Biblically, marriage was instituted by God in the garden of Eden.  As such, it is the oldest of human institutions and relationships.  Only one’s relationship to God has precedence to the marital relationship.

The first three chapters of Genesis record the origins of the marital relationship between man and woman. To properly understand these opening chapters, it is helpful to think of each chapter as attempting to give us three various perspectives of the same story.  Genesis must be understood as a collection of stories told to the children of Israel by Moses as he led the Children of Israel out of their Egyptian enslavement.  These stories were meant to explain why the children of Israel were so special that God would take notice of their plight in Egypt. To understand the biblical view of marriage, one must first understand mankind’s creation.

Now I want to focus on two verses:

26 Then God said, “Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground.” 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.  Genesis 1:26–27

I would be remiss as a Christian minister to not point out that in verse 26 God says, “Let us make man.” From the very beginning of Scripture we see a plurality in the Godhead. “Let us make man not in our image,” to whom is God talking?

Today’s Jewish rabbis point to the Shema: “Hear O Israel, the Lord your God is one God.”  As Christians, we believe that God is one in essence, yet three in personality – a tri-unity.  “In our image,” mankind (both male and female) have a body, soul and spirit, like our creator.  So in the opening chapter of Genesis we see that God has made man and woman in His image with His own triune features. That God builds His image into us from the beginning elevates us above all the rest of God’s creation. Verse 27 further teaches us that men and women are equally endowed with God’s image and equally valuable to Him.

After the fall, this original equality was broken and for the centuries and millennia to come man has dominated women. You see this societal organization in practically all tribes and cultures throughout history.  Originally, however, when God created man in His own image, male and female he created them, we were created to be co-regents in His world, after His image.

This joint rulership is evident in verse 28, “and God blessed them and said be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it.”  He gives this instruction to both of them. They stand before Him as equal partners on the sixth day of creation.  They are partners who have each received God’s breath and been imbued with life and essence from God.  Peter will later say in 1 Peter that we are co-heirs.  Although God makes man and woman equal and values us identically, it is clear, however, from the beginning that He gives man a leadership role.

In Genesis chapter 2 we learn that Adam was created first.  In Genesis 2:7 “the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man [Adam] became a living being.” Then the man, Adam, is given responsibilities. “The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it” Gen. 2:15.

Is there some significance to the fact that man was created first?  Well, frankly, yes. When you read the rest of Scripture you understand that first means something. First, often indicates preeminence. When asked, Jesus said the first or foremost commandment was that we should love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. In other words, this commandment is preeminent. Also, in Scripture being the first born son was important because you received the blessing of the father. Being first born meant you got the birthright.  The Scriptures teach us to seek first the Kingdom of God and these other things will be added to us. First once more means something.

Does Adam being created first mean something? Yes. Being created first is declaring something about the social structure that was to occur between men and women. God creates the man first to help him understand that He has something special for him. His position of leadership is very important.

Consider 1 Timothy:

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. 1 Timothy 2:11

Why? Ephesus was like a modern city.  It was wealthy; it was filled with liberal thought.  Its primary deity was a woman. If you worshiped in Ephesus you worshiped the goddess Diana. Many of the women in Ephesus were priestesses in the temple of Diana. If you grew up in Ephesus your whole life you would think God was a “she” and not a “he”.

As Paul introduced the gospel and established the Ephesian church he had to establish local leaders.  Paul determined that only men could be elders.  Paul goes on to say, “But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet” (1 Timothy 2:12).  This statement is primarily about the teaching position in the congregation. Why would you say this, Paul? He tells us in the next verse: “For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve” (1 Timothy 2:13).  Paul is going back to the creation accounts of Genesis and is saying that God’s creation of man first was consequential and not merely coincidental. God gave man a leadership role and every man needs to understand this responsibility, especially as he relates to women.

Adam was given an occupation with responsibility prior to Eve’s creation. “Then the Lord God took the man and put him into the garden of Eden to cultivate it and keep it” (Genesis 2:15).

Although we don’t know how much time passed between Adam’s creation and Eve’s creation (because no one can say with certainty and precision exactly how long was each day of creation), the point is that God gave Adam this vocational assignment prior to Eve’s creation. Not only does God give Adam a job to perform, He also gives Adam a specific command to obey. He can eat from any tree except one. Adam has been given all this responsibility about the world before Eve is created.

The Lord God commanded the man, saying, “From any tree of the garden you may eat freely; 17 but from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat from it you will surely die.” Genesis 2:16-17

God gave Adam spiritual instruction, but not Eve.  This is not a sign of Eve’s inferiority, but of the man’s responsibility. In Chapter 3, while Eve is talking with the serpent, we wonder why she does not simply tell the serpent what God has said.  Instead, she misquotes what God said.  Why? Because Adam did not adequately instruct his wife.  It was his responsibility.  Eve makes a terrible spiritual decision with Adam standing right beside her; knowledgeable, responsible, but unfortunately silent.  Sound familiar? Don’t we often stand by as people in our family, under our responsibility, make terrible spiritual decisions? All too often we are silent, just like Adam.  Like Adam we often are poor spiritual leaders.

Another example of the responsibility which God gave Adam is that he names the animals.  This is a signal of Adam’s dominion and leadership over creation.

19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called a living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all the cattle, and to the birds of the sky, and to every beast of the field, but for Adam there was not found a helper suitable for him. Genesis 2:19-20

If I were to build an office building in downtown Atlanta and name it the Warner Smith Tower, I would have some authority there. In the Scriptures, naming something is a sign of authority. When God brought Abram out of Ur, He changed his name to Abraham. When Saul met Christ on the road to Damascus, Jesus changed his name to Paul.  Naming is a sign of a special relationship. When Adam names all the animals he is asserting his dominion.

18 Then the Lord God said, “it is not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper suitable for him. . . . 21 So the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and he slept; then he took one of his ribs and closed up the flesh at that place. 22 The Lord God  fashioned into a woman the rib which He had taken from the man, and brought her to the man. Genesis 2:18;21-22

The inclusion of this second creation story of how the woman was created is significant. God is revealing that there are significant differences between the man and the woman.  While each is created in God’s image, there are also going to be significant differences.  These profound differences between males and females are more than sociological, they are by God’s design. God is telling us these differences will be significant in how husbands and wives will relate to one another. Husbands and wives spend their lives in a relational dance. Marriage is the most basic organizational relationship on earth.

The Genesis of the Evangelical View of Marriage

The Puritans reacted against the dominant Catholic and Anglican understanding of marriage, which viewed sexual intercourse as directly related to man’s fall, and accepted Genesis 1:22 as the primary Biblical text governing the doctrine of marriage.  This viewpoint made legitimate procreation the main objective of marriage and wrongly elevated celibacy above marriage.  For the Puritans, however, the most important Biblical passage revealing God’s purpose in marriage was Genesis 2:18.  This passage showed that companionship, not procreation, was God’s principal purpose for marriage.  The Puritan understanding also rejected the idea that sexual intercourse was the sin that caused man’s ultimate transgression because, by their reckoning, God had established marriage in the garden of Eden prior to the Fall.  Therefore, since sexual intimacy in marriage was part of God’s plan for man before the Fall, it could not be less so following the Fall.

18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” 19 Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. 23 The man said, “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” 24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh. 25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.     Genesis 2:18–25

As I understand it, verse 24-25 is the Biblical definition of marriage.  First, it clearly involves a man and a woman.  The idea of same sex marriage totally misses the point of the complementary differences which God has designed into man and woman.  Marriage involves a leaving, cleaving and weaving.  Both marriage partners, the man and the woman, must leave their parents and are to be an independent family.  Next, the man and woman are two individuals who must cleave to one another and become one flesh.  Finally, the man and woman weave together in their sexual union and have no shame in their sexual relations and shared nakedness.

⁴ Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge. Hebrews 13:4 (NASB)

Notice that even in marriage there are limits on one’s sexual fulfillment; because, while in the marital relationship sex between the married partners is undefiled, sex between these married partners with some other married person will bring God’s judgment.

Jesus confirms this definition of marriage in Matthew 19:4-6, adding the phrase “Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate” (19:6b).  While there is no prescribed marriage ceremony in the biblical text, I want to point out that Adam and Eve were alone on the planet and that the witness and officiant for their marriage was God Himself.

Christian marriage also requires the couple to publicly present themselves as a married couple.  The only occasion I can find in Scripture where a married man and woman agree not to make their decision public is Abram and Sarai while in Egypt.

10 Now there was a famine in the land, and Abram went down to Egypt to live there for a while because the famine was severe. 11 As he was about to enter Egypt, he said to his wife Sarai, “I know what a beautiful woman you are. 12 When the Egyptians see you, they will say, ‘This is his wife.’ Then they will kill me but will let you live. 13 Say you are my sister, so that I will be treated well for your sake and my life will be spared because of you.” 14 When Abram came to Egypt, the Egyptians saw that she was a very beautiful woman. 15 And when Pharaoh’s officials saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh, and she was taken into his palace. 16 He treated Abram well for her sake, and Abram acquired sheep and cattle, male and female donkeys, menservants and maidservants, and camels. 17 But the Lord inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai. 18 So Pharaoh summoned Abram. “What have you done to me?” he said. “Why didn’t you tell me she was your wife? 19 Why did you say, ‘She is my sister,’ so that I took her to be my wife? Now then, here is your wife. Take her and go!” 20 Then Pharaoh gave orders about Abram to his men, and they sent him on his way, with his wife and everything he had.     Genesis 12:10–20

While Abram’s situation is not identical to couples who live together as man and wife in secret without being officially married, this passage certainly illustrates why it is vital that marriage be made public.  Also, this text reveals that Abram’s choosing whether or not to make his marital contract public does not please God.  Making one’s marriage public based merely on one’s own convenience, even for Abram’s own personal safety, is not pleasing to God.

