The good news of divorce

Even the most conservative evangelicals hold differing views about divorce. It’s a sensitive issue we don’t often talk about. These articles are an attempt to remedy that, putting forward two views on divorce common amongst evangelicals. We hope they start some discussion.

There should be more divorced people in our churches, and there should be many more divorced people at a church like mine. St Barnabas is an inner city church, and the inner city is often a refuge for people who have left broken lives in suburbia.

But unlike the city, the church is not usually seen as a refuge for divorcees. In fact, those inside my church and those connected with it may see this church as more hostile than most. Our previous senior minister left after his marriage failed, and I would not be surprised if many still wonder if ‘after’ should instead read ‘because’. Last year I spoke publicly about the abandonment of two separate spouses—one a wife and one a husband—by members of this church, and some wondered: will this happen to me if my marriage fails?

I think one of the problems is that we speak a great deal about marriage, and very little about divorce. But speaking about divorce brings its own problems, particularly when I speak about it as the senior minister, because it is impossible to disconnect the senior minister’s theology from his church’s policy. It’s also hard because there are always issues submerged like icebergs within people’s lives that we’re bound to crash into. It is hard because we don’t want to teach about divorce in isolation—we need to know how what God says about divorce is good news for the world, and it’s difficult to get across. It is hard because within the Christian community there are various positions on divorce and remarriage. But even though I don’t think I can ever say enough about how God is good and kind and patient and full of forgiveness, we do need to start talking.1

God is a divorcee

It might surprise you to realize that the most beautiful image God uses to describe his relationship with his people—that of a husband to a wife—is also a spoiled image. God describes himself as a polygamous husband who is also a divorcee:

The Lord said to [the prophet Jeremiah] in the days of King Josiah: “Have you seen what she did, that faithless one, Israel, how she went up on every high hill and under every green tree, and there played the whore? And I thought, ‘After she has done all this she will return to me,’ but she did not return, and her treacherous sister Judah saw it. She saw that for all the adulteries of that faithless one, Israel, I had sent her away with a decree of divorce… Yet for all this her treacherous sister Judah did not return to me with her whole heart, but in pretence, declares the Lord.” (Jer 3:6-8, 10)

The Lord God has two brides, the nations of Israel and Judah, in whom he delights; but both are unfaithful, and one, Israel, he divorces and sends away.

This is a little shocking if your understanding of the Bible’s view on divorce largely hangs off passages like Malachi 2:16: “I hate divorce” (NIV1984). What I’m going to show you is that God’s hatred of divorce in no way precludes his use or permission of divorce in the world.

The Pharisees, a religiously devoted group of Jews, come to Jesus with a question in Matthew 19:3: “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?”

Notice what they are not asking Jesus. They aren’t asking him if it is lawful for a man to divorce his wife, because divorce was an integral part of the Jewish law.

1. Divorce is allowed

The Ancient Near East was a cruel place for women, as many of its laws showed. King Hammurabi, who ruled Babylon around 1800 BC, is famous for his eight-foot monument carved with 282 laws. None of these helped when a husband walked out without leaving support for his wife and family, and they made things worse by allowing him to come back at any time (law 36).

Imagine what this meant: your husband goes to the next town with some friends and the report comes back that he has fallen in love with a pretty young woman and won’t be coming back. You have the land but, as a single woman, no one to work it. Your children are young and an enormous responsibility, and you have no means of support. But no one will marry you. Why? Because at any moment—even after years and years—your husband could return and claim his land (which has just become useful), his kids (who have been brought up by another man) as economically-useful workers, and his wife.

The law was fairer was in Israel. A man who wanted to leave his wife had to write her a certificate of divorce:

When a man takes a wife and marries her, if then she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her… he writes her a certificate of divorce. (Deut 24:1)

This may not seem like much to us, but it was an enormous thing. This meant that she was free to remarry anyone whom she pleased in safety. In other words, divorce is allowed.

2. Divorce is not allowed ‘for any reason’

But this verse, Deuteronomy 24:1, also became an enormous problem. While the Old Testament is clear that only the victim of broken marital responsibilities may divorce, a new school of thought began in 30 AD, right around the time of Jesus’ ministry, when Rabbi Hillel invented the causeless divorce. Deuteronomy 24:1 says literally that a man may divorce his wife for ‘a cause of sexual immorality’, and Hillel argued that since every word in Scripture is significant, this superfluous word ‘a cause’ must refer to another, different ground for divorce: that is ‘any cause’.

So, according to the Hillelite school, there were two causes for divorce: sexual immorality, which you had to prove in court; or any cause, which you could simply issue a certificate for. It’s this latter case that we see Joseph doing in Matthew 1:19 when he discovers Mary is pregnant, presumably with someone else’s child: “And her husband Joseph, being a just man and unwilling to put her to shame, resolved to divorce her quietly”. (By the way, this puts paid to the notion that first century Jews were gullible folk who habitually believed their God impregnated virgin teenage girls.)

However, Hillel was opposed by Rabbi Shammai, who argued that Deuteronomy does not mean ‘any cause’ and ‘sexual immorality’ but, in context, just sexual immorality. His disciples wanted to restrict divorce to only the causes for divorce that the Old Testament provides.

And so the debate came to be broken into ‘any cause’ divorces versus ‘sexual immorality’ divorces, which is what the Pharisees are asking Jesus about in Matthew. They aren’t asking if divorce is lawful—since it clearly was—they were asking which side of the Hillelite/Shammaite debate he stood. And he is very clear: Deuteronomy does not allow divorce ‘for any reason’, but only for adultery.

3. It is always sinful to break marriage vows

The reason for this, Jesus says, is that marriage is a lifetime covenant between two people, and that it is always sinful to break marriage vows:

He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” (Matt 19:4-6)

The Bible is clear that marriage is stitched into the very order of creation and is the climax of God’s creative work. The marriage story of Genesis celebrates a rich and joyful human relationship, an erotic connection with fruitful procreation, daily labour in close company, and a simple friendship. Firstly, procreation, the founding of a new family rather than just having sex:

And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” (Gen 1:28)

Secondly, lifelong faithful companionship:

Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones

and flesh of my flesh;

she shall be called Woman,

because she was taken out of Man.” (Gen 2:23)

Thirdly, a safe haven for erotic love:

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. And the man and his wife were both naked and were not ashamed. (Gen 2:24-25)

Marriage and sex within marriage is a gift from God, an external expression befitting our inner nature as persons created for self-giving steadfast love. It is lifelong, so anyone who breaks their marriage vows is rebelling against God and throwing his good gift back at him. It is no surprise that God hates divorce (Mal 2:16).

4. The biblical grounds for divorce

So if divorce is not allowed for just any reason, and marriage vows ought not to be broken, when is divorce permitted?

In the 1890s, twin female British scholars who had both been widowed set off on a tour of the Middle East, and discovered the sacred rubbish room of the Cairo Synagogue. In it they found a huge collection of early Jewish marriage contracts full of promises to honour, care for, keep, and cherish. Other scholars have traced these back to Exodus 21, which deals with the case of a man who takes a second wife in a polygamous culture:

If he takes another wife to himself, he shall not diminish her food, her clothing, or her marital rights. And if he does not do these three things for her, she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money. (Exod 21:10-11)

Exodus 21 tells us that a woman is allowed to divorce her husband for failure to provide material support and conjugal love. She is free to ‘go out’. When we add this to Deuteronomy, we get three separate bases for divorce: when a spouse is in adultery, when they stop providing material support, and the withdrawal of physical affection and sex.

5. Only the victim can initiate divorce

On a side note, notice that only the victim of this breaking of marriage vows is allowed to initiate divorce. It is the husband whose wife commits adultery and the wife whose husband reneges on his vows who may initiate divorce, not the other way around. In other words, it is a sin to use divorce to break marriage vows, but it is permissible to divorce when marriage vows have been broken.

6. We should forgive a repentant partner

Jesus makes it clear that just because we can divorce does not mean we ought to, and that in fact we should forgive the erring partner if they are repentant.

Divorce became necessary, Jesus says, because of the hardness of human hearts. Even in the Genesis account, marriage became the venue of aimless complicity, alienation and blame, and later of grinding domination.

Hard-heartedness captures two things—a rejection of God’s purposes for and delight in marriage, and a lack of subsequent compassion for one another in repentance and forgiveness:

They made their hearts diamond-hard lest they should hear the law and the words that the Lord of hosts had sent by his Spirit through the former prophets. (Zech 7:12)

But God has given those in Christ a new heart that is not hard:

And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. (Ezek 36:26)

Significantly, Jesus’ treatment of marriage and divorce comes immediately after his teaching on forgiveness:

Then Peter came up and said to him, “Lord, how often will my brother sin against me, and I forgive him? As many as seven times?” Jesus said to him, “I do not say to you seven times, but seventy times seven.” (Matt 18:21-22)

Even when marriage vows are breached, the responsible partner can and ought to be forgiven if they are repentant. In Matthew 18:35, Jesus warns of the consequences to the person who refuses to forgive their brother or sister from their heart.

Now, let’s be very clear about what this means. Repentance is not an abusive husband falling to his knees in tears to say sorry yet again, and then pleading to his wife not to tell anyone about it. Repentance has three parts: an admission of sin, a plea for forgiveness, and an active pursuit of a changed life. Repentance never involves keeping secrets, and always involves drawing on the resources of the community. If someone will not allow their secret sin to become public, and continues in it, then their actions must be exposed.

Jesus gives clear guidelines for dealing with unrepentant sin in Matthew 18:15-17. Firstly, the sin is to be pointed out by the victim. If nothing changes, then a few godly friends are to be included. Finally, it is to be taken to the church. The goal is not to win, but to win the sinner back.

7. Remarriage is possible

Lastly, I want to point out that it is possible to remarry after divorce. In fact, that is what divorce means—that you are free to remarry. However, it must be a valid divorce. Paul gives the example of the Roman divorce through separation, where no cause was needed:

To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife. (1 Cor 7:10-11)

If a husband or wife separates from their spouse—and even gains a locally legal divorce—for reasons that are not to do with their spouse’s unrepentant breaking of vows, then they must not remarry, but be reconciled.

But what if one of a couple leaves, for example, because they do not want to be married to a Christian; that is, what if the other breaks their vows unrepentantly?

But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so. In such cases the brother or sister is not enslaved. God has called you to peace. (1 Cor 7:15)

The brother or sister is not bound. Echoing the language of Exodus 21, they are free to remarry without fault.

Conclusion

Things may not seem encouraging so far, but let’s end with three pieces of good news. Firstly, there is nothing modern about our post-modern-world’s approach to marriage. In the Babylonian era, men could divorce at will and for no reason. In the modern era, both men and women can divorce for no cause. We have all become Hillelites, completely equal in the abandonment of promises. But Jesus and the Scriptures as a whole place tight limits on divorce in order to protect the promises of marriage. It’s these promises that make marriage a safe place for love and vulnerability—a place where you can truly be yourself and take risks for the good of the other. This can only be made possible by promises.

Secondly, God allows us to escape marriages which have stopped being marriages through the repeated, unrepentant breaking of marriage vows. There is a kindness and a mercy in this.

Of course, this leads to the question: what if I get married, and some months or years in I discover that the promise I saw in them has not bloomed as much as I expected, and my desire has begun to fade? What if I fall out of love?

Jesus gives us no way out of a marriage like this, and this is an enormous kindness. You see, if you think love is something that you can fall out of like falling out of bed, then you don’t actually know what love is. But Jesus wants to teach you, and it is crucial that he does teach you, or you will never understand how and why God loves you. You will believe that he loves you because you are successful, and you will be terribly fearful of failure. You will believe that he loves you because you are good, and you will agonize over the loneliness brought about by the darkness of your heart that you feel you cannot share. But God loves you because he has promised to do so. That is what love is.

No marriage on earth has ever been sustained by that first blush of love, the initial attraction which lead to its promises. A kind of love leads to promises, then promises lead to real love in all its richness.

Most of the literature that attempts to instruct us about getting along in marriage fails to face up to a fact so clearly true that I have dared to call it Hauerwas’s Law: You always marry the wrong person. It is as important to note, of course, as Herbert Richardson pointed out to me, that the reverse of the law is also true: namely, that you also always marry the right person. The point of the law is to suggest the inadequacy of the current assumption that the success or failure of a marriage can be determined by marrying the ‘right person’. Even if you have married the ‘right person’, there is no guarantee that he or she will remain such, for people have a disturbing tendency to change. Indeed, it seems that many so-called ‘happy marriages’ are such because of the partners’ efforts to preserve ‘love’ by preventing either from changing.

This law is meant not only to challenge current romantic assumptions but to point out that marriage is a more basic reality than the interpersonal relations which may or may not characterize a particular marriage. Indeed, the demand that those in a marriage love one another requires that marriage have a basis other than the love itself. For it is only on such a basis that we can have any idea of how we should love.2

So if you fall out of love, Jesus wants to teach you what love is, and that love is only learnt by looking back on a life of perseverance.

Now, Jesus’ disciples immediately see that this makes the vows of marriage not only a gift but also an enormous burden. You may not break marriage vows, and if your spouse repents of broken vows, you are to forgive him or her:

The disciples said to him, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry.” (Matt 19:10)

We’re used to the notion that only a few are gifted for singleness—but Jesus, with a little bit of hyperbole, turns that around, and suggests that for this reason, marriage is requires a special giftedness of its own:

But he said to them, “Not everyone can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.” (Matt 19:11-2)

Thirdly, there is the truth that divorce points us to God’s work for us on the cross. The possibility of divorce is humbling. Even our most premeditated and passionate promises are provisional in relation to our future. We cannot control even this one relationship. We need to cast ourselves on the one who is not only for marriage but prepared to forgive the destruction of this thing that he cherishes.

God allows divorce, something he hates, in order to bring a good out of a bad. Again, perhaps, this should draw our eye to the cross, where God permits something he hates—the conviction of an innocent man—to bring the best out of the worst. At the cross, we see that he alone is the one whose promises will never be broken, that he will never again divorce his bride, the church. Maybe that’s the true good news of divorce.

  1. The material in this article is particularly indebted to Andrew Cameron’s Joined-up life, David Instone-Brewer’s Divorce and Remarriage in the Church, and various articles by Stanley Hauerwas.
  2. Stanley Hauerwas, ‘Sex and Politics: Bertrand Russell and ‘Human Sexuality’, Christian Century, vol. 95, no. 14, 1978, p. 421.

199 thoughts on “The good news of divorce

  1. Thanks very much, Michael, for raising this tricky area as a topic for discussion. I agree with pretty much everything you say! However, I just wanted to clarify one comment. You say:
    “it is possible to remarry after divorce. In fact, that is what divorce means—that you are free to remarry. However, it must be a valid divorce.”
    I agree entirely that a Christian person who initiates a legal divorce wrongly ought to repent and remarry their previous spouse. But that is what they will need to do: “Re”-marry. Once there has been a divorce granted by the local legal system, then they are divorced, and legally (whatever they ought morally to do) able to remarry.
    I think it is worth stressing this because there is a view out there among some that there is a difference between “married in God’s sight” and “married” (or “divorced”) under the legal system. But it seems to me that the evidence points to the Biblical writers having the very sensible and pragmatic view that your marital status depends on the laws of the community you are living in at the time. For example, the patriarchs like Abraham were in fact married to more than one wife, although we now know that this was always wrong in God’s sight. (I have a paper at http://works.bepress.com/neil_foster/26/ where I try to show that this view is correct with a bit more Biblical evidence.)
    I only say this because when I first read your piece I read the quote above as saying that one would only be “free” to remarry after a “valid” divorce defined in moral terms. The danger might come for someone who had wrongly exercised their legal right to remarry someone other than their first spouse, and who now, looking back at the circumstances, realises that they were wrong. Your comment might leave them thinking they are not “really” married now. My view would be that they are in fact truly married to their new spouse, although they may of course need to repent of their previous decision and to whatever extent is possible (consistent with their new responsibilities) make reparation for their previous sin.

    • Neil (and everyone), my apologies for a late repines as I have only just returned from holidays. I will try to work through the responses, though at this rate they may multiply beyond my ability to engage!

      On the question of the validity of civil divorce and its normative moral function for Christians, I think I would want to argue for a slightly more complex and even dialectical function.

      Marriage is a social institution and, contrary to some of the treatments I have heard recently, occurs ‘before man’ as well as ‘before God’. As a result, the civil recognition of marriage (and its end) is not irrelevant. However, I would be cautious about assuming that the divorce recognised by a civil court would necessarily represent a divorce before God or before God’s people in every case. I think this is what Jesus is getting at in Mt 5:32.

      I, for one, am not entirely sure what role the state ought to have in the recognition of marriage, anyway!

  2. This is very well expressed, Michael. It is not easy to travel safely through the Scylla and Charybdis of expressing God’s design for marriage, and compassion and forgiveness for those who fail and repent.

    I’d like to read more on how we can be faithful in proclaiming God’s high standards *and* also forgiving and welcoming.

  3. Hi Michael,

    I’d just make one further comment, and that’s on Mal 2:16. You’ll note that a number of more recent translations do not have the words “I hate divorce,” and with good reason (so the updated NIV, ESV). No Hebrew version has those words, nor do any of the early versions.

    The Hebrew is better rendered:

    “For the one who hates and divorces,”
    says the LORD, the God of Israel,
    “covers his garment with violence,”
    says the LORD Almighty.

    This is thus a qualified expression about divorce. It is not speaking of God’s hatred of divorce (although a case could be made for this from the Bible in general), but a disapproval of divorce for relatively trivial reasons.

    If you need a really detailed examination of this, I’d point to “Syncretism and Divorce in Malachi 2:10–16” in ZAW 111/1 (1999) pp. 68–86.

    • Thanks, Martin. To be honest, I’m not satisfied with either of the translations, which is one reason why I did not exegete the passage. The piel infinitive of ‘to divorce’ makes rendering it complex.

  4. Many thanks, Mike, for this very helpful article, and I’m pleased The Briefing are giving this topic some more attention. I’ve given a lot of thought to this issue, as I’m divorced (and remarried) myself, and also because I’ve had an active ministry to divorcees for the last 5 years, many of them within the church.

    Mike mentioned that many divorcees do not find our churches to be welcoming. From experience and observation, I would say that our churches are often very alienating places for older singles (whether divorced or never married). Just in the last couple of weeks I’ve had two older singles tell me how lonely they are at their churches, which are dominated by young singles, couples and families.

    I don’t have an easy answer here, but we need to find ways to help such people experience community and fellowship in our congregations.

    • Thanks for your feedback, Craig. I suspect that in many of our churches, the lack of an explicit welcome and public statement on the status of divorcees leads to a subtle alienation by existing members, or else an unthoughtful embrace. I hope my (very brief) article give grounds for both unashamed inclusion or gentle, gracious challenge.

  5. Pingback: It's The Bride In Me – The good news of divorce | The Briefing

  6. From a pastoral point of view I understand the foundation of this article, and we need to be a whole lot better at receiving all people, including divorcees. Divorce is no grounds for exclusion/rejection any more than any other expression of our sinfulness, for which we are all guilty. However, this article does a poor job of addressing the topic of divorce well, and is actually counter-gospel!

    It, firstly, misunderstands the words of Jesus. When Jesus says, “anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery.”, is he permitting divorce or just saying that remarriage (in the stated case) is regarded as adultery? How does Mark write this? Or Luke? Or Paul? (Mark 10:11; Luke 16:18; Rom 7:2-3; 1 Cor 7:10-11)

    Jesus said that Moses gave more a concession than permission, because of hard hearts. The historical study here is helpful in giving the background to that, but Jesus never permitted divorce, and this article just did!

    Secondly, it misunderstands the purpose of marriage. According to Ephesians 5 Paul thinks marriage is an earthy image of the relationship between Christ and the church! Promise, commitment and love even in the case of infidelity. C’mon Christians, lets evangelise through our fidelity (and forgiveness) in marriage… especially when its hard!

    Isn’t that how Jesus is with us every single day of our lives? The Completely Faithful One forgiving the unfaithful one. That’s the good news of divorce!

    • So Shane, on your view divorce is never permitted? What does a Christian person X do whose spouse Y leaves them and then obtains a divorce? On your view I suppose that person X ought to just accept that they are to remain single for the rest of their lives? Not that this is impossible, of course, it may be right, but I wonder whether this is really what Paul means in 1 Cor 7?

    • Shane, I’m guessing that from the tone of your comment, there may be man things on which we will have to agree to disagree!

      I want to draw your attention to a couple of points in my article. It was, of course, a barely reconfigured sermon, yet as I read your reflection, I thought a number of the omissions you claimed were already present. Note in particular some observations on the place of forgiveness (section 6) and a bridge into the writing of Paul in 1 Cor 7 (section 7).

      I was also puzzled by your broad claim that the article is ‘anti-gospel’. That is, of course, a very heavy charge to lay, and I felt perhaps lacking in subsequent substantiation. I’d be grateful for some expansion

  7. Michael,

    Thanks for writing about a difficult issue.

    “[woman has] the land but, as a single woman, no one to work it. Your children are young and an enormous responsibility and you have no means of support. But no one will marry you. Why? Because at any moment—even after years and years—your husband could return and claim his land…
    The law was fairer was in Israel. A man who wanted to leave his wife had to write her a certificate of divorce”

    It was not really any better in Israel. Women did not have right to divorce so if her husband wanted to divorce he would keep the land and kids, and sent the ex-wife away. And the husband could always marry a second or third wife, or get concubine, or even marry wife’s slave girl. At least in Egypt women could divorce men and Greek women generally had more rights in land ownership and business.

    “It is the husband whose wife commits adultery and the wife whose husband reneges on his vows who may initiate divorce, not the other way around. In other words, it is a sin to use divorce to break marriage vows, but it is permissible to divorce when marriage vows have been broken.”

    So if husband abandons the old wife, she can leave without any payment of money. Imagine in Ancient Levant leaving your kids and family behind without any money and nowhere to go. It not a real option for wife to divorce…

    There must be a lot of re-married couples with this no-fault-divorce age, where at least one of them did not have a biblical divorce. These couples are living in sin are often part of congregation. Should pastors check people background to see if they are living in sin, and if a pastor finds out that couple’s marriage is not kosher then are they asked to nullify their marriage or leave the congregation? Would the same rules apply to married gay couples?

    • Thanks, Jon, for your response. I wish I knew how to do quotes like Sandy Grant (below). But I will try to interact clearly with your longish comment.

      I’m not sure and argument about who was better off in the ANE will produce much fruit – suffice to say I think I have demonstrated in the article at least one case where divorce laws were intended to protect women in a way which was absent in surrounding cultures.

      “So if husband abandons the old wife, she can leave without any payment of money. Imagine in Ancient Levant leaving your kids and family behind without any money and nowhere to go. It not a real option for wife to divorce”

      I think you may have unintentionally made an important point about the status of women in Israel – who among them would want to divorce? However, I think you may have misunderstood my point in relation to Ex 21. A mistreated woman could return to her family freely, in the context given, without having to provide compensation. Culturally, this would often involve the return of a dowry. The implication of this very brief and casuistic treatment of divorce is that the woman would be free to re-marry because of the absence of social stigma attached to leaving her husband.

      “There must be a lot of re-married couples with this no-fault-divorce age, where at least one of them did not have a biblical divorce. These couples are living in sin are often part of congregation. Should pastors check people background to see if they are living in sin, and if a pastor finds out that couple’s marriage is not kosher then are they asked to nullify their marriage or leave the congregation? Would the same rules apply to married gay couples?”

      I think it is a mistake to extrapolate from what I have (very briefly) presented to assume that a past failure to honour God in marital relations implies an ongoing status of rebellion against him. I mentioned above the complex dialectic between civil and church recognition of marriage, which implies what I think are fairly obvious but perhaps nuanced outcomes. If a person has started a new marriage and made new promises, having abandoned a previous marital covenant in an unbiblical way, they certainly have something of which to repent. However, it is not clear to me that this entails abandonment of the new promises.

      Sometimes, the brokenness of our sin in this fallen world means that we must live with the consequences of our past failures and all the pain that generates.

      The issue of married gay couples is another discussion entirely. However, I would (unsurprisingly, I think) treat non-heterosexual-marriage as one example of a civil recognition which would not be paralleled by church recognition. That is, I would not consider it marriage, on biblical grounds.

      • Michael, this is my lay man’s attempt to explain…

        Try enclosing the relevant text you wish to quote (or italicise or bold) with the appropriate mark up code (“blockquote”, “em” and “strong” respectively) in angle brackets “” at the start and with the backslash in front of the code at the end “”.

        E.g. “

        “(without the spaces), then “text you wish to quote” (no need for quote marks) then “

        ” for quoting blocks of text.

        Now I will see (i) if this works when I post the comment, and (ii) if it makes sense to you. Otherwise I hope Sam may point us to a proper sensible explanation elsewhere!

  8. Michael,

    It seems to me that you have done a good job of showing us “that God’s hatred of divorce in no way precludes his use or permission of divorce in the world.”

    However, I don’t see how your conclusions (under the subtitle “Conclusions”) are supported by your Biblical evidence. You have presented us with OT directives on divorce but have not engaged with Jesus’ supercession of this, eg. Matt 5:31, where Jesus contrasts the Law’s permission with the position that even civil divorce fails to unbind a man and woman in God’s eyes (i.e. marrying a divorcee is equivalent to marrying a married person, that is, committing adultery).

    Since we are followers of Christ, not of Moses, we need to grapple with this contrast. I would be sincerely interested to know how you do that?

      • Malcolm, I would argue (and began to do so in the article above) that Jesus is invalidating the ‘any cause’ divorce in Mt 5:31-32, rather than abrogating divorce in general. That is, his absolutism is contextualised to the assumptions presented by his interlocutors.

  9. A closer look at I Corinthians 7:13-16 — When a believer is abandoned by an unbelieving spouse.

    “And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called us to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” (NASB–a better translation I Corin. 7:13-16)

    While it appears that the text makes provision for divorce and remarriage, I do not believe it is the primary purpose of it. A key question focuses on the meaning of the phrases “not bound in such circumstances” and “God has called us to live in peace.” Although many jump quickly to a provision for divorce in this text, the emphasis is on staying together not divorcing (see: vv. 12-13). The key to this interpretation is the “But….For” construction from verses 15 to 16. Unfortunately, the NIV does not retain the exactness of the Greek structure as the NASB does.

    In verse 15,– “But” –that is, “in contrast with leaving” —- “God has called us to peace”-– that is, ”seeking to stay together.” This way of interpreting the text is strengthened by the “For” of v. 16 which focuses on potential spiritual influence through ongoing contact and relationship.

    The NIV gives the impression that “God has called us to peace” means “you don’t have to live in the bondage of a marriage to an unbeliever.” But, while the text makes a provision for separation, one should not use it as a blank check for divorce and remarriage. Instead, the emphasis is on the believing spouse seeking to reach the unbelieving spouse with the gospel:

    Verse 16 —“For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?”

    “Not under bondage” does indicate an allowance for marital separation, which in the text, is the choice of the unbeliever to abandon the marriage. But, based on the rest of the text, it would not be right to stretch this to a “just let him go” attitude without some kind of effort to preserve and protect the union—with the aim of Christian witness. The text simply does not go on to explain where the marriage itself “ends up.” This is where pastoral counseling must do a case by case evaluation and include application of other biblical principles. It could be the case that a believer is abandoned by an unbeliever and the believer has done all he/she can to preserve the marriage. We (the Church) must not jump to superficial judgments when hearing of a separation.

    • Steve, I really must object to the implication that my article provides a ‘blank check’ [sic] for divorce.

      I agree that the emphasis in 1 Cor 7 is on staying together. However, I think your interpretation rests on the mistaken linking of v.16’s ‘for’ primarily with v.15. VV.10-16 form an inclusio, and in v.16 Paul justifies his original teaching ‘not to leave’, and that those who choose to leave ought to remain unmarried.

      However, v.15 provides the exception clause for ‘the one who is left’. In this case, I would argue, the binding implied by vv.10-11 is abrogated.

      • Michael, just a courtesy note, you may find ‘check’ is not a ‘sic’ if you are using American English as opposed to our typical ‘cheque’ in Oz (and UK, I guess).

        BTW that type of bracketing above is what I was meaning to go around the ‘blockquote’ or ’em’ code above. It’s just that ‘tangent’ is not actually a mark up code word – which means it successfully demonstrates the style (I hope!)

  10. Hi Michael,

    Thanks for this article – clearly put. I do want to point out one thing that disturbed me, however – though it isn’t the divorce and remarriage issue itself. You said:

    “Jesus makes it clear that just because we can divorce does not mean we ought to, and that in fact we should forgive the erring partner if they are repentant.”

    So … if they aren’t repentant, we shouldn’t (or needn’t) forgive? Are you also implying a direct correlation between forgiveness and the divorce decision? i.e. If they are “truly” repentant, I must forgive and must not divorce; if they are not, I may divorce and need not forgive?

    I know I’m putting words in your mouth at this point, and you may not want to go there. But I think you are confusing forgiveness with other issues (like reconciliation and the actual decision). I was thoroughly convinced by Mark Baddeley’s excellent series of posts on forgiveness and repentance (this is the last post, which has links to the earlier ones). It’s a long read, especially since some of the best stuff is in the interchanges in the comments. But I would commend it, especially since it applies directly to this issue.

    • Thank you Stephen for making an already tendentious issue even more so! ;-)

      Without starting a whole other line of discussion here, yes, I disagree with my dear friend Mark on this point, do not believe that forgiveness should follow except from repentance. There is more to be said on this, but perhaps not now.

    • Stephen, having quickly scanned Mark’s excellent article on forgiveness and repentance in order to begin interacting with your comment – IIRC, Mark draws a much tighter analogy between the dialectic of divine and human forgiveness (and, in the latter case, repentance) than I would. Instead, I would argue that divine forgiveness is generative of and necessary to human repentance in a way that human forgiveness is not.

  11. I would like top mention two hypothetical situations of which there are many real examples. A couple is in a supposedly permanent de facto marriage for ten years and one of the two then decides for no good reason to walk out. He or she then legallly marries someone else.

    In another case a legally married person leaves his or her spouse because sanity and even life itself may depend on separation. He or she then seeks and is granted a divorce and later marries someone else.

    Is the second person sinning by marrying and the first one not? I would appreciate some comments.

    • David,

      Your question seems to be, “What are the boundaries of marriage?” (E.g. does a long de facto relationship become marriage.)

      Jesus’ comment in Mt. 19:5-6 seems to be pertinent to this, i.e. one may ask, “have this couple joined to ‘hold fast’ or ‘cleave’ to one another?” I think in the first case, the answer is “No. They are merely living in sin for an extended period of time,” while in the second case the answer is “Yes, any relational problems they encounter do not change their marriage status.”

      Given that understanding, and the understanding that remarriage after divorce is sinful, then the answer to your question is, yes, you are correct.

      Note: the adjective “legally” is not entirely relevant here, except to indicate an intent to “hold fast” to one’s partner.

    • David- since you asked for views I will give you mine. In fact you may know it already since I seem to recall we both posted on a similar issue a few years ago when there was a general Sydney Anglican blog, but anyway…
      I agree with Malcolm’s view in response to your post that a couple who have simply lived together for 10 years, but have not gone through a marriage ceremony recognised by law, are not married. At its simplest, they have not expressed a desire to be man and wife for life and made the relevant promises. For the person to “walk out” for no good reason may indeed be a sinful act, especially if they have led the other person to expect certain behaviour by making promises- but it will not be a divorce, because there was no marriage.
      In the second case you postulate a divorce on the grounds of preservation of “sanity” or “life”. On most views these are not valid grounds for divorce alone and are things that must simply be borne. Michael Paget in the main post here seems to suggest that withdrawal of financial support or physical intimacy may amount to grounds for divorce, but I’m not sure he has made the case. Hence in the second case there is sin involved in the divorce.
      Whether or not the sin of divorce in the second case is greater or lesser than the sin of breaking promises in the first case is not possible to answer. Both actions seem to be wrong. The fact that in the first case the action seems to be removing the person from a sinful (extra-marital sexual) relationship is one factor, but as you presented the case it did not seem that repentance for previous sin was involved, so that does not really make it any better.
      Regards
      Neil

    • David, I’m cautious about providing general responses to theoretical but specific cases, and won’t do so here.

  12. Great statement of the position that I think is in the right ball-park for what the Bible teaches as a whole,and what the Reformers’ as a whole held to (obviously with a fair degree of variation among their ranks). The appeal to Ex 21 was a particular highlight for me as a further unpacking the grounds whereby the marriage vows have (already) been broken and so divorce is permissible.

  13. Thnk you to those who respobnded to my question. I’ll keep thinking!

    Is it possible that Jesus’ words on adultery refer to someone who leaves a spouse in order to marry another, rather than someone who is divorced for various reasons and at a (much?) later date marries someone else?

    • David,

      I think, as always, you need to pay attention to the context. (Greg Koukl of Stand To Reason has a great adage on this: “never read a Bible verse,” as in, always read more than just the verse.)

      The context for Jesus’ statements on divorce (eg. Mt. 5 and Mt. 19) is always Jesus’ radical calls to purity. The specific context that Jesus uses to explain this in Mt. 19 is God’s designed-in joining of two people in marriage (which man cannot separate). This joining works both ways, of course, and so either person involved in a divorce is, in God’s eyes, still joined to their partner. The cause of the divorce (apart from the mysterious exemption in Mt. 19:9 which is not found in Mark’s parallel passage in Mk. 10 or in Luke’s brief mention in Lk. 16:18, and which seems to be a doubtful translation of the Greek, see Andrew Kulikovsky, “Divorce and Remarriage: Another Look at the Matthean Exception Clauses”) is not really a concern of Jesus. Even when Paul enters the fray on this very issue his only concession (in 1 Cor. 7) is that the “victim” is not guilty of the divorce — there is no suggestion that they are free to remarry, and a very strong suggestion that they should remain available to their previous partner (the thrust of the entire passage).

