Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Jesus on Divorce:
How My Mind Has Changed
William A. Heth
William A. Heth is Professor of New Introduction some circumstances (persistent adultery,
Testament and Greek at Taylor Univer- What did Jesus mean when he spoke out physical or verbal abuse, incest, etc.),
sity and has served as a professor at prophetically against divorce and remar- Jesus taught that his disciples should not
Taylor since 1986. Dr. Heth has written riage as it would have been understood remarry after divorce. In short, remarriage
extensively on the issue of divorce and and practiced by his first-century hearers? after divorce for whatever reason—even
remarriage. He co-authored with How literally should we interpret those sexual immorality (Matt 5:32; 19:9)—was
Gordon Wenham Jesus and Divorce. A pronouncements? Did Jesus intend to set a violation of the seventh commandment,
second edition of this work was pub- forth an exceptionless absolute? Or should “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod
lished in 1997. we approach his divorce sayings as rhe- 20:14; Deut 5:18).2 How do matters stand
torical overstatements intended to empha- now?
size a particular point, but admitting of The consensus appears to be stronger
exceptions? How would his audience than ever. Christianity Today’s 1992 read-
have understood those sayings, and what ers survey revealed that
can we learn from his earliest disciples’
attempts to understand and apply Jesus’ The majority believe that fornication
(73 percent) and desertion by a non-
teaching to their respective Christian com- Christian spouse (64 percent) are
munities? Did they faithfully reflect the two scriptural grounds for remar-
intent of the one they called Lord and mas- riage. At the same time, a significant
minority believe Jesus taught that
ter, or would Jesus be displeased with how believers should not remarry after
they had modified his standard? Further- divorce (44 percent) and that God
more, how should we, his twenty-first designed marriage to be permanent,
and remarriage constitutes adultery
century followers, apply them in our very (44 percent). Less than four out of
different socio-cultural contexts? These ten believe there may be reason for
remarriage other than adultery or
are the kinds of questions that scholars ask
desertion.3
as they wrestle with the NT records of
Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. Furthermore, nearly every one of the
The American edition of Jesus and weighty American commentaries on the
Divorce appeared in 1985 with the subtitle Gospels written since 1984 essentially
The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus.1 defends the majority view,4 and so does
What is that consensus? The majority of every article in IVP’s reference collection
evangelicals believe that Jesus permits that touches on marriage, divorce, remar-
remarriage after divorce for marital riage, and adultery.5 Though we contin-
unfaithfulness (Matt 5:32; 19:9) and that ued to defend our views in the face of
Paul sanctions remarriage when Christian others’ rejection of our exegesis,6 only two
spouses are abandoned by unbelieving scholarly monographs and one major
mates (1 Cor 7:15). We argued to the con- commentary affirmed Wenham’s and my
trary that even though marital separation understanding of the divorce texts.7 For
or legal divorce may be advisable under me, personally, this proved troubling. This
4meant that the best of evangelical schol- Genesis 2:24 and the way all ancient Near
arship had read our material and found it Eastern law codes, including the Bible,
wanting—scholars that I admired and have always made a distinction between
who sought to handle these texts as criti- justifiable as opposed to unjustifiable
cally and fairly as we attempted to (espe- divorces. I would like to quote here at the
cially Stein, Carson, and Blomberg).8 outset, if not for the reader, at least for
As noted in the 1997 appendix to Jesus myself, R. F. Collins’s reminder in the
and Divorce, no major new interpretations Introduction to his erudite study on Di-
of Jesus’ teaching have been proposed vorce in the New Testament:
since its publication in 1984, and of the
six major interpretive approaches we In the study of the New Testament,
there are more than merely method-
originally surveyed, only two remain as ological issues which must be con-
viable options today: (1) the majority sidered. Exegesis, the science of the
evangelical Protestant view and (2) the interpretation of texts, is not an
exact science, as chemistry and
minority early church fathers’ or “no physics may claim to be. Exegesis is
remarriage” view. The view that porneia a matter of the interpretation of data,
in the exception clauses should be under- a matter of sensitivity and judgment.
Even scholars viewing the data from
stood to mean marriage within forbidden the same angle often come to differ-
degrees of kinship (Lev 18:6-18) and that ent conclusions. The use of similar
methodology does not always pro-
it refers to a specific situation facing
vide the same results.11
Matthew’s church in which Gentile con-
verts were incorporated into a Jewish And I might also add from my own expe-
Christian context, is no longer a viable rience that holding fast to one or two
interpretive option.9 inaccurate concepts means that several
In what follows I will set forth the others will have to be misconstrued in
major positions on the crucial texts for order to bring coherence to the whole.
both the majority and minority views and
then explain what caused me to reconsider Majority and Minority Views
my interpretive grid and modify my per- Though other considerations could be
spective over the past nine years. In the noted, the following chart depicts the
chart under the majority view I will sub- major points of contention between the
stitute some of the more recent arguments majority who believe that the NT allows
related to the OT texts that I have gleaned remarriage after divorce for one or more
from G. Hugenberger’s work, Marriage as reasons and the minority who believe that
a Covenant,10 for this is the work that has Jesus did not want his disciples to remarry
corrected my understanding of the nature after divorce.
of the marriage covenant encapsulated in
5Issue Majority Minority
The nature of Covenants may be both violated and Covenants are binding and cannot
biblical covenants dissolved.12 The primary sense of be broken.15 E.g., Hos 1:9 is not
“covenant” (berit) is that it is an an announcement by God of the
“elected, as opposed to natural, dissolution of the covenant compa-
relationship of obligation established rable to divorce. “The covenant
under divine sanction.”13 Covenants nowhere makes provision for such
were “the means the ancient world an eventuality. Covenant-breaking
took to extend relationships beyond on the part of Israel (unilateral
the natural unity by blood.”14 Minor- withdrawal) calls for severe
ity view’s point about Hos 1:9 is punishment. Israel cannot opt
correct as far as it goes; but once the out by no longer acknowledging
covenant is broken by Israel’s infidel- Yahweh. The punishment is not
ity, God can legitimately divorce an expression of a broken relation-
Israel such that the people are no ship. On the contrary, it is enforced
longer acknowledged as “my people” within the relationship; punish-
(Hos 1:9). However, the legal right ment maintains the covenant.”16
to disown his people does not
preclude the completely unexpected
and infinitely gracious possibility
that God may yet establish a new
covenant.
