Marriage and Divorce in the New Testament Part I: Trajectory of Methodological Inquiry

I’m going to start a series on the passages that touch on the subject of divorce and remarriage. We’re going to begin with Jesus’ teaching in the Synoptics (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) according to their likely date of authorship, and hence, their display of the apostolic teaching in the church, and lay out Paul’s teaching (Romans and 1 Corinthians) in terms of a chronology in light of them. So today will be a big picture day, and then, we’ll also go through the passages individually later on.

  

Mark is seen by most scholars as the earliest Gospel written. Hence, as the earliest Gospel, it reflects what the early churches were taught on the subject. It also reflects to what Paul would be referencing when he brings up the subject, especially when he references the command of the Lord in 1 Corinthians 7 or the law in Romans 7. It is difficult to know when to date Matthew in relation to Luke, but I think many (not all) scholars would agree that Luke predates Matthew. The timeline I would propose would be something like this:

Mark › 1 Corinthians › Romans › Luke › Matthew

I will argue that the teaching concerning divorce and remarriage in these four earlier passages is absolute (i.e., a Christian is not to get a divorce, but if he or she does, there is no allowance made to marry another person). Each text states that only death by one of the partners in the marriage breaks the one flesh union and allows the surviving believer to marry again. If the spouse lives, and one divorces and marries another, it is adultery (although Paul does not say this explicitly in 1 Corinthians 7, he prohibits remarriage based upon what the Lord has commanded already about it in the Synoptics, and he does explicitly say this in his analogy in Romans 7).

What this does is tell us that the teaching of the first four works are the earliest and standard to which the church was called during the time before Paul’s execution. In fact, Matthew is likely a correction of antinomian misinterpretations of Pauline theology. In any case, this helps us see that the standard teaching of the church is found in the first four works and whatever Matthew is saying, it must be interpreted in light of these, not vice versa. This will be helpful when we need to choose between exegetical possibilities.

In light of this, let’s take the statement made by Jesus in the Synoptics and place them next to one another.

Mark

ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται ἐπ᾽ αὐτήν·

καὶ ἐὰν αὐτὴ ἀπολύσασα τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς γαμήσῃ ἄλλον μοιχᾶται.

"Whoever divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her; and if she herself divorces her husband and marries another man, she is committing adultery." (10:11-12)

Luke

Πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ καὶ γαμῶν ἑτέραν μοιχεύει, καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην ἀπὸ ἀνδρὸς γαμῶν μοιχεύει.

"Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and he who marries a woman who is divorced from a husband commits adultery. (16:18)

Matthew
Ἐρρέθη δέ· ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ, δότω αὐτῇ ἀποστάσιον. ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ, μοιχᾶται.

"It was said, `Whoever sends his wife away, let him give her a certificate of  divorce ';  but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, apart from a matter of porneia, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (5:31-32)

 λέγω δὲ ὑμῖν ὅτι ὃς ἂν ἀπολύσῃ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ μὴ ἐπὶ πορνείᾳ καὶ γαμήσῃ ἄλλην μοιχᾶται.

"But I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, not on the basis of porneia, and marries another woman, commits adultery.” (19:9)

  

Notice that the exception clause only appears in Matthew. The other two earlier Gospels record Jesus’ teaching as absolute. If we are to understand Matthew to be in agreement rather than in contradiction to the rest, then, we must understand that Matthew’s exception does not violate the absoluteness of the earlier commands, as it would not merely be clarifying them with the caveat, but contradicting them. Hence, Matthew is adding an exception that agrees with the absolute teaching concerning divorce, not one that undermines that absolute teaching. The caveat is likely addressing a specific issue that leaves the absolute claim in the earlier texts intact.

This helps us understand how we should approach the passage when seeking to determine its meaning and application.

Hence, the question becomes, “Since the earlier teaching is an absolute prohibition against divorce and remarriage, how does the Matthew exception clause, once interpreted in the context of Matthew, fit into that understanding, and remain complementary rather than contradictory?” Almost the entirety of this weight falls upon the nature of the word porneia in the Matthean exception clause and to what it refers within that socio-religious context of Second Temple Judaism

Matthew is primarily written to Jewish Christians. Mark and Luke are written primarily to Gentile Christians. This factor cannot be overlooked, as it becomes clear that Matthew needed to state something for Jewish Christians that was not stated for Gentile Christians. What this means is that the word porneia is something the Jews would understand in their Second Temple mindset, whereas the Greeks would have viewed the word differently, and the exception clause to them would have been of a minor relevance.