      Context is very important in these issues, and our tendency as fallen humans is to “strain at gnats and swallow camels,” as Jesus said. There’s a lot more context regarding marriage in the scriptures (it’s a key relationship in Christianity in many ways), but I’m sure you can read it up. Just watch out for those camels. ;-)

      • Actually, looking at how Matthias’ software formats these comments, I wonder if they could improve on their auto-scripture referencing! My references to entire chapters of scripture above were ignored, while single (or several) verses show JUST the verse with no context. Helpful in some ways, very misleading in others.

        Perhaps a more context-oriented system would be more helpful? Just a thought.

  14. Michael, as others have said, thank you for writing, and so carefully and pastorally on this difficult topic.

    I like what Kostenberger and Jones say on this topic in their book God, Marriage and Family (2nd ed.) on p232:

    Moreover, in light of the disagreement among orthodox believers over this subject, we encourage all to hold their views of divorce and remarriage charitably, yet with conviction, being open to honest dialogue with those who espouse differing positions.

    I will attempt to offer my comments in that spirit.

    Firstly, checking a mere matter of detail. In your section numbered 2, you wrote,

    a new school of thought began in 30 AD, right around the time of Jesus’ ministry, when Rabbi Hillel invented the causeless divorce

    .
    However I was under the impression that Hillel had died by 10 A.D. at the latest (I have seen both the dates of 10 B.C. or 10 A.D. given for the date of his death). By the way, I understand Shammai’s dates were 50 B.C. to 30 A.D.)

    This is not major, since of course, their school’s of thought were current in Jesus’ day, even if Hillel himself at least must have proposed his more relaxed view some decades earlier.

    I’ll leave my major comment to the next box…

  15. Regarding Exodus 21:10-11 which deals with a man taking a second wife in a polygamous culture you wrote

    Exodus 21 tells us that a woman is allowed to divorce her husband for failure to provide material support and conjugal love. She is free to ‘go out’. When we add this to Deuteronomy, we get three separate bases for divorce: when a spouse is in adultery, when they stop providing material support, and the withdrawal of physical affection and sex.

    At this point, I presume you are relying, at least in part, in David Instone-Brewer, whom you credit in your first footnote.

    I have to say that at this point, there is very little detailed exegetical and hermeneutical argumentation from you, nor any direct reference to where your readers might find such treatment so they can assess the relevance and applicability of these verses to disciples of Jesus today.

    May I therefore raise a few questions of my own.

    1. Why, given that we are not gathered as the socio-political people of God and are not under the law of Moses (as legal demand), does Exodus 21:10-11 apply directly to Christians? This creates one hermeneutical step of application between Israelites under the law of Moses and ourselves.

    2. This question is intensified when we note that we are living neither in a nation (in Australia, at least) where polygamy is legal, nor in a culture (the Christian community) where deliberately entering a second polygamous marriage (even if it were legal), is permitted, let alone encouraged. It was for the protection of women (often it seems slaves) obtained as second wives, which does not apply to our situation. So there is a second point of distance between those to whom Ex 21:10-11 applied and ourselves.

    My contention with these first two questions is that the direct applicability of Ex 21:10-11 to disciples of Jesus cannot just be assumed, but ought to be demonstrated.

    3. Then there is the matter of there being something of an argument from silence when you integrate it with Matthew 19:3-12. I agree that Moses permits divorce because of the hardness of our hearts. And I personally agree that what Moses permits, God permits, since God’s Spirit was speaking through Moses (no matter with how much sadness).

    However, Jesus only supplies one exception to the “no (divorce and) remarriage” view, namely porneia (“sexual immorality”). On what basis do you assume that Jesus supposedly implies another second exception (namely material or sexual neglect)?

    It seems it cannot have been a universal assumption that this neglect cause was acceptable for divorce, since you have already indicated Shammai’s school did not accept this as a reason for divorce. So why would Jesus make one exception (which was universally accepted) explicit, but ignore another?

    • 1. I’ve covered this down further as the conversation there has brought out the theological issues at bit more clearly.

      2. This isn’t really how I approach ethics. I’m not reading the Bible to get casuistry – a specific ethical teaching for a very precise situation. I expect that the Bible will give me ethical teaching as it addresses very concrete and particular scenarios – often ones I can’t really relate to. But in doing that it informs me about the nature and purpose of the things in question, and expresses principles that have wide ranging implications.

      If polygamous semi-slaves (and I’m not sure I agree that they were slaves) are enabled to be divorced under those conditions, I’m not sure what about the nature of marriage would mean that a monogamous free person couldn’t be divorced under those circumstances. The criteria tell me something about the nature of marriage and when God thinks that the vows have been voided. And that ‘something’ applies in a lot of circumstances.

      3. All interpretation is an argument from silence. By the very nature of language, we have to interpret what the words mean. And that interpretation is an argument from silence. If there were words telling us how to interpret the first group of words, then the second group would have to be interpreted and that would be an argument from silence.

      In other words it is not an argument from silence, it’s a theological reading – it is comparing text with text and reading them in a coherent way that reflects someone’s view of what Scripture is. It’s not the only theological reading possible, but that’s what it is, it’s not an argument from silence.

      On what basis do I assume that Jesus implies another exception? On the basis that Jesus wasn’t answering the question ‘list all the grounds whereby divorce is legitimate’. The Gospels weren’t written to provide a marriage or divorce or ethical handbook. The fact that the exception is mentioned in only one place and not the others indicates that Jesus’ words aren’t meant to be comprehensive about divorce.

      So I don’t just pick up my red letter edition and ask, “What did Jesus say”, I look at Scripture as a whole, and one of my basic principles in reading the Bible as a whole is that, unlike salvation history, God’s moral standards don’t change. Something wasn’t right and good and wise for Israel and is evil and wrong and foolish for Christians. Right and wrong don’t change with each new stage of salvation history’s outworking.

      So if I find that Jesus offers no grounds for divorce, or one, but Paul seems to suggest another one (unbeliever wants to end it), and the OT seems to suggest a couple more, I don’t just say, ‘well it wasn’t mentioned by Jesus and so biblical theology tells me that it doesn’t count’. I look at all those bits of data, in context and ask them what they tell me about the nature of marriage, its purposes, and the nature of divorce and its purposes.

      • Sandy, I think Mark has responded to your question sufficiently well for me not to attempt to duplicate his comment. Suffice to say I think that there is a broader issue of method at play here. However, I think it may also be helpful to point out that part of my argument is that the apparently absolutist statements by Jesus may well be contextualised and even qualified by fresh understanding of the polemical environment in which he operated.

        I recognised that this hasn’t been demonstrated in detail in the above article, and you are right to raise questions about a fuller exegesis. In my (half-hearted) defence, the article was adapted almost without change, apart from reduction (!) from a sermon, following which exactly the kind of conversations we are now having took place.

  16. @Mark, seeing you found the reference to Exodus 21 to be a highlight, feel free to consider my questions as well.

    In addition, may I clarify what position you were saying that the Reformers as a whole adhered to? Do you mean to say that typically the Reformers permitted divorce and remarriage on the grounds of
    (i) adultery & other sexual immorality, and
    (ii) desertion by an unbelieving partner, and
    (iii) neglect (material and sexual)?

    If so, could you indicate where I might check that claim?

  17. Hi Sandy,

    The Westminster Confession of Faith (chapter 24) permits one to divorce for “willful desertion”. I’m not aware of it saying anything about a failure to provide.

    cheers,
    Craig

  18. I haven’t read the original, but I’m told that Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Ordinances permitted divorce on 4 grounds –

    * Adultery
    * Desertion
    * Extreme Religious Incompatability
    * Impotence

    Furthermore, the Genevan Consistory (and probably Calvin) in the mid-16th century permitted a woman to leave an abusive husband if the violence was life-threatening (though it didn’t seem that they permitted divorce in these cases).

  19. Luther’s commentary on the Sermon on the Mount has a bit to say on this matter, and it’s probably best to read the passages as a whole. But he seems to recognise desertion as a grounds for divorce, and also (arguably), failure to provide –

    “But if a fellow deserts his wife without her knowledge or consent, forsakes house, home, wife and child, stays away two or three years, or as long as he pleases (as now often happens), and when he has run his riotous course and squandered his substance and wants to come home again and take his old place, that the other party must be under obligation to wait for him as long as he chooses, and then take up with him again: such a fellow ought not only to be forbidden house and home, but should be banished from the country, and the other party, if the renegade has been summoned and long enough waited for, should be heartily pronounced free.

    For such a one is much worse than a heathen and unbeliever, and is less to be endured than a miserable adulterer, who, though he once fell, can still reform again and be faithful as before to his wife; but this one treats marriage just as he pleases, does not feel himself under any obligation to abide as husband and father with wife and children and perform his duty toward them, but holds himself sure of a safe reception if the notion takes him to return.”

  20. In Luther’s 1522 “The Estate of Marriage”, he wrote –

    “…The third case for divorce is that in which one of the parties deprives and avoids the other, refusing to fulfill the conjugal duty or to live with the other person. For example, one finds many a stubborn wife like that who will not give in, and who cares not a whit whether her husband falls into the sin of unchastity ten times over. Here it is time for the husband to say, “If you will not, another will; the maid will come if the wife will not.” Only first the husband should admonish and warn his wife two or three times, and let the situation be known to others so that her stubbornness becomes a matter of common knowledge and is rebuked before the congregation…

    Here you should be guided by the words of St. Paul, I Corinthians 7 [:4-5], “The husband does not rule over his own body, but the wife does; likewise the wife does not rule over her own body, but the husband does. Do not deprive each other, except by agreement,” etc. Notice that St. Paul forbids either party to deprive the other, for by the marriage vow each submits his body to the other in conjugal duty. When one resists the other and refuses the conjugal duty she is robbing the other of the body she had bestowed upon him. This is really contrary to marriage, and dissolves the marriage…”

    Luther seems fairly earthy when it comes to this subject, and was clearly navigating his way through real pastoral problems.

    None of the Reformers I’ve read on this would condone the “I’ve fallen in love with someone else” excuse for dissolving a marriage, but they all seemed to acknowledge that adultery wasn’t the only just cause for divorce.

  21. More from Luther in the “Estate of Marriage” –

    “In addition to these three grounds for divorce there is one more which would justify the sundering of husband and wife, but only in such a way that they must both refrain from remarrying or else become reconciled. This is the case where husband and wife cannot get along together for some reason other than the matter of the conjugal duty. St. Paul speaks of this in I Corinthians 7 [:10-11], “Not I but the Lord give charge to the married that the wife should not separate from her husband. But if she does, let her remain single, or else be reconciled to her husband. Likewise, the husband should not divorce his wife.” Solomon complains much in the Proverbs about such wives, and says he has found a woman more bitter than death [Eccles. 7:26]. One may also find a rude, brutal, and unbearable husband.

    Now if one of the parties were endowed with Christian fortitude and could endure the other’s ill behavior, that would doubtless be a wonderfully blessed cross and a right way to heaven. For an evil spouse, in a manner of speaking, fulfils the devil’s function and sweeps clean him who is able to recognize and bear it. If he cannot, however, let him divorce her before he does anything worse, and remain unmarried for the rest of his days. Should he try to say that the blame rests not upon him but upon his spouse, and therefore try to marry another, this will not do, for he is under obligation to endure evil, or to be released from his cross only by God, since the conjugal duty has not been denied him. Here the proverb applies, “He who wants a fire must endure the smoke.” ”

    It’s a shame to cherry pick Luther’s words on divorce and ignore all of the wonderful things he says about marriage, but divorce is the topic at hand.

  22. The name of Bucer is not as familiar to some, but Calvin described him as “a most faithful doctor of the church of Christ, besides his rare learning, and copious knowledge of many things, besides his clearness of wit, much reading, and other many and various virtues, wherein he is almost by none now living excelled, hath few equals, and excels most; hath this praise peculiar to himself, that none in this age hath used exacter diligence in the exposition of Scripture.”

    In a work that became known as “The judgement of Martin Bucer concerning divorce” (a translation by the puritan John Milton) Bucer wrote –

    “Now is to be dealt with this question, whether it be lawful to divorce and marry again for other causes besides adultery, since our Saviour expressed that only? To this question, if we retain our principles already laid, and must acknowledge it to be a cursed blasphemy, if we say that the words of God do contradict one another, of necessity we must confess, that our Lord did grant divorce, and marriage after that, for other causes besides adultery, notwithstanding what he said in Matthew. For first, they who consider but only that place, 1 Cor. vii. which treats of believers and misbelievers matched together, must of force confess, that our Lord granted just divorce and second marriage in the cause of desertion, which is other than the cause of fornication. And if there be one other cause found lawful, then is it most true, that divorce was granted not only for fornication.

    Next, it cannot be doubted, as I showed before by them to whom it is given to know God and his judgments out of his own word, but that, what means of peace and safety God ever granted and ordained to his elected people, the same he grants and ordains to men of all ages, who have equally need of the same remedies. And who, that is but a knowing man, dares say there be not husbands and wives now to be found in such a hardness of heart, that they will not perform either conjugal affection, or any requisite duty thereof, though it be most deserved at their hands?

    Neither can any one defer to confess, but that God, whose property it is to judge the cause of them that suffer injury, hath provided for innocent and honest persons wedded, how they might free themselves by lawful means of divorce, from the bondage and iniquity of those who are falsely termed their husbands or their wives. This is clear out of Deut. xxiv. 1; Malachi, ii.; Matt. xix. 1; 1 Cor. vii.; and out of those principles, which the Scripture every where teaches, that God changes not his mind, dissents not from himself, is no accepter of persons; but allows the same remedies to all men oppressed with the same necessities and infirmities; yea, requires that we should use them. This he will easily perceive, who considers these things in the Spirit of the Lord.

    Lastly, it is most certain, that the Lord hath commanded us to obey the civil laws, every one of his own commonwealth, if they be not against the laws of God.”

    • Craig,

      It is interesting from an historical point of view to see the views of the reformers on divorce, and I thank you for bringing that to our attention. It certainly helps one understand how long the Protestant church has been finding ways to allow divorce that are extra-biblical, the (immediate) reasons behind that, and the boundaries that have been observed.

      But before one can actually do anything with this information, one needs to understand the context, as always. For Luther, the pastoral problems that he faced were dealing with entire nations that were “churched.” The church of Luther’s time was a state organ, with all the attendant problems that brings. Thus Luther’s compromises on Jesus position were hardly surprising, since the bulk of his congregants would not really have been Christian. Luther’s position is thus more of a civil system than a church system. Luther’s situation has more in common with the Mosaic system than the Christ’s (and thus his ethics is closer to Mosaic than Christian).

      The modern church is much more like the early church — a small minority in the midst of a more-or-less hostile society. Given this radically different context, Luther’s words have merely historic interest, while Christ and Paul’s words need to be taken, not in Luther’s context, but in their own and ours. The modern church has an opportunity to truly seek and model holiness in a way which Luther could hardly have dreamed; why squander that?

      • Malcolm,

        It certainly helps one understand how long the Protestant church has been finding ways to allow divorce that are extra-biblical, the (immediate) reasons behind that, and the boundaries that have been observed.

        I have far more confidence in the Reformer’s commitment to Scripture than that of, well pretty well anyone alive today. They broke with a Church that for about a thousand years everyone thought was capable of sending you to Hell for that. They did it because of Scripture. They ran a real risk of getting burned at the stake for it. I find it just a bit outrageous that any Christian in the West, whose freedom to read the Bible and obey it, without such Damocles swords hanging over them, stands on the back of their stand would just presume that they grabbed some extra-biblical grounds for their positions.

        It is just possible that in this, as with the doctrine of salvation and the church, they read the Bible correctly. And the fact that Protestantism has since their time, by and large, returned to the Roman Catholic position on divorce reflects a declension not an advance.

        Thus Luther’s compromises on Jesus position were hardly surprising, since the bulk of his congregants would not really have been Christian.

        Have you read any Luther? Does he come across as a guy who makes compromises? Who thinks some bit of the Bible makes too hard a demand and so it needs to be cut down to size to fit human ability to obey? I think you’re reading him through contemporary evangelical lenses if so. He’s no seeker service evangelical.

        The Reformers were the pro-marriage party in a context whose practices and doctrines had the effect of degrading marriage. Their teaching on divorce was not a compromise because they couldn’t strive for true holiness (could you be any more Anabaptist?) it was part of a wider program of restoring marriage to its honored place in God’s design for humanity – it was part of the same package as their promotion of married clergy, promotion of marriage over singleness, promotion of childraising, and restrictions on young people (teenagers) getting married easily. Part of ‘getting’ their teaching is to see why the same logic that led to them breaking with their culture on all those issues also led them to endorse divorce in certain circumstances.

        • Mark,

          Yes, I’ve read Luther on this issue. I have enormous respect for Luther, but one must recognise the constraints he worked under (some of which you point to) and which influenced his thinking. I think Luther would be aghast if we were to rely on his interpretations rather than the scripture, given the reformer’s cry of scriptura sola.

          My problem with Luther’s position on this issue is that I can’t see the scriptural merit of some parts of it. Overall on this issue, Luther is much more scriptural than many in the modern church, however I still think his position isn’t entirely scriptural. My comments on Luther’s goals were an attempt to explain why Luther, who I have great respect for, would be likely to make such mistakes.

          To my mind, it doesn’t really matter who Luther is (arguing otherwise is to commit the appeal to authority fallacy), it matters whether his exegesis is sound.

          Let’s talk about that. Explain to me Luther’s logic, because I can’t see it.

          • Malcolm,

            I dissent from all Reformers regularly – as they did with each other, so I’m not saying ‘just run with these guys’. My point is that they are reliable and trustworthy teachers of Scripture, and should be approached with at least the same respect that we have for contemporary teachers. It doesn’t mean we agree with them against Scripture, it does mean we aren’t high-handed or dismissive.

            I don’t agree that it doesn’t matter who the person is – I expect a godly person to read the Bible better than an ungodly person, someone who obeys more than someone who disobeys etc. On any individual case the exegesis wins, but if I find that I am in agreement with someone I think is profoundly wrong on a wide range of issues (e.g. the Roman Catholic church) and in disagreement with someone I think is generally reliable (e.g. the Reformers) I go back and recheck the working very carefully, and move forward cautiously. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day, but it’s a ‘flag’ that needs to be thought about carefully.

            Until I can see why they thought their position was biblical, required by the gospel, and good for God’s people, I haven’t really understood it – and that may mean that I’m just reading contemporary evangelical interpretative culture into the Bible. Once I can do that, then I’m in a better position to respectfully disagree on the grounds of what Scripture actually says.

            Explain to me the bits of Luther’s logic that you disagree with, and I’ll try and explain them. I don’t always agree with him here either (closer to Calvin on most of these issues) but I’ll do what I can.

    • Awesome work here Craig. Really good of you to take the time to add this to thread.

  23. Craig, I really appreciate you attempting to provide some primary sources (and other summaries) for the Reformers. That’s so helpful. So thanks for taking the time, because I know it can be time-consuming to track down sources and copy them into your posts (or sometimes even type up!).

    I found Bucer a little hard to follow at the end, but over all, it seems the Reformers would allow divorce and remarriage for my (i) sexual immorality and (ii) desertion by an unbeliever or perhaps a professing Christian acting unrepentantly as an unbeliever. It was less clear to me from the sources that remarriage was always permitted in other cases such as neglect, although separation/divorce was, along with a view towards reconciliation as per 1 Cor 7:10-11.

    I am also wondering if refusal of conjugal duty is thought to be a form of sexual immorality (porneia), or something separate. It does concern me that this seems to open the door to divorce your spouse and remarry, if for various reasons (e.g. mental or physical illness or acquired disability) they are unable or unwilling to do for an extended period what is normally expected in marriage.

    Yet clearly you have provided some evidence that some of the Reformers seemed to widen the causes (to varying degrees) for divorce and remarriage beyond the one or two clear biblical causes often accepted (sexual immorality and unbelieving desertion). Thanks again, Craig.

    More importantly than all that, I await with eagerness some answers from others to my questions about Exodus 21!

  24. Hi Malcolm,

    I included these quotes because Sandy had asked Mark about the Reformers views – Mark may well be aware of some other sources too.

    You are right that the Reformer’s comments don’t have any authority in themselves. However, it should be acknowledged that they are part of our interpretive tradition, and so their arguments should be weighed carefully. Certainly I don’t think you should too quickly dismiss the man that Calvin described as greatest expositor of his age!

    Most of those sources are on the net, so I’d encourage anyone who was really interested to look them up.

    • Craig,

      I agree that it’s worth looking at how these giants of the faith dealt with these issues. However, as I said, we need to understand what they were actually attempting, and I would argue that they were attempting to adapt Biblical morals to work in an entire society, rather than give moral guidance for a counter-cultural church.

      It seems to me, then, that for all of the genius and wisdom of Luther, Calvin, etc. these guys were trying to make a seafood dish with beef, so to speak. It seems to me that Jesus’ focus was quite different: he wasn’t trying to outline an ethical code that was feasible for a nation (God had already done that through Moses) — he was laying out God’s ideal for man, which was something we can aspire to as new creatures and with the help of the Holy Spirit. The fact that Luther’s ethical system is closer to the Mosaic system than to Christ’s is thus not surprising, but rather to be expected. (Indeed, from your quotes it is abundantly clear that Luther is driven by practical concerns, not scriptural ones.)

      I think it’s really important to bear this in mind when we read the church’s historical ethical systems: how did the church see its role in society at that time? (This also helps us understand some of the features of Luther’s thought that we now find repugnant or peculiar.)

      We then need to ask ourselves, what is the church’s role in society now? I would contend that the church has an opportunity to reclaim Jesus’ demands for it: to be salt, a city on a hill, a light. That means that we can take the “narrow path” that Jesus maps out in his commands and which Luther was, practically, unable to do. (Of course, Luther could have taken a more radical path, as some others of the time did, but he would have been quite a different person and historic influence had he done so.)

      So you see, I’m not dismissing Luther, merely contextualizing his views, and prioritizing Christ’s. Because I am trying to understand Luther’s concerns and goals I can account for his “interpretations,” which I think is a better approach than simply taking his words as a revelation of some otherwise invisible complexity. I trust that isn’t foolish.

      • Malcolm,

        I would argue that they were attempting to adapt Biblical morals to work in an entire society, rather than give moral guidance for a counter-cultural church.

        I agree. Like many Christians who aren’t Anabaptist, they thought that God’s Word describes right and wrong for everybody, and is good for everybody.

        It seems to me that Jesus’ focus was quite different: he wasn’t trying to outline an ethical code that was feasible for a nation (God had already done that through Moses) — he was laying out God’s ideal for man, which was something we can aspire to as new creatures and with the help of the Holy Spirit.

        I find this hard to accept. Jesus was okay with an ethical standard for a nation (his own people, the holy nation, the people belonging to God) that actually said some sins were okay, but gives an ‘ideal’ that can be strived for the counter-cultural church? So, when God judges the world, does he judge everyone by the Mosaic Law? Or the ideal? Is Israel judged by the Mosaic Law (and so by a lower standard) or by the ideal (and so might have been led astray by the Mosaic Law not clearly indicating that it was a lower standard than the ideal)?

        We then need to ask ourselves, what is the church’s role in society now? I would contend that the church has an opportunity to reclaim Jesus’ demands for it: to be salt, a city on a hill, a light. That means that we can take the “narrow path” that Jesus maps out in his commands and which Luther was, practically, unable to do.

        So ‘enter by the narrow way’ is actually a reference to obeying the commands of Jesus? And being salt, a city on the hill, a light all have to do with the Church’s moral performance? I think you’re demonstrating why I find the Reformers far more trustworthy interpreters in the way they have thought through the relationship between law and gospel. And why Anabaptist-like approaches to a pure counter-cultural church tend towards making salvation dependent on moral performance.

        If what you’re saying here is right, then Christians need to consistent. We should say nothing to society about any moral issue. For we have nothing to say to society as a whole. Whether it is the justice or otherwise of a war, or caring for the poor, or abortion, or religious freedom, nothing that we are authorised to proclaim is for anyone other than Christians.

        Somehow, despite that, we’re able to proclaim God’s law to non-Christians to inform them that judgement is coming (what standard that judgement will use is a mystery to me because it can’t be the ethic of the NT because that only applies to Christians, and it can’t be the OT because that only applies to Israel, but still). But that has nothing to say about how human beings should behave if they aren’t Christians – it is only information that tells them that need to believe in Christ.

        So be it. But then we need to be consistent and, as individuals or as churches, say absolutely nothing about anything that affects the social life of the countries we live in. For we have absolutely nothing to say.

        I think that’s untenable and not Biblical, and so think that the Reformers’ approach of expounding the Bible’s teaching so that it was the same standard for everyone, and not some ‘counsel of perfection’ for the godly alone is right.

        • Mark,

          I confess that I can’t understand where your response came from. It seems like you’re responding to some other conversation, since I am neither Anabaptist, nor do I claim that NT morality applies only to Christians. As to saltiness referring to our behaviour, I would have thought that was clear — what do you think it refers to?

          • I think Mat 5:13-16 transitions to the concern with the overall concern with good works in the rest of Sermon from 5:2-12, and the qualities there aren’t good works, they are more fundamental traits that are tied to the basics of faith – hence Jesus’ words in v11 that the persecution is on account of him.

            I don’t deny that Jesus has good works in view (eg v16), but it vv3-12 as a whole are setting it in a more ‘evangelical’ frame.

            I certainly don’t think that ‘enter by the narrow way’ is fundamentally to do with obeying Jesus’ ethical teaching.

            If you’re saying that Jesus’ teaching was for a counter-cultural church and not the lower standard for a nation, than that captures a key part of the Anabaptist position in the 16th Century, and would seem to also mean that the teaching is only for the counter-cultural church.

            Why would Jesus give a lower standard for a nation, if the ideal that he gives to the counter cultural church to be pursued by the Spirit is actually for everyone?

  25. Hi Sandy,

    I’m glad I could be helpful. I’ve looked into the Reformers views a few times over the years, so I thought I’d share what I had seen.

    Regarding sexual deprivation in a marriage, I would concur that this is a form of sexual immorality/abuse, though I don’t know whether the biblical word will support such a reading or not.

    I think the more important point is that these men, whose opinions on the Bible we generally respect so much, thought the matter was somewhat more complicated than some moderns seem to suggest.

  26. Regarding the applicability of the OT, here is what Bucer wrote –

    “Now what the Lord permitted to his first-born people, that certainly he could not forbid to his own among the Gentiles, whom he made coheirs, and into one body with his people ; nor could he ever permit, much less command aught that was not good for them, at least so us’d as he commanded. For being God, he is not chang’d as Man. Which thing who seriously considers, how can he imagine that God would make that wicked to them that believe, and serve him under Grace, which he granted and commanded to them that serv’d him under the Law ? Whenas the same causes require the same permission. And who that knows but human matters, and loves the truth, will deny that many Marriages hang as ill together now, as ever they did among the Jews ? So that such Marriages are liker to Torments than true Marriages. As therfore the Lord doth always succour and help the oppressed, so he would ever have it provided for injur’d Husbands and Wives, that under pretence of the marriage bond, they be not sold to perpetual vexations, instead of the loving and comfortable marriage duties. And lastly, as God doth always detest hypocrisy and fraud, so neither doth he approve that among his people, that should be counted Marriage, wherin none of those duties remain, wherby the league of wedloc is chiefly preserved. What inconsiderate neglect then of God’s Law is this, that I may not call it worse, to hold that Christ our Lord would not grant the same remedies both of Divorce and second Marriage to the weak, or to the evil, if they will needs have it so, but especially to the innocent and wrong’d ; whenas the same urgent causes remain as before, when the discipline of the Church and Magistrate hath try’d what may be try’d ?”

  27. More generally, I think your interpretation of Matthew 5 will depend upon how you see Jesus treating the Law, especially in the Sermon on the Mount. Is Jesus overturning and contradicting the Law, or is he correcting the abuse and misuse of the Law?

    When I first read the sermon on the mount, many years ago, I thought it was the former. But now I’m quite conviced it is the latter.

    • Craig,

      You are spot on about this issue (and many others) being heavily influenced by your view of the relationship between the law and the gospel (and I alluded to that in my first post above). I have just written a term paper on that very topic, using Five Views on Law and Gospel (Zondervan) as a major source. I find myself in agreement with Douglas Moo in that source who outlines what he calls a “modified Lutheran view.” I found that Moo’s position harmonised the scriptural evidence in a way that none of the other views even attempted (the other views were reformed, theonomic, and dispensational). There were other books that supported Moo’s view, such as Carson’s From Sabbath to Lord’s Day.

      Thus when I read Mt. 5, I read Christ giving new commands, which are “higher” than the old. The New Covenant is different from the old, written on our hearts and thus enabling us to be more holy than those under the Mosaic Law. Thus Bucer’s quote above stands in direct contrast to what Jesus said in Mt 5. Indeed, I challenge anyone to read the entire pericope about marriage in Mt 19 or Mk 10 and not see it as Jesus’ returning to God’s original, higher expectations of humanity than the compromise found in the Mosaic law. Bucer’s concerns (which seem to mirror Luther’s) would have made it difficult for him to grapple with Jesus’ counter-cultural exhortations, and the evidence you present reinforces that judgement.

      Indeed, viewed in his historical context, it is not surprising that Calvin (and thus reformed tradition) so strongly emphasized the continuity of the Mosaic law (since it is a ready-made system of ethics for a nation, which is just what the reformers needed).

      The question then is, is that what the church should be? Is that what the modern church even can be? I would say no, and add that we have a clear opportunity to return to Jesus’ (and Paul’s) vision of the church.

      But you are right to point out how important our understanding on the issue of Law and Gospel is to this area.

      • Craig, I too think you are quite right in terms of saying your view of the Sermon on the Mount in whole is important for this issue. I’m not sure the options you gave are the only two choices (either (i) overturning and contradicting the Law, or (ii) correcting its abuse and misuse. Or at least, your (ii) not simply a complete description of the possibilities. (And (i) seems to be just wrong!)

        Jesus says he comes to fulfil the Law. Certainly he then also teaches his followers to obey the commands there and to exceed the righteousness of Pharisees and Scribes. So if anything there is an intensification of higher standards. But this must be read alongside the first statement about fulfilment.

        In other words, overall we are not under the Mosaic Law’s legal demands because Christ has fulfilled them for us perfectly. However the Law is still wisdom for us, educational if you like.

        From this I am drawing two conclusions.

        1. It must be demonstrated (not assumed) that something from the Mosaic Law like Exodus 21:10-11 applies fairly directly to Christians, because we are not under the Mosaic Law.

        2. Does such a reading of how such an OT passage might educate us at the level of principle or wisdom help us go in the direction of Jesus’ intensification of higher standards of righteousness?

        • Hi Sandy,

          I also agree that one’s view of the Sermon of the Mount, and the relationship of Law and the Christian and the Mosaic Law (not quite the same thing as the first category) and the Christian is quite important.

          When it comes to the question of what it means to not be ‘under’ the Law, I am probably more Reformed in terms of what the mainstream of that tradition seems to be, whereas I think most people in Moore’s circle seem to be more Lutheran. I see our liberation from the Law pretty much purely that its ability to condemn us, and so exasperate sin, has been ended. When people take it further and say, ‘No, it has no authority over us’, I start scratching my head – can we murder? lie? covet? worship other gods? Is the NT ethic so very different that all those commands cease to directly inform Christian ethics? If not, is it the case that if the Bible says, “Do not murder” in the OT that doesn’t directly apply, but if it says it in the NT it does? That seems really strange as well, especially as the NT writers clearly see their own teaching as continuous with the OT.

          So I completely disagree with your point 1. I think your point 1 renders OT moral instruction completely useless for Christians. If it doesn’t apply to us unless the NT authorises it to apply to us, then only ethical NT that is in the NT applies. Anywhere where the NT is silent, the OT is silent also as far as Christians are concerned – even if has said something on the matter. And that seems odd. As I read the NT I don’t get the impression that the NT writers thought the OT was a schroedinger’s cat whose existence for Christians gets established when an apostle opens the box and says ‘this bit applies’. Quite the opposite, I think the NT writers ground part of their authorisation from the continuity of their teaching with the Law and the Prophets.

          So, while I don’t quite think it’s ‘the Law applies unless the NT clearly says it doesn’t’ – because that’s not quite how even the OT treats OT Law from what I can see, I see more room for saying, “unless this seems to be in conflict with the NT, then the basic principles (not always the forms that are there) applies”.

          That’s been pretty constant since before I came to Moore. I had the ‘NT ethic is higher’ view and Peter Jensen challenged me to give him one example of NT ethical teaching that transcended the OT and wasn’t already implicit there. I couldn’t, and never have been able to find one. So I basically agree with Craig – nothing in the Sermon of the Mount isn’t already implicit in the OT Law, there’s nothing new there. So it’s correcting misinterpretations that reduce the full implications of the Law.

          • Mark,

            You say, “Peter Jensen challenged me to give him one example of NT ethical teaching that transcended the OT and wasn’t already implicit there.” Well, I’ll take up that challenge, but change “OT” to “Law,” since that’s the real issue (and prophets such as Jeremiah spend some time talking about the New Covenant, anyway). How about Mt 5:33-37? Where in the Law is it implied that you should not make an oath but just say yes or no? Mt 5:38-42 is similarly not implied in the Law.

            As for assuming that the Law carries through into this last age, this is fraught with problems. For example, in this topic, Jesus redefines adultery as occurring even when a man looks at a woman with lust in his heart (Mt 5:27-30), but the Law states that adultery should be punished by stoning. How do we resolve this? You might try to use Jn 8:1-11 (assuming its legitimacy), but Jesus gives no command here (except to the woman), and his invitation to those who are sinless to throw stones is difficult to generalise. The problem is that neither Jesus nor the apostles give us any guide as to how to remove problematic laws from the Law — instead the assumption, contrary to your claim, seems to be that the Law no longer directly applies.

            This hardly makes the Law useless. It still serves as an excellent example of how God’s moral law is worked out in administering a nation-state (if only a small, tribal, agricultural one). It also clearly points towards Christ’s work (see Hebrews). In this way the tiniest part of the Law will never pass away. In your proposal, however, huge chunks of the law (the sacrificial system and much of the civil law) will necessarily pass away.

