The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology Biblical Perspectives Editor-In-Chief: on Marriage and Family R

Vol. 6 · No. 1 Spring 2002 The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology Biblical Perspectives Editor-in-Chief: on Marriage and Family R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Executive Editor: Editorial: Thomas R. Schreiner Daniel L. Akin 2 Marriage and the Family Editor: William A. Heth Thomas R. Schreiner 4 Jesus on Divorce: Book Review Editor: How My Mind Has Changed Chad Owen Brand Associate Editor: Gordon Wenham Brian J. Vickers 30 Does the New Testament Approve Assistant Editor: Remarriage after Divorce? Randall K. J. Tan Thomas R. Schreiner Advisory Board:Timothy K. Beougher 46 William J. Webb’s Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Daniel I. Block A Review Article John B. Polhill Peter Balla Thom S. Rainer Child-Parent Imagery in the Catholic Epistles Esther H. Rothenbusch 66 Mark A. Seifrid Leigh E. Conver Mark E. Simpson 78 Marriage as a Spiritual Discipline Design: Jared Hallal Daniel L. Akin Editorial Office & Subscription Services: Sermon: The Beauty and Blessings of the Christian Bedroom SBTS Box 2388 94 Song of Solomon 4:1-5:1 2825 Lexington Rd. Louisville, KY 40280 (800) 626-5525, x4413 104 The SBJT Forum: Issues Relating to the Family Editorial E-Mail: [email protected] 114 Book Reviews

Yearly subscription costs for four issues: $20, individual inside the U. S.; $30, ATLA Religion Database on CD-ROM, published by the American Theological individual outside the U. S.; $35, institutional inside the U. S.; $45, institutional Library Association, 250 S. Wacker Dr., 16th Flr., Chicago, IL 60606, E-mail: outside the U. S. Opinions expressed in The Southern Baptist Journal of Theology [email protected], WWW: http://atla.com/. are solely the responsibility of the authors and are not necessarily those of the THE SOUTHERN BAPTIST JOURNAL OF THEOLOGY is published quarterly by editors, members of the Advisory Board, or The Forum. We encourage the sub- The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, 2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY mission of letters, suggestions and articles by our readers. Any article submis- 40280. Spring 2002. Vol. 6, No. 1. Copyright © 2002 The Southern Baptist sions should conform to the Journal of Biblical Literature stylistic guidelines. Theological Seminary. ISSN 1520-7307. Second Class postage paid at This periodical is indexed in Religion Index One: Periodicals, the Index to Book Louisville, KY. Postmaster: Send address changes to: SBTS Box 2388, Reviews in Religions, Religion Indexes: Ten Year Subset on CD-ROM, and the 2825 Lexington Road, Louisville, KY 40280. 1 Editorial: Marriage and the Family Thomas R. Schreiner

Thomas R. Schreiner is a profes- Cultural opposition to a biblical view of husbands and wives, parents and chil- sor of New Testament at The Southern marriage, family, and the role of women dren, and men and women. Baptist Theological Seminary. He has appears to be unending. The rise of the If our desire is to pattern our lives by also taught New Testament at Azusa pro-homosexual movement constitutes the scriptures, we must study and under- Pacific University and Bethel Theo- one example of an anti-family agenda. stand them. Before we proclaim the truth, logical Seminary. He is the author of Some denominations are not merely we must ensure that we know the truth, Romans in the Baker Exegetical Com- debating whether homosexuality is and such knowledge can only be derived mentary on the New Testament and morally permissible. They are disputing from study. The scriptures are clear, for co-author of The Race Set Before Us: whether or not homosexuals should be example, that divorce is never a good A Biblical Theology of Perseverance and ordained as ministers of the gospel. Many thing. It is never ideal for marriages Assurance. His most recent book is Paul, unbelievers insist that rejecting the moral to break apart, for the covenant bond the Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A legitimacy of homosexuality stems from between a husband and wife to be sev- Pauline Theology. In addition, he is serv- hatred. Unfortunately, some who main- ered. Recent sociological study confirms ing as the preaching pastor of Clifton tain that they are believers make the same that children suffer significantly as a Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. argument. The worldview of secular cul- result of divorce. The claim that divorce ture does not only oppose the church; in is “better for the children” is in most some instances it has invaded and cap- instances a myth. Preserving marriage, tured the mind of some who claim the working at a marriage is one of the path- name of Christ. Many ordinary Christians ways for our sanctification and holiness would be shocked to discover what is as Leigh Conver demonstrates in this taught about marriage, family, and the issue. When we marry, we enter the school role of women in colleges and universi- of holiness, as we submit to what God ties that claim to be Christian. desires to teach us. As believers, our desire is to submit to The covenantal union between men the lordship of Christ in every arena of and women, more particularly the joys of life. There is no realm over which Jesus the physical consummation of that union Christ should not reign as our sovereign. is portrayed in the Song of Solomon. Hence, we submit to scriptural authority Danny Akin’s sermon from Song of in formulating our view of marriage, the Solomon addresses the responsibilities of family, and the role of women. We do not husbands and wives. Dr. Akin reminds us trumpet our own ideas about marriage, that Christ is Lord over every realm of our nor do we appeal to “our experience” or lives, including how we behave sexually. “what God told me” when facing contro- Is divorce ever justified? I have already versial questions like divorce and remar- noted that divorce is never ideal, but is it riage or the role of women. We turn to the in some cases permissible? The church of scriptures to study and seek what God has Jesus Christ has debated this question to say about topics that provoke debate throughout history. We have two very fine even among Christians. We acknowledge articles on this question in the current that the Bible has the final and authorita- issue. Gordon Wenham, a well-known OT tive word on how to conduct ourselves as scholar from England, argues that divorce 2 is permissible in some instances but never to include an essay on this subject by a remarriage. William Heth takes the other Hungarian NT scholar, Peter Balla. Dr. position. He maintains that both divorce Balla’s essay is part of a larger forth- and remarriage are justified in some cases. coming monograph in which he investi- Those who have followed the exegetical gates the biblical teaching on parents and debate on divorce and remarriage may be children. surprised to see Wenham and Heth writing on opposing sides relative to divorce and remarriage. In 1984 they published a book together defending the view that remarriage is never right, and an updated edition holding the same position appeared in 1997. Wenham continues to hold the view propounded in both the 1984 and 1997 editions. Heth, on the other hand, has slowly changed his mind, and readers are introduced to his new position here. Our hope is that readers will come to an informed understanding on divorce and remarriage through the help of these two articles. We are all aware of the intense debate on the role of women in the church. Books propounding the egalitarian view continue to pour forth from publishers. A new book on women, slaves, and homosexuals by William Webb has provoked some discussion. Some have wondered if his hermeneutical approach represents a new breakthrough. In an extended review article I argue that Webb’s thesis is not compelling. At the end of the day his conclusions do not differ significantly from the typical egalitarian reading of the text. The old egalitarian reading of the text is simply dressed up here in new hermeneutical clothes. The relationship between parents and children is fundamental to human society. If families prosper society prospers. If families are dysfunctional, society becomes dysfunctional. Rigorous study of biblical texts on the relationship between parents and children is lacking. We are delighted 3 Jesus on Divorce: How My Mind Has Changed William A. Heth

William A. Heth is Professor of New Introduction some circumstances (persistent adultery, Testament and Greek at Taylor Univer- What did Jesus mean when he spoke out physical or verbal abuse, incest, etc.), sity and has served as a professor at prophetically against divorce and remar- Jesus taught that his disciples should not Taylor since 1986. Dr. Heth has written riage as it would have been understood remarry after divorce. In short, remarriage extensively on the issue of divorce and and practiced by his first-century hearers? after divorce for whatever reason—even remarriage. He co-authored with How literally should we interpret those sexual immorality (Matt 5:32; 19:9)—was Gordon Wenham Jesus and Divorce. A pronouncements? Did Jesus intend to set a violation of the seventh commandment, second edition of this work was pub- forth an exceptionless absolute? Or should “You shall not commit adultery” (Exod lished in 1997. we approach his divorce sayings as rhe- 20:14; Deut 5:18).2 How do matters stand torical overstatements intended to empha- now? size a particular point, but admitting of The consensus appears to be stronger exceptions? How would his audience than ever. Christianity Today’s 1992 read- have understood those sayings, and what ers survey revealed that can we learn from his earliest disciples’ attempts to understand and apply Jesus’ The majority believe that fornication (73 percent) and desertion by a non- teaching to their respective Christian com- Christian spouse (64 percent) are munities? Did they faithfully reflect the two scriptural grounds for remar- intent of the one they called Lord and mas- riage. At the same time, a significant minority believe Jesus taught that ter, or would Jesus be displeased with how believers should not remarry after they had modified his standard? Further- divorce (44 percent) and that God more, how should we, his twenty-first designed marriage to be permanent, and remarriage constitutes adultery century followers, apply them in our very (44 percent). Less than four out of different socio-cultural contexts? These ten believe there may be reason for remarriage other than adultery or are the kinds of questions that scholars ask desertion.3 as they wrestle with the NT records of Jesus’ teaching on divorce and remarriage. Furthermore, nearly every one of the The American edition of Jesus and weighty American commentaries on the Divorce appeared in 1985 with the subtitle Gospels written since 1984 essentially 1 The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus. defends the majority view,4 and so does What is that consensus? The majority of every article in IVP’s reference collection evangelicals believe that Jesus permits that touches on marriage, divorce, remar- remarriage after divorce for marital riage, and adultery.5 Though we contin- unfaithfulness (Matt 5:32; 19:9) and that ued to defend our views in the face of Paul sanctions remarriage when Christian others’ rejection of our exegesis,6 only two spouses are abandoned by unbelieving scholarly monographs and one major mates (1 Cor 7:15). We argued to the con- commentary affirmed Wenham’s and my trary that even though marital separation understanding of the divorce texts.7 For or legal divorce may be advisable under me, personally, this proved troubling. This 4 meant that the best of evangelical schol- Genesis 2:24 and the way all ancient Near arship had read our material and found it Eastern law codes, including the Bible, wanting—scholars that I admired and have always made a distinction between who sought to handle these texts as criti- justifiable as opposed to unjustifiable cally and fairly as we attempted to (espe- divorces. I would like to quote here at the cially Stein, Carson, and Blomberg).8 outset, if not for the reader, at least for As noted in the 1997 appendix to Jesus myself, R. F. Collins’s reminder in the and Divorce, no major new interpretations Introduction to his erudite study on Di- of Jesus’ teaching have been proposed vorce in the New Testament: since its publication in 1984, and of the six major interpretive approaches we In the study of the New Testament, there are more than merely method- originally surveyed, only two remain as ological issues which must be con- viable options today: (1) the majority sidered. Exegesis, the science of the evangelical Protestant view and (2) the interpretation of texts, is not an exact science, as chemistry and minority early church fathers’ or “no physics may claim to be. Exegesis is remarriage” view. The view that porneia a matter of the interpretation of data, in the exception clauses should be under- a matter of sensitivity and judgment. Even scholars viewing the data from stood to mean marriage within forbidden the same angle often come to differ- degrees of kinship (Lev 18:6-18) and that ent conclusions. The use of similar methodology does not always pro- it refers to a specific situation facing vide the same results.11 Matthew’s church in which Gentile con- verts were incorporated into a Jewish And I might also add from my own expe- Christian context, is no longer a viable rience that holding fast to one or two 9 interpretive option. inaccurate concepts means that several In what follows I will set forth the others will have to be misconstrued in major positions on the crucial texts for order to bring coherence to the whole. both the majority and minority views and then explain what caused me to reconsider Majority and Minority Views my interpretive grid and modify my per- Though other considerations could be spective over the past nine years. In the noted, the following chart depicts the chart under the majority view I will sub- major points of contention between the stitute some of the more recent arguments majority who believe that the NT allows related to the OT texts that I have gleaned remarriage after divorce for one or more from G. Hugenberger’s work, Marriage as reasons and the minority who believe that 10 a Covenant, for this is the work that has Jesus did not want his disciples to remarry corrected my understanding of the nature after divorce. of the marriage covenant encapsulated in

5 Issue Majority Minority

The nature of Covenants may be both violated and Covenants are binding and cannot biblical covenants dissolved.12 The primary sense of be broken.15 E.g., Hos 1:9 is not “covenant” (berit) is that it is an an announcement by God of the “elected, as opposed to natural, dissolution of the covenant compa- relationship of obligation established rable to divorce. “The covenant under divine sanction.”13 Covenants nowhere makes provision for such were “the means the ancient world an eventuality. Covenant-breaking took to extend relationships beyond on the part of Israel (unilateral the natural unity by blood.”14 Minor- withdrawal) calls for severe ity view’s point about Hos 1:9 is punishment. Israel cannot opt correct as far as it goes; but once the out by no longer acknowledging covenant is broken by Israel’s infidel- Yahweh. The punishment is not ity, God can legitimately divorce an expression of a broken relation- Israel such that the people are no ship. On the contrary, it is enforced longer acknowledged as “my people” within the relationship; punish- (Hos 1:9). However, the legal right ment maintains the covenant.”16 to disown his people does not preclude the completely unexpected and infinitely gracious possibility that God may yet establish a new covenant.

Gen 2:23 — “This at last [Agrees with the Heth and The marriage covenant is compa- is bone of my bones and Wenham minority view’s points, rable to the kinship bond that exists flesh of my flesh” & but qualifies them.] between parents and children. Gen 2:24 — “leave and “[T]he ‘relationship formula’ [Gen The covenanted (“leave” and cleave” and “become 2:23] is not merely an assertion of cleave” are covenant terms; cf. one flesh” an existing blood tie, ‘but is rather Deut 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; 30:20; Josh a covenant oath which affirms and 22:5; 23:8; Ruth 1:14-16) and establishes a pattern of solidar- consummated marriage witnessed ity.’”17 “Clearly, sexual union is and joined by God (Mal 2:14; Matt the indispensable means for the 19:6//Mark 10:8b-9) results in the consummation of marriage both in two becoming “one flesh,” that is, the Old Testament and elsewhere kin or blood relatives. The kinship in the ancient Near East.18 ” Sexual nature of marriage is also indicated union probably functioned this by the Gen 2:23 relationship way because it was viewed as the formula, “bone of my bones, and oath-sign that ratified the marriage flesh of my flesh” (cf. 29:14; 37:27; covenant. Judg 9:1-2; 2 Sam 5:1; 19:12-13).19

6 Issue Majority Minority

Deut 24:1-4 The scholarly consensus is that “the The minority view agrees with the intent of this casuistic law is neither scholarly consensus (which also to authorize divorce, nor to stipulate notes that there are two types of its proper grounds, nor to establish divorce mentioned in vv. 1-3: the its requisite procedure. Rather its sole one that has just cause [“some concern is to prohibit the restoration indecency”] and the other based of a marriage after an intervening on aversion [“hate”] which has marriage.”20 The v. 4 prohibition adverse financial penalties for the closes a legal loophole that otherwise offending husband). Deut 24:4 might seem to legitimize a form of prohibits unjust enrichment (due adultery.21 Other reasons have been to estoppel).22 offered also.

Mal 2:16– Interpretation is vexed by a NIV translates: “‘I hate divorce,’ ”I hate divorce” translation problem. ESV is most says the LORD God of Israel, ‘and probable: “‘For the man who hates I hate a man’s covering himself and divorces, says the LORD, the with violence as well as with God of Israel, covers his garment his garment,’ says the LORD with violence, says the LORD of Almighty.” This is an absolute hosts ... ‘“ Malachi only condemns prohibition of divorce.24 divorce based on aversion (i.e., unjustified divorce). “Mal. 2:16 shares the same assessment of divorce based on aversion as seems to be presupposed for the second divorce in Deut. 24:3, with its adverse financial consequences for the offending husband.”23

7 Issue Majority Minority

Luke 16:18 This is Luke’s one example of The introductory “Everyone who radicalizing the law, and the way divorces” (pas ho apolyon) employs it is stated admits of no exceptions. a legal ordinance form similar to The casuistic form is employed OT casuistic law.27 Jesus teaches for emphasis and exaggeration: it a standard (as opposed to an ideal) presents an ideal like Jesus’s sayings that he expects his disciples to in Mark 10:11-12. Jesus’ concern is not keep. Paul apparently follows with legal definitions but with moral Luke’s (and Mark’s) unqualified exhortation.25 Alternatively, Luke form of Jesus’ saying in 1 Cor 7:10- uses this saying as an allegorical 11. Only two alternatives present statement on Jesus’ non-abolition themselves in case of divorce: of the Law (v. 17)— the person who remain unmarried or else be annuls part of the Law in favor of reconciled. some other practice is like a man divorcing his wife in favor of another woman. Provides no help in determining Jesus’ literal views on divorce and remarriage.26

Mark 10:11-12 Jesus, a prophetic wisdom teacher, Yes, Jesus was questioned by the uses rhetorical overstatement to Pharisees, but his final word for drive home a general point to them is found in v. 9: “What hostile questioners. Thus Mark therefore God has joined together, simply records Jesus’ emphatically let not man separate.” However, stated divorce saying without Jesus’ absolute prohibition of intending to specify possible divorce and remarriage is reserved exceptions. Jesus cannot be for the disciples in the Markan construed as teaching an place of private instruction, “the “exceptionless absolute” based on house” (7:17; 9:28; 10:10; cf. 4:34). Mark because both Matthew (5:32; Jesus is clarifying kingdom stan- 19:9) and Paul (1 Cor 7:15) qualify dards for his disciples, to whom Jesus’ prohibition of remarriage Jesus gives insights into the after divorce. Alternatively, Jesus’ mysteries of the kingdom of God sayings should be understood as (4:11), not addressing unbelieving generalizations that admit of outsiders whom he wants to bring exceptions. to repentance with a prophetic word.

8 Issue Majority Minority

Matt 5:32 The exception, applied in a legal way, This saying employs a legal qualifies Jesus’ prophetic pronounce- ordinance form similar to OT ment (i.e., a wisdom saying that casuistic law (cf. Luke 16:18a). This should be read as a prophetic and antithesis cannot be read in light of somewhat hyperbolic summons to the first two. Jesus sets before the an ideal like the preceding sayings disciples a standard (as opposed about anger and lust).28 The excep- to an ideal) that he wants them to tion reflects the language of Deut 24:1 keep. The exception restricts the and identifies a valid divorce. For statement “causes her to commit first-century Jewish readers, a valid adultery.” It is tautologous: if divorce by definition included the one’s wife has already committed right to remarry. adultery, then the husband who divorces her does not make her commit adultery. She has made herself one already. The question of freedom to remarry after a lawful divorce is not addressed.

Jesus’ Orientation Matthew sees Jesus as explaining Jesus opposes the way the Pharisees toward Deut 24:1 in the meaning of the law. employed Deut 24:1 and contrasts Matthew 19//Mark 10 Deuteronomy’s “some indecency” divorce with God’s will “from the = Matthew’s “sexual immorality.” beginning.” Jesus would neither In the OT, divorce for “some interpret nor abrogate something indecency” identified a legally Moses never legislated. Jesus valid divorce. Valid divorces prohibited what Moses permitted; always included the right to he did not permit what Moses remarry. Jesus demotes Moses’ prohibited. So Jesus neither concession in Deuteronomy and divinely interprets nor abrogates subordinates it to Genesis, but Deut 24:1. It was a concession to valid divorces are God’s permis- human sinfulness in the OT era sive will for some innocent victims and contrary to God’s will all of divorce. along.

9 Issue Majority Minority

Matt 19:9 and the syntax Exceptions are precisely exceptions. The placement of the clause after of the exception clause That the clause modifies both the “divorces” but before “and remar- divorce action and the remarriage ries” argues that Jesus permitted action is determined more by the divorce for marital unfaithfulness concept of justifiable divorce than by but not also remarriage. In a Greek grammar. The clause, either culture that demanded the wife spoken by Jesus himself (Carson, be divorced for immorality, the Blomberg) or supplied by Matthew exception clause relieves the man under the Spirit’s inspiration (Stein, of the responsibility for the divorce Keener, Hawthorne), clearly justifies and its consequences. Understands divorce for immorality and permits Matthew’s exception in light of the remarriage. True, marriage must not unqualified form of Jesus’ sayings be dissolved. But if dissolved by in Mark, Luke, and Paul ( i.e., persistent sexual immorality, the remarriage after any divorce marriage covenant is violated. results in adultery) and the Gen 2:24 “kinship” nature of the marriage relationship.

Meaning of “divorce” Valid divorces always included the Evidently the bill of divorce does (apolyo) right to remarry. Both Jewish and not dissolve the marriage since Roman cultural contexts permit- Jesus states that remarriage ted, yea even required, divorce for amounts to adultery (Matt 5:32b; adultery and remarriage could 19:9b). Matthew’s Jesus rejects the naturally follow. Thus Matthew’s Pharisees’ proof-text for their readers would assume that the “remarriage-assumed” view divorce Jesus permits for immoral- (Deut 24:1) and instead appeals to ity must be the same kind of Gen 2:24 (with it’s kinship under- divorce that Jesus’ contemporaries standing of marriage) as the basis practiced: it included the right to for his views. Three factors suggest remarry. If it meant separation or that Jesus’ reference to “divorce” legal divorce only, without the does not sanction remarriage: right to remarry, then Matthew’s (1) the “one flesh” kinship concept readers would not have readily of marriage; (2) the probably recognized this semantic shift authentic longer reading of Matt without further explanation. 19:9 (“and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery” [cf. Matt 5:32b]); and (3) Jesus’ response to the disciples’ objection in vv. 10-12.

10 Issue Majority Minority

Matt 19:10-12 & the Even with the exception, Jesus’ “This saying” (v. 11) refers to Jesus’ “eunuch saying” position is more daunting than difficult word against divorce and Shammai’s. “This saying” (v. 11) remarriage in v. 9. “Those to refers to the disciples’ objection in whom it is given” are the faithful v. 10 that “it is better not to marry.” disciples (as opposed to Pharisees Jesus recognizes that God enables and outsiders [cf. 13:11-12]) that some to remain celibate for the sake Jesus encourages (v. 12) to embrace of advancing the claims and interests his difficult word that they should of God’s kingdom (cf. 1 Cor 7:7, remain single after divorce even 25-38). for sexual immorality.

How do Jesus & Jesus is more radical than Jesus is much more radical than Shammai differ? Shammai. Jewish (and Roman) Shammai. Shammai mandated law mandated divorce for sexual divorce for sexual immorality, but immorality, but Jesus only Jesus prohibits most divorces and permits it. This means that broken remarriage after divorce for porneia marriages may still be restored. (i.e., adultery, bestiality, incest, sodomy, homosexuality, etc.)

1 Cor 7:10-11 Paul is talking about divorce in Studies indicate that Paul’s teach- situations other than divorce for ing on sexuality, marriage, and sexual unfaithfulness. The believers singleness in 1 Corinthians 6 and 7 advocating asceticism (1 Cor 7:1) stems from the same tradition of wanted to enforce their “no sexual Jesus’ teaching that Matthew relations” slogan on the married records in 19:3-12. Yet Paul says (vv. 1-7), the widowers and widows that if a divorce or separation takes (vv. 8-9, 39-40), those advocating place, “let them remain unmarried separation (vv. 10-16), and the or else be reconciled.” Where Paul engaged (vv. 25-28, 34, 36-38), who, specifically mentions the possibil- like other singles (vv. 29-35), are still ity of remarriage, in both instances free from matrimonial ties and could he notes explicitly that one of live single if they have the gift of the spouses has died (1 Cor 7:39; sexual self-control (vv. 7, 9a; cf. Matt Rom 7:2-3). Thus Paul follows the 19:11-12). teaching of Jesus.29

11 Issue Majority Minority

1 Cor 7:15–”not enslaved” This phrase distinctly frees the Like Matthew’s exception clause, (ou dedoulotai) innocent party to remarry.30 The Paul’s qualifier relieves the inno- essential formula in the Jewish bill of cent party of the guilt of violating divorce were the words “you are free Christ’s command not to divorce to any man” (m. Git. 9:3). Paul (mentioned 4x in vv. 10-13). employs the same formula for Nothing is said about the possibil- believers abandoned by unbelieving ity of remarriage. The following spouses.31 Douloo (1 Cor 7:15) and deo considerations suggest remarriage (1 Cor 7:39; Rom 7:2) “are related”32 is not permitted: (1) marriage is a and used interchangeably (unless one creation ordinance, binding on all excludes categories so as to have so irrespective of their faith or the few examples left as to be able to lack thereof; (2) Paul has already argue whatever one wishes). Both specifically prohibited remarriage free someone who was once married in vv. 10-11; (3) when Paul speaks to remarry. about the binding character of marriage he uses the term deo (Rom 7:2; 1 Cor 7:39; cf. 7:27, a promise of engagement), not douloo (1 Cor 7:15); and (4) where he clearly mentions the possibility of remarriage, Paul also refers to the death of one of the marriage partners (1 Cor 7:39; Rom 7:2).

1 Cor 7:39 & Rom 7:2— 1 Cor 7:39 involves a real case at Whenever Paul mentions the “a wife is bound Corinth and Rom 7:2 occurs as an possibility of remarriage, in both (dedetai) to her husband illustration of how the Mosaic law cases he notes specifically that as long as he lives” only has power over people as one of the spouses has died. This long as they live. Paul does not is Paul’s ordinary usage for the have in view divorce for sexual indissolubility of marriage as long immorality in either place. as a mate is living.

Church Fathers A growing, unbiblical asceticism, The historic teaching of the especially in sexual matters, church—up to the 6th century in distorted and restricted the fathers’ the East and up to the 16th century interpretation of Jesus and Paul’s in the West—stands firmly behind teaching. Note the asceticism a no remarriage understanding of promoted in 1 Corinthians 7 Matt 19:9 and 1 Cor 7:15. already.33