Ephesians 5 Doesn't Tell You to Respect Your Husband

I was reading an evangelical blog yesterday that assumed that Ephesians 5 tells women to respect their husbands, but that husbands should also respect their wives. The comment section was filled with people giving their definitions of respect. However, the idea that this passage tells women to respect their husband is completely erroneous.

The word is not "respect," but "fear." Now, in the modern mythology of evangelicalism, the term fear supposedly has connotations of respect, but this is, in fact, false. The word "fear" may have some nuances to it given the context, but our modern concept of "respect" is not one of them.

In order to understand this, it becomes important to understand the difference between respect and the biblical concept of fear that it promotes.

I've often give the analogy of a lion in a cage at the zoo. One who gives respect to the lion when he sees him in his cage may admire him. He may also choose to throw peanuts at him, but it is a respect that is given, a chosen authority or sense of awe that is given by the individual. Now, if he suddenly finds himself inside the cage with the lion, that is fear. That is the recognition that the lion has authority over his life whether he grants it or not. The authority is inherent in the lion and his position in the cage. It is not derived from the individual at all. Maybe the individual doesn't admire lions at all and has no respect for them, but at that moment, he recognizes the amount of control the lion has, and he fears because of it.

The simple difference is this: Respect is an admiration of qualities that I choose to give to someone. That admiration gives them authority, a voice in my life, etc. But I am the source of their authority in my life. I am the one granting that they can speak to my life. The authority or influence they have in my life is derived from me.

Fear, the good kind, in Scripture, is brought on by a recognition of an inherent authority. I am not the one who is giving it. I am merely recognizing it and called upon to recognize it.

What the biblical authors are calling one to do when they say that one should "fear" an authority placed over them is to recognize the authority that God has granted that individual over one's life. They are not calling upon people to admire the authority or give an authority to the person that he or she does not already have.

Hence, when Peter argues that Christian slaves are to "fear" their masters, he is not arguing that people should admire masters whether they are admirable or not (2:13) and give them some sway in their lives that they don't already have. He is arguing that they have an authority in his position that is derived, not from the servant, but from God, and as such, needs to be feared as God is feared. His position, not his person, is to be revered as coming from God.

Hence, Peter writes:

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.

Slaves, in reverent fear of God submit yourselves to your masters, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh. For it is commendable if someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God. But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God. To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. (1 Peter 2:13-21)

This is why Paul begins his argument in Ephesians 5 with the statement that each Christian needs to submit to his or her respective authorities (allelous "one another" is not reciprocal here in the context so it refers to wives to husbands, children to parents, slaves to masters) in "the fear of God/Christ" (v. 21), and that this is why the wife is to "fear her husband" (v. 33). She is to recognize the authority and influence that God, not she herself, has given to her husband over her life. She does not give him this authority. He has it in his position over her that God has granted to him.

He is to use this authority over her for her good. Washing her in the Word and seeking to present her as Christ wishes to present His church to the Father in sanctification. He serves her in his authority by loving her as Christ loves the church, sacrificing for her, etc.

So whereas his authority is granted by God and is not given by his wife to him, as a Christian, he is to use it to conform her to the image of Christ in his love/sacrificing for her.

The fear (pun intended) that if we translate this term the way it is supposed to be translated that it will lead to abuse is an argument one can make of anything that is abused. The key is placing both the authority of the husband in the context of God's will for him to use it for the good of the woman and not as a tyrant that uses it for his own benefit at the cost of his wife's good. The answer is never to mistranslate or distort Scripture so that we make what is potent benign.

What is important to understand is that there may be lots of husbands who are not respectable. Peter mentions some of these in Chapter 3 of his first epistle, but the response to a disobedient authority is obedient submission to God, not rebellion, which would condemn both the husband and the wife at that point. Instead of looking at the possible abuses, however, the Christian couple should have God's will in mind, as these commands are not for the husband to submit his wife, nor for the wife to make her husband use his authority in love, but for both to obey God directly by using their respective roles as the vehicle through which they worship God in the home.

The Fear of the Lord as the Vehicle toward True Life

originally published Sept 21, 2011

Have you ever walked into a person's house who has an overly developed concern to child-proof their homes? Pads on the corners of tables, safety plugs in the sockets (that's probably a good one btw), and their kids in some sort of pen that was likely originally constructed for hamsters, these dangerous homes have been transformed into the bouncy house at the carnival. Christianity has been made safe these days as well. Preachers have removed what the Bible considers as the most important component of the Christian life from the pulpit: the fear of God.