            Concerning the missing foundations and ethics that you seem concerned about (for example, murder), I think you’ll find that they are quite adequately covered in Jesus primary commands (some drawn from the Law) including “Love others as yourself” and “Do unto others as you would have them do to you.” Furthermore, in Mt. 5’s antitheses, Jesus in building his higher ethic (for example on murder) Jesus is affirming, not denying, the underlying ethic (do not murder). So the NT, informed and grounded by the OT, has quite an adequate foundation for Christian ethics without needing to implement the Mosaic Law.

            I hope I’ve explained this clearly in as terse a fashion as possible. If not, Douglas Moo’s section of Five Views, mentioned above, has a very nuanced argument.

            I understand that there are differences over this issue, but I think that it is nonetheless an important one (and I think that there are correct and incorrect positions).

          • Not sure if this is going to end up above or below Malcolm’s comment that I’m responding to.

            Hi Malcolm

            – Mt 5:33-37 I don’t think is forbidding all oaths, any more than I think Mat 5:29-30 requires us to maim ourselves. As Heb 6:13-20 says that God made a vow, it can’t be less than God’s ideal to make a vow. Hence, I think Jesus is saying, in a highly rhetorical way, ‘everything you say, say as though it was under oath’. And that is the clear implication of not bearing false witness from the OT.
            – Mt 5:38-42 would seem to me to be an implication of ‘love your neighbour as yourself’. There’s also some places like Prov 25:21-22 that say much the same thing, and I think it would have surprised the OT saints that the wisdom literature was putting forward a higher ethic than the Law given at Sinai. A wise understanding of it, something equivalent, but higher? I think that would be news to them.
            – As for adultery and capital punishment, I think that would come under the issue of civil law, not moral. That was part of my point that the principles abide, but not always the concrete forms. The people of God are no longer a nation in a single location, and so there are no longer the kinds of statutes needed for that kind of institution. But even in the rest of the NT we don’t see the apostles applying the principle of Mt 5:27-30 in such a hamfisted way. Ananais and Saphira die, but all or most other believers would have been guilty of the same thing in their heart. Paul calls for the excommunication of the man sleeping with his father’s wife until there is repentance, but most other Christians would be guilty of the same thing in their heart. Mt 5:27-30 just shows that this is more complex than you’re allowing, not that the OT doesn’t apply.

            So the NT, informed and grounded by the OT, has quite an adequate foundation for Christian ethics without needing to implement the Mosaic Law.

            So, in practice, the NT’s ethics are grounded on the OT and yet the OT doesn’t apply to Christians? It doesn’t even really make sense. How can something be the ground for something else, and yet it doesn’t apply?

            If I recall correctly, that isn’t even Moo’s position. He argues that both the OT and the NT are grounded on a law of God that has no expression we can access, and so there’s no direct link from the NT to the OT – both go back to the one source, and come from it separately. It’s been a number of years since I read it (like, almost 15), so I’d have to recheck that, but something like that sounds like an important part of his position.

      • I think the book Five Views on Law and Gospel probably didn’t help contemporary Christians as much as it could have for the reason you indicate – only Moo tried to harmonise the Biblical data, and so reading it you end up comparing apples and oranges.

        I found the interchanges after the essays more useful, and it was reading them that convinced me that Moo’s position had to be wrong. I needed to go elsewhere to begin to get a sense of a better way, however.

        What does continue to surprise me about his ‘modified Lutheran view’ is how overwhelmingly negative its adherents are to Luther’s approach to ethics. If it really was a modified Lutheran view, you’d think its ethics would share a lot more ground with Luther’s ethics. But they seem to be strongly opposed – if anything it’s closer to the Anabaptist approach to ethics in the 16th Century.

        I think if you wanted to play the ‘modified x view’ game in a cheeky way, you could just as easily call Moo’s view the ‘modified Marcion view’ as the ‘modified Lutheran view’ – it has a modified version Marcion’s approach of seeing only NT ethical teaching as normative for Christians, and OT ethical teaching, where it is not endorsed in the NT, as, for all intents and purposes, sin.

        I’m not a big fan of including the name of somebody (good or bad) in the descriptor of someone’s view (mine or someone else’s) unless you’re saying “my view here is basically what I think x’s was”, but if you’re going to play it, I think ‘Marcion’ would fit at least as well as ‘Lutheran’ there.

        • Mark,

          It’s clear from the clarifications I need to provide that this is not the appropriate forum to discuss the relationship between the Law and Gospel.

          However, this is an important issue, and one which I earnestly desire to get right.

          So here’s what I propose: I can send you my paper which provides the Biblical support for my view. You can either send me a paper on your view or point me to the resources which provide better Biblical support than that of Five Views. We can take it from there.

          How’s that sound?

          My email is my last name at dreamspring dot com.

  28. Hi Malcolm,

    If you read the whole section of Luther’s Sermon on the Mount commentary, you will see that he actually makes a distinction between what the law prescribes, and what a Christian should do, so I don’t think that interpretation necessarily holds water.

    To my mind, it would be better to accept their words at face value, and simply say you think they got their interpretation wrong.

    cheers,
    Craig

    • Craig,

      I went and read that section of Luther’s commentary (don’t you love the internet?) and you are right: Luther carefully distinguishes between “jurists” and the church and “heathens” and Christians. However, I think he makes this distinction incorrectly, saying “marriage is quite a secular, external thing, as wife, child, house and home, and other things that belong to the authority of the government.” And yet Paul talks about marriage pointing towards the relationship of Christ and the Church, and the NT has a lot to say to the church (not to government) about marriage. Luther’s distinction is quite probably influenced by the particular relationship of the church and state at his time. Indeed, Luther’s division is one that I would say the founding fathers of the USA disagreed with.

      I also noted that Luther’s logic in justifying remarriage after adultery (i.e. that adultery leads to death and death dissolves marriage and therefore the marriage in which adultery occurs is automatically dissolved) is pretty poor. (A sin punishable by death is not equivalent to death, otherwise, according to Jesus and Paul, none of us would have a marriage, since we all have sinned deserving death.)

      Also, Luther’s flow as he moves into his discussion on other justifications for divorce makes it very clear that he is stepping far beyond the Bible (up until that point he has been exegeting scripture, while he then adds to it, stating that an abandoner is worse than a heathen and so should be treated as such).

      It should be noted that Luther’s general tone is well summed up by his conclusion: “Therefore, our principal duty is nothing else than simple forgiveness of sin, both in ourselves and toward others; so that, as Christ in his kingdom without intermission is bearing with and forgiving all manner of faults, so also we among ourselves bear and forgive in all conditions and in all things.”

      So there are two conclusions I have: Luther’s pastoral concerns seem to have motivated him to go beyond scripture at one point, and indulge in poor logic and exegesis in another. And Luther’s general recommendation is nonetheless that Christians should not divorce at all (even in cases of adultery, where repentance is present).

      So again, while Luther’s perspective is interesting and informative, it needs to be carefully contextualised and held up against the ultimate authority of scripture. We should do that with our own views, too, of course.

      • Malcolm,

        However, I think he makes this distinction incorrectly, saying “marriage is quite a secular, external thing, as wife, child, house and home, and other things that belong to the authority of the government.” And yet Paul talks about marriage pointing towards the relationship of Christ and the Church, and the NT has a lot to say to the church (not to government) about marriage. Luther’s distinction is quite probably influenced by the particular relationship of the church and state at his time.

        No, because the view at the time was that marriage was a sacrament – and therefore Church business, not government business. Luther rejects that view from his reading of Scripture. He doesn’t read Scripture badly because he’s reading a pre-existing view of Church and state in.

        His position on this is not being driven by views on church and state, they, and his view that marriage is ‘secular’ are more likely being driven by his view of the ‘two kingdoms’ and his distinction between the inner man and outer man.

        I also noted that Luther’s logic in justifying remarriage after adultery (i.e. that adultery leads to death and death dissolves marriage and therefore the marriage in which adultery occurs is automatically dissolved) is pretty poor.

        I’m not so sure it is. The OT didn’t require stoning for lust of the heart. Not even Jesus was requiring that when he said that to lust was to have committed adultery. Nor by saying that Jesus was somehow saying, ‘no more capital punishment for adultery’. The OT required stoning for the actual act, and that position it takes there has to have an effect on its approach elsewhere (like whether it needs to say, “Divorce is permissible when the person has committed adultery”. You don’t need to need to divorce a husband/wife who is soon going to be the late husband/wife.)

        Now, in such a situation the offended party would (soon) be free to remarry as the offending partner would soon be dead. But if people aren’t going to follow the civil law at that point (and Luther doesn’t think they need to) then the principles involved still need to be taken into account – if you aren’t going to follow the death penalty, you are going to need to offer separation by divorce for adultery – which is what we find Jesus offered.

        It’s not “bad” logic here, it’s an attempt to read Scripture consistently. It’s an argument that can be knocked down on other criteria (eg Christians are supposed to always turn the other cheek, so the offender shouldn’t die and the offender should still be bound to the marriage), but on its own terms I think it’s a reasonable argument.

        Also, Luther’s flow as he moves into his discussion on other justifications for divorce makes it very clear that he is stepping far beyond the Bible (up until that point he has been exegeting scripture, while he then adds to it, stating that an abandoner is worse than a heathen and so should be treated as such).

        Again, I think there’s biblical logic to Luther’s language. Luther says:

        But if a fellow deserts his wife without her knowledge or consent, forsakes house, home, wife and child, stays away two or three years, or as long as he pleases (as now often happens), and when he has run his riotous course and squandered his substance and wants to come home again and take his old place, that the other party must be under obligation to wait for him as long as he chooses, and then take up with him again: such a fellow ought not only to be forbidden house and home, but should be banished from the country, and the other party, if the renegade has been summoned and long enough waited for, should be heartily pronounced free.

        For such a one is much worse than a heathen and unbeliever, and is less to be endured than a miserable adulterer, who, though he once fell, can still reform again and be faithful as before to his wife; but this one treats marriage just as he pleases, does not feel himself under any obligation to abide as husband and father with wife and children and perform his duty toward them, but holds himself sure of a safe reception if the notion takes him to return.

        The combining of ‘squandering his substance’ (ie. spending all the money) and ‘not performing the duty of a husband and father’ (which seems to be primarily focused on supporting them financially in this point) along with the language of ‘is worse than an unbeliever’ would seem to fairly naturally be an allusion to 1 Tim 5:8.

        This is why I think the Reformers are so much better at this than we are. Most evangelicals seem to look at a passage like 1 Tim 5:8 and go “It doesn’t show up in a word search on marriage and divorce so it isn’t relevant -it’s about taking care of widows”. Luther looks at implications of what’s being said there. Someone who does take care of their own family is to be considered as an unbeliever, as worse than an unbeliever.

        He then applies that to the question of desertion by someone who claims to be a Christian. In light of 1 Cor 7, if an unbeliever wants to leave you should let them. In light of 1 Tim 5 if a professed Christian doesn’t support then they are an unbeliever. Put them together and you get abandonment as grounds for divorce – the person abandoning someone is worse than an unbeliever and has demonstrated by their actions that they don’t want to be kept in the marriage. In that situation 1 Cor 7 applies.

        I think it works the other way on this one, you have to either decide that 1 Cor 7 doesn’t allow divorce when an unbeliever wants to be released from marriage, or do some strange thinking (or just never put 1 Cor 7 and 1 Tim 5 next to each other and think about how they connect up) to not reach Luther’s conclusion here.

        • *Sigh* From the comment above, there’s an important addition for one sentence:

          Someone who does not take care of their own family is to be considered as an unbeliever, as worse than an unbeliever.

          My comments are riddled with grammatical and spelling errors. But that one managed to invert the whole meaning of the sentence.

          My kingdom for a ‘preview’ function. It wouldn’t solve the problem, but I’d catch a whole lot more of these infelicities.

        • Mark,

          If Luther’s classification of marriage into a “secular” concern (his word) comes from his view of two kingdoms (law and gospel, not secular and spiritual), then how so? I don’t understand.

          Regarding reading scripture consistently, I don’t see how Luther is doing that — the sin never equals the results of the punishment. Your justification assumes the need for the death penalty for adultery (or its equivalent in marriage — divorce) to be carried through into the New Covenant, but then denies Jesus’ sweeping claims about what actually IS adultery. That hardly seems consistent reading of scripture to me.

          Your logic in support of Luther’s extension to non-supporting spouses also fails to recognize that in 1 Cor 7 the believer is required to stay with the unbeliever unless the unbeliever wishes to divorce them. So even if a non-supporter is worse than a heathen, the victim is still not free to initiate divorce under this analogy.

          • Malcolm,

            It’s been a while since I was immersed in the Reformation (been in Patristics the last *ahem* years), so I’m a bit shaky on some of these bits of Luther’s theology. IIRC:

            Quite fundamental to Luther’s reading in the Bible is a distinction that goes back to Augustine’s, “God give what you demand and demand what you will”. From that Augustinian perspective developed a distinction between what God demands (Law) and what gives (grace or gospel).

            Luther understands these two distinctions to relate to an anthropological distinction he saw in Scripture – the inner man and outer man.

            The inner man relates primarily to God, is the matter of the heart. And here everything works on the basis of grace and faith. This is the realm of the Church.

            The outer man relates primarily to other people, is a matter of what one does. Here everything works on the basis of justice and merit – the Law. This is the realm of the secular authority.

            Now, obviously the two interact, sometimes in surprising ways, but that basic division is quite important to Lutheran ethics as I understand it (and you can see from this why I think it’s just bizarre for Moo to call his approach modified Lutheran – there isn’t a hint of this in it).

            On this view, where does marriage fit? Is it an issue of grace and faith, an internal matter of the heart? Absolutely and utterly not – the Reformers were opposed to courtly love and secret marriages because they saw the damage they’d done. Is marriage part of the gospel? Is it something that Christ died for? Again no.

            Marriage was about how people live in this world. It is part of nature, part of creation. It is governed by God’s moral demands on people. And all those things are part of the role of the state. The state’s role is to uphold God’s moral law – that’s why it has the sword, not the Church.

            So marriage is secular, not in the modern sense, but in the 16th century sense of that word. It’s part of being human, it’s not part of the gospel. There’s nothing distinctly Christian about marriage itself such that only Christians can get married or the like. And the institution that should be overseeing marriage is the State, not the Church.

            I think that’s the right ballpark, but I might have missed some important nuances, or mishandled some points. But I think it’s roughly in the right territory.

          • Mark,

            Your post (above, below? this forum software is not good for extended discussions, is it?) is very helpful in understanding Luther’s view of Law, and makes it pretty clear that Luther’s idea of Law was definitely not the Mosaic Law.

            Nonetheless, it strikes me as a peculiar way to interpret the scriptural evidence (given the influences that I’ve grown up with), since it seems to assume both the church and the state are Christian. Of course, this is what I’ve been saying Luther assumes, anyway, so it’s not surprising that he would take that approach, but I don’t think it’s a helpful approach (and I think history has proven that). I’ll have to do more reading to see how it’s grounded in scripture.

            BTW, I can see how Moo’s idea of the Law of Christ (a Biblical concept, but fleshed out by Moo) fits into this, and perhaps his primary modification to Luther is discarding this link to the “secular?”

            BTW, could you give me the references that justified the Reformed view’s scriptural foundations to you?

          • Malcolm,

            Regarding reading scripture consistently, I don’t see how Luther is doing that — the sin never equals the results of the punishment. Your justification assumes the need for the death penalty for adultery (or its equivalent in marriage — divorce) to be carried through into the New Covenant, but then denies Jesus’ sweeping claims about what actually IS adultery. That hardly seems consistent reading of scripture to me.

            The consistency adds in an extra factor, and again, it’s a Reformation thing that I have (almost) never heard a modern evangelical acknowledge when it comes to reading the Bible – sit back for a moment and use common sense.

            Think about Jesus’ words for a bit. If I get angry with someone then that’s equivalent to murder. So let’s run a thought experiment. I have someone I encounter regularly and who regularly makes me mad. Every time I get angry God judges me to be a murderer. So what reason is there for me to not just go ahead and actually murder the person in question? Sure I’ve committed murder if I do that. But I had committed murder anyway in getting angry – it’s just part of the one act. And at least this way I’m only guilty of murder once, if I don’t carry through on the anger then I am guilty of murder every time I get angry. That’s potentially a lot of murders, if I have to keep meeting this anger-generator.

            If we read Jesus’ words here the way you are implying then Jesus is saying that God sees no moral difference between someone who is angry and who then exercises self-control and controls that anger, and someone who goes around killing every person they meet who causes them the smallest irritation, and so beats the Rambo movies for body count. I mean, really? God calls on me to exercise self-control, but doesn’t see any moral difference between me exercising that self-control and the guy who just goes ahead and ends someone’s life? How on earth does Eph 4:26 make any sense when getting angry is murder? How can I be angry and sin not if I am a murderer when I got angry?

            Bluntly, I think God will, on judgement day, see a moral difference between the adulterer and the person who lusted but through prayer and trembling at the word of God didn’t commit adultery. If lust simply is adultery then 1 Cor 6:15-20 is absurd. Why waste time calling on people not to commit sexual immorality, and explain the importance of not sinning with your body if adultery is lust? Why waste time calling people not to commit the act when they commit it every time they are guilty of it in their heart?

            And, as I said, you can see that God makes this distinction in the NT. Anaias and Saphira die for their sin. But more than them in that room were guilty of that sin in their heart. If there’s no moral difference between heart and act why did only they die? The man slept with his father’s wife and was to be excommunicated. But, assuming that Paul wouldn’t have been any happier with run-of-the-mill sexual immorality, it’s a safe bet that there were others guilty of adultery in their hearts. Why no excommunication for them if it’s all one and the same?

            Similarly, Romans 13 indicates that the ruling authorities have the sword to punish evildoers and so carry out God’s wrath against them. That has to be an allusion to capital punishment. If getting angry is the same as murder, then everyone who gets angry should be put to death by the state, or at least it would be entirely just for the state to execute anyone who got angry. God sees anger as murder, the state has the sword to carry out God’s anger against evildoers, QED. It’s an absurd position, but it’s the logical position on your reading of Jesus’ words (it’s not even reductio ad absurdum).

            So, no, Luther’s argument here is grounded on reading the Bible in a way that doesn’t just collapse into absurd positions that can’t explain other parts of the Bible. He understood correctly that Jesus was not saying ‘no moral difference between sin of the heart and sin of the act’. Therefore, in our public dealings with people we make a distinction between public sins – things people do, and secret sins – things that exist only in their heart. You don’t stone people for lust, or for anger. You punish people, and reward them, for what they do. On judgement day God will deal with the secrets of people’s hearts. And we can all be thankful that we don’t have to face that.

          • Malcolm,

            Your logic in support of Luther’s extension to non-supporting spouses also fails to recognize that in 1 Cor 7 the believer is required to stay with the unbeliever unless the unbeliever wishes to divorce them. So even if a non-supporter is worse than a heathen, the victim is still not free to initiate divorce under this analogy.

            Well, I wondered at the time if I needed to make that step clearer. Okay, let’s look at what Paul’s saying in 1 Cor 7:12-16 (assuming we both agree that Paul is giving different instructions there from vv10-11).

            Paul isn’t just saying, “Don’t divorce, but if they want to divorce you’re not still married to them and need to act as though you’re still married.” In verse 12 he speaks of the unbeliever being prepared to live with the Christian. In verse 15 you can translate the key word as ‘separates’, not simply as ‘divorces’.

            Once again, Paul isn’t giving a manual here, it’s not meant to be comprehensive. But it seems fairly clear that his advice here is predicated on the view that being married and living together go together. That’s clearly not absolute such that moving out is to commit divorce – otherwise his words in vv10-11 don’t make sense. Nonetheless they are a package, hence Paul can speak of ‘being prepared to live with’ in one verse, and ‘not wanting to be divorced’ in the parallel verse that follows. The two can stand in for each other.

            So say you’ve got someone who doesn’t initiate divorce (the criteria of v13) but doesn’t consent to live with their spouse – which is the criteria of v12. They abandon their spouse, and by abandoning their spouse demonstrate by their actions that they do not consent to live with their spouse.

            In that situation, what is Paul saying? You have to wait for them to initiate divorce in the courts, his words in v12 notwithstanding? Or is he saying that if they do not consent to live with you then you are no longer enslaved? That is, there are two ways to end the marriage. You can be upfront and seek a divorce. Or you can be unwilling to live with your spouse. While they are not quite the same thing, they have enough overlap in their significance that either frees the other person from the marriage.

            In the latter case, the person who is abandoned would then need to go a petition the court for divorce. But surely that’s implied in 1 Cor 7:12. If you should not divorce a spouse who is prepared to live with you, then surely you either should divorce, or may divorce, a spouse who is not prepared to live with you? What other implication are we to get from those words?

            So, I think the logic in Luther’s argument takes account of some important details in Paul’s instructions in 1 Cor 7, and so the person is allowed to initiate divorce where the spouse is leaving.

            If you want to get really picky about things you could throw up the case of the Christian who doesn’t want to live with their family but still financially supports them as not covered by the argument. But then I’d have to go and cry in a corner or something and that wouldn’t be very pretty.

          • Mark,

            Above, you successfully dealt with my phrase “but then denies Jesus’ sweeping claims about what actually IS adultery.” I agree with pretty much everything you say in that (except for your rather inaccurate and unnecessary remarks about evangelicals).

            However, if I withdraw that clause, you still have not dealt with the rest of my statement that you quote, and it still stands as a problem for you, as far as I can see.

  29. Are you on Facebook Malcolm? Send me a friend request if you are inclined…

    cheers,
    Craig

    • Thanks Craig! I looked up your name, but there are several people under that name, and I’m not 100% sure if you’re the Aussie! ;-)

      There’s only one Malcolm Lithgow, though (not boasting, just blessed with a unique name ;-) ), so feel free to “friend” me.

  30. “On what basis do I assume that Jesus implies another exception? On the basis that Jesus wasn’t answering the question ‘list all the grounds whereby divorce is legitimate’… ”

    Thanks for that Mark. This (and the following paragraphs) is one of the most clear-headed statements I’ve read about the Biblical problems with the conservative Evangelical approach to divorce.

    • Craig,

      The only problem is that it’s not actually addressing what happens in the Gospels. In Mt 5 Jesus wasn’t answering any questions — it’s a monologue. In Mt 19 where he is asked a question, he declines to enter into the debate at the level it was in at the time, and instead reframes the discussion by going back to first principles. Thus his statement in Mt 19:6 where he reveals God’s perspective on marriage is explicitly grounded in God’s original design, and Jesus is clearly casting aside all the baggage accumulated since then. It is then up to the person who wants to claim an exception to demonstrate how that would fit into this re-established framework, and not to simply claim that it’s assumed, because Jesus has just deliberately undercut all assumptions.

      At least, that’s the only way that I can understand Jesus answer in Mt 19 and Mk 10. I’d be interested to hear other explanations.

      • Thus his statement in Mt 19:6 where he reveals God’s perspective on marriage is explicitly grounded in God’s original design, and Jesus is clearly casting aside all the baggage accumulated since then.

        The “baggage” in question is Holy Scripture, if you are referring to the Law! If you interpret Jesus in such a way, how do you reconcile this later on with Paul’s statements on divorcing an unbeliever?

        I believe Mark has made a strong case for looking at the whole teaching of the Bible, rather than interpreting a single verse in a way that makes it contradict the rest of what Scripture says about the matter.

        cheers,
        Craig

        • Craig,

          The “baggage” is far more than just the Mosaic Law’s concessions for divorce (which Jesus explicitly dismisses, explaining why such compromise was necessary), and includes the whole Hillel/Shamiel debate and accumulated customs.

          I agree with Mark that we need to take the entire testimony of Scripture into account, and that’s precisely what I’m trying to do here.

          Paul’s concession on an unbeliever divorcing a believer (not “divorcing an unbeliever” as you put it) fits in to here since it’s the unbeliever who does the divorcing and one cannot expect an unbeliever to refrain from sin, since they are dead in their sins (that doesn’t mean that they aren’t held accountable, but that it’s foolish to expect them to behave righteously). I carry my understanding of Jesus’ reframing the issue into my interpretation of Paul’s concession and recognise that the believer is free from the sin of divorce, but not free to remarry.

          So how do you interpret Mt 19 and Mk 10’s appeal to the pre-fall creation order?

          • I don’t think I can add much to what Mike and Mark have said regarding the exegetical arguments.

            I’m interested – given what you have written here, what would you say to a Christian woman who came to you and said her husband was beating her up?

      • I take then, Malcolm, that either you consider the Mosaic permission:
        (a) authorised by God, but Jesus restores marital permanence to the original norm; or
        (b) contrary tp God’s law and contravened by Jesus?

        • Michael,

          I consider the Mosaic permissions to be a concession “because of [their] hardness of heart, but from the beginning it was not so.” I think Jesus is pretty clear on this.

          Reading the OT I see that God made many concessions in his relationship with his people, and it seems quite clear that these concessions were never intended to be permanent (see Heb. 7, for example), but were to point towards the ultimately permanent things. In Eph. 5 and Mt. 22 we learn that even marriage itself serves in this way (it is not permanent, but a pointer towards a greater thing), although I would not call marriage a concession (since it was instituted pre-fall).

      • Malcolm,

        If Jesus wasn’t addressing any questions, then when I note that he wasn’t answering a specific question, then I am addressing what happened in the Gospel accounts. That’s just basic logic – I don’t have to have focus on the broader set if I think one item in the set is pertinent to my argument and it is actually a member of that set.

        In Mt 5 Jesus wasn’t answering any questions — it’s a monologue. In Mt 19 where he is asked a question, he declines to enter into the debate at the level it was in at the time, and instead reframes the discussion by going back to first principles.

        Agree, and this would be common ground between us.

        Thus his statement in Mt 19:6 where he reveals God’s perspective on marriage is explicitly grounded in God’s original design, and Jesus is clearly casting aside all the baggage accumulated since then. It is then up to the person who wants to claim an exception to demonstrate how that would fit into this re-established framework, and not to simply claim that it’s assumed, because Jesus has just deliberately undercut all assumptions.

        IMO you go wrong at this point, I’ve italicised the bit I (basically) agree with, the rest is the problematic bit.

        Take some time and reread Mal 2:13-16. Is it giving any hint (even the smallest) that it is okay to divorce someone? Isn’t 2:15 most likely some kind of allusion to the marriage account in Gen 2? Isn’t Malachi going back to first principles and restating God’s original intention and purpose for marriage? Is there anything here that is more accepting of divorce, or less theologically grounded for its rejection of divorce, than Jesus’ words?

        And I don’t think that the OT saints were supposed to read this and go, “Ah, the LORD has swept away the baggage of the Law (heh) because he’s now revealed ‘God’s perspective on marriage is explicitly grounded in God’s original design’ “.

        And Jesus doesn’t offer anything new to Malachi, IMO (I mean there are differences between them, like Jesus’ statement that it makes her an adulteress, and Malachi’s that divorcing the wife of your youth is an inherently violent act, but they’re pretty clearly comparable statements on the matter). Jesus’ teaching is already there in Malachi. And if that’s the case, then he’s unlikely to be sweeping the (ahem) baggage of Malachi away, and as Malachi is not sweeping the (ahem) baggage of the Law away, Jesus isn’t doing that either. We have continuity here between the Testaments.

        As for demonstrating that exceptions exist to this “new” framework, well, I’ll tip ma’ hat to the good Mr Bucer, the greatest exegete of his age, and point out that 1 Cor 7 offers grounds for divorce not covered in Jesus’ words. And as he points out, if there’s just one, explicitly stated grounds in the NT not included in Jesus’ words, then Jesus words cannot be a statement saying that there are no exceptions or no exceptions other than sexual immorality. Otherwise you have a brutal contradiction in Scripture between Jesus and Paul.

        That’s Biblical Interpretation 101. And on pretty well every other issue evangelicals follow correct principles of biblical interpretation – don’t interpret the Bible in one place that alienates the meaning of another. This just seems to be one of the few areas where those basics (baggage?) are tossed out in favor of a ‘re-established framework’ – the Red Letter Bible View of Divorce.

        • Heh. When you quote someone it goes in italics. So when you italicise a quote it goes back to normal text. So the bit I agree with is normal text, and the bit I find problematic in the above comment is italicised. Live and learn.

        • Mark,

          If Jesus wasn’t addressing any questions, then his context wasn’t set by his questioner’s assumptions, but by his own context, so no, your logic doesn’t hold. In other words, answering no questions is not a member of the set of answering a specific question. Basic logic. ;-)

          Regarding Mal 2, how do you see Malachi going back to first principles? What first principle is he going back to? He is certainly exhorting men not to abuse the permission the Mosaic Law gave for divorce, which points towards (what I contend is) Jesus’ position. The difference, of course, is that Malachi is not making any statement about the Law, while Jesus is.

          Remember, I (and Moo) differentiate carefully between the Mosaic Law and the OT (I have noticed that you don’t do so, and don’t even notice me doing so, at least in your posts here) — I don’t consider them to be the same, since they clearly are not. Thus I have no problems with Malachi’s position prefiguring Jesus’.

          Having said that, Jesus goes far beyond Malachi in Mt. 5, 19 and Mk 10, both in stating that remarriage is adultery and in stating that the divorcer shares the guilt (except in cases of adultery). If you seriously believe that this teaching is already in Malachi, then your reading of Malachi sees a lot more than mine does. In fact, I would say you were reading rather a lot into Malachi that isn’t actually there.

          I’m not sure why you’re so worked up about this creating a discontinuity between the testaments, since Jesus is harking back to the very beginning of the OT. Also, how do you feel about the “discontinuity” of the dietary laws? Do you think it’s wrong to eat pork? What about wearing mixed fabrics, etc?

          Finally, 1 Cor 7 allows for the sin of divorce to fall entirely on one partner in a certain circumstance (and still bans any Christian from seeking divorce). Paul doesn’t allow remarriage in this case (neither does he disallow it, but for there to be an inconsistency he would have to explicitly allow it). Thus there is no extra “exception” case here, and there is no crack for Bucer’s wedge to find purchase.

          Regarding Biblical Interpretation 101, isn’t that what I’m doing?

          • Hi Malcolm,

            If Jesus wasn’t addressing any questions, then his context wasn’t set by his questioner’s assumptions, but by his own context, so no, your logic doesn’t hold. In other words, answering no questions is not a member of the set of answering a specific question. Basic logic. ;-)

            No I agree it’s not, and that’s not what I said – you’ve swapped the set and the member of that set around.

            You and I agree that Jesus wasn’t answering any questions, he was putting things forward on his own terms. But if that’s what he was doing then he wasn’t answering the question, “Give all the reasons for divorce.” By pointing out that Jesus wasn’t answering that question, I am correctly identifying what was going on in the Gospels (Jesus was answering from first principles – identifying that happened off camera) and bringing out the aspect of that that mattered for my argument (therefore he wasn’t answering this specific question – that bit happened on camera).

            Regarding Mal 2, how do you see Malachi going back to first principles? What first principle is he going back to? He is certainly exhorting men not to abuse the permission the Mosaic Law gave for divorce, which points towards (what I contend is) Jesus’ position. The difference, of course, is that Malachi is not making any statement about the Law, while Jesus is.

            Malachi 2:15 seems to me to be going back to first principles:

            Did he not make them one, with a portion of the Spirit in their union? And what was the one God seeking? Godly offspring. So guard yourselves in your spirit, and let none of you be faithless to the wife of your youth.

            Where else but the Genesis account would Malachi be getting the idea of God making the husband and wife one? Let alone mentioning the Spirit as part of marriage. So he’s going back to the Genesis account to ground his teaching on divorce and marriage, that’s going back to first principles, biblical theology style.
            Similarly linking this oneness to God’s oneness would seem to be going back to first principles – not biblical theology timeline wise, but systematic theology wise – you’ve gone back to the character and nature of God to help ground your take on the nature of marriage.
            And similarly by introducing the purpose of marriage – to produce godly offspring – you’re going back to first principles regarding what marriage is and what it is for. That’s a third type of first principle, looking at the nature of the thing in question and what its purposes are.

            That’s three different kinds of first principles in one verse. It is a theological tour de force.

            And while Malachi is making no explicit statement about the Law, given he’s speaking to Jews he’s making a very loud statement about the Law implicitly. He can’t not be. Saying this isn’t a statement about the Law, would be like me saying to a group of Christians, “Jesus is not the way the truth and the life, and pretty well anyone can come to the Father apart from him”, and claiming that that wasn’t a statement about the reliability and/or truthfulness of Jesus’ words. The implications are screaming out to the target audience, and are part of the package.

            Remember, I (and Moo) differentiate carefully between the Mosaic Law and the OT (I have noticed that you don’t do so, and don’t even notice me doing so, at least in your posts here) — I don’t consider them to be the same, since they clearly are not. Thus I have no problems with Malachi’s position prefiguring Jesus’.

            No I make that distinction when it matters. But the Prophets aren’t the Prophet like Moses. They aren’t authorised to go altering the covenant. So Malachi’s words here cannot be a change to the ethics already contained in the Mosaic covenant. That was all that mattered for my argument. Malachi doesn’t give any hint that the Law allows divorce. Not the slightest. There are no exceptions to what he’s saying. And yet, given what we know of what the Prophets’ role was, he can’t be rolling back the Law in doing this. I think that matters for how we read Jesus’ words, because their stance on the issue looks a lot like Malachi’s, and Jesus’ words and Malachi’s share so much territory so Jesus can’t be just jumping over everything that’s gone before and going back to the start. Malachi’s already done that.

          • Having said that, Jesus goes far beyond Malachi in Mt. 5, 19 and Mk 10, both in stating that remarriage is adultery and in stating that the divorcer shares the guilt (except in cases of adultery). If you seriously believe that this teaching is already in Malachi, then your reading of Malachi sees a lot more than mine does. In fact, I would say you were reading rather a lot into Malachi that isn’t actually there.