Gen 2:23 — “This at last [Agrees with the Heth and The marriage covenant is compa-
is bone of my bones and Wenham minority view’s points, rable to the kinship bond that exists
flesh of my flesh” & but qualifies them.] between parents and children.
Gen 2:24 — “leave and “[T]he ‘relationship formula’ [Gen The covenanted (“leave” and
cleave” and “become 2:23] is not merely an assertion of cleave” are covenant terms; cf.
one flesh” an existing blood tie, ‘but is rather Deut 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; 30:20; Josh
a covenant oath which affirms and 22:5; 23:8; Ruth 1:14-16) and
establishes a pattern of solidar- consummated marriage witnessed
ity.’”17 “Clearly, sexual union is and joined by God (Mal 2:14; Matt
the indispensable means for the 19:6//Mark 10:8b-9) results in the
consummation of marriage both in two becoming “one flesh,” that is,
the Old Testament and elsewhere kin or blood relatives. The kinship
in the ancient Near East.18 ” Sexual nature of marriage is also indicated
union probably functioned this by the Gen 2:23 relationship
way because it was viewed as the formula, “bone of my bones, and
oath-sign that ratified the marriage flesh of my flesh” (cf. 29:14; 37:27;
covenant. Judg 9:1-2; 2 Sam 5:1; 19:12-13).19
6Issue Majority Minority
Deut 24:1-4 The scholarly consensus is that “the The minority view agrees with the
intent of this casuistic law is neither scholarly consensus (which also
to authorize divorce, nor to stipulate notes that there are two types of
its proper grounds, nor to establish divorce mentioned in vv. 1-3: the
its requisite procedure. Rather its sole one that has just cause [“some
concern is to prohibit the restoration indecency”] and the other based
of a marriage after an intervening on aversion [“hate”] which has
marriage.”20 The v. 4 prohibition adverse financial penalties for the
closes a legal loophole that otherwise offending husband). Deut 24:4
might seem to legitimize a form of prohibits unjust enrichment (due
adultery.21 Other reasons have been to estoppel).22
offered also.
Mal 2:16– Interpretation is vexed by a NIV translates: “‘I hate divorce,’
”I hate divorce” translation problem. ESV is most says the LORD God of Israel, ‘and
probable: “‘For the man who hates I hate a man’s covering himself
and divorces, says the LORD, the with violence as well as with
God of Israel, covers his garment his garment,’ says the LORD
with violence, says the LORD of Almighty.” This is an absolute
hosts ... ‘“ Malachi only condemns prohibition of divorce.24
divorce based on aversion (i.e.,
unjustified divorce). “Mal. 2:16
shares the same assessment of
divorce based on aversion as
seems to be presupposed for the
second divorce in Deut. 24:3, with
its adverse financial consequences
for the offending husband.”23
7Issue Majority Minority
Luke 16:18 This is Luke’s one example of The introductory “Everyone who
radicalizing the law, and the way divorces” (pas ho apolyon) employs
it is stated admits of no exceptions. a legal ordinance form similar to
The casuistic form is employed OT casuistic law.27 Jesus teaches
for emphasis and exaggeration: it a standard (as opposed to an ideal)
presents an ideal like Jesus’s sayings that he expects his disciples to
in Mark 10:11-12. Jesus’ concern is not keep. Paul apparently follows
with legal definitions but with moral Luke’s (and Mark’s) unqualified
exhortation.25 Alternatively, Luke form of Jesus’ saying in 1 Cor 7:10-
uses this saying as an allegorical 11. Only two alternatives present
statement on Jesus’ non-abolition themselves in case of divorce:
of the Law (v. 17)— the person who remain unmarried or else be
annuls part of the Law in favor of reconciled.
some other practice is like a man
divorcing his wife in favor of another
woman. Provides no help in deter-
mining Jesus’ literal views on divorce
and remarriage.26
Mark 10:11-12 Jesus, a prophetic wisdom teacher, Yes, Jesus was questioned by the
uses rhetorical overstatement to Pharisees, but his final word for
drive home a general point to them is found in v. 9: “What
hostile questioners. Thus Mark therefore God has joined together,
simply records Jesus’ emphatically let not man separate.” However,
stated divorce saying without Jesus’ absolute prohibition of
intending to specify possible divorce and remarriage is reserved
exceptions. Jesus cannot be for the disciples in the Markan
construed as teaching an place of private instruction, “the
“exceptionless absolute” based on house” (7:17; 9:28; 10:10; cf. 4:34).
Mark because both Matthew (5:32; Jesus is clarifying kingdom stan-
19:9) and Paul (1 Cor 7:15) qualify dards for his disciples, to whom
Jesus’ prohibition of remarriage Jesus gives insights into the
after divorce. Alternatively, Jesus’ mysteries of the kingdom of God
sayings should be understood as (4:11), not addressing unbelieving
generalizations that admit of outsiders whom he wants to bring
exceptions. to repentance with a prophetic
word.
8Issue Majority Minority
Matt 5:32 The exception, applied in a legal way, This saying employs a legal
qualifies Jesus’ prophetic pronounce- ordinance form similar to OT
ment (i.e., a wisdom saying that casuistic law (cf. Luke 16:18a). This
should be read as a prophetic and antithesis cannot be read in light of
somewhat hyperbolic summons to the first two. Jesus sets before the
an ideal like the preceding sayings disciples a standard (as opposed
about anger and lust).28 The excep- to an ideal) that he wants them to
tion reflects the language of Deut 24:1 keep. The exception restricts the
and identifies a valid divorce. For statement “causes her to commit
first-century Jewish readers, a valid adultery.” It is tautologous: if
divorce by definition included the one’s wife has already committed
right to remarry. adultery, then the husband who
divorces her does not make her
commit adultery. She has made
herself one already. The question
of freedom to remarry after a
lawful divorce is not addressed.
Jesus’ Orientation Matthew sees Jesus as explaining Jesus opposes the way the Pharisees
toward Deut 24:1 in the meaning of the law. employed Deut 24:1 and contrasts
Matthew 19//Mark 10 Deuteronomy’s “some indecency” divorce with God’s will “from the
= Matthew’s “sexual immorality.” beginning.” Jesus would neither
In the OT, divorce for “some interpret nor abrogate something
indecency” identified a legally Moses never legislated. Jesus
valid divorce. Valid divorces prohibited what Moses permitted;
always included the right to he did not permit what Moses
remarry. Jesus demotes Moses’ prohibited. So Jesus neither
concession in Deuteronomy and divinely interprets nor abrogates
subordinates it to Genesis, but Deut 24:1. It was a concession to
valid divorces are God’s permis- human sinfulness in the OT era
sive will for some innocent victims and contrary to God’s will all
of divorce. along.