They have removed it by speaking of God as a giant grandfather figure in the sky. They have removed it by speaking of Him as your friendly neighborhood therapist, who is always there to counsel you in whatever decisions you choose to make in life. They have presented Him as the fairy godmother, who exists to turn all of your pumpkins into carriages and all of your rags into gowns. But they do not talk about His wrath anymore. They do not talk about hell (when's the last time you heard a message on hell that wasn't meant to undermine it as a horrible place to be feared?) God isn't our judge. He's our buddy. What's there to fear?

One of the ways that preachers have removed the fear of God, however, has been in redefining it. It's not fear. It's respect. Fear just means respect in modern evangelical pulpit fiction. Now that's a sermon I have heard many, many times. But is it right? Is that what the word "fear" means in the Bible? Is that what the "fear of God" is? The answer is, No, it isn't.

There are words that describe respect in the Bible. The words "honor" and "glory" are better fits. They describe an attribution of awe to the majesty and splendor of God. So we are to respect God. There's no doubt about that. But fear is something much different than respect.

Let me explain it this way. Respect is something I choose to give to the lion, as I observe his strength and majestic features, while I am standing outside of the cage. I can also choose to disrespect him. I can make fun of him, and more importantly, I can ignore him. I can just forget about him altogether and go watch the monkeys.
Fear, however, is what I have for the lion when I am inside the cage with him. It is not something I can choose to give, but a recognition of the lion's power over me. I realize that whatever happens, he has the upper hand, as he has all the power. I won't be winning a fight with a lion. Fear focuses my attention toward the lion. It does not allow me to ignore or forget about him. It causes me to be cautious about what moves I make, and how I make them. Fear is a recognition of an authority that is possessed by another, with or without my choice to give it to him, as opposed to respect, which is an authority/attention I choose to give to another.

You see, fear takes away the pretense of my power. It removes the falsehood that I am in control here. It reminds me that I am helpless, and am completely at the mercy of another. It makes me realize my need, my lack. That causes me to seek out help, direction, instruction, from one who has authority.

So when Proverbs (1:7; 9:10) says that the "fear of God is the beginning of knowledge/wisdom" (i.e., understanding life), it means "fear," not respect, must be one's starting point and presupposition before he pursues other questions in life. If we start in the wrong place, one that does not pay careful attention to God as the authority of truth and good, we will end in the wrong place as well. Our conclusions will be false because our premise is false.

Proverbs tells us that the fear of God leads us to love true knowledge, as opposed to what makes us comfortable (1:29). It gives us a hatred toward evil, which is viewed as a self-willed life that seeks to make sense of life through one's own experiences (8:13; 15:33; 22:4--this is what pride and arrogance are in the Bible, humility/the fear of God being their opposite). It leads to a longer life (10:27; 19:23--which for us is eternal life). It gives us certainty (14:26) and is our source of life that keeps us from being trapped by chaotic ideas, i.e., the cultural philosophies the devil has set in place to destroy us (v. 27). It gives us the motivation to stop doing what is wrong (16:6). More importantly, it gives us the path to know God (2:5). This is in contrast to fearing man (i.e. paying attention to human ideas/seeing man in the place that God should be seen/starting with human authority instead of God's in one's view of life). In fact, the proverb, "there is a way [i.e., an understanding of life and the direction one should go] that seems right to a man, but the end is the way of death" is repeated twice in the Book of Proverbs (14:12; 16:25), which means it's being emphasized in the book. The Hebrew literally reads that the a path that seems right to man according to his experience (lit. "that which is before him") leads to "paths (plural) of death." Hence, to get the starting point concerning how we approach life wrong leads to multiple paths to death.

Now, that's just Proverbs. The term appears throughout the Bible, and we are told essentially, therefore, that the promises of God are only for those who fear Him. These promises of understanding life and being saved from darkness and death are only for those who fear YHWH (which is what the translation "Lord" is representing in these texts). Hence, the fear of the Lord is bound up with the Bible as God's revelation, and cannot be attributed to another religion. I can transfer the fear of the lion to the penguin in the cage, but I'm going to be paying attention to the wrong entity, and pay dearly for it.

To sum up, the fear of the Lord is our recognition of His authority over life in general, and over our lives specifically. In other words, it is a God-centered, rather than self-centered (i.e., arrogant) way of thinking. It recognizes that He already has the power over our lives and wields that sword daily. What He has given us the privilege to do is to know and understand life by giving us His Word. Through it, we not only recognize God's authority, but we can carefully and thoughtfully come to a true knowledge of God and ourselves. Our crooked paths are set straight. Our fear for God grows into respect, and respect, love. Hence, contrary to popular opinion, fear of the Lord and love are not opposites. The kind of fear that runs from God, which is not the fear of the Lord, is cast out by the love born from the true fear of the Lord.