            No, that specific teaching isn’t in Malachi. I did actually say that – I said that they were comparable statements, and in that sense what Jesus is doing isn’t really new. On the other hand the idea that divorcing your wife is inherently violent isn’t in Jesus’ words. I’m not sure that either revelation is going ‘far beyond’ the other. They’re both shedding light on something that the other isn’t. When we find two biblical authors shedding light on something that the other one doesn’t, do we normally say that one more ethically or theologically advanced than the other? This isn’t meant to be a cheap shop (because you’re hardly the only evangelical to say that on this question), but isn’t that normally a feature of liberal approaches to the Bible?

            I’m not sure why you’re so worked up about this creating a discontinuity between the testaments, since Jesus is harking back to the very beginning of the OT. Also, how do you feel about the “discontinuity” of the dietary laws? Do you think it’s wrong to eat pork? What about wearing mixed fabrics, etc?

            In order:
            I’m just weird that way. It’s a thing.
            I feel whimsical.
            Yes.
            Definitely. Nasty things, mixed fabrics. Do that and you shouldn’t be allowed to come to church when it gathers, until you’ve had some time for ritual cleansing.

            This idea that some things are continuous between the Testaments and some aren’t isn’t some Weird New Idea that needs to justify itself by answering a series of reductio ad absurdum questions. It’s Reformed orthodoxy, and most/many ministers reading the blog will have signed a statement of faith that includes it somewhere. The ‘Modified Lutheran View’ is the johnny-come lately.

          • Hi Malcolm,

            This is the last installment this time around.

            Finally, 1 Cor 7 allows for the sin of divorce to fall entirely on one partner in a certain circumstance (and still bans any Christian from seeking divorce).

            I must have missed something here. 1 Cor 7:12 says:

            To the rest I say (I, not the Lord) that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

            This is as an ‘if then’ construct. If x happens you must not do y. If the wife is prepared to live with the husband he must not divorce her. Part of the point of an ‘if-then’ is that something different happens when the ‘if’ isn’t met. Complete this sentence:

            If the wife is not prepared to live with the husband then the husband…

            What? must not divorce her? That’s the one thing that makes the ‘if-then’ construct Paul has adopted completely absurd. If she’s prepared to live you with you must not divorce her. But if she’s not prepared to live with you, ah, well then you must not divorce her either. Say what?

            The implications of Paul’s words in v12 are to say that if the wife does not consent to live with her husband then he should or may divorce her. If you think God’s hatred of divorce is paramount it would be ‘may’ divorce. If you think the context of v12, and Paul’s emphasis on not knowing if you’ll save the unbelieving partner and the need to live at peace is paramount then it would be ‘must’ divorce her. The one thing that doesn’t make sense of v12 is to say that it does not allow the believer to initiate divorce under any circumstances.

            Paul doesn’t allow remarriage in this case (neither does he disallow it, but for there to be an inconsistency he would have to explicitly allow it). Thus there is no extra “exception” case here, and there is no crack for Bucer’s wedge to find purchase.

            No, he doesn’t have to explicitly allow it for there to be an inconsistency. All that has to happen is that that is the natural implication of the natural way to read his words.

            Given all the Bible has to say about divorce and remarriage before this passage, and the current understanding of divorce and remarriage in the culture, would his original hearers see divorce as freeing someone from the marriage and so allowing remarriage. Or, despite Paul’s words of not being enslaved in 7:15, would they understand themselves to still be bound to the marriage until the partner died?

            I think it’s just obvious that a rightly grounded divorce ends the marriage and so frees the person to remarry. Otherwise I cannot see any distinction between Paul’s instructions in vv 10-11 and vv12-16. And if that’s the case, he didn’t need vv12-16, they just muddy the waters when vv10-11 explain the situation far more clearly and succinctly.

  31. Regarding the Reformers, I don’t think they saw themselves as “going soft” on this issue! Luther and Calvin are not really the sort to go soft on anything, are they?!

    I believe they saw themselves as strengthening rather than undermining marriage. From what I understand, the Catholic medieval position on divorce (and celibacy) often made marriage a bit of a farce, with the church often turning a blind eye to mistresses.

    I don’t think the modern Catholic position is much better, with annulments seeming to be relatively plentiful. Rather than being honest and saying the parties were married, and are now divorced, the church instead pretends they were never married at all!

    Against all this, I see the Reformers struggling honestly to understand the Biblical intent and apply it to the everyday world.

  32. Mark Baddeley, aren’t you being a little harsh with Douglas Moo? Unlike Marcion, he is not writing off the Old Testament, but aiming to contextualise it, in the light of its fulfilment in the New Testament

  33. Hi David,

    If I was really saying that Moo’s view was a modified Marcion view then yes, I deserve to be tarred and feathered for being unjustly harsh on a faithful servant of Christ.

    I was pointing out (or at least trying to) that his view isn’t really modified Lutheran at all. It’s something else entirely. I gave a couple of arguments for that.

    One item in that set was to show that you could also pick out a couple of important features of his approach and show that they are shared with Marcion – both have the same distinctives. And hence, that title fits just as well ‘Lutheran’.

    The point of that wasn’t to say, “it actually is a Marcion view”, it was to say, “it isn’t either Marcion or Lutheran, just drop the namedropping altogether”.

    Obviously, given my style, there’s a cheekiness factor as well, in that I find it kind of fun to prick the pretensions of enlisting Luther when your view isn’t his at all by subverting the game and linking you to someone like Marcion using the same ‘rules’. But that’s (meant to be) just color, not the main point.

    My apologies if it made it look if I really think his view is anything at all like Marcion’s. With tongue firmly in cheek, I’ll say that I think Moo is as much as Marcion as he is a Lutheran. :D

    • Mark,

      Ah, so a “cheeky” style means “completely without substance.” Got it! (Don’t worry, Mark, just being cheeky. ;-) )

      Here are some quotes from Moo’s essay, where he maps out why he calls it a “modified Lutheran” view.

      Luther himself saw Law and Gospel as discontinuous and made the distinction between these two basic to his theology. This distinction has continued to be central to Lutheran theology, and I think that it is both biblical and important. But I also think that the traditional approach needs to be modified by greater attention to the salvation-historical perspective of the Scriptures.

      And it is necessary to stress at this point that the New Testament teaching about the law is first, and most basically, teaching about the Mosaic law. This is in contrast to the situation in some theological systems — and this is particularly true of Lutheran theology and a point at which it requires modification — where “law” denotes a general theological category, namely God’s word in its commanding aspect.

      That seems to fit in with your representation of Luther’s position so far, Mark. Not sure why you find Moo’s label so wrong. Remember that the context for the essay is “Five Views on Law and Gospel” not “Five Ethical Systems.”

      • Drats! My quoting didn’t work! Well, the quote starts at “Luther” and ends at “aspect.”

      • Malcolm,

        Ah, so a “cheeky” style means “completely without substance.” Got it! (Don’t worry, Mark, just being cheeky. ;-) )

        No, you pretty much nailed it there. It also means being unhelpfully overly subtle.

        Luther himself saw Law and Gospel as discontinuous and made the distinction between these two basic to his theology. This distinction has continued to be central to Lutheran theology, and I think that it is both biblical and important. But I also think that the traditional approach needs to be modified by greater attention to the salvation-historical perspective of the Scriptures.

        And it is necessary to stress at this point that the New Testament teaching about the law is first, and most basically, teaching about the Mosaic law. This is in contrast to the situation in some theological systems — and this is particularly true of Lutheran theology and a point at which it requires modification — where “law” denotes a general theological category, namely God’s word in its commanding aspect.

        Okay, so we take Luther’s theology where ‘Law’ means ‘what God commands’, which Luther sees as something that occurs everywhere in the Bible – when Jesus speaks in the Gospels, when the Epistles give commands, when Proverbs implicitly call people to a wise way of life- it’s all ‘Law’. You don’t get saved by obeying Paul’s commands any more than you do by obeying Moses’. And we say, “No. Fail. ‘Law’ means ‘Mosaic Law’. And so when Paul says you are not saved by the works of the Law he’s only referring to Moses’ commands. He’s not saying anything about any other commands there and what happens if you obey them.” And so we build our system on that. We turn a systematic theology category to do with the distinction God makes between what he demands of people and what he gives to people into a biblical theology category of how salvation history unfolds and we call that a ‘modified Lutheran’ view?

        I’m sorry, if that’s a ‘modification’ of Luther’s position then the following are ‘modifications’ as well (at the risk of adding salt to the wound):

        You take Marcion’s approach, and just ‘modify’ it: Marcion incorrectly thought the OT was bad and came from an evil god. Take that bit out, and what we have here in Moo’s position is ‘The modified Marcion view’. Rubbish. Take that bit out (as David observed) and you don’t have Marcion’s view at all you have something different altogether.

        Or how about: Luther thought we were justified by faith alone and apart from what we do. We just need to get rid of the ‘sola’ there. We’re justified by faith, yes, but works are part of the ground whereby God declares us righteous on the last day. There we are a ‘modified Lutheran view of justification’. Rubbish. That isn’t Luther’s view at all. That’s the view he disagreed with. But to get it you only had to modify one thing.

        Swap the meanings of ‘law’ the way Moo does and your view has no resemblance to Luther’s at all. So just don’t reference him in your self-description. Stand on your own feet and argue the case from the Bible. Moo can do that and do it well. He doesn’t need Luther’s endorsement.

        • Mark,

          Let me just wipe the spittle off the inside of my screen so I can see better. ;-)

          Perhaps you should take this up with Moo, Wayne Strickland (book editor) and Stanley Gundrey (series editor). It might be good for your blood pressure!

          • :P

            Pfft, that’s me on a non-grumpy day. You have yet to see me spittle-spray the screen.

            And seriously, this is like a mote in Moo’s very sterling eye. I’m not going to waste his or my time practicing my ophthalmic surgery skills on this.

            In the context of the Briefing’s readership, saying your view is kinda-sorta that of one the Reformer’s does give it a boost. So, in this context, I’ll note that I disagree. And if challenged I’ll defend my ground.

            But going and bothering the guys involved about the name they chose? Can’t really see that helping the blood pressure go down for them or me….

  34. This is now a very long and complex discussion. But because I really appreciate the efforts being put in, and because the topic is so important, I am going to try and do the ‘listening exercise’ of seeing if I have heard people like Michael and Mark properly, and also to indicate what I think your strong points have been (but I am going to leave the discussion of the views of the Reformers to one side).

    Probably in no particular order…

    1. You are saying that in Matthew 19 Jesus is not answering a question along the lines of “List every reason permitting divorce (& remarriage)”. Rather he is addressing the particular “for any cause” Hillel-Shammai debate arising from Deut 24:1.

    I get the point, but am not sure it is quite as simple as or as restricted as that. But I will think on it.

    2. You provide as evidence that Jesus cannot be providing a complete list of exceptions, the fact the speaking in inspired Scripture, Paul provides a second exception in 1 Corinthians 7.

    I find this suggestive evidence for the point you make above, and had not thought much about that before.

    (I hope I might add here, Mark, that I don’t really think anyone was simply suggesting we take a red-letter Bible approach to the issue, and that good colourful debating phrases – or cheekiness as you called it in regards to Moo and Marcion – aren’t always entirely fair or helpful. Tone is harder to read in these threads than in person. Still I know you like to speak ‘to the point’ as you see it.)

    3. You are saying that there is a moral consistency from God throughout Scripture, such that what is said in the Mosaic Law, such as in Ex 21:10-11 can reasonably be expected to provide principles that continue to educate us at different stages of salvation history. (Principles, not always precise concrete details.)

    Mark in particular, I think, sees a really strong consistency all through Scripture and very little contrast (to Moses and the Law, for example) in what Jesus says.

    (Again, Mark, BTW I think it may have been a tad unfortunate to imply that it was taking a ‘casuistic’ approach in raising questions concerning the differences between our situation and that of Ex 21:10-11. It’s often noted that in seeking to apply principles from another stage of salvation history, we need to note both differences and similarities of circumstances and context.)

    4. Mark, you indicate (following Luther) that reading 1 Tim 5:8 and 1 Corinthians 7 alongside suggests that failure to provide for your family (neglect) is de facto acting as an unbeliever and implicitly an indication you want to leave and is a just cause for divorce (and potential remarriage).

    In this case, I had wondered something similar about this in the case of the person who separates as a professing Christian but acting like an unrepentant unbeliever, leaving the other person free.

    Have I done a reasonable job in summarising key things you have been saying?

    …There’s lots of food for thought for me to reflect on. To indicate where I am at tonight, in regards to the sort of views ably defended by Michael and Mark,

    (i) I still am not entirely satisfied with the exegetical (some details of actual passage) and hermeneutical (how it applies now) treatment of Exodus 21:10-11 so far in this thread;

    (ii) I still do not think there has been enough account of the verbal contrast Jesus makes in Matthew 19 between what Moses (and God permitted) and what God originally designed being the better guide or standard for our behaviour as his disciples; and relatedly,

    (iii) I have a nagging concern that in the vexed question discussed of the relationship of Christians to the Mosaic Law, there has not been enough significance given to the fulfilment in Christ, and the different stages of salvation history. Possibly – at a vibe level – too much continuity and not enough contrast.

    And now I must go to bed. Thanks everyone for the hard work in this.

    I hope others are reading and grappling with this important issue, even though it is hard work.

    • Hi Sandy,

      I think your comment stands on its own, but you addressed a couple of things to me, and I’ll respond to those. But I’ll take this chance to say that I think this is characteristically gold stuff from you – a great model for all of us, in content and in the values it embodies. Thanks for writing it.

      Michael (maybe Craig – it’s kind of fun to be in a Three Musketeers kind of situation. Now we just need to find a Gen Y or millenial who holds our view to be D’Artagan on the thread. I bags being Donatello, oh wait, that’s the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.)

      1. I think you’ve read me right here. Although I also agree with Malcolm that Jesus is in a sense putting the question to one side altogether. And I agree it’s not as restricted as that, just that we normally factor that in when looking at apparently ‘comprehensive’ statements in the Bible.

      2. You’ve heard me correctly here. Others can speak for themselves.

      I hope I might add here, Mark, that I don’t really think anyone was simply suggesting we take a red-letter Bible approach to the issue, and that good colourful debating phrases – or cheekiness as you called it in regards to Moo and Marcion – aren’t always entirely fair or helpful. Tone is harder to read in these threads than in person. Still I know you like to speak ‘to the point’ as you see it.

      No, it was tongue in cheek. I have been a bit grumpy at times as I have been (yet again) implicitly called someone who holds to a position for unbiblical reasons because I want to compromise with society rather than pursue true holiness. As this position is the Reformers’ view, more or less, the mud flung at them kind of flies off and hits some of us standing nearby. In such a situation I thought ‘Red Letter Bible View’ was mischevious enough to make at least me smile, and warranted by the rhetoric of the other ‘side’. It wasn’t aimed at you though (or anyone really, it was a generic dig) – it’s a bit hard sometimes to change tone when moving from one person to another with a similar view, especially in my first couple of comments.

      If you want to call me on it, I’ll happily apologize.

      3. Not sure who the ‘you’ is, but you’ve captured me. ‘Consistency throughout Scripture’ is kind of a watchword for me.

      I certainly see a contrast between Jesus’ words and Moses’. My point is that they are coherent. I don’t think Moses would have been surprised by or would have disagreed with what Jesus said. He wasn’t commending divorce, he was regulating it.

      Again, Mark, BTW I think it may have been a tad unfortunate to imply that it was taking a ‘casuistic’ approach in raising questions concerning the differences between our situation and that of Ex 21:10-11.

      I agree, I saw that was the implication after I hit ‘Post Comment’ and it was a very unfair implication to lay at your feet. I was trying to say something positive about how that wasn’t my approach and so what I’m doing on this question fits that overall approach. I wasn’t skilled enough with the written word to eliminate a negative implication to you in the process. I apologise for that, it was unintentional, and I’m glad you raised it.

      4. You’ve got me right.

      So this:

      Have I done a reasonable job in summarising key things you have been saying?

      You’ve done a characteristically excellent job. Anyone lost in the thread can just read your comment to see the key points (from at least my point of view).

      Your three reflections deserve to stand on their own and don’t need any comment. Thanks for writing this up.

  35. Hi Sandy,

    On rereading it looks as though your three reflections are calling for some kind of ‘please expand’ reponse. So here’s my thoughts on your first one:

    (i) I still am not entirely satisfied with the exegetical (some details of actual passage) and hermeneutical (how it applies now) treatment of Exodus 21:10-11 so far in this thread;

    Here’s my thoughts on Ex 21:10-11 in the context of (at least) vv1-11:

    1. Vv1-6 give yet another ground for divorce. If a single guy marries a woman slave given to him by his master, he has to leave her and the children behind when he is entitled to leave if he chooses to go. In these circumstances the choice for the man is either divorce his wife and abandon his kids or be a slave forever.

    2. In vv7-11, the limits and requirements on the woman slave the master designates to himself are so strong that I think it renders the category ‘slave’ all but useless, unless there’s some extra-biblical data that can fill in the blanks and show how it is still relevant. He can’t sell her to a foreign people, he must let her be redeemed, he can’t reduce her rights if he marries again, he must treat her as a daughter. I’m not sure what ‘slave’ means in those circumstances – unless a free woman would be allowed to leave with some property or money that she didn’t bring into the union and the slave leaves with nothing.

    3. I’m not sure what the exegetical problems are with Michael’s case here. What it is at the exegetical level that he hasn’t established. At the exegetical level this passage seems quite straightforward.

    -If the woman doesn’t please the man he must let her be redeemed because he has broken faith with her – which I take it is a reference to the commitments undertaken in marriage (and in and of itself shows that Malachi’s and Jesus’ stance wouldn’t be surprising to Moses).

    -If he reduces her food, clothing, or marital rights when he’s taken on another wife, she is entitled to leave. She can’t take anything with her.

    4. At the hermeneutical level, my questions would be:

    – Assume that there’s no extra wife in the picture, that we have someone who reduces the wife’s rights in those three areas but who doesn’t divorce her. This isn’t the addressed by Moses, but there’s loads of things he doesn’t address and the Jews had to extrapolate in light of what he did say. I think the most probable conclusion to be drawn is that in that uncommon situation also she’s free to go. I can’t see a reason why she wouldn’t be – why the extra wife in the picture would change things.

    – Is Moses envisaging that the man in vv1-6 or the woman in vv7-11 are free to leave but are still married (or are not married and yet not free remarry)? I can’t see any evidence for this view in Moses’ law.

    – Let’s assume this is just for slaves and just for situations with more than one wife. So that means Moses doesn’t explicitly address the situation where a man has one wife and that one wife is a free woman. Do we have some reason to think this is going to cash out differently there? Is there some reason why a monogamous free wife would have less protections than a polygamous slave wife? I’m finding it hard to see any.

    5. Let’s assume that God is consistent in his morality. Moral teaching doesn’t have to be exactly the same, but it does need to be consistent. The following things would then be the case (not exhaustive):

    a. God wouldn’t permit divorce when divorce would be evil. Not even in the case of hard hearts. God would not justify sin. For God to permit divorce when divorce is sin means someone could obey God (by following the Law’s stipulations) but actually be disobeying God in the same act. They could be righteous by the standards of the Mosaic Law, spoken by God, but unrighteous by God’s unspoken standards (or, even worse, God had already said divorce was sin in Gen 1-3, but then justified it at Sinai).

    b. God would only permit divorce when the marriage has been voided. When at least one person has “broken faith” with the other.

    c. If you void the marriage with a slave girl if you reduce her food, clothing or marital rights, then that probably says more about the nature of marriage and what is involved in ‘keeping faith’ then it says about slave girls. Hence, it probably has implications for the grounds under which divorce is justified for more than that particular situation. It tells us something about when someone has ‘broken faith’ such that the other party is free to leave and is no longer ‘enslaved’ (in the 1 Cor 7 sense).

    d. If that’s the case, then that would fit with 1 Cor 7 seeing abandonment as roughly equivalent to filing for divorce, and 1 Tim 5 seeing that someone who doesn’t support their family as having denied the faith. These are really serious things, and the Bible treats them as roughly on a par with sexual immorality. That suggests that they are grounds for divorce as well – doing them isn’t just a sin within the marriage, it breaks faith with the spouse.

    That’s the best I can do without some more specific guidance as to where Michael’s case is falling short.

    • Mark, thanks for bothering with this extra detail and I think it’s exactly the sort of thing that needs to be supplied. As Michael agreed earlier, he didn’t really provide much detail at all about this passage in his original sermon-that-became-the-article.

      Can’t afford time to interact at length as have local work that I must do.

      I’m glad to have it clarified that Ex 21:10-11 should be read in strong continuity with the prior verses. V10 simply speaks about taking “another” and “wife” is assumed from the context of the prior verses, which indicates it is in the category of a servant/slave wife. Of course, I hear what you are saying about the female slave wife in this position being given some protections and privileges which make you want to heavily modify/reduce the ‘slave’ overtone.

      I also note that I understand ‘marital rights’ is a hapax, and the NET Bible notes (which I found helpful on these verses) suggest there is some uncertainty as to its exact meaning.

      Overall I think you are saying if this protection applies to a slave wife caught up in polygamy, then how much more (or at least why not) should it apply to a free wife of monogamy?

      • All, I’m very sorry I haven’t been available to engage the way I would like int this discussion. Nonetheless, I’ve enjoyed the repartee, and have even learned a thin or two. So, thanks, Sandy, Craig and Mark.

        One thing I did not address in my sermon/article and which has not yet been picked up is the question of what ‘hardness of hearts’ refers to and how it justifies divorce. After all, as Mark has indicated above, God would not permit evil.

        I found myself wondering if the proximity to Mt 18 and its treatment of forgiveness suggested that the conveyance of divorce arose out of a failure to repent/forgive in Ancient Israelite society. Perhaps what Jesus is doing is not tightening the requirement for divorce but heightening the importance of forgiveness even once the requirements for divorce are met.

        Hence the ‘but I tell you’ language.

      • Hi Sandy,

        Yes, pretty much – I can’t see any reasons why the principles of this passage wouldn’t apply more widely.

        I don’t think (or at least would need to see an argument for it) that God would authorize the dissolution of the marriage if the actions of the master/husband hadn’t effectively done that. So this passage tells us something about *marriage*, not just about *marriage to slaves girls in polygamous situations*.

        As to whether she’s a slave or not, I don’t think anything hangs on that. I just find the idea surprising given the section as a whole – although I guess if she needs to be redeemed then that shows she isn’t free. I suppose if she *is* still a slave, then that tells us something about Mosaic slavery as well.

        Good pick-up on ‘marital rights’ being a hapax, if that’s right, I’ll go out on a limb here and say that this passage should not be used, on its own, to say that denial of sex (not the same thing as incapacity which you raised earlier in the thread) is grounds for divorce.

        This is on the grounds that the clarity of Scripture allows for sections that are obscure to us for one reason or another, but that isn’t a problem. And the reason why it isn’t a problem is that nothing major for life or doctrine hangs on those.

        But hanging a ground for divorce on a text where the key word is a hapax? That’s a bit tendentious.

        Personally, and this would potentially start a whole new thread, I think the whole ‘look around to find all the reasons for divorce Scripture seems to endorse or imply, list them and that’s the set’ is wrong anyway. We don’t believe in the Regulatory Principle – that only what Scripture authorises by statement or inference is allowable for the people of God. We also don’t quite hold the other view – that everything’s fine except what Scripture forbids.

        We’re (by and large) somewhere in our own ‘third way’ – something like, ‘Scripture gives us everything we need to be able to address situations we find, even ones not addressed by the biblical writers. Not proof texts, but principles are the key.’ In differing ways both Michael Hill’s and Andrew Cameron’s books on ethics are sketching that out.

        But on this question we seem to go for something more like the Regulatory Principle and look for texts that can act as proof-texts.

        Personally, I think that there could well be situations not covered by Scripture where divorce is permissible. Where the spouse is deliberately and sustainedly committing emotional abuse of the children, for example. Or where the spouse comes to the settled conviction that they are a different gender from what they are born with, and starts behaving and requiring everyone to relate to them as the other gender, undergoes surgery and the like – they still want to be married, but they want it to (effectively) be a same-gender marriage.

        And I think that just because there are grounds for divorce doesn’t necessarily mean that it is right for a particular person to do it either – as though you can point to the grounds and then waltz out of the marriage.

        So, I think it’s far more complex than just listing the explicit/implicit examples the Bible offers. Those are there to tell you something about the nature of marriage and divorce as a whole. You don’t simply appeal to them directly when dealing with this in ‘parish land’. There’s a very big wisdom issue involved as well that can’t be short-cut by lists of criteria.

  36. Like Sandy, I want to thank everyone for an excellent discussion (that doesn’t mean I think it should cease yet!) I don’t have much to add to the exegetical and theological discussion, so I might add a practical and personal note. Not expecting any particular response.

    Over the last few years, I have spent much time ministering to divorced people, most of them Christian. I run a regular divorce recovery group and also often meet up with people one on one. I’ve probably ministered to over 40 people in this situation over the last five years.

    The overwhelming message I hear is that our ministers have often not thought deeply about this matter. When Mark talks about the “Red letter Bible doctrine of divorce”, it forcefully communicates something that is happening out there in parish land. Often it’s only when a congregation member goes through the experience that a pastor is forced to look deeper into the issues, and perhaps come to a more sophisticated approach.

    The work that Mike and Mark have done here is gold (and I appreciate Malcolm being the good-humoured foil as well). I would love it if a local book were published on the matter, because it is so prevalent.

    We also need to do some serious thinking about the issue of domestic violence. I was recently talking to a former victim of domestic violence about this thread. One thing she said was that the “red letter” view of divorce kept women suffering women silent, because they believe there will be no sympathy if they speak up.

    At my last divorce recovery group, I had three young ladies, all victims of domestic violence, chatting about this issue. Their unanimous view was that our denominational theology had offered them no help. They’d scoured the internet looking for sermons that might show them a way forward, but had found nothing.

    This is a minority group, of course, but they are incredibly vulnerable. I hope our preachers will give this issue more thought and attention.

    blessings,
    Craig

    • I’d want to concur with Craig’s observation that we ministers of the Word aren’t always doing as good a job on this as our people need us to.

      I’d want to say that that isn’t really to do with which view you hold – I think people in trouble would get good sound pastoral help from either Sandy or Andrew Cornes. And you could have ‘my’ view and get disastrous pastoral help.

      It’s more a factor of the person than the view, in terms of the issues Craig is raising. No view is inherently sophisticated or otherwise, it’s people who learn to hold views either strongly or weakly, in confidence of Scripture or on some other ground, wisely or foolishly (which is how I would express Craig’s ‘sophisticated’ concern).

      Hence my gratuitous and inaccurate comments about evangelicals. I think Craig is right about what’s going on in parishland, and I think we do have a problem with what another commentator on my blog years ago called ClergyBibleWorld – of an insufficiency in our ability to shed light on the issues people face, to proclaim the word in a way where it is good for people and where they can taste and see that it is good.

      Because there’s always people lurking wanting to stick the knife in, I’ll say that I think ‘Sydney’ does that better than anywhere else I’ve had experience, so that comment is not some ‘great reveal’ that ‘Sydney’ can’t do pastoral ministry.

      It seems to be a characteristic weakness of evangelicalism at this point in time compared to earlier epochs, and I’m hardly the only curmudgeon to note it – J.I. Packer noted it decades ago as part of his promotion of the puritans as part of the cure.

      We aren’t good at disciple-making. But we could be, and if we were, among other things it would greatly help those in the hardest situations, like divorcees or victims of abuse.

      On the issue of domestic violence, my own view is that God considers the abuser on a par with the adulterer or the person who doesn’t care for their family. If divorcing your wife is to cover yourself in a cloak of violence (and that’s clearly really serious in context) then I can’t see how actually covering yourself in a cloak of violence is less serious.

      And yet, we don’t seem to give a clear sound on this. One of the more heartbreaking things for me was talking to a Christian woman, married to a Christian man, who didn’t realise that he shouldn’t be beating her up until she went to an HR session on employer-employee relationships in her secular workplace. She was going to a good church in Sydney, one I’d happily recommend.

      My own view is that we’ve taken on board too strongly the idea that when people ask, “What isn’t a husband allowed to do with their headship/when don’t I have to submit to him”, that that is just an expression of unwillingness to submit. And so the right thing to do is to not answer but just say, “Submit”.

      Some extremely talented preachers with very distinctive preaching styles who are themselves men of exceptional integrity and who would never abuse a woman (and Sydney is gifted with several) can adopt that method and still send a clear signal that abuse is wrong. I think the rest of us mere mortals have to actually spell-it-out-in-words. We do not send off clear signals when we don’t say it. We have to apply the other maxim that goes the rounds in our circles – what is unstated is first assumed and then is lost. If we think it’s important that domestic abuse doesn’t happen we have to verbalise it very clearly.

      On other issues we are alert to possible misunderstandings and aren’t embarrassed to cut them off – “Now don’t actually maim yourself if your hand causes you to sin”, “James here isn’t actually disagreeing with Paul”, “Despite the words here you aren’t saved by obeying the commands, remember the gospel.” Helping people understand what husbandly authority and wifely submission is not is one of the ways you bring it into focus and help them understand what it is.

      In my view, anyone whose pattern of life is to abuse their wife (or wife their husband) has denied the faith. And anyone who has been coming to one’s church for two years should clearly understand that.

  37. Craig, thanks for sharing your considerable experience of ministry in this area.

    In my context (also a context for some other commenters), it is important to consider the careful and thorough 1984 Report of the Doctrine Commission of the Anglican Diocese of Sydney, entitled <a href="http://www.sds.asn.au/site/103813.asp?ph=cp&quot;?"The Remarriage of Divorced Persons". Conclusions can be found in para 4.14 and 4.15, although really all the prior examination and reasoning should be read.

    It is probably helpful to note that most ministers get so many requests to conduct weddings for divorced persons, including many people who seem lovely and have sad stories, and including many divorced Christian brothers and sisters, that they would love to be able to freely do so. But it is genuine issues of conscience that prevents them in some cases.

    How clearly and compassionately they communicate these things is another matter. Personally speaking I know that whenever such a conversation comes up, I tend to tense up, because I know so much is at stake for people at a deep personal level, and ironically getting tense about it probably doesn't help the communication process, and probably doesn't communicate empathy or sympathy.

    Still, for the sake of clarity, my conscientious reading of the Scriptures has for a long time led me to the view that:
    (i) Moses permits divorce because of the hardness of our hearts, and what Moses permits, God permits (with great sadness, given it is not the intent of marriage from the beginning – so one should never hasten in this direction;
    (ii) remarriage after divorce is only permitted to you (Scripturally speaking) in the cases:
    (a) where your former partner committed adultery or similar sexual immorality – and practically speaking I think this includes where you separate and subsequent to that, your former partner enters an intimate relationship with another person, especially if they marry, and
    (b) where your former partner has deserted you as an unbeliever (and perhaps as a professing Christian acting unrepentantly in discipline and therefore treated as an unbeliever), or
    (c) your former partner has died (Romans 7:1ff)
    (iii) that I Corinthians 7 very much opens up the option of separation with a view to reconciliation, which should be explored more often, more diligently, more patiently, even if it is a long term process,
    (iv) that if one is separated or divorced and is not eligible to be remarried, one should not allow oneself into a situation where a new romantic or intimate relationship develops, and one then finds oneself trying to justify why it must be allowed;

    My consistent approach when domestic violence is an issue has been to encourage separation, for the sake of safety, but with a long term view to reconciliation if possible, but only meeting/communicating with the other partner in circumstances which are safe. I certainly would not encourage women to return to potentially dangerous situations.

    Although it is not as personally hurtful and difficult, it is also fair to note that many ministers have struggled with some (not all) divorced people coming to them seeking to justify what they have already done in their relationships (old and new), but discussion shows they have scarcely considered the biblical material, and if they have, they seem to have ready reasons why it doesn’t apply to them.

    Just a few assorted semi-pastoral thoughts. I must go now.

      • Sandy, I appreciate your thoughtfulness and hard biblical reflection in this area. However, in my limited experience, I have found – and I suspect you have, too – that there are many ministers who are both more or less flexible on the remarriage of divorcees who are ‘prisoners of conscience’ because of a thorough lack of engagement with the full breadth of Scripture.

        I have great concern at both ends of the spectrum. One commentator above suggested I might be soft on divorce. In the past year we have publicly rebuked and excluded from fellowship at Barneys two adulterous former members. At the same time, I am concerned to press the point if I feel those who are qualified for remarriage – or, dare I say it, vocational ministry! – after divorce, are excluded from these gifts because of incorrect biblical interpretation.

        In this context, and with all love (and acknowledging that I am very much the junior partner in this dialogue), I’m struggling to understand the coherence in your position. In your view, does Jesus lay out an absolutist position or not? If so, how can desertion, which is not ‘porneia’, justify divorce? And if Jesus’ position is not an absolute response to the question ‘list the complete and unique set of all justifications for divorce’, and suddenly up in Paul pops another justification, is the interpretation I’ve offered for Ex 21 particularly contentious? More to the point, if desertion is genuinely legitimised in Paul, this would seem to naturally flow from Ex 21, would it not, just as the ‘porneia’ argument may also flow from the Ex 21 defence of conjugal rights.

    • Sandy,

      Your statement on domestic violence echoes my own thoughts. (In answer to a question Craig raised above.)

  38. Mark, et. al.,

    Let’s wrap a few threads into a summary here. And in the spirit of recent posts I’d like to explain a little where I’m coming from. I’m not Anglican and am not from a Reformed background, and thus what appears to be conventional wisdom here has never struck me as such. I certainly did not intend to give Mark the impression that I was throwing mud at him (or Luther) and I hope that my “good nature” has demonstrated that, in making a critique of the historical influence on Luther, I was not trying to be obnoxious or dismissive. I must confess that my patience has been tried at times, but looking at it from your perspective, I’m an interloper who has come in with long-dismissed ideas and presented them as brashly as if they’ve just occurred.