Another text reveals that the marital relationship has a dramatic impact on us spiritually.  Breaking faith in marriage prevents God from hearing our prayers, even though they are heartfelt and filled with tears.

13 Another thing you do: You flood the Lord’s altar with tears. You weep and wail because he no longer pays attention to your offerings or accepts them with pleasure from your hands. 14 You ask, “Why?” It is because the Lord is acting as the witness between you and the wife of your youth, because you have broken faith with her, though she is your partner, the wife of your marriage covenant. 15 Has not the Lord made them one? In flesh and spirit they are his. And why one? Because he was seeking godly offspring. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith with the wife of your youth. 16 “I hate divorce,” says the Lord God of Israel, “and I hate a man’s covering himself with violence as well as with his garment,” says the Lord Almighty. So guard yourself in your spirit, and do not break faith. Malachi 2:13–16 (NIV)

Malachi 2:14 teaches that marriage is a holy covenant before God. In the Jewish custom, God’s people signed a written agreement at the time of their marriage to seal the covenant. The marriage ceremony is meant to be a public demonstration of a couple’s commitment to this covenant relationship. It’s not the “ceremony” that’s important in a marriage, it’s the couple’s covenant commitment made before God and their fellow men. Unfortunately, too many spend more time and money planning their wedding than they ever spend preparing for their marriage.

In the traditional Jewish wedding ceremony, the “Ketubah” on which the Christian wedding is based, a marriage contract is read. In the contract, the husband accepts certain marital responsibilities, such as providing food, shelter and clothing for his wife, and promises to also care for her emotional needs. This contract is so important that the marriage ceremony is not complete until it is signed by the groom and presented to the bride. This demonstrates that both husband and wife see marriage as more than just a physical and emotional union, but also as a moral and legal commitment. The Ketubah is not in effect unless and until it is also signed by two witnesses.  Then and only then is the marriage considered a legally binding agreement.  Remember, in the Jewish understanding there is no distinction between something being legal and religious, both are combined in Jewish thought. The division of life into secular and sacred components is according to Greek understanding and is not biblical.

It is forbidden for Jewish couples to live together without this signed and witnessed marriage contract. For Jews, the marriage covenant symbolically represents the covenant between God and his people, Israel. Remember, God makes His covenant with His people publicly.

In Exodus 24:1-11 the Bible reads:

¹ Then He said to Moses, “Come up to the Lord, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu and seventy of the elders of Israel, and you shall worship at a distance. ² “Moses alone, however, shall come near to the Lord, but they shall not come near, nor shall the people come up with him.” ³ Then Moses came and recounted to the people all the words of the Lord and all the ordinances; and all the people answered with one voice and said, “All the words which the Lord has spoken we will do!” ⁴ Moses wrote down all the words of the Lord. Then he arose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain with twelve pillars for the twelve tribes of Israel. ⁵ He sent young men of the sons of Israel, and they offered burnt offerings and sacrificed young bulls as peace offerings to the Lord. ⁶ Moses took half of the blood and put it in basins, and the other half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. ⁷ Then he took the book of the covenant and read it in the hearing of the people; and they said, “All that the Lord has spoken we will do, and we will be obedient!” ⁸ So Moses took the blood and sprinkled it on the people, and said, “Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord has made with you in accordance with all these words.” ⁹ Then Moses went up with Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel, ¹⁰ and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself. ¹¹ Yet He did not stretch out His hand against the nobles of the sons of Israel; and they saw God, and they ate and drank. Exodus 24:1-11 (NASB)

Jesus also teaches us about marriage indirectly in his encounter with the Samaritan woman at the well.

7 When a Samaritan woman came to draw water, Jesus said to her, “Will you give me a drink?” 8 (His disciples had gone into the town to buy food.) 9 The Samaritan woman said to him, “You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?” (For Jews do not associate with Samaritans.) 10 Jesus answered her, “If you knew the gift of God and who it is that asks you for a drink, you would have asked him and he would have given you living water.” 11 “Sir,” the woman said, “you have nothing to draw with and the well is deep. Where can you get this living water? 12 Are you greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well and drank from it himself, as did also his sons and his flocks and herds?” 13 Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” 15 The woman said to him, “Sir, give me this water so that I won’t get thirsty and have to keep coming here to draw water.” 16 He told her, “Go, call your husband and come back.” 17 “I have no husband,” she replied. Jesus said to her, “You are right when you say you have no husband. 18 The fact is, you have had five husbands, and the man you now have is not your husband. What you have just said is quite true.” 19 “Sir,” the woman said, “I can see that you are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem.” 21 Jesus declared, “Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. 22 You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. 23 Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. 24 God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth.” 25 The woman said, “I know that Messiah” (called Christ) “is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us.” 26 Then Jesus declared, “I who speak to you am he.”     John 4:7-26

Jesus reveals something very important, which many people miss. In verses 17-18, Jesus said to the woman, “You have correctly said, ‘I have no husband’; for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; this you have said truly.” The woman had been hiding the fact that the man she was living with was not her husband.

According to the New Bible Commentary notes on this passage of Scripture in John 4, Common Law Marriage had no religious support in the Jewish faith.  Living with a person in sexual union did not constitute a “husband and wife” relationship. Jesus makes plain that the co-habitation between this woman and the man with whom she was living did not make a marriage.   By telling this to a Samaritan, Jesus is teaching us that marriage transcends culture and custom.  Jesus is confirming the Jewish understanding that a marriage contract is binding only when signed by both bride and groom and witnessed and is required for the marriage to exist.  Remember Jesus’ first miracle occurred at a marriage.

Civil Law

In viewing marriage from the point of being obedient to civil authority, one must consider the following passage in Romans.

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.” Romans 13:1-2 (NIV)

This text gives additional credence to the idea that a couple is married in the eyes of God when the couple is legally married based on the governing authorities to whom God says we must submit.

A problem with civil authority might arise if a government were to require couples seeking to be married to do something against the laws of God in order to become legally married. This is not currently the case, however, today in the state of Georgia.

Thus, in view of the teaching of this text in Romans, a correct Biblical position for a couple, as believers, would be to submit to the governmental authority and recognize the laws where they live as long as that authority does not require them to break God’s law.

According to Georgia law: Marriage is a civil contract, sanctioned by the state and accorded special treatment in the law in Georgia.  It is encouraged by the state as a matter of public interest and concern.  Marriage is favored by the state for the education, care and maintenance, support, control, and custody of minor children.

Until 2003, marriage was the only relationship in which sexual intercourse between consenting adults was lawful. Prior to 2003 it was a crime known as fornication for any unmarried persons to have sex even if it was consensual (the age of consent for sex in Georgia is 16). Although the Georgia Supreme Court has struck down the law making fornication a crime, it continues to be a crime known as statutory rape to have sex with someone (other than a spouse) who is under the age of 16, even if that person consents.

Many people today live together without the benefit of being married, making statements like, “a piece of paper won’t make any difference. It’s our love and private commitment to each other that matters.”  The bottom line is that although we may come up with reasons (or excuses) not to obey God, the life of faith requires surrender and obedience to our Lord. He will always bless obedience!

Marriage was instituted by God in the garden of Eden.  When Abram and Sarai denied publicly that they were married, God was not pleased – even though the purpose of their denial was to protect Abram’s life.  For God’s people there is no distinction between the secular and the sacred, no separation of what is legal and what is moral. In Jewish law, based on their understanding, marriage is not binding and effectual (in our terms legal) until it was made public by being witnessed by at least two other people besides the bride and groom.  This is one reason why Jesus could instruct the Samaritan woman that while she did live with a man, living together did not equal a marital relationship. Furthermore, if we are to be wholly obedient to God and submit to the civil authority over us, we must also accept that marriage in our culture is also a civil contract, sanctioned by the state and accorded special treatment in the law of Georgia.

“You will experience all these blessings if you obey the Lord your God.” Deuteronomy 28:2 (NLT)

Christian Marriage

Other than being against the teaching of Scriptures, another problem with those who co- habitate is that they pervert the God given role of being a husband.  Being a godly husband is difficult and is intended to demonstrate to the world how Christ loves His bride, the church.  Ephesians chapter 5 is very instructive here.

