 4:18-22). Ruth, as the wife of Boaz was the mother of Obed, the grandmother of Jesse, and the great grandmother of David himself. In fact, the book of Ruth is fascinating, because it starts off by showing us that both Naomi’s husband and sons had probably been not all that wise, as they moved into Moab and the boys marry Moabite women. But by the end of the book Boaz, who is obviously a very kind, gracious and generous man, marries a Moabite and this is looked on favourably. And she is an ancestor of both David and Jesus on top of that.

This helps us to understand that there is the Spirit of the law and letter of the law. The Spirit of the law was meant to protect Israel from idolatry and sexual immorality. The letter of the law was a guide in that. The law was meant to be applied with skill and an understanding of the Spirit of the law. When Ruth abandoned her gods to follow Naomi’s God, she was no longer a threat to the men of Israel, because he had abandoned her own idols.

Ezra appears to understand the Spirit of the law very well. He cares about the spiritual state of his people, “O Lord, the God of Israel, you are just, for we are left a remnant that has escaped, as it is today. Behold, we are before you in our guilt, for none can stand before you because of this” (Ezra 9:15). Of course he cares. He is a good man and one of Levitical priests, a descendant of Aaron trained in the scriptures. He appears to understand the letter of the law reasonably well, as well.

But I think we are right to question if he went too far. The Old Testament did not prescribe what should happen in this situation. In one situation a man kills a Hebrew man who has a Moabite wife and is rewarded for it. In that context, what Ezra proposes is relatively mild. But separating wives and children from their provider in this ancient world is a harsh response, “All these had married foreign women, and some of the women had even borne children” (Ezra. 10:44). There is no mention or any indication in the book of Ezra that the leaders of Israel sought to sit down and examine the faith of these women and children. The lessons of the book of Ruth should have indicated that this was an important step.

Ezra’s motives are pure. There is no doubt about that. His theology is solid, he understands the danger of corruption from other religions. But it is not an accident that some scholars see the beginning roots of Jewish separatism and what would later become the Pharisees in this era. Don’t misunderstand me, I am not saying Ezra was a Pharisee, they came later. But we do see an over-correction to what had happened in the past, and an overly suspicious attitude to foreigners developing in this book, that would continue to harden over time. We may see here the beginnings of the trajectory that produced the Pharisees of Jesus’ day.

We are not here to condemn Ezra, though, but to learn from him. In him we see a good man who loves his God, loves his people and takes his faith seriously. He is a man who is seeking to protect his people as best as he can. But I think we also see in him that all too human tendency to swing the pendulum too far. Even the expositor’s commentary[1] agrees that he went beyond the law here.[2] Hence that is not just my opinion.

Getting marriage wrong is so common in human history that those of us who want to recorrect things can be prone to over-corrections, we can swing too far the other way. Those who are horrified at the immoral state of our country can become too legalistic, we can become too strict, too condemning, too guilt riddled. And getting the balance right is often very difficult for us. But I think we can settle our difficultly here with some help from Paul, the great Holy Spirit trained Apostle…

…For the rest you will have to wait for the full book. I am close to finishing it, and it is shorter than either of my previously published works.

Bless you.

List of References

---

[1] Need to confirm this source.

[2] “Ezra was going even further than the Book of Deuteronomy, which had allowed marriages with the heathen, (Deu_21:13) and (Deu_23:1-8).”

Why The Young Are More Upset About Abortion?

 

Image: Unsplash

Rehoboam and Josiah. Two kings of Israel. Two descendants of King David.

These guys give us insight into the debate between the mainstream pro-life movement and the rising abolitionist movement.

There has been a lot of posting over the last couple of weeks by the mainstream pro-life camp about how the Abolish Abortion Australia crowd need to soften their approach, change their focus, not be so keen to come after pro-life advocates. And I understand why, I think some Abolitionists have even admitted they said some things they should not. Everyone, especially the passionate, make mistakes. However, I think, overall, this attempt to seek to tone down the abolitionist crowd is misplaced.

Why?

The younger generation rising up are just more rhetorically vocal than the older generations. Not simply because of age, but also because of a difference of culture and what happened to them. For many Gen Xers or older Millennials, abortion is an afront to God, a terrible thing that is happening, and something we will talk about. Some experienced it even from a host of angles.

But for Gen Z'ers, it is all those things, plus they are literally survivors of the greatest holocaust in history. Nearly a third, 28%, of generation Z was wiped out in the womb. Those who survived managed to survive the worst attack on children in the womb known to mankind, the worst slaughter of innocents known to mankind, and the worst crime in our day and maybe for two thousand years. Of course, they are not going to be as nice as the older generations on this issue. They can't afford to be, they barely managed to get past the womb, in comparison to the rest of us.

Hence, those who are aware of this, are more vocally opposed to abortion as a generation. How can they not be? For similar reasons they would be more vocally upset about housing policy, immigration policy, tax policy, and more. Not only were nearly a third of them killed in the womb, but the older generations have also given away their inheritance, their nations, their prosperity, in countless ways. Many young men are looking at the prospect of never being able to afford to have a wife and family, and many young women are looking at the prospect of being chained to a desk rather than raising a family as they would prefer. And the marriage and birth rates bear this out, this is not theoretical. They cannot afford to be as nice as we are, were, or think they should be.

So, the younger generation is rising up, and they are more upset about this than any of the other living generations. This might bring to mind for many older Christians how Rehoboam, Solomon's son, listened to the young passionate men in his early reign and ended up making a massive mistake, leading to the splitting of the nation of Israel into two warring kingdoms. Many older heads would like to moderate the passion of the young, and this passage would be part of that consideration. In fact, it would be a decisive passage, making their case for them.