    From my perspective, the Reformed position is a subset of mainstream Christian scholarship (which I am currently participating in at Biola, just via an MA, lest anyone think too highly of me). It would be chronological snobbery to suggest either that the historic importance of the Reformed position or the modern dominance of what Mark seems to call the “evangelical” position gives either a necessary advantage, so this observation is not intended to judge but merely to reflect the bigger picture as I see it. I note, however, that the Reformed position attracts many careful thinkers and so I want to hold my position up to scrutiny against it. I think that’s fair (and I think it’s fair for me to question the Reformed position — I think it’s something the reformers themselves would encourage), and I think the Briefing is a good forum for that (in other words, I think there are careful thinkers here). And yes, I have a personal stake in this discussion (someone very close to me) and being convinced of the biblical legitimacy of remarriage would be a burden off my mind.

    So, back to exegesis.

    Mark, regarding Mal. 2, I think if you read the passage carefully, you will find that, like many passages in the OT, it contains a massive exception that covers almost the entire human population; namely, Malachi is speaking only to certain residents of Judah of his time. He contextualizes his remarks thus, “Judah has profaned the sanctuary of the LORD, which he loves, and has married the daughter of a foreign god.” (Mal. 2:11) So while Malachi does go back to first principles, he uses that to explain to the men of Judah who have married foreign wives why their actions violate the spirit of the Law if not the letter. Malachi isn’t even addressing those who haven’t sinned this way, and his comments have no direct application to anyone alive today.

    Of course, we can profitably ask ourselves, “How are we to apply the principles that Malachi outlines?” Fortunately, Jesus, in answering a question on a specific circumstance in marriage in general, provides us with a general answer (ie. one applicable to all people). Unlike Malachi, Jesus is quite willing to set aside the permissions of the Law (Mk 10:5-9). He is not merely pointing to a violation of the spirit of the law in a particular circumstance, he is recasting the entire approach to marriage. Thus we see that the impact of Malachi’s words are very different to Christ’s.

    Regarding 1 Cor 7. My summary statement, “allows for the sin of divorce to fall entirely on one partner in a certain circumstance (and still bans any Christian from seeking divorce)” refers, of course, to the case where a divorce or separation happens. That’s not in v.12 (where divorce is banned, as per my parenthetical statement) but in v. 15, where the “unbelieving partner separates.” Note who is the initiator here: the unbeliever. The believer has no input into the matter, and Paul’s response is: let it (them) go.

    Here’s how I deal with Paul’s statement that the believer is no longer “enslaved.” On the surface that would certainly appear to allow remarriage, however Paul doesn’t explicitly state this (as he does in v. 39, demonstrating how he would do so if he wanted to). Thus I need to find the general principle on remarriage. Fortunately Jesus addressed this (as Paul notes in v. 10), and his approach was, as filtered through Paul, that “the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife.”

    OK, so now I understand that, by “not enslaved” Paul is not intending to indicate “free to marry another.” So I take it as meaning that the believer is no longer held responsible for the divorce. Thus my summary statement.

    (BTW, Paul’s equivocal use of separation and divorce, while seeming to cause difficulties for you, Mark, doesn’t really bother me, because I’m not trying to force a possibility for remarriage. It seems that, from Paul’s perspective, the two were basically equivalent for the Corinthians, and either divorce or separation might lead to reconciliation but not to marrying another.)

    So, it seems to me that reading the entire chapter for 1 Cor 7, paying proper attention to the context of Malachi’s statement, and understanding Jesus’ role as fulfiller (Mt 5:17) and telos (Rom 10:4) of the Law (as opposed to a prophet of the Law like Malachi), makes it fairly straight-forward to understand and harmonize all these passages.

    Have I got it wrong?

    • Malcolm, I’m startled to hear you suggest that Malachi is unwilling to set aside the permissions of the Mosaic Law, as you understand them. After all, Malachi is condemning divorce following from treachery and hate, is he not?

      • Malcolm, I don’t agree with your exegesis of 1 Cor 7 – the questions it raises seem insurmountable. Why, for example, would Paul use ‘not enslaved’ to describe the status of a Christian who has been abandoned by an unbeliever? Surely, the the context of 1 Cor 7, the parallel of free/enslaved and loosed/bound, the much more obvious context (esp for those who may not have had direct access to Mt 19 at the time) was to assume that these binary terms mean unmarried/married, whatever your history in respect of divorce?

        After all, contextually, ‘not enslaved’ to the inhabitants of 1 Cor, with their social experience of slavery, would mean ‘free’, just like the woman who is a widow and not free to remarry (v.39). Why would Paul use ‘not enslaved’ instead of ‘free’? I think that is fairly obvious – the double negative always adds emphasis on the ‘not’!

        • Michael,

          I think that, between my original post and your reply, we may have the response to your objection.

          First, readers hardly need access to Matthew since, as I said, Paul gives Jesus’ position in vv. 10-11. He then applies the principles he has outlined to the specific case (“the rest”) of believers with unbelieving spouses. For vv. 12-16 to map out an exception to vv. 10-11, which is what you claim, you would have to demonstrate that Paul is, indeed, contrasting the situation for these people with the situation for “the married.” But there is nothing to suggest that in the text itself. Nothing like Jesus’ “You have heard it said … but I say” of the antitheses. Nothing like “but that doesn’t apply in this case.”

          So why does he use the words “not enslaved?” As you point out, he could have used the word “free” as he did in describing the widow (who is explicitly allowed to remarry). But he doesn’t. Why not? To emphasize how free you are? If that was the case, why not spell out the freedom to remarry as he does with the widow? After all, it’s just as relevant an issue here as there (possibly more so). Could it be that “not enslaved” does not mean “free,” but rather means “not enslaved?” In other words, could Paul be saying that a believer who is abandoned by their unbelieving spouse is no longer responsible for influencing them, no longer responsible for obeying or serving them, no longer enslaved. However, they are not free from them, as a widow or widower is. How else to express this than to say, “not enslaved?”

          So you see, Paul’s language at all counts supports my thesis.

          It seems to me that you have to demonstrate conclusively that Paul was contrasting the situation in vv. 12-16 with that in vv. 10-11, and I haven’t seen that done (or even attempted). (BTW, I don’t think there is a double negative in “not enslaved.” The not is modifying enslaved (bound), not unfree.)

          • Thanks, Malcolm.

            A couple of things.

            Firstly, there seems to be a presumption of the burden of proof on those who would allow divorce with freedom to remarry under certain conditions. We don’t have to thrash that out now, but I’m not convinced this is the case.

            Secondly, I remain thoroughly unconvinced by your handling of 1 Cor. Again, you have, it seems to me, attempted to make it into something of a systematic theology with absolute statements regarding the prohibition of divorce. However, the entire chapter relates the Corinthian claim, “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” Paul is dealing with the ascetic and hermetic tendency to withdraw from sexual relations without cause in the pursuit of a misguided Gnostic sense of holiness. In this context – and the context of causeless separation in the Roman Imperial social environment – he argues that a woman ought not to separate from her husband, the presumption being without cause. On your handling of the semantics of ‘not enslaved’, I could make quite a big deal of his choice of ‘separate’ over against ‘divorce’. After all, it is this command, and not the command for a husband to not divorce, that is derived from Jesus. The command not to divorce is from ‘I, not the Lord’!

            It should come as no surprise then that I cannot understand how ‘bound/enslaved’ with its covenantal overtones could possibly describe this hypothetical situation of an ongoing responsibility to ‘influence’ the departed spouse. Perhaps you could find another use of this verb for a similar meaning…anywhere in Scripture, perhaps? Anywhere?

            Lastly, I think you may have overstated your case, as a friendly caution. I’m not sure one should ever move from “could it be” to “So you see, Paul’s language at all counts supports my thesis”. Never make the conclusion stronger than the argument, which you have rightly qualified!

          • ‘Not enslaved’ is a conceptual double negative rather than a grammatical one. It has the same emphasis as ‘There is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus’.

          • Michael,

            Thanks for spending the time on this with me. I do appreciate it.

            Regarding my comment about Paul’s words supporting my thesis — I thought the statement “How else to express this…” moved from the possibility of this interpretation to the assertion of this as a legitimate live option. Thus Paul’s words can, without abuse, support my thesis (not prove it). I did take the trouble to double-check the Greek before I did that, BTW. Now, I could be wrong, but surely you are not asking me to restrain from making claims that could be wrong.

            Your comment about “no condemnation” and “not enslaved” being conceptual double negatives leaves me puzzled. Surely “There is now no condemnation for those in Christ Jesus” is actually saying that there is no condemnation, not that there is some positive thing? Yes, no condemnation implies, for example, release from punishment, but it is a separate concept in its own right. Why would you want to collapse the meaning down by insisting it’s a “conceptual double negative,” that is, a stronger way of saying something else? Why can’t “not enslaved” mean “not enslaved,” as opposed to “free” (i.e. not existing in the state of enslavement, or, in other words, existing somewhere between the state of enslavement up to and including freedom).

            Regarding my presumption of the burden of proof for exception claimers, let me try to explain my thinking. When the Scripture (whether it be Moses, Jesus, Paul, or whoever) makes a general claim about an issue of ethics (such as Jesus did about marriage, grounding it in first principles), I assume that this sets the boundaries. If those boundaries are going to be extended (which is what an exception does), then I expect that to be made clear, because it’s a big deal. Changing the moral grounds is not a trivial activity, to be done as an aside. Mark’s approach, which he reveals in another post here, where he feels free to modify these boundaries according to his personal judgement, seems extraordinary to me. Marriage seems to have certain realities in this world, which Jesus seems to be revealing. Feeling free to redefine that seems rather extraordinary to me, I must confess.

            Now as to context in 1 Cor 7, I don’t see how the ascetic context makes any difference to the matter. Paul is mapping out how marriages (which he doesn’t dismiss, unlike an ascetic) should work, thus that context changes nothing as far as I can see.

            As for the “causeless separation” context of Roman society, let me see if I understand you. You are claiming that the readers of 1 Corinthians (which the Holy Spirit knew would include a lot more than just the Corinthians) are expected to insert an invisible assumption from an unknown (to many) culture which is never hinted at by the actual text? Does this strike you as a good way to communicate? If you take this approach it seems that the possibility of invisible assumptions could lie beneath any scriptural statements, including ones like Acts 4:12.

            Regarding the terms divorce and separate — I’m afraid you’ve confused me. In vv. 10-11, talking about the Lord’s command, Paul uses both. In vv. 12-16, in his own input, Paul uses both. So I’m not sure what you are differentiating here.

            Finally, regarding the Greek for bound being used to indicate enslavement to something other than covenental matters, how about its use in 2 Pet. 2:19? Besides, I am indicating what is wrapped up in the marriage relationship which the believer is not bound to (and that, from the context, includes the opportunity to influence the unbeliever) — I’m not claiming that the influence on the unbeliever is a separate thing from the marriage relationship.

      • Michael,

        That’s what Malachi is doing, yes. And the permissions (I call them that because they allow divorce, they don’t demand it), aren’t intended to be used that way. Why would Malachi need to dismiss those laws when he’s telling a certain group of men that they’re abusing them?

          • Michael,

            Malachi 2:15 says “let none of you [the men of Judah] be faithless to the wife of his youth.”

            Do you consider the divorce allowances in the Mosaic Law to require faithlessness towards one’s wife in order to exercise them?

            If they don’t then it is quite clear how Malachi allows divorce. It seems taht Malachi doesn’t push these first principles as far as Jesus (because he can’t).

          • Malcolm,

            Malachi 2:15 says “let none of you [the men of Judah] be faithless to the wife of his youth.”

            Do you consider the divorce allowances in the Mosaic Law to require faithlessness towards one’s wife in order to exercise them?

            If they don’t then it is quite clear how Malachi allows divorce. It seems taht Malachi doesn’t push these first principles as far as Jesus (because he can’t).

            I’ll admit that I’m not confident that I’ve understood you here.

            I think what you’re saying is that Malachi was saying was, “Don’t be faithless to your wife and then divorce her.” Hence, all Malachi is doing is rejecting divorce that stems from ‘faithlessness’.

            Is that right?

            If that’s what you’re arguing, then I don’t think that’s what Malachi is saying.

            Being faithless and divorcing are synonyms here. What Malachi 2:13-16 is rejecting is the men divorcing the wives of their youth. He’s saying that they are being faithless by divorcing them. ‘Faithless’ isn’t what comes before the divorce in this passage, it is the divorce itself.

            ‘Don’t divorce because of unfaithfulness, but if you haven’t been unfaithful then you can go ahead and divorce the wife of your youth’, doesn’t sound like either what Malachi said, or a valid inference to draw from what he said.

          • Mark,

            Don’t you think there is the possibility that a Jewish husband might divorce the wife of his youth because of HER unfaithfulness, not his?

            Malachi, in contrast, is addressing the Jews who were were divorcing their wives in an unfaithful way (simply to get married to these foreign women, in this case).

          • Michael,

            I think Malachi is addressing the men of Judah who have been faithless in divorcing their Judean wives in favour of foreign wives. He uses first principles to condemn this abuse of the divorce permissions. His condemnation is for those who have faithlessly divorced their wives, not for those who have divorced faithless wives (which, as Joseph was going to do, was well within the bounds for a faithful Jewish husband, under Jewish law).

            Malachi doesn’t use those first principles to ban all human-instigated separation, as Jesus later does, probably because he had no authority to do such a thing (unlike Jesus).

        • Re 1 Cor 7- yes, my previous comment was a little muddled. To clarify: I thought it was worthy of note that when Paul quotes Jesus (vv.10-11), he argues that women ought not to ‘separate’ (not divorce) from their husbands. Applying precisely the argument you have used to try to disallow the ‘not enslaved’ as a synonym for ‘free’, then Jesus is not, in this case, commanding women not to divorce. Only Paul commands a woman not to divorce her husband (vv.12-16). That seems a pretty obviously reductionist approach to reading, don’t you think?

          However, if Paul expects his readers by common sense to understand ‘separate’ to include the idea of ‘divorce’, then we have an example of the ‘not obvious’ (but really quite obvious) word being used already. I think this weakens your case against ‘not enslaved=free’ considerably.

          • Michael,

            Actually, if you want to take it that way, Paul is only telling women married to unbelievers not to divorce. (Although Jesus does say that if a woman divorces and remarries, she’s committing adultery, see Mk 10:12.)

            But, of course, you’re missing the point of my attempts to understand “not enslaved.” The reason I’m doing that is in order to harmonize Jesus ban on splitting marriages with Paul’s application to mixed marriages.

            You see, Paul hasn’t said “Jesus approach doesn’t apply any more or in this circumstance, so do this.” But for me to read his words in vv. 12-16 as anything other than an application of Jesus’ overarching principle (and therefore necessarily fitting within it’s framework — i.e. humans should not separate a married couple), Paul would have to say that.

            Don’t you try to harmonize scripture in this way? Don’t you bear the universal principles revealed in scripture (such “all have sinned”) in mind when reading and interpreting passages? Isn’t that what scriptural consistency means?

            (And, in case you’re going to point out that “all have sinned” can’t be read the way I’m reading “let man not separate” because Jesus didn’t sin, well, it can and is. We need to define what “all” is and what “sinned” is — obviously “all” doesn’t include Jesus. But if we do that with “let man not separate” then all we can work on is what “man” is — pretty obvious I should think, especially in contrast with the first part of the verse — and what “separate” is. Do your provisions fit under a definition of the word separate?)

          • Michael,

            I neglected to specifically answer your last paragraph about my expectation that readers would read “separate” and “divorce” as pretty much synonymous in 1 Cor 7. Given that Jesus uses them pretty much synonymously in Mt and MK, I don’t see a problem.

            Indeed — give this passage to a non-Christian or the like and I’m confident that they would read these words as being used synonymously, just like so many other words are used that way all through the scriptures (and all other literature). There is no reason not to read them synonymously (unlike “not enslaved” and “free” which do have a reason in that context to be read as having different shades of meaning).

            The pressures I bring to bear on the words come from my attempt to understand scripture with scripture, not from my attempt to make my life easier (because, believe me, it’s doing the opposite).

        • ON the background knowledge for Roman culture – I don’t think it is necessary to draw from a source outside Scripture to understand the contemporary pagan culture of adultery and faithfulness, but I also think you have espoused an unusual exegetical strategy. Every time we read the Scriptures we draw on extra-biblical data not indigenous to our culture. Were you brought up speaking Greek and Hebrew?

          • Michael,

            My exegetical strategy doesn’t rely on a knowledge of Greek or Hebrew. Rather, my exegetical strategy is to look at the entire, relevant scriptural context. In the case of 1 Cor 7 that includes Jesus words in Mk 10 and Mt 19, in particular the most general statement on marriage and divorce which is found in Mk 10:9 and Mt 19:6.

            Why is this the most general statement?

            1) It is in response to a question on a particular circumstance on marriage in general, not on Jewish marriage or marriage between Christians or some other subset.

            2) Jesus precedes it with a careful grounding in the most universal context possible: the entire human race (represented, as usual in Scripture, by Adam and Eve).

            3) It is followed by an application of the principal to a particular circumstance: divorce and remarriage.

            Within the context of this carefully grounded, universal statement I then need to interpret any other material I have, such as 1 Cor 7. That’s my exegetical strategy (in brief, obviously it’s more complex than that). This strategy doesn’t work for every topic since not every topic has such a clear, universal outline as marriage does, but many do. (For those that don’t I have to use induction to derive general principles from specific cases rather than simply reading them.)

            Oh, I should note that I would be careful with any guideline statements that I found if they were in contrast to other scripture, however the case here is that two gospels clearly represent the same general principal and it is in line with the rest of scripture (it’s even based on a scriptural argument). That gives me great confidence in this particular foundation.

            Is this an unsound strategy?

  39. Hi Sandy,

    Many thanks for your response. From the slightly defensive tone, I wonder if I came across as “having a go” at our clergymen. It wasn’t my intention – I just wanted to urge them to look into this matter as deeply as possible, because it is easy to have a superficial view of it all.

    The doctrine commission report has some good stuff in it, and I’ve directed many people to it over the years when they’ve asked me about the diocesan position on divorce. Nevertheless, I think it has limitations, and I hope it will be updated sometime.

    What limitations? Well, I believe the section on the Old Testament is extremely abbreviated – certainly not up to scratch for a diocese that prides itself on biblical theology! There is no mention of Exodus 21, for example. Other passages are pointed to as proof texts, but not exposited. In point 2:15, for example, what are the implications of God commanding divorce in Ezra 9,10? What does it tell us about marriage? About divorce? There is much more could be done here.

    I also think the report is very deficient in the area of domestic violence. It states that “Mental or physical cruelty” is a grounds for Christians to separate, but doesn’t justify this, or mention the matter again.

    The report latter states that divorce is permissible on the grounds of “irretrievable breakdown”, but doesn’t define what this means. It also states that after such a divorce, the party who didn’t stand in the way of reconciliation can be remarried. But it doesn’t tease out the implications of this, which is problematic.

    For example, if a woman leaves a violent situation, and the husband refuses to repent or acknowledge any wrong, but demands the wife return to the marriage, which party is “standing in the way” of reconciliation?

    The report also states that “It remains permissible for a partner to leave an impossible situation” – but what defines an impossible situation? This is not explained. I rather get the feeling that the committee would have found it difficult to agree if they’d gone into specifics, so maybe that’s why things are left a bit vague.

    Again, I’m not having a go at the committee members, because I think there is some helpful stuff in there. But I think we also need something better.

  40. Malcolm, I’ve enjoyed your comments on the thread, and found them helpful in clarifying some of the issues. Just a note – Mark, and most of the commenters here, I imagine, would consider themselves “evangelical”. However it is an evangelicalism with a reformed slant, which perhaps you haven’t encountered before.

    How would you describe your theological views?

    • Craig,

      Thanks, I would have thought most readers and writers of The Briefing would have self-identified as “evangelical,” which is why I qualified my statement. I have encountered Reformed evangelicalism before (for example, Greg Koukl, founder of Stand To Reason, falls into this category, and I have a lot of time for him — he also did an MA at Biola, by the way, just so you don’t think Biola crushes all Reformed thought). I just haven’t had a lot of opportunity to interact on a scriptural level.

      I’m still trying to figure out how to describe my theological views. I agree with Moo on the issue of Law vs. Gospel, I agree with J. P. Moreland on the issue of human free will and God’s sovereignty. And so on. I grew up a Methodist and then Uniting Church member (thus my lack of a Reformed background), but have since spent most of my time in Baptist churches (though I don’t hold to all the Baptist denominational positions). I’m now in a non-denominational, evangelical church in Hong Kong (ECC). I did almost end up attending St Andrews here, which seems to be closely aligned with the Sydney Anglican diocese, and it wasn’t theological issues that decided me, but pastoral ones.

      My main focus, since my university years (twenty years ago), has been to hold a set of theological views that harmonize with one another and with all scripture. I view orthodoxy as a “safety net” as well as an instructor. (In other words, if I find myself holding a view that is outside the totality of the orthodox range of views, then I really need to question that view.) To be honest, I’ve never really come near the safety net, since scripture is fairly clear on most matters when you read it carefully.

      I cofounded a ministry (Think Christianity) some years ago which helps churches teach the Christian worldview, and the worldview approach has been a big part of my thinking for the last decade. I’m not an ordained pastor or minister, but I have spent many years shepherding small groups and youth.

      Hopefully that gives you a bit more information about me and helps you understand where I’m coming from.

    • Michael,

      Well, you had the courage to write on something like this. I think that deserves a lot of credit.

  41. Like Mark, I definitely don’t want to be a “knocker” of the diocese – I think we really have the potential to do much better on this issue, and I’m encouraged by what has been written here.

    Mark is right that some things in the domestic violence issue need to be “spelt out” really clearly. The Christian women I’ve spoken to who have left their husbands after violence have felt enormously guilty about it. Many wonder whether it is their God-ordained duty to simply endure it.

    Telling a woman who has just escaped a hellish situation that you’re goal is to get her and her husband back together is usually not a helpful first comment! And yet that is sometimes the message.

    One woman recently told me how, when she left her violent husband, the first thing her minister said was, “Well, you can’t get married again – that’s it.” I asked her what would have been more helpful. She said, “That what he was doing was wrong, was evil, was not on – and that I was right to get out.” Somehow, despite sitting in blue-chip Sydney Anglican churches for 10 years, that message had just not come across.

    We need to lift our game.

  42. Telling a woman who has just escaped a hellish situation that you’re goal is to get her and her husband back together is usually not a helpful first comment! And yet that is sometimes the message.

    One woman recently told me how, when she left her violent husband, the first thing her minister said was, “Well, you can’t get married again – that’s it.” I asked her what would have been more helpful. She said, “That what he was doing was wrong, was evil, was not on – and that I was right to get out.” Somehow, despite sitting in blue-chip Sydney Anglican churches for 10 years, that message had just not come across.

    I think when I’ve heard of bad examples (and I have heard of a number) they are like these. They seem to express more of a concern for protecting marriage from divorce and remarriage than protecting the woman from violence. They are more concerned about the evil of a wrong divorce and a wrong remarriage than the evil of physically beating up your spouse.

    I think Jesus’ words on the Sabbath need to be taken on board. Humanity was not made for the Sabbath, but the Sabbath was made for humanity. People are the reason for the institution, the institution doesn’t come before their welfare. That’s not a blank cheque – people were still executed for working on the Sabbath.

    People don’t exist for marriage, marriage exists for the good of human beings. When someone abuses a marriage such that it cannot achieve its ends, the evil thing there is the abuse of the marriage that prevents it reaching its ends. It is not that it can’t reach its ends. If you think it is marriage not being able to reach its ends that is the great evil then you will fight to preserve the marriage at (almost) all costs. And you’ll never say to the person who walks away, “Well done. No-one likes to see a marriage end, but faithfulness to Christ in this situation was to leave. What he/she was doing was deep-dyed evil.”

    Women are more important than marriage. That doesn’t make marriage unimportant, because there are very, very few things in creation more important than women. It just means you’ve got to be clear-minded about this: Marriage exists for women; women don’t exist for marriage.

    And, if we have any knowledge, we should know that we have to be prepared to give the signals that it is good to get out of abusive situations, for one of the dynamics in abuse is the abused party believing that they should accept it, that they deserve it, or the like. Many abused people won’t leave. Many who do, go back. When you have someone who sees that they needed to get out, that needs to be endorsed. It can be done without throwing marriage under the bus.

    This has to be addressed before it occurs. A culture needs to be established that says that abuse is unthinkable for a Christian. It’s not unforgivable, but it is really serious. It is to break your marriage vows, just as surely as sleeping with someone else, or filing for divorce would be. What you pledged entails you not abusing your partner.

    Once a culture is established, then it’s easier to deal with the particular cases. Don’t establish the culture, and you’ve got to try and educate and discipline in a crisis situation, and that’s a recipe for very patchy pastoral outcomes.

    • Mark,

      I could be totally wrong about this, and I’m just tossing the idea out to see how it works (so don’t bit my head off ;-) ), but do you think that recognising Jesus’ “extreme” ethics in Mt 5 (eg. lusting after a woman is adultery) as having real force would help in this situation? My reasoning is that if we take these seriously (obviously not equating them precisely with the physical sins, which involve far more consequences), then we will have a very humble view of humanity. We will see that people are shot through with sin, dire sin, and we will be less enthusiastic to prioritise certain more visible sins (like divorce, say) over less visible, but still dire ones (like anger or lust).

      Might this not help us to balance our approach, to be broken with those who are broken?

      What do you think?

      • Malcolm,

        Yes, I agree. If, for example, you’ve covered a Biblical view of anger well, you should have obliterated the possibility of physical abuse to anyone but the obtuse.

        What I’d add, is that Scripture gives a tool box with multiple tools to get the job done, precisely because we’re hard hearted. Attack everything from multiple directions – lust and adultery, anger and violence, preach up the meaning and nature of marriage and preach down the things opposite to it. Scripture gives examples of a wide range of approaches of turning us from sin and to godliness in a wide range of areas. Follow its lead.

  43. I don’t have as much time today for the thread, but I need to address this:

    Mark’s approach, which he reveals in another post here, where he feels free to modify these boundaries according to his personal judgement, seems extraordinary to me. Marriage seems to have certain realities in this world, which Jesus seems to be revealing. Feeling free to redefine that seems rather extraordinary to me, I must confess.

    I reject totally that that is what I am doing.

    I am applying the same principle that I use when I say that a father cannot marry his daughter even though that combination is missed in the OT’s lists of forbidden pairings. I have no authority to make that claim, in the sense of having a text. I have texts that, on the argument from Jesus’ words, look like they’re meant to be comprehensive. Yet I think they’re not meant to be just written up and learned and that settles the question. “No mention of fathers not being able to marry daughters, so that’s okay. After all, it’s an extensive list of the exceptions to the freedom we have to marry, so anything not on that list must be fine.”

    It’s the same logic I apply when it comes to saying that necrophilia or gambling is a sin, even though neither is mentioned in the Bible.

    It’s the same logic the Reformers applied when they opposed young people marrying old wealthy people – they had no Scriptural text to support that stance, it was never addressed in the Bible, but it was the right Biblical position in that pastoral context.

    I’m not modifying boundaries by my own personal judgement. I’m recognising that the Bible isn’t an ethical manual.

    I mean, seriously? Moo in his essay on his approach to ethics toys with the idea that the New Covenant Law he’s advocating has absolutely no moral content to it – it’s just the believer and the Spirit – and you’re accusing my view as ‘modifying boundaries by your own personal judgement’? On pages 369-370 he says its ‘probable’ that the New Covenant Law has some definite ethical content (I had to go look it up to ensure that my memory was right on that point) and offers what it is – Jesus’ teaching and the apostles’ witness. But stresses that those commands aren’t really the centre – it’s the Spirit filled heart that needs to be given prominence in his ethical system over and against those commands (that is, he puts both up, and says this has prominence, not that).

    In my view that is a train wreck for ethics and is everything that you are accusing me of. I have stood against that for years now, and the ‘gospel pragmatism’ it’s helped spawn in the circles I run in.

    Let me spell it out in small words. If it was clear to me that the Bible says ‘no divorce under any circumstances, and if you get divorced then you must not remarry’ then that would be it. Full stop. I don’t think that is what the Bible is saying, so hence my position.

    But it is not modifying boundaries by one’s own personal judgement. It is saying, ‘In light of the Bible’s teaching on marriage and divorce (and forgiveness and…and…etc) what is the right thing to do here.’ Recognising that the Bible isn’t a manual or handbook and doesn’t need to be to take every thought captive for the mind of Christ. Obedeince to the Bible in things it does not address, not avoidance of its demands are the goal of my approach.

    • I think I need to revisit this comment, as it was neither clear enough nor gracious enough.

      First up, I apologise to Malcolm and people reading for a constant churlishness on my part in this conversation. I think Michael, Craig and Sandy have done a much better job of exemplifying the graciousness and hospitality that should characterise comments than I have. I am, once again, sick and while that doesn’t excuse or minimise it, I find it does put limits on my behaviour. I apologise for that, will try and do better, but if I don’t do all that much better, it isn’t personal. I can at least offer that.

      Second, I think I need to make my criticism of the ‘Modified Lutheran View’ much clearer.

      Malcolm’s criticism was that I take it upon myself to modify the limits that God (through his Son) has set down on divorce.

      I think that’s wrong. That might be the effect of what I do, but it’s not the intent, nor the method. The intent is to apply the Bible to situations that aren’t addressed by the Bible. The method is as follows:

      I think Jesus isn’t forbidding all divorce, or only allowing one grounds for divorce. I think there are other grounds that are either stated, or are necessary implications of things that are said. And none of them seem to me to be comprehensive. They aren’t the equivalent of Romans when it comes to divorce – they appear piecemeal, in very specific instructions usually dealing with issues that aren’t all that generic.

      In that case I think there’s room to say, “God hasn’t tried to give us all the conditions when divorce might be legitimate.” And if he hasn’t then he hasn’t for a reason, and responsible obedience to the Word of God will recognise that the list mightn’t be exhaustive.

      That might be surprising to people who are committed to a view that the Bible has to give us all the possible reasons for divorce, but, as I said, for most of the normal readers of the Briefing, that’s more or less how we think the Bible should be used in ethics anyway – we are happy to say that the Bible requires people to do or not do things even if there’s no explicit authorisation for that stance in a text when we think that the Bible never tried to be exhaustive on that issue in either what it says or in its silence.

      But and it is a really big ‘but’. Moo’s position is in the kind of ballpark that Malcolm was laying at my feet. Moo raises the question as to what ethical content is in the Law of Christ and covers the option that there is none – nothing said by Jesus or the apostles (forget the OT) is an enduring authority for believers. He dissents, but it isn’t that strong a dissent given the seriousness of that position. He’s says there’s ‘probably’ ethical content to the law of Christ. Not ‘definitely’ or ‘almost certainly’ or ‘highly probably’, just probably. “Probably” could be as low as 51% odds in favor.

      Nonetheless it is there. And he identifies only two things as providing the ethical content for the law of Christ under which believers live – Jesus’ teaching and the witness of the apostles (no mention of anything in the OT, Mosaic covenant or outside of it).

      However he then takes a bit of space to make it clear that those ethical instructions given by Jesus and the apostles aren’t really at the centre of the law of Christ. What’s at the centre is the person being led by the Spirit. By centre, Moo means (and this is a quote) ‘the basic directive power’ – it is the heart being changed so it perfectly refracts and performs God’s will (his language).

      He then reasserts that the commands are necessary because we aren’t perfect yet but says that Paul would protest against them being given a position of supremacy within new covenant ethics.

      You need to put this alongside what I would call ‘reformed orthodoxy’ to see the problem here. On that view (which I think is the ballpark my position falls into) the written commands – Scripture – has supremacy and it is the basic directive power. What directs me, informs me as to right and wrong? It is Scripture. How do I learn the will of God? By reading God’s word, not by the Spirit somehow infusing that knowledge into my heart directly. What has supremacy, such that if there is a conflict between my judgement as a person whose heart is being changed by the Spirit and the commands written down by the inspiration of the Spirit, which one ‘trumps’ the other? Well it is the written commands. They have supremacy, everything else has to give way to them.

      Moo hasn’t said that it’s okay for believers to overrule the commands. But he has said that the classical way of explaining that believers aren’t to do that is wrong and, to my mind, he doesn’t really explain how my heart, as it is being directed by the Spirit to know the will of God, could be the supreme thing in the law of Christ and yet it still needs to give way to what the NT teaches if a conflict arises.

      I still think Moo is great guy. This isn’t some broadside on him. But I think someone with Moo’s view accusing someone of my view of changing the limits set down in Scripture is the blast furnace calling the tarnished household silver black. I’ve seen the effect this view has had on people in our circle, on their confidence that they can just go straight to the gospel and ask ‘what does the gospel require/what promotes the gospel’ and that somehow that is ethics – right and wrong. The cavalier way some people hold light to the hard work of wrestling with what the Bible says about we should behave in favour of a different form of ‘What Would Jesus Do?’

      I think Moo has done the kind of service we can all thank God for. I think the essay in question has a lot of good in it. At this one point I think it is deeply problematic – another way of going down the same rabbit hole that Barth set up with his ‘Scripture points you to Christ and you derive everything directly from Christ’ approach. I don’t think it’s a good way of understanding Biblical ethics, and I think it’s ability to help us be disciples of Christ is mixed.

      • Mark,

        Thanks for that, it helps to clarify a lot and answers some of the questions I had on your position. By the way, I understand your frustration, and I am sorry for my occasional over-bluntness. I thank your for your persistence and I know that you have helped me hone my thinking on these important issues.

        Let me put aside the issue of Moo’s take on this (and I can understand your confusion with his approach to some extent, since he doesn’t write terribly clearly in that essay) and let me say that I agree with you that scripture takes priority, since it is an objective, shareable standard. I will just say that I think Moo’s understanding of the Law of Christ is best expressed by his quote of Longenecker, as being those “prescriptive principles stemming from the heart of the gospel (usually embodied in the example and teaching of Jesus), which are meant to be applied to the specific situations by the direction and enablement of the Holy Spirit, being always motivated and conditioned by love.”

        Let us just say that we (you and I) agree on the priority of scripture, OK?