So "fear" means "fear," but it is a fear that is a recognition of authority that pays careful attention to what that authority does (or in this case, says as well). I cannot ignore the lion any longer. Once my eyes have been opened, I realize the truth that C. S. Lewis noted years ago: that God is a dangerous lion, but He's also good and worthy to be followed. If our lives are constructed around ourselves, then He will do great damage to them. He is very dangerous. But we cannot God-proof our sermons anymore if we are to remain in the fear of God ourselves. If we are to bring the people back to Him, the fear of the Lord must be made known. If we do not, then we are all doomed to a misunderstood, misdirected, and missed life that was always meant to thrive in a God-centered world, but dies in one that is not. There is no doubt that the Word of God's place in our lives is diminished today, precisely, because we are a fallen people who do not fear the Lord (Rom 3:9-18); but for those of us who claim Christ, there must be a humility to God's Word that follows.

So take off the pads. Take out the safety plugs. And deflate the bouncy house. Because a true human life is not lived until it is lived in the fear and loving presence of God.

Thus says the Lord:  "Heaven [is] My throne,  And earth [is] My footstool. Where [is] the house that you will build Me?  And where [is] the place of My rest? For all those [things] My hand has made,  And all those [things] exist,"  Says the Lord.  "But on this [one] will I look:  On [him] [who] [is] poor and of a contrite spirit,  And who  trembles  at My word. (Isa 66:1-2)

Eugene Peterson's Apostasy

EP: "I haven’t had a lot of experience with it [i.e., homosexuality and same-sex marriage]. But I have been in churches when I was an associate pastor where there were several women who were lesbians. They didn’t make a big deal about it. I’d go and visit them and it never came up for them. They just assumed that they were as Christian as everybody else in the church.

In my own congregation — when I left, we had about 500 people — I don’t think we ever really made a big deal out of it. When I left, the minister of music left. She’d been there ever since I had been there. There we were, looking for a new minister of music. One of the young people that had grown up under my pastorship, he was a high school teacher and a musician. When he found out about the opening, he showed up in church one day and stood up and said, “I’d like to apply for the job of music director here, and I’m gay.” We didn’t have any gay people in the whole congregation. Well, some of them weren’t openly gay. But I was so pleased with the congregation. Nobody made any questions about it. And he was a really good musician.

I wouldn’t have said this 20 years ago, but now I know a lot of people who are gay and lesbian and they seem to have as good a spiritual life as I do. I think that kind of debate about lesbians and gays might be over. People who disapprove of it, they’ll probably just go to another church. So we’re in a transition and I think it’s a transition for the best, for the good. I don’t think it’s something that you can parade, but it’s not a right or wrong thing as far as I’m concerned."

In other words, he, and the churches in which he resides, have been in open rebellion and unrepentant sin for years by not disciplining those who claim to be Christians and are in open rebellion and unrepentant sin. It is no wonder he, and they, are given over to deception and further lawlessness.

Can you imagine if someone said this of something we actually still consider sin? "I knew of a couple serial killers in our church, and would just visit them and not make a big deal about it." Um, then you're a broken minister and should not be teaching anyone anything, much less a highly idiosyncratic paraphrase of the Bible. 

RNS: "A follow-up: If you were pastoring today and a gay couple in your church who were Christians of good faith asked you to perform their same-sex wedding ceremony, is that something you would do?"

EP: "Yes."

We are all sinners, but we do not endorse sin, our own or that of others. If we do, we are not of God, but of the adversary who was a liar and a murderer from the beginning.

I never understood why Reformed folk would interview Peterson as though he was one of us (the White Horse Inn comes to mind) when it was always very clear to me, both from the Message paraphrase and his theological leanings toward postmodern/emerging religious tendencies that his spiritual and intellectual makeup was made more out of the zeitgeist than the Heilige Geist. 

"But he is a Presbyterian," some might say. To which I would respond, "Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing." This man can believe anything he wants, but he is not a Christian minister.

Why the Sacraments Are Only Pictures: Evidence from the Gospel of John

Throughout the Gospel of John, John uses three sacraments (not two), as a substructure to the narrative, to represent the stages of the Christian life. I say “substructure” because John uses each to talk about what each represents: baptism = regeneration, communion = sanctification in receiving Jesus’ death as a sacrifice to cleanse from sin in the Christian life, and marriage = consummation at the second coming of Christ.