1 Be imitators of God, therefore, as dearly loved children 2 and live a life of love, just as Christ loved us and gave himself up for us as a fragrant offering and sacrifice to God. 3 But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God’s holy people. 4 Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. 5 For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person—such a man is an idolater—has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God. 6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of such things God’s wrath comes on those who are disobedient. 7 Therefore do not be partners with them. 8 For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light 9 (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) 10 and find out what pleases the Lord. 11 Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them. 12 For it is shameful even to mention what the disobedient do in secret. 13 But everything exposed by the light becomes visible, 14 for it is light that makes everything visible. This is why it is said: “Wake up, O sleeper, rise from the dead, and Christ will shine on you.” 15 Be very careful, then, how you live—not as unwise but as wise, 16 making the most of every opportunity, because the days are evil. 17 Therefore do not be foolish, but understand what the Lord’s will is. 18 Do not get drunk on wine, which leads to debauchery. Instead, be filled with the Spirit. 19 Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and make music in your heart to the Lord, 20 always giving thanks to God the Father for everything, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. 21 Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your husbands as to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.” 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.     Ephesians 5:1–33

The context of Paul’s instruction on marriage is imitating God and living a life of love.  Among all of the various forms of sin which we have been delivered from as the children of light is sexual immorality.  In fact, according to this text we are not to have even the “hint of sexual immorality among us” because this is improper among God’s people.

The marital relationship is God’s answer to sexual immorality.  Many will deceive us, Paul says, about how important living purely before God is; but we are not to be influenced by them or even to mention their deeds among us.  Instead we are to “be very careful” in “how we live” and understand what God’s will is.

After reminding us that we must be filled with the Spirit, Paul then tells us to “submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.” He then continues by explaining what living a life of love looks like in the family.  Such a life is not immoral, but is careful in how we live. Paul tells us that in the marital relationship the husband’s role is the same as Christ’s role toward His bride, the church.  Husbands are to love their wives as Christ loves the church.  This is a very high bar indeed.

Practically, the man who lives with a woman without the benefit of a biblical and legal marriage is not thinking of her benefit, but is being selfish. He is not giving himself up for her, but is having his way with her while not giving her the benefits which are to be enumerated in the marriage contract. One who does not fully and completely become her husband is not accepting the marital responsibilities which include providing food, shelter and clothing and also promising to care for her emotional needs. If one is honest, he will find that being in a legally committed relationship is most often an emotional need for the large majority of women who find themselves in co-habitation with a man. Furthermore, a man who lives with a woman without being married to her is not attempting to make her holy, but is continuing to walk and lead her in the former ways of darkness.  This is not how a Christian man is to love himself, His Lord, or his wife.

Peter uses fewer words to make a similar point. He writes,

7 Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers. 1 Peter 3:7 (NIV)

For a Christian man to live with a woman without being married to her is not to be considerate of her.  Such a man is placing her reputation at risk for his own pleasure.  Such men make the same mistake Adam made with Eve in not giving her sufficient information concerning the forbidden fruit, thus setting the stage for a fall.  In the same way, living with a woman without marrying her is either a refusal or a serious error in judgment not to teach her the proper place God has given sex in the Christian life.  If the man and woman have children, these children are also done a huge disservice by the very adults who are supposed to raising them in the “nurture and admonition of the Lord.”

I would argue that any man cannot treat the woman he claims to love with respect while knowing her sexually and not being married to her.  I believe that unless it is public and legal it is not a biblical marriage.

Everything we do in the Christian life is public.  We have a public invitation in church because we want people to accept Christ publicly.  We have baptism in public and never in private precisely for this purpose.  We take communion together in public because we want everyone to understand that our relationship is lived publicly in a community.  So, too, we give and make vows of marriage in public.

Stepping out in faith and obedience requires us to trust in the Master as we follow His will. There is absolutely nothing we will give up for the sake of obedience that will compare to the blessing and joy of obedience.

As an evangelist he would not be judged as greatly successful by any worldly means of measuring success. He did not preach to millions, lead a worldwide evangelistic association, or attract a wide following during his lifetime. He constantly lived on the margin of poverty,¹ wrote down insights gained in three-hour prayer sessions on scraps of paper, and relied on God to meet his material needs. Edward McKendree Bounds was a small, quiet man who, at times, seemed overbearing and reclusive. He was misunderstood by most of his contemporaries because his words could be stronger than those which most pastors dared speak. He was thought strange by his south Georgia neighbors because it appeared that he could not provide for his own family and lived off of his wife’s relations. As one learns more about this man who toiled endlessly in prayer and devotion to Christ one realizes how insufficient standard measures of success are for determining the kingdom impact of a life so otherworldly as Edward Bounds’.

The purpose of this work is to present a brief but full biography of Brother Bounds, while exploring significant vignettes from his pastoral and evangelical ministries. Following this, the theological views of conversion contained in the editorials and articles Bounds wrote in the Christian Advocate will be examined. Finally, contributions made to the work of evangelism and the continuing legacy of E.M. Bounds will be examined.

If it was not for the profound influence Bounds came to exercise upon Homer W. Hodge, from whom he secured a pledge to edit and publish his writings, most of his books would have remained unknown.² In his writings he affirmed the doctrines that were under attack by the modernist tendencies rising within his own Methodist Episcopal Church South while exhorting all who read them to establish personal piety in a central position of their own Christian faith. He was appalled by the lack of devotion he observed from layman and clergy alike. His passion for Christ caused him to rise at four in the morning and kept him in prayer until seven a.m. everyday.³

E. M. Bounds was born on August 15, 1835, the fifth of six children,⁴ to Hester A. Purnell and Thomas Jefferson Bounds. Thomas J. Bounds had moved his family west, seeking to secure land and improve his family’s place in the world. He and his wife were faithful Methodists who worked hard. He designed the town of Shelbyville, Missouri, and was elected and reelected as County Clerk. He prospered in the new town and his family grew; by all measures their move west had paid off. The family was prosperous enough that his father could afford to rent the services of two slaves, a mother and daughter, to help Mrs. Bounds with household duties. Then, at the age of forty-eight, Thomas J. Bounds died; Edward was fourteen.⁵ The same year of his father’s death, he and his nineteen year old brother Charles, sought their fortunes in the California Gold Rush of 1849. It was said that they were “the only two boys who went across the plains—and carried their religion with them.”⁶ What Bounds learned of human nature and greed during his experiences in the mines was likely used later by God to enable him to never be swayed by the transitory riches of this world.⁷

Upon returning from the gold mines of California, he studied law, and at the age of nineteen, he took and passed the bar. For five years he practiced law in Hannibal, Missouri. His law practice blossomed due in part to the good name his father had within Shelby County and his own diligence. From 1857-1858 America was experiencing a great spiritual awakening. During this time a Methodist Episcopal Church just north of Hannibal, in LaGrange, began a brush-arbor meeting with the evangelist Smith Thomas preaching.⁸ The spirit of God moved mightily in these meetings, and either during these meetings or shortly thereafter E.M. Bounds experienced a second blessing through which the Holy Spirit empowered him to tell others about Christ.⁹

His Call and Early Pastorates

Shortly after his experience with the Holy Spirt he quit the law and for two years studied at the Centenary Seminary of the First Methodist Episcopal Church South in Palmyra, Missouri. After he completed his courses he was accepted for trial approval in 1860 and became pastor of the Monticello circuit.¹⁰ The first shots of the Civil War were fired at Ft. Sumter on April 12, 1861, ushering in four bloody years of war.¹¹ Later that fall Bounds was given an assignment that amazed him. He was to pastor the Brunswick Station Methodist Church. This was one of the larger churches in the area, and he was shocked that someone with his limited experience would be assigned to such a church. Brunswick, Missouri, was a growing town which sat on a hill overlooking the Missouri River and was the hometown of Confederate General Sterling Price. With Bounds’ two eldest brothers, Thomas and Charles, having joined the Union Army shortly after the war began, and his own pastoral duties demanding that he perform funerals for Confederate and Union families alike, his allegiances were torn.

Having been reared in the border state of Missouri where slavery was legal, Bounds had seen its cruelty first hand. His family had treated the slaves who helped his mother kindly, but he knew that there were other slaves whose owners were less considerate, even cruel. President Lincoln had sent Union forces into Missouri to prevent it from seceding and joining the Confederacy. Under the strain of these days there were abuses committed by Union forces, the most notable of which was the St. Louis massacre¹² that occurred on May 10, 1861. Soon persons who had been neutral in their leanings were forced to decision, and most began to sympathize with the South. By September of 1862, the situation had so destabilized that martial law was declared. During this heightened sense of hostilities, because South was in the name of his denomination, Bounds’ name appeared on a list of two hundred and fifty men who were to be apprehended and given an opportunity to pledge allegiance to the Union. Seeing no reason why his allegiances should be questioned, he made up his mind to refuse to take the oath. Soon after this list was published, while working in the church at Brunswick Station and having made no attempts to resist, he was arrested under the suspicion of holding southern sympathies.¹³

There is little doubt that during the eighteen months of incarceration Bounds was mistreated by his Union captors. On December 31, 1862, by order of Major General Curtis, he was released behind Confederate lines in a prisoner exchange. Within the order of the release was the stipulation that he not be allowed to return to Missouri for the remainder of the war.¹⁴ After taking an oath to the Confederate States, he was now officially a rebel, serving with the Third Missouri Regiment¹⁵ as chaplain. He saw fierce action at Vicksburg; Kennesaw Mountain; and Franklin, Tennessee.¹⁶ His chaplaincy occurred on the front lines where he believed the greatest need existed, leaving the rear echelon for the ministry of others. Chaplain Bounds’ interest in evangelizing the troops was illustrated by the fact that, when sent to Jackson, Mississippi, for the purpose of retrieving medical supplies, he also went to the local Methodist college where he spent the night and procured “a fresh supply of Bibles, tracts, and newspapers.”¹⁷ During the winter of 1863, Bounds’ Missouri regiment was camped near Greensboro, Alabama. He developed a friendship with the President of Southern University, a Methodist Episcopal South University, Dr. William May Wightman. He invited Bounds to preach in the university chapel. God greatly blessed this service and revival broke out and spread through the region.¹⁸ Soon, however, the lull in the war ceased and the Missourians moved north toward Franklin, Tennessee. Prior to this bloody battle Bounds was on the front line praying with anyone who wanted to pray. When the five-hour battle was over the Confederate Army had lost 1,500 men with another 5,500 were wounded or captured. E.M. Bounds was once more a prisoner of the Union Army. After the battle the Confederate dead were buried in mass graves. This time, when asked to take an oath of allegiance to the government of the United States, Bounds agreed. After a brief return home to Missouri, Bounds returned to Franklin to attempt to properly bury his fellow Missourians.