12 Initial Doubts about eager as I was to follow Jesus’ teaching My Minority View wherever it might lead. I wanted to un- I found my own “no remarriage” derstand why the best defenders of the understanding of Jesus’ teaching on majority view were not persuaded by my divorce challenged when I first read C. S. arguments to the contrary. Keener’s book . . . And Marries Another in the fall of 1992.34 For the first time since Rethinking 1 Corinthians 7:15 1982—the year I wrote my Th.M. thesis Early on in my study of the biblical on divorce and remarriage—I began to teaching on marriage and divorce I was wonder if the defense for my “no remar- influenced greatly by G. Bromiley’s little riage” position was as exegetically sound book, God and Marriage. Bromiley devel- as I had thought. ops a theology of marriage patterned In November of 1994 I presented a after God’s relationship with Israel and paper at the annual meeting of the Evan- Christ’s relationship to the church and gelical Theological Society responding to paints the kind of “big theological picture” Keener’s exegesis. I revised it and pub- that helps one see the forest of God’s lished it as “Divorce and Remarriage: The design for marriage through the some- Search for an Evangelical Hermeneutic.”35 times ambiguous exegetical trees.36 I was It was that spring that Gordon Wenham puzzled, however, why Bromiley agreed and I were finalizing the appendix to Jesus with me that Matthew’s exceptions did not and Divorce for the Paternoster reprint that clearly permit remarriage, but did believe finally appeared in 1997; but to be honest, that Paul allowed remarriage to the Chris- my heart was not fully into writing it. tian deserted by an unbeliever (1 Cor I had begun to feel the weight of the 7:15).37 If Jesus had taught that marriage majority position’s arguments. I had writ- is for life, and that remarriage after divorce ten and read so much about this subject for whatever reason amounts to adultery, that I felt jaded and numbed by the whole how could Paul permit remarriage after issue. Nevertheless, I held out hope that I divorce in a situation that seemed “less still might be right and did as much as I serious” (depending on one’s viewpoint) could to keep defending our “no remar- than the remarriage after divorce for riage” view in that appendix. immorality that Jesus disallowed?38 When people would ask whether or not About ten years later when I read in I still held my view, I simply said, “I don’t Keener’s statement that Paul’s “not under know what to believe any more.” I had to bondage” (KJV) “distinctly frees the inno- face the fact that the key articles in IVP’s cent party to remarry” and that “If Paul Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (by R. H. meant that remarriage was not permitted, Stein) and Dictionary of Paul and His he said precisely the opposite of what he Letters (by G. F. Hawthorne) were in meant,”39 I found myself initially agree- essential agreement with Keener’s book. ing with his straightforward analysis of I knew my own intellectual limitations Paul’s language.40 Keener argued that the well enough not to presume that “I alone essential formula in the Jewish bill of must be right,” and one personal conver- divorce, “You are free to marry any man” sation with Bob Stein at a professional (m. Git. 9:3), functions in precisely the meeting convinced me that he was as same way as Paul’s “not being enslaved” 13 in 1 Corinthians 7:15. However, I went on woman (= wife), ‘…is Paul’s ordinary to challenge Keener’s arguments that “not usage for the indissolubility of marriage being enslaved” is different from being as long as a mate is living (v. 39; Rom. “free” to remarry both lexically and con- 7:2).”44 He also makes a telling comment ceptually.41 Without going into all the about 1 Corinthians 7:39, one that waves details here, having just reread my a caution flag in the face of attempts to fill response to Keener after ignoring it for the in the answers to nagging interpretive past six years, I do not see how I missed questions by appealing indiscriminately the fact that Paul’s negative formulation to known first-century cultural back- (“In such cases the brother or the sister is grounds: “The first statement, ‘A woman not enslaved”) was making precisely the is bound to her husband as long as he same point as the positive formulation in lives,’ runs so counter to Jewish under- the Jewish bill of divorce (“You are free to standing and practice at this point in his- marry any man”). That Keener was not at tory that it almost certainly reflects Paul’s all persuaded by my counter arguments understanding of Jesus’ own instructions is evident by the italicized word in the (see on v. 10). As such it is a final word following 1 Corinthians 7:15-related state- against divorce and remarriage.”45 ment I recently found in his 1999 commen- To sum up, I had relied quite heavily tary on Matthew: “Paul’s words recall the on 1 Corinthians 7:39 and Romans 7:2-3 exact language for freedom to remarry in as evidence that Paul followed Jesus’ ancient divorce contracts, and his ancient understanding of marriage as a “one readers, unable to be confused by mod- flesh” kinship relationship that could not ern writers’ debates on the subject, would be dissolved. I also believed that Paul was have understood his words thus…”42 This reflecting Jesus’ sayings in 1 Corinthians meant that if Paul made an exception to 7:10-11 when he allowed the divorced Jesus’ seemingly absolute prohibition of believer only two options: “remain divorce and remarriage in 1 Corinthians unmarried or else be reconciled.” How- 7:15, then it was certainly possible that one ever, I had to admit that Paul may not could interpret Jesus’ exception clauses in have had divorce for sexual immorality Matthew in similar fashion.43 in view in any of those statements. Cer- Nevertheless, I knew that both Jesus tainly at Corinth Paul was addressing a and Paul adopted viewpoints quite the situation where divorce was being advo- opposite of their surrounding culture, and cated by those who claimed to be believ- that where Paul did mention permission ers, and the ascetic party was trying to for remarriage, in both places he also force their views of sexual abstinence (cf. explicitly refers to the death of one of the 1 Cor 7:1) on both the married and the spouses. G. D. Fee had also highlighted formerly married (vv. 1-16, 39-40) as well the similarity between the language of as those pledged to be married and the Romans 7:2-3 and Paul’s statement in never-before-married (vv. 25-38).46 This 1 Corinthians 7:39: “A wife is bound to her led me to reconsider again the possibility husband as long as he lives. But if her that Jesus’ teaching on divorce involved husband dies, she is free to be married to either generalizations or rhetorical over- whom she wishes, only in the Lord.” Fee statements that were never intended to be adds that “the language ‘bound to a understood as exceptionless absolutes. 14 Rethinking the Form of Jesus’ geration (Stein, Keener, Hawthorne, Col- Divorce Sayings lins) or “a generalization which admits of I have just come off of a fall semester certain exceptions.”50 The former view where I was asked to teach the Gospels emphasizes that Jesus referred to himself course at Taylor University to fill in for a as a prophet (Matt 13:57), taught as a wise colleague on sabbatical. Never having man (Matt 12:38-42), and spoke out pow- read Blomberg’s NAC commentary on erfully against the religious hypocrisy and Matthew from beginning to end, I chose injustices he observed (Matthew 23). it as one of my texts for the course. I thor- Therefore, if Jesus wanted to drive home oughly enjoyed the opportunity to work a particular point in the midst of a hostile through his entire exposition of Matthew’s audience, “his omission of any qualifica- message and his many insightful practi- tion may be understandable.”51 Davies cal applications. On a number of occasions and Allison note that I drew my students’ attention to his cautious avoidance of interpretive extremes.47 Jesus’ saying about divorce was, when first delivered, probably I was impacted, too, by his very balanced intended to be more haggadic than treatment of Jesus’ teaching on divorce. halakhic; that is, its purpose was not As a result, he gained my trust. to lay down the law but to reassert an ideal and make divorce a sin, Though it almost seems too obvious to thereby disturbing then current mention now, when the Pharisees asked complacency (a complacency well Jesus where he stood on the matter of di- reflected in Hillel’s view that a woman could be divorced even for vorce (Matt 19:3//Mark 10:2), the pro- burning food: m. Git. 9.10). Jesus was nouncements he made were not ad- not, to judge by the synoptic evidence, a legislator. His concern was dressed to friendly disciples who were not with legal definitions but with eager to obey fully his every word. moral exhortation (cf. 5:27-30).52 Blomberg’s warning caught me off guard: “The specific historical background that On the other hand, I would prefer to informed this debate, the particular way classify Jesus’ sayings as generalizations, in which the question is phrased, and the even though the exposition is essentially unscrupulous motives behind the Phari- the same under either category. I just think sees’ approach all warn us against the words like “exaggeration,” “hyperbole,” notion that Jesus was comprehensively and “rhetorical overstatement” convey addressing all relevant questions about the wrong idea. Based on what I have marriage and divorce.”48 Thus it is quite recently learned, I now find myself in likely that we should not treat “Jesus’ agreement with Blomberg: words as if they were the objective, refer- ential language of jurisprudence seeking Few try to make the pronounce- 49 ments in various other controversy to convey a legal precept.” or pronouncement stories absolute The sayings in both Mark 10:11-12 (cf. e.g., Matt 19:21, 9:15, and esp. and Luke 16:18 give the impression that 13:57, a particularly interesting parallel because of its similar exception under no circumstances would divorce or clause . . . ), so one should be equally remarriage be possible. However, there wary of elevating 19:9 (or Mark are two ways to understand the form of 10:11-12) into an exceptionless absolute. The casuistic legal form (“who- Jesus’ divorce saying. It is either an exag- ever”) does not undermine this 15 claim; parallel “sentences of law” tion clause, which would permit divorce (e.g., Matt 5:22, 27, 39, 41) also contain implicit qualifiers.53 for immorality and might even encourage offended spouses to forgive and take 57 I think a good case can be made that back unfaithful mates. I am convinced Jesus himself uttered the exception clause. that Jesus’ goal would parallel Yahweh’s I formerly held that the disciples’ incre- relentless pursuit of unfaithful Israel dulity (v. 10) in the face of Jesus’ saying throughout the OT and that he would try on divorce in v. 9 could only be explained to save a marriage at all costs. Thus the if Jesus had prohibited all remarriage exception clause means that Jewish mar- after divorce, even divorce for sexual riages may still be kept together even if immorality. Stein, too, admitted that divorce for porneia occurs (cf. the forgive- “Even in the Matthean account the reac- ness requirement in Matt 18:21-35 and the tion of the disciples seems best under- model of the father in Luke 15:11-32). This stood in the light of a total prohibition would have been shocking to first-century against divorce (see Matt 19:10-12). Such Jews, suggesting that Jesus’ view is more a reaction would be surprising if Jesus had strict than Shammai’s—the radical love uttered the ‘exception clause’ since this of God does unexpected things—and was essentially the position of the school adequately explains the disciples’ horri- of Shammai.”54 I think there is a third fied reaction to Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 58 alternative. From Jewish writings outside 19:10. the Bible, we know that first-century pre- rabbinic marriage and divorce practice Rethinking the Meaning of influenced Jewish custom on several “Divorce” points. Not only had the discussions of The major criticism of the minority Hillel and Shammai turned the concession view that Jesus did not permit remarriage of Deut 24:1 into a right to be claimed (cf. after divorce, even divorce for sexual Matt 5:31), a veritable “husbandly privi- immorality, has always been that in the lege,”55 but first-century Judaism had dis- first-century world a legitimate divorce torted the intent of the Mosaic command included the right to remarry. C. S. Mann found in Deuteronomy 24:4. This prohi- states the point emphatically: “The notion bition of a man returning to his first wife that Jesus was allowing separation, but after she had remarried and divorced a not divorce, cannot be sustained—as second time (or her husband had died) Judaism had no such custom, he would 59 was cast in the extreme so that a husband perforce have had to explain it.” I tried was prohibited from ever returning to his several times to argue that Jesus had made wife if she had sexual relations in any form it sufficiently clear that he was investing with another man. She had to be divorced apolyo (“I divorce”) with a different 60 (cf. Joseph and Mary in Matt 1:19), even if semantic content, but my arguments she was an innocent victim of rape.56 If have not proved convincing. I knew the Jewish law mandated divorce for sexual syntactical argument we employed only unfaithfulness and prohibited a wife from opened the door to harmonizing Matthew ever returning to her husband after she with an absolute reading of Mark, Luke, 61 had been unfaithful, Jesus may be coun- and Paul. Further, I have always taught tering both of these notions via the excep- my Greek exegesis students that when it 16 comes to validating exegetical problems, Yahweh towards Israel, whom he had grammar gets you into the ball park, and joined with himself in a covenant (berit), sometimes gets you on base, but it will is implicitly put forward as a model for never get you to home plate.62 So why did husband and wife in Malachi 2, and (3) I persist? Why did I continue to think that that kinship relationships cannot be Jesus must be using the word “divorce” undone, then marriage must be a cov- with a new sense? enant-based kinship relationship that It seemed very clear to me. Jesus lasts until death. brushes aside the Pharisees’ Deuteronomy There was only one problem. I was 24:1-based concept of “divorce” and missing two crucial details about biblical replaces it with the Genesis 2:24-based covenants and the nature of that Genesis concept that husband and wife become 2:24 “one flesh” relationship: (1) biblical “one flesh.” After quoting Genesis 2:24 in covenants can be violated and dissolved Matthew 19:5//Mark 10:7-8a, Jesus reit- and (2) the “one flesh” marital-kinship erates the significance of the two becom- union is not a literal flesh and blood rela- ing one flesh by saying, “So they are no tionship. (I have already incorporated longer two but one flesh. What God has both of these points in the top two boxes joined together let no one separate” (Matt in the chart under the majority view.) 19:6//Mark 10:8b-9). This meant that the “one flesh” concept in its OT context Rethinking the Meaning of was the basis for whatever Jesus was “One Flesh” and the Nature of saying about the permanence of marriage. Biblical Covenants Yet none of the books or articles on divorce Gordon Hugenberger’s Marriage as a and remarriage—I had collected around Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as Devel- 100 by then—ever nailed down this con- oped from Malachi is the most comprehen- cept.63 sive study of its title’s focus to date. He Then in the midst of doing research for also draws upon all the pertinent ancient my 1982 Th.M. thesis, I stumbled across Near Eastern and related biblical legal an obscure yet impressive doctoral disser- and narrative material touching on tation done by A. Isaksson at the Univer- betrothal, marriage, divorce, and sexual sity of Upsala, Sweden.64 This is where I offences.65 This study supplied the final learned two concepts that steered my “programming” that I needed to resolve exegesis from that point on (cf. minority the cognitive dissonance on the subject of view of Gen 2:24 in the chart above): remarriage after divorce that I have expe- “leave” and “cleave” were covenant terms rienced for the past ten years. On my and were later employed to refer to former “no remarriage” view of Jesus’ God’s covenant with Israel, and “one teaching, what proved most troubling to flesh” in Genesis 2:24 was an abbreviation me all along (though I did have an answer of Adam’s remark in Genesis 2:23. To be for it) was that Jesus would be labeling as someone’s bone and flesh was a common adultery the remarriage of someone OT expression to denote kinship and fam- whose spouse’s unrepentant sexual ily solidarity. Since (1) I assumed God’s immorality or subsequent remarriage had covenant with Israel could not be broken made the restoration of the original mar- (cf. Rom 11:28-29), (2) that the fidelity of riage impossible. This just did not sound 17 like the God “who practices steadfast love, those which exist between parents and a justice, and righteousness in the earth” child or between blood brothers (cf. Gen. (Jer 9:24). 4:9).”73 I had argued that the covenant and Hugenbeger notes from the start that consummation of marriage made two “the relationship between biblical mar- totally unrelated people as closely related riage law and covenantal concepts has as they will be to their own flesh and blood been left largely unresolved and, much of children. However, the unity between the time, virtually ignored.”66 He adds unrelated persons established by the that a study of the covenantal nature of marriage covenant is not the same as a ver- marriage could help resolve some of the tical blood relationship between a parent remaining difficulties in comprehending and a child nor the horizontal blood rela- the biblical ethics and practice of mar- tionship that exists between siblings. The riage; and one such difficulty is the Genesis 2:24 phrase, “they become one dissolubility of marriage, i.e., what flesh,” refers “to the bondedness which constitutes covenant breaking. Some say results from and is expressed by sexual that if marriage is a covenant, then it might union” and “refers to the establishment be possible to break the covenant by of a new family unit” (cf. Gen 29:14; 37:27; divorce.67 Others argue that not divorce, Lev 18:6; 2 Sam 5:1; Isa 58:7).74 but only sexual infidelity “breaks” the As already noted in our chart above, covenant. P. F. Palmer, on the other hand, “leave” and “cleave” in Genesis 2:24 are claims that covenants, unlike contracts, clearly covenant terms, as Hugenberger are inherently “inviolable” and “unbreak- also argues,75 and there are four essential able.”68 The data in my head began to ingredients in the OT understanding of reformat when Hugenberger responded “covenant” (berit): “it is used of 1) a rela- to Palmer’s “unbreakable” covenant tionship 2) with a non-relative 3) which notion by saying that “in terms of Hebrew involves obligations and 4) is established usage covenants may be both violated and through an oath.”76 The scholarly consen- dissolved—with both of these concepts sus is that an oath is indispensable for rati- expressed by the same underlying fying a covenant, and God is invoked in Hebrew expression which is customarily any ratifying oath to act as “the enforcer” rendered ‘broken’ in most English ver- of the covenant.77 The marriage covenant, sions…”69 I knew immediately that my as opposed to a contract, involves three no remarriage view had been placed in persons—the bride, the groom, and God. jeopardy.70 Furthermore, “covenant-ratifying oaths I learned that the primary sense of often consist of verba solemnia, that is, a “covenant” (berit) is that it is an “elected, solemn declaration of the commitment as opposed to natural, relationship of being undertaken—solemn because the obligation established under divine sanc- deity was implicitly invoked as a wit- tion.”71 Covenants were “the means the ness.”78 These oaths were not just verbal ancient world took to extend relationships (nor primarily so), but were frequently beyond the natural unity by blood,”72 and symbolic: they consisted of “oath-signs” “berit is nowhere employed of naturally (sharing in a meal, the giving of a hand, occurring relationships and the ordinary etc.).79 Adam’s verbal oath-sign is found obligations which attend them, such as in Genesis 2:23: “This is now bone of my 18 bones and flesh of my flesh” (NIV). stances, far from being inconsistent with Jesus’ thought, is in perfect har- Far from being a “jubilant welcome” mony with it.84 addressed to Eve, Adam addresses these words to God as witness, says Hugen- Though I was cognizant of Carson’s point berger: “[T]hese words appear to be a the year his commentary was released, a solemn affirmation of his marital commit- few other possibly misconstrued pieces of ment, an elliptical way of saying some- biblical data (see above) caused me to thing like, ‘I hereby invite you, God, to believe that marriage was “‘till death do hold me accountable to treat this woman us part.” What ultimately caused me to 80 as part of my own body [cf. Eph 5:28].’” do an about face was a series of OT So what role, then, does sexual union passages that were lumped together over play in the formation of the marriage several pages in Hugenberger.85 covenant? Hugenberger argues “that I was struck with the gravity of the sin sexual union (copula carnalis), when of adultery in the eyes of both God and engaged in with consent (i.e., both paren- man. Hugenberger noted that “the Old tal, in the case of dependent daughters, Testament appears to presuppose a gen- and mutual), was understood as a eral moral consciousness in man, shared marriage-constituting act and, corre- even by pagans, which acknowledges spondingly, was considered a requisite adultery as a heinous wrong committed covenant-ratifying (and renewing) oath- not only against the injured husband, but sign for marriage, at least in the view of also against God” (cf. Gen 20:6, 9, 10).86 81 certain biblical authors.” “Clearly,” says God exclaimed to Abimelech, a Gentile, Hugenberger, “sexual union is the indis- that if he did not return Sarah to Abraham, pensable means for the consummation of “know that you shall surely die, you, and marriage both in the Old Testament and all who are yours” (Gen 20:7). The seri- 82 elsewhere in the ancient Near East.” ousness of the sin of adultery was obvi- It should be obvious now that sexual ous to Joseph too. When Potiphar’s wife infidelity is a particularly grave violation said, “Lie with me” (Gen 39:7), Joseph of the marriage covenant, a sin against exclaimed: “How then can I do this great both the covenant partner and against wickedness and sin against God” (39:9).87 83 God, and if covenants can be violated If this is how offensive God viewed a and dissolved, this sin strikes at the mar- sexual violation of the marriage covenant, riage covenant in a unique way. As Carson then how could I continue to believe that noted years ago in his commentary on Jesus, God’s son, would not view that Matthew: same sin similarly? To conclude, the Genesis 2:24 “one . . . sexual sin has a peculiar relation to Jesus’ treatment of Genesis 1:27; flesh” relationship that results from the 2:24 (in Matt 19:4-6), because the in- covenant of marriage ratified by sexual dissolubility of marriage he defends consummation is not an indissoluble by appealing to those verses from the creation accounts is predicated union, just one that should preeminently on sexual union (“one flesh”). Sexual not be dissolved, and a sexual sin like promiscuity is therefore a de facto adultery is the preeminent violation of the exception. It may not necessitate divorce; but permission for divorce marriage covenant. When we realize that and remarriage under such circum- ancient Near Eastern and OT (Deut 24:1, 19 3; Mal 2:16) divorce law distinguished husband who learned of his wife’s affair between divorce without justification to divorce her immediately,” and if he did (“hate and divorce” in Deut 24:3; Mal 2:16) not do so, “Roman law allowed him to be and divorce with grounds (“some inde- prosecuted for the offense of lenocinium— cency” in Deut 24:1),88 it seems most prob- pimping”90 Today I think Jesus would able that the exception clause in Matthew label as unforgiving someone who points to divorce with just cause, a valid divorced their spouse for a “one night divorce that would permit remarriage,89 stand.” and Jesus limits that just cause to porneia. Though we do not have any NT examples illustrating the precise way Jesus’ Pastoral Implications (or Matthew’s) and Paul’s exceptions What does all of this mean for the might be applied, at least two paradigms application of the biblical teaching on teach us to be gun shy of getting trigger- divorce and remarriage now that I have happy with them. First, though Yahweh come to believe that Paul’s (1 Cor 7:15) and had the legal right to disown his people Jesus’ (Matt 5:32; 19:9) words point to a due to their infidelity (cf. Hos 2:2a//1:9), just cause for divorce? As I mentioned he only threatened Israel with divorce. earlier, under my “no remarriage” view However, “just as the threatened covenant I felt odd about saying that Jesus would of dissolution in Hosea 1 is followed forbid remarriage to the innocent person by an unexpected promise of covenant whose spouse’s unrepentant sexual renewal in Hos 2:1-3 [ET 1:10–2:1], so also immorality or subsequent remarriage had the threatened divorce in Hos. 2:4ff. [ET made the restoration of the original mar- 2ff.] is followed by an unexpected prom- riage impossible. This has now been ise of a new marriage in Hos. 2:16ff. [ET resolved in my mind. Second, in the case 14ff.].”91 God’s gracious covenant love of the genuine exceptions, after innocent ultimately overcomes Israel’s infidelity. parties have made all reasonable attempts Second, I agree with R. B. Hays that “the to save the marriage, neither the church Christ/church typology [cf. Eph 5:21-33] nor mission agencies should stigmatize presents an extraordinarily high standard one’s subsequent decision to remarry or for marriage; if marriage truly reflects the to remain single. Third, if we factor in our love between Christ and the church, it own contemporary cultural differences, should be characterized by infinite loyalty reflect on the accumulated canonical wit- and self-sacrificial love.”92 ness to God’s merciful dealings with his What, then, do the two exceptions in people, take seriously the call to model the the majority view have in common, and forgiveness we received from Christ at the what can we learn from them about how cross and the call to imitate our heavenly to handle divorce cases today? At this Father as his beloved children (Eph 5:1- point in my study, I would second 2), then we should know not to apply Keener’s summary of Blomberg’s insight- Jesus’ and Paul’s exceptions in exactly the ful comparison of the two. The principles same way their first-century hearers that unite both Jesus’ (or Matthew’s) and would have applied them. Their culture Paul’s exceptions are: (1) both sexual mandated divorce for sexual immorality. immorality and abandonment violate one Both Jewish and Roman law, “required a of the two fundamental components of 20 marriage (either the “leaving and the us control over the sexual area of our lives cleaving” or the “one flesh” unity); (2) and that we are not slaves to bodily pas- “Both leave one party without any other sions. Furthermore, my never-before-mar- options if attempts at reconciliation are ried single friends are quite suspicious of spurned”; and (3) “Both recognize the arguments that seek to justify remarriage extreme seriousness of divorce as a last primarily to satisfy unfulfilled sexual resort and as an admission of defeat.”93 desires. Certainly, as a lesser of two evils, Might there be additional legitimate it would be better to marry than to com- grounds for the dissolution of a mar- mit sexual immorality, but this raises other riage?94 Here one must be cautious. Some questions I cannot address here. do feel that physical abuse justifies If we have understood Paul correctly divorce, and I am sympathetic with this in 1 Corinthians 7:15, willful desertion by suggestion.95 Even on my former “no an unbelieving spouse who subsequently remarriage” view, I taught that in a home remarries makes the restoration of that where a parent was abusing the children marriage impossible, and I would see no or a spouse was being abused, common barrier to remarriage (unless, perhaps, for ethical sense dictates that Jesus would not conscientious reasons the abandoned require the concerned parent to stay. I believer desires to remain single). But agree with Keener that both Jesus and what if the unbelieving deserter does not Paul would “would advise the one par- remarry? In time and with great assurance ent to take the children and leave, at least that the marriage cannot be restored, it temporarily.”96 However, incompatibility would seem that the Christian could and fits of anger would not fit under the remarry. Just how long one should wait banner of porneia. Also, provision for a would be determined by one’s theologi- spouse’s food, clothing, and housing, cally informed conscience and whether or affection, communication, spiritual lead- not God providentially brings along a ership, and a host of other qualities, are, Christ-centered believing partner. no doubt, important requirements in mar- One or two writers find in Paul’s riage—but failures in these matters do not counsel in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 explicit justify divorce. I am leery, too, of appeal- permission for divorcees to remarry. I am ing to verses like 1 Corinthians 7:9 (“It is quite confident that Paul is not here mak- better to marry than to be aflame with ing a blanket statement that “remar- passion”), which Paul addresses to wid- riage—like the marriage of a virgin—has owers and widows (vv. 8-9), and then turn problems, but also that it is not sinful.”97 this into a basis for remarriage because This makes Paul explicitly approve of one’s sexual needs go unfulfilled if a remarriage after divorce without qualifi- spouse invalidly divorces them and cation. The ESV now helps clarify Paul’s chooses not to remarry. Paul is quite clear intent: “Are you bound to a wife (dedesai that believers are