9Issue Majority Minority
Matt 19:9 and the syntax Exceptions are precisely exceptions. The placement of the clause after
of the exception clause That the clause modifies both the “divorces” but before “and remar-
divorce action and the remarriage ries” argues that Jesus permitted
action is determined more by the divorce for marital unfaithfulness
concept of justifiable divorce than by but not also remarriage. In a
Greek grammar. The clause, either culture that demanded the wife
spoken by Jesus himself (Carson, be divorced for immorality, the
Blomberg) or supplied by Matthew exception clause relieves the man
under the Spirit’s inspiration (Stein, of the responsibility for the divorce
Keener, Hawthorne), clearly justifies and its consequences. Understands
divorce for immorality and permits Matthew’s exception in light of the
remarriage. True, marriage must not unqualified form of Jesus’ sayings
be dissolved. But if dissolved by in Mark, Luke, and Paul ( i.e.,
persistent sexual immorality, the remarriage after any divorce
marriage covenant is violated. results in adultery) and the
Gen 2:24 “kinship” nature of
the marriage relationship.
Meaning of “divorce” Valid divorces always included the Evidently the bill of divorce does
(apolyo) right to remarry. Both Jewish and not dissolve the marriage since
Roman cultural contexts permit- Jesus states that remarriage
ted, yea even required, divorce for amounts to adultery (Matt 5:32b;
adultery and remarriage could 19:9b). Matthew’s Jesus rejects the
naturally follow. Thus Matthew’s Pharisees’ proof-text for their
readers would assume that the “remarriage-assumed” view
divorce Jesus permits for immoral- (Deut 24:1) and instead appeals to
ity must be the same kind of Gen 2:24 (with it’s kinship under-
divorce that Jesus’ contemporaries standing of marriage) as the basis
practiced: it included the right to for his views. Three factors suggest
remarry. If it meant separation or that Jesus’ reference to “divorce”
legal divorce only, without the does not sanction remarriage:
right to remarry, then Matthew’s (1) the “one flesh” kinship concept
readers would not have readily of marriage; (2) the probably
recognized this semantic shift authentic longer reading of Matt
without further explanation. 19:9 (“and whoever marries
a divorced woman commits
adultery” [cf. Matt 5:32b]); and
(3) Jesus’ response to the disciples’
objection in vv. 10-12.
10Issue Majority Minority
Matt 19:10-12 & the Even with the exception, Jesus’ “This saying” (v. 11) refers to Jesus’
“eunuch saying” position is more daunting than difficult word against divorce and
Shammai’s. “This saying” (v. 11) remarriage in v. 9. “Those to
refers to the disciples’ objection in whom it is given” are the faithful
v. 10 that “it is better not to marry.” disciples (as opposed to Pharisees
Jesus recognizes that God enables and outsiders [cf. 13:11-12]) that
some to remain celibate for the sake Jesus encourages (v. 12) to embrace
of advancing the claims and interests his difficult word that they should
of God’s kingdom (cf. 1 Cor 7:7, remain single after divorce even
25-38). for sexual immorality.
How do Jesus & Jesus is more radical than Jesus is much more radical than
Shammai differ? Shammai. Jewish (and Roman) Shammai. Shammai mandated
law mandated divorce for sexual divorce for sexual immorality, but
immorality, but Jesus only Jesus prohibits most divorces and
permits it. This means that broken remarriage after divorce for porneia
marriages may still be restored. (i.e., adultery, bestiality, incest,
sodomy, homosexuality, etc.)
1 Cor 7:10-11 Paul is talking about divorce in Studies indicate that Paul’s teach-
situations other than divorce for ing on sexuality, marriage, and
sexual unfaithfulness. The believers singleness in 1 Corinthians 6 and 7
advocating asceticism (1 Cor 7:1) stems from the same tradition of
wanted to enforce their “no sexual Jesus’ teaching that Matthew
relations” slogan on the married records in 19:3-12. Yet Paul says
(vv. 1-7), the widowers and widows that if a divorce or separation takes
(vv. 8-9, 39-40), those advocating place, “let them remain unmarried
separation (vv. 10-16), and the or else be reconciled.” Where Paul
engaged (vv. 25-28, 34, 36-38), who, specifically mentions the possibil-
like other singles (vv. 29-35), are still ity of remarriage, in both instances
free from matrimonial ties and could he notes explicitly that one of
live single if they have the gift of the spouses has died (1 Cor 7:39;
sexual self-control (vv. 7, 9a; cf. Matt Rom 7:2-3). Thus Paul follows the
19:11-12). teaching of Jesus.29
11Issue Majority Minority
1 Cor 7:15–”not enslaved” This phrase distinctly frees the Like Matthew’s exception clause,
(ou dedoulotai) innocent party to remarry.30 The Paul’s qualifier relieves the inno-
essential formula in the Jewish bill of cent party of the guilt of violating
divorce were the words “you are free Christ’s command not to divorce
to any man” (m. Git. 9:3). Paul (mentioned 4x in vv. 10-13).
employs the same formula for Nothing is said about the possibil-
believers abandoned by unbelieving ity of remarriage. The following
spouses.31 Douloo (1 Cor 7:15) and deo considerations suggest remarriage
(1 Cor 7:39; Rom 7:2) “are related”32 is not permitted: (1) marriage is a
and used interchangeably (unless one creation ordinance, binding on all
excludes categories so as to have so irrespective of their faith or the
few examples left as to be able to lack thereof; (2) Paul has already
argue whatever one wishes). Both specifically prohibited remarriage
free someone who was once married in vv. 10-11; (3) when Paul speaks
to remarry. about the binding character of
marriage he uses the term deo
(Rom 7:2; 1 Cor 7:39; cf. 7:27, a
promise of engagement), not douloo
(1 Cor 7:15); and (4) where he
clearly mentions the possibility of
remarriage, Paul also refers to the
death of one of the marriage
partners (1 Cor 7:39; Rom 7:2).