        Now, let me explain why I disagree with your take on adding exceptions to the divorce/remarriage ban.

        All of the examples you gave in your first response above have two features:

        1) They define ethical boundaries in previously unaddressed areas

        2) They narrow the range of behaviour to be considered moral

        Now the Pharisees engaged in modifications that didn’t possess feature 1, but did possess feature 2. Jesus demonstrated why this was unhelpful. It is my contention that, by adding exceptions to the divorce/remarriage ban (or any ban presented in such general terms) you are making changes which possess neither of these features. In other words, you are defining what was once immoral as now moral.

        Perhaps an example will help. The first commandment presents the general ban, “You shall have no other Gods before me.” Now if I add an exception to this, such as “unless your family is threatened,” or “unless they are helpful gods,” then you are redefining an already existing moral boundary by extending it outwards into previously immoral territory. As far as I can see, the divorce/remarriage ban that Jesus presents has exactly the same structure and a similar nature (it is grounded in the nature of things, in the case of the first commandment in the nature of God, and in the case of the second commandment, in the nature of human beings).

        Hopefully that clarifies why I see this as such a different type of activity.

        • Malcolm, I hope you can see why we reject this as an interpretation of our position. We are not arguing for any exceptions to the divorce provisions, but rather believe the Scriptures clearly articulate a range of provisions for divorce that are essential to the nature of marriage itself as a covenant.

          • Michael,

            No, I don’t understand that. Could be please outline how these “provisions” are not widening the range of activities that are considered moral, or, in other words, narrowing the range of activities that are considered immoral, compared to the “provisionless” guidelines in scripture?

            Think of it this way. If I say X should not Y, then you have several things that you can do with this ethical guideline: you can try to precisely define X and you can try to precisely define Y. What you cannot do without actually changing the guideline (shifting the moral playing field) is say X should not Y except in cases of Z.

            It seems to me that you are not trying to define X or Y, but are rather trying to add in a Z, which changes the boundaries, rather than defines them more precisely. Now personally, I think when God goes to the effort of mapping out moral guidelines, it’s worth paying attention to them (which includes trying to understand them and apply them) and to avoid trying to move them around.

            Look at it another way: the Biblical ethical guides are not arbitrary, they are basically a guide to correct living — living that is in line with the way our creator made us to live. If our creator says, “I joined this: don’t separate it,” do you think it’s wise to add “provisions” like “except in cases of Z.”

            Can you see my point?

          • Malcolm,

            I actually think this has been a good conversation, and quite cordial given typical internet pratices, I’m just aware I have been below par in tone.

            I’m happy with everything you’ve said about your take on Scripture, and would be surprised if Moo didn’t agree with you.

            But this is a feature of a lot of this ‘come up with a new view’ stuff that’s happening – I think Moo has built in a conflict in his views at this point, and it’s shown on his less than rousing endorsement for ethical content for the new covenant law, and the way he’s set up the relationship between the believer and that ethical content. Even Longenecker’s quote, if you agree with it, sets you up for far more scope for changing boundaries than anything I’ve suggested.

            But, unless Sandy wants this covered more as part of the issue of continuity versus discontinuity, I’m also happy to put it to one side.

            Mike’s argument, which I am agreeing with, is that Jesus did not say ‘no divorce except for porneia’, at least not in the sense that that was the meaning of the words once all the normal factors one keeps in mind when reading the Bible are taken into account. That those are the words there is fairly obvious.

            Neither of us are saying, “Jesus said it, but then Paul changed it, and so now we can change it some more.”

            We’re (at least I am, I think Michael agrees with at least some of this) saying that:

            1. Malachi shows that very little of what Jesus was saying was new. Certainly appealing to Genesis to challenge divorce is not new.

            2. 1 Cor 7 shows that there are more grounds (at least one more) for divorce than porneia.

            3. When that is kept in mind, and when one factors in that sometimes Jesus speaks in a highly rhetorical way to make a point, and that he wasn’t setting out to make a list of all the ways that divorce is allowable (indeed seems to be knocking that question back in favor of doing something different – reasserting what marriage is, and the ‘allow not commend’ nature of the provisions for divorce), then what seems to be a global prohibition is not.

            4. I have run an extra argument (which Michael hasn’t said he agrees with) that I think, given the way in which divorce criteria in the Bible appear, then it is potentially not an exhaustive list. You’ve consistently misunderstood this as me saying, “It is an exhaustive list but we are free to change it”, and so your assaults on my position feel a bit straw mannish from my point of view – you are attacking something that I also reject.

            Nonetheless, point 4 isn’t germane to Michael’s article, and might not be Michael’s position.

            It certainly hasn’t had any influence on points 1-3, rather it is my reflection on the (possible) implications of them. If someone was to hold to 1-3 and reject 4 I think that’d be a responsible response as well.

          • Mark,

            OK, I think I’m starting to understand your approach. It seems that you are viewing Mt 19:9’s “except for porneia” and the unbeliever’s abandonment in 1 Cor 7 as “grounds” for a sin-free, completely releasing divorce.

            How then do you fit this into Jesus’ statement, “What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate?” Is this a hyperbolic statement, despite being supported by a careful scriptural argument and having no colourful imagery?

            Aren’t the other partner’s sins a case of “man separating” a marriage, which Jesus says shouldn’t happen? Or is Jesus wording, “let not” different from “it is wrong for”? Or does the fact that the sinner caused the separation release the innocent party? Or have I missed a possibility.

            I’m really trying to understand how you harmonize these, especially since the flow of both Mk and Mt seems to indicate that Mt 19:9 and Mk 10:11-12 are applications of the general principal stated in Mt 19:6 and Mk 10:9.

  44. And, if we have any knowledge, we should know that we have to be prepared to give the signals that it is good to get out of abusive situations, for one of the dynamics in abuse is the abused party believing that they should accept it, that they deserve it, or the like. Many abused people won’t leave. Many who do, go back. When you have someone who sees that they needed to get out, that needs to be endorsed. It can be done without throwing marriage under the bus.

    Once again, Mark is spot on. Hear him, preachers!

    As someone said to me recently, when domestic violence comes up, it is never in a place of promience in preaching, it is usually the second last question before the end. This sends a message…

  45. For the sake of balance, I should say that I know of ministers who have responded heroically in these situations, and acted with enormous compassion and integrity.

  46. Malcolm, I still am not clear exactly how Malachi is being permissive in respect of divorce. Are you arguing that since Malachi is critical of divorce for unfaithfulness, or faithless divorce, he is uncritical of other justifications? It seems to me that Malachi is fairly obviously critiquing the unfaithfulness of men who have abandoned and divorced the wives of their youth. You seem to agree – where is the concession?

  47. Over the next three comments I’m going to try and lay out how I see some of the relevant issues on Jesus’ words, 1 Cor 7, and Malachi. These aren’t exegetical essays, they’re laying out freshly my take on an issue to do with these passages that has come up in this conversation and is central to the arguments as they’ve developed.

    We’ll start with Jesus’ words.

    Part of the issue for me in interpreting anything is to look at the communication strategies used by that author and that genre.

    Malcolm drew a comparison from Jesus’ global prohibition on adultery to the Law’s global prohibition on idolatry. He says, “You’d wouldn’t say there were exceptions there, so why here?” But I could just as easily draw a comparison from Jesus’ words ‘cut off your hand’ and the Law’s global prohibition on idolatry. “You don’t see an exception here so why there?” Or if that analogy isn’t close enough, I can find somewhere where the Law requires you to do something – and say, “You actually had to do it there, so why don’t you have to do it here?”

    The point is that there’s a big difference between legislation, and how it uses language, and how Jesus uses language in the Gospels. You can’t apply exactly the same reading strategies with both genres.

    For Malcolm, ‘Moses allowed this because your hearts were hard’ is an important hermeneutical principle because it indicates that a lot (or at least some) of what’s going on there falls short of the glory of God. Hence he’s pretty happy to see it put to one side or overruled.

    For me, the fact that Jesus can at times say things that cannot be taken at face value is an important exegetical principle. And he never says, “By the way guys, don’t take that bit at face value”. You’ve just got to keep sitting with his words until the meaning gels and sometimes it really matters that you take them straightforwardly, and other times it really matters that you don’t. It means I can never just take for granted that the surface meaning of the words is meant to be the meaning I’m supposed to be walking away with. But I can’t just invoke ‘rhetorical strategies’ whenever I find it hard either.

    Consequently, if Jesus’ words on divorce had been said in the Law, or by Paul, then I’d be far less inclined to read them any way other than with their most straightforward, plain meaning.

    But with the Gospels I know that it is always possible that Jesus is using words in a parable-style way, even when he’s not giving a little story – ‘he said everything in parables’ isn’t restricted to the stories Jesus told, it’s saying something about his public ministry as a whole. That always has to be kept in mind when reading Jesus and doing that isn’t being high-handed or something, it’s how he wants us to read his words – to have to chew them over, go back over them, wrestle with them, and then get surprised by them – because that’s how parables work.

    Even then, I still probably wouldn’t take Jesus’ words as not straightforward if it wasn’t for 1 Cor 7. But because of this feature of how Jesus speaks, I can’t do what Malcolm seems to be doing – saying “It’s so clear in Jesus that it is a global prohibition that Paul cannot mean what he seems to be saying” (on ‘not bound’ in 1 Cor7:15). And I can’t do that because, between Paul and Jesus, the one that uses very straightforward ‘what you see in the words is what you get in the meaning’ communication strategies is Paul, not Jesus.

    Hence, if an apparent contradiction arises between how I would read Paul if I didn’t have access to the words of Jesus, and how I would read the words of Jesus if I didn’t have access to the words of Paul, then I tend to favour Paul over Jesus. And that’s only because Paul doesn’t ‘say everything in parables’. Parables are highly effective devices for a large range of things, but for clarity and nuance Paul’s style delivers more. That’s not degrading either bit of Scripture – all of it is God speaking to us, and he uses a lot of different strategies each of which do something that can’t be done another way. But it is germane to the exegetical task.

    The basic exegetical guideline is ‘the clearer part of Scripture interprets the less clear’. And if an apparent conflict arises between Jesus’ words and Paul’s words, then Paul is the clearer writer. (He’s not more authorative, he’s just clearer, and that matters for this one exegetical principle.) You need a very compelling reason, in my view, to not apply one of the basic principles that has underwritten centuries of profitable reading and submitting to the Word of God.

    • Mark,

      Once again, thanks so much for your patient explanations. They are really helping clarify your approach for me.

      First, let me say that I agree wholeheartedly with your exegetical process. Scripture should be interpreted as the type of literature that it clearly is, whether it be parable, theological argument, history, poetry, apocalyptic prophecy, ethical guideline, case law, or whatever. However, you seem to be claiming that we can never take Jesus’ words at face value because it “is always possible that Jesus is using words in a parable-style way.” I couldn’t disagree more, and let me explain why.

      1) You claim that “‘he said everything in parables’ isn’t restricted to the stories Jesus told.” I assume that your quote is intended to be a reference to the scripture, and yet such a phrase never occurs there. The closest we get is, “All these things Jesus said to the crowds in parables; indeed, he said nothing to them without a parable,” (Mt 13:34) or “He did not speak to them without a parable” (Mk 4:34a). However, it should be noticed that there is a limit to these statements that isn’t present in your version, namely that Jesus did not speak to the crowds without using parables, implying that he spoke to others plainly. Indeed, the rest of Mk 4:34 says “but privately to his own disciples he explained everything.” When the gospel writer Mark makes a claim about Jesus’ approach (non-parable style explanatory language) with his disciples, then I’ll take his word for it. Therefore your contention that “it is always possible that Jesus is using words in a parable-style way” is simply wrong — we merely need to ask ourselves who Jesus is speaking to: crowds — probably a parable; disciples — not a parable; others — possibly a parable.

      2) Your approach seems to assume that it is difficult to detect the presence of a parable. It is not. The normal meaning of parable is “a short allegorical story designed to illustrate or teach some truth, religious principle, or moral lesson.” If we examine the gospels, where are not reticent in their labelling of the parables as such, you’ll see that this is the general usage. However, even if we accept the broader definition of “a statement or comment that conveys a meaning indirectly by the use of comparison, analogy, or the like,” we can still use reliable tools to detect the presence of a parable.

      Let me explain. To detect the presence of a gospel-style (i.e. Jesus-style) parable, we need merely ask ourselves, “is Jesus telling a story?” If we remain unconvinced and think he might be straying into the second definition above (which clearly concerns you, Mark) then we merely need ask ourselves, “is Jesus using a comparison, analogy, or the like?”

      Let’s apply this to a couple of verses to test our method. When Jesus abruptly starts speaking about a sower spreading seeds is this a story? Yes it is — the sower is unrelated to anyone present and it forms a short account of his actions. Does this teach some other truth? Yes, it does, Jesus is not giving agricultural directions. Clearly a parable.

      When Jesus says “I am the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to the Father but by me,” is this a story? No, it is a theological truth claim. Is it analogical? No, it is not setting up a scenario which can be compared to the real meaning — it IS the real meaning (although that meaning extends very deep).

      How about Mk 10:1-12 or Mt 19:1-12? Does Jesus answer the Pharisees with a parable? Is it a story? No. Is he using an analogy to speak about marriage? No, he’s just speaking directly to the issue. Indeed, his meaning doesn’t change when he speaks directly to the disciples in Mk 10:11-12, which we already know isn’t a parable.

      Thus we can have great confidence that Jesus words in Mk 10:1-12 and Mt 19:1-12 are not a parable in any sense of the word.

      3) Perhaps by parable you really meant “language that is a parable, metaphorical or hyperbolic.” Well, let’s look at metaphorical and hyperbolic language, then. Can we reliably detect these forms of language? A metaphor is, of course, something that is used symbolically and can’t be taken literally. We can easily detect the presence of metaphor, in all cases, by taking the suspect thing and attempting to treat it as if it were literal. If we can’t treat it as if it were literally true in all cases, then it is clearly metaphorical.

      For example, Jesus says, “I am the vine, you are the branches.” We can ask ourselves, “Is Jesus a plant?” Since the answer is no, we have a metaphor. For more subtle metaphors (such as the church as a body with mouth, eyes, etc.) we simply need to ask more questions. And BTW, Paul uses metaphors, as just alluded to, so he is no more clear than Jesus in this regard. Indeed, the whole of scripture is abounding in metaphor, but that does not undermine our confidence in it since metaphor is so easy to detect.

      How about hyperbole? Hyperbole is extravagant exaggeration. One definition says, “obvious and intentional exaggeration.” We have a reliable method for detecting this, too (which, given the fact you point out, that Jesus doesn’t flag his hyperbole, is how we know that he engages in it). We merely need ask ourselves of any statement, “Does this fit its context, or is it exaggerated beyond it?” This is, of course, a more difficult exercise than the detection of parable or metaphor, because we need to understand the context more fully. Nonetheless, it is not that difficult. For example, no-one with a log in their eye is going to be either physically capable or even interested in taking the speck out of someone else’s eye. Thus the log is clearly hyperbole.

      Now in Mk 10 or Mt 19 do we have any elements that don’t fit the context but rather are exaggerated? No, there is nothing there at all that doesn’t fit right into the context. Indeed, Jesus words form a straightforward scriptural argument.

      Now, I’m sorry to have gone on at such length, but your claim that we can never take Jesus words at face value was so important that I needed to make sure that I explained clearly and (hopefully) persuasively as to why we can. Indeed, combining the common-sense and scriptural methods outlined above, we can say with great confidence that Jesus words on marriage in answer to the Pharisees and his disciples are intended to be taken in their plain sense, just as Paul’s words in 1 Cor 7 are.

      What is their plain sense? The Pharisees had asked Jesus to make a comment on an issue of the Law, Jesus responded with a theological argument resulting in a concluding moral principle, an explicit ruling modifying the Law, and an application of the moral principal. No parable. No metaphor. No hyperbole.

      • Hi Malcolm,

        You are welcome for the comments, I figured that the nature of this conversation and topic is of the sort that that was probably going to be more helpful than my simply doing another round of quoting and responding. And thank you for the conversation, I think it is helping to bring the issues out for people so they are equipped to better submit to the Word of God on this issue.

        Let me pick up a couple of things you’ve said here. I was using shorthand with my gesture to ‘he said everything in parables’ – it was alluding to an interpretation that (IIRC – I don’t have a copy of the notes to hand over here) is in the NT1 notes of Moore College’s PTC course, a course that has been done widely in the circles that are the Briefing’s main ministry focus. That way of thinking has been more or less digested among lay and ordained leaders and does shape their reading of the Gospels. So I was doing what I normally do in that situation – gesture to some (supposed) common ground. Possibly because I am (still) sick, or because I’ve been in doctoral land for so long and am losing touch with non-institutionalised people (heh), it slipped my mind that that is not common ground among evangelicals or within NT scholarship. My apologies there.

        The point of the interpretation (and this isn’t the forum to explore it in depth) is the parables that Jesus told aren’t being given prominence by the Synoptic Gospels simply to give as a window into Jesus’ preaching method and content, they are also interpretative for his ministry as a whole. His ministry was, in a sense a parable – hidden in plain sight, repelling most, and even those who were brought near demonstrate a consistent inability to understand him and what it is that he stands for, and their understanding comes like the solution to the parables – by external intervention that opens their eyes to the meaning of what they’ve been seeing and hearing. Yes, the crowds have everything in parables while the disciples have everything explained to them but I’ll be quoting some examples below that suggest that that doesn’t mean it’s as straightforward for the disciples as you seem to be suggesting.

        I agree with you that stores are, for want of a better term, at the centre of the concept of parables. But I disagree that that exhausts the meaning – short enigmatic sayings are often classified as parables as well. The important bit in what I said was ‘parable-like’, if you approach Jesus’ words and ministry as though the parables can be sealed off as just a tool that he uses in certain situations, and not an expression of a dynamic going on throughout his ministry, then you are going to be a bit flat footed in hearing him well, in my opinion. If you want to restrict ‘parables’ to just a formal category, I’ve got no problem with that. We can just agree on some other term (like ‘hereustically orientated enigmaticness’, that sounds more scholarly than ‘parable-like’; it’s certainly got a higher syllable-to-word ratio) to express this dynamic I’m gesturing at and say that that dynamic is present everywhere and the parables are one particular (very big) signpost of it.

        Methodologically I think you and I are coming from very different approaches to reading Scripture. The approach that says that it is easy to identify a parable you just need to do the following, and then it is easy to identify a metaphor and that’s also a nice straightforward bounded category and then the other option is hyperbole and they’re also (usually) pretty straightforward and if it isn’t those three then it’s straightforward more or less literal language is about as far from what I think is the mainstream way Christians have read the Bible over the last 2000 years (at least in the early church and the Reformation) as medieval allegory was. It reflects a contemporary understanding of ‘clarity of Scripture’ as though it means ‘transparency’ and as though Scripture presents minimal difficulties to understand as long as you have been trained in good interpretive techniques.

        I am coming from a tradition, very much grounded in the Fathers and the Reformers, that says that Scripture is a light shining in the darkness. And I am the darkness it is shining upon. That last bit is pretty important. It is never straightforward to read Scripture. I need everything I can get hold to help with the task and yet, (and this is the paradox), anyone can pick it up and start reading and be illuminated thereby. A baby can wade safely and an elephant can drown-that’s the Bible. I need the interpretive tools, but I can’t trust them to ensure I read the Bible correctly, I have to trust the Scriptures themselves to open themselves up to me. It is a mind-set that is hard anyway for a sinner, but I think presents particular challenges for our culture that has a lot of confidence in the power of ‘technique’ – technology, learned skills, and the like, to reliably and effectively solve problems. Most contemporary biblical studies scholarship (not all, but most) reflects those cultural values in spades, and treats Scripture as though it is passive, sitting there inert while I wrest its secrets by applying my exegetical and hermeneutical toolkit. It speaks to me, and acts upon me, I don’t act upon it, even though being passive before it actually involves everything I can bring to the task and a whole lot of activity from me.

        Modern commentaries on (and the ‘on’ there is telling) Scripture often don’t sound that much different than commentaries on any other kind of literary work (except that many will also indicate ‘how then shall we live’). And that’s not inherently wrong, there’s a place for that, Scripture is a fully human thing, after all. But it is a break with older approaches that were less products of an expert mastering their subject area teaching students and more one disciple sharing with other disciples the light that had shone upon their path (even though the guys in the latter camp were also experts who had mastered their area).

        You and I agree about the principles and tools we use, but I think there is a difference in how we relate to them and to the text. I am much less confident that I can say, “I need to work out what x means” and can, just by skull sweat and time be confident that I’ve gotten it. I could read the Bible for thirty years and then go, “Ah, now I realise what that means/I have always misunderstood this before now.” I can’t short-circuit that just by reading more and better scholars. And that is entirely what I should expect. ‘Confidence in Scripture’ does not mean for me that it is relatively straightforward to understand what Scripture is saying. I am darkness. Scripture is light. It illuminates me, and does so over a lifetime.

        As then to the kinds of things I was gesturing at when I was saying that Jesus might be speaking in a ‘parable-like’ way here’s a very small list of examples of the kinds of things that I had in mind that might make more sense than that phrase: Mk 7:27 Mk 8:14-21, Mk 10:15, Mk 10:18; Mark 10:19, Mk 10:21, Mk 9:1, Mk 9:37 as part of a response to ‘who is the greatest’, Mk 9:49-50.

        Yes, Paul uses metaphor. But he doesn’t use communication strategies like this. These are doing something really important – and in my opinion, it is at the opposite end of the spectrum to what you are saying. They are stopping us from going, “It is easy to understand Jesus’ words, we have clear rules to determine if it is parable, metaphor or hyperbole. And if it ain’t that, there’s no special challenges.” (I’m tempted to link to the Veggie Tales song “Monkey” http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=–szrOHtR6U at this point in time but that probably says more about my kids’ age and my sense of humour than anything you’ve said.)

        These things are making us stop and go, “Say what? What does that even mean? How on earth does that square with what Scripture says here, and there, and even what you said back over there? How is doing that even possible?” It’s not easy to understand Jesus. It’s not meant to be. He is the Christ and he wants us to stop and wrestle with him, not waltz in, quickly digest “Jesus’ teaching on marriage and divorce” and move on.

        And all I am saying is that this is one factor that I think is germane to this question. It doesn’t mean that “1 Cor 7 trumps Jesus” or the like. There can still be compelling reasons to accept an otherwise strained reading of Paul’s words in order to harmonise them with what Jesus says on the question. All I’m doing is showing one bit of working, something behind the curtain, that I think needs to be weighed, but it isn’t decisive all by itself.

        • Mark,

          This is truly fascinating, and I was quite surprised to encounter the idea that Jesus’ words are so habitually oblique that any of his utterances must be treated cautiously as to their intended meaning (as contrasted with the straightforwardness of Paul).

          I grew up in the Methodist tradition, I have read lots of Anglicans like C. S. Lewis, and I have listened to and read Christian thinkers who hold to the Reformed position like Greg Koukl, and I have never before encountered this concept. Indeed, in my several years of reading The Briefing I’ve never noticed it, either. Perhaps I need to pay more attention.

          In any case, it seems to me that this approach dramatically overplays both the straightforward nature of Paul’s (and others’) writing and the obliqueness of Jesus’ words. Your examples are instructive, since most of them present no real difficulty in gaining their plain sense, provided you are familiar with their context, and in all of them there is no danger that anyone paying attention will mistake metaphor or analogy for reality. Indeed, it seems to me that a number of Jesus’ parables were quite well understood even by hostile contemporary listeners, as evidenced in Mt 21:45.

          Note that I am not denying that there may be additional layers of meaning to any of Jesus’ statements which unlock new understanding, however I would find it hard to justify an additional layer of meaning that undermined the plain sense (this is the province of cults, surely).

          Indeed, in the approach you outline, it seems to me that you are more Moo-like in the way you handle scripture than I am. “I have to trust the Scriptures themselves to open themselves up to me,” you say. Either this is a metaphor for some mental process that you engage in, or you are talking about some living component of the scriptures actively working in your mind (the Holy Spirit?), or both. Now I agree that when we read the scriptures the Spirit is at work in our heart and mind, and thus the “process” of exegetics alone is not sufficient. However, the propositional content of the written word has to be accessible at a basic level via some God-designed human faculties, otherwise how do we resolve disputes like this without ending up squabbling over who has thought more deeply or is more connected to the Spirit? Since Jesus words are clearly intended to convey propositional content, I include them in this. (Off the cuff, I see the role of the Spirit in this process as ensuring that our faculties are not corrupted and are properly engaged, in applying the propositional content to our heart and living, and in leading us into the deeper meaning.)

          Remember that Jesus explains why he speaks in parables, “To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.” Parables are intended to veil their meaning; that’s the point of such a method. But, as Mark (the gospel writer) says, this tool is not for teaching the disciples, and Jesus doesn’t use it as such. I don’t see how the Gospel writers could have made that any clearer, and I’m not sure why anyone would want to deny that (which you appear to be doing, by insisting that all of Jesus’ words need to be taken as “parable-like”).

          Yes, Jesus words always have an unexpected depth of meaning. So do Paul’s. Yes, Jesus words can be hard to understand. So can Paul’s (and Peter’s and James’, etc.). I don’t see a distinction between the accessibility of the propositional content of the Gospels and the epistles simply due to Jesus’ extensive use of parables. The epistles are as “foolish to the Greeks” as the gospels, surely?

          I guess I’m saying that the choice is not merely between a monkey and an ape. ;-) In other words, when understanding Jesus’ words we aren’t presented with the choice between a parable and a parable-like utterance. Jesus really did speak in straightforward ways and we really do have the exegetical tools to be able to discern this and the epistemological tools to discern the propositional content. God gave this to us as human beings. Of course, this is not the end of the matter — the Spirit is involved in bringing these words to life in us, and so scripture is not simply dead letters.

          We may have to agree to disagree on this, but the disagreement has enormous consequences, since your entire scriptural frame of reference for a wide range of issues becomes radically different from mine, since it seems that you are cut off from having full confidence in Jesus words. This is analogous to what I was originally saying about Luther, so perhaps we’ve come full circle?

          • Hi Malcolm,

            I’m glad you got the monkey joke. :D

            There’s two issues that have come up, and they are not directly connected.

            On the one hand, I think Jesus uses words in a way that is meant to stop you in your tracks and force you to wrestle with it. It’s meaning isn’t always what it seems at first glance. That’s one issue. And I think you’re overreading how I intend that point – although that could easily be a problem with how I’ve communicated it in trying to explain it.

            In my opinion people don’t draw attention to this issue, by and large, because we’ve all ‘grown up with’ Jesus’ words and have learned, by osmosis, the basic principles to read them. But it is also partly, in my view, that we domesticate things in Jesus that seem odd – we too quickly gloss them in a way that fits with what we already know rather than sit with the difficulty for a while. We are genuinely somewhat familiar with Jesus in a good way, and we’re a bit over familiar with him in a bad way.

            And if you’ve read someone like C S Lewis then the awareness of this issue is woven into his reading of the text, not so much in him reflecting upon and articulating his methodology as though that is a theme of its own. He does what I’m talking about, but he comes from an era when people didn’t thematise their method as much as we do.

            And I disagree that the verses I quoted “present no real difficulty in gaining their plain sense”. Like a magician’s trick, once they’ve been explained you go, “Oh that’s simple.” But most of us needed someone else to explain them to us before they ceased being opaque and history is littered with people who misunderstood many of them.

            And while Jesus explained the parables to the disciples, I deliberately quoted primarily from things Jesus said to his disciples, or aren’t parables by normal definition. And they’re still not straight-forward IMHO.

            I agree entirely with what you say here:

            In other words, when understanding Jesus’ words we aren’t presented with the choice between a parable and a parable-like utterance. Jesus really did speak in straightforward ways and we really do have the exegetical tools to be able to discern this and the epistemological tools to discern the propositional content.

            I’d own that as my view as well, so that might help see whether my view shrouds Jesus in as much darkness as it might appear. I said ‘might be parable-like’ not ‘always is and we just throw our hands up in despair at being able to discern’. I said that without Paul’s words I wouldn’t take Jesus’ words on this as anything other than straightforward and it is only now that this comes into play as one factor that might be considered and still rejected.

            I’ve qualified this issue quite a bit. All I’ve said is that it is a factor in reading Jesus (even though we normally do it without being self-conscious that that’s what we’re doing). I’ve said that strongly and at length, but it’s only to put it on the table as one issue to keep in mind.

            The other issue of our stance towards Scripture would not necessarily be shared by all, most, or anyone else in these circles.

            Yes, it is a ‘modified Moo view on reading Scripture’ (heh) in the sense that if you do to him what he does to Luther you get my position. :D

            If you take the gospel out of its role in his system as the source and/or content of the new covenant law, and instead say, “actually the gospel is the paradigm for absolutely all of the way we relate to God – it doesn’t tell us what we should do but what God has done for us” (and if you are alert you will see that my complaints with Moo’s position go down deep. Anyone else want to take a crack at rehabilitating Catholicism’s ‘the gospel is the new law’ for us Protestants?) then you get what I’m saying.

            That is, what I’m saying is my way of taking justification by grace through faith and using it as the paradigm for how we read the Bible as well.

            Understanding the word of God is fundamentally about doing business with God. And in that field, we operate by faith not works, grace not merit, God is active and we receive. That’s not just a statement about how I become a Christian, it governs everything in the Christian life.

            Especially reading the Bible. In Bible reading, as with the gospel, there are no prizes for the strong, the educated, the clever, or the well-trained. The Bible operates in the realm of the gospel, and in that realm God deals with us graciously by his Word through his Spirit and not according to our merits – to anything we can point to that warrant us getting something.

            I agree with everything you’ve said about the fact Scripture is in human language, about the fact it uses normal rules of language and the like. I think smarter people bring something different to the table than dumb people when it comes to reading the Bible, trained people than untrained. And I have never said, “OOOh spooky, I’m more of a jedi master than you/more in touch with the Spirit/more transformed in the way of light” or the like. I’ve made my case on normal, (hopefully) sensible, universally accessible grounds. I’ve appealed to exegetical principles. Justification by grace through faith does not eliminate our humanness, it establishes it. And that’s as true in this sphere as any other – we have to bring our ‘A’ game to reading the Bible, that’s what faith looks like there that’s the good works of reading that God has prepared in advance for us to do.

            But our confidence has to be outside ourselves in the God who speaks, not in what we bring to the exegetical task with out abilities and training guided by the Holy Spirit.

            And so, at that level, I am quite different from the ‘modified Lutheran position’ that puts the individual whose heart is being changed by the Spirit as supreme. That, to my mind, reflects and feeds our confidence in ourselves and what we ‘posses’ and our tendency to make our contribution the key factor in our relationship with God. I’m saying the power lies with Scripture to speak, not in me to actively pull its meaning out.

            I still do everything – use my brain, my training, context, the lot. But in it all what I am *really* doing is praying, “God, please speak, because if you don’t, I cannot hear a thing.” After I have done everything I can, it all depends on God to give me (knowledge of his word) what he demands of me (good reading of his word).

            As I’ve said, I think it’s completely counter-cultural to how most of modern evangelicalism tends to approach biblical studies, so it doesn’t surprise me that this sounds like Yoda in a cave. It’s not meant to be that though, it’s an attempt to grasp the implications of justification by grace through faith for something very basic to the Christian life – my stance when I read the Bible.

            It doesn’t push aside exegesis, it tries to do it in faith – with that phrase there being quite loaded in its implications (among other things, that faith entails a loss of all confidence in oneself and everything one has and does).

          • Mark,

            I’ve been reflecting and praying about what you said in this post for quite a while. I also had to reread it a few times to make sure I completely understood it.

            I have a couple of reflections.

            First, while I recognise, with you, the vital role of the Spirit in the apprehension and application of scripture, I realised that I haven’t always been actively inviting God’s participation in that process. (In other words, I don’t always pray before I start reading scripture.) This is a failure of humility on my part. Praise God that, by reading the scripture, my mind is “set on things above” (Col 3:2) and God works on the “renewal of [my] mind, that by testing [I] may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.” (Rom 12:2).

            Second, I realised that my “fairly straightforward” understanding of Jesus’ words relied on (at the very least) reading the entire Bible several times and thinking carefully about what I was reading. Now this should be something that all adult Christians of more than a few years should have been able to do, so it should not be too challenging. But I recognise that the word “should” in that previous sentence is rather important to its correspondence with reality.

            Also, I don’t think Moo gives primacy to the Spirit-influenced heart, but rather to the Spirit as it works on the heart. I think the way the Moo (and certainly the way that I) see the relationship between the written word, the Spirit, and the Christian is as follows.

            The written word is an external, objective reality. It’s propositional content is also an external, objective reality, but is separate from the written word itself (of course, otherwise we’d be like the Muslims and insist on reading the Bible in the original languages). The propositional content is not fully accessible to the unaided human faculties due to the corrupting effects of sin. The Spirit works in the regenerate heart of the Christian to remove these effects (the “renewal of your mind”) and to assist in the correct application of the human faculties (primarily of language and logic) in determining the true propositional content conveyed in the written word.

            Because we are using these human faculties, we can communicate with one another the reasons we have for our determination of the propositional content. (Which is what we have been doing.) If we manage this communication also with the aid of the Spirit (in giving us patience and forbearing, helping us to recognise our mistakes, and so on) then we can actually help one another to come to hold the true propositional content of the scriptures.

            Now, if the Spirit was involved by actually transferring the propositional content from the written word to our minds without any other faculties being involved, we could only say, “God told me.”

            I should mention, while I’m talking like this (and I apologise to those who don’t like this high-falutin’ vocabulary, but the point of it is to be able to communicate precisely and succinctly), that the purpose of the parables fits into this.

            Jesus said that he spoke in parables because, “seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.” (Mt 13:10-17) Given the cognitive barrier present in the minds of the crowds, Jesus didn’t give up. Rather than waste his breath in teaching via direct, plain, propositional means, he hid his propositional content in stories that would bypass the cognitive barriers of his listeners. Thus he could smuggle the crucial propositional content into people’s minds, where the Spirit could then use it (see Mk 4:33). For people who were asking genuine questions, or those without those barriers (his disciples) Jesus needed no such “wrapping” and so spoke directly (Mk 4:34).