to remain unmarried or gynaika)? Do not seek to be free (me zetei be reconciled in this situation (1 Cor 7:10- lysin). Are you free (lelysai) from a wife? 11; cf. Matt 5:32b//Luke 16:18b). Also, the Do not seek a wife. But if you do marry, OT stories of Joseph and Potiphar’s wife you have not sinned, and if a betrothed (Genesis 39) and David and Bathsheba woman (he parthenos) marries, she has not (2 Samuel 11) imply that God has given sinned.” There is a growing consensus, 21 though not without its problems, that Paul and exegetical reasons for my shift at this is speaking to the concerns of some en- time in my life, and the reader will have gaged couples in vv. 25-38 (cf. NIV, NRSV, to decide for himself or herself whether RSV translations of vv. 36-38).98 The men or not I have made the right decision. I were asking Paul whether or not to fol- think there are some excellent arguments low through with their promise to marry to be made in favor of the minority view. (cf. deo in v. 27) in view of the ascetic teach- Yet I have found that scholars like Collins, ing they had come under in Corinth.99 Davies and Allison, Hagner, and Hays, Paul’s initial (vv. 25-28) and final (vv. 36- whose exegesis leads them to believe that 38) remarks in this section are directed Jesus categorically prohibited divorce and specifically to these couples.100 Though remarriage, eventually speak of Jesus’ Paul personally prefers the single state, he divorce sayings as an ideal that must be wants them to know—contrary to what realistically applied in this “not yet” era. the ascetics probably taught—that it is not Their suggested modern applications are sinful to go through with their plans to almost identical to what we find among marry (vv. 28, 36). Thus 1 Corinthians 7:27- proponents of the majority view. Both 28 should not be brought into discussions majority and minority views want to of the NT teaching on the ethics of remar- avoid extremes in their application of the riage after divorce. NT teaching. Minority view proponents I would like to comment on one final may unfortunately prohibit what God implication of the biblical teaching on would permit,102 and majority view divorce and remarriage for church lead- proponents may permit what God would ers, namely pastors/elders/overseers, prohibit. The latter is the danger in a cul- deacons, and deaconesses. The most ture that emphasizes “self-actualization,” recent studies of “the husband of one personal fulfillment, and “being true to wife” requirement (1 Tim 3:2, 12; Titus 1:6) oneself” rather than being true to the argue that it is a typical ancient way of attendant commitments and obligations saying “faithful to one’s marriage.” Paul of one’s marriage covenant. Hays writes: does not prohibit from church office those who, against their own wishes, have been [T]he church must recognize and teach that marriage is grounded not abandoned or sexually betrayed, but those in feelings of love but in the practice of who are unfaithful to their marriage.101 love. Nor is the marriage bond con- Thus divorcees should not automatically tingent upon self-gratification or personal fulfillment. The church has be excluded from leadership positions in swallowed a great quantity of pop the church, nor should those who have psychology that has no foundation in remarried after the very limited cases in the biblical depiction of marriage; . . . . When the marital union is rightly which the NT permits remarriage after understood as a covenant, the ques- divorce (i.e., divorce with just cause). tion of divorce assumes a very different aspect. Those who have made promises before God should trust Conclusion God for grace sufficient to keep those It may sound odd for me to say this promises, and they should expect the community of faith to help them to now, but my switch to the majority view keep faith, by supporting them and could be wrong. Nevertheless, I have tried holding them accountable.103 to enumerate the conceptual, theological, 22 Let’s teach God’s word, preach to his ing to Saint Matthew, 3 vols. (Inter- InterVarsity Press, 2000) 6-16. glory, and disciple and equip God’s national Critical Commentary; 66G. J. Wenham, “Matthew and Di- people so that they find their greatest Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988-95); vorce: An Old Crux Revisited,” Jour- satisfaction and enjoyment in being C. S. Mann, Mark (Anchor Bible 27; nal for the Study of the New Testament obedient to Jesus. Only as we seek to Garden City: Doubleday, 1986); C. 22 (1984) 95-107; “The Syntax of please the Lord and imitate our heav- M. Blomberg, Matthew (New Ameri- Matthew 19.9,” Journal for the Study enly Father as his dearly loved chil- can Commentary 22; Nashville: of the New Testament 28 (1986) 17-23; dren (Eph 5:1) will we please one Broadman, 1992); R. H. Stein, Luke “Divorce,” in The Oxford Companion another—and that includes spouses. (New American Commentary 24; to the Bible, ed. B. M. Metzger and “He who loves his wife loves himself. Nashville: Broadman, 1992); M. D. Coogan (New York: Oxford For no one ever hated his own flesh, J. Nolland, Luke 9:21–18:34 ( WBC University Press, 1993) 169-171. but nourishes and cherishes it, just as 35B; Dallas: Word, 1993); D. L. Bock, W. A. Heth, “The Meaning of Christ does the church” (Eph 5:28b- Luke, 2 vols. (Baker Exegetical Com- Divorce in Matthew 19:3-9,” Church- 29).104 mentary on the New Testament; man 98 (1984) 136-152; “Matthew’s Grand Rapids: Baker, 1994-96); C. S. ‘Eunuch Saying’ (19:12) and Its ENDNOTES Keener, A Commentary on the Gospel Relationship to Paul’s Teaching on 11W. A. Heth and G. J. Wenham, Jesus of Matthew (Grand Rapids: Eerd- Singleness in 1 Corinthians 7" and Divorce: Towards an Evangelical mans, 1999). The exceptions are (unpublished doctoral dissertation; Understanding of New Testament R. H. Gundry, Mark: A Commentary Dallas Theological Seminary, 1986); Teaching (London: Hodder & on His Apology for the Cross (Grand “Divorce and Remarriage,” in Stoughton, 1984; Nashville: Thomas Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) and D. A. Applying the Scriptures: Papers from Nelson, 1985; updated ed.; Carlisle: Hagner, Matthew, 2 vols. (Word Bib- ICBI Summit III, ed. K. S. Kantzer Paternoster, 1997). In the ten year lical Commentary 33; Dallas, TX: (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1987) update we added a 34 page appen- Word, 1993-95). This sample is not 219-239; “Unmarried ‘for the Sake dix and over 350 additional biblio- intended to be exhaustive. of the Kingdom’ (Matthew 19:12) in graphical entries, most of them 55R. H. Stein, “Divorce” in Dictionary the Early Church,” Grace Theologi- appearing since 1984. of Jesus and the Gospels, ed. J. B. Green cal Journal 8 (Spring 1987) 55-88; 22ESV and so throughout unless indi- and S. McKnight (Downers Grove, “Divorce, but No Remarriage,” in cated otherwise. IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992) 192-199; Divorce and Remarriage: Four Chris- 33Haddon Robinson, “CT Readers G. F. Hawthorne, “Marriage and tian Views, ed. H. W. House Survey: Sex, Marriage, and Divorce,” Divorce, Adultery and Incest,” in (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Christianity Today, 14 Dec 1992, 31. Dictionary of Paul and His Letters, ed. Press, 1990) 73-129; “The Changing Over two-thirds of the 1,500 read- G. F. Hawthorne and R. P. Martin Basis for Permitting Remarriage ers surveyed—primarily church (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity after Divorce for Adultery: The leaders—responded. This was one Press, 1993) 594-601; C. S. Keener, Influence of R. H. Charles,” Trinity of the highest responses in two “Marriage, Divorce and Adultery” Journal 11 ns (1990) 143-159; decades of subscriber research. in Dictionary of the Later New Testa- “Divorce and Remarriage: The Only one out of ten respondents ment and Its Developments, ed. R. P. Search for an Evangelical Herme- were divorced. Martin and P. H. Davids; Downers neutic,” Trinity Journal 16 ns (1995) 44D. A. Carson, “Matthew,” in The Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1997) 63-100. Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. 712-717; C. S. Keener, “Adultery, 77A. Cornes, Divorce and Remarriage: F. E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Divorce” in Dictionary of New Testa- Biblical Principles and Pastoral Prac- Zondervan, 1984); W. D. Davies and ment Background, ed. C. A. Evans tice (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993); D. C. Allison, Jr., The Gospel accord- and S. E. Porter (Downers Grove, IL: Warren Carter, Households and Dis- 23 cipleship: A Study of Matthew 19-20 ments to Vetus Testamentum 52; Deuteronomy 24:1-4,” in Studies in (Journal for the Study of the New Leiden: Brill, 1994; Grand Rapids: the Bible 1986 (Scripta Hieroso- Testament Supplement Series 103; Baker Books, 1998). I would like to lymitana 31; Jerusalem: Magnes, Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, express my deep appreciation to Dr. 1986) 387-405, adopted by Heth, 1994); Hagner, 549. Cf. also M. Hugenberger for several e-mail “Divorce, but No Remarriage,” 82- Bockmuehl, “Matthew 5.32; 19.9 in exchanges and the assistance he 87. the Light of Pre-Rabbinic Halakah,” provided in the midst of his busy 23Hugenberger, 83. New Testament Studies 35 (1989) 291- schedule as pastor of the historic 24Note: As I recall, neither Heth nor 295. Others not dependent on us Park Street Church in Boston and as Wenham ever advocated this view include R. H. Gundry, Survey of the adjunct professor of OT and semitic of Mal 2:16. New Testament, 3rd ed. (Grand Rap- languages at Gordon Conwell Theo- 25C. S. Keener, . . . And Marries Another: ids: Zondervan, 1994) 191; J. C. logical Seminary. Divorce and Remarriage in the Teach- Laney, The Divorce Myth (Minneapo- 11R. F. Collins, Divorce in the New Tes- ing of the New Testament (Peabody, lis: Bethany, 1981); “No Divorce & tament (Good News Studies 38; MA: Hendrickson, 1991) 26-27. No Remarriage” in Divorce and Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 26Blomberg, “Matthew 19:3-12,” 162, Remarriage: Four Christian Views, ed. 1992) 6-7. See my review of Collins n. 5. H. W. House (Downers Grove: in Journal of the Evangelical Theo- 27J. A. Fitzmyer, Luke X–XXIV InterVarsity Press, 1990) 15-54. A logical Society 39 (1996) 676-678. (Anchor Bible 28a; New York: recent survey and affirmation of our Collins’s approach is thoroughly Doubleday, 1985) 1120. book is D. Warden, “The Words of historical-critical: Matthew is dated 28Keener, Marries Another, 23. Jesus on Divorce,” Restoration Quar- in the late 80s; he is a collector of 29Cf. Heth, “Matthew’s ‘Eunuch Say- terly 39 (1997) 141-153. traditions; the form of the exception ing,’” 255-266. 88See also Blomberg’s article “Mar- in 5:32 is pre-Matthean (from his 30Keener, Marries Another, 61. riage, Divorce, Remarriage, and community); and the one in 19:9 is 31Keener, “Adultery, Divorce,” 6. Celibacy: An Exegesis of Matthew Matthew’s formulation. 32Stein, “Divorce,” 194. 19:3-12,” Trinity Journal 11 ns (1990) 12Cf. Hugenberger, 3, n. 25. 33Cf. Blomberg, Matthew, 292-293. 161-196. 13Ibid., 174. 34I first met Craig in July of 1992 99Wenham and Heth, Jesus and 14D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, when Christianity Today brought us Divorce, updated ed., 205-209. The 1st ed. (Analecta biblica 21a; Rome: together at O’Hare Airport for a CT demise of the forbidden degrees Biblical Institute, 1963) 175. Institute on divorce (see the Dec. 14, of kinship view is the first of four 15Cf. P. F. Palmer “Christian Marriage: 1992 issue, pp. 26-37). Craig gave trends we identified as emerging Contract or Covenant?” Theological me a copy of his book at that time. in the decade following the publi- Studies 33 (1972) 617-665. 35Heth, “Divorce and Remarriage.” cation of our study. Another recent 16F. I. Anderson and D. N. Freedman, 36See R. B. Hays, The Moral Vision of critique of this view appears in Hosea (Anchor Bible 24; New York: the New Testament (Edinburgh: T&T D. Janzen, “The Meaning of Porneia Doubleday, 1980) 221. Clark, 1996) for a more recent brief in Matthew 5.32 and 19.9: An 17Hugenberger, 165. but excellent canonical synthesis Approach from the Study of 18Ibid., 269. (361-376) after his exegesis of the Ancient Near Eastern Culture,” 19Cf. BDB, “bsr,” 142, #4; N. P. Brat- relevant texts (349-361). Journal for the Study of the New Testa- siotis, s.v. “bsr,” TDOT, 2:327-328. 37G. Bromiley, God and Marriage ment 80 (2000) 66-80, esp. 69-70. 20Hugenberger, 77. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980) 67- 10G. Hugenberger, Marriage as a 21Ibid., 77, n. 144. 68. So also F. F. Bruce: “presumably Covenant: Biblical Law and Ethics as 22Cf. R. Westbrook, “The Prohibition remarriage would not be com- Developed from Malachi (Supple- on Restoration of Marriage in pletely excluded for the believer” 24 (1 and 2 Corinthians [New Century arguments I had advanced to the ing New Testament Imperatives,” Bible; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, contrary in Jesus and Divorce, 140- Crux 6:3 (1990) 41. 1971] 70; and his Hard Sayings 144. I also knew, however, what G. 49Stein, “Divorce,” 197. of Jesus [Downers Grove, IL: D. Fee had said about 1 Cor 7:15b: 50Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, InterVarsity Press, 1983] 61); W. F. “. . . several converging data indi- Remarriage, and Celibacy,” 162. Cf. Orr and J. A. Walter: “The deserted cate that Paul is essentially repeat- W. Barclay, Introduction to the First partner, then, is free to marry again” ing his first sentence: that the Three Gospels (Philadelphia: West- (1 Corinthians [Anchor Bible 32; believer is not bound to maintain minster, 1975) 63: “The form of these New York: Doubleday, 1976] 214); the marriage if the pagan partner sayings [“If any man ...,” “Who- Stein, “Divorce,” 198; Hawthorne, opts out. . . . Remarriage is not an ever,” or “Whenever”] makes them “Marriage and Divorce, Adultery issue at all; indeed, it seems to be general rules and principles, . . . “ and Incest,” 599; T. R. Schreiner, quite the opposite. In a context in 51Stein, “Divorce,” 194. “Matthew, led Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: which people are arguing for the by the Spirit (Jn 16:13, 15), has A Pauline Theology (Downers Grove, right to dissolve marriage, Paul interpreted Jesus’ words and shown IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001) 431. In would scarcely be addressing the that Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 1979 Stein was more nuanced about issue of remarriage, and certainly are overstatements addressed to a the intent of 1 Cor 7:15: “One cannot in such circuitous fashion” (The hostile audience and that Jesus did not be dogmatic and claim that the First Epistle to the Corinthians [New not intend in a single sentence to believer ‘no longer being bound’ International Commentary on the establish a law which would cover (7:15) implies the right to remarry, New Testament; Grand Rapids: ever conceivable situation” (Stein, but it would be equally wrong to be Eerdmans, 1987] 302-303). “Divorce,” 194-195). dogmatic and say that it excludes 41Heth, “Divorce and Remarriage: 52Davies and Allison, 1:532; cf. 95-96. the right to remarry” (“Is It Lawful The Search,” 84-89. Ph.D. student, I find it precarious to maintain that for a Man to Divorce His Wife?” R. G. Olender, seconds and extends Jesus always spoke in this manner. Journal of the Evangelical Theological my arguments in his “The Pauline Thus I disagree with Davies and Society 22 [1979] 120). Privilege: Inference or Exegesis?” Allison’s assessment that “Matthew 38The answer to this question will be Faith and Mission 16 (1998) 94-117. must be found guilty of misunder- found under “Pastoral Implica- Olender adopts a preterite-type standing Jesus” when he included tions” section in the words of Blom- view of Matt 19:9. the exception clause because it berg (Matthew, 293), seconded by 42Keener, Matthew, 191. “betrays a halakhic interpretation: Keener (Matthew, 191-192, n. 96). 43Cf. Bock, 2:1358, n. 27. it turns the Lord’s logion into a com- 39Keener, Marries Another, 61. Keener 44Fee, First Corinthians, 331; cf. 295- munity regulation” (532). See fur- still stands firmly behind this asser- 296, 303, 355-356. ther Heth and Wenham, Jesus and tion: “The basic element of the Jew- 45Ibid., 355. Divorce, updated ed., 218-219. ish divorce contract was the phrase 46This is why Paul reminds them 53Blomberg, “Marriage, Divorce, Re- ‘you are free,’ permitting the wife’s twice in this section that “it is no marriage, and Celibacy,” 162-163. remarriage (m. Git. 9:3; CPJ, 2:10–12 sin” to marry (1 Cor 7:28, 36). Blomberg also notes, contrary to the §144); Paul employs the same for- 47Blomberg, Matthew, 111, 190, 198, rhetorical overstatement approach, mula for believers abandoned by 204, 342-343 (especially relevant to that the exception clause in v.9 unbelieving spouses (1 Cor 7:15; see Jesus’ saying in 5:32), 377-378. need not be understood as “a later, DPL, Marriage and Divorce, Adul- 48Ibid., 289-290. Cf. G. D. Fee, “Issues inspired addition. It is rather more tery and Incest)” (“Adultery, in Evangelical Hermeneutics, Part likely a portion of Jesus’ original Divorce,” 6). II: The Crucial Issue–Authorial teaching which Mark omitted and 40This was true despite the seven Intentionality: A Proposal Regard- Matthew restored” (163, n. 8). 25 54Stein, “Is It Lawful,” 118. Stein does “Divorce,” 193; Blomberg, Matthew, ture: Reading the Bible in the Light of add that “Matthew goes further 111. General Linguistics [Grand Rapids: than the school of Shammai, how- 60Heth, “The Meaning of Divorce,” Zondervan, 1990] 15). ever, by relativizing Deut 24:1 as 136-152; “Divorce and Remarriage: 63For example, S. A. Ellisen repeatedly being given ‘due to the hardness of The Search,” 94-97. Gundry also states that the sin of adultery men’s hearts’” (ibid.). proposes, based on the reaction of “breaks” or “dissolves” the one- 55Gundry, Mark, 530. the disciples in Matt 19:10 (cf. 5:31- flesh union of husband and wife 56Cf. Bockmuehl, “Matthew 5.32; 32 where remarriage goes unmen- (Divorce and Remarriage in the Church 19.9,” 291-295. Also Carter, House- tioned), that Jesus allowed an [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1977] holds and Discipleship, 56-89. Nearly exception with respect to divorce 52, 53, 58, 68, 72, 97, 98, 99), and every one of the premishnaic texts but not remarriage. “If so and if they mentions “one flesh” at least five that Bockmuehl works with were understood Jesus correctly, he rede- times, but never once tells us what already discussed by A. Tosato, fines divorce as a dissolution of mar- it signifies and in what sense it is “Joseph, Being a Just Man,” Catho- riage without the right to remarry” dissolved. Ten years later I read lic Biblical Quarterly 41 (1979) 547- (Survey, 191). Keener’s Marries Another, and was 551 (Jub. 33:7-9; 41:20; 1 QapGen 61Heth and Wenham, Jesus and convinced he still did not know 20:15; cf. Tg. Ps.-J. 22:26). Divorce, updated ed., 116-120, 227- either. He says that “husband and 57This is different than saying Mat- 229; Wenham, “Matthew and wife become one flesh when they thew inserted the clause in order Divorce,” 95-107; “The Syntax,” 17- are united sexually” (Marries to bring Jesus’ teaching in line with 23. Jonathan Tripple, one of my Another, 40), that “They become the then current practice in the former Greek students in my Gos- one flesh in marriage (Gen. 2:24) Matthean community (older histori- pels’ course, recently noted in one because they were originally male cal critical view). It also differs from of our conversations about his and female (1:27) and began as one Collins’s view that the Matt 5:32 excellent 28 page paper on Matt flesh (2:23); for the Hebrew idiom, form of the clause, with its allusion 19:3-12: “To say that the majority cf. 29:14; Judg. 9:2; 2 Sam. 5:1; 19:13; to Deut 24:1 (cf. Heth and Wenham, view would have been affirmed 1 Chr. 11:11” (160, n. 18), and that Jesus and Divorce, 168), suggests that without a doubt if Matthew had “Jesus uses this image of spiritual the exception served as a conscience placed the exception clause after unity [italics mine] to argue that clause for those Jewish Christians the verb ‘remarries’ rather than marriage should not be dissolved by who felt themselves duty-bound to between ‘divorces’ and ‘remarries,’ people, not to argue that it can not divorce adulterous wives, either to is really an argument from silence.” be” (41). be faithful to God’s will or to obey For the most recent critique of the 64A. Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry then current Jewish (and Roman) syntactical argument, see Janzen, in the New Temple. A Study with Spe- law, which demanded they divorce “Meaning of Porneia,” 70-71. cial Reference to Mt. 19.13 [sic]-12 and adulterous spouses (Divorce, 212). 62“ . . . we can feel confident that no 1 Cor. 11.3-16, trans. N. Tomkinson 58Interestingly, Collins (120-126) fol- reasonable writer would seek to with J. Gray (Acta seminarii neo- lows the minority view on Matt express a major point by leaning on testamentici upsaliensis 24; Lund: 19:10-12, but believes that divine a subtle grammatical distinction— Gleerup, 1965). enablement to remain single is especially if it is a point not other- 65Among other surprises, Hugen- given to those who divorce or have wise clear from the whole context berger calls into question the tradi- been divorced for reasons other than (and if it is clear from the context, tional view, largely based on Lev unchastity (v. 9). Collins’s exegesis is then the grammatical subtlety plays 20:10; Jer 29:23, that within the OT seconded by Hays, 376-377, n. 17. at best a secondary role in exegesis)” a married man could not commit 59C. S. Mann, 388. Cf. Stein, (M. Silva, God, Language and Scrip- adultery against his wife if he had 26 sexual relations with an unmarried oaths and witnesses. among all, and let the marriage bed woman (313). “[T]here are, in fact, 71Hugenberger, 174. This sense is be undefiled, for God will judge the no texts which condone a husband’s operative in Mal 2:14 (“the wife of sexually immoral and adulterous.” sexual infidelity,” and “a number of your covenant”) where the imme- 88 See the Westbrook bibliographical texts, including Job 31:1; Hos. 4:14; diately preceding context (v. 15, reference in the chart at Deut 24:1- and particularly Prov. 5:15-23, make “Did he not make them one . . . “) 4. “Some indecency” would refer to clear that, whether or not there was contains a reminder of the “one “a cause serious enough to permit an legal obligation, there definitely flesh” nature of marriage in Gen the husband to divorce his wife was a moral obligation for exclusive 2:24 (cf. Hugenberger, 124-167). while avoiding any financial pen- fidelity on the part of husbands” 72D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant alty. Cf. also, e.g., M. G. Kline, Treaty (338). This view finds its most 2nd ed. (Analecta biblica 21a; Rome: of the Great King, 115 (cited in explicit support from Lev 20:10 and Biblical Institute, 1981) 175, cited in Hugenberger, 81, n. 154). Jer 29:23. Hugenberger, 11; cf. 164, n. 161 & 89This is the burden of the article by 66Hugenberger, 1. p. 180. Janzen, “Meaning of Porneia,” 66-80. 67Cf. D. J. Atkinson, To Have and To 73Hugenberger, 180. He understands the Pharisees’ ques- Hold. The Marriage Covenant and the 74Ibid., 162-163. tion in Matt 19:3 to be “is divorce Discipline of Divorce (London: 75Ibid., 159-160. without just cause permissible? Can Collins, 1979) 91. Cf. Blomberg, 76Ibid., 184. a husband divorce ‘for every kind Matthew, 111 (on Matt 5:32b). 77Cf. ibid., 11-12, 193, 215. of reason’?” (78). Janzen argues that 68Cited in Hugenberger, 3. 78Ibid., 278. the Matthean Jesus is much more 69Hugenberger, 3, n. 25. Cf. also R. W. 79Ibid., 215. stringent than his Pharisaical con- Pierce, “Covenant Conditionality 80Ibid., 165. temporaries. “Not only does he not and a Future for Israel,” Journal of 81Ibid., 248. permit divorce without just cause, the Evangelical Theological Society 37 82Ibid., 279. but he limits just cause to sexual (1994) 27-38. 83Cf. ibid., 281-294. offenses, a much narrower interpre- 70Blomberg was referring to someone 84Carson, 417. tation than that found in the Mish- like me when he wrote that “mar- 85Hugenberger, 288-294. nah” (79). riage is best described as a covenant, 86Ibid., 291. 90Keener, “Adultery, Divorce,” 9. This which tragically can be broken, 87In addition to the Abimelech and concern to avoid the charge of rather than as an indissoluble, mys- Joseph narratives, B. S. Childs adds “legalized adultery (closing a pos- tical union that remains even after that the seriousness with which sible loophole in the prohibition divorce (as traditionally held by Israel viewed adultery is also seen against adultery)” may well be the Roman Catholics, and, curiously, by when King David “falls under the ultimate reason for the prohibition some very conservative Protes- death sentence for his adultery with in Deut 24:4. In support, Hugen- tants)” (Matthew, 290, n. 6). One Bathsheba. In the other portions of berger cites J. Calvin, Commentaries week after reading Hugenberger, I the Old Testament adulterers are on the Four Last Books of Moses checked Jesus and Divorce (103-104) commonly linked with murderers arranged in the form of a Harmony, III, and realized that I had quoted from (Job 24.14f.) and treacherous men 94: “The reason of the law is, that, Palmer the very “binding and invio- (Jer. 9.2) who misuse God’s name by prostituting his wife, he would lable” portion with which Hugen- (Jer. 29.23) and oppress the widow be, as far as in him lay, acting like a berger had taken issue. I had used (Mal. 3:5)” (The Book of Exodus [Old procurer” (Marriage as a Covenant, Palmer to identify the two crucial Testament Library; Philadelphia: 77, n. 144). parts in the formation of ancient Westminster, 1974] 422). Cf. Heb 91Hugenberger, 233. Near Eastern marriage covenants: 13:4: “Let marriage be held in honor 92Hays, 364. Hays writes: “Once mar- 27 riage is construed within the story ers addressed” (Marries Another, Roman culture since by the time of told by Scripture, divorce—even if 105). the early Empire it was common it is permissible in some narrow 95G. P. Liaboe, “The Place of Wife Bat- for men to act on their own behalf, sense—is seen to be antithetical to tering in Considering Divorce,” without the father acting as patria God’s design for male and female” Journal of Psychology and Theology 13 potestas as in earlier days” (Fee, (351). (1985) 129-138. First Corinthians, 327). Cf. also J. F. 93Blomberg, Matthew, 293. Cf. Keener, 96Keener, Marries Another, 61. Gardner, Women in Roman Law and Matthew, 191-192, n. 96. Blomberg 97Ibid., 63. Cf. also Keener, Matthew, Society (Bloomington: Indiana Uni- adds: “These observations seem to 191; “Marriage, Divorce and Adul- versity, 1986) ch. 3. leave the door open for divorce as a tery,” 714. 100“ . . . the situation in vv. 27-28 seems final step, as perhaps the lesser of 98Cf. H. Chadwick, “‘All Things to All to be reflecting a real concern in the two evils, when all else has failed, Men,’” New Testament Studies 1 community that is finally particular- similar to excommunication of (1954-55) 267-268; G. Schrenk, s.v. ized in vv. 36-38” (Fee, First unrepentant sinners. To open this “parthenos,” TDNT 3:60-61; O. L. Corinthians, 315). door of course means that some will Yarbrough, Not Like the Gentiles: 101Keener, Marries Another, ch. 7, “Can abuse their freedom and walk Marriage Rules in the Letters of Paul Ministers Be Remarried?—1 Timo- through it prematurely. And undue (Society of Biblical Literature Disser- thy 3:2”; S. Page, “Marital Expecta- attention to the exception clause of tation Series 80; Atlanta: Scholars tions of Church Leaders in the v. 9 risks losing sight of Jesus’ over- Press, 1985) 101-102, nn. 35-36; Heth, Pastoral Epistles,” Journal for the all point that divorce is never desir- “Matthew’s ‘Eunuch Saying,’” 206- Study of the New Testament 50 (1993) able. Married people should always 235, 267-286; D. F. Wright, “Sexual- 105-120; Keener, “Husband of One be seeking ways to improve and ity, Sexual Ethics,” in Dictionary of Wife,” AME Zion Quarterly Review enhance relations with spouses Paul and His Letters, 874; Schreiner, 109 (Jan 1997) 5-24. J. E. Smith rather than wondering how they can 418. Sexual desires improperly focuses on another related issue: get out of the commitments they channeled are the common factor in Does sexual immorality per- have made. Those who divorce and/ Paul’s teaching in both 1 Cor 7:36- manently disqualify one from or remarry on any grounds must 38 and in 1 Thess 4:3-8. leadership? He concludes that the admit failure, repent of the sins that 99Cf. J. K. Elliott, “Paul’s Teaching on Pastoral Epistles’ leadership quali- led to the dissolution of their mar- Marriage in 1 Corinthians: Some fications are concerned with the riage, and vow to remain faithful to Problems Considered,” New Testa- current, not the past status of a any subsequent relationships.” ment Studies 19 (1973) 219-225. Like leader’s character, that fallen lead- 94Blomberg (Matthew, 293), Hays Fee, I understand the “virgins” in v. ers can be restored if both their life (372), and Keener all answer this 25 as a term “that the Corinthians and their reputation inside and out- question in the affirmative. Keener used in referring to some young side (cf. Rom 2:24) the church can writes: “Assuming that Jesus’ teach- betrothed women who along with be rehabilitated, but that this may ing on the subject is a general prin- their fiancés were being pressured be very difficult (“Can Fallen Lead- ciple meant to admit exceptions (as by the pneumatics and were not ers Be Restored to Leadership?” Matthew and Paul demonstrate), themselves wondering whether to Bibliotheca sacra 151 [1994] 455-480). and acknowledging the probability go through with the marriage. 102Most readers of my work on this that his teaching is hyperbolic, we Paul’s response is basically from the subject did not know that I have may allow some exceptions not man’s point of view because it was always applied my no remarriage addressed by Matthew or Paul the cultural norm for men to take view in almost the same way as a because they were not specifically the initiative in all such matters. diligent proponent of the majority relevant to the situations these writ- This assumes the influence of view. 28 103Hays, 372. 104I would like to thank my colleague, Ted Dorman, for reading this article in an earlier draft and offering helpful editorial suggestions.