1 Cor 7:39 & Rom 7:2— 1 Cor 7:39 involves a real case at Whenever Paul mentions the
“a wife is bound Corinth and Rom 7:2 occurs as an possibility of remarriage, in both
(dedetai) to her husband illustration of how the Mosaic law cases he notes specifically that
as long as he lives” only has power over people as one of the spouses has died. This
long as they live. Paul does not is Paul’s ordinary usage for the
have in view divorce for sexual indissolubility of marriage as long
immorality in either place. as a mate is living.
Church Fathers A growing, unbiblical asceticism, The historic teaching of the
especially in sexual matters, church—up to the 6th century in
distorted and restricted the fathers’ the East and up to the 16th century
interpretation of Jesus and Paul’s in the West—stands firmly behind
teaching. Note the asceticism a no remarriage understanding of
promoted in 1 Corinthians 7 Matt 19:9 and 1 Cor 7:15.
already.33
12Initial Doubts about eager as I was to follow Jesus’ teaching
My Minority View wherever it might lead. I wanted to un-
I found my own “no remarriage” derstand why the best defenders of the
understanding of Jesus’ teaching on majority view were not persuaded by my
divorce challenged when I first read C. S. arguments to the contrary.
Keener’s book . . . And Marries Another in
the fall of 1992.34 For the first time since Rethinking 1 Corinthians 7:15
1982—the year I wrote my Th.M. thesis Early on in my study of the biblical
on divorce and remarriage—I began to teaching on marriage and divorce I was
wonder if the defense for my “no remar- influenced greatly by G. Bromiley’s little
riage” position was as exegetically sound book, God and Marriage. Bromiley devel-
as I had thought. ops a theology of marriage patterned
In November of 1994 I presented a after God’s relationship with Israel and
paper at the annual meeting of the Evan- Christ’s relationship to the church and
gelical Theological Society responding to paints the kind of “big theological picture”
Keener’s exegesis. I revised it and pub- that helps one see the forest of God’s
lished it as “Divorce and Remarriage: The design for marriage through the some-
Search for an Evangelical Hermeneutic.”35 times ambiguous exegetical trees.36 I was
It was that spring that Gordon Wenham puzzled, however, why Bromiley agreed
and I were finalizing the appendix to Jesus with me that Matthew’s exceptions did not
and Divorce for the Paternoster reprint that clearly permit remarriage, but did believe
finally appeared in 1997; but to be honest, that Paul allowed remarriage to the Chris-
my heart was not fully into writing it. tian deserted by an unbeliever (1 Cor
I had begun to feel the weight of the 7:15).37 If Jesus had taught that marriage
majority position’s arguments. I had writ- is for life, and that remarriage after divorce
ten and read so much about this subject for whatever reason amounts to adultery,
that I felt jaded and numbed by the whole how could Paul permit remarriage after
issue. Nevertheless, I held out hope that I divorce in a situation that seemed “less
still might be right and did as much as I serious” (depending on one’s viewpoint)
could to keep defending our “no remar- than the remarriage after divorce for
riage” view in that appendix. immorality that Jesus disallowed?38
When people would ask whether or not About ten years later when I read in
I still held my view, I simply said, “I don’t Keener’s statement that Paul’s “not under
know what to believe any more.” I had to bondage” (KJV) “distinctly frees the inno-
face the fact that the key articles in IVP’s cent party to remarry” and that “If Paul
Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (by R. H. meant that remarriage was not permitted,
Stein) and Dictionary of Paul and His he said precisely the opposite of what he
Letters (by G. F. Hawthorne) were in meant,”39 I found myself initially agree-
essential agreement with Keener’s book. ing with his straightforward analysis of
I knew my own intellectual limitations Paul’s language.40 Keener argued that the
well enough not to presume that “I alone essential formula in the Jewish bill of
must be right,” and one personal conver- divorce, “You are free to marry any man”
sation with Bob Stein at a professional (m. Git. 9:3), functions in precisely the
meeting convinced me that he was as same way as Paul’s “not being enslaved”
13in 1 Corinthians 7:15. However, I went on woman (= wife), ‘…is Paul’s ordinary
to challenge Keener’s arguments that “not usage for the indissolubility of marriage
being enslaved” is different from being as long as a mate is living (v. 39; Rom.
“free” to remarry both lexically and con- 7:2).”44 He also makes a telling comment
ceptually. 41 Without going into all the about 1 Corinthians 7:39, one that waves
details here, having just reread my a caution flag in the face of attempts to fill
response to Keener after ignoring it for the in the answers to nagging interpretive
past six years, I do not see how I missed questions by appealing indiscriminately
the fact that Paul’s negative formulation to known first-century cultural back-
(“In such cases the brother or the sister is grounds: “The first statement, ‘A woman
not enslaved”) was making precisely the is bound to her husband as long as he
same point as the positive formulation in lives,’ runs so counter to Jewish under-
the Jewish bill of divorce (“You are free to standing and practice at this point in his-
marry any man”). That Keener was not at tory that it almost certainly reflects Paul’s
all persuaded by my counter arguments understanding of Jesus’ own instructions
is evident by the italicized word in the (see on v. 10). As such it is a final word
following 1 Corinthians 7:15-related state- against divorce and remarriage.”45
ment I recently found in his 1999 commen- To sum up, I had relied quite heavily
tary on Matthew: “Paul’s words recall the on 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3
exact language for freedom to remarry in as evidence that Paul followed Jesus’
ancient divorce contracts, and his ancient understanding of marriage as a “one
readers, unable to be confused by mod- flesh” kinship relationship that could not
ern writers’ debates on the subject, would be dissolved. I also believed that Paul was
have understood his words thus…”42 This reflecting Jesus’ sayings in 1 Corinthians
meant that if Paul made an exception to 7:10-11 when he allowed the divorced
Jesus’ seemingly absolute prohibition of believer only two options: “remain
divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians unmarried or else be reconciled.” How-
7:15, then it was certainly possible that one ever, I had to admit that Paul may not
could interpret Jesus’ exception clauses in have had divorce for sexual immorality
Matthew in similar fashion.43 in view in any of those statements. Cer-
Nevertheless, I knew that both Jesus tainly at Corinth Paul was addressing a
and Paul adopted viewpoints quite the situation where divorce was being advo-
opposite of their surrounding culture, and cated by those who claimed to be believ-
that where Paul did mention permission ers, and the ascetic party was trying to
for remarriage, in both places he also force their views of sexual abstinence (cf.
explicitly refers to the death of one of the 1 Cor 7:1) on both the married and the
spouses. G. D. Fee had also highlighted formerly married (vv. 1-16, 39-40) as well
the similarity between the language of as those pledged to be married and the
Romans 7:2-3 and Paul’s statement in never-before-married (vv. 25-38).46 This
1 Corinthians 7:39: “A wife is bound to her led me to reconsider again the possibility
husband as long as he lives. But if her that Jesus’ teaching on divorce involved
husband dies, she is free to be married to either generalizations or rhetorical over-
whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” Fee statements that were never intended to be
adds that “the language ‘bound to a understood as exceptionless absolutes.