While in Franklin, he was asked to pastor the war-torn Methodist Episcopal Church, which he served for two years. He was able to convince the McGavock family to donate a plot of ground for the creation of a cemetery to properly bury the Confederate soldiers. They agreed, and soon thereafter John D. Miller accepted the task of building coffins and securing their internment. As news of the cemetery spread, money began to pour in to pay for its costs. In the midst of fund raising and administering the burial of the Confederate dead in this new cemetery, the Tennessee Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church South met and on October 28, 1866, they raised E.M. Bounds to the office of elder.¹⁹

When peace finally arrived he was assigned pastorates in Selma and Eufuala, Alabama. In the deep South after Lincoln’s assassination, radical Republicans exacted a high penalty during years of reconstruction. Often reaction to this retribution from carpetbaggers by southern peoples was, to say the very least, less than Christian. During these episodes of civil strife after the war, the record shows that E.M. Bounds worked to smooth over problems by acting as a peacemaker, reminding all who would listen to him of Jesus’ injunction to love your enemy, and placing himself in harm’s way ²⁰ when necessary.

While conducting a funeral at Eufaula, he first saw and fell in love with “the most beautiful woman in all the world,”²¹ Emma Elizabeth Barnett. Her father was the Methodist minister Dr. A.W. Barnett. As his relationship with Emma developed, he was reassigned to St. Paul’s Methodist Church South in St. Louis.

Back in Missouri, Marriage and Family

His Bishop realized while he served the St. Paul Methodist Church for four years²² “that he was gifted in building and reviving the church.”²³ “St. Paul’s . . . was a young church with a new building . . . The following year . . . Pictorial St. Louis noted that ‘it was a new organization, but increasing rapidly in numbers and influence.’”²⁴ While serving at St. Paul’s Bounds found that he continued to have thoughts and feelings for Emma Barnett of Eufuala. They were married in September almost one year after he moved to St. Louis, Missouri. All indications are that he and Emma were devoted to Christ and one another.

After four years at St. Paul’s, the Bishop next gave him the difficult assignment of pastoring the prestigious First Methodist Church of St. Louis. So strong was his emphasis on personal piety and reaching out to the poor that it may be surmised that this congregation, who expected some measure of social grace and accommodation from their pastor, were not unhappy when he was reassigned to another pulpit.²⁵ Bounds was not the accommodating type, and he served this congregation for only one year.²⁶ The Bishop’s experiment over, he moved Bounds back to St. Paul’s where he served for two more years until, in 1883, the conference called him to become the associate editor of The St. Louis Advocate.²⁷ In November of 1877, after fourteen months of marriage, Emma Bounds had a daughter, Celeste. Another daughter, Corneille, followed about two years later. Then, in February of 1884, a son, Edward, was born. All was not well in Bounds’ household, however; Emma was sick. She went south, back to Eufaula, to recover in the warmer climate but this did not help. On February 20, 1886, Emma Bounds died, leaving E.M. Bounds a single father of three children, ages eight, six and two.²⁸ When he returned to his post he wrote an article entitled “In Memory;” a brief excerpt follows.

She combined the artless purity of a child with the dignity and grace of a woman. A quick, acute, and playsome fancy, a strong tenacious will with no mixture of obstinacy or self. For nine years, she brightened my life and the shadows came at her going: shadows which are relieved but not lifted by the rich legacy of deathless, tearful, holy memories which she left.²⁹

Before Emma died, concerned about who would care for her children, she extracted a promise from her husband that he would marry her cousin, Harriet Barnett. On October 25, 1887, in a wedding ceremony conducted by Emma’s father, E.M. Bounds married Hattie Barnett of Washington, Georgia. She was twenty-one years younger than the now fifty-two-year-old Bounds. By all accounts this was a happy marriage. The next year, on July 4, 1888, Hattie had a son whom they named Samuel Barnett Bounds after her father.

Things were looking bright in the Bounds home; he and Hattie had been married for a little over two years and they had one son already, and she was expecting again. Bounds received an opportunity to advance his career by becoming assistant editor of the official paper of his denomination, the Christian Advocate. He accepted and soon was preparing to move his family from St. Louis to Nashville. Then, on July 11, Hattie had another son whom she named Charles Rees after E.M.’s brother. Within the month the brightness dimmed, as Bounds’ eldest son, Edward, died.³⁰ The death was a shock because he had been healthy only weeks before. The storm was not over, though, and the following year, just after his first birthday, Charles died³¹ just as suddenly and unexpectedly as his brother. Between February of 1886 and July of 1890, Bounds had lost his first wife and two sons. The pain he felt was not hidden. He expressed it in letters and articles, but the burden was borne always with faith and hope of heaven.³² As the couple dealt with their grief, other children were born. A boy whom they named Osborne Stone was born on February 29, 1892, and a girl, Elizabeth, on September 29, 1893. In May of 1894, with five surviving children ranging in age from seventeen and eight months, the fifty-nine-year-old Bounds would, over matters of conscious with his denomination, quietly resign his position at the Christian Advocate and move to the home of his in-laws in Washington, Georgia, to pray, write, and preach only occasionally.

Bounds would live out the remainder of his life in his wife’s childhood home. Preaching engagements were few, but he seems to not have despaired. He rose at four and prayed until seven as usual, but now, following the family’s devotion, he would return to pray for the lost and write, sometimes long into the night. It was not until his seventieth year that Bounds met Homer Hodge. In Hodge, Bounds found someone to whom he could teach the lessons he had learned in prayer over the years, and from Hodge, Bounds secured a commitment to continue to publish his books after his death. He would live to see only two of his books published, Preacher and Prayer and The Resurrection, in 1907. On August 9, 1913, E.M. Bounds died. Contained in the last notes he sent to Hodge were words of encouragement like, “Let your mind live in the spirit of Prayer”; “God will manage your affairs if we will be filled with His affairs,” and then a final note written in Hattie’s hand, “Tell him he is on the right line; press it. Have a high standard and hold to it.”³³

His Ministry

E.M. Bounds pastored eight churches between his initial call and his becoming assistant editor of the St. Louis Christian Advocate. While records are incomplete for the churches he pastored before the war, we have enough records from his churches following the war to establish that churches grew under his care. Three pastorates stand out: Franklin Methodist Church, in Franklin, Tennessee; First Methodist Episcopal Church South in Eufaula, Alabama; and First Methodist Church of St. Louis, Missouri.

Bounds as Pastor

As soon as he was released by Union forces Bounds came in contact with the church in Franklin. He found them in great need of spiritual leadership. Bounds was able to persuade the Union Colonel Opedyke to vacate the church and grounds which he had occupied since March of 1862.³⁴ During his ministry in Franklin the church was blessed by a great revival in which one hundred and fifty people were converted. This revival occurred as the result of God-honoring prayer.

What Bounds immediately did was search out a half dozen men who really believed in the power of prayer. With these fellows the young pastor met every Tuesday night. They got on their knees together and prayed for revival—for themselves, the church, and the town. For over a year this faithful band called upon the Lord ‘until God finally answered by fire. The revival just came down without any previous announcement or plan, and without the pastor sending for an evangelist to help him.’ The revival lasted for several weeks.³⁵

Also while serving in Franklin, the young man B.F. Haynes, who would become the third president of Asbury College, “went forward at altar call, made a ‘public confession of committal to Christ, was accepted, and on the following Sunday assumed the vows of church membership.’”³⁶ He later wrote of Bounds . . .

When I was only a lad there came to Franklin, Tennessee, where we lived, as pastor of our church, the Reverend E. M. Bounds whose preaching and life did more to mould and settle my character and experience than any pastor I ever had. His preaching profoundly impressed me, his prayers linger until today, as one of the holiest and sweetest memories of my life, his reading of hymns was simply inimitable. Nothing was sweeter, tenderer, or more enrapturing to my young mind than the impressive, unctuous reading of the old Wesleyan hymns by this young pastor . . .. I never hear these hymns today or think of them that the scene is not reenacted of the little black-eyed, black haired pastor with voice of ineffable tenderness, and life of immaculate purity, and heart of divine love standing in the pulpit, of the old Methodist Church . . . reading one of these matchless hymns in a spirit, tone and manner that simply poured life, hope, peace and holy longings into my boyish heart.³⁷

In the fall of 1871, Bounds was assigned to pastor the First Methodist Episcopal Church South of Eufaula, Alabama.³⁸ While pastoring in Eufaula, Bounds received an invitation to preach in a meeting of the La Place Methodist Church. He agreed to do so for three days. The power of God was so mighty in these meetings that, by the third night the meetings were moved outdoors to accommodate the crowds. The meeting then had to be moved to the much larger First Church of Tuskagee, where it was extended for two weeks. When his duties as pastor in Eufaula pressed him to leave, many were distressed that the revival would cease. He responded to their concerns by saying, “If it is of God, it will last, for God will abide in His meeting. If it is not of God, it should end, and it will.”³⁹ Apparently the meeting was of God because they continued to meet for weeks.