29 Does the New Testament Approve Remarriage after Divorce? Gordon Wenham

Gordon Wenham is Professor of Old “A text out of context is a pretext” is the associated practices into a corrupt Testament, University of Gloucestershire, slogan of all those who try and teach the Frühkatholismus (early Catholicism). This and is known internationally for his art of preaching and exegesis. It is my con- was not the reformers’ view, nor of course scholarship. He is the author of numer- tention that, in their original context, all that of the early Christian writers them- ous books and articles, including the the Gospel divorce texts should be under- selves. They believed in an essential con- two volume commentary on Genesis in stood as condemning remarriage after tinuity between the witness of the early the Word Biblical Commentary series. divorce. The full arguments for this view church and the teaching of the New Tes- His most recent book is Story as Torah: are set out in Jesus and Divorce.1 In this tament. At the beginning of his Institutes Reading the Old Testament Ethically. He article I wish to address the issue more Calvin claims that if he wanted, he “could is also the co-author of the book Jesus concisely by considering the various con- with no trouble at all prove that the greater and Divorce. texts in which the divorce texts may be part of what we are saying today meets read: first, the broadest context, the early their (i.e. the Fathers’) approval.”2 It may church’s understanding of the gospel be that at last the antipatristic tide is turn- texts; second, the narrower context of the ing, among evangelicals at least, with the whole New Testament witness to mar- publication of the Ancient Christian Com- riage; third, the context in Matthew’s gos- mentary on Scripture, which shows how pel; and finally the context of the debates the Fathers understood the Bible from of first-century Judaism within which Genesis to Revelation. Jesus was arguing. By way of a coda I shall Unfortunately the volumes on Mat- then consider whether the dominical thew are not yet published, but for those condemnation of divorce and remarriage who read French H. Crouzel, The Early necessarily means that it is excluded in a Church and Divorce offers a superb discus- society that calls itself Christian. The anal- sion of the passages in the Fathers where ogy with Jesus’ teaching on violence does, the gospel divorce texts are discussed. 3 I shall suggest, give a model for behaviour To my knowledge there has been no seri- in a world where the new creation has ous attempt to refute Crouzel: even those been inaugurated but is not complete. who do not like his conclusions accept that it is the definitive study.4 It discusses fully The Early Church Context and carefully all the comments of Chris- Modern Protestants have by and large tian writers in the first five centuries on forgotten that their forefathers, the mag- this topic. isterial reformers, placed great store by the Among Greek-speaking fathers both interpretations of the early church. Post- pre- and post-Constantine there is total enlightenment scholarship has developed unanimity. Among the earlier group a great hermeneutic of suspicion when it Hermas, Justin, Athenagoras, Theophilus comes to reading the church fathers: the of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexan- automatic assumption is that they have dria, and Origen, all explicitly condemn distorted the primitive gospel and its remarriage after divorce or clearly presup- 30 pose this view. The Constantinian settle- Christ as head of the church to the posi- ment, which made Christianity the offi- tion of the husband as head of the house- cial religion of the empire, might have hold, but “this implies no inequality in encouraged Christian writers to identify the fundamental acts of marriage and the imperial legal practice. which permitted right that each spouse has over the body divorce and remarriage, with Christian of the other according to 1 Corinthians 7: values, but there is no sign of that hap- 3–4.”7 This demonstrates how distant pening. Later Greek theologians such as Ambrosiaster is, not just from New Testa- Basil, Gregory Nazianzus, Apollinarius, ment thinking, but from the general atti- Theodore of Mopsuestia and John Chryso- tude of the early church, which always stom all maintain the traditional Christian insisted on the duty of mutual fidelity. position that the Gospels do not permit Little wonder that Ambrosiaster is remarriage after divorce. They regard the totally ignored by subsequent fifth- exception clause as authorizing or requir- century Latin writers. ing separation, not permitting remarriage The witness of the early church thus afterwards.5 That this interpretation was points unequivocally to a no-remarriage the way native Greek speakers under- understanding of the Gospel divorce texts. stood our Lord’s teaching surely indicates Since no modern New Testament scholar that it is the most natural interpretation. can ever hope to approach the Greek The evidence of the Latin fathers is fathers’ grasp of their mother tongue and equally impressive. It is also carefully and its nuances, one will have to have exhaustively analysed by Crouzel. Among extremely powerful arguments to show those who condemn remarriage after that their understanding is not the natu- divorce are Tertullian, Ambrose, Innocent, ral understanding of the texts. Pelagius, Jerome, and Augustine. There is only one dissenting voice in the West, who The New Testament Context cannot be identified, but, because he was But could not all the Fathers have mis- once identified with Ambrose, is known understood the Gospel divorce texts? as Ambrosiaster. He wrote between 366 Although these writers were much closer and 383. His views on marriage and in time, place, language, and presupposi- divorce are strongly influenced by Roman tions than the modern reader is to the law: for example he regards adultery by a Gospel texts, they were not contemporar- husband as much less serious than that of ies of the evangelists, so it is not impos- a wife. She may separate if her husband sible that they misinterpreted Matthew. is unfaithful but not remarry. But when I therefore shall now review remarks in the wife is at fault, he may remarry after the epistles and other gospels to see divorcing his wife. Ambrosiaster explains whether they allow remarriage after the reason for this discrimination: “The divorce. Whether these works were writ- inferior cannot exercise the same law as ten before, at the same time as, or even the superior. The man is not bound in the after Matthew does not seem clear to me, same way by the law as the woman is, for but it does not really affect my argument. the man is the head of the woman.”6 But They unquestionably provide a closer as Crouzel points out this is a misapplica- context for interpreting Matthew than the tion of Ephesians 5, which compares Fathers. 31 Easiest to date are Paul’s epistles to the pels or was he appealing to some tradi- Corinthians and to the Romans, about 55 tion independent of them? If it could be and 57 AD respectively.8 Paul’s comments proven that he knew the sayings in their in 1 Corinthians 7:10–11 and Romans 7:2– Gospel form, the no-remarriage view 3 are very explicit: “To the married I give would be home and dry. But of course this this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife is not so easy to demonstrate, especially should not separate from her husband as the critical consensus is that the Syn- (but if she does, she should remain optic Gospels were written after Paul’s unmarried or else be reconciled to her epistles.11 As my case at this point does husband), and the husband should not not rest on Paul knowing Matthew in its divorce his wife.” Here Paul makes three present form, but only on the observation points very clearly. First, his teaching is that nowhere outside Matthew 19 is there based on Jesus’ words: this is one of four ever a hint that remarriage after divorce passages in 1 Corinthians where he explic- might be allowed, I shall first review the itly appeals to dominical tradition to jus- remarks in Luke and Mark. Then I shall tify his instructions. Second, couples reopen the question of Matthew 19: could should not divorce each other. Third, if it be that, even if Paul did not know it in one does leave the other, she should not its present form, he might have known a remarry. Paul does not actually say that a Jesus-tradition remarkably like it? husband who divorces his wife should not Two cases are discussed in Mark and remarry, but that is surely implied. If he Luke: (i) the husband who divorces and should not divorce his wife, a fortiori he remarries and (ii) the divorced woman should not remarry.9 who remarries. I shall consider them in Summing up the thrust of this passage turn. First the remarrying husband: Gordon Fee writes: “there is little ques- “Whoever divorces his wife and marries tion that both Paul and Jesus disallowed another commits adultery against her” divorce between two believers, especially (Mark 10:11); “Everyone who divorces his when it served as grounds for remar- wife and marries another commits adul- riage.… On the other hand … divorce may tery” (Luke 16:18a). Slight differences in happen…. What is not allowed is remar- wording notwithstanding both sayings riage, both because for him that presup- make two remarkable points. First a hus- poses the teaching of Jesus that such is band can commit adultery against his own adultery and because in the Christian wife: this is implied by Luke and explicit community reconciliation is the norm. If in Mark. But under Old Testament law the Christian husband and wife cannot be adultery was committed against hus- reconciled to one another, then how can bands not against wives. If a married man they expect to become models of recon- took a second partner in marriage or with- ciliation before a fractured and broken out marrying her, it did not count as adul- world?”10 tery; hence the practice of polygamy was If the thrust of Paul’s teaching is clear, legal. However, if a married woman had it is not so obvious what form of Jesus’ sexual relations with anyone except her teaching he was appealing to. Did Paul husband, that was adultery by her and the know the Gospel sayings about divorce third party. But this saying of Jesus intro- in the form we now have them in the Gos- duces full reciprocity into marriage law: 32 infidelity by a husband is just as culpable both partners under the same obligations as infidelity by a wife. The second impli- of mutual loyalty: if either husband or cation of course is that polygamy is not wife divorces the other and remarries, he permitted either. Divorce was supposed or she commits adultery against the other to give permission for a second union because they are both bound together as without the stigma of adultery. But if a man and wife. second union after divorce, with the The theological logic behind this posi- explicit permission for remarriage it tion is explained in Jesus’ debate with the entailed, counted as adultery according to Pharisees, which immediately precedes Jesus, how much more second or subse- these remarks in Mark 10. Asked whether quent unions without divorce.12 divorce was legal, Jesus declared that it However it is also important to notice contradicted God’s creative purpose that what is not said. Divorce on its own is not in marriage “‘they shall become one flesh.’ equated with adultery, only divorce fol- So they are no longer two but one flesh. lowed by remarriage. What therefore God has joined together, The same is true of the second half of let not man separate” (Mark 10:8–9). It the statement in both gospels: “He who is because God joins a couple together marries a woman divorced from her hus- in marriage that the human declaration, band commits adultery” (Luke 16:18b); “If “You are free to marry any man” has no she divorces her husband and marries legal effect in God’s eyes, so that he looks another, she commits adultery” (Mark on remarriage after divorce as adultery. 10:12). The Lukan form of the statement But nowhere in Luke or Mark is divorce is almost the same as Matthew 5:32b. The by itself equated with adultery. “Let not Markan form is unusual in envisaging man separate” is a moral injunction like a woman taking the initiative in divorce “You shall love the LORD your God with proceedings, which rarely happened in all your heart,” whereas “Whoever first-century Palestine.13 But what is divorces and remarries, commits adul- striking about both forms of the saying is tery” is case law like “Whoever sacrifices the implication that divorce does not to any god, other than the LORD alone, break the marriage bond, so that sexual shall be devoted to destruction” (Exod relations with anyone but one’s first 22:20). There is often a big gap between spouse is adultery. moral ideals and case law. The former According to Jewish law “the essential tend to express high ideals, while the lat- formula in the bill of divorce is ‘Lo, thou ter set minimum standards of behaviour.15 art free to marry any man.’”14 The impli- I may not love my neighbour as myself, cation of Jesus’ pronouncement is that the but as long as I do not kill him, or steal essential declaration in the divorce for- from him, the law will not interfere. There mula does not work. A woman is not free could be a similar gap between Jesus’ “let to marry any man after divorce: if she not man separate” and his description of does, she commits adultery. In other marriage after divorce as adultery. Clearly words she is still bound by the vow of St Paul understood there to be a differ- exclusive loyalty to her husband. ence, for while he reluctantly tolerates Thus the two halves of the statement separation without remarriage, he clearly in Luke 16:18 and Mark 10:11-12 place forbids the latter. 33 Our interim conclusion is therefore that knowledge of Jesus-traditions.”17 He sug- in the wider New Testament context out- gests that the Jesus-traditions known to side Matthew’s gospel there is no permis- Paul were more extensive than our present sion for remarriage after divorce. The gospels, which represent a distillation of teaching of Jesus as reported by Mark, “fuller oral traditions (such as Paul and Luke, and Paul is totally congruent with others passed on).”18 the teaching of the early church on this Paul’s dependence on the Jesus-tradi- issue from the second to the fifth centu- tions is explicit in 1 Corinthians 7:10, ries AD. This makes it unlikely that where he says “Not I, but the Lord” and Matthew’s gospel should be interpreted then proceeds to paraphrase Jesus’ teach- differently. If it is to be dated as late as ing found in Matthew 19:6//Mark 10:9 AD 85, as often suggested, it would be using the same Greek word as the Gos- curious if its teaching on marriage differed pels (chorizein). But this is not Paul’s first so radically from the NT texts that pre- apparent appeal to the Gospel divorce ceded it and the early church fathers that texts. In 1 Corinthians 6:16 he quotes Gen- quickly followed it. On the other hand, if esis 2:24 “the two will become one flesh,” it were written much earlier as tradition just as Jesus does in Matthew 19:5//Mark maintained, why did Paul and the other 10:8. Nor is it Paul’s last appeal, for evangelists understand Jesus’ teaching so after discussing divorce and remarriage differently? Whatever context we prefer he goes on to discuss celibacy (1 Cor 7:25- for Matthew’s gospel, it is clear that the 27) just as Jesus does in Matthew 19:10- writers closest to him in time understood 12. It may be that the Corinthians already Jesus to prohibit remarriage after divorce. knew of Jesus’ teaching on celibacy and But before we leave the wider context were misusing it in the cause of asceticism of the New Testament as a whole, and as an excuse to break up their marriages. focus on Matthew’s gospel, I want to The main evidence for this reconstruc- revert to the possibility that St Paul may tion of the background to 1 Corinthians 7 have known Jesus’ teaching in a form is (i) the similarity of Paul’s teaching to close to that found in Matthew’s gospel, what is in Matt 19:11-12; (ii) that the as has been argued by my brother David teaching on celibacy is adjacent to the in his highly acclaimed Paul: Follower of teaching on divorce in both 1 Corinthians Jesus or Founder of Christianity?16 Though 7 and Matthew 19; and (iii) that Paul is, Paul rarely cites Jesus’ teaching explicitly, by his own confession, using the Matthew my brother shows that at many points 19 teaching on divorce.19 there are very close parallels between Should this reading of 1 Corinthians 7 Jesus’ teaching and St Paul’s. These par- and Matthew 19 become accepted, its con- allels cover topics such as the Kingdom sequences for the interpretation of Mat- of God, Christology, the death of Christ, thew 19 will be profound, for it shows that Ethics, and the Second Coming. David Paul understood his Lord’s teaching on shows how St Paul does not simply divorce to exclude remarriage, not just in parallel the ideas of Jesus found in the the Markan and Lukan form but in the gospels, but often seems to echo their Matthaean form too. phraseology. He therefore argues “that there is massive evidence of Pauline 34 The Context in Matthew exposition of the commandment at this The idea that Matthew allows remar- point in the Sermon. Contrary to much riage after divorce in some cases rests on Jewish thinking, which tended to blame the interpretation of two short phrases. In women for sexual sins, Jesus focuses all 5:32 Jesus says: “everyone who divorces his attention on the male and the steps his wife except on the ground of sexual men must take to avoid falling into temp- immorality (porneia), makes her commit tation. It is the man who looks at a woman adultery.” In 19:9 “whoever divorces his lustfully in v. 28. It is the man who must wife, except for sexual immorality (porneia), tear out his right eye or cut off his right and marries another commits adultery.” hand in vv. 29-30. It is the man who causes The early church understood the italicised the woman to commit adultery in v. 32a phrases to allow separation for sexual or commits adultery himself in v. 32b. immorality but not remarriage.20 But from Not only is the focus on the man in this the time of Erasmus onwards many Prot- section, but there is a progression in the estants have held that the exception seriousness of the man’s sin. It begins in clauses allow full divorce with the right the man’s mind, “adultery in the heart,” to remarry in cases where a spouse was develops in his eyes, and then his hand. guilty of sexual immorality, typically adul- Next it becomes adultery by proxy (“make tery. It is my purpose now to determine her commit adultery”), and finally he which interpretation makes best sense commits adultery himself by marrying a within the context of Matthew’s gospel. divorced woman.22 Does the Erasmian view or the early Within this context the exception clause church view make best sense of the flow simply notes that should a wife have of Matthew’s thought? We shall examine already committed adultery herself (the the two passages in turn. most likely form of sexual immorality in First, 5:32a “Everyone who divorces his this context), her husband can hardly be wife, except on the ground of sexual said to have made her commit adultery, immorality, makes her commit adultery.” when under current Roman and Jewish This saying is unusual in that it says the law he was compelled to divorce her for act of divorce causes the woman to com- her action. There is no suggestion here that mit adultery. And it is not clear in what by divorcing her for sexual immorality a way divorce by itself can be said to cause husband gains the right to marry again. adultery. The likeliest explanation is that That is simply not in the frame of discus- the woman will be forced by economic or sion here. The most that Erasmians can social pressure to remarry and therefore, claim is that this text leaves open the because she is still bound by marriage possibility that an innocent husband may vows to her husband, will commit adul- remarry. This text certainly does not tery against him.21 But this is a side issue. authorize remarriage in such circum- The real point is that the husband who stances. All it says is that divorcing an initiates the divorce has thereby himself adulterous wife cannot be construed as caused the seventh commandment to be making her commit adultery. broken. All the blame is transferred to the On the other hand, the whole tenor of man. the passage suggests that an Erasmian This is of a piece with the rest of Jesus’ interpretation is wrong. The point Jesus 35 is focussing on is the man’s responsibility divorce followed by the act of marriage to be loyal to his wife: men must make that is equivalent to adultery. But accord- every effort to avoid transgressing the ing to Matthew 5:32 (everyone who commandment even in their thought life. divorces his wife ... makes her commit To introduce the thought of remarriage in adultery) divorce by itself can lead to the v. 32a, where the central concern is to pro- breaking of the seventh commandment. hibit men from even divorcing their As we have noted the exception clause wives, is surely most unlikely. It becomes exonerates the divorcing spouse from this even more unlikely when we reach v. 32b charge where the partner has already been where marrying any divorced woman is unfaithful, but we should not miss the the climax of Jesus’ exposition of the sev- point that in other cases of divorce, e.g., enth commandment’s implications. Con- on grounds of incompatibility, the initia- textually, therefore, a reading that allows tor of divorce is charged with breaking the for remarriage after some divorces in 32a seventh commandment. This is not sug- misses both the central thrust of this sec- gested in Mark or Luke. This is what tion (its focus on male waywardness) and makes Matthew look stricter than the the way it builds to its climax in 32b. other Synoptics.24 Remarriage readings also lead to an I would therefore sum up Matthew’s illogicality in verse 32.23 They could also version of Jesus’ words in three state- be said to offer a perverse incentive to ments: sexual immorality. For if the only circum- 1. Divorce + remarriage = adultery stance in which someone is free to remarry (5: 32b cf Mark 10:11-12; Luke 16:18) is when the spouse has committed adul- 2. Divorce alone (except for porneia) tery, one could envisage a partner in a = adultery (5: 32a) These two statements can be com- desperate marriage encouraging the other bined into: to commit adultery just in order to ensure 3. Divorce (except for porneia) + freedom to remarry instead of mere sepa- remarriage = adultery (19:9). ration. But this type of casuistry seems far Statement 3 is an elliptical summary of removed from Jesus’ approach in this pas- statements 1 and 2, or at least is the way a sage. In context he is condemning every reader who has absorbed the significance kind of infidelity, not providing excuses of 5: 32 could abbreviate them. I now wish for remarriage. to argue that this is the sense that best fits This reading of Matthew 5:32 suggests 19:9 contextually, “whoever divorces his that far from giving an escape clause from wife, except for porneia, and marries Jesus’ condemnation of remarriage found another, commits adultery.” in the other Gospels, Matthew could be In interpreting Matthew 19:9 it is again underlining the strictness of Jesus’ teach- very important to read it in context. It ing against divorce itself. According to comes in the course of a debate with the Matthew 5:32b (whoever marries a Pharisees about the justification for divorced woman commits adultery), divorce. “Pharisees came up to him and Mark 10:11-12 (whoever divorces ... and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to marries another commits adultery), and divorce one’s wife for any cause?’” This Luke 16:18 (everyone who divorces and is slightly different from the way Mark marries another commits adultery), it is 36 phrases the Pharisaic question: “‘Is it (ii) Jesus: Have you not read...? What God has joined together, let not man lawful for a man to divorce his wife’” separate (vv. 4–6); (Mark 10:3). Matthew clearly situates the (iii) Pharisees: Why then did debate in the context of intra-Jewish dis- Moses....? (v. 7); (iv) Jesus: Because of your hardness putes about reasons for divorce, whereas of heart ... whoever divorces ... com- Mark simplifies the debate to bring out mits adultery (vv. 8–9); the essence of the dispute for Gentile read- (v) Disciples: If such is the case ... it is better not to marry (v. 10); and ers. In Matthew 19:3 Jesus is asked to say (vi) Jesus: Not everyone can receive on whose side he is when it comes to this saying, but only those to whom it is given.... Let the one who is able allowing for divorce: does he agree with to receive this receive it (vv. 11–12). the conservative Shammaites, who allowed divorce on very few grounds, or The most important point to grasp with the liberal Hillelites? about this pattern is that Jesus does not The debate (19:3–12) is typical of many back down or make concessions to the 25 in the Gospels: (i) someone asks a ques- original questioner or the disciples when tion; (ii) Jesus attacks the very foundations they object to his teaching. Instead he of his opponents’ position; (iii) his oppo- enlarges on his original point or restates nents counterattack by raising objections it in a vivid way and challenges his hear- from Scripture to his views; (iv) Jesus dis- ers to have faith to accept his teaching. misses these objections; (v) frequently the It is this context within the standard disciples interject their difficulties about pattern of Jesus’ confrontation with oppo- Jesus’ teaching; and (vi) Jesus reaffirms his nents that makes the Erasmian inter- own position and challenges his disciples pretation of 19:9 so unlikely. For this to have faith and accept it. interpretation allowing divorce and This is the pattern in 19:16–30: remarriage for porneia makes Jesus agree with one side in the Pharisaic debate. But (i) Rich Man: What good deed must I do to have eternal life? (v. 16); the whole thrust of his teaching up to this (ii) Jesus: Why do you ask me about point has been that divorce is contrary to what is good? Keep the command- God’s creation purposes. When first asked ments (v. 17); (iii) Rich Man: Which ones? (v. 18) what reasons justify divorce he said: What do I still lack? (v. 20); “Have you not read that he who created (iv) Jesus: Go sell what you possess; them ... said ... ‘they shall become one (v. 21). It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for flesh’? So they are no longer two but one a rich person to enter the kingdom flesh. What therefore God has joined of God (v. 24); together, let not man separate.” (v) Disciples: Who then can be saved? (v. 25); and The Pharisees correctly read this as a (vi) Jesus: With man this is impos- rejection of their concept of divorce, so sible, but with God all things are possible (v. 26). they counterattack by quoting Deuter- onomy 24:1 against him: “Why then did The divorce debate just a few verses Moses command one to give a certificate earlier follows the same pattern: of divorce and send her away?” We should now expect to Jesus to (i) Pharisees: Is it lawful to divorce reject the Pharisaic position and reaffirm one’s wife for any cause? (v. 3); his own teaching. The early church inter- 37 pretation, which we argued above was the where marriage is regarded as thoroughly natural way to understand Matthew 5:32, necessary and normal, the disciples’ fits this entirely. By ruling out remarriage reaction in verse 10 is not coherent. So yet entirely, and only permitting divorce, i.e., more evidence suggests that Matthew’s separation for porneia, Jesus does show account is somewhat dislocated.”29 that his views are quite different from both Catchpole’s careful reading of the text the Pharisaic positions. This view also and his candid admission of the difficul- explains the disciples’ objection in v. 10, ties an Erasmian interpretation poses is to “If such is the case of a man with a wife, it be applauded. But surely an interpretation is better not to marry.” that does not force us to conclude that But the Erasmian view, which permits Matthew is illogical, incoherent, and dis- remarriage in cases of divorce for porneia, located is preferable? The early church just does not fit. David Catchpole sets out interpretation avoids all these problems. the issues very sharply, and because he There are no self-contradictions within assumes an Erasmian view, blames Mat- Matthew 19, no clashes with Mark 10, and thew for making a real hash of Mark’s contextually the debate builds to a cre- “consistent, logical and consecutive”26 scendo with Jesus trouncing the Pharisees account in 10:2-9. He sees Matthew zig- and challenging his disciples to accept his zagging between the Markan Jesus’ no teaching. As Quesnell (whose article remarriage view and Matthew’s divorce rightly detects the relationship between and remarriage view. In Matthew 19:4– Matt 19:10-12 with the preceding section) 6, 8 Jesus adopts “a position of extreme notes, “The whole thrust of the passage rigour” but this is “decisively modified” has been toward building up the greatness in v. 9, “so that in a discussion about the and sanctity before God of monogamous Hillelite view Jesus ultimately comes marriage, the importance of the bond down on the side of Shammai.”27 He between spouses, as an expression of the quotes Merkel, who says, “In Matthew’s divine will for man from the beginning. view Jesus is only a Pharisaic scribe.”28 Then in verse 10 the disciples reject this As if this were not enough to demon- picture of life utterly.”30 “If such is the case strate the implausibility of the Erasmian of a man with his wife, it is better not to view, which permits remarriage, Catch- marry.” pole proceeds to accuse Matthew of yet Jesus’ response should not be read as a more non sequiturs in the verses that fol- concession to the disciples, as it would be low. He points out that v. 9, as he inter- if vv. 10–12 were simply a call to celibacy. prets it, gives no reason for the disciples’ This is the way many commentators and objection in v. 10: “If such is the case of a Gospel critics have read it. Such a read- man with his wife, it is better not to ing would be totally out of character in marry.” Catchpole comments: “Nothing Matthew’s Gospel. “The ordinary func- in verses 3–9 contains the slightest hint tion of the disciples’ speeches in the gos- that avoidance of marriage is the best pels is to ask questions, to misunderstand policy: indeed there is nothing which or object, or simply to advance the action might give grounds for misunderstand- dramatically. They do not enunciate the ing.... Since even the rigorous Shammaite Christian ideal for life. Their objections are view of divorce belongs inside a context not accepted and confirmed by the Mas- 38 ter, but are refuted, or made the occasion traits of the canonical Jesus given by the for stronger restatements of the original evangelists. Too often, as Schweitzer teaching.”31 pointed out long ago, the reconstructions Rather these verses are “a challenging of the historical Jesus and his teaching formulation of the state of a man whose tend to be little more than scholars seeing wife has been put away (set loose) on their own face at the bottom of the well account of porneia.”32 He may not remarry, and supposing it is Christ’s. In this case it so in a sense he is like others who do not seems to me quite clear what Paul, Mark marry, those born eunuchs and those and Matthew understood by Jesus’ teach- made eunuchs by men. “Having rebuffed ing, so I am loath to conclude that mod- the disciples’ attack in characteristic ern scholars really understand it better. fashion—with a rebuke to them for lack The argument from the Jewish context of faith necessary to receive the difficult is quite simple. All Jews in the first cen- word Jesus repeats the call to understand- tury permitted divorce in certain cases, ing: He who can grasp it, let him grasp and a Jewish divorce always entailed it.”33 Similar calls for faith are found in the right to remarry. Therefore any Jew- Matthew 13:9: “He who has ears, let him ish reader of the New Testament would hear” and Mark 4:9. Read this way Mat- understand that when divorce was men- thew 19:3–12 is coherent and logical, tioned it included the right to remarry.34 building to a climax in the fashion typical Now no one would dispute that Jews, of Jesus’ disputes with his opponents. Greeks, and Romans in the first century There is no need to suppose clumsy edit- assumed that a divorce entitled one to ing by the evangelist or Jesus recanting in remarry. It is plain too that the Old Testa- the face of opposition. These claims are ment tolerates divorce with the right to based on misunderstanding Matthew 19:9 remarriage, though it also quite clearly as allowing remarriage after divorce. does not like it. But full divorce was cer- Within the context of Matthew’s Gospel, tainly legal. But does that mean Jesus must let alone the rest of the New Testament have thought the same? Could he not have and the witness of the early church, this taught something different from first- is a most improbable interpretation. century Jews? For this is basically what is being said: when Jesus used the word The Context within Judaism “divorce” (apolyein) he must have been Finally we turn to the context of the life using it in the sense that contemporary of Jesus and his teaching within the set- Jews used it. ting of first-century Judaism. We have This seems implausible to me for three already discussed this in passing as we main reasons. First, Christian readers looked at the other contexts, and it is dis- (even form-critics with their criterion of cussed more fully in Jesus and Divorce. I dissimilarity) have always supposed that am not sure whether to describe the ar- at some points at least Jesus did disagree gument based on the Jewish context as a with contemporary Jews. Why are there red herring or an old chestnut! Certainly all the dispute stories in the Gospels if I think we should be very cautious about Jesus only taught what his contemporar- claims to reconstruct a picture of the his- ies believed? torical Jesus that conflicts with the por- Second, it is clear that the Pharisees 39 expected him to disagree with them about and proper because remarriage does not divorce. As both Matthew and Mark count as adultery. However in the first observe, the Pharisees came to test him case, not even the husband is free to (Matt 19:3; Mark 10:2). This is one of sev- remarry without committing adultery. In eral episodes in which Jewish leaders other words the legal form of divorce does come to debate political or theological not give the right to remarriage. So we issues with Jesus to make his heretical ought to render the first case: whoever views public (Matt 16:1; 21:23; 22:15, 23, separates from his wife and marries 34). They were out to prove that he dis- another commits adultery. One might well agreed with their interpretation of the law argue that it is awkward to say the least of the Old Testament. But if the divorce- to have Jesus using apolyein in two differ- with-remarriage view is correct, Jesus is ent senses simultaneously, and that this just another Shammaite Pharisee, as is another argument against the Erasmian Goulder puts it: “the radical Jesus disap- interpretation:38 the early church view is pears in qualifying phrases, and emerges free from this problem for when Jesus uses as a rabbi of the school of Shammai.”35 the word apolyein it always means “sepa- Third, it is a recognised principle of lin- rate from.” But that is not my main point. guistics that the precise sense of a word It is that the Erasmians must admit that does not exist in the word alone, but in Jesus is using apolyein in a different sense the utterances in which it is embedded. from his Jewish opponents. As Erasmians So it is quite unwarranted to argue that do allow that Jesus taught that divorce in because apolyein means “to divorce” (per- non-porneia cases is adulterous, they are mitting remarriage) in the mouth of the saying that this is not real divorce but Pharisees, it cannot mean “to separate” merely separation. (without remarrying) in the mouth of Finally if we admit that Jesus is using Jesus.36 It is the context that must decide apolyein in a different sense from the Phari- the exact nuance in each case. I have sees, that he meant “separate” but they already given my reasons for believing meant “divorce,” is this not to accuse him that when Jesus talks of apolyein he is talk- or Matthew at least of being obscure? Not ing merely of separation without the right at all. It is a great example of Jesus’ verbal to remarry: it is the only sense that fits the dexterity. It demonstrates his command of context. language and the debate. No one can read But there is a final consideration. Even the Gospels without being amazed at his the Erasmians who hold that Jesus did vivid and striking use of language. He allow remarriage after divorce for porneia takes up old terms and gives them new admit that according to Jesus apolyein meanings. Dupont notes that in another did not always allow remarriage after dispute with the Pharisees about purity divorce.37 Basically they break down Mat- Jesus does just the same sort of thing.39 thew 19:9 into two cases: (i) whoever They follow the Old Testament law that divorces his wife and marries another says what you eat and touch makes you commits adultery; and (ii) whoever unclean, but Jesus says: “It is not what divorces his wife in the case of porneia and goes into the mouth that defiles a person, marries another does not commit adultery. but what comes out” (Matt 15:1–20). Jesus In the second case the divorce is full takes familiar Jewish terminology and fills 40 it with new meaning. He does the same read the teaching of Jesus on divorce and when discussing divorce. remarriage point in the same direction: My brother David observed that this separation was allowed for porneia, i.e., in type of quip or pun is entirely character- situations where Jewish and Roman law istic of Jesus’ teaching, both in John’s gos- required divorce for sexual immorality, pel and the Synoptics.40 Talking with but remarriage was never approved. No Nicodemus Jesus reinterprets what being one, not even ardent defenders of the “born again” means, with the woman of Erasmian view, contests that the early Samaria the meaning of “living water,” church held this view. But if one holds that and with the Pharisees the meaning of the Erasmian view is the original sense of “blindness” (John 3:3–7; 4:10 –14; 9:38–41). Jesus’ teaching, it becomes a great mys- The Synoptic Gospels often show Jesus tery how the early church came to hold picking up a term used by someone else the view that remarriage after divorce was and giving it a different meaning. Jesus wrong. Second-century Christians would “was told, ‘Your mother and your broth- have had both apostolic tradition and non- ers are standing outside, desiring to see Christian practice endorsing the right to you.’ But he answered them, ‘My mother remarriage. What on earth could have and my brothers are those who hear the persuaded the whole church to adopt the word of God and do it’” (Luke 8:20–21; strict discipline of no remarriage after cf. Matt 12:46–50; Mark 3:32–35). At his divorce? This was no minor adjustment trial and on the cross he was accused of to doctrine or ethics. It potentially affected saying, “I am able to destroy the temple the life style of every member of the of God, and to rebuild it in three days” church and every potential convert. It (Matt 26:61; 27:40; Mark 14:58; 15:29). John does not seem likely that it could simply 2:21 explains what Jesus meant: “He was be based on the ignorance of Gentiles speaking about the temple of his body.” reading the Gospels, who did not know When children were brought to Jesus, Jewish customs that divorce entailed the he speaks first of children and then of right to remarry.41 For similar principles “little ones.” It would be easy to equate prevailed elsewhere in the Roman Empire: the two, but more careful reading shows divorce allowed you to remarry. So why “little ones” are not necessarily youngsters should second-century Christians sud- but humble believers (Matt 18:5–6; Mark denly have started reading the Gospels in 9:42). Finally one could argue that Jesus a way that was contrary both to contem- enjoyed this sort of quip from an early age! porary custom and the traditions that they Having at last found him in the temple had inherited from the apostolic age? Mary scolds him: “Behold, your father and I find this scenario historically most I have been looking for you in great dis- implausible. With St. Paul, St. Mark, and tress.” He replies: “Did you not know that St. Matthew I believe that only our Lord I must be in my Father’s house?” (Luke could have persuaded his followers to 2:48–49). In the light of these examples it make this immense change in marriage could be argued that it would be strange discipline and break with both Jewish and if Jesus had not used apolyein, “divorce,” classical tradition. in a different sense from his opponents. Thus all four contexts in which we can 41 Final Reflections has begun to be fulfilled in the kingdom Although this essay has concentrated that he has brought. on showing that the New Testament The Old Testament tells how the first nowhere approves of remarriage after creation fell, and life as we now know it divorce, we must not miss the very posi- began. Disobedience, dissension, and vio- tive context in which this new teaching is lence replace obedience, harmony and given. This new approach to marriage is peace. The flood is sent because the earth possible because Christ has initiated the was full of violence (Gen 6:11, 13). And new creation: after the flood laws are introduced to stop mankind from destroying itself with By quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:24 to unbridled violence. “Whoever sheds the undermine Deuteronomy 24:1–3, Jesus was in fact making it clear that blood of man, by man shall his blood be the story to which he was obedient shed” (Gen 9:6). Yet despite authorizing was that in which Israel was called the death penalty for murder, the Old Tes- by YHWH to restore humankind and the world to his original inten- tament regards even the killing of the tion ... the last days must fulfil the guilty as somehow polluting the execu- creator’s intention.... (Jesus) believed tioner. The Israelites need cleansing after himself to be inaugurating the great time of renewal spoken of in the slaying the Midianites in a war the LORD prophets, when the law would be told them to undertake (Num 31:2–20). written on the heart’s of YHWH’s David was forbidden to build the temple people.42 because he had shed too much blood The church is the place where the prin- (1 Chron 22:8–9). ciples of the new creation should be lived It looks as though the Old Testament out. In similar fashion Jesus instructs his has a similar ambivalence towards mari- disciples to practice forgiveness and avoid tal failure. Genesis 2 sets out the ideal of violence as befits the messianic age, when life-long harmonious monogamy. Much of the wolf will lie down with the lamb. the rest of Genesis illustrates the sorrows Though Jesus inaugurated the new of bigamy. Yet the law certainly envisages creation at his first coming, it will not, the possibility of divorce, as is inevitable however, be perfected until his second in a world where dissension and violence coming. This makes the “last days,” the are ever liable to break out. Like capital time between the first and second advents, punishment divorce may be necessary in much more like the Old Testament era a sinful world. It is provided for the than we often recognize.43 The Old Testa- hardness of the human heart. Like capital ment looks forward to the fulfilment of punishment divorce can curb even worse the promises of a new covenant, a new excesses. But neither is desirable. David, and a new creation. It views the This Old Testament situation still pre- laws as setting a floor for behaviour, not vails in society at large, and so its provi- establishing the ideals for human society. sions are still very relevant today. We need Genesis 1–2 portrays creation as it ought police and armies to counter violence. We to be, with harmony reigning between need divorce to deal with marital break- man and God, man and wife, man and the down. But what about the church? Is it animals. This is the goal for which the living in the new creation or the old? How prophets yearn and which Jesus proclaims far do Old Testament principles apply in 42 church life? The church of course is 33Henri Crouzel, L’Église primitive face au supposed to demonstrate the life of the divorce (Paris: Beauchesne, 1971). new creation and be full of love, joy, and 44Here I am thinking of the most learned peace. Regrettably sanctification is not professor of Church History at the Pres- completed by conversion, nor even later byterian theological college in Belfast, in life! So the Old Testament situation John Barkley, who first told me what the often reproduces itself in the life of the early church held. In his gruff Ulster individual believer and the church at brogue he said: “They did not allow large. And this applies to marriages as remarriage after divorce. They were well as other relationships. I am therefore quite wrong of course.” The reviewer of led to conclude that sometimes the church Crouzel’s book in the Journal of Ecclesi- may with a heavy heart have to sanction astical History was equally emphatic: “It divorce among its own members, and would be difficult to praise too highly exceptionally as some bishops in Origen’s Père Crouzel’s scholarly study of the day did, even tolerate remarriage “to Church’s teaching and practice…” He avoid worse evils.” But like Origen we shows that the evidence for “a tradition should not fail to point out that it is con- (permitting remarriage after divorce) is trary to our Lord’s teaching.44 so meagre as to be virtually negligible” We should remind people that it is not (J. J. Hughes, Journal of Ecclesiastical His- just in marriage that the Christian is called tory 24 [1973] 61). to demonstrate the love of Christ for the 55Crouzel, 360. church, but that the divorcee can show 56Quoted by Crouzel, 272-273. that love even more poignantly. 57Crouzel, 273. 58J. A. T. Robinson, Redating the New Testa- A married person as a Christian is ment (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1976) called on in faith to express before the world God’s love in its aspect of 54-55. forgiveness. This is the same love 59G. D. Fee, The First Epistle to the which was preached through the OT Corinthians (New International Com- figures of love and marriage too. Hosea and his “wife of prostitution” mentary on the New Testament; Grand (Hos 1–3): Ezechiel and harlot Judah Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987) 296. (Ezek 16); Malachi and “I hate di- 10Ibid., 296. vorce” (Mal 2:10–16). The Christian’s love for the person to whom he has 11For a summary of the consensus views committed himself is called on to see D. Wenham and S. Walton, Exploring remain faithful even when rejected; the New Testament Volume 1: A Guide to and to pursue relentlessly, power- fully, sweetly, even when its object the Gospels and Acts (London: SPCK, 45 flees it—as men did God’s. 2001) 205-206, 223-224, 297. But J. A. T. Robinson, 116 suggested the Synoptics ENDNOTES reached their final form in the late 50s 11 W. A. Heth and G. J. Wenham, Jesus and or early 60s approximately contempo- rd Divorce, 3 ed. (Carlisle: Paternoster rary with Paul’s epistles, while my Press, 2002). father argued in J. W. Wenham, Redating 22 John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Re- Matthew, Mark and Luke (London: ligion, ed. J. T. McNeill (Philadelphia: Hodder and Stoughton, 1991) that all the Westminster, 1960) 1:18. Synoptics were written before the First 43 Epistle to the Corinthians. lucidly. If according to v. 32a remar- Heaven,’” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 12G. J. Wenham, “Gospel Definitions riage is allowed after divorce for 30 (1968) 335–358; quote from 342. of Adultery and Women’s Rights,” porneia, but in no other situation, v. 31Ibid, 343. Expository Times 95 (1984) 330-332. 32b has absurd consequences. It 32Ibid., 346. 13The case of Herodias is often cited, must be paraphrased “‘Whoever 33Ibid., 347. but, as J. Dupont, Mariage et divorce marries a divorced woman is adul- 34“A valid divorce by standard ancient dans l’évangile (Bruges: Desclée de terous if this woman has not definition implied the right to Brouwer, 1959) 63 observes, she just behaved culpably towards the hus- remarry.... No ancient Jewish reader abandoned her husband. It could be band who divorced her. But he is not would have read Matthew other- that Jesus is just aware of what was adulterous if this woman has been wise,” says C. S. Keener, … And possible under Greek and Roman divorced for misbehaving.’ Such Marries Another (Peabody: Hend- law, so C. E. B. Cranfield, The Gos- conclusions are manifestly absurd.” rickson, 1991) 44. The same insis- pel according to St Mark (Cambridge: Dupont points out that this diffi- tence that Jewish convictions about Cambridge University Press, 1959) culty is reduced if just the innocent divorce must determine the inter- 322. husband has the right to remarry, pretation of the New Testament 14m. Git. 9:3. but not his guilty wife. But if she is texts is the heart of D. Instone- 15Cf. G. J. Wenham, “The Gap not allowed to remarry, that implies Brewer’s argument in Divorce and between Law and Ethics in the she is still bound to her husband, Remarriage in the 1st and 21st Century Bible,” Journal of Jewish Studies 48 and he to her. Thus when he remar- (Cambridge: Grove Books, 2001) (1997) 17-29. ries, he is effectively taking a sec- and his forthcoming Divorce and 16D. Wenham, Paul: Follower of Jesus ond wife and is thus, at least in the Remarriage in the Bible. or Founder of Christianity? (Grand eyes of God, a polygamist (J. 35M. D. Goulder, Midrash and Lection Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995). Dupont, 131-132). in Matthew (London: SPCK, 1974) 18 17Ibid., 381. 24G. J. Wenham, “Matthew and Di- quoted by R. F. Collins, Divorce in 18Ibid., 411. vorce: an Old Crux Revisited,” Jour- the New Testament (Collegeville: 19Ibid., 246. nal for the Study of the New Testament Liturgical Press, 1992) 185. 20For a discussion of the meaning of 22 (1984) 95–107; and “The Syntax 36The same principle would apply if this term (porneia) see Heth and of Matthew 19:9,” Journal for the the argument were based on the Wenham, 183-184. It covers a wide Study of the New Testament 28 (1986) supposed underlying Hebrew or range of sexual sins condemned in 17–23. Aramaic, for the probable terms the OT law. 25Other examples in Matthew include (roots slh, ptr, sbq, and nsl) appear 21So R. F. Collins, Divorce in the NT 15:1–20; 20:20–28. Briefer examples to be broad terms for “send away, (Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992) of the pattern include 9:10–17; dismiss” whose precise sense is 167. 12:10–13; 19:13–15; 21:23–27. determined by the context. 22As an OT scholar I find it surpris- 26D. R. Catchpole, “The Synoptic 37E.g., John Murray, Divorce (Philadel- ing that after fifty years of redaction Divorce Material as a Traditio-His- phia: Presbyterian and Reformed, criticism and more recently literary torical Problem,” Bulletin of the John 1976) 25: “It follows from what has criticism the modern commentaries Ryland’s Library 57 (1974) 97. been said that the man who divorces on Matthew that I consulted do not 27Ibid., 94. his wife (except for the cause of for- read Matthew 5:27–32 as a con- 28H. Merkel, New Testament Studies 14 nication) is not thereby at liberty to secutive unit, but as independent (1968) 207 quoted in Catchpole, 94. remarry any more than the divorced sayings without an intrinsic rela- 29Catchpole, 95. wife. If the woman commits adul- tionship to each other. 30Q. Quesnell, “‘Made Themselves tery by remarriage, this is so 23Dupont sets out the illogicality most Eunuchs for the Kingdom of because she is still in reality the wife 44 of the divorcing husband. And if so, the divorcing husband is still in reality the husband of the divorced woman and consequently may not marry another.” 38See Dupont, 131–147; Heth and Wenham, 133–135. 39Dupont, 145–147. 40In personal conversation. 41So Instone-Brewer. 42N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God (London: SPCK, 1996) 285-286. 43For an attempt to work out this relationship between the testaments see G. J. Wenham, Story as Torah: Reading the OT Ethically (Edinburgh: T and T Clark, 2000) especially 129– 155. 44Crouzel, 82-83. 45Quesnell, 356.