14Rethinking the Form of Jesus’ geration (Stein, Keener, Hawthorne, Col-
Divorce Sayings lins) or “a generalization which admits of
I have just come off of a fall semester certain exceptions.”50 The former view
where I was asked to teach the Gospels emphasizes that Jesus referred to himself
course at Taylor University to fill in for a as a prophet (Matt 13:57), taught as a wise
colleague on sabbatical. Never having man (Matt 12:38-42), and spoke out pow-
read Blomberg’s NAC commentary on erfully against the religious hypocrisy and
Matthew from beginning to end, I chose injustices he observed (Matthew 23).
it as one of my texts for the course. I thor- Therefore, if Jesus wanted to drive home
oughly enjoyed the opportunity to work a particular point in the midst of a hostile
through his entire exposition of Matthew’s audience, “his omission of any qualifica-
message and his many insightful practi- tion may be understandable.”51 Davies
cal applications. On a number of occasions and Allison note that
I drew my students’ attention to his cau-
tious avoidance of interpretive extremes.47 Jesus’ saying about divorce was,
when first delivered, probably
I was impacted, too, by his very balanced intended to be more haggadic than
treatment of Jesus’ teaching on divorce. halakhic; that is, its purpose was not
As a result, he gained my trust. to lay down the law but to reassert
an ideal and make divorce a sin,
Though it almost seems too obvious to thereby disturbing then current
mention now, when the Pharisees asked complacency (a complacency well
Jesus where he stood on the matter of di- reflected in Hillel’s view that a
woman could be divorced even for
vorce (Matt 19:3//Mark 10:2), the pro- burning food: m. Git. 9.10). Jesus was
nouncements he made were not ad- not, to judge by the synoptic evi-
dence, a legislator. His concern was
dressed to friendly disciples who were
not with legal definitions but with
eager to obey fully his every word. moral exhortation (cf. 5:27-30).52
Blomberg’s warning caught me off guard:
“The specific historical background that On the other hand, I would prefer to
informed this debate, the particular way classify Jesus’ sayings as generalizations,
in which the question is phrased, and the even though the exposition is essentially
unscrupulous motives behind the Phari- the same under either category. I just think
sees’ approach all warn us against the words like “exaggeration,” “hyperbole,”
notion that Jesus was comprehensively and “rhetorical overstatement” convey
addressing all relevant questions about the wrong idea. Based on what I have
marriage and divorce.”48 Thus it is quite recently learned, I now find myself in
likely that we should not treat “Jesus’ agreement with Blomberg:
words as if they were the objective, refer-
ential language of jurisprudence seeking Few try to make the pronounce-
ments in various other controversy
to convey a legal precept.”49 or pronouncement stories absolute
The sayings in both Mark 10:11-12 (cf. e.g., Matt 19:21, 9:15, and esp.
and Luke 16:18 give the impression that 13:57, a particularly interesting par-
allel because of its similar exception
under no circumstances would divorce or clause . . . ), so one should be equally
remarriage be possible. However, there wary of elevating 19:9 (or Mark
are two ways to understand the form of 10:11-12) into an exceptionless abso-
lute. The casuistic legal form (“who-
Jesus’ divorce saying. It is either an exag- ever”) does not undermine this
15claim; parallel “sentences of law” tion clause, which would permit divorce
(e.g., Matt 5:22, 27, 39, 41) also con-
tain implicit qualifiers.53 for immorality and might even encourage
offended spouses to forgive and take
I think a good case can be made that back unfaithful mates.57 I am convinced
Jesus himself uttered the exception clause. that Jesus’ goal would parallel Yahweh’s
I formerly held that the disciples’ incre- relentless pursuit of unfaithful Israel
dulity (v. 10) in the face of Jesus’ saying throughout the OT and that he would try
on divorce in v. 9 could only be explained to save a marriage at all costs. Thus the
if Jesus had prohibited all remarriage exception clause means that Jewish mar-
after divorce, even divorce for sexual riages may still be kept together even if
immorality. Stein, too, admitted that divorce for porneia occurs (cf. the forgive-
“Even in the Matthean account the reac- ness requirement in Matt 18:21-35 and the
tion of the disciples seems best under- model of the father in Luke 15:11-32). This
stood in the light of a total prohibition would have been shocking to first-century
against divorce (see Matt 19:10-12). Such Jews, suggesting that Jesus’ view is more
a reaction would be surprising if Jesus had strict than Shammai’s—the radical love
uttered the ‘exception clause’ since this of God does unexpected things—and
was essentially the position of the school adequately explains the disciples’ horri-
of Shammai.”54 I think there is a third fied reaction to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew
alternative. From Jewish writings outside 19:10.58
the Bible, we know that first-century pre-
rabbinic marriage and divorce practice Rethinking the Meaning of
influenced Jewish custom on several “Divorce”
points. Not only had the discussions of The major criticism of the minority
Hillel and Shammai turned the concession view that Jesus did not permit remarriage
of Deut 24:1 into a right to be claimed (cf. after divorce, even divorce for sexual
Matt 5:31), a veritable “husbandly privi- immorality, has always been that in the
lege,”55 but first-century Judaism had dis- first-century world a legitimate divorce
torted the intent of the Mosaic command included the right to remarry. C. S. Mann
found in Deuteronomy 24:4. This prohi- states the point emphatically: “The notion
bition of a man returning to his first wife that Jesus was allowing separation, but
after she had remarried and divorced a not divorce, cannot be sustained—as
second time (or her husband had died) Judaism had no such custom, he would
was cast in the extreme so that a husband perforce have had to explain it.”59 I tried
was prohibited from ever returning to his several times to argue that Jesus had made
wife if she had sexual relations in any form it sufficiently clear that he was investing
with another man. She had to be divorced apolyo (“I divorce”) with a different
(cf. Joseph and Mary in Matt 1:19), even if semantic content,60 but my arguments
she was an innocent victim of rape.56 If have not proved convincing. I knew the
Jewish law mandated divorce for sexual syntactical argument we employed only
unfaithfulness and prohibited a wife from opened the door to harmonizing Matthew
ever returning to her husband after she with an absolute reading of Mark, Luke,
had been unfaithful, Jesus may be coun- and Paul.61 Further, I have always taught
tering both of these notions via the excep- my Greek exegesis students that when it
16comes to validating exegetical problems, Yahweh towards Israel, whom he had
grammar gets you into the ball park, and joined with himself in a covenant (berit),
sometimes gets you on base, but it will is implicitly put forward as a model for
never get you to home plate.62 So why did husband and wife in Malachi 2, and (3)
I persist? Why did I continue to think that that kinship relationships cannot be
Jesus must be using the word “divorce” undone, then marriage must be a cov-
with a new sense? enant-based kinship relationship that
It seemed very clear to me. Jesus lasts until death.