            (Jesus’ use of hyperbole was likewise designed to ensure that the radical importance and difference of the propositional content from the common wisdom was not lost. Metaphor is used throughout scripture to deliver propositional content in a powerful and succinct way.)

            Of course, we should never become complacent in our understanding and consider Jesus as merely another prophet or a wise man. His words, properly understood, simply don’t allow that, and we certainly need to strive to feel the “scandal” of Jesus words and actions, even when we are familiar with them and have built our worldview upon such truth.

            Hopefully this clarifies my position (for those that can understand my vocabulary — for those that can’t, it might help to understand that “propositional content” here is not referring to marriage, but to the actual meaning of the words). You can see that I view the renewed human being as a crucial part of God’s work. I would relate this more closely to sanctification rather than to justification, since I think the process of Christian living (including the understanding of the scriptures) is to do with our sanctification more than our justification.

  48. On 1 Cor 7:10-16, here’s my thoughts.
    1. The issue of the culture of the day. This is part of the exegetical principle of ‘how would the original readers/hearers have understood these words?’ Again, that’s a fairly standard exegetical principle since the Reformation. It needs to be kept under control, it doesn’t have a wide-ranging authority but it is a factor in exegesis in the Protestant/Reformation mould – how the original readers would understand this is determinative for how later readers understand it. And that brings the original readers’ knowledge and cultural and legal practices into play as part of the task of how they would understand something.

    But I think very little hangs on that in this situation, it was a secondary support to my case (and, in my view remains so).

    2. The relationship of 1 Cor 7:10-11 to 1 Cor 7:12-16. I think they are stating two different things, not a general principle and an application to a specific case.
    There’s three basic reasons for that. First, vv12-16 are superfluous if it’s a case of 10-11 setting out the universal principle. There’s nothing there I can see that isn’t already there in vv10-11 already. Don’t separate, but if you do, remain unmarried or be reconciled. There’s no ‘application’ of that in vv12-16 on this view, it’s simply restating it in a much less clear way. That’s not impossible, but it’s not strongly plausible to me either.
    Second, Paul says, ‘to the married’ in v10 and ‘to the rest’ in v12. ‘to the rest’ does
    not sound like a marker to indicate ‘subgroup of the general category previously discussed’ it sounds like a new category. Hence, I take it vv10-11 is speaking about ‘to those married’ to believers (and Paul, not uncharacteristically, leaves that bit out, and it only becomes clear when he then goes on to say ‘to the rest’ and discusses a different married group not a group that isn’t married at all).

    Third, Paul distinguishes between vv10-11 and vv12-16 in terms of who they are coming from. ‘the Lord not I’ ‘ I, not the Lord’. If all he was doing was applying the general principle to a specific situation that is complete overkill. Since when does Paul see that he needs to say, “Now the principle comes from Christ, but I need to spell out that the application (a blindingly obvious one on the view that this is an application) comes from me’? That’s also really strange compared to his practice generally.

    Given that the argument for reading them as ‘general principle and application’ is implausible on several grounds, but the alternative that it’s two different married groups – people married to believers and people married to an unbeliever – is not (it may create contradictions, and that’s an issue, but it doesn’t make the natural sense of the words implausible) that’s the more probable relationship between the two sections.

    3. If Paul was introducing Jesus’ prohibition on divorce in 1 Cor 7:10-11 then he has changed it. Jesus gives no hint of, “You must not divorce (on the view that divorce and separate are synonyms, which I don’t quite buy)…but if you do then you must not remarry.” Jesus says, “What God has joined, let man not separate.” While he says that remarriage is adultery, he gives no provisions for divorce (or separation if you think they are synonyms). While remarrying is the sin of adultery, divorcing (or separating) is sin too.

    So either 1 Cor 7:10-11 is not a reference to what we have in the Gospels, or Paul is showing that a feature that looks global there isn’t as global as it looks. Even with what Jesus said when he said ‘let man not separate’, you are allowed to separate or divorce as long as you don’t remarry. “Don’t do it, but if you do then don’t remarry.” That is not what Jesus said, and if by what he said he meant a universal prohibition on divorce then it isn’t what he meant either. Do not divorce/separate. And that is all folks.

    For that not to be the case, then Paul is saying, “Don’t commit this sin. But if you do commit that sin, then at least don’t commit the next sin in the chain.” And if that’s what he’s saying, then these two verses are a conceptual hapax in Paul.

    4. The meaning of ‘not enslaved’ in 1 Cor 7:15.

    For this to mean something other than ‘free’, it would mean that we have three states of being: ‘enslaved’ (or ‘bound’), ‘not enslaved’, and ‘free’.

    Paul here is speaking about being bound by a covenant,. For Paul, there is a ‘law of marriage’ and it binds you. The way that Paul uses the analogy of marriage in Rom 7:1-4 shows that for Paul being in marriage is to be bound (or enslaved) and that when the marriage ends (by death of the spouse in Romans 7:1-4) the wife is released from the law of marriage and is free from the law of marriage. Given Romans 7:1-4, it is unlikely that Paul is referring to anything other than the person’s being bound to marriage when he says ‘not enslaved’. Release from responsibility for the other’s spiritual welfare and the like are consequences of not being married to them any longer, it’s not an alternative where you are kind-of not married but kind-of are married, so you’re ‘not enslaved’ to this obligation, but you are to that one. Paul’s eyes are on the covenantal and legal nature of marriage, and that’s the most natural way to take ‘not enslaved’.

    When Paul says, in Romans 7:1-4 and 1 Cor 7:39 that a wife is bound to her husband as long as he lives and may not marry while he is alive or else she is an adulteress, but if he dies then she is free to remarry, then that has nothing at all to say about divorce.

    A woman marries person Bill. Bill is her husband. As long as Bill lives she may not marry someone else or she is an adulterer.
    A woman marries Bill. Bill is her husband. They are divorced. Is Bill her husband then?
    If you say, “Yes” – then divorce is pretty well meaningless. I can’t see what you’d say if someone asked you for a definition of divorce.
    If you say “No” – then the divorce ends the marriage, and so the person is no longer bound by the marriage.
    Hanging things on ‘not enslaved’ versus ‘free’ is very shaky ground in my opinion. I think Paul shows more willingness to change his vocabulary than would be needed for that work.

    Pointing out that Paul explicitly says the widow can remarry in 1 Cor 7:39 but not in 1 Cor 7:15 is not that weighty a factor in my view. Paul’s words in 1 Cor 7:39 comes after his advocacy for singleness over divorce in 1 Cor 7:32-38 and doesn’t stand alone, it is part of the package that comes with 1 Cor7:40 where he then encourages widows too to remain single. None of that is occurring in 1 Cor 7:12-16 where it appears, from what Paul says there, that he’s stopping people from divorcing unbelieving spouses who are willing to stay married (probably because that would be uniting Christ with Belial or something similar) or who are fighting a divorce or abandonment initiated by an unbeliever (possibly because they think that they must not divorce). It’s not a situation where he’s been saying (and will say again) “you can but I think it’s better if you don’t”. That’s simply not his focus there in the way it is with the widow, he’s addressing different pastoral issues and that shapes what he highlights and what he doesn’t.

    Hence I think the reading of 1 Cor 7 I offered earlier is a much better way of understanding Paul’s words here.

    • Sigh, and I tried so hard:

      Paul’s words in 1 Cor 7:39 comes after his advocacy for singleness over divorce in 1 Cor 7:32-38 and doesn’t stand alone, it is part of the package that comes with 1 Cor7:40 where he then encourages widows too to remain single.

      this needs to be changed to:

      Paul’s words in 1 Cor 7:39 comes after his advocacy for singleness over marriage in 1 Cor 7:32-38 and doesn’t stand alone, it is part of the package that comes with 1 Cor7:40 where he then encourages widows too to remain single.

    • Mark,

      Once again, thanks for your time and effort on this. It has been a real blessing.

      Here are some responses to your arguments above, numbered according to your numbering.

      1) I pretty much agree with you on this. Cultural and historical matters are of vital importance to Bible translators, and are helpful in understanding the nuances (or deeper meanings) for readers. Overplaying the importance of these issues often leads, in my experience, to reading too much into scripture, rather than correcting misreadings. Nonetheless, it is useful to keep these things in mind. In this case I concur that they have a small impact and much of the context is present within the words of 1 Corinthians themselves.

      2) If 12-16 is an application of 10-11 it is hardly superfluous since it contains the important points that a) being married to an unbeliever is not a cause for separation, and b) if the unbeliever separates you should allow that. This is clearly a concern for the Corinthians and neither is entirely obvious from 10-11 (I would have thought that (a) was, but people do like to throw exceptions into this topic). I agree that “the rest” in v. 12 certainly implies that 10-11 is a different category, but doesn’t require it. Finally, Paul differentiating between the source of these directives fits well with either model.

      Let me demonstrate with a parallel example.

      “The law of Australia says that books belong to the purchaser, and after purchase they may do anything with them except copy them.

      As for other books (e.g. ebooks), I say (not the law, but I) that they can be copied onto devices owned and controlled by the purchaser, but not onto devices owned or controlled by others.”

      As you can see, I am first stating the general principal which actually applies to all books (given that the law doesn’t speak to ebooks), but then I’m applying the principal in the case of “other books,” ebooks, which have some special concerns. This structure doesn’t seem particularly remarkable to me, and I don’t think your arguments against 10-16 being an instance of this are strong enough to dismiss my proposal.

      3) You claim, “Jesus gives no hint of, ‘You must not divorce … but if you do then you must not remarry.'” On the contrary, if you read Mk 10:9-12, you can see that Jesus is considering the possibility of divorce and the moral status of remarriage. Both Paul and Jesus are saying: divorce is wrong and if you get divorced anyway then remarriage is wrong. I’m not sure why you think this is so hard to understand — we humans commit sins that put us in bad situations in which we are then tempted to further sins all the time. Why can’t Jesus or Paul speak to this?

      4) It is quite easy to demonstrate from the words of 1 Cor 7 that Paul understands marriage as having three states. Let me explain.

      In vv. 8-9 Paul discusses the unmarried and widows (and, I assume, widowers, although he doesn’t mention them explicitly). He makes clear that they are free to marry. Let’s give this a neutral name, “State 1,” so we don’t bias our analysis.

      In vv. 8-11 Paul mentions those who are married (whether a subset or not doesn’t matter, since it is their married state that is important, not other qualifiers). We will call this “State 2.” People in State 1 are allowed to transition to State 2 (though Paul encourages them to stay in State 1). People in State 2 are required to stay in State 2 (v. 10).

      However, if people in State 2 “separate” do they enter State 1? It would appear not, since v. 11 requires that people who have separated either remain unmarried (the same word used to point to State 1, now further qualified, but nonetheless demonstrating that “separation” is no longer State 2) or reconcile with their partner (a return to State 2). Since we can see that people in the “separated” state are not in State 2, and since they are not free to remarry (they must remain unmarried) we know they are not in State 1, we find that they must be in a new state, State 3.

      This laborious explanation justifies what is, I think, obvious to a careful reader who isn’t trying to avoid this sort of conclusion.

      In other words, your claim that “divorce is pretty well meaningless” is actually quite contrary to Paul’s thinking. For Paul and Jesus, divorce is not license to remarry, but merely the removal of the prior marriage relationship, hardly meaningless (but certainly not as desirable as the world’s view of divorce).

      Now that we have demonstrated Paul’s understanding of these three states, we can name them: State 1 is “free” (as in free to marry), State 2 is “bound” (as in bound or joined to one another) and State 3 is “not bound” (as in not bound but neither free). We are not then puzzled when Paul then uses this terminology in 1 Cor 7. Furthermore, it is clear that understanding “not enslaved/bound” as indicating State 3 is hardly a foreign concept to Paul’s discussion here, but rather fits exactly where we would expect it.

      (My point on Paul using “free” to refer to the widow’s situation is merely supporting evidence for my view.)

      Given that you deny the three states of marriage that Paul undeniably maps out in vv. 10-11, I don’t think that your reading of 1 Cor 7 holds, and you are required to modify it. Of course, this doesn’t force you to accept my reading, but I don’t see any reason to insist that 1 Cor 7:12-16 is necessarily talking about an exception to the “remarriage is adultery” position of Jesus, and thus we don’t need to find reasons to modify Jesus’ argument regarding marriage in order to harmonize these passages. (We merely need to accept my reading of 1 Cor 7 and the plain sense reading of Jesus.) Indeed, if you insist on taking the “exception” line, it seems to me that you must be relying on extra-Biblical resources for doing so. Now that may be valid, but that’s something you would have to justify, and I personally don’t think it’s possible (I’ve heard lots of attempts to do so, and none of them are very satisfying).

      Hopefully that clarifies some things.

      • Hi Malcolm,

        You are welcome, and I’m glad you’re finding this helpful. I have to also extend my appreciation as well – especially for you suggesting that my stance towards Scripture was like Moo’s view. I have been trying to articulate (even just to myself) what I gestured at for possibly close to ten years now, and could never get it in focus clearly. You provided the thing that finally brought it into view (no doubt there’s more there, but I finally can something more than ‘Scripture is light and I am darkness’ or words to that effect) and so brought something into clarity that has been nagging at me for around a decade. I am very grateful.

        I think we’re at the stage where me quoting and responding will work better again, so I’ll do that for this comment.

        If 12-16 is an application of 10-11 it is hardly superfluous since it contains the important points that a) being married to an unbeliever is not a cause for separation, and b) if the unbeliever separates you should allow that. This is clearly a concern for the Corinthians and neither is entirely obvious from 10-11 (I would have thought that (a) was, but people do like to throw exceptions into this topic).

        a)Really is superfluous. If Jesus is saying ‘What God has joined let man not separate’ and that means a global prohibition, then that means a global prohibition. We can’t going saying, “Jesus’ words here so clearly eliminate the validity of any divorce” on the divorce question but then say, “They’re sufficiently unclear that it needed to be made clear that you don’t divorce an unbeliever” on the divorce question. It’s the same question. (Obviously we can, and may have to for other reasons, my point is that it is implausible compared to the alternative.)

        b) “the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband)” would seem to me to cover ‘if you get separated through someone else’s actions’. If you want to argue that it could do with just a little more elucidation for conscience’s sake, then okay, a short extra verse is all that is needed.

        The point is, verses 12-16 remain complete overkill on your view. I can live with that, that kind of thing is arguably in the eye of the beholder, but I do have to factor it in when I’m looking at what’s more plausible.

        “The law of Australia says that books belong to the purchaser, and after purchase they may do anything with them except copy them. As for other books (e.g. ebooks), I say (not the law, but I) that they can be copied onto devices owned and controlled by the purchaser, but not onto devices owned or controlled by others.” As you can see, I am first stating the general principal which actually applies to all books (given that the law doesn’t speak to ebooks), but then I’m applying the principal in the case of “other books,” ebooks, which have some special concerns.

        I like arguments from analogies, but I don’t think this one works. An ebook is not a book. It’s a completely different way of storing information. That’s why there’s been a problem with working out what to do with these things, and why new legislation has been needed to deal with computerised information technology. It has ‘book’ in the name but an ‘ebook’ is not a ‘book’, it’s something new. Your analogy actually supports my case – new situation closely related to the one that we have information on, so someone needs to articulate the extra principles necessary to address it.
        The analogy for your case is that we have someone going something more like, “You’ve got laws about how cars should drive on the road, but I’ve got special needs, I drive a subcategory – I drive an SUV (Queue Veggie Tales http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0NfaKiPIMc I wonder how long I can keep this up?) and so I need special application of the law to me.” I’m not thinking the law, or the police officer, or the guy writing “the Manual for Driving in This Locality” is going to say, ‘the law says, but I say to SUV drivers…’

        This is an application either utterly obvious in the principle or, if you’re being nice, could do with just a quick extra word at one point. In such a situation, “This is from me and not the Lord”? (Not the Lord? How can a really straightforward application not be from the one whose principle you are applying?) Yes, your take on the words is implausible. Not impossible, but not my first choice.

        You claim, “Jesus gives no hint of, ‘You must not divorce … but if you do then you must not remarry.'” On the contrary, if you read Mk 10:9-12, you can see that Jesus is considering the possibility of divorce and the moral status of remarriage.

        I agree with your second sentence completely. It doesn’t affect my claim, that you’ve quoted, at all from what I can see. Yes Jesus addresses the moral status of divorce and the moral status of remarriage; I said that too, in different words. That does not mean that he is saying, “don’t do this but if you do then don’t do that”, where the latter bit gives a hint of permission to the first bit. On your view, He’s saying don’t divorce. He’s also saying that remarriage is adultery. (I’d own that too, just with a few exceptions, the point is that on your view Jesus doesn’t have any exceptions for divorce.) That’s close to what Paul is saying, but it isn’t the same.

        I’m not sure why you think this is so hard to understand — we humans commit sins that put us in bad situations in which we are then tempted to further sins all the time. Why can’t Jesus or Paul speak to this?

        Of course they can and do. My point is, show me somewhere where Paul seems to be saying, “Don’t commit sin A, but if you do then you *really* need to not commit sin B which piggybacks on sin A”. That’s all, show me an example other than this. I’m cautious about hanging things on hapaxes. Not utterly opposed, just cautious. Jesus simply isn’t saying “but if you do which implies a certain degree of acceptance of it. And Paul doesn’t normally either – entertaining a possibility he’s just called on people to not take up.

        I think, obvious to a careful reader who isn’t trying to avoid this sort of conclusion

        This? This here? Don’t do this. This is precisely the sort of language that tends to derail Christian internet discussions (indeed any internet discussions) into flaming. You don’t think I’m a careful reader or that I’m trying to avoid a conclusion, then fine. That’s your call as someone reading my words. But don’t imply it out loud unless it is your swansong where you’re setting yourself up to say in your next comment, “By not immediately accepting my devastatingly persuasive arguments you’ve shown yourself to be so incompetent/so ungodly that further conversation is a waste of time” as you bow out of the conversation. Because making such a comment pushes us pretty quickly to that point anyway. Let the reader (including me) draw that conclusion about people who don’t hold your view on that point for themselves by just how much more compelling your reading of the text is.

        I don’t care all that much if you just accuse me personally of this, I will usually just negate such accusations, but I don’t really care. Especially when I’ve made some global comments about my frustrations with what I think is going on (unlike you I didn’t speculate on whether incompetency or bad motives was the reason for that, I just focused on the thing itself, but people don’t often get that distinction) that could be taken as implying something about you. But there is an implication in your words that goes to Michael and to other people I respect, in this case, dead people – the Reformers. And I’ll fight hard for their honour if this goes further (and it’s hardly the first time you’ve done this. You began by accusing the Reformers of essentially selling out on multiple fronts as the reason for their position). If you want to do this, or conscience requires you to say it because I’m being so incompetent/ungodly and love impels you to call me on it, then keep it focused very clearly on me and me only.
        I’ll finish here with one more minor thing and turn to your substantial argument in the next comment:

        In other words, your claim that “divorce is pretty well meaningless” is actually quite contrary to Paul’s thinking.

        *ahem* that was in response to someone saying that even after you were divorced then your spouse is still your husband and so Paul’s argument about death freeing someone married to remarry applies to divorced people as well – that only death can do it. My point is that that statement by Paul does not address the situation where the man ceases to be the woman’s husband for a different reason.

        You’re criticising my argument for doing something (not recognising a third state between marriage and singleness) that it wasn’t interested in anyway – it was interested in the question of whether a man is still a woman’s husband after they divorce. To say that after a divorce your husband is still your husband (which is built-in to Paul’s argument there) made ‘divorce’ meaningless in my view. It’s still my view unless you can show me why that’s wrong. Whatever else is going on, one’s spouse is no longer your spouse if you are divorced.

        • Mark,

          Some quick responses.

          I don’t think applying general principles to specific cases is redundant at all, and I think the Bible contains an awful lot of that. Especially when people need reassurance. And I think you missed my point with (b) — my point is that the believer need not concern themselves if the unbeliever separates from them. As has been mentioned by others several days ago in this discussion, people often feel guilty about separation. If Paul hadn’t added his own opinion on this matter, vv. 10-11 would clearly have left the abandoned believer still feeling very responsible.

          You say, “Jesus simply isn’t saying ‘but if you do [divorce]’ which implies a certain degree of acceptance of it.” However, that is precisely what Jesus says in Mk 10:12: “if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery.”

          I really don’t understand why you believe recognising that people can (and do) sin, and dealing with further sins that are only possible from that sinful state, is in any way endorsing the first sin.

          As for Paul saying “Don’t commit sin A, but if you do then you *really* need to not commit sin B which piggybacks on sin A,” how else could you interpret 1 Cor 7:10-11: “the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband)?” (Although I don’t think the “*really*” is in there). Isn’t Paul saying “you shouldn’t do this, but if you do, you shouldn’t then do that?”

          Regarding my comment about the obviousness of the meaning — it was not intended to belittle you, and I apologise for the implication. It was intended as a statement of how obvious it seems to me (I can’t see other possibilities). Perhaps I should have said, “I can’t see any way that the force of this conclusion can be avoided.” Asking for several examples of Paul saying the same sorts of things is not really helpful when his (as far as I can see) obvious language is denied. I just want to understand WHY it’s not obvious. If we make this language about something else, wouldn’t we understand it the way I’m suggesting? (Regarding my comments on the reformers, I’ll let people read my words and come to their own conclusions on what I meant.)

          Which brings me to the book/ebook issue (which was to indicate the plausibility of my understanding of the overall structure of vv. 10-16). That an ebook is a book is pretty clear to me. Note: a book is not a codex, a codex is merely a type of book (the most common type, to the point where many people think of a codex when they think of a book). An ebook is, however, just as much a book as a codex is. It just carries the properties of a book in a different form. Your example with cars/SUV’s is clearly not going to demonstrate my argument, and is thus unhelpful. However, if we substitute “vehicle” and “bus,” then we may have a better analogy, but it is still cluttered up in our minds with all the existing laws, so really not very useful. My point was not to demonstrate that this form of language is common (who speaks like Paul, anyway?), but to demonstrate that my interpretation was indeed plausible.

          Regarding the possible meaningless of divorce, if I said that a divorcee’s ex-husband is still their husband, then obviously I was wrong: that would deny the “third state” that Paul (and Jesus) map out. However, their ex-husband is still something more to them than any other man, since that is the only person they can legitimately become married to. However, it seems to me that your argument was insisting that divorce MUST allow remarriage or it isn’t divorce, while I am arguing that Jesus and Paul are insisting that divorce doesn’t actually free you to remarry, and are therefore redefining divorce, not making it meaningless.

        • Let me add something to my argument on this:

          b) if the unbeliever separates you should allow that. This is clearly a concern for the Corinthians and neither is entirely obvious from 10-11

          That might make my point clearer.

          The claim is that the principle “if the unbelieving spouse separates you should allow that” is not entirely obvious from vv10-11 and so warrants vv12ff.

          My question is, is it obvious that if the believing spouse separates a spouse should allow that? Paul gives his instructions “to the married” (1 Cor 7:10) and not “to the church” or “to the elders”. He’s speaking of what spouses should do, not how others might address the actions of those spouses.

          On the view that allowing an unbelieving spouse to leave is an implication of Paul’s words in 1 Cor 7:10-11 then those same words must also carry either the implication, “Christians must not accept a divorce or separation initiated by a believer – they must continue to live as though they were married” or else the words there include the implication: “Christians should accept a divorce or separation initiated by a believing spouse”. It’s one or the other.

          If it is the latter, then why is that so clear in the words that it didn’t need expansion, but accepting an unbelieving spouse’s divorce was so obscure that it needed its own explanation?

          Either Christians are not allowed to accept a divorce initiated in disobedience by a believer and must continue to live as though they are married (which arguably could have done with just a little clarification if ‘do not divorce’ needed to be clarified to include ‘do not divorce an unbeliever‘), or else there’s something about being married to an unbeliever that means that you just couldn’t be sure that you should accept a divorce initiated by them whereas it was obvious you should if it had been initiated by a believer.

          I find little of either option plausible in light of the text we have.

          • cross-posted with Malcolm above. Doesn’t affect too much, but it looks a bit tendentious (indeed is tendentious) otherwise.

          • Mark,

            Another quick reply on this one.

            There is a reason why early Christians might be concerned about the marriage between believers and unbelievers to the point of needing reassurance that it was OK to remain married. That reason is that the scriptures available to them (the OT) condemned the marriage of God’s people with those who weren’t part of his covenant, and explained that the holy people would be corrupted by the unholy. Paul makes clear in his argument that this is not the case for Christians but rather the reverse (which points to their concern).

            Therefore your doubt about why this case needs special treatment is actually answered in the text (1 Cor 7:14).

            Oh, and I’m not sure what you mean by “On the view that allowing an unbelieving spouse to leave is an implication of Paul’s words in 1 Cor 7:10-11,” since I’ve never suggested that view. I’m saying that it is a non-obvious application, not an implication. As I have said before, the implications of Paul’s words in v. 15 seem, on my view, to be that the unbeliever carries the burden of guilt for the divorce while the believer does not. (This would not be the case for two believers since they both have Christ’s grace to work through this and any failure would thus be shared. Of course, I would accept that a person who claims to be a believer but behaves like an unbeliever should actually be considered to be an unbeliever.)

          • Malcolm,

            Also quickly,

            If Paul hadn’t added his own opinion on this matter, vv. 10-11 would clearly have left the abandoned believer still feeling very responsible.

            So, in light of my above comment, is he not offering that comfort to people abandoned by a believer rather an unbeliever or do they not need that comfort because it’s so obvious from vv10–11?

            As for Paul saying “Don’t commit sin A, but if you do then you *really* need to not commit sin B which piggybacks on sin A,” how else could you interpret 1 Cor 7:10-11: “the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband)?” (Although I don’t think the “*really*” is in there). Isn’t Paul saying “you shouldn’t do this, but if you do, you shouldn’t then do that?”

            I’d be interested to get others’ take on this. I’ve taken
            -the ‘but if you do’ as an allusion to doing it when there is cause – at least in the case of porneia for most of us, however the argument pans out for other cases. And in context, given Paul’s “if-then” structure in 1 Cor 7:12—which I don’t recall you addressing as to how you understand that construction if divorce and separating are the same—also where a husband divorces a wife who has not consented to live with him (and again, I don’t recall you addressing how that seems to be a necessary implication of Paul’s words there). And
            -the ‘should not separate’ as similar to my reading of Jesus’ words: a statement of the ideal, that has some qualifications under certain circumstances.

            I’ll happily concede that the words themselves in isolation are more plausibly understood on your take – I’m saying that it seems really strange given Paul’s normal practice, sufficiently so that I think it makes a different reading more plausible. It’s a more plausible light of Paul’s normal practice of telling people not to commit two sins, both of which are related.

            Regarding my comment about the obviousness of the meaning — it was not intended to belittle you, and I apologise for the implication.

            Apology accepted, and thanks for the explanation. I know how hard it is to get the words wrong and did it myself to Sandy earlier.
            I’m still not convinced on your book/ebook analogy:

            Note: a book is not a codex, a codex is merely a type of book (the most common type, to the point where many people think of a codex when they think of a book). An ebook is, however, just as much a book as a codex is.

            And therein lies the problem of your argument. Originally ‘book’ meant something like ‘self-contained work’ or even a ‘book’ within a self-contained work (Plato’s Republic Book One). But it’s come to mean “codex”. It’s this shift in meaning that enables us to say that the Bible is “66 books in one book” – it’s actually a play on words that depends on a shift in meaning on the words ‘book’. And that’s the meaning ‘codex’ that ‘book’ has in legislation when they cover how much you can photocopy a ‘book’ – ‘book’ there means ‘codex’. Hence an ‘ebook’ is the same thing as a ‘book’ in the sense of ‘Plato’s Republic’ but not in the sense of the physical thing you buy and might photocopy. And legislation on photocopying books (usually) is addressing the physical thing.
            I agree that ‘vehicle’ and ‘bus’ is perhaps the best analogy yet for your case. My point is that even there, you only apply the general principles of the law to the specific case of the bus when that gets you a different outcome than in most normal other cases due to something special to do with that case. And I haven’t heard you argue that either “don’t divorce an unbeliever” or “if an unbeliever divorces you it isn’t your fault” materially changes if it is a believing spouse in the picture instead.
            Your last point gets us back to your (very strong) substantive argument. And I’ll get to that when I interact with it in its own comment.

          • (This would not be the case for two believers since they both have Christ’s grace to work through this and any failure would thus be shared. Of course, I would accept that a person who claims to be a believer but behaves like an unbeliever should actually be considered to be an unbeliever.)

            I was hoping you weren’t going where you have just seemed to gone, and my argument has been structured around that assumption (there’s a limit to how many possibilities I can interact with before the argument becomes utterly turgid).

            You are saying that if my Christian spouse divorces me, when I don’t want them to, have done everything in my power to reconcile with them, when I want to continue living with them and do not want them to leave, the divorcing spouse and I share responsibility?

            And that’s why Paul does not reassure Christians who get divorced by another Christian who is being disobedient, because the Christian who is divorced is also partly guilty of the sin of divorce and so can’t be reassured that the blame falls entirely on the other party? It really is their fault as well?

            Have I heard you correctly?

          • Sigh. This is just wrong:

            I’d be interested to get others’ take on this. I’ve taken
            -the ‘but if you do’ as an allusion to doing it when there is cause – at least in the case of porneia for most of us, however the argument pans out for other cases. And in context, given Paul’s “if-then” structure in 1 Cor 7:12—which I don’t recall you addressing as to how you understand that construction if divorce and separating are the same—also where a husband divorces a wife who has not consented to live with him (and again, I don’t recall you addressing how that seems to be a necessary implication of Paul’s words there). And
            -the ‘should not separate’ as similar to my reading of Jesus’ words: a statement of the ideal, that has some qualifications under certain circumstances.

            I’ve managed to confuse myself.

            Instead of that, I think the following:

            1. “Should not separate” is not the same as “should not divorce”. I think the instructions to husbands and wives in this instance have a little bit of difference, but they also condition each other (i.e. ‘do not separate’ is not the same as ‘do not divorce’ but that doesn’t mean wives can divorce and husbands can separate, just that (and here’s the cultural argument) husbands could just divorce, a wife had to get permission from the government to divorce).

            That’s got some difficulties I’ll concede (among other things it imports culture and I’ll acknowledge Malcolm’s concern at that point), but it’s got no more (in fact I think it’s got less) than arguing that Paul tells wives to “not do x” and if you do “then don’t do y” before telling husbands to “not do x” (using a different word for ‘x’ than the one he used for wives) and doesn’t even mention “and if you do then don’t do y”. Why does this need to be divided into husbands and wives if the instruction is exactly the same because ‘separate’ and ‘divorce’ are synonyms?

            This is especially the case when we consider that Paul omits ‘but must stay unmarried or be reconciled’ in the instructions to the husband, especially when it is argued that the fact that Paul tells widows they can remarry but doesn’t say it in 1 Cor 7:15 is significant for understanding ‘not enslaved’.

            If the silence is important there, then it is arguably important in vv10-11, and the fact that Paul doesn’t tell husbands they must stay unmarried might then (I don’t believe this but it’s for the sake of the argument) explains why he has two instructions to the two spouses – if it isn’t because ‘separate’ and ‘divorce’ are different then the reason for it is that other bit that is only said to wives – only they are restricted post-marriage.

            This could be challenged on the grounds that Paul really does give the same instructions to husbands and wives in vv12-13, so why not vv10-11? My response is that in vv12-13 they are the same down to the same terminology used, and no ‘extra’ clauses offered to one party that is not to the other. The combination of ‘separate’ (appearing only to the wife in vv10-11 and not repeated to either the husband there or either husband or wife in vv11-12 where it is ‘do not divorce’) with ‘and must remain unmarried etc’ makes the instructions to the wife in v10-11 different from those to the husband in vv10-11 and the husband and wife in vv12-13.

            2. As I reject the view that separate and divorce are the same, hence Paul is saying something different in the two cases in 1 Cor 7:10-11 in his use of ‘do not separate’ as opposed to ‘do not divorce’.

            “Husbands do not divorce” means do not divorce, full stop. No provisions for what you do if you do divorce, just as Paul doesn’t normally give provisions for what you do if you disobey one of his commands.

            “Wives do not separate” – That is the ideal.

            “but if you do” – But separating is not always sin, and if you do separate then you must either reconcile or be, for all intents and purposes, unmarried. In this instance the placing of ‘do not’ with ‘but if you do’ conditions both so as to give ‘do not’ a slightly different connotation than when it appears with ‘but if you do’. Separating cuts against the grain of marriage and so do not do it, but it does not end the marriage so if you do then it is not some backdoor way to remarry. Stay effectively unmarried or reconcile, they are your only two options.

            At the level of just the words to the wife, considered in isolation to all other factors, separate = divorce is more plausible as it makes better sense of Paul’s use of ‘unmarried’, because I am saying that at this point the wife actually is still married, and so Paul’s using “unmarried” in a somewhat metaphorical fashion (and having “orange carded” Malcolm’s attempt to do just this very thing on “not enslaved”). Nonetheless, I think not doing this makes other things sufficiently strained (as I’ve argued above) that seeing Paul’s use of ‘unmarried’ here (which seems to be in the wrong gender from my knowledge of Greek – the word used would more commonly be used to describe a single male – don’t have a commentary to hand on this, can anyone speak to that?) in more the sense of ‘effectively unmarried’ works better.

          • Grrr. As well as forgetting to “/” the end of my italicization i also missed an important negation here:

            In this instance the placing of ‘do not’ with ‘but if you do’ conditions both so as to give ‘do not’ a slightly different connotation than when it appears with ‘but if you do’.

            That should be:

            In this instance the placing of ‘do not’ with ‘but if you do’ conditions both so as to give ‘do not’ a slightly different connotation than when it appears without ‘but if you do’.

            Once again, my kingdom for a ‘preview’ function!