At some point following his return to Eufaula, Bounds raised eyebrows among the residents of this south Alabama community when,

With great personal rejoicing, on August 29, [1872], Bounds performed the wedding ceremony of Mr. Washington Poison and Miss Mary Sayers. The community was astonished that the pastor of the Methodist Episcopal Church South would perform the wedding for two Negroes. But Washington was a dear man who had served Bounds very diligently. And although it was not socially acceptable, Bounds felt it was scripturally and spiritually proper to honor this man and his bride by marrying them.⁴⁰

His ministry in Eufaula grew, and soon the congregation was in need of a larger building. As they began to build, services were moved to a local hall where they began a protracted meeting. During this meeting “forty-seven people had ‘connected themselves’ with the church.”⁴¹ Within the year the building was completed and dedicated. During his ministry in Eufaula, the adult membership increased by a factor of four.

All of his pastorates were not such glowing successes. One in particular is notable for its lack of accomplishment. After serving the St. Paul’s Church with such good results, Bounds was placed in the exclusive First Church. While serving First Methodist of St. Louis, he did away with the pew rental system and advertised locally, “SEATS FREE. ALL ARE WELCOME IN GOD’S HOUSE.”⁴² He continued to reach out to the community and gave the following flier to his members;

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE CHURCH

If you would grow in grace give attention to the means of grace in the Church. Every member of the Church has covenanted to attend upon its ordinances and support its institutions. Give the Pastor your cooperation and your prayers. Attend to private devotion: Keep your heart right and your influence will take care of itself. Be attentive to the sick, the poor and to strangers. Speak to strangers in the congregation, and, if possible, introduce them to the Pastor. When you change residence notify the Pastor by card.⁴³

Apparently the congregation notified the Bishop that the pastor needed to change residences, because he was in this position for less than two years, when they returned to St. Paul’s. Even though all was not successful at this church, years later the St. Louis Annual Conference would commemorate his service stating;

His pastorate in St. Louis not only sifted out the sand and relaid the foundation of the faith of people, but set a new standard for his brethren in the ministry for holy living and faithful service. There were some triumphs in prayer in those days when he met each week with . . . , fellow pastors.⁴⁴

The best summation Bounds gives of his philosophy of ministry is given in an article appearing in the Christian Advocate. He wrote;

The pastor goes where the people live. He binds them to him by the mightest of attractive forces, the forces that are in the heart of a Christly preacher. He is one of them. His life’s current mingles with theirs. His presence and frequent loving visits creates an interest in religion and in the Church, . . . The interest thus created is contagious . . . God’s work cannot be done long range. God’s people cannot be saved at arms length. Close to the people, one of them in their homes, in their hearts, in their lives, must he be who saves them. . . . The people’s instincts and suffrages are toward the true man. A true man will draw them.⁴⁵

E.M. Bounds practiced what he preached.⁴⁶ Certainly the church of today and every age needs more pastors with this kind of character. Bounds would say that such men would “mold a generation.”⁴⁷

Bounds as a Voice of Conscience

In the late eighteen hundreds German rationalism greatly affected Bounds Methodist denomination.⁴⁸ According to these German scholars the Scriptures contained, “the kernel of truth” which must be separated “from its outer covering of myth.”⁴⁹ Many within Bounds own denomination had been particularly led astray by this teaching. Others during this time placed more emphasis on the social aspects of the gospel while giving less emphasis to evangelism. Bounds was always willing to personally help the poor,⁵⁰ and never neglected evangelization.⁵¹ He did not write so vociferously against the social gospel movement as he did against rationalism. This was probably because he understood that rationalistic thought enabled those in the social gospel movement to de-emphasize the priority of evangelism.

Bounds used his position at the Christian Advocate, the official paper of the Methodist Episcopal Church South, to speak out forcefully and with great passion against the errors of these modern ideas. He wrote two articles in his final year at the Christian Advocate entitled “The Modern Idea,” that revealed his understanding of the dynamics involved in the rationalistic debate taking place within his denomination. He wrote;

The Modern idea is essentially rational. It has no special regard for revelation, no great reverence for authority. . . . rationalism, under the cover of modern ideas or thought, is affecting the granite foundations of God’s truth. . . . It is marvelously strange how widespread are false views of Christ, his atonement, the resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgement. These pernicious views are found in literature, commentary, exposition; they are clothed in such attractive garb, and found in so many places that they fix themselves in thought before we are aware of it, and we have so little knowledge of the Bible that we cannot detect the counterfeit. It comes to pass that views always rejected by the great body of believers as unscriptural are deferred to without scrutiny or protest.⁵²

Bounds also wrote articles confirming the major theological tenets of his Wesleyan Holiness beliefs. Within these articles he also included his prescriptions for ridding the church of every vestige of these rationalistic beliefs. In an article entitled “Original Sin” he wrote;

. . . rationalism has swept over the land, and for a while hidden the truth. We admit the changed attitude toward this doctrine, but the change is no greater in regard to original sin than it is toward the inspiration of the Bible, the atonement, the resurrection of the Body, or the eternal punishment of the wicked. All these doctrines, for the time being are weakened, perverted, obscured, or denied . . . Every doctrine of the Bible that is not continuously preached dies out of the faith of the people . . . this age requires a loyal and militant campaign for God’s great truths. An unsheathed sword is the only preserver and defender of God’s truth . . . A militant ministry, aggressive at every point, with holy boldness, is the only conserving force for God’s revealed truth.⁵³

Having lived through the depravation of civil war and having served with men who had so courageously fought to defend a truth which they believed in, state’s rights, Bounds was disgusted by how docile his fellow ministers were at defending the greater truths of Christ’s church. He believed that monetary concerns and fear of losing the prestige of denominational office prevented many of his contemporaries from standing up for scriptural truths. Over and over again he wrote correctives prodding preachers to speak forcefully for the truth.⁵⁴ He wanted pastors to fight against these errors in their churches. He wrote;

Peace is a good thing, but it may cost too much. Many a Church buys a peace at a greater price. Many a pastor surrenders the crown jewels of Christ that he may not have trouble. A conflict is a painful thing. A Church trouble may be an evil, but the evils of conflict and troubles are not to be compared with the evils of a surrender to the worldly tendencies which are so rampant in many a Church.⁵⁵

Bounds wrote many articles reflecting his desire to embolden pastors to stand up for the truth of Scripture against these heretical views and to live holy lives completely committed to Christ.⁵⁶ The fierceness of Bounds’s passion for purifying pulpits is illustrated well in the article titled “Sensation Does Not Edify” wherein he takes on a Dr. Talmage⁵⁷ by name, writing;

The ministry that does not edify is a failure. No kind of polish or paint, no personal magnetism, no drawing forces can atone for the absence of this building up. This should be the chief object of every pastor. It is his hardest work. In whatever measure sensation is found in preaching, to that extent the gospel is vitiated. Sensation in the pulpit rots the spiritual seed and impoverishes the spiritual soil. Dr. Talmage draws, he has a large membership of 4,000; but the size of the crowd drawn is no token of the good done, drawing does not make character, nor are numbers the symbol of spiritual power . . . Crowds thus drawn have no taste for the real business of religion. Itching ears they have, but itching ears never pray or pay; this is too serious a business for them . . . The building of spiritual character is not done by gush or flush. It is a slow, painstaking, toilsome work. . . . The simple gospel draws mightily, and draws to save. The true gospel edifies; sensation does not. The pure gospel controls money; sensation cannot. The gospel edifies spiritual character; sensation dilapidates it.⁵⁸

Consider the subjects of the books that he would write in light of the editorial comments and many articles written in the 1890s, and it is clear how forcefully he felt that the truths of the faith should be defended. When he could no longer continue to work from his denominations paper, he did not cease his defense of the truth, but instead continued by writing books that defended these vital truths as well as his now famous books on prayer.