45 William J. Webb’s Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: A Review Article1 Thomas R. Schreiner

Thomas R. Schreiner is a profes- Introduction credibility and were frankly a scholarly sor of New Testament at The Southern Sometimes I wonder if egalitarians hope embarrasment. William Webb’s work, for- Baptist Theological Seminary. He has to triumph in the debate on the role of tunately, is of a much higher quality than also taught New Testament at Azusa women by publishing book after book on the work of the Kroegers. He investigates Pacific University and Bethel Theo- the subject. Each work propounds a new the whole matter of the role of women logical Seminary. He is the author of thesis that explains why the traditional hermeneutically, suggesting a method by Romans in the Baker Exegetical Com- interpretation is flawed. Complemen- which we can determine whether a mentary on the New Testament and co- tarians could easily give in from sheer command or practice in the scriptures is author of The Race Set Before Us: A exhaustation, thinking that so many books normative today. Since Webb’s book is a Biblical Theology of Perseverance and written by such a diversity of authors significant argument supporting egalitari- Assurance. His most recent book is Paul, could scarcely be wrong. Furthermore, it anism and is a serious work of scholar- the Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ: A is difficult to keep writing books promot- ship, I will devote the first half of my Pauline Theology. In addition, he is serving the complementarian view. Our view review to describing his position, so that ing as the preaching pastor of Clifton of the biblical text has not changed dra- the reader will have a grasp of Webb’s the- Baptist Church in Louisville, Kentucky. matically in the last twenty five years. sis before I critique his position. While Should we continue to write books that Webb’s hermeneutical principles on sla- essentially promote traditional interpre- very and homosexuality will be noted, I tations? Is the goal of publishing to write will concentrate on his contribution on the what is true or what is new? One of the role of women since he attempts to break dangers of evangelical publishing is the new ground on this issue in particular. desire to say something novel. Our evangelical publishing houses could end up A Summary of the Book like the Athenians in Paul’s time: “Now Webb opens the book in an interesting all the Athenians and the strangers visit- fashion, listing a variety of passages that ing there used to spend their time in represent a hermeneutical challenge nothing other than telling or hearing today. Is the mandate to fill and multiply something new” (Acts 17:21, NASB). the earth still in force (Gen 1:28)? What Nevertheless, we should be willing to about tithing and the holy kiss? Is the consider new interpretations. As comple- command to refrain from sexual relations mentarians we do not want to become during menstruation normative (Lev unthinking and hardened conservatives. 18:19)? If a woman commits adultery Perhaps we have misread the scriptures today, should she face the water purifica- for many years. Still, some of the books tion ritual of Numbers 5? What should we promoting egalitarian interpretations are think of a man wearing long hair or a per- “fantastic” in the original sense of the son getting tattoos? Issues like these and word. One thinks here of the work of the many more present a hermeneutical Kroegers on 1 Timothy 2. Their interpre- challenge for believers. I have often read tations were certainly new, but they lacked letters to the editor in our local paper that 46 assert that if homosexuality is wrong then of adultery undergo the water purification we should follow all the OT laws, such as rite of Numbers 5. The ritual actually the law that forbids the wearing of two functioned as protection from arbitrary different kinds of material (Lev 19:19). charges in a patriarchal society, but today Webb rightly reminds us that hermeneu- we would contend that men and women tical issues are fundamental in assessing are equally responsible for adultery. We the normative status of commands and would reject any notion that women are practices in the scriptures. to be specially singled out and punished for adultery. Still, compared to the culture Redemptive Movement of the day the scriptural regulations Hermeneutic improved the lot of women. One of the The crucial question for interpretation crucial themes of Webb’s work surfaces is this: how can we discern what is here. It is a massive mistake to restrict the transcultural or what is restricted to the application of the biblical text so that it culture of the Bible? Webb answers this only coheres with the cultural world question by proposing what he calls a addressed in the scriptures. Rather, we “redemptive-movement hermeneutic.” must note the redemptive movement of He looks for the redemptive spirit of the the text so that the application suits the text to discern what still applies today. twenty first century. For example, none of Other words that overlap in meaning with us today would accept the notion that “spirit” are “progressive,” “developmen- slaves are less valuable than other human tal,” or “trajectory.” He contrasts his beings (Exod 21:28-32), nor would we hermeneutic to a “static” hermeneutic that believe that wives are the property of their does not recognize the movement of the husbands (Exod 20:17). The redemptive biblical text. A static hermeneutic focuses movement of the text, argues Webb, leads on the isolated words of the text and does us to the truth that all human beings are not recognize the direction in which the equal, and that husbands are not worth scriptures are moving. Hence, a static more than their wives. We must not hermeneutic can even justify slavery, pro- restrict our application of the text so that vided it is the kind of slavery endorsed it is enclosed within the cultural world of by the scriptures. Those who read the text the Bible. As Webb says, “Relative to when according to its redemptive spirit recog- and where the words of Scripture were nize that we are not limited to the isolated first read, they spoke redemptively to their words of the biblical text. God moves his given communities” (p. 50). We would err, people step by step towards what is more therefore, in limiting our application to the righteous and just. social world of the scriptures. Some interpreters read the scriptures One example that Webb gives relates on a flat level, not comprehending how to slavery. Some interpreters draw the we should apply them today. For instance, principle from Ephesians 6:5-9 that the permission to divorce in the Mosaic employees should submit to employers. legislation (Deut 24:1-4) does not repre- Webb argues that such a principle misfires sent God’s ideal for today (Matt 19:3-12). in applying the text to contemporary Nor would anyone in contemporary soci- society, for employees are not required to ety recommend that a woman suspected submit to employers but to fulfill the 47 terms of their contracts. They are to do My focus in the review is on the women’s what their job requires in a way that glo- issue and so I will list the criteria assessed rifies God and in a way that functions as by Webb and categorize them as they a witness to others. relate to the question of the role of women Another example used by Webb (see pp. 69-70). I begin with his intra-scrip- comes from 1 Corinthians 7 where Paul tural criteria. addresses ascetics in the Corinthian con- Persuasive gregation. The ascetic Corinthians, accord- 1. Preliminary Movement ing to Webb, were simply not ready for 2. Seed Ideas the message of the Song of Solomon where 3. Breakouts sexual relations are celebrated. Paul 4. Purpose/Intent Statements speaks to the particular situation facing 5. Basis in Fall and/or Curse the Corinthians and moves them in the Moderately Persuasive right direction, taking them as far as 6. Original Creation, I: Patterns possible. It would be a mistake to read off 7. Original Creation, II: Primogeniture an entire sexual ethic from these chapters, 8. New Creation for we must recognize that we have spe- 9. Competing Options cifically targeted pastoral words here. 10. Opposition to Original Culture Similarly, Webb argues that the texts that 11. Closely Related Issues say women are barren are culturally lim- 12. Penal Code ited. Only now do we realize that men can 13. Specific Versus General be infertile as well as women. Here we Inconclusive have an example of accommodation in 14. Basis in Theological Analogy scripture. 15. Contextual Comparisons 16. Appeal to Old Testament Criteria for Determining Finally, he has two extra-scriptural what is Transcultural criteria, both of which he thinks are Most of the remaining chapters of the persuasive. book contain eighteen criteria by which 17. Pragmatics Between Two Cultures we can determine if a practice is cultural 18. Scientific Evidence or transcultural. Sixteen of these criteria are intrascriptural and two are extra-scrip- Persuasive Criteria tural. The intrascriptural criteria are cat- There is insufficient space to discuss all egorized into three groups in relation to eighteen criteria, but I will comment and the two issues of women in ministry and explain some of them, skipping those that homosexuality: 1) persuasive; 2) moder- I do not think are as important for his ately persuasive; and 3) inconclusive. Both overall argument. The first criterion is of the extra-scriptural criteria are seen to preliminary movement. This criterion was be persuasive. In most cases the criteria alluded to above. In these examples bibli- fall into the same category for the cal authors modified the original culture, women’s issue and homosexuality, pushing it in a new direction so that there though in some cases Webb sees a crite- is movement towards justice. Webb cites rion to be persuasive relative to homo- a number of examples of slavery in which sexuality but not on the women’s issue. the mistreatment of slaves is ameliorated 48 by biblical authors. Similarly, the OT Ephraim over Manasseh. Breakouts in the improves the rights for female slaves and case of women include Deborah, Huldah, concubines compared to the practices of Priscilla, and Junia who served as lead- the ancient Near East. Assyrian rape laws ers, prophets, teachers, and apostles. The punished the woman who was raped. By call for mutuality in the sexual realm in contrast, the biblical laws that speak to the 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, according to Webb, issue of rape treat women with much calls into question the hierarchical struc- more dignity and respect. The direction ture of complementarians, suggesting a of the text, then, points us towards what new pattern of equality between men and is fitting for us in our social context. women. These breakout texts, Webb main- Seed ideas are also identified as an tains, cannot be seen as mere exceptions. important criterion. A “seed idea” When combined with the first two crite- describes a principle or practice that is ria, they are a strong argument support- present in kernel form but has not yet ing egalitarianism. developed fully in the biblical culture. For The fourth criterion relates to purpose. example, some verses in the NT suggest A text is culturally bound if when we that the ideal would be complete equality fulfill the command in contemporary between slaves and masters, males and society we do not carry out the original females (cf. Acts 2:17-18; 1 Cor 7:21; 12:13; intention. For example, greeting one Gal 3:28; Col 3:11; Phlm 15-16), but such another with a holy kiss in our culture equality could not be implemented in the would make people feel uncomfortable social world of the NT. Seed texts point instead of making them feel welcome. us to the application for today’s world, Similarly, Webb argues that submission in showing that slavery should be abolished the ancient world had a missionary pur- and that women were limited from cer- pose. The missionary function of these tain functions because of the patriarchal admonitions no longer apply, for submis- culture of the ancient world. Conversely, sive slaves would repel rather than attract the scriptures do not give us any warrant unbelievers today. Nor should we support to think that homosexual practice was monarchy simply because it is found in restricted for cultural reasons. the Bible, and hence there is no expecta- The third criterion is called “break- tion today that we would submit to a outs.” Webb notes examples in which president or prime minister. We pray for cultural norms are reversed or over- leaders, according to Webb, but we do not turned. For instance, left-handed people obey them. In the same way, in our mod- were used by God in the OT, even though ern culture if women submit to men, such the imagery of the right hand suggests a practice may alienate people from the God’s favor and honor. The injunction that gospel. In the case of homosexuality no men should wear short hair is not a tran- mission statement can be cited to demon- scendent word (1 Cor 11:14) since strate that it was banned merely for the Nazirites wore long hair and Samuel had purpose of evangelism. Indeed, the bibli- long hair. Primogeniture should not be cal prohibition regarding homosexuality assessed as transcultural, for God some- was counter-cultural since some in the times chooses the younger instead of Greco-Roman world embraced homo- the older, such as Jacob over Esau and sexuality. Webb acknowledges that this 49 fourth criterion is not determinative since not wrong to be single even though the a biblical injunction may have more than creation narrative says it is not good for one purpose. man to be alone. Nor would we conclude The fifth criterion relates to the fall or that all people should be employed in the curse. Webb rightly points out that we agricultural work or travel only by walk- are not commanded to perpetuate the ing, even though these two elements are curse. For example, sin brought weeds present in the creation narrative. Few into the world and pain in childbirth, but today would argue from Genesis 1:28 that no one would argue that we should not we must have as many children as pos- eliminate weeds or ameliorate pain in sible, and virtually no one claims that we childbirth. Some complementarians have should ban the eating of meat. Many cited 1 Timothy 2:14, defending the would agree that the sabbath command notion that women are prone to deception. has changed, though the sabbath rest is But there is no indication that women are rooted in the seventh day of creation. The more liable to deception than men, says creation order addresses the relationship Webb, nor is there any clear indication in of men and women, for it is clear that both the text of role reversal between Adam are made in God’s image and they are to and Eve. The verse emphasizes instead rule the world together for God’s glory. that Eve was deceived rather than Adam. There are overtones of patriarchy in Webb concludes from this that women the garden, but they do not, avers Webb, during the biblical era were prone to sustain the thesis that patriarchy is deception because of lack of education, the transcultural. young age of their marriages, and their The issue of creation continues in the limited social experience. He rejects any seventh criterion where Webb focuses on notion of male headship in Adam’s nam- primogeniture since Paul’s prohibition of ing of woman in Genesis 2, arguing that women teaching and exercising authority naming of animals is an indication of in 1 Timothy 2:12-13 is rooted in primo- Adam’s dominion over the created world, geniture. Appealing to primogeniture but in the case of woman the name given does not demonstrate that the prohibition points to equality and partnership—not in 1 Timothy 2:12 is transcultural. Webb subordination. says that there are many examples where primogeniture is superseded, e.g., the Moderately Persuasive choosing of Isaac instead of Ishmael, Jacob Webb maintains that the five criteria over Esau, and Ephraim over Manasseh, listed above are persuasive, but criteria six of David over against his older brothers, through thirteen he thinks are only mod- etc. These “breakouts” suggest that pri- erately persuasive. Criterion six is one of mogeniture is culturally relative. Further- the most crucial for the issue of women in more, primogeniture worked well in an ministry. Webb argues that an injunction agricultural society but does not comport in the text may be transcultural if rooted in well with our culture. In the social world the creation order. Some creation man- of the Bible it fostered care for elderly par- dates are transcultural, such as Jesus’ ents and probably lessened sibling rivalry. words on divorce. Other creational com- Still, we do not follow the practice of pri- mands are not binding. For instance, it is mogeniture today. Hence, we should not 50 limit women today simply because in sperm for children to be born. Hence, in some places Paul appeals to creation to Webb’s view Paul’s point here should be prohibit women from certain activities. classified as hyperbole. The transcultural The intimations of patriarchy in the gar- principles of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 are that den may, suggests Webb, foreshadow the the genders must remain distinct and that impending curse. Perhaps the patriarchal modesty is required in dress. Webb argues echoes in Eden are an example of accom- that the notion that men own women, that modation in which the past is described women are subordinate to men, and that through the spectacles of the present. women must wear head coverings are all Hence, the patriarchal character of the cultural. garden may anticipate the agricultural I skip now to criterion ten, which context to which Adam and Eve were says that a matter is transcultural if it headed. One principle we can derive from stands against the culture of the day. For the argument from creation is that we example, to say that refuge should be should give honor to whom honor is due. given to runaway slaves intimates that The principle from 1 Timothy 2 is that we slavery is not God’s ideal since other cul- should “choose teachers/leaders who are tures did not provide a haven for fugitives. worthy of high honor within the congre- Webb also thinks that the prohibitions gation” (p. 145). against bestiality and transvestism fall The priority of man in creation, asserts into this category, though his argument Webb, only supports woman being the here seems weak since it unlikely that glory of man, not his authority over her either practice was ever common. The (1 Cor 11:7). Some might object that softening of patriarchy in texts like woman is said to derive from man, sug- Ephesians 5 where husbands are to exer- gesting a permanent role differentiation. cise a nurturing love for their wives is Webb counters that Paul qualifies this countercultural and hence instructive. argument in 1 Corinthians 11:12, stress- ing the interdependence of men and Inconclusive Criteria women. What we see in vv. 11-12 is actu- Criteria fourteen through sixteen are ally Paul’s seed idea, while in the previ- deemed inconclusive. An element of the ous verses he was influenced by the text is not, according to criteria fourteen, culture of his day. In addition, Webb transcultural simply because it is sup- thinks Paul’s argument is cultural here, ported by theological analogy. God is por- reflecting the view that women are merely trayed as Lord in the biblical text, but it “reproductive gardens” (p. 275). Scientific does not follow from this that earthly developments since Paul have shown that masters should lord it over slaves. Simi- the notion that women contribute noth- larly, God is portrayed as king in the Bible, ing more than being a fertile environment but we do not conclude from this that in conception and childbirth is flawed. monarchy is required. Similarly, Webb Paul says that woman was made for man, argues that Christ functioning as head of but Webb says that it does not make sense the church does not lead to the conclusion to deny that men were also made for that husbands should function as the women. Modern scientific research shows authority over their wives. Paul simply us that we need both the egg and the uses an analogy accepted in the culture of 51 his day to motivate his readers to godly nomic viability. Citizens are not required behavior. If we accept such an analogy as to obey leaders today, for we have a demo- transcultural, says Webb, then we should cratic society, not a government in which also argue that a husband can strip his the word of the leader is law. Yet, believ- wife in public as Hosea stripped Gomer ers should still submit to elders since (Hosea 2)! If the analogy is literal (love, church leaders usually have more educa- forgiveness, and holiness are mandated), tion and experience, and are typically then the command is still in force today. highly qualified for their job. Webb main- We should not, however, force analogies tains that women are not required to when applying the scriptures to today’s submit to men, for in the cultural world world. of the Bible women lacked knowledge and Skipping criterion fifteen, we come to education, social experience, and physi- the sixteenth. An appeal to the OT does cal strength. The first two factors are no not necessarily indicate that a practice is longer true today, and the third is hardly transcultural. Discontinuity between the a rational basis upon which to maintain testaments may show that a practice or role differences between the sexes. When command is no longer in force. For we think of homosexuality the pragmatic example, animal sacrifices, food laws, and test rules out homosexualilty, for it is clear circumcision are no longer required for that men are practically designed for believers as the NT demonstrates. Webb women and vice-versa. notes that a number of OT texts are cited The last criterion is that an element of when discussing slavery, and yet no one the text may be limited to the social world would conclude from this that slavery is of the Bible if it is contrary to social-scien- endorsed. The lifting of holy hands is tific evidence. For instance, we see clearly rooted in the OT, but most would agree from science that the sun rather than the that the inner attitude is what matters, not earth is the center of the solar system. Nor bodily posture. would we argue from the Bible today that the earth is flat rather than round. Simi- Extrabiblical Criteria larly, says Webb we do not believe that The last two criteria listed are extra- women are like the soil in which the seed biblical, and in both instances Webb thinks of the man is planted to produce children. they are persuasive. First, an element of Nor do we argue that infertility is always the text is culturally limited if it cannot the fault of the woman. In Isaiah 3:12 we be implemented practically into a new cul- are told that women make poor leaders, tural setting. For example, gleaning fields but such a judgment has to be limited to is not a practical way to help the poor in Isaiah’s day, for we know women func- an industrial society. Similarly, washing tion as leaders in a large number of areas feet made sense in a society where people today and succeed remarkably. wore sandals and walked dusty roads, but Nor can we accept the notion that following such a practice literally today women are by nature more apt to be would not make much sense. Conversely, deceived than men. Webb criticizes the children obeying parents translates well view proposed by Doriani and me that into today’s world since children lack women are more susceptible to deception knowledge, maturity, strength, and eco- than men, noting that such a view 52 employs social-scientific research to influence Eve in the garden, for Paul understand the text, when we as com- appeals to Eve in speaking of the decep- plementarians claim that we are merely tion of women? Webb maintains that it is interpreting the biblical text. Further, he quite possible that cultural factors were thinks it is unfair for complementarians present in the text. Even the opening chap- to object that nothing is said about women ters of Genesis contain accommodation to lacking education in 1 Timothy 2:14, for the culture of the readers. They “may tell neither does Paul say women are more us more about the audience to whom the vulnerable to being deceived than men. story is being told than about the original The latter statement is an interpretation event itself” (p. 249). Furthermore, it is not of the text, just as the former. Finally, the the case that NT writers always use gram- view espoused by Doriani and me is matical historical exegesis in interpreting guilty of stereotyping and cannot be sup- the OT. What we have here is an analogy ported biblically. Webb suggests that that relates Eve to the women at Ephesus. 1 Timothy 2:14 should be interpreted How does this social science criterion along the same lines as Isaiah’s statement relate to homosexuality, especially since that women make poor leaders. When some appeal to the social sciences to Paul refers to women being deceived, he justify homosexual practice? Webb argues assumes the cultural position of women that biological and environmental predis- in the Greco-Roman world in which they positions to homosexuality do not prove were generally uneducated and lacked the that homosexual activity is morally right, necessary experience and social exposure for some could appeal to the same factors to function as teachers. Indeed, if Paul to support bestiality, pornography, sex were prohibiting women from teaching with young children, etc. because they are more relational than men, as some complementarians allege, it Conclusion would make more sense to exclude both The book concludes with a chapter in women and men who are relational from which the author raises the possibility that teaching, since scientific research does not he is wrong. Still, he asserts with confi- support the idea that women are more dence that the reference to deception in easily deceived than men. Hence, Webb 1 Timothy 2:14 is almost certainly cultural. concurs that Paul teaches here that women Webb believes that there are some biologi- are more easily deceived than men, but cal differences between the sexes, suggest- we should not infer from this that Paul ing that women should play a greater role makes an ontological statement about in the raising of young children. Those women. He addresses a cultural situation who are convinced by patriarchy should in which women were prone to deception practice what he calls “ultra-soft patriar- because of lack of education, social limi- chy.” The patriarchy found in the Piper tations, and early marriage. The principle and Grudem book, Recovering Biblical from the text, then, is that we should Manhood and Womanhood, should be appoint teachers who are not apt to be rejected since it falls prey to a static herme- deceived. neutic. Following his conclusion, there are Webb then raises another interesting four appendices, two relate to the issue of question. How could such cultural factors women and deception. Webb concludes 53 that the direction of the scripture and its cause of the epochal shift between the tes- underlying spirit support abolishing taments. It is not apparent, however, that slavery and favor the egalitarian view he understands fully how this affects concerning women. In the case of homo- one’s entire understanding of the OT. sexuality there is no movement in the text, Most of the other examples cited could and hence the prohibitions against homo- be explained from the same perspective, sexuality are transcultural. Those who including the water purification ritual in try to establish a parallel between the Numbers 5, the regulations for slaves in women’s issue and homosexuality make Israel, and many regulations for women a serious mistake, for the two issues are in the OT. Any book that purports to dramatically different. explain how to apply the scriptures today must feature prominently the redemptive Evaluation of Webb’s Arguments historical character of the scriptures, but An Inadequate Grasp of Redemptive Webb fails to do this and instead intro- History duces eighteen criteria that make apply- Probably the most important argument ing the Bible today more difficult than in Webb’s book is his claim that we must necessary. interpret the scriptures with a view to their We should follow the pathway of Jesus redemptive movement, so that we do not and the apostles in teaching that the OT restrict ourselves to the isolated words of scriptures point to Christ and are fulfilled the text but discern the “spirit” to which in him. The NT is the fulfillment of the redemptive movement points. Webb OT. We have the final and definitive word rightly directs our attention to the impor- that God has spoken to his people in the tance of redemptive movement, but last days (Heb 1:2). In the NT we have the unfortunately he does not grasp or explain faith that has been transmitted to the well the centrality of redemptive history. saints once for all (Jude 3). We expect no It is interesting that Webb employs the further revelation until the coming of term “spirit” or “trajectory” of the text, but Jesus Christ when we will meet God face does not use the term “redemptive to face. Webb never clearly states that in history.” He does not clearly explain the the NT we have the final and definitive salvation historical character of the scrip- word that speaks to every practical issue tures in which the life, ministry, death, and for all time. The culmination of the full- resurrection of Jesus Christ are the climax ness of time in Christ (Gal 4:4) means that and fulfillment of all of redemptive we need no further word or instruction to history. I suspect Webb would say that understand how to apply the scriptures. he agrees with such a paradigm, but his Again, Webb may believe this, but he does failure to explain clearly that his herme- not clearly state such an idea and instead neutic is founded upon such a premise is emphasizes how the “spirit” of the text telling. For instance, many of the cultural leads us beyond the wording of the bibli- examples cited by Webb can be solved cal text. I am not denying that many diffi- rather easily once we have a grasp of cult issues of application arise, and that redemptive history. He rightly concludes, Webb provides some help in assessing for instance, that circumcision, sacrifices, these issues. Still, redemptive history is and food laws are no longer in force be- not given pride of place in the entire 54 discussion. When we discuss tithing, Many of Webb’s insights are useful. He sabbath, circumcision, food laws, men- rightly notes that some of the laws given struation laws in the OT, whether we can to Israel modify the harsh treatment of wear clothing composed of two different slaves and women in their day, and yet kinds of material, and divorce, we must such laws do not represent the final and always discern how the text should be in- definitive word on such matters. We terpreted in light of the fulfillment of all should simply note (as Webb does) that of scripture in Jesus Christ. We do not such an approach to OT regulations comes merely apply this principle to obvious from Jesus himself (Matt 19:3-12). Obvi- issues like circumcision and food laws. All ously, we need to read the whole canon of the scriptures must be rightly related carefully to discern where to apply such to Christ. Webb does not convey that this a principle, but we can agree that OT laws is the central question. In fact, he scarcely do not function as the summon bonum. speaks at all of all the scriptures being Again, a salvation historical approach fulfilled in Christ. Hence, he tends to raise might have led Webb to discuss the law issues of application in an abstract fash- as it is related to Israel. A case can be made ion, instead of integrating them suffi- that the law was given to distinguish Is- ciently with the story line of the Bible. rael from the Gentiles, but now that Christ Still, Webb has some helpful insights. has come the era of separation between He rightly warns against applying the Jews and Gentiles is over (Eph 2:11-3:13). isolated words of a biblical text. He does Webb’s book does not set the discussion see the redemptive movement of the text, of application onto the larger canvas of even though he does not emphasize suf- biblical theology, and hence the danger of ficiently fulfillment in Christ. His failure abstraction (what are those eighteen to emphasize that in the NT we have the criteria again?!) surfaces. final and definitive revelation leads to If Webb had been more helpful in set- some interesting consequences. He does ting forth his view of redemptive history, not clearly relay the idea that in the NT it would have been clear that the most itself we have all the information we need important texts for his entire discussion to pronounce on the question of slavery, are found in the NT. I do not want to be the role of women, and homosexuals. simplistic here. Christians today still Again, it is likely that Webb would agree argue over issues like tithing and the sab- with me, but what an author fails to bath, but I would suggest that both of emphasize is itself illuminating and can them must be addressed from the perspec- signal a trajectory that is slightly off tive of redemptive history, from the stand- course. Webb emphasizes instead that we point that all the promises of God are may move beyond the words of the bibli- fulfilled in Jesus Christ (2 Cor 1:20). cal text in applying it to today, and that Webb does remind us of some impor- we are not required to reproduce the cul- tant principles in the NT. For instance, we ture of the Bible in today’s world. I agree. must remember that NT letters are But he does not explain clearly that in the addressed to particular situations in the completed revelation of the scriptures we churches. Hence, 1 Corinthians 7 should have the final and definitive revelation by not be interpreted as the complete and last which to address all these issues. word on marriage and the single state. The 55 biblical interpreter, however, must still The Five “Persuasive” Criteria integrate what Paul says here into a the- Given what I have said above about the ology of marriage, divorce, and being importance of understanding redemptive single. I suppose Webb is not to be blamed history and biblical theology, I do not for failing to accomplish this when he think Webb’s eighteen criteria are a con- compares 1 Corinthians 7 to the Song of vincing resolution to the problem he Solomon. He does not adequately explain, raises. Many good insights are contained however, the contribution 1 Corinthians in these principles, but his approach to 7 makes to the canon. Hence, his explana- solving the questions raised falls prey to tion of the NT in this instance falls short abstraction and overlooks the rich texture of providing a hermeneutical paradigm of redemptive history. Despite some good for readers. insights, the book tends towards an arti- Webb rightly reminds us of the cultural ficial workbook approach to solving the context in which the scriptures were writ- issues raised. In other words, the book ten. We are not required to return to the fails because it is not clearly founded on world of the Bible. Greeting one another biblical theology. with holy kisses in the U.S. would make When we look at the scriptural criteria most people feel quite awkward, and most that Webb thinks are persuasive, it can just would agree that we are not required to as easily be argued that his evidence is drink wine when we have indigestion. ambiguous. He rightly sees preliminary Nor would we argue that we must rein- movement in some texts, but such move- stitute the system of slavery or the mon- ment is not definitive enough to establish archy. The application of the biblical text final boundaries. The endpoint or goal of today will not necessarily mirror the first such movement must be determined by century context. Hence the importance of the entire canon, and so this criterion is doing biblical theology and understand- only as persuasive as the exegesis of ing redemptive history! all the other texts relating to the issue Even though Webb does not emphasize debated. Similarly, “seed texts,” and enough that in the scriptures we have “breakouts” do not in and of themselves definitive and final revelation, he is cor- clearly indicate the line of demarcation. rect in saying that contemporary applica- Both exegetically and logically it can be tion will extend beyond the wording of argued that seed texts and breakouts do the biblical text, that we cannot confine not contradict complementarian conclu- ourselves to the isolated words of the text. sions. Trumpeting equality in Galatians Again, the importance of doing biblical 3:28 does not rule out differences of roles theology before applying the text should in Ephesians 5:22-33. Webb thinks seed be emphasized more than Webb does. We texts and breakouts are persuasive, but do have to think hard about how to apply he does not establish exegetically that texts that speak of slavery, women, and they necessarily support his egalitarian homosexuals today. We are required to see conclusions. The criteria he thinks are per- how they fit into the redemptive histori- suasive only work if one assumes his cal framework before applying them exegetical conclusions. For instance, woodenly to today’s world. women functioning as prophets does not necessarily establish the view that women 56 can teach and exercise authority over relationship between men and women men, for it can be argued that the gift of had elements of hierarchy and mutuality. prophecy should be distinguished from He put them together in the same passage! teaching. Similarly, he appeals to Junia in Let me note again that what Webb says Romans 16:7 to say that women served as here is nothing new. Egalitarians often say apostles, but the text is debated and does that vv. 3-10 are transcended by vv. 11-12. not clearly lead to egalitarian conclusions. Old conclusions with new hermeneutical Approaching the issue “hermeneuti- names should not dazzle us. cally” may mislead readers into thinking Webb calls the purpose criterion per- that Webb has solved long standing suasive, but when it comes to the women’s debates on issues, but his “hermeneutical issue, he admits that the texts in question boxes” are actually premised on exegeti- may have a purpose besides the mission- cal conclusions, or even more radically he ary purpose he adduces. Many of the texts assumes that the breakout or seed texts relating to the role of men and women do establish his view. Webb uses the “seed not refer to missions at all (e.g., Eph 5:22- texts” and “breakouts” and his movement 33; 1 Tim 2:9-15). Hence, the criterion is metaphor to modify the texts that restrict hardly persuasive or clear when it comes women. How new is this argument? to the women’s issue. The fifth criterion Egalitarians have often argued that relates to the curse, and Webb rightly says “clear” texts (at least those they think are that transcultural arguments cannot be clear) should determine how we apply established from the curse. Complemen- “unclear” texts (such as 1 Tim 2:11-15). tarians differ from Webb on some of the One or two concrete examples will interpretations proposed here. Neverthe- illustrate my point. Webb appeals to the less, we can still accept his basic argument, mutuality in marriage emphasized in for it does not clearly lead to egalitarian 1 Corinthians 7:3-5 to suggest that differ- conclusions. The complementarian view ent roles in marriage are cultural. The does not depend upon arguments from “breakout” helps us see that the advice to the curse for their foundation. So, I look husbands and wives in Ephesians 5:22-33 back over the five allegedly persuasive was not intended to establish permanent criteria, and see some good observations roles. But Webb actually begs the question and some helpful cultural analysis. Still, in his argument, for he assumes that mu- the criteria presented are ambiguous and tuality and hierarchy are mutually exclu- debatable. They depend upon exegetical sive. But the biblical pattern of marriage conclusions and logical assumptions that includes both. That this is Paul’s are not adequately defended. The first worldview is suggested by 1 Corinthians three criteria are the most important, but 11:2-16 where there is both hierarchy (1 not one of them, even taken on their own Cor 11:3-10, 13-16) and mutuality (11:11- terms, necessarily establishes egalitarian- 12). Notice how Webb handles this latter ism. They could all be interpreted to deny text. He sees the “seed idea” in vv. 11-12 a heavy handed and one sided hierarch- and a temporary cultural accommodation icalism but to fit with complemen- in vv. 3-10. His hermeneutical boxes de- tarianism; yes, even the complemen- termine his conclusions, but it can just as tarianism of Piper and Grudem in Recov- easily be argued that Paul thought that the ering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood. 57 remarriage (Matt 19:3-12) functions as the Arguments from the best parallel to the texts about women in Creation Order ministry. We see in the NT, the definitive The next set of criteria are introduced revelation of the last days, an appeal to as moderately persuasive. I will continue God’s good creation supporting a differ- to investigate those that especially relate ent role for men and women. Two of to the role of women. The two criteria that Webb’s weaknesses coalesce together are most important here relate to creation, here: 1) his failure to understand redemp- and hence we will concentrate on these. tive history; and 2) his failure to see the Webb, as noted, does not see arguments implications of the view that in the NT we from creation as conclusive since we do have the definitive and final word of God. not practice many things in the creation At this point a comment about homo- narrative. Webb’s failure to understand sexuality should be made. Webb’s book the redemptive historical flow of scripture is useful because he shows that the scrip- surfaces here, especially since he speaks tures consistently speak against homo- of redemptive movement. Complemen- sexuality and that there is no opening in tarians, rightly understood, have never the text for its legitimacy (though see argued that every element of the creation below for some possible logical weak- narrative should be reproduced today. We nesses in his position). And yet there is a have a canonical view of the scriptures in striking weakness in the book. Webb which we see scripture as the interpreter actually does very little with the funda- of scripture, and the redemptive his- mental text in Romans 1:26-27. Here Paul torical flow of the Bible is crucial. For argues from nature, i.e., what God example, we even know from reading intended for human beings at creation. Genesis that it was not God’s intention for That one can write a book on the issue of every person to walk or become a farmer! hermeneutics and homosexuality, and We also know from Genesis that God refer to this text on only three pages permits human beings to eat meat. The (according to the index) and provide very scriptures themselves clarify what is still little exposition of its meaning is nothing binding relative to creation. It is not my short of astonishing. Again, I think Webb purpose to arbitrate the issue of the sab- is correct in thinking the OT texts on bath here, but surely one must correlate homosexuality are normative, but for the creation narratives with what is said someone who emphasizes the redemptive in the NT to come to a conclusion. When movement of the text, it is strange that he we come to the issue of women in minis- does not see that the climax of revelation try, and this point cannot be stressed (the NT) confirms the OT and argues from enough, the NT itself argues from the cre- the created order. Surely, Romans 1:26-27 ated order for differences in role (1 Cor is the most important text in the NT on 11:8-9; 1 Tim 2:13). Amazingly enough, homosexuality (and in the entire canon of Webb fails to see this distinction and scripture!), and yet Webb skates over it appears to lump what the NT says here quickly. Furthermore, it might explain with whether all should be farmers. why Webb does not see a principial con- Hence, contrary to Webb, Jesus’ appeal to nection between homosexuality and the creation in the matter of divorce and women’s issue. He is correct in saying that 58 the former is much clearer than the latter. promote slavery, but he leaves the impres- Still, Webb misses a major point: when it sion that the NT appeals to the OT texts comes to divorce, homosexuality, and the on slavery in a comparable way to its women’s issue, the NT argues from the appeal to the OT in relation to women. The created order. Hence, this criterion is case is weak, for when Peter cites Isaiah much stronger than the five Webb sug- 53 his focus is on Christ as an example and gests, for the NT interprets the OT for us as an atonement for sin. No justification and bases its argument on the created of slavery exists at all. Webb’s failure to order. perceive the differences between the One could argue that when the NT slavery and women texts damages his appeals to the OT, the command enjoined case. We can say again that his hermeneu- is not necessarily normative for us today. tical categories may look convincing at We do not wear headcoverings today, but first glance, but they suffer from lack of Paul alludes to the OT in requiring exegetical support. headcoverings (1 Cor 11:2-16). The use of Webb also rejects the transcultural sta- the OT in the NT is too large of an issue to tus of primogeniture, but he does not resolve in a review. It seems that in the make some crucial distinctions. The point majority of cases the commands of the NT is not that primogeniture is some inflex- rooted in the OT are still normative today. ible pattern that must be enforced in Webb appeals to slavery in discussing this every culture. We are all aware that God issue (p. 202), noting that some have chose Jacob not Esau and that David was defended slavery with citations from crowned instead of his older brothers. Isaiah 53 in 1 Peter 2:22-25. He also says Webb fails to understand why Paul that some have appealed to Job 31:13 and appeals to Adam as the first one created Leviticus 25:43 and 25:53 to support in 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 and 1 Timothy 2:13. slavery. But his examples are hardly con- The purpose is not to say that the cultural vincing and not parallel to the woman’s practice of primogeniture applies to issue. Nowhere does Paul justify slavery every conceivable situation. I do not by referring to a particular OT text or the believe any complementarian would created order, as he does the relationship argue for such a conclusion. We have here, between men and women. Moreover, any however, Paul’s authoritative interpreta- reference to Job 31:13 and Leviticus 25:43; tion of the OT text. The inspired writer, 25:53 in Ephesians 6:9 and Colossians 4:1 Paul, informs us that the order of is sig- would only be an allusion. No clear refer- nificant, that it tells us something about ence exists. Even if Paul does allude to how the relationship between men and these OT texts, they emphasize treating women should be structured. In other slaves fairly. They do not justify the insti- words, each passage must be interpreted tution of slavery. The citations of Isaiah in context. We cannot and must not make 53 in 1 Peter 2:22-25 do not support the sweeping conclusions about primogeni- practice of slavery from the OT. Isaiah 53 ture regardless of the situation addressed. in context is not even about slavery, and Paul himself is well aware that Jacob was it is misleading to suggest that Peter some- chosen instead of Esau (Rom 9:10-13). how supports slavery theologically by What Webb does not explain successfully citing this text. Webb, of course, does not is Paul’s appeal to the order of creation in 59 supporting a difference of role between from the first man, Adam. As Webb men and women. In other words, Webb acknowledges himself, Paul also sees that again fails to grasp the hermeneutical sig- men come through women (1 Cor 11:11- nificance of the NT supporting a practice 12). Hence, there is no need to appeal to with an argument from creation. He can our scientific superiority, for Paul does not point to examples that seem to call the deny the contribution of women. But conclusion into question, but in doing so Webb’s argument is remarkable for he he fails to see that the NT itself answers seems to undercut what Paul says in the questions he poses and that it makes 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 by appealing to our distinctions where he sees none. scientific knowledge. Ultimately, Webb Some of Webb’s other arguments are drives a wedge between 1 Corinthians also questionable. For example, he appears 11:8-9 and 11:11-12. The latter is a “seed to suggest that the scriptures are incorrect idea” and applies to today; the former is in identifying some women as barren. It cultural and unscientific and hence is cul- is unclear to me that this is analogous to turally limited. But Paul is not buying into texts that allegedly taught that the earth the reproductive garden idea here, for he was the center of the world or that the thinks of how Eve came from Adam’s rib, earth was flat. Webb actually flattens out not the conception of people in the womb. the teaching of the Bible too simplistically There is nothing that contradicts modern on this issue. Zechariah seems to recog- science here, unless one believes Genesis nize that the problem is with his old age is not historical in what it says about the too, not just Elizabeth’s barrenness (Luke creation of Adam and Eve. 1:18). Sarah seems to think that Abraham Webb rightly argues that a practice is himself is too old to have children (Gen not necessarily normative simply because 17:17; so also Rom 4:19). Deuteronomy a theological analogy is used. We do not 7:14 specifically states that both males or think monarchy is established in the Bible, females may be barren. All the blame is nor do we think slavery applies today, not laid on women. Webb says often that even though God is described as King and women are reproductive gardens in the Lord. I think we should say that the analo- scriptures and contributed nothing but a gies used are intentional and in God’s sov- haven for the child, whereas we know a ereignty were intended to teach us about seed and egg must join together. But he God. Webb maintains that the analogy never establishes his thesis clearly from between husband and wife and Christ and the biblical text. His discussion of 1 Corin- the church is not necessarily transcultural. thians 11:8-9 is particularly striking where He is correct in saying that it is not neces- Paul says woman came from man. He says sarily transcultural, but he fails to explain that scientific developments since Paul’s a crucial element of the text. Paul informs day show the mutual contribution of men us that the institution of marriage is pat- and women in the production of children. terned after the relationship between Hence, he finally says the argument here Christ and the church. The “mystery” is is hyperbolic. The conclusions drawn by not that God thought up marriage and Webb are unconvincing. Paul is thinking then used that relationship to illustrate of creation, where the biblical text clearly Christ’s relation to the church (Eph 5:32). teaches that the first woman, Eve, came No, it is precisely the reverse. Christ’s 60 relationship to the church has priority, and point of application so remarkably differ- marriage was always intended to mirror ent? Even in the OT, we have examples how Christ and the church are related. where people appealed to kings or remon- Interestingly, Paul again argues from a strated with them when they did some- creation text, citing Genesis 2:24 in thing wrong. Webb also says that using Ephesians 5:32 to justify his view of mar- the slavery/master texts to say that we riage. So, Webb is correct in concluding should obey employers is incorrect, since that monarchy and slavery are not we are not required to obey employers but intended to be in force today, but he fails to fulfill our contract. Webb is partially to see that monarchy and slavery are not right, for it is true that the relationship creation ordinances while marriage is! between employer and employee differs Paul makes that very point in Ephesians from the master/slave relationship. The 5:22-33. Webb fails to discern how the two are not comparable at every point. final revelation, the NT scriptures, distin- Still, it seems that Webb overemphasizes guish slavery from the women’s question. the difference. There is still a sense in which He also thinks that if such a view of most employees must do what their boss Ephesians 5:22-33 is accepted, then hus- says or face the possibility of dismissal. bands can strip their wives in public as Many people could tell stories of being Hosea stripped Gomer in Hosea 2. The fired by their bosses. Naturally matters are argument is bogus. First, it is unlikely that complex. Employees can sue, and bosses Hosea 2 literally describes what Hosea may be unjust. Nevertheless, it seems there would do to Gomer. It should be inter- is a line of continuity between the two situ- preted as a description of Yahweh’s rela- ations that Webb overlooks. tionship to Israel. Furthermore, Hosea is Webb’s explanation and application of scarcely the place to establish the relation- this criterion is not always clear. He says ship between husbands and wives. No that church members should submit to one would argue from Hosea that men elders today because church leaders are should marry prostitutes. Clearly the educated, experienced, and highly quali- situation was exceptional. fied. But it is simply not the case that the elders are always the best educated and Extrabiblical Criteria most experienced members of the congre- Because of space I turn to the extra- gation. Nor are they invariably those who biblical criteria suggested by Webb. He are most qualified. Hence, if we follow rightly suggests that a pragmatic test can Webb’s view, those members who are bet- be of some use. A holy kiss is not wel- ter educated and most experienced should comed by most people in the U.S. as a not submit to church leaders, while those friendly greeting. Nor is washing feet who are less educated and inexperienced particularly useful in our culture. Other should. Webb introduces factors into the examples mentioned by Webb are not as reason for submission that are not clearly clear. He often says in the book that we taught in the NT. The reason the congre- are not required to literally obey our lead- gation should follow their leaders is ers today as people had to obey the because God has appointed them to lead Roman emperor during NT times or a the congregation, not necessarily because king during the era of the OT. But is the they are at the top of the heap education- 61 ally and experientially. Webb makes a know about homosexuality. We under- similar mistake when it comes to the rela- stand better than they the genetic and tionship of men and women. The biblical environmental factors that lead one to text nowhere suggests that women are to become a homosexual. We have come to submit to men because of lack of educa- realize that it is not a sin at all. Thankfully tion or social inexperience. Webb forcefully rejects arguments like The last criterion suggested by Webb, these, but his criterion appears to open the which he deems to be persuasive, is door for others to use such an argument. social-scientific evidence. It is interesting The social-scientific criterion is brought that Webb thinks that his extrascriptural to bear upon the issue of woman being criteria are persuasive. We have already deceived in 1 Timothy 2:14. Webb insists seen that the pragmatic criterion noted that there is no credible scientific evidence above is applied in subjective ways by that women are more apt to be deceived Webb, and hence it is hardly as persua- than men. Hence, Paul uses a cultural sive as he alleges. That Webb thinks the argument that assumes that women social-scientific criterion is persuasive lacked education and social experience in surprises me since it seems to exalt an this verse. I want to say up front that this extrabiblical norm above the scriptures. verse is difficult. I have changed my mind Moreover, as we shall see, his own use of about its meaning more than once. One the criterion is problematic. element has not changed, however, and Of course, all agree that the scriptures that is the conviction that egalitarians do may be misinterpreted. Some did think not explain this verse credibly. First, it is the earth was the center of the universe, possible that the traditional view is cor- and science helped us see that this inter- rect and that women are more prone to pretation was incorrect. Still, we must be deception than men and that is why they very careful about how we apply this should not teach. Such a view is politically criterion, for we can easily end up with a incorrect today, but if that is what the cultural subversion of the biblical mes- scriptures teach, that is where we should sage. For instance, could not Webb’s sug- stand. Second, I acknowledge that I did gestion that the biblical text is culturally depend on some social-scientific research bound in speaking of the barrenness of in my own modified explanation of the women be applied principially to the verse. I believe with Doriani that there is issue of homosexuality? Webb, of course, a coherence between the world as it is and holds the line strongly here, insisting that the biblical text. Nonetheless, the latter homosexual practices are always wrong. should always have priority, and hence It seems, however, that someone could use my modified explication of the traditional Webb’s criterion and argue against him. view may be wrong. Third, I now incline The argument could run like this: Just as to the view that the point of the verse is the scriptural writers were culturally that Satan subverted male headship by bound in thinking infertility was all a tempting Eve rather than Adam. If this is woman’s fault, so too they are culturally the case, then both vv. 13-14 appeal to the bound when they condemn homosexual- same argument—the created order. Or, ity. The biblical writers, after all, did not perhaps the point is that Eve sinned first, know, indeed could not know, what we but sin is traced through Adam (Rom 5:12- 62 19), teaching male headship. I feel confi- has to posit an improbable scenario to dent that one of the above interpretations interpret 1 Timothy 2:14. It would not be is correct, but admit that I am unsure hard for Paul to say women were unedu- which one is persuasive. cated, but he fails to do so. All acknowl- I am quite sure that Webb’s own view edge 1 Timothy 2:14 is a difficult verse to of the verse is unpersuasive. He turns sus- interpret, but I would submit that ceptibility to deception into ignorance, egalitarians like Webb do not provide a lack of education, and inexperience, but plausible interpretation. this does not fit with the scriptures, for deception is a moral category. Webb actu- Conclusion ally reads the language of deception In conclusion, we can be grateful to through the lenses of modern society, so Webb for raising important hermeneuti- that it would be akin to my knowledge cal questions, and helping us see that we of automobiles. Almost anyone could must think deeply about these matters. deceive me about how to fix my car when Applying the biblical text to today’s world it is in disrepair, but such lack of knowl- is not always easy, and we can profit from edge on my part is not the same thing as some of Webb’s insights and principles sin, and hence does not comport with the when we engage in the hermeneutical biblical notion of deception. For Eve’s task. Nevertheless, Webb’s hermeneutic is being deceived is connected to her sinning flawed because he fails to grasp precisely (cf. Rom 7:11; 16:18; 1 Cor 3:18; 2 Cor 11:3; the biblical theological concept of redemp- Eph 5:6; Jas 1:26), and hence cannot be tive history, even though he appeals to it chalked up merely to lack of education. in presenting his own view. Nor does he The deception that leads to sin is not relate well the OT to the NT, faltering merely ignorance but a culpable state of because he does not correlate his view affairs in which deception is rooted in a with the truth that Christ fulfills all of desire to displace God. God’s promises. The definitive and final Webb also suggests that the intimations character of the NT canon is not properly of patriarchy in the creation account are integrated into the whole issue of appli- accommodations to the culture in which cation by Webb. Hence, he introduces Genesis was written. This seems like a abstract criteria to discern what is cultural desperate expedient to sustain a preferred instead of interpreting the Bible in accord conclusion. Furthermore, the accommo- with its storyline. There are some good dation theory does not really make sense insights in his use of the criteria, but the of Paul’s use of the text, for it would criteria he judges to be persuasive are be flat out wrong to say that Eve was actually remarkably ambiguous and even deceived because she was uneducated. questionable. They do not establish his Surely Eve could understand the simple conclusion regarding the role of women, prohibition relayed by Adam! Otherwise and he fails to employ the argument from she would be so unintelligent that she creation sufficiently in his explication of could not understand the most elemen- homosexuality. He does show that the tary command. Paul thinks her deception canon excludes homosexuality. Webb is sinful, just as deception is understood rightly perceives that slavery is not God’s in all the other passages in the NT. Webb ideal, but he could have drawn this con- 63 clusion from rightly assessing arguments from the created order and paying attention to the warrants (or lack thereof) found in the NT itself. To sum up, his defense of egalitarianism is found lacking, for he fails to establish his case exegetically or hermeneutically.