          • Malcolm,

            I’ve had a chance to sit down and carefully work through your argument on 1 Cor 7 that involves State 1, State 2, and State 3. It looks like, without realising it, I’ve already addressed most of the key points already, still I’ll set it out here in direct conversation with it, as it was (is) a strong argument and deserves it.

            1)I’m happy to swap ‘State 1’ ‘State 2’ and ‘State 3’ for ‘unmarried’ ‘not enslaved’ and ‘free’, but I think it does need to be kept in mind in looking at the issues that ‘not enslaved’ and ‘free’ aren’t names Bill and Mary – they are words chosen to say something about the reality Paul is speaking about. And so an apparent similarity might be important.

            It’d be like someone saying, “Now Paul has the terms ‘condemned’ ‘not condemned’ and ‘justified/righteous. It could be premature to just assume that ‘justified/righteous’ and ‘not condemned’ are the same, so let’s call them ‘State 2’ and ‘State 3’. (Hat tip to Michael for that). Well, sure, but I’d also want to say, ‘Let’s also keep in mind that ‘not condemned’ might be intended to draw a connection with ‘righteous/justified’ and keeping the names might be an important exegetical clue if we are weighing factors up.’

            2)I don’t accept that Paul sees ‘separate’ and ‘divorce’ as synonyms. I’ve (finally, after a false start) given my reasons for that. And your argument almost entirely hangs on that identification in those two words.

            The language of ‘separate from your husband’ is not the same thing as ‘God has made these two one and what God has joined let man not divide’. The former is entirely plausibly speaking of living with someone (especially in light of 1 Cor 7:12-13 where the husband and wife must not divorce if the person is willing to live with them. I’d be inclined to read ‘separate’ and ‘divorce’ in vv10-11 in light of ‘willing to live with’ and ‘divorce’ in vv12-13). The latter is speaking of dividing a unified reality established by God.

            They have implications for each other, but that doesn’t mean that the word means the same thing in the two authors, any more than it is just obvious that James’ use of ‘justify’ is the same as Paul’s even though he seems to be addressing a very similar (possibly the same) issue.

            3)

            For Paul and Jesus, divorce is not license to remarry, but merely the removal of the prior marriage relationship, hardly meaningless (but certainly not as desirable as the world’s view of divorce).

            You might be right, and this might be the case, but does this really scan as easily for you as it seems to? How the prior marriage relationship be removed and yet you are not free to marry? What is stopping you? Your (no longer existing because it has been removed) marriage relationship with your spouse? Does this command just hang in the air, or is there something in reality that it is grounded on?

            I find the idea that the language of ‘if you divorce, and remarry, then you commit adultery against your spouse’ means that the divorce in question hasn’t ended the marriage makes better sense. In my view that means that a wrong divorce is no divorce at all – you are still married. Divorce only works when there are grounds for divorce, it is all about ‘fault’, of a breach of the vows.

          • This here that I said no doubt can look quite strange:

            I find the idea that the language of ‘if you divorce, and remarry, then you commit adultery against your spouse’ means that the divorce in question hasn’t ended the marriage makes better sense. In my view that means that a wrong divorce is no divorce at all – you are still married. Divorce only works when there are grounds for divorce, it is all about ‘fault’, of a breach of the vows.

            But it reflects my view on marriage. I don’t believe that a marriage entered into wrongly is a genuine marriage. You can’t marry your dog, even if the state allows it. You can’t marry your daughter, or your mother, even if those are allowed in some degenerate society. You can’t marry your favorite movie. You can’t marry someone of the same gender.

            The state might legislate to recognise such relationships as marriages, but they are not marriages in reality. Marriage is something in creation, and while you can enter it badly, you can’t enter it wrongly. A wrong marriage is no marriage at all.

            My ‘a wrong divorce is no divorce’ reflects that stance on marriage. It’ll have plausibility or lack it to the degree you agree with that view about marriage, and the degree to which you think the parallel between entering marriage and leaving it is that close.

          • Mark,

            I presented my argument for three states of marriage as if I could derive it from 1 Cor 7:10-11 alone, but obviously I was incorrect, and I apologise for that misdirection.

            What is pressuring me to view separation as equivalent to divorce is the fact that Paul is claiming that he is here stating Jesus’ principle. Now we have Jesus’ words elsewhere so we can use them to understand Paul, and Mk 10:11-12 maps out the case for the woman divorcing her husband just as I read Paul as doing. Therefore I consider it unlikely that, in so deliberately transmitting Jesus’ words, Paul is adding a whole other act and state of affairs, never hinted at by Jesus (c.f. Mt 19:9, 5:32, and Lk 16:18) into the picture. In support of this view are two other pieces of evidence: the implication that marrying could be considered an option given by Paul’s demand to remain unmarried, and the Roman practice of the time (relevant to Corinthians) which allowed either partner to initiate divorce.

            Given these considerations, I find it very unlikely that Paul is talking about some other process than divorce here.

            Now regarding my understanding of these states, I see it this way.

            State 1 (unmarried/free to marry) is how we are born and how we are after God has “unjoined” what he joined together (by death). I also agree with you that a civil marriage may actually still be in this state. I don’t think God participates in sinful actions, and so I don’t think he joins together what he has clearly stated he will not (and I draw on the boundaries of marriage mapped out in the Pentateuch for understanding this).

            State 2 (marriage/bound) is the state in which God has joined a couple together. Generally the civil system agrees, but there are cases where the civil system refuses to recognise such unions (such as seen in Braveheart, under apartheid style systems, or as I have seen with refugee friends here in Hong Kong who often fall through cracks in the system).

            State 3 (divorced/not bound) is when the civil system recognises a prior marriage as dissolved but God does not (since it’s not up to man to separate what he has joined).

            So from this we can see that the coupling between the civil and God’s view of a person’s marital state is not direct. God keeps his own accounts, so to speak, and that’s entirely what State 3 is about, the difference between God’s accounts and mankind’s.

            Of course, the civil view of things has real consequences which both Jesus and Paul recognise (otherwise they wouldn’t even allow a State 3). We, too, can’t afford to treat this state as if it doesn’t exist — we need to support and encourage divorcees even more than single (state 1) and married (state 2) people, precisely because they are in such a difficult predicament. Jesus didn’t come to heal the healthy.

            And finally, a quick note to clarify my book/ebook example. The copyright law works not on the basis of physical objects, but on “literary works” (and other things such as visual works, but let’s just keep the discussion on the normal content of books). The overall principle of the law states that a literary work is not to be copied without authorisation for a certain period of time. The act includes lots of case law applying this principle to specific cases, but obviously this case law lags the actual technology, and thus, between the invention of ebooks and the updating of the law, one might find an example such as mine. Remember, I am only trying to demonstrate that there are cases, where the principle is known but the specific application hasn’t been addressed (and there are good reasons to be concerned about that application), that the form Paul uses would not be unexpected.

  49. On Malachi 2:10-16

    1. Malachi 2:10-12 and Mal 2:13-16 are two issues, not one. This is being indicated by “This is the second thing you do” in Mal 2:13. That’s indicating a second thing they do (as well as some of you marrying foreign wives, some of you are divorcing older wives in favour of new wives), not a second dimension to the one thing they do (in the one act you’re divorcing older wives and marrying new foreign wives).

    This reading fits Malachi’s words better. Malcolm appears to be saying that Malachi is correcting an abuse of the spirit of the Mosaic Law – divorcing your wife because you want to marry a foreign wife. But Jewish men could just add a foreign wife to their Jewish wife, there’s no need for them to divorce one in order to marry the other (emotions and financial constraints might mean some do, but all don’t have to). Do we think that Malachi is concerned about that? And so, on the logic that he’s simply rebuking the abuse of the divorce law in the situation where you’re marrying a foreign woman, he’s also only rebuking the practice of marrying a foreign woman when that involves divorcing the Jewish wife of your youth? Either marrying a foreign woman without that requiring the divorce of a Jewish wife, or only the divorce of a Jewish wife who wasn’t married back when you were young (if it was a more recent marriage he’d be okay with marrying the foreign woman) would be okay?

    And do we think that Malachi wouldn’t care about men divorcing the wives of their youth as long as it wasn’t tied up with marrying a foreign woman? If you divorce the wife of your youth in order to marry (or because you married) a foreign woman, well that’s being unfaithful to her and that’s covering your garments in violence. But if you’re doing it for any other reason that would be okay, entirely faithful and not at all violent?

    In other words – is it any less an abomination that defiles the sanctuary of the Lord to marry wrongly in vv10-12 if there’s no divorce in the picture? No. We don’t condition the thrust of that passage by the following one in order to generate a more complex and more focused concern. Then the same applies to vv13-16. That also shouldn’t be conditioned by the previous passage in order to generate and more complex and more focused concern.

    Two issues to do with marriage, not one complex one. Some men were marrying foreign wives. Some men were divorcing the wives of their youth. They’re both issues to do with marriage, but they’re two different issues to do with marriage hence, “This is the second thing you do”.

    2. Malachi is not saying all divorce is wrong; his interest is on husbands divorcing wives they married in their youth. Jesus’ interest is more global than that. No contest between us there.

    But, at least in my mind, that is not germane to my argument. My argument has to do with how Jesus’ words are read. The argument I’m opposing seems to go something like this:

    Moses basically allowed men to divorce their wives for pretty well any reason. Jesus overrules that by going back to the Genesis account and from that states that for his followers there is either to be no divorce at all or only divorce in the case of porneia. Jesus appeals to Genesis 1-3 to reduce the wide-ranging permission Moses gave for divorce.

    Part of my response involves this passage in Malachi. Malachi cannot alter the provisions of the Mosaic covenant; all he is authorised to do is expound those provisions. So where in Moses does it say that men can’t divorce the wives of their youth? On what authority is Malachi saying that people cannot do this? It looks in Mal 2:15 as though he makes the exact same moves that Jesus makes in order to justify this stance on divorcing the wife of your youth. Malachi goes over Moses’ head, goes back to Genesis and says – “God made the two one and gave them a portion of his Spirit”. He then adds in God’s unity, and finishes by pointing to the purpose of marriage (probably with Gen 1 ‘be fruitful and multiply in the background there).

    Malachi is not Jesus. So what is Malachi doing here? Is he doing the same thing as Jesus, and overruling Moses by going back to the original creational design for marriage and saying, “You can’t divorce the wife of your youth, it is wrong in light of creation”. If that’s what he’s doing, then he is doing the same thing as Jesus is in the above view (except he’s being trying to be sneaky and not clearly say that he’s overruling Moses’ wide-ranging divorce permission here). If that’s the case he’s doing something, by the Spirit, that he is not authorised to do according to what the Spirit says elsewhere.

    If he’s not overruling Moses’ divorce permission in light of creation, then what is Malachi doing? I would suggest that what he’s doing is reading those provisions in light of Genesis 1-3. He’s not overruling Moses, he’s putting what Moses says there in the correct framework for understanding what it does and does not allow – Gen 1-3, and especially the three elements he highlights – the union of the husband and wife, God’s unity, and the purpose of marriage. He’s showing that in light of those three factors, Moses does not allow men to divorce the wives of their youth.

    Now, if that’s what Malachi is doing, and the basic moves he makes here in appealing to Gen 1-3 and not Moses to regulate divorce for people who know that Moses (apparently) allows divorce for any reason are basically the same as Jesus’, doesn’t that make it more likely that Jesus is doing the same thing as Malachi? He’s not overruling Moses, he’s setting Moses in the framework in which his permission should be understood. Even though Moses didn’t say, “Don’t divorce the wife of your youth” that was already there in the meaning of his words in light of Gen 1-3.

    By appealing to Gen 1-3 to indicate how we should read Moses’ permission, Jesus is doing what Malachi did. And I find it hard to see why that same technique is a change to the Law when Jesus does it, but is an interpretation of it when Malachi does it.

    Since this is the end of my sequence of three, let me make clear something I haven’t spelled out yet.

    I think God hates divorce. Even when it is not sin, it is like suffering and death – something that was not there originally and is only here because of sin. My interest is not in making divorce any easier for Christians. Too many are divorcing now. But I think the Reformation taught us that we need to follow Scripture, and that even when it seems to be more libertine than we think is wise, that is actually the best strategy for godliness. IIRC I dissent with Michael in that I don’t think, by and large, you should be divorced and ordained even when that divorce is not your fault – there’s no blame, but the leader has to display the original pattern. (And, for other reasons to do with my approach to epistemology, I don’t think that Paul was setting out an absolute rule in the relevant sections of the Pastorals, so there is some ‘give’ there, but it ain’t much.)

    The Reformers’ approach of allowing divorce in a wider range of circumstances than (most of us) do, but making it hard to access them, and a lot of intervention to try at all reasonable costs to divert you back to reconciliation, had much better outcomes than our approach seems to with no or only one or two conditions and very patchy pastoral intervention (that can often be avoided by going to a church that won’t do it).

    They didn’t have to face a ‘fault-free’ divorce situation like we do, or church hopping, so they had it easier there. Nonetheless, I think the answer here is not so much with the restrictions on divorce as on church discipline and pastoral involvement. Without those, my view will be a disaster in the current divorce climate if it takes hold. If we’re going to change one bit of the system (divorce for more than adultery) then we have to change the other bits connected to that too and really make it clear that divorce is not good by what we say and willingness to take disciplinary stands and get involved with marriages that are in trouble.

    • Mark,

      A quick response to this post, not because it is worth only a quick response, but because I agree with most of it.

      1) Yes, you are correct. I shouldn’t have conflated the two conditions here, since Malachi’s argument isn’t about what the goal of the divorce was, but rather the sinfulness of the divorce itself. I retract that conflation.

      2) First I should correct the impression that I’m claiming that the Mosaic Law allowed divorce “for pretty well any reason.” My argument is that the divorce permissions in the Mosaic Law themselves don’t include much in the way of limitations. By my understanding, one is intended to consider the spirit of the Law when exercising these (or any other) provisions. Malachi argues clearly (from Genesis) that the spirit of the law has been violated by these men who thus divorced their wives faithlessly. Malachi uses this to rule against these men who have clearly abused these provisions (he is not addressing marriage in general, remember, but a group of Jews in Jerusalem who have behaved in a particular way). Malachi gives us no reason to believe that he would use this line of argument against a man who had divorced a wife like, say, Homer, since he would not have been “faithless to the wife of [his] youth.”

      Jesus, on the other hand, feels free to use the same first principles to argue that the divorce provisions have never been God’s desire, but were a compromise for the hard (and unregenerate) hearts of Israel (Mk 10:5, Mt 19:8). The fact that Jesus’ uses the same principles to take the argument further than Malachi (applying it universally) is unsurprising (to us, since we understand from our position in time who Jesus is — he is the source of the Law), but what it reveals about the relationship of the Mosaic Law to God’s desires is, perhaps, surprising even to us. (Thus we see that Jesus words, understood at face value, can be challenging and surprising even now.)

      I respect your comments about the practical implementation of divorce rulings in the church, but I suspect that a huge contributing factor to the prevalence of divorce in the modern church is simply that the church no longer either has or exercises (or both) its authority. I don’t mean that in a dictatorial way, but in an accountability way. Basically, modern churchgoers (in almost any church) are rarely held to account for their beliefs or their behaviour. It is, then, hardly surprising that both of these reflect the world’s influence more than the Word’s.

      • Malcolm,

        Lol, I’m not sure people reading are going to be complaining that you or I manage to write a less long comment occasionally.

        I’m going to try an exercise in listening before ploughing ahead with the argument.

        I think it looks as though you and I now have common ground exegetically about Malachi 2:

        + Malachi is criticising men divorcing wives of their youth. He’s not doing anything narrower than that (e.g. when marrying a foreign woman). He’s not doing anything broader than that (e.g. he doesn’t say anything about any other divorce).

        + Malachi is interpreting Moses’ provisions in Gen 1-3 and so is attacking an abuse of provisions that might look as though they permit this kind of divorce if they were read without Gen 1-3 in mind.

        Our disagreement is over how this affects our reading of Jesus. For you, the following points are significant:

        1) Jesus has the authority to change the Mosaic covenant and Malachi does not.

        2) Jesus says the provision is because their hearts were hard and in the beginning it was not like that. For you, this fairly clearly shows a setting aside of Moses in favor of something more primordial. One of the things that you have concluded to get to this position is that Israel had hard hearts, but Christians do not.

        3) Jesus’ prohibition is clearly far more global than Malachi’s, indeed would seem to be a prohibition on all divorce, or all divorce except for adultery.

        4) Hence, even though Jesus and Malachi adopt the same technique, and interpret Moses through Gen 1-3, they are doing something quite different. Malachi is doing exegesis. Jesus is doing hermeneutics and writing a new law. They both do what they do using the same method as each other, but two very different activities are going on.

        Have I heard you correctly? Is there anything you think I’ve misheard or that needs to be added there?

        • This is sounding like a chorus:

          “Malachi is interpreting Moses’ provisions in light of Gen 1-3″ in the fourth ‘paragraph’ above.

          It’d probably surprise most of us to discover that Moses had divorce provisions in Gen 1-3 given Jesus said the opposite…

        • Mark,

          Yes, I think that captures what I’m understanding quite well, except for one small (but important) detail.

          I think the difference between the Jews and Christians is not so much that one group has hard hearts and the other does not, but that one was under the Old Covenant (a covenant of Law and repeated animal sacrifices), while the latter is under the New Covenant (with the law written on their hearts, per Jeremiah, or the indwelling of the Spirit). I think the different administration of these two covenants leads to quite different expectations from God. (But I’m not arguing for a dispensationalist position.)

          So while you might say that Jesus’ position as Son of God allows him to rule this way (while Malachi couldn’t), his role as mediator of the New Covenant motivates him to rule this way (while Malachi has no such motivation).

      • I respect your comments about the practical implementation of divorce rulings in the church, but I suspect that a huge contributing factor to the prevalence of divorce in the modern church is simply that the church no longer either has or exercises (or both) its authority. I don’t mean that in a dictatorial way, but in an accountability way. Basically, modern churchgoers (in almost any church) are rarely held to account for their beliefs or their behaviour. It is, then, hardly surprising that both of these reflect the world’s influence more than the Word’s.

        I think we’re in agreement here. It looks with you opening “I respect you comments….but…” that you see yourself as distancing yourself from what I said. But I see you as simply restating one of the things I said there. Have I misheard you? Is there something in what I said that you want to flag your disagreement with?

        • Mark,

          Rereading your statement and mine, yes, it looks like we are in general agreement there. (I use the qualifier “general” only because there may be some differences under the surface.)

          • And here I land with you both. One of the first significant things I did as rector at St Barnabas Broadway was implement a process of church discipline in two cases of marital sin. I regret having done that before teaching thoroughly on marriage and divorce, but these are the lessons we learn in youth, I guess.

            Tellingly, I had to look to a number of US churches for a model of how to practice this discipline, and have since been told by a number of ministers how ‘brave’ I had been. I did consult with the legal officers in the diocese first, but it feels hard to imagine how we might have been true to Scripture without proceeding down this path.

            As a result, my view is that it is ‘brave’ (in the British sense of foolhardy, reckless and stupid) for a church not to obey its King and practice appropriate church discipline.

  50. Quote…
    ” Michael Paget
    on 17 January, 2012 at 5:03 pm said:
    Malcolm, I would argue (and began to do so in the article above) that Jesus is invalidating the ‘any cause’ divorce in Mt 5:31-32, rather than abrogating divorce in general. That is, his absolutism is contextualised to the assumptions presented by his interlocutors.”

    Just a reminder that there can be a fine line between using a string of complicated words to explain a legitimate position, and falling into the trap making oneself appear to have a lack of humility. Nothing wrong with presenting a solid intellectual argument though. Just hoping that this is not a forum that is used to boast about one’s intellect.

    God bless,
    Matt

    • Matt,

      No, Michael isn’t using this forum to boast about his intellect. And he certainly isn’t doing it by lapsing into academic english when the main people he’s talking with (Malcolm and I) tend that way all the time because academia is our normal environment and it’s hard for us to catch ourselves and talk ‘normally’. He’s having a conversation with Malcolm and that kind of language is entirely legitimate between Michael and Malcolm.

      If you’d like to make a positive contribution to the discussion, I’m sure Michael would be able to match his vocabulary to yours. And I’m pretty confident that wouldn’t be him showing off whatever next sin someone wants to lay at his door, not-really-but-kinda-have-or-at-least-I’ve-managed-to-put-the-thought-out-there-without-being-so-tacky-as-to-make-a-clear-accusation-that-could-be-directly-addressed.

      I hope this is not a forum that is used to boast about one’s godliness by playing ‘gotcha’ with someone prepared to stick his neck out and have a go in the midst of pastoring a parish. But, hey, life is full of disappointments.

      in Christ,
      Mark

  51. The last sentence of Michael’s first paragraph was certainly taken seriously.

    After reading the discussion I am not sure what I would say to someone asking me about his or her divorce and/or remarriage. Fortunately that is a rare occurrence, and I am sometimes glad that I am not a pastor! Perhaps I will have to wait until someone matches my vocabulary.

    • David, I have a little tip of what to say when someone tells you about their divorce or remarriage. It goes like this: ‘Tell me more!’

  52. Hi David,

    Well, there’s a big difference between saying, “I can’t follow this and I want to, please say things differently” – I’ve had people on other threads back in the Sola day say that (sometimes quite strongly) – and implicitly accusing someone of showing off their great big brain because they said things in a way that you couldn’t follow.

    If there’s particular things you want – a certain section of the conversation explained, a couple of quotes deciphered, a summary of the positions to this point, or you want to highlight what sort of words or forms of speech is making the conversation incomprehensible, then put the comment up, and someone will hopefully be able to respond helpfully. Just because the conversation has taken a certain flavor to this point doesn’t mean it has to stay that way.

    But overall, I think we need to keep our expectations of what a comment thread can deliver in check. I’ve never seen a comment thread that I thought you could read and just walk away with The Biblical View on X from it. The best it can do for that is help you see the positions of the people in that conversation as they interact with each other. All of Malcolm, Sandy, Michael and I could be wrong. The thread can’t tell you that.

    What the thread can do is give you an idea of the some of the issues that seem to matter – reasons why Sandy takes his view (and he very helpfully offered that in a single comment – what he ‘liked’ about Michael’s and my arguments, and what he wasn’t convinced of), why Malcolm does his etc. And, in some cases you even get to see what some of us think of the way the other person has concluded that a factor is decisive for their view.

    That is, you don’t get an idea of the *answer* from this kind of thread – that’s more the role of the article (with the proviso that the Briefing has not said, “Michael’s article is Orthodoxy, walk ye in it”). Rather, you get an idea of the *questions* AND *the issues you need to take into account to come to a settled view on those questions*.

    For some, that might be relatively easy. They might read the thread and go, “It’s obvious that Sandy’s roughly right, although Malcolm had a good point here, and Michael’s observation there is worth thinking about. (Mark’s stuff was off with the canary’s, however. He really is a little green puppet in a cave.)” (Although if I have to be a puppet, this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aa2-7feRM7A&feature=related is more my style.) Most of us, (certainly me if I’m reading a thread like this rather than contributing to it) can’t come to those conclusions as soon as we finish reading the thread. We’re more likely to go, “Now I’ve got no idea”. But as Socrates pointed out millenia ago, that’s not a bad a place to be if you want to be wise. It’s certainly a stage on the path.

    I do two things with a thread like this, if it matters to me:

    1) I don’t just read the thread and expect the answer to jump out. I study the thread. I might try and summarise arguments and positions, locate things I think have been unclear or questions that have been begged. I certainly make sure I read the key Scriptures being debated – at least once, and possibly more if the argument is intricate and I need to keep looking at the texts to compare what’s being said to what it claims to explain. Reading, and rereading the Scriptures in question while reading the thread makes a *huge* difference to how interact with the arguments, and you far more quickly come to conclusions about where the truth may lie and where it definitely does not.

    2) I run with what I already have until I am convinced to change. If you don’t have a view of your own, and you’re in confessional context then run with the position of that group. If you are in an independent church, and it has a position, that’s yours until you are convinced of something different if you didn’t come to that church with a different view already. If you are in the Sydney Diocese, then Sandy has already pointed to the Diocese’s position, put together by significant leaders from within the Diocese, as the ballpark position for how they read Scripture and how it applies. You don’t read a thread like this and go, “Malcolm and Mark have kicked up so much dust that I’m no longer sure what’s right, so I’ll say nothing.” You say, “Neither Malcolm or Mark has convinced me that their view is the teaching of the Bible, so I continue with Diocese’s doctrinal statement”.

    Martin Luther’s stance is correct, even when you haven’t come to a firm conviction from your own reading of the Bible:

    “Unless I am convinced by proofs from Scriptures or by plain and clear reasons and arguments, I can and will not retract, for it is neither safe nor wise to do anything against conscience.”

    The onus is on a new view to convince. Until then you run with the light that you already have.

    In terms of this specific thread, there’s one thing I think to keep in mind. And that’s a sense of proportion for its practical implications.

    My view has effect for only a very small group of people – along with adultery (which is common in our circles), I’ve said divorce would be legitimate to protect children from abuse, in the case of abandonment, and where your spouse comes to a settled transgender identity. I’ve implicitly indicated that I think a pattern of abuse by one’s spouse is grounds for divorce. Except for the last (which only goes one step further than most other people’s ‘separate but don’t divorce’ position) they’re all pretty rare. And I’ve said that even then it doesn’t mean everyone in that situation *should* opt for divorce, narrowing the numbers further.

    When it comes to remarriage, my position would say that some Christians can remarry with a clear conscience, and that is one of the key points of disagreement among Christians. But I think that a lot of Christians and clergy have come to the view that in the case of adultery, or the other ex-spouse remarrying (unless it was your adultery that led to the divorce) you are free to remarry. My position extends that to a wider range of cases, but, except for abuse by one’s spouse, it doesn’t affect a lot of people. And while the issue of abuse does extend the possibilities, it is *one* issue, and so you’re in a much better position to decide “Yes, consistent abuse does what adultery does” or “No, they’re different.”

    Malcolm’s views are arguably wider in their implication *if* I have understood them correctly. No divorce at all. No separation at all because it is tantamount to divorce. If you or the children are being abused your duty is to remain in the marriage and live with the abuser *seems* to be his position. In any situation where either spouse seeks a divorce, no matter how much the other spouse opposed that and sought to resolve the marriage difficulties, they share responsibility. And if divorce does occur, then you cannot remarry. Ultimately God does not recognise divorce, it is merely something that exists in civil society, not in reality. You are still married in reality to your first spouse.

    If that was your view before you started reading, then stay with it until someone convinces you that Scripture teaches something different. But if it is not, don’t use any of it in caring for your believing divorcee friend (mine, Malcolm’s or anyone else in the thread) until you are convinced. And if the issue of remarriage comes up, you shouldn’t be fielding that anyway, (at least in saying that it would be okay given that, even if remarriage is okay in some circumstances, it is very much the exception and so it is not the place of individual Christians to just encourage each other to remarry) unless you are teacher of the Word and/or have worked through this issue in some depth – certainly enough that you were able to follow the thread (to the degree that the vocabulary and the like didn’t make it too hard to follow) and draw some conclusions as you went.

    In other words, the thread *might* help you care for your divorced friend. But even if all it has done is confuse you, it shouldn’t put you in any worse position than you were before. Run with what you had before, unless thread has convinced that your previous position wrong, but hasn’t convinced you of what the right position is. And if you’re in that Socratic position, and you need to help your friend, then it is now time to work through this issue carefully. And that’ll be good for your friend in the long-term.

    • This one really matters as it could misrepresent my understanding of Malcolm’s position:

      In any situation where either spouse seeks a divorce, no matter how much the other spouse opposed that and sought to resolve the marriage difficulties, they share responsibility.

      My focus was on two Chrisians married to each other in that sentence. Malcolm is clear that if a non-Christian unilaterally leaves a marriage to a Christian then you can assure the Christian’s conscience that it was not their fault. But there’s no situation in a marriage between two Christians where you can give that assurance to the party that didn’t seek the divorce – *if* I have understood him correctly.

      • LOL, talk about your freudian slips:

        My view has effect for only a very small group of people – along with adultery (which is common in our circles)

        There you go, adultery is common in our circles.

        ahem.

        Please read those words along the line of: “the view that adultery is grounds for divorce is common in our circles”. It was that view, not the sin of adultery, that I was claiming to be ‘common’.

    • David,

      I would echo Mark’s comments but with a clarification on my position, although Mark is right to point out that it is rather more radical (which is what I would expect from Jesus).

      I don’t consider the term the ESV translates in 1 Cor 7:10 as “separate” to be a synonym for the way we use the term “separate” in relation to marriage today. If you do a search on the Greek word (which is chorizo) you come up with verses like Heb 7:26 where it describes the permanent gulf between Jesus’ sinlessness and our sinful state. The usage there does not mean to imply temporary separation (and nor, I think does Mt 19:6). Of course the word also includes the meaning of temporary separation (such as in Phil 15), but I’ve already argued for why I don’t think that sense is intended in 1 Cor 7:10-11.

      Given that the stronger sense of separation (“split” might be a good term, although “divorce” works pretty well too) is intended, it allows me to take the view that the lesser sense (being physically apart for a period of time) is not being banned.

      Therefore I would never consider encouraging (let alone demanding that) a spouse live with another who is physically abusing them. Indeed, I would be open to the argument that if the abuser remains unrepentant they are effectively an unbeliever seeking permanent separation (since they are deliberately stepping outside the boundaries of marriage), and thus the victim may fall under the terms of 1 Cor 7:15. I’m not making that argument here, but I would be open to considering it.

      Another nuance that I mentioned quite some time ago which informs my understanding is that Jesus places the bar so high (with his comments about what makes us guilty of adultery) that almost all of us end up falling short of it, which one would hope would lead to some humility and grace in how we relate to those who have committed the (more serious) bodily sins and have repented. After all, we cling to the precious gift of our sins being washed clean by the blood of the lamb, and it’s clear that this gift is granted to all.

      • I expressed this poorly: “I don’t consider the term the ESV translates in 1 Cor 7:10 as “separate” to be a synonym for the way we use the term “separate” in relation to marriage today.”

        What I meant was: I don’t consider the term “separate” as used in 1 Cor 7:10 to have the same meaning that we give the term “separate” in relation to marriage today.

  53. Actually, you expressed your position much better than I did. I completely misrepresented you in a key area. Thanks for clarifying that – helps me with the conversation, helps others reading along.

    Reading you now, Malcolm, I think your position might be open to being (noting that you haven’t committed yourself to it) actually quite close to mine *in practice* on most of the issues when it comes to divorce, and the very strong difference is when it comes to remarriage.

    If you see abuse as potentially activating these provisions, when that’s not explicitly authorised in any text of Scripture, then your position would have similar effects to mine when it comes to the question of ‘permanent separation’ (putting the language of ‘divorce’ to one side).

    I think in cases where I would entertain the possibility that someone could be a Christian and commit a sin or sequence of sins which would justify divorce, you would say that persisting in that is to be (effectively) an unbeliever who is seeking to divide the marriage and so your take on 1 Cor 7:12-16 applies.

    When it comes to whether someone could marry again, then the differences really kick in, or if on reflection, you end up concluding that abuse can justify temporary separation (even if that ‘temporary’ lasts a lifetime) but does not make the perpetrator effectively an unbeliever as per the requirements of 1 Cor 7:12-16.

  54. Thanks to both of the main commentators for the effort put in to commenting on my comment. I think I’ll just read in future!!

    (and be more Socratic)

  55. Dear All
    Thank you so much for discussing this topic. That you have different views is life – the important thing for me is that you are discussing such a hard issue, and doing so in a live forum…

    Since my husband left, I have read as much as possible. A few years ago I read David Instone-Brewer’s book and found a measure of relief – he wrote that it was not somehow godly to return to an abusive situation. It relieved some of the guilt and quelled some of the fear.

    One of the things I wanted to pick up on was that it sounds like you are assuming that everyone wants to remarry after divorce – For people like me – you see, I am lonely and the idea of finding a kind, godly man to share my life with does appeal – But it is a very small idea in a life filled with fearful moments/memories – imagine trusting any man again?
    You see my thoughts in this area are about how I will become brave enough to actually get a divorce (when I have been threatened in this area)… how I can protect my kids from the abuses they never saw (when they are visiting with their dad)… how I can continue to keep from falling into depression… how to make ends meet (when for the first four years we were consistently neglected, financially)…

    And has he hasn’t said – sorry.

    So I forgive him – sometimes because I feel forgiving and sometimes because I feel so sorry for him; sometimes simply because it keeps me from bitterness and that is vital. And sometimes just because God says to forgive him, and I just go through the motions.

    But you see I didn’t think that the violence was cause for divorce, I just wanted it to stop – I loved my husband and would never have left. I longed for some of the sweetness in relationship that I see in others’ relationships and the patience and hard work.

    So I wish there was a concensus of opinion about what the Bible says – even in this brief discussion (that you have undertaken) it is obvious that there isn’t. And frankly, there won’t be – this side of Heaven.

    BUT – there are threads we can hold on to – God is the loving God – the Creator of love who longs for us to know Him. He understands, personally, the crushing pain of broken relationship. He calls on us to love others – care for them in their distress, get involved, rebuke, discipline, as is needed. This is how we can support people who have been abused, who have been rejected and neglected. Include them – even when they are messy and when they mess up – as they will do because they are hurt and because they are human. And, finally – ask the ‘yucky’ questions – the uncomforable questions – ‘Tell me more’ ‘what is happening?’ ‘Is everything all right?’ – and wait for the answer. Listen even though it will get messy if they reveal secrets.
    Pastoral care – is about sitting with the person, crying with the person, rebuking the person and helping him/her to hear what you are saying, it’s about back-bone and gentle loving ways… and truth as we understand it. It’s about the stronger helping the weaker, and it is a real privilege.
    So thanks for your discussion – what a relief for an abused woman – who is stepping slowly out of that closet. Keep opening up hard areas – I’m sure that this is not the last hard discussion topic that needs to be opened up. And thank you for your ongoing godliness inspite of difference.

Comments are closed.