Bounds’ theological views. It is difficult to state the theology of E.M. Bounds unequivocally because he never intentionally wrote down his theological positions. One must glean his theological positions from his various writings. For the purposes of this discussion we will constrain ourselves to a brief summary of statements concerning conversion. He wrote that man was “depraved . . . man’s natural spirit and foundations are all crooked and warped when the straightedge of God’s law is laid to them.”⁵⁹ Bounds believed that the only hope man had for overcoming his nature was to be born again. He held that the self effort of humans was not enough to reform man’s nature, man needed nothing less than to “be born again.”⁶⁰ He also believed that “conviction is the first step in repentance” and that “the Holy Ghost [is] the convicting agent.”⁶¹ Guilt for sin would be felt by those truly converted. He wrote, the church had suffered because of those brought in “by pleasant methods, attractive inducement, and easy conditions, without conviction for sin, without sorrow for its guilt, and without experience for its pardon.”⁶²

Bounds was Wesleyan Holiness. One would expect, therefore, that he would hold a view of prevenient grace⁶³ and complete sanctification.⁶⁴ Thus far this researcher has not found Bounds’s views of grace clearly elaborated. He did write that “It belongs to God’s grace in our hearts to change our natural tendencies . . . This involves a change of desire, of feeling, and of taste. The real Christian loses relish for worldly ways, the ways of folly, of indulgence, and of sin.”⁶⁵ This brief snippet is clearly not enough from which to reconstruct Bounds’s theology of grace, but it does show that he believed God acted on the human heart, changing its desires. He wrote an article that positively presented the testimony of a Methodist woman discussing complete sanctification, and in the article’s conclusion he stated, “She got the genuine article with its genuine fruit. This seeking after God and more of him till he fills soul and life is what Methodism needs to prepare it for God’s greatness and crown its people with a religion that will separate them from the world”⁶⁶ While it cannot be said that E.M. Bounds revitalized evangelistic methodology, it may be said that he revived the passion for God in many which, after all, is the precursor for developing a passion for souls. His book Preacher and Prayer should be viewed by pastors and evangelists alike as a quality-control manual for their spirit. In his writings and through his example, he has provided every pastor and evangelist a standard of spiritual excellence. His meager lifestyle and conscientious voice stand in sharp contrast to the materialism and political correctness present in many pulpits today.

Bounds’ contributions to evangelism. Bounds would rebuke us today for not emphasizing the costs of discipleship and plainly presenting the consequences of refusing Christ when we seek to win the lost. He believed that “the Holy Ghost is the only drawing power that draws to save—a fact that the church is ever prone to forget and ever has to learn anew.”⁶⁷ He also believed that the fear of hell was a motivating force which too few preachers took full advantage of in their preaching. He wrote that

the first step heavenward must be made under the urgency of fear. We will not allow “a desire to flee the wrath to come” to have any place as a convicting force in our new religion of taste and sugar. The alarmed and trembling beginnings of an early Methodist saint, or of Bunyan’s Christian, are offensive to the gentilities of our civilization. The sinner must start to heaven as a gentleman and a scholar in a refined kid-glove way.  The necessity of fear is based on the depravity of human nature, that man is by nature wrong in his instincts and tendencies; that he is wrong, fearfully wrong, at heart, that it takes the strongest forces to restrain him.We are reaping some of the fruits of the insane and suicidal attempt to rule the world without authority, to make a God without justice, and to cultivate a religion without fear.⁶⁸

He wrote numerous articles on revival⁶⁹ was a close friend of Sam Jones, and often positively quoted Spurgeon⁷⁰ and Moody⁷¹ in the “Current Comment” section of the Christian Advocate. In his editorial paragraphs he gave reports about revival services being conducted throughout his denomination. In one instance, he reported his own attendance at one of Jones’s meetings in Nashville where there was standing room only in a new 4,000 seat tabernacle that had just been built.⁷² As he watched the theological priorities shift away from evangelism in his own denomination, he wrote that “to save the Methodist Church as a soul-saving institution is the imperative duty of the hour.”⁷³

On Voluntary Location

In 1894 his denomination while in conference took actions, which effectively prevented the work of itinerant evangelists. This he could not support because he felt God had called him to do the work of an evangelist. Many within his denomination took this to be nothing more than “a response to evangelists like D.L. Moody and Sam Jones, who [some] felt were stripping the churches financially and had salaries that were much too large.”⁷⁴ Bounds resigned his position as a matter of conscience and lived the remainder of his life in virtual obscurity writing about these precious doctrines and attempting to raise up a militant ministry. All the circumstances surrounding his departure as Assistant Editor of the Christian Advocate are not known. The facts are that he did leave and it seemed unplanned due to the lack of acknowledgments given in the paper.⁷⁵ Also, he refused to receive any pension, even though he was entitled to one.⁷⁶ What is clear is that he moved his family to Washington, Georgia, temporarily to stay with his wife’s family but never moved out.

From his in-law’s home he was invited to preach in revivals and conferences from time to time. He would pray carefully about each invitation, and if he believed it was God’s will, he would accept the engagement. The invitations were not that frequent, however, because many in his denomination were afraid to be associated with him after his resignation from the Christian Advocate.

He seemed to have enjoyed his family life and solitude. On occasion he would take one of his children along with him on a preaching engagement. On one such trip he made a lifelong impression on his youngest son Osborne. Years later Osborne recalled the incident;

Once when I was a boy, we were traveling on a train. My father did not have enough money for the fare, and I was worried as to how we were going to travel. When the conductor came by, my father reached into his pocket and pulled out a few coins and told the conductor to take us as far as the coins would allow. The conductor looked at my father in amazement and told him that he would have to put us out in a field. My father stated that he [the conductor] would have to do as he must, and proceeded to enjoy the train ride. After a while, however, a total stranger came up to my father, introduced himself, and offered to pay his train fare. ⁷⁷

This is vintage Bounds. Some of his children, however, did not respond as positively as Osborne, to being placed in such awkward situations by their father or having their guests roused out of bed at four in the morning for prayer and family devotions. Two of Bounds’ children refused the faith modeled before them by their father and quietly lived out their lives as agnostics.⁷⁸

Legacy

The legacy of E.M. Bounds is the lasting impact his books, especially those on the subject of prayer, have had and are having on Christians and the Church. His books continue to be printed and reprinted in several different languages. By way of these printed pages, he continues to reach beyond his own lifetime, challenging ministers today as he challenged Hodge to “have a high standard and hold to it.”⁷⁹ Bounds challenges us today by reminding us that

A desire for God which cannot break the chains of sleep is a weak thing and will do but little good for God after it has indulged itself fully. The desire for God that keeps so far behind the devil and the world at the beginning of the day will never catch up.⁸⁰

With words like these he cuts through the ambitions and career planning so common in modern ministry today and takes hold of the spirit, pressing his reader to remember that God will give the increase, but he must give himself to God. His words should be read over and over by ministers as an antidote against the pressures and concerns of the modern world. The world needs preachers who can mold this generation, as he said;

It is not great talents nor great learning nor great preachers that God needs, but men great in holiness, great in faith, great in love, great in fidelity, great for God—men always preaching by holy sermons in the pulpit, by holy lives out of it. These can mold a generation for God. ⁸¹

Not only does he remind us that God is mightier than our methods, he also prompts us to fully consider the stakes of our work. Bounds did not use images of war, which he had seen firsthand, merely for effect. He was serious about the eternal consequences of spiritually weak preachers whose work did not affect eternal change in the lives of their people. As he states so eloquently;

“There are preachers innumerable who can deliver masterful sermons after their order; but the effects are short-lived and do not enter as a factor at all into the regions of the spirit where the fearful war between God and Satan, heaven and hell, is being waged because they are not made powerfully militant and spiritually victorious by prayer. The preachers who gain mighty results for God are the men who have prevailed in their pleadings with God ere venturing to plead with men. The preachers who are the mightest in their closets with God are the mightest in their pulpits with men.”⁸²

The goal should be to become mighty in the closet, as Bounds was, so that the legacy of the service to God will increase and continue to bear fruit for the kingdom long after this man has left the scene.

End Notes

1. Lyle W. Dorsett, E.M. Bounds, Man of Prayer. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House, 1991), 26.

2. Willis, Irvin Jr., The Prayer Warrior: A Mini-Biography of E.M. Bounds. (Augusta GA: n.p., 1983), 15.

3. Dorsett, Man of Prayer. 50. Also in the Foreword to , Edward McKendree Bounds.  Satan: His Personality, Power and Overthrow. (New York: Fleming H. Revell Company, 1922),  Letter from E.M. Bounds to Homer W. Hodge. “Washington, Ga, July 1, 1912: Pray more and more: keep at the four a.m. hour.  God will be for it; the devil against it.  Press on, you can’t pray to much, you may pray to little.  The devil will compromise with you to pray as the common standard, on going to bed, and a little in the morning.  Hell will be full if we don’t do better than that.  Pray, pray, pray, pray always, rejoice evermore, pray without ceasing, in everything give thanks”

4. Darrel D. King,  E.M. Bounds. (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 12.   So much of E.M. Bounds biographical information is sketchy at best. This researcher has had to make decisions as to which source seems most credible on numerous facts. Each time these assumptions have been made the  footnote given will contain the source as well as the conflicting data not used within this paper. In the case the number of E.M. Bounds’ siblings is given as twelve by (Willis, Irvin  Jr. The Prayer Warrior: A Mini-Biography of E.M. Bounds. [Augusta GA: n.p., 1983], 2). Lyle Dorsett does not give a total number of siblings.

5. Dorsett, Man of Prayer. 12-15.

6. Edward M. Bounds, The Ineffable Glory: Thoughts on the Resurrection. (New York:George H. Doran Co., 1921) Introduction by Homer W. Hodge, v.

7. Darrel D. King, E.M. Bounds. (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 17.  This resource contains a wealth of information on the life of E.M. Bounds, however, there are no footnotes.  Therefore this researcher is unable to verify all of his claims. Due only to the scant information available has this source of necessity been used.