brushes aside the Pharisees’ Deuteronomy There was only one problem. I was
24:1-based concept of “divorce” and missing two crucial details about biblical
replaces it with the Genesis 2:24-based covenants and the nature of that Genesis
concept that husband and wife become 2:24 “one flesh” relationship: (1) biblical
“one flesh.” After quoting Genesis 2:24 in covenants can be violated and dissolved
Matthew 19:5//Mark 10:7-8a, Jesus reit- and (2) the “one flesh” marital-kinship
erates the significance of the two becom- union is not a literal flesh and blood rela-
ing one flesh by saying, “So they are no tionship. (I have already incorporated
longer two but one flesh. What God has both of these points in the top two boxes
joined together let no one separate” (Matt in the chart under the majority view.)
19:6//Mark 10:8b-9). This meant that
the “one flesh” concept in its OT context Rethinking the Meaning of
was the basis for whatever Jesus was “One Flesh” and the Nature of
saying about the permanence of marriage. Biblical Covenants
Yet none of the books or articles on divorce Gordon Hugenberger’s Marriage as a
and remarriage—I had collected around Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Devel-
100 by then—ever nailed down this con- oped from Malachi is the most comprehen-
cept.63 sive study of its title’s focus to date. He
Then in the midst of doing research for also draws upon all the pertinent ancient
my 1982 Th.M. thesis, I stumbled across Near Eastern and related biblical legal
an obscure yet impressive doctoral disser- and narrative material touching on
tation done by A. Isaksson at the Univer- betrothal, marriage, divorce, and sexual
sity of Upsala, Sweden.64 This is where I offences.65 This study supplied the final
learned two concepts that steered my “programming” that I needed to resolve
exegesis from that point on (cf. minority the cognitive dissonance on the subject of
view of Gen 2:24 in the chart above): remarriage after divorce that I have expe-
“leave” and “cleave” were covenant terms rienced for the past ten years. On my
and were later employed to refer to former “no remarriage” view of Jesus’
God’s covenant with Israel, and “one teaching, what proved most troubling to
flesh” in Genesis 2:24 was an abbreviation me all along (though I did have an answer
of Adam’s remark in Genesis 2:23. To be for it) was that Jesus would be labeling as
someone’s bone and flesh was a common adultery the remarriage of someone
OT expression to denote kinship and fam- whose spouse’s unrepentant sexual
ily solidarity. Since (1) I assumed God’s immorality or subsequent remarriage had
covenant with Israel could not be broken made the restoration of the original mar-
(cf. Rom 11:28-29), (2) that the fidelity of riage impossible. This just did not sound
17like the God “who practices steadfast love, those which exist between parents and a
justice, and righteousness in the earth” child or between blood brothers (cf. Gen.
(Jer 9:24). 4:9).”73 I had argued that the covenant and
Hugenbeger notes from the start that consummation of marriage made two
“the relationship between biblical mar- totally unrelated people as closely related
riage law and covenantal concepts has as they will be to their own flesh and blood
been left largely unresolved and, much of children. However, the unity between
the time, virtually ignored.”66 He adds unrelated persons established by the
that a study of the covenantal nature of marriage covenant is not the same as a ver-
marriage could help resolve some of the tical blood relationship between a parent
remaining difficulties in comprehending and a child nor the horizontal blood rela-
the biblical ethics and practice of mar- tionship that exists between siblings. The
riage; and one such difficulty is the Genesis 2:24 phrase, “they become one
dissolubility of marriage, i.e., what flesh,” refers “to the bondedness which
constitutes covenant breaking. Some say results from and is expressed by sexual
that if marriage is a covenant, then it might union” and “refers to the establishment
be possible to break the covenant by of a new family unit” (cf. Gen 29:14; 37:27;
divorce.67 Others argue that not divorce, Lev 18:6; 2 Sam 5:1; Isa 58:7).74
but only sexual infidelity “breaks” the As already noted in our chart above,
covenant. P. F. Palmer, on the other hand, “leave” and “cleave” in Genesis 2:24 are
claims that covenants, unlike contracts, clearly covenant terms, as Hugenberger
are inherently “inviolable” and “unbreak- also argues,75 and there are four essential
able.” 68 The data in my head began to ingredients in the OT understanding of
reformat when Hugenberger responded “covenant” (berit): “it is used of 1) a rela-
to Palmer ’s “unbreakable” covenant tionship 2) with a non-relative 3) which
notion by saying that “in terms of Hebrew involves obligations and 4) is established
usage covenants may be both violated and through an oath.”76 The scholarly consen-
dissolved—with both of these concepts sus is that an oath is indispensable for rati-
expressed by the same underlying fying a covenant, and God is invoked in
Hebrew expression which is customarily any ratifying oath to act as “the enforcer”
rendered ‘broken’ in most English ver- of the covenant.77 The marriage covenant,
sions…”69 I knew immediately that my as opposed to a contract, involves three
no remarriage view had been placed in persons—the bride, the groom, and God.