ENDNOTES 11William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homo- sexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis (Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2001).

64 65 Child-Parent Imagery in the Catholic Epistles Peter Balla

Peter Balla is the Lecturer and Head In the Catholic Epistles the theme of the Rom 4:12).1 Thus Mussner argues that of the New Testament Department of “real” child-parent relationship is not James’s reference to Abraham as “our the Faculty of Theology of the Károli addressed. The figurative sense of the father” does not imply that only Jewish Gáspár Reformed University, Budapest, term “children” is often applied to the Christians are addressed by the letter.2 Hungary. He received his Master of recipients in two ways: as the children of Abraham is called “our father” in Theology (1988) and Ph.D. (1994) from the writer and at the same time as God’s James, but this must be understood in University of Edinburgh. His Habilita- children. When discussing these texts we the sense of a “forefather” (cf. Rom 4:1, tionsschrift was accepted by the focus on two questions: “What kind of where in many MSS he is referred to as Lutheran Theological University in views on the child-parent relationship do “father,” but there is also a textual tradi- Budapest in October 2001. Dr. Balla’s they presuppose?,” and, “What do the tion, adopted also by NA27 as the main doctoral dissertation, Challenges to New authors want to achieve by using familial text, that has ton propatora hemon). Honor Testament Theology: An Attempt to imagery?” toward the forefathers implies honor to Justify the Enterprise, has recently been one’s parents as well. This is paralleled in published by Hendrickson. James honor toward older people. In James 5:14 The Epistle of James does not address the readers are told that ill people should the child-parent relationship directly. “call for the elders of the church” Since the letter refers to two command- (proskalesasthe tous presbuterous tes ments from the second table of the Ten ekklesias). It is probable that the term Commandments (2:11), and in 2:8 the “elders” refers to “officials” here.3 How- author quotes from Leviticus 19:18 the ever, the model of the Jewish leadership commandment to love one’s neighbor, it of villages and of synagogues probably may be surprising that the commandment influenced the author of the letter just as to honor father and mother does not sur- it influenced the early Christian church face in the letter. However, we can argue in Jerusalem.4 If so, then it is likely that the other way round as well: the social some of the elders were also “old” in age. interest of the letter, and its appeal to the The “office” of eldership, at least in its ori- Ten Commandments may raise the possi- gins, is probably connected with the view bility that honor toward parents may be that old people should be honored. This presupposed in some passages. duty is related to the duty of honoring Abraham appears together with his parents, as we can see in the environment son in James 2:21; here he is not only the of the NT.5 father of Isaac, but the author calls him The author repeatedly addresses his “our father” (ho pater hemon). Franz readers as “brethren,” most often as “my Mussner argues that this expression was brethren” or “my beloved brethren” (see originally a claim made by Jewish people e.g., 1:2,19; 2:1, 5, 14; 3:1; 4:11; 5:7, 19). This (cf. e.g., Isa 51:2; 4 Macc 16:20; Matt 3:9; usage can imply that the Christians belong John 8:39), but in early Christianity it to the family of God; they are brothers and included Gentile Christians as well (cf. sisters because they are children of God. 66 Perhaps this idea is reflected in James 1:17- Philo, the creative activity of God and 18. Here God is referred to as the “father the procreative activity of parents are of lights” (tou patros ton photon). Wolfgang regarded as being closely related (e.g., Schrage points to Genesis 1:14 and Psalm Decal. 107). The idea of “God as the cre- 135:7 (LXX) as examples where “lights” ator” and “God as father” belong together. mean “stars.”6 This must be its meaning Sophie Laws argues that v. 18 continues in James 1:17 as well.7 describing “God as Father,” in spite of the However, we may add that the expres- use of apekueo.12 The verse refers to one sion also fits the familial imagery, since v. particular gift of God, “that of birth.”13 17 speaks about “gifts” coming from this God’s gift of new life has an ethical impli- father “from above”: “Every good endow- cation: the addressees are expected to lead ment and every perfect gift is from above, a way of life that is in accordance with the coming down from the Father of lights word of God (cf. also the next verse, 1:19, with whom there is no variation or which begins a paraenetic section: “Know shadow due to change” (RSV). The gift is this, my beloved brethren. Let every man not specified; it may be “wisdom” (cf. Jas be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to 3:15,17).8 Whatever it may include, it anger...”). implies the father’s provision for his We may put it this way: Christians are children. The “slightly imperfectly quan- the “children” of God. One implication of tified hexameter” in 1:17 contains a word- the parental imagery is the expectation play; thus pasa dosis and pan dorema are that Christians will obey him. This imag- either synonymous, or dosis may be trans- ery may be in the background in the lated as a verbal noun, “so that it is ‘all Epistle of James, since this letter is full of good giving and every perfect gift” (NEB) ethical advice. that may be attributed to God.”9 Verse 18 continues the parental imag- 1 Peter ery, since the expression “bringing forth” Although 1 Peter has a long passage is used: “Of his own will he brought us dealing with duties in the realm of family forth by the word of truth that we should relationships and in wider circles of the be a kind of first fruits of his creatures.” society (1 Pet 2:13-3:7), one can argue that The expression “brought us forth” this text is not a Household Code. On the (apekuesen) “denotes the female’s part in one hand, its concern includes also the giving birth,”10 but it is probably used leaders of the “state”; on the other hand, here as a continuation of the picture in v. it omits the child-parent relationship. 15, where the same verb occurs: “Then However, there is a passage affirming the desire when it has conceived gives birth duty of children to honor their parents. In to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings 1 Peter 1:14 we read: “As obedient chil- forth death.” As Davids puts it: “Sin pro- dren (hos tekna hupkoes), do not be con- duces death, but God produces life.”11 formed to the passions of your former In James 1:18 we further observe the ignorance.”14 presence of the idea of creation, which is The expression “obedient children” has expressed in the term “his creatures” (and a similar genitival structure in the Greek in the variant reading in some MSS which to the phrase “the sons of disobedience” have epoiesen instead of apekuesen). In (tois huiois tes apeitheias) in Ephesians 2:2. 67 Thus it may be that it is idiomatic, describ- occurs: it is not a point to be proved, but ing the readers as an “obedient people.”15 something presupposed. The paternal However, the term tekna in 1 Peter 1:14 imagery applied to God is significant for may be a conscious choice of the author the author of the letter, since God as in order to anticipate the reference to father appeared already at the beginning, “father” in v. 17. The only other occurrence in vv. 2-3. The reappearance of the motif of tekna in 1 Peter is in 3:6, where the idea in v. 17 (after it was implied in v. 14) must of obedience plays a role as well; though have a purpose. The metaphor is used in here Christian wives are addressed as the order to motivate the addressees,20 as v. “children of Sarah,” and Sarah’s obedi- 17b clearly says: “. . . conduct yourselves ence to her husband is emphasized. The with fear throughout the time of your choice of the word tekna may be due to its exile.” Thus I suggest that we have here association with “obedience.”16 Although an argument similar to that in 1 Corin- 1 Peter 1:14 does not say explicitly whose thians: a parent’s holiness is passed on to children are addressed, the following the children; this time God himself is the verses may imply that the readers of the “holy parent.” letter are referred to as God’s children. The imagery of the child-parent rela- The author goes on to exhort the tionship between the addressees and God addressees to be holy, since he who has is continued in v. 23, where a verb related called them is holy (v. 15). Although in the to gennao is used: “You have been born NT 1 John 2:20 may be the only other ref- anew (anagegennemenoi), not of perishable erence to God the father as “the Holy One” seed but of imperishable, through the (ho hagios),17 the expression is widely living and abiding word of God.” As the attested in the Septuagint in the form of same verb is used in v. 3, the two occur- “the Holy One of Israel” (e.g., Ps 70:22 rences form an inclusio. The picture is LXX; Isa 1:4). In verse 16, the author makes carried over to chapter two, where in v. 2 clear that he refers to God’s call when he the addressees are called to long for quotes from Leviticus 19:2 (LXX): “You “milk” (gala; cf. 1 Cor 3:2), “like newborn shall be holy, for I am holy” (cf. also Lev babes” (hos artigenneta brephe). The meta- 11:44, with minor differences). The refer- phor has its limits, since real infants do ence to being “holy” (hagioi) can stand not need to be told “to long for” milk. The in a context where a believing parent’s author uses the picture to imply that the child shares the parent’s holiness (1 Cor recipients should acknowledge their need 7:14; cf. also Heb 2:11). Apart from the for growth.21 This does not mean that they “priestly” connotations of the quotation have only recently become Christians. from Leviticus,18 this further aspect may Rather, it emphasizes that they cannot lie behind the use of hagioi in this context. make themselves perfect; they receive sal- The reference to holiness in 1 Peter 1:15- vation from God through the “spiritual” 16 is immediately followed by a reference milk (logikon here may refer back to dia to God as “father” in v. 17, where we read: logou in 1:23).22 The picture of being nour- “And if you invoke as Father him who ished serves to show the addressees how judges each one impartially...” (kai ei much they have to rely on God. patera epikaleisthe).19 We note the natural First Peter 1:22 belongs to the familial way in which the reference to “father” imagery, too: “Having purified your souls 68 by your obedience to the truth (hegnikotes Thus it is striking that earthly fathers en te hupakoe tes aletheias) for a sincere love are mentioned in a negative context: they of the brethren, love one another earnestly pass on a “futile” lifestyle to their children. from the heart.” We observe that “love of There are two possible lines of interpreta- the brethren” (philadelphia) is mentioned tion. On the one hand, it may be argued here together with another Greek expres- that the negative picture about earthly sion for the idea of “loving” (agapesate), fathers serves as a contrast to highlight the and together with “heart” (ek kardias). greatness of the gifts of God the Father. In “Heart” has an adjective in some MSS, this case there is a tension between real “clean” (katharas), which is put in brack- earthly fathers and God the heavenly ets in the main text of NA27. If we adopt Father (the term being used in a figura- the shorter reading, then the text is a con- tive sense): our heavenly Father has to firmation of the familial imagery. Michaels save us from the futile lifestyle inherited rightly notes: “The latter picks up the from our earthly fathers. On the other emphasis on ‘genuine brotherly love’ in hand, it is also possible to argue that the the preceding clause, while the longer reference to earthly fathers is introduced reading accents the reference to purifica- in order to point to human fallenness; fore- tion with which the verse begins.”23 We fathers throughout many generations are may add that the reference to “obedience” included.28 in the same verse may confirm our view If we adopt the latter argument, then that the verse uses familial imagery. the context may shed a new light on v. 18. We observe that the whole passage, It becomes significant that the reference 1:14-2:2, has a paraenetic character: the to earthly fathers appears in a context that author calls the readers to a life-style wor- is characterized by the familial imagery thy of those who have been “ransomed” calling for obedience to God as Father. (v. 18) “with the precious blood of Christ” Earthly fathers are assumed to be hon- (v. 19).24 The call to obedience to God is ored, in spite of the fact that they partici- expressed by words belonging to the pate in the process by which human imagery of the child-parent relationship. fallenness is passed on to new genera- It is against this background that a ref- tions. Thus it is possible to interpret this erence to earthly fathers appears in this passage in such a way that it is not taken longer passage. In verse 18 we read: “You to imply dishonoring one’s parents. know that you were ransomed from the Rather, since God is to be obeyed as futile ways inherited from your fathers “father,” earthly fathers are supposed to . . .” (elutrothete ek tes mataias humon receive due honor, in spite of their fallen anastrophes patroparadotou).25 The adjective nature.29 patroparadotos (“transmitted by the We briefly note that at the end of the fathers”) is found neither in the LXX, nor letter the author refers to Mark as his elsewhere in the NT. In non-Christian “son” (5:13-14a): “She who is at Babylon, sources it is a positive term praising the who is likewise chosen, sends you greet- old traditions.26 The author of 1 Peter ings; and so does my son Mark. Greet one seems to be the first Christian to apply it another with the kiss of love.” The struc- to the old, pagan way of life from which ture of the letter-ending is similar to those Christians are freed.27 of the Pauline letters.30 The use of the 69 familial imagery in this verse is similar to gegenseitiger Bruderliebe.”36 Thus the the reference to Timothy and Titus as Christian congregation is depicted here as Paul’s children. Though 1 Peter 5:13 uses an extended family where “brethren” the expression “son” (Markos ho huios mou) greet each other in this way. instead of “child,” which is used in the To sum up, 1 Peter uses household Pauline Corpus, it too points to a spiri- imagery in the following ways: the author tual relationship. Because of the word can refer to God as the “father” of the “son,” Schrage rightly uses the term Christians (implying also their brother- “spiritual fatherhood.”31 There may be a hood to one another), and the author can difference, however, when compared with refer to an individual as his own “son” the Pauline Corpus: in the case of Peter (implying a close spiritual bond). In the and Mark this may not imply that Mark NT only 1 Peter applies a reference to the has become a Christian through Peter.32 traditions of the forefathers to the former There is a tradition attributed to a certain pagan way of life of the addresses. How- “elder” by Papias that Mark was the ever, this use does not negate the injunc- “interpreter” of Peter (recorded in Euse- tion to honor one’s parents. bius, Hist. eccl. 3.39.15), and another tradition referring to Mark as a “follower” Jude and 2 Peter of Peter (Hist. eccl. 2.15.1). Michaels argues I do not discuss 2 Peter and Jude in that the term “son” here “should be detail, since they use familial imagery only understood as ‘convert’ or ‘disciple’ (BGD, in passing. The author of Jude uses 833.1c) in the same way that Timothy is family language only in v. 1: he refers to referred to as Paul’s ‘child.’”33 Whether himself as the “brother of James,” and he or not the latter interpretation is right, makes use of the expression “God the Michaels may be right at least in his other Father.” The reference to being the brother suggestion that “Peter seems to have of James is probably a claim to be the adopted it here to give to his concluding brother of the Lord as well.37 Otherwise words the ring of a family greeting (cf. his Jude calls his addressees “beloved” (vv. emphasis on the Christian community as 3, 17, 20: agapetoi). The reference to “God a ‘brotherhood’ in 2:17; 5:9).”34 the Father” (v. 1) must imply that the au- The reference to a “kiss” in v. 14 fits the thor shares the view found in other NT familial imagery. We note that a few MSS writings that Christians are the “children” add “holy” (hagio) to the expression of God, but he does not make more use of “kiss,” instead of the reference to “love” this imagery in the letter. (agapes; the latter being adopted as the The author of 2 Peter calls his address- main text of NA27). “With the holy kiss” ees “brethren” once (1:10). He refers to may be an assimilation to Pauline letter- “God the Father” in 1:17; this occurrence endings (cf. e.g., Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20). belongs to the child-parent imagery con- “Peter’s distinctive ‘kiss of love’ picks up cerning the relationship of Jesus to God. 2 the admonitions to mutual love in 1:22 Peter 1:17-18 refers to the scene of the and 4:8, and love for the whole Christian “transfiguration”: “For when he received brotherhood in 2:17.”35 Schrage suggests honor and glory from God the Father and that this “kiss” may have been part of the voice was borne to him by the Majes- early Christian worship, “als Zeichen tic Glory, ‘This is my beloved Son, with 70 whom I am well pleased,’ we heard this author calls his readers “children” (with voice borne from heaven, for we were a diminutive form, “my little children,” with him on the holy mountain.” teknia mou): “My little children, I am writ- In 2 Peter 3:4 we find a reference to the ing this to you so that you may not sin; “fathers”38 who “fell asleep” (hoi pateres but if any one does sin, we have an ekoimethesan), meaning the forefathers advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the (2 Pet 3:3-4): “First of all you must under- righteous.” By addressing his recipients stand this, that scoffers will come in the in this way, the author implies that he has last days with scoffing, following their a loving relationship to them and that he own passions and saying, ‘Where is the writes with the expectation that they will promise of his coming? For ever since the obey him. fathers fell asleep, all things have contin- We note that in the same verse the ued as they were from the beginning of author refers also to God as “Father” (he creation.’” These “fathers” are either the already did so in 1:2-3, and implied it in Jewish patriarchs, or earlier Christian gen- 1:7 by a reference to Jesus as “Son”). Thus erations.39 In either case, the expression is the author uses the child-father imagery not used here to refer to people in their role in a twofold way. First, he himself is the as fathers of children. We note, however, “father” of his addressees in a spiritual that the very fact that forefathers are men- sense. We observe that he does not refer tioned implies reverence toward them. to himself as “father,” but refers to his We have already mentioned that there addressees as his “children.” Second, is an idiomatic use of the term “children” Christians are regarded as the children of in 2 Peter. In 2 Peter 2:14, at the end of a God. This is implied in the first two chap- long list of vicious actions of false teach- ters and is expressed explicitly in 3:1a, 2: ers, we find the expression: “Accursed “See what love the Father has given us, children!” (kataras tekna). Richard Bauck- that we should be called children of God; ham paraphrases the idiom in this way: and so we are. . . . Beloved, we are God’s “They are under God’s curse.”40 He notes children now; it does not yet appear what that literally the idiom means, “children we shall be, but we know that when he of a curse,” and calls it a Hebraism.41 appears we shall be like him, for we shall Thus the few uses of familial imagery see him as he is.”43 in Jude and 2 Peter are close parallels to We can find further examples of these the uses we meet in the NT elsewhere, two uses, i.e., that both the author and though they are not elaborated in any de- God are seen in the role of the father. We tail in these letters. name but a few texts. First John 2:12-14 is a well-structured passage: it has two trip- The Johannine Epistles lets of addresses. The author begins the In the Epistles of John, the recipients first part with the address: “little children” are addressed frequently as “children.” (v. 12). The readers may think it is the same The author calls them his own children; usage as in 2:1.44 and he also refers to them as God’s chil- The author goes on to address “fathers” dren.42 In 1 John 2:1 the author names the as a second group (v. 13a). A third group, purpose of his writing. It is significant that “young men” (neaniskoi), are addressed in this is the first time in 1 John when the v. 13b; then each of the three groups is 71 addressed a second time (v. 14). On the what is said to the different groups.48 second occasion, “children” are referred If we accept that teknia and paidia (in to with another word, paidia.45 The Greek this case as synonyms) refer to the whole word is ambiguous, it can also mean “ser- congregation, then we have an ambigu- vants,” but it probably means “children” ity (perhaps intended by the author). On in this context, as they are praised because the one hand, they may be used to refer they “know the father.” to the “children” of the author.49 On the 1 John 2:12-14 reads (RSV): other hand, the terms may refer to the “children” of God. Klauck argues that in I am writing to you (grapho humin), v. 12 the expression “forgiveness of sins” little children, because your sins are forgiven for his sake (dia to onoma and the reference to the “name” (to onoma) autou). remind the recipients of their becoming I am writing to you, fathers, because Christians: “Kinder sind jene, die in Taufe you know him who is from the beginning. und Sündenvergebung das neue Leben als I am writing to you, young men, Geschenk aus der Hand des Vaters because you have overcome the evil empfangen.”50 one. I write to you (egrapsa humin), chil- In v. 13, “Father” must refer to God, dren, because you know the Father. because it stands in the singular, and also I write to you, fathers, because you because children would not have to be know him who is from the beginning. reminded that they “know” their own I write to you, young men, because earthly fathers. “Knowing” here probably you are strong, and the word of God abides in you, and you have over- refers to knowing God as someone who come the evil one. calls his children to love each other (cf. the immediate context: vv. 9-10). Hans-Joseph Klauck summarises the We observe that this passage addresses “most favored” exposition of our days in children and fathers. We further note that the following way: The first items of both God as Father appears in a context where triplets concern Christians in general, i.e., earthly fathers are mentioned as well. This all the members of the congregation (“als implies that various groups, including Anrede an die Gesamtgemeinde”). The fathers, in a Christian household (and second and the third items of the parallel house church) should carry out their structure are addressed to two “age duties as God’s children. groups” in the sense of the length of their In 1 John 3:9-10, the author uses the being Christians.46 Thus this section is verb gennao in the perfect tense when probably addressing various groups referring to the Christians being “born of among the recipients. Klauck himself sug- God”: “No one born of God commits sin; gests that it is worth considering that all for God’s nature abides in him, and he three addresses refer to the whole congre- cannot sin because he is born of God. By gation, but under different aspects.47 An this it may be seen who are the children alternative view would be to understand of God, and who are the children of the the three addresses as referring to age devil: whoever does not do right is not of groups. Klauck argues that this is unlikely God, nor he who does not love his because of the sequence, children-fathers- brother.”51 The imagery includes associa- young men, and because of the content of tions both to the family and to creation. 72 Christians thank God for their new life; Whereas 1 John does not begin like a that is why they follow his instructions.52 typical letter, 2 John does contain the The author argues that because God sender and the addressees (v. 1a): “The loves the recipients (cf. 4:7-8), they ought elder to the elect lady and her children, to love one another as “brethren” (3:10b; whom I love in the truth”. “Elder” (ho cf. also 4:19-21, where, though not men- presbuteros) can be a reference to an office tioned explicitly, God can be seen as in the early church, but at the same time “Father,” and this can serve as the ground it can retain its original meaning: it can for Christians to love one another). refer to an old person.54 Klauck suggests Rusam emphasizes that God’s fatherhood that the grammatical form of the compara- involves caring love.53 tive, “older,” does not have to be stressed With these examples in the back- in the Greek, so the term can be translated ground, we cautiously raise the possibil- as “der Alte” (“the Old One”).55 The “elect ity that in 1 John 4:4 and in 5:21 there may lady” (eklekte kuria) is probably a metaphor be a conscious ambiguity in the use of for the congregation.56 This view is teknia. On the one hand, it is probable that strengthened by the last verse of the in both cases the term addresses the letter (v. 13), which refers to the “sister” recipients as the “children” of the author, of this lady: “The children of your elect though the possessive pronoun “my” is sister greet you.”57 not added in these cases. On the other By the way of an inclusio, both the hand, it may be that the author left out beginning and the end of the letter men- “my” on purpose: the addressees should tion “children”: the addressees as well as think of themselves also as the children those sending greetings are called tekna. of God. In 4:4 this second possible mean- Klauck rightly affirms that the letter is like ing is implied by the beginning of the correspondence within a family, but fam- verse: “you are of God” (humeis ek tou ily in this context is understood as familia theou este, the Greek preposition possibly Dei.58 It is worth noting that in v. 1 the implying being “born” of God, as in 3:9). “children” belong to the congregation: The final verse of the letter, 5:21, is pre- they are the children of the “elect lady.” ceded by a reference to Jesus, the “Son” This implies that the congregation can be of God (5:20). Perhaps, then, the address- thought of as a “mother.”59 Verse 4a con- ees are not only referred to as the author’s tinues this usage: “I rejoiced greatly to find “children,” but also as the brethren of the some of your children (ek ton teknon sou) Son, as God’s children. following the truth.” Here we note that To sum up, the author uses the imag- an exhortation is closely connected to ery of the child-father relationship praise: the author probably met some because he expects obedience to his ethi- members of the congregation,60 and by cal advice. The recipients are called the expressing his joy over them he implies “children” of the author and of God, that all of them should live like those he because they are expected to obey the met. In v. 5 the author turns to the whole teaching of the author, and to fulfil the will congregation (addressed as the “lady” of God. This implies a child-parent rela- again) in order to exhort them to fulfil the tionship in which children honor and obey commandment of love. their parents. We observe, however, that in v. 4b 73 another metaphor appears when God is dren” of the author is more dominant in referred to as “Father”: “just as we have 3 John than in 2 John. been commanded by the Father” (4b). In We observe that both 2 John and 3 John v. 3 we find a reference to peace from “God are concerned with a way of life in accor- the Father” and Jesus is also mentioned dance with God’s will (see e.g., 2 John 4; 3 together with an addition naming him as John 11). The addressees are praised, but the “Son of the Father.”61 Thus it seems at the same time they are warned against that the children of the congregation are the bad examples of others (see e.g., 2 John at the same time the children of God. 7-11; 3 John 9-10). Thus we may see here a The author of 3 John refers to himself use of the familial imagery similar to that as an elder; thus the letter begins by the in the Pauline Corpus: congregational same expression as 2 John does: ho members are expected to follow the presbuteros. However, there is a difference advice of the letter-writer and to live in in the usage of the term “children”: accordance with the will of God; that is whereas in 2 John 4 the children of the why they are referred to as the children “lady” were mentioned, in 3 John the of the writer and the children of God. author speaks about his own “children.” In 3 John 3-4 we read: “For I greatly Conclusion rejoiced when some of the brethren To sum up, Christians are referred to arrived and testified to the truth of your as “children” in their relationship to the life, as indeed you do follow the truth. No senders of letters (1 John, 3 John). “Son” greater joy can I have than this, to hear can refer in a figurative sense to the spiri- that my children (ta ema tekna) follow the tual bond between Christians (1 Peter). truth.” The figurative imagery may even refer to The plural form, “my children,” people as the “children” of the church implies a general truth, but the immedi- (2 John). ate context, v. 3, makes it probable that the God is referred to metaphorically as addressee of the letter, Gaius, is also “Father” extensively in these writings. included.62 This is a further example of God is the “Father” of Jesus (2 Peter, using the familial imagery to express the 1 John, 2 John); and he is also the Father relationship between the author and his of the Christians (James, 1 Peter, 1 John). addressees. Our interpretation that Gaius The parental imagery is used in these writ- is included in the circle of the “children” ings in order to imply a strong bond and of the author is strengthened by the fre- loving feelings in the relationships to quent reference to him as “the loved one” which it is applied. One particular conse- (vv. 1, 2, 5, 11). Gaius is praised for his quence of the Christians being regarded services to the “brethren” (v. 5).63 The ref- as the children of God is that they are erence to the “brethren” in vv. 3 and 5 “brethren” to one another. This use is implies that they are all “children” of God widely attested in early Christianity (here the Father. also in 1 Peter, 1 John, 3 John). Because Thus this letter supposes the child-par- Christians are loved by God, their ent imagery as regards the relationship “father,” they ought to love one another between the addressees and God. At the as “brethren.” same time, the idea that they are the “chil- In general terms, in our sources it is 74 expected from the recipients of parental this volume, James, 1-2 Peter, Jude are care that they will return such by their obe- by Schrage (henceforth cited only as dience to their teachers and to God’s will. Schrage); 1-3 John are by Balz (hence- This implies a view of the child-parent forth cited only as Balz). relationship in which it is assumed that 77See e.g., Frankemölle, 1:291, 295; and children honor and obey their parents. Mussner, 91. Concerning the use of the Finally, we note the absence of refer- expression in James, Schrage, 20, affirms: ences to tensions in the family that would “damit wird der Vaterbegriff in sonst im be similar to those envisaged by some Neuen Testament unüblicher Weise radical sayings of Jesus in the Gospel tra- kosmologisch verstanden und mit den dition. In an indirect way, this may con- Gestirnen verbunden.” firm a thesis that Jesus’ radical call to some 88So Davids, 88. disciples was not understood by the early 99Laws, 72. church as a breach of the expectation of 10Ibid., 75. their pagan and Jewish environment that 11Davids, 89. children owe honor to their parents. 12Laws, 75. 13Ibid. ENDNOTES 14“Of your ignorance” is partly or wholly 11Franz Mussner, Der Jakobusbrief (Herd- missing in some MSS; in the Greek it is ers theologischer Kommentar zum parenthetical, interrupting the expres- Neuen Testament XIII, Freiburg/Basel/ sion “to former passions.” Wien: Herder, 1987) 141. See also Sophie 15See J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (Word Laws, A Commentary on the Epistle of Biblical Commentary 49; Waco, TX: James (Black’s New Testament Commen- Word, 1988) 56. Although the idiomatic tary; London: A. & C. Black, 1980) 133. use of “son(s) of . . .” is not discussed in 22Mussner, 141. this article, we note that since the idiom 33So e.g., Peter H. Davids, The Epistle of points to a strong, inseparable relation- James (New International Greek Testa- ship, it is based on a family imagery in ment Commentary; Grand Rapids: which sons imitate their fathers to such Eerdmans/Exeter: Paternoster, 1982) an extent that they become one with 193; and Mussner, 219. them. The idiomatic use in Eph 2:2 can 44So Hubert Frankemölle, Der Brief des be paralleled by the following expres- Jakobus (Ökumenischer Taschenbuch- sions (using huios/huioi): “son of peace” Kommentar 17/1-2; Gütersloh: Güter- (Luke 10:6); “sons of the resurrection” sloher/Würzburg: Echter, 1994) 2:710. (Luke 20:36); “sons of light” (Luke 16:8; 55See my Habilitationsschrift, entitled The John 12:36; 1 Thess 5:5); “the son of per- Child-Parent Relationship in the New Tes- dition” (John 17:12); “sons of the day” tament and its Environment, accepted by (1 Thess 5:5). We note that the idiomatic the Lutheran Theological University in usage appears with tekna in Eph 2:3 Budapest in October 2001. (“children of wrath”), Eph 5:8 (“children 66Host Balz and Wolfgang Schrage, Die of light”), and in 2 Pet 2:14 (though here “Katholischen Briefe” (Das Neuen Testa- in reversed order, kataras tekna, “accursed ment Deutsch 10; Göttingen/Zürich: children” [RSV]). Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 20. In 16Ibid., 57. 75 17Though even this occurrence is open es im Vergleich zu anderen Völkern Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: to discussion, see Michaels, 58. inhaltlos oder besonders böse Neukirchener, 1994) 204; and 18So ibid., 60, pointing also to gewesen wäre, sondern weil Gott Schrage, 144. 1 Pet 2:9. anderes mit ihnen wollte.” 42When referring to the “author,” I 19With minor variants regarding the 30See ibid., 97. leave open the question whether the verb. 31“geistliche Vaterschaft” (Schrage, three letters were written by one 20So also Norbert Brox, Der erste 121). author or 2-3 John were written by Petrusbrief (Evangelisch-katho- 32So Schweizer, 98, with a reference a different person. Similarly, I do not lischer Kommentar zum Neuen Tes- to Acts 12:12. address the question of the histori- tament 21; Zürich: Benziger/ 33Michaels, 312. cal order of the letters and their Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 34Ibid. relationship to the Fourth Gospel. 1979) 79. 35Ibid., 313. For a discussion of the issues 21Eduard Schweizer, Der erste 36Schrage, 121. involved, see Hans-Josef Klauck, Petrusbrief (Zürcher Bibelkom- 37So Udo Schnelle, Einleitung in das Der erste Johannesbrief (Evangelisch- mentare 15; Zürich: Theologischer Neue Testament, 2d ed. (Göttingen: katholischer Kommentar zum Verlag, 1998) 42. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 1996) 475- Neuen Testament 23/1; Zürich und 22So Schweizer, ibid. 76, who holds that this is a pseu- Braunschweig: Benziger/Neu- 23Michaels, 72. depigraphical writing. For a mono- kirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener, 1991 24Schweizer, 31, affirms concerning graph on this problem, see Richard (arguing for one author of the three 1 Pet 1:13-21: “In dem langen Bauckham, Jude and the Relatives of letters who is not the same as the Abschnitt finden sich nur drei Tätig- Jesus in the Early Church (Edinburgh: Fourth Evangelist; see esp. p. 126); keitswörter in der direkten Aus- T. & T. Clark, 1990). and Schnelle (arguing for the prior- sageform: ‘hofft!— werdet!— 38Some MSS add hemon, thus referring ity of 2-3 John; see pp. 495-533, esp. wandert!’ Es sind alles Aufford- to “our fathers.” 500-504, 516-18, 522). Dietrich erungen, im Griechischen in der 39For the view that they are Jewish Rusam holds that the Johannine Zeitform, die den Neueinsatz patriarchs, see, D. A. Carson et al., Epistles follow the Gospel of John betont.” who argue that “nowhere else in the (Die Gemeinschaft der Kinder Gottes: 25The order of the last two words is New Testament is the expression Das Motiv der Gotteskindschaft und die reversed in some MSS. ‘the fathers’ used of the early Chris- Gemeinden der johanneischen Briefe 26See examples in Michaels, 64; e.g., a tians” (D. A. Carson, Douglas J. [Beiträge zur Wissenschaft vom letter of King Attalus III to the Moo, and Leon Morris, An Introduc- Alten und Neuen Testament 133; people of Pergamum in 135 B.C. tion to the New Testament [Leicester: Stuttgart/Berlin/Köln: Verlag W. 27So Brox, 81. Apollos, 1992] 436). For the view Kohlhammer, 1993]). He observes 28So e.g., ibid., 80. that they are earlier Christian gen- that 1 John has a larger number of 29Schweizer, 34-35, can point also to erations, see e.g., Schnelle, 485, who examples of the terms “children of some good deeds of the forefathers: counts the historical Peter among God” and “born of God” than “Dabei haben diese [i.e., die ‘Väter’] the fathers already fallen asleep. John’s Gospel has (11). gewiss nicht nur Verbrechen und 40Richard J. Bauckham, Jude, 2 Peter 43Although in v. 1 some MSS have Perversitäten ausgeübt, sondern (Word Biblical Commentary 50; “has given you”, it is clear that the auch Kinder grossgezogen, Felder Waco, TX: Word, 1983) 258. author includes himself, because the bestellt und für ihr Vaterland 41Ibid., 267. So also Anton Vögtle, Der verb stands in the first person plu- gekämpft, schöne Gottesdienste Judasbrief, Der 2. Petrusbrief. (Evan- ral form (klethomen), and because gefeiert und Opfer gebracht. gelisch-katholischer Kommentar the author uses “we are” (esmen) in ‘Nichtig’ war ihr Leben nicht, weil zum Neuen Testament 22; Zürich: v. 2 (we note that kai esmen at the end 76 of v. 1 is omitted in some MSS). We affirms that: “Die Vaterschaft Gottes 60So Klauck, Der zweite und dritte may add that v. 2b may belong to erfährt im 1Joh eine logische Johannesbrief, 45. this familial imagery as well; if so, Begründung: Gott ist Vater der 61Though some MSS omit this second then it echoes the similarity between Glaubenden, weil sie aus ihm occurrence of “Father,” while other children and their fathers (“we shall geboren sind.” MSS replace it by a reference to be like him”). 52Horst Balz also emphasizes the “God.” 44Minuscule 630 even adds “my,” to implication that God as father 62So also Klauck, Der zweite und dritte make explicit that the author speaks enables his children to withstand Johannesbrief, 85. about his own children. evil. Concerning this passage he 63Rusam, 212, has pointed out that the 45Some MSS wanted to have an exact (Balz, 190) affirms: “Konkret situation in 3 John fits the general parallel, so they have paidia also in angespielt wird damit auf die picture we have of early Christian- v. 12 in the place of teknia. Neugeburt der Glaubenden durch ity inasmuch as there are probably 46Klauck, Der erste Johannesbrief, 132. den Geist Gottes (vgl. Joh. 3,6-8). Die house churches implied in this let- 47Ibid. Möglichkeit eines Lebens im ter as well: Diotrephes probably did 48The hypothesis of John O’Neill is Widerspruch zur Sünde geht allein not receive some people into the worth mentioning (1989, 282): “1 von Gott aus.” congregation that met at his house John, with its fierce command not 53Rusam, 111, states: “So wird im (vv. 9-10); whereas Gaius is prob- to love the world nor the things in 1Joh das Gebot der Gottes—und ably praised for his hospitality in the world and to flee the lust of the Bruderliebe weniger auf Gottes receiving people into the congrega- flesh . . . (1 John 2:15f.) might well väterliche Macht zurückgeführt, tion at his house (vv. 5-6). The letter have first been written for a monas- durch die er die Möglichkeit hat zu mentioned in v. 9 must have been tic community. Note that the com- gebieten, sondern auf seine directed to the whole church in the munity is male, and consists per- väterliche Liebe.” community, and not just to one haps of three grades, children, men 54See e.g., Balz, 213. house church in it. and fathers (2:12-14)” (“The Origins 55Hans-Josef Klauck, Der zweite und of Monasticism,” in The Making of dritte Johannesbrief (Evangelisch- Orthodoxy: Essays in Honor of Henry katholischer Kommentar zum Chadwick, ed. R. Williams [Cam- Neuen Testament 23/2; Zürich: bridge: Cambridge University Benziger/Neukirchen-Vluyn: Press, 1989] 270-287). “Father” was Neukirchener, 1992) 28. the Abbot, i.e., the head of the house 56So e.g., Balz, 213; see also S. S. (see O’Neill, “New Testament Mon- Smalley, 1, 2, 3 John (Word Biblical asteries,” in Common Life in the Early Commentary 51; Dallas, TX: Word, Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. 1984) 318-319. Snyder, ed. J. V. Hills et al. [Harris- 57The term “elect,” eklektes, is replaced burg, PA: Trinity Press Interna- in a few MSS by ekklesias, making tional, 1998] 126-132). the implied meaning explicit; see 49See e.g., Klauck Der erste Johannes- also Klauck, Der zweite und dritte brief, 133, who speaks of the “role of Johannesbrief, 34 against the view the fatherly teacher,” known from that the addressee would be an Wisdom literature. individual, a real lady. 50Ibid. 58Klauck, Der zweite und dritte 51Concerning the use of the expres- Johannesbrief, 74. sion “born of God,” Rusam, 111, 59So also Balz, 213. 77 Marriage as a Spiritual Discipline Leigh E. Conver