8. Ibid.,19.

9. Dorsett, Man of Prayer. 16.

10. King, E.M. Bounds. 19-20.

11. Edward M. Bounds, Purpose in Prayer. (New York: Fleming H Revell Company, 1920) Introduction by Homer W. Hodge, i.

12. King, E.M. Bounds. 22.

13. Ibid., 21-31.

14. Department of the Missouri.  Office of the Provost Marshall General.  Major General Curtis. Special Order No. 163. (Cited in Willis, Irvin  Jr. The Prayer Warrior:, 23.)

15. War Department. Confederate States of America, Secretary of War. In Willis, Irvin  Jr. The Prayer Warrior, 25.

16. Darrel D. King, E.M. Bounds. 36-69.

17. Ibid., 42.

18. Ibid., 51.

19. Certificate of the Office of Elder, In Willis, Irvin  Jr. The Prayer Warrior, 22.

20. King, E.M. Bounds. 80. “On one occasion, racial conflict erupted in an armed confrontation. Bounds ended up in the middle of the crowd trying to hold both sides at bay. . . many in the crowd continued to encourage a fight. The black man who looked after Bounds placed himself in harm’s way and physically forced Bounds out of the conflict.”

21. Ibid., 80.

22. Edward M. Bounds, Purpose in Prayer. Introduction by Homer W. Hodge, i.

23. Ibid,. 32.

24. Dorsett, Man of Prayer. 31.

25. Ibid., 33.

26. Edward M. Bounds, Purpose in Prayer. Introduction by Homer W. Hodge, ii.

27. Dorsett, Man of Prayer. 33.

28. Ibid., 34.

29. E.M. Bounds, “In Memory” The St. Louis Advocate. March 3, 1886. In Darrel D. King.  E.M. Bounds. (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 93-96.

30. E.M. Bounds, “Personal”, Christian Advocate August 2, 1890, 8. The readers are informed of the loss of Bounds’ son Edward.

31. “Personal,” Christian Advocate (Saturday, July 25, 1891), 9.

32. Dorsett, Man of Prayer. 33-39.

33. Ibid., 60.

34. King, E.M. Bounds. 72.

35. Dorsett, Man of Prayer. 28.

36. Ibid.

37. Ibid.,

38. King, E.M. Bounds. 77.

39. Ibid., 79.

40. Ibid., 81.

41. Ibid., 81-83.

42. Dorsett, Man of Prayer. 33.

43. Ibid.

44. King, E.M. Bounds, 87.

45. E.M. Bounds, “True Drawing Force,” Christian Advocate, Nashville TN: March 30, 1893, 8.

46. King, E.M. Bounds. 88.

47. Bounds, Edward M. Preacher and Prayer. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 1952), 10.

48. Dorsett, Man of Prayer. 40.  “The liberalism of the late nineteenth century questioned such doctrines as original sin and faith in Christ as the only way to salvation. Many modernists likewise turned their guns on the doctrine of hell, especially on the concepts of eternal damnation and eternal punishment. Modernists hoped to redirect the Christian faith in still other areas. The social Gospel, that is, the emphasis upon the Great Commandment to serve and love our neighbor, was given much more emphasis than the Great Commission in which the emphasis is on making converts and disciples of Jesus Christ.”

49. Martin Marty, Pilgrims in Their Own Land. (New York: Penguin Books, 1984), 305.

50. Dorsett, Man of Prayer, 33.

51. King, E.M. Bounds. 122.

52. Bounds, Edward M., “The Modern Idea,” Christian Advocate: Nashville TN.(March 15, 1894): 8. The articles cited are not signed by Bounds. However based on Lyle Dorsett’s pattern of citing Bounds in E.M. Bound: Man of Prayer, it seems that page 8 of the Advocate was reserved for Bounds. This researcher has therefore only used articles and editorial paragraphs appearing on page 8 of the Advocate as the work of E.M. Bounds. Dr. Lyman Abbott, the editor of the Outlook, and pastor of Plymouth Church, Brooklyn, says:“I accept the Apostles’ Creed, though I give the phrase ‘resurrection of the body’ the modern interpretation.”  In explanation of the modern idea of the resurrection he says: “The modern doctrine repudiates the idea of a literal resurrection. . . In a sentence, then, the modern doctrine of the resurrection of the body, so far as that doctrine is in any form intelligently held, is that the spirit has in the other life a spiritual organism, and that this spiritual organism has some sort of connection, not by us understood, with the material organism which it possessed upon the earth.” We measure all that is old and all that is new by the infallible standard, and whatever is new or whatever is old which does not agree with that we say let it be accursed, and he who bids it Godspeed is partaker in the sin.  This doctrine of the resurrection of the body is not a mere inference from the Bible statement.  It is the statement itself.  The key of its arch.  The cornerstone of its foundation.  It is not a rich afterthought of the gospel, but coordinate “Jesus and the resurrection are the gospel.”  Is this modern idea the Bible idea? . . . The Bible declares that our bodies are parts of us, that they are included in the recovering scheme of grace, that they are partners with the spirit in its earthly course of faith or disobedience, and that they are to share is the honors or shame of the eternal future.

53. Edward M. Bounds. “Original Sin,” Christian Advocate December 20, 1890, 8.

54. In many of his articles and in his book Preacher and Prayer, Bounds exhorts preachers to fight against these errors and become men totally committed to God.  “God is in great need of men by whom he can revolutionize missions, circuits, stations, districts. ‘Give me’ said John Wesley, ‘one hundred preachers who fear nothing but God, and I care not a straw whether they be clergymen or laymen, such alone will shake the gates of hell, and set up the kingdom of God.’. . . nothing keeps us from revolutionizing things for God but our self-bigness and our faith-littleness ” (“Revolutionizing Preachers” Christian Advocate July 26, 1890, 8). “Preachers who are great thinkers, great students must be the greatest of prayers, or else they will be the greatest of backsliders, heartless professions, rationalistic, less than the least of preachers in God’s estimate” (Bounds, Preacher and Prayer. p.23).   “Preachers are not sermon makers, but men makers and saint makers, and he only is well-trained for this business who has made himself a man and a saint. It is not great talents nor great learning nor great preachers that God needs, but men great in holiness, great in faith, great in love, great in fidelity, great for God—men always preaching by holy sermons in the pulpit, by holy lives out of it.  These can mold a generation for God  (Bounds, Preacher and Prayer. p.10).

55. E.M. Bounds, “A Pastor in Trouble,” Christian Advocate. January 12, 1893, 8.

56. These are entitled, “Revolutionizing Preachers,” “Duty and Debt,” “Popularity,” “Backslidden in the Pulpit,” and “A Growing Evil.”

57. Talmage referred to a pastor with a church of a membership of 4000. The church has burned down, he was known for sensational preaching, and is assumed by Bounds’ to be so well known that he need only use his last name when referring to him. While not 100% certain to the exact identity of the Dr. Talmage who Bounds is referring to, it is this researchers opinion, however, that Bounds is referring to Thomas De Witt Talmage (b. January 7, 1832 – d. April 12, 1902) a Dutch Reformed and Presbyterian minister whose “rhetorical gifts and dramatic flair” attracted attention.  During the time Bounds penned this Article Dr. Talmage was the pastor of Central Presbyterian Church in Brooklyn, New York, where he served for twenty-five years. His starting salary was $7,000.00 per year.   During his ministry the church grew and three times during his tenure the church burnt to the ground.  Each time it was rebuilt larger until the structure Bounds is referring to that seated more than 5,000.  “As a preacher Talmage strove for oratorical effect through vivid word pictures and sensational pulpit histrionics.  His critics in the Brooklyn Presbytery accused him of using falsehood, deceit, and ‘improper methods of preaching,’ and it was only by a close vote that he escaped . . . censure. His sermons were published in approximately 3,500 newspapers throughout the English speaking world. (Donald J Bruggink, in Dictionary of American Biography), 286.

58. E.M. Bounds, “Sensation Does Not Edify,” Christian Advocate. (Saturday November 1, 1890), 8.

59. E.M. Bounds, “Original Sin,” Christian Advocate, Nashville TN: December 20, 1890, 8.

60. E.M. Bounds, “Except a Man Be Born Again,” Christian Advocate, Nashville TN: August 23, 1890, 8.

61. Edward M. Bounds, “Feeble Convictions,” Christian Advocate. Nashville TN (April 14, 1892), 8.

62. E.M. Bounds, “The Two Beginnings,” Christian Advocate, Nashville TN: March 31, 1892, 8. See also Ibid., “Conviction for Sin,” April 19, 1894, 8.

63. “Prevenient grace is responsible for the goodness that is present to some extent in every society,. . .It functions to restrain evil in the world but does not lead unbelievers to faith.  For Wesleyans, prevenient grace may lead someone to salvation. . . The distinctive aspect of prevenient grace that is relevant for our discussion is that it provides the ability to choose salvation, an ability that was surrendered by Adam’s sin.”  Calvinism holds that common grace gives some measure of morality in society but that common grace cannot lead one to salvation. Thomas R. Schreiner. “Does Scripture Teach Prevenient Grace in the Wesleyan Sense?” The Grace of God The Bondage of the Will.