jeopardy.70 Furthermore, “covenant-ratifying oaths
I learned that the primary sense of often consist of verba solemnia, that is, a
“covenant” (berit) is that it is an “elected, solemn declaration of the commitment
as opposed to natural, relationship of being undertaken—solemn because the
obligation established under divine sanc- deity was implicitly invoked as a wit-
tion.”71 Covenants were “the means the ness.”78 These oaths were not just verbal
ancient world took to extend relationships (nor primarily so), but were frequently
beyond the natural unity by blood,”72 and symbolic: they consisted of “oath-signs”
“berit is nowhere employed of naturally (sharing in a meal, the giving of a hand,
occurring relationships and the ordinary etc.).79 Adam’s verbal oath-sign is found
obligations which attend them, such as in Genesis 2:23: “This is now bone of my
18bones and flesh of my flesh” (NIV). stances, far from being inconsistent
with Jesus’ thought, is in perfect har-
Far from being a “jubilant welcome”
mony with it.84
addressed to Eve, Adam addresses these
words to God as witness, says Hugen- Though I was cognizant of Carson’s point
berger: “[T]hese words appear to be a the year his commentary was released, a
solemn affirmation of his marital commit- few other possibly misconstrued pieces of
ment, an elliptical way of saying some- biblical data (see above) caused me to
thing like, ‘I hereby invite you, God, to believe that marriage was “‘till death do
hold me accountable to treat this woman us part.” What ultimately caused me to
as part of my own body [cf. Eph 5:28].’”80 do an about face was a series of OT
So what role, then, does sexual union passages that were lumped together over
play in the formation of the marriage several pages in Hugenberger.85
covenant? Hugenberger argues “that I was struck with the gravity of the sin
sexual union (copula carnalis), when of adultery in the eyes of both God and
engaged in with consent (i.e., both paren- man. Hugenberger noted that “the Old
tal, in the case of dependent daughters, Testament appears to presuppose a gen-
and mutual), was understood as a eral moral consciousness in man, shared
marriage-constituting act and, corre- even by pagans, which acknowledges
spondingly, was considered a requisite adultery as a heinous wrong committed
covenant-ratifying (and renewing) oath- not only against the injured husband, but
sign for marriage, at least in the view of also against God” (cf. Gen 20:6, 9, 10).86
certain biblical authors.”81 “Clearly,” says God exclaimed to Abimelech, a Gentile,
Hugenberger, “sexual union is the indis- that if he did not return Sarah to Abraham,
pensable means for the consummation of “know that you shall surely die, you, and
marriage both in the Old Testament and all who are yours” (Gen 20:7). The seri-
elsewhere in the ancient Near East.”82 ousness of the sin of adultery was obvi-
It should be obvious now that sexual ous to Joseph too. When Potiphar’s wife
infidelity is a particularly grave violation said, “Lie with me” (Gen 39:7), Joseph
of the marriage covenant, a sin against exclaimed: “How then can I do this great
both the covenant partner and against wickedness and sin against God” (39:9).87
God,83 and if covenants can be violated If this is how offensive God viewed a
and dissolved, this sin strikes at the mar- sexual violation of the marriage covenant,
riage covenant in a unique way. As Carson then how could I continue to believe that
noted years ago in his commentary on Jesus, God’s son, would not view that
Matthew: same sin similarly?
To conclude, the Genesis 2:24 “one
. . . sexual sin has a peculiar relation
to Jesus’ treatment of Genesis 1:27; flesh” relationship that results from the
2:24 (in Matt 19:4-6), because the in- covenant of marriage ratified by sexual
dissolubility of marriage he defends consummation is not an indissoluble
by appealing to those verses from
the creation accounts is predicated union, just one that should preeminently
on sexual union (“one flesh”). Sexual not be dissolved, and a sexual sin like
promiscuity is therefore a de facto adultery is the preeminent violation of the
exception. It may not necessitate
divorce; but permission for divorce marriage covenant. When we realize that
and remarriage under such circum- ancient Near Eastern and OT (Deut 24:1,
193; Mal 2:16) divorce law distinguished husband who learned of his wife’s affair
between divorce without justification to divorce her immediately,” and if he did
(“hate and divorce” in Deut 24:3; Mal 2:16) not do so, “Roman law allowed him to be
and divorce with grounds (“some inde- prosecuted for the offense of lenocinium—
cency” in Deut 24:1),88 it seems most prob- pimping”90 Today I think Jesus would
able that the exception clause in Matthew label as unforgiving someone who
points to divorce with just cause, a valid divorced their spouse for a “one night
divorce that would permit remarriage,89 stand.”
and Jesus limits that just cause to porneia. Though we do not have any NT ex-
amples illustrating the precise way Jesus’
Pastoral Implications (or Matthew’s) and Paul’s exceptions
What does all of this mean for the might be applied, at least two paradigms
application of the biblical teaching on teach us to be gun shy of getting trigger-
divorce and remarriage now that I have happy with them. First, though Yahweh
come to believe that Paul’s (1 Cor 7:15) and had the legal right to disown his people
Jesus’ (Matt 5:32; 19:9) words point to a due to their infidelity (cf. Hos 2:2a//1:9),
just cause for divorce? As I mentioned he only threatened Israel with divorce.
earlier, under my “no remarriage” view However, “just as the threatened covenant
I felt odd about saying that Jesus would of dissolution in Hosea 1 is followed
forbid remarriage to the innocent person by an unexpected promise of covenant
whose spouse’s unrepentant sexual renewal in Hos 2:1-3 [ET 1:10–2:1], so also
immorality or subsequent remarriage had the threatened divorce in Hos. 2:4ff. [ET
made the restoration of the original mar- 2ff.] is followed by an unexpected prom-
riage impossible. This has now been ise of a new marriage in Hos. 2:16ff. [ET
resolved in my mind. Second, in the case 14ff.].” 91 God’s gracious covenant love
of the genuine exceptions, after innocent ultimately overcomes Israel’s infidelity.
parties have made all reasonable attempts Second, I agree with R. B. Hays that “the
to save the marriage, neither the church Christ/church typology [cf. Eph 5:21-33]
nor mission agencies should stigmatize presents an extraordinarily high standard
one’s subsequent decision to remarry or for marriage; if marriage truly reflects the
to remain single. Third, if we factor in our love between Christ and the church, it
own contemporary cultural differences, should be characterized by infinite loyalty
reflect on the accumulated canonical wit- and self-sacrificial love.”92
ness to God’s merciful dealings with his What, then, do the two exceptions in
people, take seriously the call to model the the majority view have in common, and
forgiveness we received from Christ at the what can we learn from them about how
cross and the call to imitate our heavenly to handle divorce cases today? At this
Father as his beloved children (Eph 5:1- point in my study, I would second
2), then we should know not to apply Keener’s summary of Blomberg’s insight-
Jesus’ and Paul’s exceptions in exactly the ful comparison of the two. The principles
same way their first-century hearers that unite both Jesus’ (or Matthew’s) and
would have applied them. Their culture Paul’s exceptions are: (1) both sexual
mandated divorce for sexual immorality. immorality and abandonment violate one
Both Jewish and Roman law, “required a of the two fundamental components of
20marriage (either the “leaving and the us control over the sexual area of our lives
cleaving” or the “one flesh” unity); (2) and that we are not slaves to bodily pas-
“Both leave one party without any other sions. Furthermore, my never-before-mar-
options if attempts at reconciliation are ried single friends are quite suspicious of
spurned”; and (3) “Both recognize the arguments that seek to justify remarriage
extreme seriousness of divorce as a last primarily to satisfy unfulfilled sexual
resort and as an admission of defeat.”93 desires. Certainly, as a lesser of two evils,
Might there be additional legitimate it would be better to marry than to com-
grounds for the dissolution of a mar- mit sexual immorality, but this raises other
riage?94 Here one must be cautious. Some questions I cannot address here.