Leigh E. Conver is the Lawrence and Introduction tion (34%), with the “Buster” generation Charlotte Hoover Professor of Psychol- Christians should view marriage as a reporting only a 7% divorce rate.4 ogy of Religion and Pastoral Counseling spiritual discipline. While pervasive Other sociological research confirms at The Southern Baptist Theological narcissism has eroded marriage as an that as an institution, marriage is a popu- Seminary. He received his Ph.D. in Psy- institution in contemporary culture, mar- lar, but unstable entity with 50% of con- chology of Religion and Pastoral Coun- riage provides believers with the oppor- temporary marriages ending in divorce. seling from Southern as well. Dr. Conver tunity to prepare daily and discipline their The divorce rate in America climbed dur- is the author of a number of articles and hearts and minds towards sacrificial love ing the 1960s and 1970s, but has stabilized is the co-author of Self-Defeating and towards triumph over the potentially at about 50% in the 1990s. About 75% of Lifestyles (Broadman). destructive effects of narcissism. By the those couples who divorce will later design of the Creator, in marriage believ- remarry, but at least 50% of these remar- ers come to know each other intimately ried couples will be divorced again.5 The and provide each other with the benefit median length of a marital union is seven of daily opportunities to discern their years.6 individual growth towards the ideal of Even in the face of these alarming Christ’s self-emptying love.1 statistics about marital failure, there continues to be a strong motivation among The Contemporary Challenges adult couples to form durable committed to the Institution of Christian relationships. The majority of couples seek Marriage to live together in harmonious, mutually Recent research by a reputable Chris- satisfying relationships, continuing to tian research foundation has echoed the hope that they might find happiness commonly held belief that the institution together, rather than pursue the hollow of marriage is in serious danger. Further- and potentially life threatening experi- more, this most recent report has shaken ences of promiscuous sexual liaisons.7 evangelicals by asserting that the divorce Within the church, marriage continues to rate in America for born-again Christians be the sanctioned form of union for those has now actually passed the divorce rate individuals seeking a committed life-long for non-believers by as much as 3%.2 relationship.8 Though this research sample does not closely delimit the percentage of couples Biblical Theological Foundations who are living together outside of mar- for Christian Marriage riage,3 the results of this research project The literature that lays a foundation for should awaken the church to the serious- Christian marriage in Scripture is too ness of the crisis within its own walls. Fur- extensive to review comprehensively in thermore, the research provided another this article. Nevertheless, this author surprising outcome. By chronological age, would like to emphasize those biblical and the greatest percentage of divorced Chris- theological themes that encourage Chris- tians is in the “Builder” generation (37% tian couples to reflect upon their mar- divorce rate) and the “Boomer” genera- riages as an opportunity for spiritual 78 growth and discipline. places his personal fragile soul into the Marriage should be viewed as divinely care of his beloved marital partner. How- ordained in creation to fulfill the created ever, because of sin, most of the time, even nature of humanity in the desire for inti- in marriage, this unique state of emotional macy, companionship, and community.9 and spiritual vulnerability is subliminal. The Genesis account of creation indicates Even so, in times of conflict and relational that God designed mankind to have a spe- dissonance, this vulnerability to one’s life cial relationship with him, including the partner is evident as even the most inno- priority for the male and female to live in cent slights and misunderstandings can intimate harmony and companionship (“it lead to deep pain and disappointment. is not good for man to be alone”; Gen Beyond our conscious control, such 2:18). The man and woman were com- moments of relational, emotional, and manded to procreate (“be fruitful and spiritual vulnerability return us to our multiply”; Gen 1:28), to share in a mutual most unexpected and unwanted memo- life calling (of “maintaining dominion ries of past pain and the deeper core over all of creation”; Gen 1:28), and to live aspects of our personalities. In these interdependently with each other and in moments of intense and unexpected ultimate dependence upon God. How- vulnerability, it is tempting to view our ever, the entrance of sin into the world marital partners as our mortal enemies! corrupted God’s original design for the Nevertheless, Holy Scripture describes man and woman, and ever since, we a dramatically different model of mar- humans have lived in constant awareness riage. The Old Testament gives us a of our common “naked vulnerability” and penetrating view of God’s intent for mar- loss of innocence (cf. Gen 3:16-19). The riage, as the children of Israel were chal- constant and foreboding challenges of lenged to transcend the patriarchal cus- survival, the pain of childbirth, and the toms of their neighbors. Under divine existential awareness of death and guidance, the Hebrew society evolved in finitude have contaminated the original a patricentric manner, which in its ideal design and intent for men and women. form was to transcend the cultural para- Since the Edenic Fall, the stain of sin digm of patriarchy of the ancient Near continues to cover all of human experi- East in which women were viewed as in- ence, including this originally purely ferior to their husbands, fathers, and sons. conceived covenantal relationship of The concept of the covenant transformed marriage.10 However, even after the Fall, this devaluing of mothers, wives, daugh- marriage continues to provide adults with ters, and sisters and placed the ultimate a uniquely vulnerable relationship in burden of responsibility for the care and which the Creator’s image is mirrored in nurture of the family upon the males.11 a creaturely vessel on a continual basis. The New Testament ideal for the mari- For in holy matrimony, the individuals tal union is demonstrated most clearly in surrender their psychological defenses, Ephesians 5:18-33: it is a covenantal rela- which serve to keep them safely protected tionship in which husband and wife vol- in all other relationships. Most marriages untarily commit to love each other after become the premier experience of human the model of Christ’s relationship to the vulnerability in which each individual Church. Contrary to popular misconcep- 79 tions, this covenant relationship demon- responding to anxiety with love, couples strates a quality of voluntary loving escape victimization from bodily sacrifice and submission that is unparal- responses that function outside conscious leled in our culture.12 control.16 These new techniques effectively help Reflections upon Marriage from couples deal with the inevitable threats Contemporary Therapeutic and anxieties facing contemporary mar- Theories riages. In the western world couples Some contemporary research about marry because of a romantic attraction to marriage may echo the spiritual truths of one another, but they do not realize that the Christian faith. For instance, some marital relationship dynamics are at work research suggests that the experience of when they begin courting one another. 17 seeing our marriage partner as our mor- Issues related to gender differences, tal enemy is an instinctive reaction to personality temperament, and family of the anxiety evoked by marital relational origin projections, are destructively rein- dynamics.13 Through studies of thou- forced by the unique stresses of life in the sands of marriages, Dr. John Gottman and contemporary post-modern, post-indus- his colleagues at the marital research labo- trial, technological world. Our culture ratory at the University of Washington in encourages marriages of romance, conve- Seattle have demonstrated the inevitable nience, and happiness that are inevitably toxic influence that anxiety has upon vulnerable to the Five Horsemen. relational dynamics.14 Now we see more Despite the politically correct perspec- clearly how our God-given natural reac- tive that men and women are basically tive responses for self protection are alike but have been culturally influenced stimulated by the presence of intense anxi- to believe in gender differences, the real- ety: it mobilizes the autonomic nervous ity of these differences has persisted over system’s stress response and sets an time, and continues to be one source of automatic neurological and physiological overwhelming anxiety within contempo- process in motion. rary marriages. Brain research has shed Gottman has demonstrated the toxic light on the different ways that men and effects of what he calls the Five Horsemen: women process and react to life issues, the interpersonal responses of contempt, which lead most couples down the slip- criticism, stonewalling, defensiveness, pery slopes of communication problems, and belligerence.15 The manifestation of role expectations, and the unhappiness of these toxic interpersonal responses unfulfilled marital expectations.18 When mirrors what the Christian church has one feels misunderstood and disap- understood as sinful behaviors, counter- pointed, and the emotional threats of productive to the goal of developing a anger, shame, and guilt, one is led to the righteous and godly marriage relation- all too familiar anxiety driven reactions in ship. Spurred on by Gottman’s findings, which one’s spouse is seen as withhold- evangelical marriage counselors are teaching, or worse yet, betraying the assumed ing couples how to short circuit these marital contract. Falling out of love, or the nervous system reactions and to respond mutual suppression of the marital roman- with Holy Spirit inspired love. By tic attraction, leads these couples to 80 believe that they are hopelessly incompat- that family of origin dynamics have ible and incapable of finding marital upon mate selection and the attraction of happiness.19 romantic love. These theorists suggest that At the turn of the twentieth century, individuals are attracted to potential mari- Analytic Psychologist Carl Jung first iden- tal partners who have grown up in fami- tified the attraction of opposites in person- lies that have the same level of emotional ality temperament as another dynamic in development, but which represent romantic attraction.20 Describing this phe- complementary systemic dynamics.21 nomenon of the attraction of opposites, Issues related to self-differentiation moti- Jungian-oriented marital counselors have vate these complementary dynamics. For come to recognize that as many as 75% of instance, as two potential marital partners couples who marry in response to roman- are unconsciously attracted to their future tic attraction have unconsciously been spouse’s family relationship patterns, they drawn to someone who is fundamentally believe that these relationship patterns different and opposite in their psychologi- mirror the relational dynamics of their cal orientation to life. While this attraction birth families. Later as the truth begins to of opposites through romantic love is become clear, they discover that these culturally encouraged as the most intense dynamics appear to be complementary on form of interpersonal attraction, their the surface, such as in patterns of rela- fundamental differences inevitably tional closeness. The one partner comes spawn conflict. This conflict leads to in- from a family that is emotionally fused tense pain and disillusionment when the interpersonally with very poor interper- spell of romantic attraction is overcome sonal boundaries, and the other partner by the anxiety continually evoked. Over- comes from a family that is more emotion- whelmed by their interpersonal conflicts, ally detached with very rigid interper- these couples look longingly at the 25% sonal boundaries. At the same time, they of those couples who have married a peer have not been attracted to a potential with similar personality temperaments marital partner whose birth family’s and have considerably less interpersonal interaction is more sophisticated and/or conflict as a result. Comparing their demands a higher level of individual marriages with these more user-friendly self-differentiation. Because their level of marriages, the couples who are married self-differentiation is compatible, they to their opposite personality types, feel experience an unconscious safety and betrayed and discouraged. I suspect that comfort. But because their interpersonal most of the marriages surveyed by the relational styles are opposites (fusion ver- Barna Associates and other sociological sus detached), they are unconsciously studies (indicating 50% divorce rates) emotionally attracted to each other as are marriages of personality opposites. potential balances to their individual birth The result is that the couples could not family dynamics. endure the chronic presence of anxiety and its dysfunctional children, the Five The Spiritual Disciplines Horsemen. Progressive sanctification is the theo- Finally, many contemporary family logical understanding of how redeemed systems theorists have stressed the role Christians continue to grow in grace as 81 they pursue their spiritual journey of life clinical supervision of actual counseling, in Christ. The New Testament tells us that clinically trained Christian counselors the pursuit of the mind of Christ is the learn how to identify, interpret, and inter- daily expression of this progressive sanc- rupt the unconscious and conscious mani- tification for the Christian (1 Thess 5:23). festations of these sinful habit patterns The dimension of this progressive sancti- and unhealthy, ungodly lifestyle issues, in fication that continues to challenge each order for the believer to practice new habit Christian believer is daily confronting patterns of personal righteousness and the sinful habit patterns of the old Adam relational health.25 This process of identi- and growing in grace into the new Adam. fication, interpretation, and interruption (Col 3:1-17). of these personal and interpersonal Historically, the Christian church has dimensions of the continuing influence of practiced spiritual disciplines such as the sinful old Adam, utilizes skills and prayer, meditation, study, worship, interventions that take seriously the stewardship, fasting, solitude, submis- human ego’s resistance to change, the sion, service, simplicity, confession, and continuing destructive influence of pain- celebration.22 Counseling has not been ful life experiences, and the presence and considered a spiritual discipline, though power of temptation and of the ongoing spiritual direction has been a common systemic influences that serve to sabotage practice of soul care throughout church the expression of the mind of Christ. history.23 With the rise of psychology and “Identification” involves the naming and psychotherapy, many ministers aban- illustrating of how these personal, sys- doned the practice of spiritual direction temic, and spiritual dynamics are at work and the nurturing of the spiritual disci- in the life of the believer. “Interpretation” plines in favor of the powerful change seeks to connect these manifestations of sin interventions of psychotherapy. Psycho- and dysfunction to their historical, narra- logical problems required psychological tive, systemic, interpersonal, cultural, and diagnoses and a field of specialists spiritual origins. “Interruption” involves emerged and gradually stole the “birth- the various combination of psychological, right of soul care” from the church.24 scriptural, marital, systemic, medical, and Christian counselors focus on explor- spiritual interventions that lead to a “working the sinful habit patterns of the old ing through” of the continuing presence of Adam because these patterns undermine old Adam dynamics and change and trans- the promised righteous life style charac- formation towards the possibilities of the terized by the fruit of the Spirit. Clinically new Adam (Rom 12:2). trained Christian counselors have devel- Richard Foster describes the role of oped the skills needed to discern the ways the spiritual disciplines as helping the in which these sinful habit patterns, dys- believer replace the automatic sin-ori- functional interpersonal relationships, ented habit patterns of the old Adam with and pathological lifestyles continue to new habit patterns of righteousness contaminate the believer’s longing to characteristic of the new Adam.26 Spiri- know and to live the mind of Christ. tual disciplines do not cause the believer Through a combination of skills devel- to experience righteousness. Spiritual dis- oped in academic study as well as in the ciplines prepare the believer to receive the 82 gifts of God’s grace by reducing the influ- ries and therapies of the twentieth century. ence of the old automatic sin-oriented Requiring long-term psychodynamic habit patterns and replacing them with psychotherapy with a very high recidi- habit patterns oriented to God and his vism, the souls of these narcissistic per- righteousness.27 sonalities are chronically depressed, empty, and vulnerable to a host of addic- Spiritual Narcissism tions and dysfunctional lifestyles.30 Contemporary critics of American This prevailing dominance of narcissis- culture describe our culture as a culture tic preoccupations has infected the world of narcissism.28 By this analysis, they are of the spiritual as well.31 Congregations pointing to the prevalent attitude of self- are filled with narcissistically vulnerable orientation that is dominant in every parishioners who are rewarded with a aspect of our lifestyles. The “me genera- theology of materialism, success, and tion” reflected in the attitudes and values excess rather than a theology of simplic- of the “boomers, busters, and gen-Xers” ity, sobriety, and surrender. The world of is so naturally and completely oriented to narcissistic excess and personal self- their own personal agendas, interests, absorption is subtly reinforced in congre- needs, and desires that not to be “self-ori- gations that have misidentified the needs ented” is considered to be controversial of the ego/self with the yearnings of the and anomalous at the least and pathologi- soul.32 As a Christian pastoral counselor, cal at the worst. Called by other names I have come to discover how frequently like “postmodern,” this idolatry of the we need to beware of what our ego/self “Self” places truth, morality, personal defines as “desire,” for what the ego boundaries, political correctness, and wants, is rarely what the soul needs. spiritual experience at the individual It has been this author’s experience that discretion of each person. the healing of the narcissistic personali- Within the therapeutic sciences, con- ties of our generation is not complete cepts like “self actualization,” “self-differ- unless there has been a significant spiritual entiation,” and “individuation of one’s transformation in the process. Since most self” have become the standards by which contemporary psychotherapy is a process individual psychological health are designed to address the assumptions, atti- measured.29 This self-orientation leads tudes, and adaptation of the ego/self, it potential counselees into a preoccupation leads to therapeutic outcomes that are with issues that prevent a full understand- ultimately reflected in a better narcissistic ing of their personal pain. People come to adjustment to a narcissistic world. How- therapists with a limited conception of ever, when the underlying issues of their problems, but armed with the popu- narcissism and spiritual narcissism are rec- larized theoretical understanding of how ognized and addressed in the therapy as to heal their personally defined frustrated well, long-term healing can occur.33 and diminished “selves”. Finally, the common tendency towards Narcissism is the clinical label used to narcissistic responses is not only charac- define the personality that is completely teristic of counselees. It is also the natural self-absorbed. The narcissistic personality response of most counselors as well. has dominated the psychodynamic theo- Unless the counselor has experienced a 83 spiritual transformation, which corrects adjustment and soulful attention to issues the narcissistic outlook, he or she will of connection and intimacy arises from inadvertently perpetuate this narcissistic transforming narcissism, then marital worldview in the course of treating the counseling provides the best context in counselee. The counseling process which such growth and transformation becomes a collusion between two indi- can occur. Formed in a shared narcissistic viduals who prescribe the same narcissis- illusion called “romantic love,” and thrust tic solutions to life’s problems. This into an inevitable narcissistic crisis when phenomenon is described as a “shared “the honeymoon is over,” the ups and paradigm.” Since it is the nature of para- downs of the marital connection are the digms to filter data that is consistent with best window into the individual narcis- the paradigm, alternative solutions to sistic needs of both marital partners. But life’s problems, or confrontation with the most importantly, the covenant of the counselee’s attitudes that are narcissisti- marriage has been divinely ordained as cally impaired and limited, does not the primary context in which personal happen since the counselor falls victim to growth towards self-sacrifice is to occur the same paradigmatic filters.34 (Ephesians 5). Consequently, focusing The problem of narcissistic collusion upon the marriage is the primary way of between counselor and counselee is very affirming the healing potential that the dangerous in situations involving the marriage provides for both partners. counselee’s marriage. Marriage is vulnerable to the temptations and limitations of The Healing Potential in Marriage narcissism. Romantic love tends to pro- Marriage and family therapists have vide endless narcissistic mirroring to both demonstrated effectively that marriage is partners. While “falling in love,” the a potential crucible for the change and couple spend hours enveloped in mirror- transformation of the individual part- ing each other’s narcissism. Yet when the ners.35 Applying a variety of theoretical “honeymoon is over” and the couple orientations, these marital therapists are returns to normal reality and can no longer demonstrating the opportunities for per- maintain this shared narcissistic illusion sonal change when couples are encour- with each other, intense conflict and feel- aged to transcend the anxiety, anger, and ings of betrayal replaces the narcissistic bitterness of their relationship. As previ- illusion. When the contents of this narcis- ously stated, the key to seeing the change sistic betrayal are shared in therapy with a potential within the marital relationship counselor who is also forming a therapeu- is to shift the focus from the partner to tic alliance around shared narcissistic one’s self and one’s own feelings of assumptions, it is inevitable that the coun- anger, anxiety, and bitterness. selor will be seduced into affirming the As the couple understands the manner narcissistic perspective of the counselee. in which the romantic attraction pre- Collusion around narcissistic issues can vented their ability to understand who be prevented by intentionally gearing the they really were, and as they appreciate counseling process towards producing that they brought their individual narcis- marital growth and transformation. If the sism and brokenness into the relationship best prospect for individual growth and for healing, they are able to learn how to 84 work through their marital issues more potential for the process of forgiveness to effectively. They are now able to appreci- lead to constructive change in the relational ate how they were attracted to each other dynamics. The perpetrator of the pain then through the process of projection: They begins the forgiveness process by saying had unconsciously given each other quali- something like, “I am sorry for . . .” ties of their own personalities that seemed As the confession is acknowledged, the “to fit” their partner; but when these wounded party must embrace and affirm projected qualities later resulted in con- the truthfulness of the pain that is being flict, both partners reacted defensively.36 confessed. An unwillingness to face the Armed with this appreciation, they come pain by either party can prematurely abort to accept these projected qualities as the process of forgiveness. If the perpe- aspects of their own denied personality trator of the offense cannot acknowledge and are ready to be challenged therapeu- the pain that has been inflicted upon the tically with the potential for change.37 For- marital partner, the process of forgiveness giveness occurs as both partners become is one-sided and left totally in the hands more conscious and remorseful of how of the wounded partner.40 they have been using each other as a way Forgiveness can be painful as the par- of avoiding the pain of their own narcis- ties uncover old unhealed memories and sism and brokenness. re-encounter the grief and sadness in these memories. It is this author’s conviction The Role of Forgiveness in that grief is an essential but frequently Marital Healing38 overlooked aspect of the process of The role of forgiveness in marital heal- forgiveness.41 Because grief is also a ing has received considerable attention in “process” rather than an “event,” the the last decade, especially among Chris- recovery of forgiveness can be long and tian counselors. Forgiveness has been seen painful as the wounded party must grieve historically as an “event” that occurs thoroughly the losses that the relationship spontaneously as the reality of the rela- has incurred.42 tional pain is acknowledged. However, As the wounded party continues in the forgiveness is actually a “process” that process of forgiveness, various beliefs, begins with the “event” of the moment of assumptions, and expectations are mutual conscious awareness of the rela- encountered within the heart and mind tional pain. Forgiveness is not an easy of the person. As these assumptions, process to activate. For true forgiveness expectations, and beliefs are uncovered, to occur, the couple must be able to face the wounded party now finds himself/ and acknowledge with genuine remorse herself on an inward journey that is ardu- that they have hurt each other.39 ous and intense, and beyond the expecta- From the perspectives of Scripture and tions of relational justice that seem fair for common sense, the process of forgiveness anyone who has already been emotionally usually begins with a confession of wounded. It soon becomes evident that remorse by the party who has caused the because of the depth of personal vulner- pain. The acknowledgement of culpabil- ability that forgiveness requires, that this ity is essential. The ability to describe how process of forgiveness requires us to the painful action evolved enriches the explore aspects of our personality, per- 85 sonal life story and unconscious memories matic habit patterns of sin are inevitably that would not have been encountered, if strong enough to drive the couple to court the pain in the relationship had not evoked instead of the confessional. When we add the necessity of forgiveness. Counselees the research of Gottman and others that have frequently remarked how the work demonstrate the role of anxiety and the of offering forgiveness to someone who has human body’s innate physiological perpetrated a sinful act towards them responses to anxiety, the power of anxi- seems so unjust in light of the fact that they ety to activate these automatic habit feel like innocent victims.43 patterns of sin that exacerbate the marital The outcome of the process of for- relationship is more thoroughly under- giveness is inevitably a more thorough stood today than at any other time. understanding and appreciation of the As the habit patterns of sin unfold brokenness that both parties brought into in each relationship, the importance of their marriage. The process of forgiveness developing new habit patterns of healing provides the couple with an intimate jour- is needed. Even in marriages that are not ney together, which if completed success- in serious crisis, these dual habit patterns fully, yields a level of healing and growth of sin and healing are evident. that benefits both participants as well as For believers the ultimate goal of the their marriage.44 journey of life is the pursuit of the mind of Christ. Spiritual disciplines like prayer, Marriage as a Spiritual Discipline meditation, Bible study, worship, steward- The effects of forgiveness upon both the ship, fasting, acts of mercy and kindness, marriage and the individual partners and solitude serve to help the believer tends to move the healing to a deeper level focus his/her mind on the righteous involving spiritual dynamics and leading things of God in Christ. These spiritual to less recidivism. After years of invoking disciplines prepare the mind and heart spiritual wisdom during hundreds of through new habit patterns dedicated to counseling sessions with believing Chris- Christian righteousness and maturity, and tians, the author has come to realize that find their fulfillment in the moments of marriage offers believers in Jesus Christ a grace as the Holy Spirit is acknowledged rare and unmatched opportunity to prac- and celebrated in our lives. tice the principles of the Christian faith, Spiritual disciplines are “disciplines” in including forgiveness, on a daily basis. the sense that they are activities devoted The nature and level of personal vulner- to righteousness that require a disciplined ability to the marital partner is unparal- commitment and activity to achieve. Liv- leled, providing a frequency of conflict ing the daily challenges of marriage with and dissonance that requires the power a “disciplined” heart, mind, and will is of forgiveness to transcend. required for marriage to mirror the Nevertheless, most couples, including standards of Ephesians 5, in which the Christians, tend to develop automatic husband is enjoined to love his wife self- habit patterns of sin that exacerbates the sacrificially like Christ loved the Church pain and conflict in their marriage. The and the wife is enjoined to love her hus- Barna research quoted at the beginning of band submissively as unto the Lord. The this article demonstrates that these auto- kind of self-sacrifice and submission 86 spoken of in Ephesians 5 cannot be the who serves as a companion on the spiri- actions of a “command performance,” nor tual journey. A spiritual friend/director will they arise spontaneously in the pres- gives consultation to our process of mov- ence of narcissistic wounds in the mar- ing towards Christ and away from temp- riage. What is required to reach the tation. A spiritual friend seeks to lift us righteous attitudes of Christ towards the up in love and communion with Christ as Church is the daily disciplined response the goal of the spiritual relationship. of love and forgiveness in the midst of As daily companions who see both the narcissistic injury and anger. To achieve best and the worst of our efforts to grow the loving and forgiving response that is in Christ, our marital partners have a needed to provide the spiritual healing unique perspective to offer us from their that is latent in marriage, the believer must experiences with us. If they choose to engage the challenges of transcending the speak the truth in love, their counsel can pain on a daily basis. As we have suggested, gently remind us of the truth, and sup- forgiveness doesn’t come easily or with- port us as we return to the right path. Of out work. To commit oneself to the course, if they choose to speak the truth response of forgiveness on a daily basis is in a high anxiety confrontational manner, to commit oneself to being open and trans- they can activate our defenses and with parent at our depths with the one person the autonomic nervous system in full who has the potential power to really hurt operational mode, can keep us distracted us in that vulnerability. from things of the Spirit! For believers in The tempter seeks to undermine our Jesus Christ, the challenge is transform- spiritual disciplines. Our success in striving our marriages from the chaotically ing after holiness is a strike at the constant explosive potential of the old Adam to the agenda of the tempter to keep our auto- honest, while loving and supportive, pos- matic sinful habit patterns in place, block- sibilities of the new Adam. ing our efforts to transcend the hurts and disappointments of life through Christ’s Bibliography love. The tempter seeks to undermine our Amen, Daniel G. Change Your Brain, marriages, to keep us defensively mis- Change Your Life. New York: Three aligned in this primary relationship, and Rivers, 1998. to hurt our witness to a lost world. In Bader, Ellyn and Peter T. Pearson. In Quest contrast to this picture of hopelessness, of the Mythical Mate: A Developmental however, the attitude of seeking to find Approach to Diagnosis and Treatment in in marriage the spiritual habit patterns of Couples Therapy. New York: Brunner/ love and forgiveness, will strengthen our Mazel, 1988. marriages, keeping us intimately con- Martin and Deidre Bobgan. Against Bibli- nected in love, and demonstrating the cal Counseling, For the Bible. Santa truth to the sinful world around us. Barbara, CA: EastGate, 1994. If marriage can be seen as a spiritual Boszormenyi-Nagy, Ivan and Barbara R. discipline, then our marital partners can Krasner. Between Give and Take: A Clini- be seen as our personal spiritual friends/ cal Guide to Contextual Therapy. New directors. A spiritual director, or spiritual York: Brunner/Mazel, 1986. friend as some people prefer, is someone Leigh E. Conver. “Soul Care: The Repur- 87 chase of a Stolen Birthright.” Review and 2001. Expositor 94 (Winter 1997) 107-130. Gottman, John M. and Nan Silver. The Crabb, Larry. Connecting: Healing for Our- Seven Principles for Making Marriage selves and Our Relationship, A Radical Work. New York: Crown, 1999. New Vision. Nashville: Word, 1997. Hall, C. Margaret. The Bowen Family Theory Crabb, Larry. Inside Out. Colorado and Its Uses. Northvale, NJ: Jason Springs: NavPress, 1988. Aronson, 1981. Crabb, Larry. Men and Women: Enjoying the Hargrave, Terry D. Families and Forgive- Difference. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, ness: Healing Wounds in the Intergenera- 1991. tional Family. New York: Brunner/ Crabb, Larry. Understanding People: Deep Mazel, 1994. Longings for Relationship. Grand Rapids: Hendrix, Harville. Getting the Love You Zondervan, 1987. Want: A Guide for Couples. New York: Cunningham, Bobby B. “The Will to For- Henry Holt & Company, 1988. give: A Pastoral Theological View of Jacobson, Neil S. and Andrew Christ- Forgiving.” Journal of Pastoral Care 39 ensen. Acceptance and Change in Couple (June 1985) 141-149. Therapy. New York: Norton, 1996. Enright, Robert D. Forgiveness is a Choice: Jung, Carl Gustav. The Portable Jung. New A Step-by-Step Process for Resolving An- York: Viking, 1971. ger and Restoring Hope. Washington, Kohut, Heinz. The Analysis of the Self: A D.C.: American Psychological Associa- Systemic Approach to the Psychoanalytic tion, 2001. Treatment of Narcissistic Personality Dis- Enright, Robert D. and Richard P. orders. New York: The International Fitzgibbons. Helping Clients Forgive: An Universities Press, 1977. Empirical Guide for Resolving Anger and Lasch, Christopher. The Culture of Narcis- Restoring Hope. Washington, D.C.: sism: American Life in An Age of Dimin- American Psychological Association, ishing Expectations. New York: Norton, 2000. 1979. Fisher, Helen E. Anatomy of Love: The Natu- Naranjo, Claudio. Character and Neurosis: ral History of Monogamy, Adultery, and In Integrative View. Nevada City, CA: Divorce. New York: Norton, 1992. Gateways/IDHHB, 1994. Foster, Richard. Celebration of Discipline: Oates, Wayne E. Behind the Masks: Person- The Path to Spiritual Growth. Worcester, ality Disorders in Religious Behavior. PA: Victor Films, 1984. Videocassette. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1987. Gass, Charlie. “Implementing a Pastoral Oates, Wayne E. Temptation: A Biblical and Psychoeducational Program on Psychological Approach. Louisville: Human Forgiveness in North Central Westminster/John Knox, 1991. Florida.” D.Min. thesis at The South- Oates, Wayne E. The Presence of God in Pas- ern Baptist Theological Seminary, toral Counseling. Waco, TX: Word, 1986. Louisville, Kentucky. December 1966. Oates, Wayne E. Your Particular Grief. Gottman, John M. and Joan DeClaire. The Philadelphia: Westminster, 1981. Relationship Cure: A Five Step Guide for Olson, David and John DeFrain. Marriage Building Better Connections with Family, and the Family: Diversity and Strengths. Friends, and Lovers. New York: Crown, 2nd ed. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 88 1997. ENDNOTES Olson, R. Paul. The Reconciled Life: A Criti- 11Many biblical texts could point to this cal Theory of Counseling. Westport, CT: life journey goal of self-emptying love, Praeger, 1997. but this author has selected Philippians Scharff, David E. and Jill Savege Scharff. 2:1-11 as his favorite text. Object Relations Couple Therapy. North- 22The Barna Research Group in Ventura, vale, NJ: Jason Aronson, 1991. California reported in its December 21, Scharff, Jill Savege and David E. Scharff. 1999 press release that in a survey of Scharff Notes: A Primer of Object Relations nearly 4000 adults, 27% of the sample Therapy. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson, defining themselves as “born-again 1992. Christians” had experienced divorce at Smalley, Gary. Hidden Keys of a Loving least once. The same research sample Lasting Marriage. Grand Rapids: Zon- indicated that 24% of “non-believers” dervan, 1988. had experienced divorce at least once. Smalley, Gary and John Trent. The Lan- Furthermore, the denominational popu- guage of Love. Colorado Springs: Focus lation groups studied ranked the fre- on the Family, 1991. quency of divorce as 34% for non- Solomon, Marion F. Narcissism and Inti- denominational Protestants, 30% Jewish, macy: Love and Marriage in an Age of 29% Baptist, 25% mainline Protestants, Confusion. New York: Norton, 1989. 24% Mormons, 21% Roman Catholic, Switzer, David K. The Dynamics of Grief. 21% Lutheran and 21% atheist and Nashville: Abingdon, 1970. agnostic. Tannen, Deborah. You Just Don’t Under- 33The press release that announced these stand: Women and Men in Conversation. startling results did not indicate what New York: Ballentine, 1990. percentage of the research sample lived Titelman, Peter (ed.). Clinical Applications together unmarried or how this contem- of Bowen Family Systems Theory. New porary secular marriage model might York: Hayworth, 1998. have affected the research conclusions. Wells, David F. Losing Our Virtue: Why the Sociological studies suggest that 50% of Church Must Recover Its Moral Vision. cohabiting adults have never been mar- Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998. ried, with a rise in over a million addi- Wise, Carroll A. Pastoral Psychotherapy: tional cohabiting couples in the five-year Theory and Practice. New York: Jason period from 1988 to 1993 (rising from 2.5 Aronson, 1980. million to 3.5 million). See David Olson Worthington, Everett L. Jr. Christian and John DeFrain, Marriage and the Marital Counseling: Eight Approaches to Family: Diversity and Strengths, 2nd ed. Helping Couples. Grand Rapids: Baker, (Mountain View, CA: Mayfield, 1997) 14. 1996. 44Again, the frequency of non-marital Worthington, Everett L. Jr. Marriage Coun- households is not reported in the press seling: A Christian Approach to Counsel- release. ing Couples. Downers Grove: Inter- 55Olson and DeFrain, Marriage and the Fam- varsity Press, 1989. ily, 14. 66Ibid., 15. 77The threat of sexually transmitted dis- 89 eases has led many to adopt “serial and inspires a voluntary self-sub- and has replaced the family contract monogamy,” if not marriage. mission in response from the wife form of marital union still charac- 88Scripturally, a life of chaste celibacy towards her husband. Again, there teristic in third world countries. is encouraged as the alternative to have been misinterpretations of this Anthropologist Helen E. Fisher has marriage for those who have been passage, leading to an inaccurate written an excellent analysis of the given the spiritual strength to live understanding of the self-sacrificial marital attraction process in Ana- as single adults (1 Cor 7:7). covenantal qualities of a biblically tomy of Love: The Natural History of 99Gen 1:26-27 affirms the image of inspired marriage. Monogamy, Adultery, and Divorce God in mankind. Christian counsel- 13Many marital and family therapy (New York: Norton, 1992). ing specialists like Wayne E. Oates theorists argue that primal fears and 18Deborah Tannen has written a and Larry Crabb have demon- anxieties underlie marital dynamics, popular discussion of these gender strated the Triune relationality of especially in the midst of conflict. See differences in You Just Don’t Under- God and its implications for a Chris- the Imago Theory described by Dr. stand: Women and Men in Conversa- tian anthropology of persons in in- Harville Hendrix in Getting the Love tion (New York: Ballentine Books, timate community, mirroring the You Want: A Guide for Couples (New 1990). Christian psychologist Larry Triune community. York: Henry Holt, 1988) as a classic Crabb has proposed an integrated 10The concept of marriage as a cov- example of this thesis. theological and psychological inter- enantal relationship that mirrors 14Dr. John Gottman has written often pretation of gender differences in God’s covenant with His people, on this topic. Cf. his best seller his book, Men and Women: Enjoying stands in sharp theological contrast co-authored with Nan Silver, The the Difference (Grand Rapids: to the contractual models of mar- Seven Principles for Making Marriage Zondervan, 1991). The tomography riage that dominate our contempo- Work (New York: Crown, 1999). brain research of the last decade has rary culture. 15In The Seven Principles for Making demonstrated that men and women 11The author is indebted to Dr. Daniel Marriage Work, Gottman describes have some differences in brain func- Block’s manuscript, “Marriage and the Four Horsemen of criticism, tioning as well. See Daniel G. Amen, Family in Ancient Israel: A Survey contempt, defensiveness, and stone- Change Your Brain, Change Your Life of Laws and Customs,” which will walling. He has since added “bel- (New York: Three Rivers, 1998) for be published in an edited text on the ligerence” to his list of horsemen, a popular resource on tomography ancient family, for a helpful exege- bringing the total to five destructive studies of the human brain. sis of the Old Testament narratives horsemen. 19This concept of the mutual suppres- describing the Hebrew family’s cov- 16The Christian Counseling and Fam- sion of feelings of attraction, is a enantal structure. Dr. Block’s analy- ily Studies Department at The theoretical description of the even- sis demonstrates the implications of Southern Baptist Theological tual dominance of rejection in a the patricentric view of the family Seminary has been encouraging relationship previously dominated in contrast to the patriarchal view Christian counselors to make these by attraction, as explicated by Brit- of the prevailing culture, and applications in marital counseling. ish Object Relations Theorists, a cogently corrects the popular mis- The department is also exploring popular school of marital and fam- conceptions that the Old Testament empirical research into the relation- ily therapy, illustrated by Drs. gives license to the neglect and mis- ship (if any) between Gottman’s David and Jill Scharff, Object Rela- treatment of women by men. Five Horsemen and sinful attitudes tions Couple Therapy (Northvale, NJ: 12Ephesians 5 sets a covenantal stan- and behaviors. Jason Aronson, 1991). dard that is a model of marital inti- 17The author recognizes that the cul- 20Carl Gustav Jung was a disciple of macy characterized by self-sacrifi- tural fascination with romance is Sigmund Freud who eventually cial love by the husband for his wife, very influential in American society split from the psychoanalytic move- 90 ment founded by Freud and devel- 24See Leigh E. Conver, “Soul Care: lives of believers in a variety of habit oped his own school of Analytic The Repurchase of a Stolen Birth- patterns, dysfunctional relation- Psychology in response. Jung pos- right,” Review and Expositor, 94 (Win- ships, and personal psychopathol- tulated a theory of “the mysterious ter 1997) 107-130 for the author’s ogy. The thesis of this article that conjunction,” in which the attrac- analysis of this stolen birthright “for believers, marriage is a spiri- tion of personality opposites was and its return to the ministry of the tual discipline” is consistent with part of the genesis of romantic love. local church. this orientation to Christian coun- See C. G. Jung, The Collected Works 25The author acknowledges that seling. of C. G. Jung, Volume 14 “Mysterium Christian counseling is a loosely 26Richard Foster, Celebration of Disci- Coniunctionis”, New York, New defined counseling discipline that pline: The Path to Spiritual Growth York: Bollingen Foundation, 1963 covers the spectrum of commitment (Worcester, PA: Victory Films, 1984), for a full discussion of this mys- to the integration of biblical, spiri- videocassette. terious conjunction of opposites in tual, psychological, family systems, 27Ibid. marriage. and psychiatric perspectives. On the 28See Christopher Lasch, The Culture 21The family systems theories of far right of the spectrum, Christian of Narcissism: American Life in an Age Murray Bowen are foundational in counseling is understood to be of Diminishing Expectations (New this understanding of couple exclusively biblical in content and York: Norton, 1979). dynamics as derivative of the mix- competence. On the far left of the 29“Self-actualization” is a product of ing and merging of their individual spectrum, Christian counseling is Humanistic Psychology with its family of origin dynamics through almost exclusively the application belief in the positive nature of what is called a multigenerational of human sciences competency with human potential that is realized projection process. See C. Margaret a very limited application of Chris- through a process of growth. “Self- Hall, The Bowen Family Theory and tian theology to the process. Martin differentiation” is a concept from Its Uses (New York: Jason Aronson, and Deidre Bobgan, Against Biblical Family Systems Theory that 1981) as one excellent illustration of Counseling, For the Bible (Santa Bar- describes the process of “holding Bowen’s theories about intergenera- bara, CA: EastGate, 1994) represent onto your own sense of self, while tional influences upon the marital the extreme right position. Carroll interacting in intimate relation- couple dynamics. A. Wise, Pastoral Psychotherapy: ships.” Persons with low self-differ- 22The author has chosen to follow the Theory and Practice (New York: entiation have poor personal approach of Richard Foster in defin- Jason Aronson, 1980) demonstrates boundaries and can quickly lose ing the classical spiritual disciplines. the far left position. As chairman of their sense of personal self in 23The classical process known as spiri- the Department of Christian Coun- relationships. Persons with high tual direction is primarily a disci- seling and Family Studies at The self-differentiation are capable of plined mentoring by a spiritual Southern Baptist Theological Semi- maintaining very intense interper- director of a directee in the spiritual nary, this author is defining Chris- sonal relationships while holding disciplines of prayer and medita- tian counseling as it is taught at The on to their own identity. “Individu- tion. The field of Christian counsel- Southern Baptist Theological Semi- ation of self” is a concept from ing has been in the process of nary as the balanced integration of Jungian Analytic Psychology that reclaiming the role of spiritual clinically acquired counseling skills describes the life long natural pro- direction, but sees it as distinctly within a biblical worldview and cess towards wholeness and bal- different from other forms of coun- theological orientation that is Scrip- ance. Individuation is that process seling, because of its exclusive turally consistent. Within this inte- of growth and development focus upon the spiritual life of the grative orientation, it is appropriate towards maturity in which the directee. to see how sin manifests itself in the person becomes more internally 91 balanced and more in touch with survival and growth. As a reflection 36The concepts of projection and pro- conscious and unconscious aspects of the Imago Dei, the soul needs to jective identification are commonly of his/her personality. experience intimacy with others understood within psychodynamic 30The most famous proponent of the and with God in order to be whole. theories to be the interactive conse- treatment of narcissistic personali- However, the ego/self is so preoc- quences of mutual attraction and ties is Heinz Kohut. See Heinz cupied with mastery and control, mutual repulsion around similari- Kohut, The Analysis of the Self: A Sys- that the ego rarely recognizes the ties in the individual personalities temic Approach to the Psychoanalytic futility of pursuing mastery and that are denied consciously, and Treatment of Narcissistic Personality control as a solution to the problem must be displaced through projec- Disorders (New York: The Interna- of connection and intimacy. The suc- tion into the other person in order tional Universities Press, 1977) for cessful therapeutic outcome of most to be managed. Typically there is a thorough explication of Kohut’s individual psychotherapies does enough compatibility in this process theory of treatment of narcissism. not necessarily integrate the soul’s of projection that the receiver of the 31See David F. Wells, Losing Our Vir- needs for connection and intimacy. projections has some identification tue: Why the Church Must Recover Its 34The problem of unconscious collu- with the contents of the projection Moral Vision (Grand Rapids: Eerd- sion between counselor and coun- and reacts as if they were truly part mans, 1998) for an analysis of the selee is one of the strongest of his or her personality. See Scharff church’s seduction by the narcissis- arguments for Christian counseling. and Scharff, Object Relations Couple tic and postmodern dimensions of The Christian counselor, having ex- Therapy for a thorough analysis of our culture. perienced the process of spiritual how projection and projective iden- 32Because so much of our lives is gov- transformation (the renewing of the tification occur. erned by the ego/self striving for mind), has an essential resource to 37The healing suggested in the owner- mastery and control in the external offer to the counselee who is under- ship of previously denied and pro- world, it is easy to lose touch with going the same process. jected parts of one’s self, involves the deeper and more subtle yearn- 35One of the distinctions of the field conscious acceptance of the truth of ings of the soul. If “more is better” of marriage and family therapy this denial and projection; accep- and “bigger is best,” which are the within the counseling professions is tance of the destruction to the rela- assumptions of the reality of the that marriage and family therapists tionship that has occurred through ego/self seeking mastery and domi- believe that the interpersonal world the denial and projection process and nance and control, the yearnings of of the family is the most productive the injustice that has occurred as the the soul for connection and relation- forum for engaging in change. Iden- partner has lived with these projec- ship, surrender and self-denial, and tities are forged in the interpersonal tions; acceptance of the historical union with the Almighty become crucible of the family; problems origin of these qualities in the lost in the process. St. Augustine’s develop and are reinforced in the counselee’s past; and the changing confession that our “souls are rest- same interpersonal space of the of these qualities through cognitive, less until they find their rest in God” family; and the solutions that are behavioral, emotional, and rela- is outside of the awareness of the most commonly shared with other tional changes. In the last five years, ego/self’s preoccupations with family members are found in the many secular therapists have also mastery and control. systemic exchange of marriage and added spiritual techniques to their 33One of the classical aspects of this family therapists. Some marriage therapeutic armament to help difference in ego and soul and long and family therapists, like the counselees experience their abilities term healing can be viewed in the author, believe that long term to change these previously denied importance of deep relational con- change is best achieved in the and projected qualities of their own nection, which is crucial to the soul’s unique crucible of the marriage. personalities. 92 38The author wants to acknowledge be impossible for many narcissistic the process of forgiveness with his indebtedness to his friend and personalities who cannot acknowl- someone who has been wounded colleague, Bobby Cunningham, for edge that they are sorry for their by another, he feels that it is appro- the original insights into the dynam- actions. priate to acknowledge at the front ics of forgiveness, which the author 40As stated previously, seriously nar- end that the process of forgiveness has confirmed repeatedly through cissistically impaired individuals will likely be a lengthy and painful the years. These insights are found cannot acknowledge their culpa- journey. As one counselee observed in Dr. Cunningham’s article, “The bility and continue to project the years ago: “Forgiveness is harder Will to Forgive: A Pastoral Theologi- responsibility for the relational work for the victim than for the per- cal View of Forgiving,” in the Jour- breakdown upon their partners. petrator, for the perpetrator only nal of Pastoral Care, 39 (June 1985) However, there are also many needs to face their sin, but the vic- 141-149. Another respected scholar instances in which the wounded tim ends up taking an odyssey into within the Christian counseling party must move towards forgive- their life history that they did not field who has written prolifically ness, even in the absence of confes- choose.” and helpfully is Dr. Everett Worth- sion by their perpetrating partners, 44The process of forgiveness, though ington. See the references in the bib- as an attempt to give up the bitter- painful and emotionally challeng- liography for further details about ness and hurt that they have expe- ing, is also very redemptive. The Dr. Worthington’s contributions to rienced as a result of the marital author finds working towards for- our contemporary understanding of conflict. Finally, there are instances giveness with couples to be the forgiveness as a process. Finally, in which this “one-sided” attempt single most satisfying experience of Terry D. Hargrave’s work, Families at forgiveness is appropriate when his professional ministry. Forgive- and Forgiveness: Healing Wounds in the perpetrator is no longer avail- ness is contagious in that being the Intergenerational Family (New able to heal the relationship, as in present to the process of forgiveness York: Brunner/Mazel, 1994) has death. transforms all of the participants in been a valuable resource to this 41The author is thankful to his former the process, including the therapist/ author. graduate student, Charlie Gass for facilitator. 39The process of facing and acknowl- pointing out the presence of grief in edging the mutual pain and hurt the process of forgiveness and dem- that has transpired in the relation- onstrating this dynamic in his ship appears to be very difficult and doctoral thesis, “Implementing a so much so that many couples pre- Pastoral Psychoeducational Pro- fer the downhill slide into divorce, gram on Human Forgiveness in rather than face with genuine North Central Florida,” an unpub- remorse the painful reality of how lished Doctor of Ministry thesis at much they have hurt each other. It The Southern Baptist Theological has been this author’s experience Seminary, December 1966. that the depth of narcissistic 42The process understanding of grief defenses that are utilized by either has been affirmed universally, but party in the relationship, deter- the reader is invited to consult mines the ability to engage in a David K. Switzer’s work, The Dy- genuine process of mutual forgive- namics of Grief (Nashville: Abing- ness. Without the presence of genu- don, 1970) for one analysis of grief ine remorse, forgiveness cannot as a process. occur. Genuine remorse appears to 43Whenever this author ventures into 93 Sermon: The Beauty and Blessings of the Christian Bedroom1 Song of Solomon 4:1–5:1 Daniel L. Akin