64. Simply stated this is a belief that Christian’s can and will be wholly sanctified to the point of perfection.  There is no record, as far as this research is concerned, that suggest Bounds believed that he had achieved the state of perfection, although it could be plausible to assume that its pursuit motivated him greatly. It is clear that Bounds did not hold the more radical views of Chadwick and his followers who would say that they “would rather see ten people entirely sanctified and filled with the power of the Holy Ghost, than a hundred converted.”  For more see; Ian M. Randall. “Full Salvation: Expressions of traditional Wesleyan Holiness in the Twentieth Century.”  Methodist History. 36 (1998): 178.

65. Edward M. Bounds, “Editorial Paragraphs,” Christian Advocate: Nashville TN.(March 15, 1894): 8.

66.Edward M. Bounds, “An Experience,” Christian Advocate: Nashville TN. August 8, 1893: 8.

67. E.M. Bounds, “Bringing the Masses to the Gospel,” Christian Advocate, December 13, 1890, 8.

68. E.M. Bounds, “The Uses of Fear,” Christian Advocate, March 15, 1894, 8.

69. See E.M. Bounds, “Revival that Stays,” Christian Advocate. December 6, 1890, 8. See also in the Christian Advocate, “Hindrances to Revival,” December 6, 1892, 8.  “The Revival,” December 14, 1893, 8. “Waiting for the Evangelist,” December 21, 1893, 8.  “The Old Fashioned Revival,” February 15, 1894, 8. and “After the Revival,” March 8, 1894, 8.

70. E.M. Bounds, “Current Comment,” Christian Advocate., November 15, 1890, 8. See also December 6, 1890, March 31, 1892 and April 14, 1892.

71. E.M. Bounds, “A Suggestive Change,” Christian Advocate., March 21, 1891, 8. See also February 28, 1891, 8.

72. E.M. Bounds, “Editorial Paragraphs,” Christian Advocate., July 2, 1892, 8.

73. E.M. Bounds, “A Great Danger,” Christian Advocate., January 11, 1894, 8.

74. King, E.M. Bounds. 116.

75. The Last edition of the Christian Advocate listing E.M. Bounds as Assistant Editor is dated May 31, 1894.  There is no mention that he is leaving, no acknowledgment of his service, nor announcement of his replacement. In the following edition the Editor has written a column in the place usually reserved for Bounds on page 8 of the paper. There is still no mention as to why Bound’s name no longer appears on the front of the paper. This is unlike Bounds’ predecessor, who wrote an article entitled ‘Farewell’ expressing his thanks that appeared in the first edition of Bounds’ assistant editorship, and was followed by a blurb from Bounds’ expressing his happiness in being selected to work at the paper and his desire to be on the job in the next edition.  The name of the new Assistant editor, J.D. Boswell appears in the July 12, 1894 edition.  This is the same man Bounds had replaced four years earlier. King explains that Bounds wrote a final article entitled “Loss of Conscience,” that appeared in the Advocate. (Darrel D. King, E.M. Bounds. (Minneapolis: Bethany House Publishers, 1998), 118-120).  This article was not found to be printed in the Christian Advocate by this researcher.

76. Dorsett, Man of Prayer. 46.

77. Irvin, The Prayer Warrior. 6.

78. Dorsett, Man of Prayer. 52-53.

79. Ibid., 60.

80. Ibid., 47.

81. Edward McKendree Bounds, Preacher and Prayer. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan Publishing House. 1952), 10.

82. Ibid., 29-30.

²⁵ And it was the third hour when they crucified him. Mark 15:25 (ESV)

Jesus’ crucifixion occurred only after he had been mocked, beaten and flogged by the Jewish authorities and then the Roman soldiers.

²⁷ Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the governor’s headquarters, and they gathered the whole battalion before him. ²⁸ And they stripped him and put a scarlet robe on him, ²⁹ and twisting together a crown of thorns, they put it on his head and put a reed in his right hand. And kneeling before him, they mocked him, saying, “Hail, King of the Jews!” ³⁰ And they spit on him and took the reed and struck him on the head. ³¹ And when they had mocked him, they stripped him of the robe and put his own clothes on him and led him away to crucify him. Matthew 27:27–31 (ESV)

These beatings and floggings had so weakened Jesus that He was to weak to carry His own cross. Imagine if you had been visiting Jerusalem that day and had been compelled to carry His cross for Him.

³² As they went out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name. They compelled this man to carry his cross. ³³ And when they came to a place called Golgotha (which means Place of a Skull), ³⁴ they offered him wine to drink, mixed with gall, but when he tasted it, he would not drink it. ³⁵ And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. Matthew 27:32–35 (ESV)

Did you notice that the Son of God died with only the clothes he had on as the sum total of His earthly possessions. John gives us a more detailed inventory of Jesus’ final possessions.

²³ When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his garments and divided them into four parts, one part for each soldier; also his tunic. But the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from top to bottom, John 19:23 (ESV)

I believe that it is fair to say that when Jesus died His earthly possessions were little more than the clothes on His back. It is much more than ironic that the placard which the Romans nailed to the cross above Jesus’ head actually stated the truth about Jesus’ identity.

³⁶ Then they sat down and kept watch over him there. ³⁷ And over his head they put the charge against him, which read, “This is Jesus, the King of the Jews.” ³⁸ Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. Matthew 27:36–38 (ESV)

The grace of God for which Jesus gave His life is most prominently displayed in Luke’s account of the two thieves between whom Jesus was crucified.

³⁹ One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, “Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!” ⁴⁰ But the other rebuked him, saying, “Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation? ⁴¹ And we indeed justly, for we are receiving the due reward of our deeds; but this man has done nothing wrong.” ⁴² And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” ⁴³ And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”Luke 23:39–43 (ESV)

It is indeed a historical and theological fact that Jesus Christ came to the earth for the expressed purpose of dying on the cross. He did this for one reason, to provide a sacrifice for sin. It is terribly depressing and incredibly sad that the people for whom Jesus died treated Him with such hatred, disrespect and acrimony.

³⁹ And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads ⁴⁰ and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” ⁴¹ So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, ⁴² “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. ⁴³ He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’ ” ⁴⁴ And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way. Matthew 27:36–44 (ESV)

At noon darkness veiled Jerusalem. This was indeed a strange occurrence. Scientists and others have hypothesized how this darkness might have occurred.  Some have speculated that is was an unusually bad storm or a solar eclipse. How it happened is less important than why it happened. Jesus is taking upon Himself the punishment for the sin of all the people who have ever and will ever live. In the this process Jesus suffers the wrath God has for sin. Jesus has to suffer much more than physical pain while being crucified He also must bear the penalty for sin. It is in this despair and pain that Jesus cries out to God His Father.

⁴⁵ Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land until the ninth hour. ⁴⁶ And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” that is, “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” ⁴⁷ And some of the bystanders, hearing it, said, “This man is calling Elijah.” ⁴⁸ And one of them at once ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine, and put it on a reed and gave it to him to drink. ⁴⁹ But the others said, “Wait, let us see whether Elijah will come to save him.” ⁵⁰ And Jesus cried out again with a loud voice and yielded up his spirit. Matthew 27:36–44 (ESV)

At 3:00 pm Jesus’ struggle ends. He yields His Spirit. Once more John gives us a bit more information. According to John, Jesus’ final words were “It is finished.”

³⁰ When Jesus had received the sour wine, he said, “It is finished,” and he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. John 19:30 (ESV)

This phrase was common in the world of the New Testament, but it was not a common phrase for ones final words. It comes from the world of business and would best be translated today by our phrase “paid in full.” In other words Jesus is saying when he gives up His Spirit that the sin debt is paid, it is done, it is over. That the sin debt is paid is powerfully illustrated by an occurrence in the temple and the reaction of nature, and the previously dead to Jesus’ death.

⁵¹ And behold, the curtain of the temple was torn in two, from top to bottom. And the earth shook, and the rocks were split. ⁵² The tombs also were opened. And many bodies of the saints who had fallen asleep were raised, ⁵³ and coming out of the tombs after his resurrection they went into the holy city and appeared to many.

These incidents were so revealing that the godless centurion who had witnessed Jesus’ death came to a strange and startling conclusion, “this was God’s Son!”

⁵⁴ When the centurion and those who were with him, keeping watch over Jesus, saw the earthquake and what took place, they were filled with awe and said, “Truly this was the Son of God!” Matthew 27:51–54 (ESV)

How will you spend today? Do you really believe that Jesus was God’s Son or have become too sophisticated for such intolerant and ancient thinking. Has Good Friday become just another day for you?

I believe that Jesus Christ actually lived a sinless life and that He preached, healed and cast out demons just like the biblical authors described. I also believe that He was crucified between two thieves and that when He died He bore the penalty for my sin and that through faith in Him I can be saved. This faith is not cheap, however. It cost me my life, just as it did Jesus.

When one is saved we will want to follow Jesus wherever He leads. My lifestyle, my ambitions, my desires, my bank account, my schedule, my relationships and every other aspect of my life are no longer my own, they are His! I am to follow Him. This is how we are to celebrate, every Easter, Good Friday, holiday, Lord’s day, and weekday.  This is how those who walked with Jesus then lived, and how those who truly follow Jesus now live. Because Jesus died for us shouldn’t we be willing to live for Him?