do feel that physical abuse justifies If we have understood Paul correctly
divorce, and I am sympathetic with this in 1 Corinthians 7:15, willful desertion by
suggestion. 95 Even on my former “no an unbelieving spouse who subsequently
remarriage” view, I taught that in a home remarries makes the restoration of that
where a parent was abusing the children marriage impossible, and I would see no
or a spouse was being abused, common barrier to remarriage (unless, perhaps, for
ethical sense dictates that Jesus would not conscientious reasons the abandoned
require the concerned parent to stay. I believer desires to remain single). But
agree with Keener that both Jesus and what if the unbelieving deserter does not
Paul would “would advise the one par- remarry? In time and with great assurance
ent to take the children and leave, at least that the marriage cannot be restored, it
temporarily.”96 However, incompatibility would seem that the Christian could
and fits of anger would not fit under the remarry. Just how long one should wait
banner of porneia. Also, provision for a would be determined by one’s theologi-
spouse’s food, clothing, and housing, cally informed conscience and whether or
affection, communication, spiritual lead- not God providentially brings along a
ership, and a host of other qualities, are, Christ-centered believing partner.
no doubt, important requirements in mar- One or two writers find in Paul’s
riage—but failures in these matters do not counsel in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 explicit
justify divorce. I am leery, too, of appeal- permission for divorcees to remarry. I am
ing to verses like 1 Corinthians 7:9 (“It is quite confident that Paul is not here mak-
better to marry than to be aflame with ing a blanket statement that “remar-
passion”), which Paul addresses to wid- riage—like the marriage of a virgin—has
owers and widows (vv. 8-9), and then turn problems, but also that it is not sinful.”97
this into a basis for remarriage because This makes Paul explicitly approve of
one’s sexual needs go unfulfilled if a remarriage after divorce without qualifi-
spouse invalidly divorces them and cation. The ESV now helps clarify Paul’s
chooses not to remarry. Paul is quite clear intent: “Are you bound to a wife (dedesai
that believers are to remain unmarried or gynaika)? Do not seek to be free (me zetei
be reconciled in this situation (1 Cor 7:10- lysin). Are you free (lelysai) from a wife?
11; cf. Matt 5:32b//Luke 16:18b). Also, the Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry,
OT stories of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife you have not sinned, and if a betrothed
(Genesis 39) and David and Bathsheba woman (he parthenos) marries, she has not
(2 Samuel 11) imply that God has given sinned.” There is a growing consensus,
21though not without its problems, that Paul and exegetical reasons for my shift at this
is speaking to the concerns of some en- time in my life, and the reader will have
gaged couples in vv. 25-38 (cf. NIV, NRSV, to decide for himself or herself whether
RSV translations of vv. 36-38).98 The men or not I have made the right decision. I
were asking Paul whether or not to fol- think there are some excellent arguments
low through with their promise to marry to be made in favor of the minority view.
(cf. deo in v. 27) in view of the ascetic teach- Yet I have found that scholars like Collins,
ing they had come under in Corinth.99 Davies and Allison, Hagner, and Hays,
Paul’s initial (vv. 25-28) and final (vv. 36- whose exegesis leads them to believe that
38) remarks in this section are directed Jesus categorically prohibited divorce and
specifically to these couples.100 Though remarriage, eventually speak of Jesus’
Paul personally prefers the single state, he divorce sayings as an ideal that must be
wants them to know—contrary to what realistically applied in this “not yet” era.
the ascetics probably taught—that it is not Their suggested modern applications are
sinful to go through with their plans to almost identical to what we find among
marry (vv. 28, 36). Thus 1 Corinthians 7:27- proponents of the majority view. Both
28 should not be brought into discussions majority and minority views want to
of the NT teaching on the ethics of remar- avoid extremes in their application of the
riage after divorce. NT teaching. Minority view proponents
I would like to comment on one final may unfortunately prohibit what God
implication of the biblical teaching on would permit, 102 and majority view
divorce and remarriage for church lead- proponents may permit what God would
ers, namely pastors/elders/overseers, prohibit. The latter is the danger in a cul-
deacons, and deaconesses. The most ture that emphasizes “self-actualization,”
recent studies of “the husband of one personal fulfillment, and “being true to
wife” requirement (1 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6) oneself” rather than being true to the
argue that it is a typical ancient way of attendant commitments and obligations
saying “faithful to one’s marriage.” Paul of one’s marriage covenant. Hays writes:
does not prohibit from church office those
who, against their own wishes, have been [T]he church must recognize and
teach that marriage is grounded not
abandoned or sexually betrayed, but those in feelings of love but in the practice of
who are unfaithful to their marriage.101 love. Nor is the marriage bond con-
Thus divorcees should not automatically tingent upon self-gratification or per-
sonal fulfillment. The church has
be excluded from leadership positions in swallowed a great quantity of pop
the church, nor should those who have psychology that has no foundation in
remarried after the very limited cases in the biblical depiction of marriage; . . .
. When the marital union is rightly
which the NT permits remarriage after understood as a covenant, the ques-
divorce (i.e., divorce with just cause). tion of divorce assumes a very dif-
ferent aspect. Those who have made
promises before God should trust
Conclusion God for grace sufficient to keep those
It may sound odd for me to say this promises, and they should expect the
community of faith to help them to
now, but my switch to the majority view keep faith, by supporting them and
could be wrong. Nevertheless, I have tried holding them accountable.103
to enumerate the conceptual, theological,
22You can also read