Baptism

In 3:5, water is used to refer to the birth of an individual, and an analogy is made with the new birth by the Spirit. Water turns to wine in 2:1-11 (i.e., allegorically speaking, one’s rebirth, using the ceremonial water for ritual cleansing, turns into cleansing by the blood sacrifice of Christ in his daily life). In 4:7-15, there is a great deal of talk about water and its representation of Jesus giving an eternal water that causes one to never need a drink again. In 7:37-39, the text states:

On the last day of the feast, the greatest day, Jesus stood up and shouted out, “If anyone is thirsty, let him come to me, and let the one who believes in me drink.  Just as the scripture says, ‘From within him will flow rivers of living water.’” (Now he said this about the Spirit, whom those who believed in him were going to receive, for the Spirit had not yet been given,  because Jesus was not yet glorified.)

The regeneration of the Spirit is represented by the water, but the water does not produce the regeneration of the Spirit. This is the point I want to make with all of this. These sacraments are pictures and nothing more. Jesus isn’t talking about the water at all. He’s using the water as a picture of what the Spirit does.

Jesus is predicted to be the one who baptizes not with water but by the Holy Spirit, the water being used again as an analogy to what the Spirit does, i.e., baptizes/cleanses in justification. Likewise, John contrasts the inability of the cleansing pool in Chapter 5 to heal the lame man with Jesus’ ability to heal him. The water again represents the cleansing, but is not the cleansing itself.

The Eucharist

In 2:1-11, Jesus is presented as the God of the Exodus account who turns water into blood, but the blood here is represented by wine. Likewise, in 19:34, both blood and water flow, and although this is often thought in modern medicine to refer to the piercing of the pericardium, it likely is stated by John as a picture of the communion that consists as wine mixed with water.

The eucharist is used in 6:53-58 to represent Jesus’ sacrifice.

Jesus said to them, “I tell you the solemn truth, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in yourselves. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.  For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. The one who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me, and I in him.  Just as the living Father sent me, and I live because of the Father, so the one who consumes me will live because of me. This is the bread that came down from heaven; it is not like the bread your ancestors ate, but then later died.  The one who eats this bread will live forever.”

Again, Jesus uses the eucharist to represent His death that must be accepted as the sacrifice for sins. His death, not the bread and wine that only represents it, produces life. Hence, it is presented as eating His flesh and drinking His blood that produces life in the believer, and is done as a picture of his abiding in Christ (a term used to refer to sanctification in John, e.g., 15:1-10).

Marriage

The third, and lesser known and accepted, sacrament in John is marriage. It is somewhat remarkable that all of the sacraments are presented at the beginning of John in Christ’s first miracle: the water, the wine, and it is all done for the purpose of celebrating and establishing a marriage.

In 3:29, John the Baptist identifies Christ as the Bridegroom because He is the one who possesses the Bride.

In 14:1-3, Jesus states:

“Do not let your hearts be distressed. You believe in God; believe also in me. There are many dwelling places in my Father’s house. Otherwise, I would have told you, because I am going away to make ready a place for you. And if I go and make ready a place for you, I will come again and take you to be with me, so that where I am you may be too.”

Here, Christ makes a wedding analogy, where the bridegroom goes to make a place ready in his father’s household to consummate the marriage. Marriage is the picture of the consummation at Christ’s return.

Conclusion

So there are three pictures/sacraments presented in John as representing the Christian life: baptism = justification, eucharist = sanctification, and marriage = glorification. What I want to say then is this. None of them produce what they represent, and the final sacrament, denied to be one by most protestants, would have told us that plainly, as marriage certainly does not produce glorification. It does not bring Christ again. It does not bring about resurrection. It does not produce eternal glory. The act isn’t even mandated for every Christian. It just represents glorification as a picture of it. It’s an analogy, as John has used all the sacraments as analogies throughout the book.

What this tells us is that the other two sacraments are just pictures as well. Like the third sacrament, they do not produce what they represent. They do not produce justication/initial cleansing from sin or sanctification/ongoing cleansing from sin. They’re just pictures of what the Spirit and the gospel do in the life of the Christian.

As marriage does not produce glorification when one does it, water baptism does not produce spiritual cleansing in justification and the communion does not produce God's favor and forgiveness in the continual cleansing of the Christian in sanctification. They all just represent a spiritual reality, but none of them produce that reality or have anything to do with it besides presenting a picture of it.

Hence, there is no magic water or magic bread and wine. That’s a medieval folk tradition that was adopted by the church due to its tendency to place mystical significance to anything religious, like relics, statues, corpses of martyrs, etc.

Like in the Old Testament, the rituals and sacrifices are pictures. They don’t actually cleanse or forgive for sins. They don’t actually produce the coming of the Messiah. They just represent all of these things. Likewise, the rituals in the New Testament do the same thing, and this would have been clearer if protestants had not removed marriage as a sacrament and Roman Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox had noticed John’s own view of them.