But for every Rehoboam, who was foolish in challenging the older generation in his situation, I think it is wise to hold up a Josiah, another young ruler, who challenged the older generations, and was right to do so in his generation. He is not remembered as a fool, but as one of Israel's greatest kings.

I think the only way to change the culture on this issue is peaceful, but prophetic gospel presentation, that changes the culture. As an older Millennial, I am nearly Gen X, I am probably going to find some of this younger crowd's rhetoric to be too harsh, or too far, or too critical. But they are determined to see the culture changed through gospel proclamation, even on the hardest of issues. They are not so concerned about upsetting people as the cultural leaders, both inside the church and outside, were in our generation.  

So, I have no intention at this point about agreeing with those who are seeking to reign in the abolitionist crowd. They are being peaceful, this is necessary. Their approach is changing things up, this is also necessary. I will happily, and respectfully work with any anti-abortion advocate, on either side of the debate. But I think the generation that faced the worst holocaust in history has earned the right to seek to make the case their way. That will be hard for many older advocates, who are more tempered, to accept. I understand why, I actually genuinely sympathize with them. But a third of our generations were not annihilated, and that was only the start of how their world turned against them.

The Bible Supports Abortion?

 

You will sometimes hear an atheist or abortion advocate who thinks they are cleverer than they actually are make the case that abortion is supported, even encouraged, in the Bible. The passage they use to make this case is Numbers 5,

“23 ‘Then the priest shall write these curses in a book, and he shall scrape them off into the bitter water. 24 And he shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and the water that brings the curse shall enter her to become bitter. 25 Then the priest shall take the grain offering of jealousy from the woman’s hand, shall wave the offering before the Lord, and bring it to the altar; 26 and the priest shall take a handful of the offering, as its memorial portion, burn it on the altar, and afterward make the woman drink the water. 27 When he has made her drink the water, then it shall be, if she has defiled herself and behaved unfaithfully toward her husband, that the water that brings a curse will enter her and become bitter, and her belly will swell, her thigh will rot, and the woman will become a curse among her people. 28 But if the woman has not defiled herself, and is clean, then she shall be free and may conceive children.”

At first glance this seems like a perfect gotcha passage for the abortion advocate to use against Christians in their pursuit to see the crime of abortion outlawed. But, as usual, one needs to consider the context.

Elijah Harris from Abolish Abortion Australia explains this in a recent post,

“The Ceremonies

Alongside this oath, certain ceremonies were administered. These acted as object lessons for the senses. First, a grain offering of a tenth-ephah of barley flour was made to God, as no one was to approach God empty-handed (Ex. 23:15). As a sombre occasion and to symbolise the afflicted state of his family, no sweet-smelling additives were mixed with the flour. The woman took the offering in her hands to the tabernacle, as a reminder that she was entering God's presence (Num. 5:16). Here, she was set before the Lord with her head uncovered (v18), as an image of her distressed condition and a sign that her deeds were not hidden before God.

The priest then prepared the water of bitterness, which was clean water from the tabernacle's bronze basin mixed with dust from the ground of the tabernacle (v17) and the ink from the curses of the oath written upon a scroll (v23). It was called "bitterness" not to describe the taste of the water, but in regard to the curses which would come upon the woman should she be guilty - she would be brought by God down to the dust as the curses came upon her (v24, c.f. Gen 3:19). The woman would drink the water, symbolising the taking of the curses into herself.

It is worth noting that there was nothing in the bitter water that, if ingested in these quantities, would naturally cause a miscarriage. This clearly isn't a natural abortifacient. It would only be abortive through a supernatural act of judgment.

The Effect

If the woman was guilty, what she vowed would come upon her: the child she carried would die, and she would be publicly proven an adulteress as a judgment upon her. It is probable also that she herself would be put to death, as was a possible punishment for adulterers (Lev. 20:10). However, if the woman was innocent, nothing would happen, and she would be publicly exonerated, the husband's jealousy would subside, and the relationship would be restored (Num. 5:28).”[1]

In other words, the law is not saying that a man could give his wife abortifacient drugs if he suspected her of immorality. The law said that the should come before a neutral arbitrator, and after the woman has taken a series of oaths before God, she was given water with a bit of dirt in it, and if she had lied God would deal with her. This is not a passage teaching that abortion is ok. It is a passage teaching that to lie before God and to commit adultery is a terrible sin.

As Elijah also notes, the woman would have more than likely confessed long before she got to this point, and then her and her husband would have sought to work this out.

Be careful when you see non-believers wielding the sword of God. The Bible is like a sword, and when the untrained use a sword, they are likely to do as much or more damage to themselves as to their opponents. The whole counsel of God shows how he opposes those who harm the innocent. It is one of the most consistent teachings in the Bible.

That does not mean that sometimes we won’t find the ancient law confronting, and that it does not gel with our modern Christian sensibilities. But then, how much are even we in the church affected by modern culture?  

List of References

---

[1] Elijah Harris, 2026, https://www.abolishabortionaustralia.com/blog/the-test-for-adultery?fbclid=IwY2xjawR3ctZleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETFzbkpJYjJpWWZRRmFLVThKc3J0YwZhcHBfaWQQMjIyMDM5MTc4ODIwMDg5MgABHgrwX0tkptjt_Edh1phA9CNG0yUKnoCpib7EcTozdqqktAjXkZntRI9lHwmW_aem_vhifWrFf4HvYj7NRCc9Mbg