Daniel L. Akin is Vice President and Introduction 2:24); (3) comfort (Gen 24:67); (4) the Dean and professor of preaching at The In an article entitled, “What They Didn’t creation of life (Gen 1:28); (5) play and Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Teach You About Sex in Sunday School,” pleasure (Song 2:8-17; 4:1-16), and (6) Dr. Akin has served as dean since 1996 Peggy Fletcher Stack writes, “Many people avoiding temptation (1 Cor 7:2-5). A hus- and has also served on the faculty of assume the Bible has just one message band is commanded to find satisfaction Southeastern Seminary and Criswell about sex: Don’t do it.”2 Well, let me sim- (Prov 5:19) and joy (Eccl 9:9) in his wife, College. He has an extensive speaking ply respond by saying that anyone who and to concern himself with meeting her ministry, especially on the topic of mar- says that obviously has not read the Bible. unique needs (Deut 24:5; 1 Pet 3:7). A wife riage and family, and is the author of God, in his Word, has a lot to say about sex also has responsibilities. These include: (1) the commentary on 1-3 John in the and much of it is good. availability (1 Cor 7:3-5); (2) preparation New American Commentary series. Sex as God designed it is good, excit- and planning (Song 4:9ff); (3) interest ing, intoxicating, powerful, living, and (Song 4:16; 5:2); and (4) sensitivity to unifying. Though the Bible is not a book unique masculine needs (Gen 24:67). The on sex, it does contain a complete theol- feeling of oneness experienced by hus- ogy of sexuality: the purposes for sex, band and wife in the physical, sexual warnings against its misuse, and a beau- union should remind both partners of the tiful picture of ideal physical intimacy as even more remarkable oneness that the set forth in the Song of Solomon. The “one- spirit of a man and a woman experiences flesh” relationship (cf. Gen 2:24) is the with God in spiritual new birth (John 3). most intense, physical intimacy and the There is beauty and blessing in the deepest, spiritual unity possible between Christian bedroom. Here God says eat and a husband and wife. God always approves drink deeply (Song 5:1!). This text of this relationship (cf. Prov 5:21) in which describes the wedding night of King husband and wife meet each other’s Solomon and his bride, Shulamite (cf. physical needs in sexual intercourse (cf. 6:13). The bride and groom are alone with Prov 5:15, 18, 19). Paul indicates that only God as the unseen but welcomed sexual adjustment in marriage can affect guest. Here before us the couple consum- the Christian life, especially prayer (cf. 1 mates their marriage in intimate sexual Cor 7:5). Both husband and wife have defi- union. Our passage, in exquisite poetry, nite and equal sexual needs that are to be provides a portrait of what a Christian met in marriage (1 Cor 7:3), and each is to bedroom was intended by God to be. meet the needs of the other and not his own (Phil 2:3-5). God gave us the good Let It Be a Place of Satisfying gift of sex for several important reasons. Attractiveness (4:1-7) These purposes include: (1) knowledge These verses are a song of admiration (cf. Gen 4:1); (2) intimate oneness (Gen from the groom to his bride. The time for 94 the sexual consummation of their mar- context of romance. Why? One explana- riage has arrived and yet, it will not be tion is that as compared with men, they until verse 16 that it will happen. True have higher expectations for intimacy, and romance is an environment of affection in thus react more negatively to conjugal which sexual union will occur more often reality. In a major national survey con- and with greater satisfaction. In other ducted in 1976 by the Institute for Social words, there are some essential prelimi- Research at the University of Michigan, naries before it is time for the main event! more wives than husbands said that they Unfortunately, this is not always clear to wished their spouse talked more about a male. Having been aroused sexually he thoughts and feelings, and more wives felt is now on the prowl as a predator, and his resentment and irritation with husbands bride can certainly feel the part of prey. than vice versa. The researchers conclude: Solomon was sensitive to this, and so he “In marriage … women talk and want begins with the most important sex organ verbal responsiveness of the kind they we have: the mind! Thinking about how have had with other women, but their his new wife might feel, he chooses first men are often silent partners, unable to to cultivate an atmosphere of acceptance respond in kind.”4 A man must meet his through carefully chosen words. wife’s need for verbal support.

Men, Meet Your Wife’s Need for Women, Meet Your Husband’s Need Verbal Support (4:1-7) for Visual Stimulation (4:1-6) Three times, both at the beginning and If a woman is a creature of the ear, a the end of this song, Solomon tells man is a creature of the eye. He is moved Shulamite she is “beautiful” (NKJV, by what he sees. Verses 1–6 are a continu- “fair”). Twice he calls her his “love” or ation of Solomon’s song of admiration as “darling.” In verse 7 he says there is no he praises 8 different parts of his wife’s defect or “flaw” in her. In his eyes she is body. This would continue to meet her the perfect woman for him. need for verbal support, especially as we Women are verbal creatures. They are unlock the doors to the Ancient Near East- moved by what they hear and what they ern images we encounter. At the same feel. “To a great extent, she thinks and time these verses also teach us something feels [about herself] the way a man leads about the male and how visual he is when her to think and feel.”3 A man must learn it comes to sex. A brief survey of these to touch her heart (her mind) through her verses makes it clear that Shulamite was ears. This helps her feel good about not clothed in sweats, flannel, or burlap! herself, and it relaxes, prepares, and Apparently, only a veil covered her eyes. motivates her to give herself in passion- The rest of her body was in full view and ate lovemaking to her husband. A wise Solomon liked, he loved, what he saw. man will understand the value of words, Still, his patience and understanding is the right words, in preparation for sexual singularly remarkable. What an incredible intimacy. example he sets for men everywhere. A study in Psychology Today noted that Women in the ancient Near East wore women are more likely to be disappointed a veil only on special occasions such as with marriage than men, especially in the the day of their wedding. “Dove’s eyes 95 behind your veil” both hides and pared to the halves of a pomegranate. enhances her beauty. It conveys ideas of They blushed red with desire and the peace and purity, tranquility and tender- sweetness of their fruit entreats Solomon ness, gentleness and innocence (cf. 1:15; to kiss them. Pomegranates were consid- 2:14; 5:2). Her eyes speak, they communi- ered an aphrodisiac in the ancient world. cate to her husband that she has been Attractive to the eye and sweet to taste, calmed and set at rest by his kind and the image appeals to both the senses of affirming words. sight and taste. “Your hair is like a flock of goats Her neck was like the tower of David descending from Mount Gilead” (NIV) adorned with the shields and weapons of would probably not get a guy very far in Solomon’s mighty men (cf. 3:7-8). She our day, but it would have been lovely stands tall and graceful. She is neither music to the ears of Shulamite. Viewed cowed nor timid. Why should she be in from afar, a herd of black goats descend- the presence of a man who loves and ing or skipping down a mountainside as admires her with such passion? The im- the sun glistened on their black hair was age “conveys a sense of unassailable a beautiful sight. As Shulamite prepared strength. No man could conquer her, and to give herself to her husband, she has let her suitor is awed by the dignity she her hair down. Cascading down her neck carries. Her love is a gift; it could never and across her shoulders, her beautiful become plunder.”6 wavy locks entice the sexual desires of Verses 5 and 6 draw attention to Solomon. Mount Gilead was a high moun- Shulamite’s breasts. Note that there is tain range east of Galilee that was known nothing even remotely pornographic for its good and fertile pastures. Shulamite about this imagery. Porneia clearly refers is herself vigorous and fertile on this their to evil sexual desire and an entire indus- wedding night. Letting her hair down sig- try is built on exploiting this sinful pas- nals to Solomon her readiness for him. sion. Solomon’s point here is that a man’s Verses 2 and 3 focus on the beauty of desire for his wife is holy. His pleasure and her mouth. Her teeth are clean, bright ,and erotic desire for her is holy. To deny this is white; none are missing! Her lips are like to deny one of God’s good gifts. First, they a scarlet or red ribbon (lit. “thread”). are compared to twin fawns of a gazelle Indeed, her mouth is beautiful. It is beau- that feed among the lilies. They are soft tifully shaped and enticing to her man. and attractive, tender and delicate, mak- There is some question, because of the ing her husband want to gently touch and unusual Hebrew word used here for caress them. Second, he describes them as “mouth,” whether Solomon has in view two mountains: one a mountain of myrrh physical or verbal pleasures that come and the other a hill of frankincense. Both from her mouth. An either/or decision is spices were expensive and used as per- unnecessary. “Her mouth is … a fertile fume for the body and the marriage bed. oasis with lovely words flowing out of it— (Prov 7:17 informs us that the harlot per- not to mention possible heavy wet kiss- fumes her bed with myrrh, aloes, and cin- ing.”5 Her lips and her words both are namon.) Now the senses of sight and smell prizes of pleasure. are aroused. So enraptured is Solomon Her temples behind the veil are com- that he desires to make love to his wife all 96 night long: “until the day breaks and the to sensual anticipation, what counsel do shadows flee away.” we receive from him? Time and tenderness are essential twins for a sexually and romantically attractive Invite Your Mate to Come to You bedroom. Slow, romantic foreplay is (4:8) underway. Solomon visually and literally, Solomon’s complete attention has been I believe, undresses his bride. He praises on his wife. There is only one first person her specifically and in detail for every- reference in the first 7 verses (v. 6). Bibli- thing he sees. He gives before receiving. cal sex will always be focused on one’s He is as much concerned, if not more so, mate before it looks to one’s self. Then, for her pleasure and satisfaction than he and only then, is it the right time to take is his own. He is loving her as Christ has lovemaking to the next level. Solomon has loved us (Eph 5:25ff). called Shulamite his “love” or “darling.” It is interesting to note that we don’t Now he calls her his “bride” (NKJV, know what Shulamite really looked like. “spouse”). He calls her to leave where she What we do know is what she looked like is and come to him. Lebanon was near her to Solomon. She was beautiful, gorgeous; home. The other mountain ranges men- no one compared to her. This bedroom is tioned are in the general area as well. The a place of satisfying attractiveness: both lion’s den and the mountains of the leop- to Solomon and Shulamite. ards perhaps represent fears Shulamite may have. He does not charge her, he calls Let It Be a Place of to her. He does not demand, he invites. Sensual Anticipation (4:8-11) He invites her to leave her home and her According to a recent report, humans fears behind. He will care for her. He will are apparently the only creatures on the love her. She is his love, his darling. She planet who see sex as fun, with the pos- is his bride, his wife. Five times in verses sible exception of dolphins and pygmy 8–12 Solomon will refer to her as his bride. chimps.7 I’m not sure what to make of Sensual anticipation must be clothed with that, if anything. I do know that we words of safety and security if it expects humans think about and anticipate the a warm reception. Solomon’s invitation is sexual experience, almost without excep- beautifully delivered. tion. The fact is we give this area of life a lot of time and attention. People will Indicate How Your Mate attend seminars like “Getting the Love Captivates You (4:9-11) You Want,” “Resexing Marriage,” “Res- It would seem that Shulamite urrecting Sex: The Passionate Marriage responded in a positive manner to Approach,” “Marital Sex As It Ought To Solomon’s invitation. Solomon’s words in Be,” and “Hot Monogamy.” verses 9–11 would seem to affirm this. He Yes, we think and talk a great deal begins by saying Shulamite has “rav- about sex, but far too often we don’t ished” or “stolen” his heart. Her love was understand it, at least not as God so overpowering that he could not resist intended. The results of going our own her. Her love had captured his heart and way have not been pretty. Perhaps God he could not escape. Just a glance of her has had it right all along. When it comes eye or seeing one link in her necklace sent 97 him swooning out of control. She was this verse! Deep, sweet, and passionate enchanting, and he was powerless to kissing is at least as old as this Song. resist her spell. Solomon then says some- Canaan was a land of milk and honey (cf. thing that is very strange to our ears. He Exod 3:8). It was a land of joy, blessing, again calls Shulamite his “bride,” but he and satisfaction that would provide for also refers to her as his “sister,” something the nation of Israel. It was a land of sweet- he will do no less than 5 times (cf. 4:9-10, ness to a people who had been enslaved 12; 5:1-2). Again we must understand the for over 400 years. Solomon found immea- use of the word in its historical context. surable joy in the deep, long, and intimate In the Ancient Near East “sister” was a kisses of his bride. term of affection and friendship. In addi- Besides smelling good herself, she also tion to its literal meaning, it could indi- applied attractive fragrances to her cate a close and intimate relationship that clothes. Lebanon flourished with cedar a husband and wife enjoyed. True lovers trees (cf. 1 Kgs 5:6; Ps 29:5; 92:12; 104:16; will also be true friends, even best friends. Isa 2:13; 14:8; Hos 14:5-6). The fresh aroma This is something Solomon understood of those mountain cedars filled the nos- quite well. trils of Solomon as he undressed his bride Repetition is often a wonderful teacher and made preparation for lovemaking. and in verse 10 Solomon again calls Virtually all the senses: taste, touch, smell, Shulamite his sister, his bride. He tells her sight, and sound have played a role in this that her love is delightful, and that it is sensual symphony in this Christian bed- better than wine. Wine is intoxicating and room. The lovemaking that we enjoy in sweet, but it could not compare to her. He our marriages will only be enhanced as himself was drunk with love for her. we follow this example. Charles Spurgeon, the great British preacher of the 19th century, said her love Let It Be a Place of Specific was better than wine because it could be Availability (4:12-15) enjoyed without question, would never One of the greatest gifts a person can turn sour, would never produce ill effects, give his or her mate in marriage is exclu- and produced a sacred exhilaration.8 sive and exciting sex. To enter marriage Her smell also got Solomon’s attention. as a virgin is indeed a precious treasure The fragrance or scent of this woman was to bestow on our spouse. Unfortunately, superior to “all spices” (v. 10, NKJV). For it is also a far too rare treasure. The Bible a man, sight is closely followed by smell is crystal clear on the issue: any sex out- in the sensual realm. Shulamite knew this side of marriage between a man and a and so she prepared herself in a way that woman is sin in the eyes of God. This would draw her man to her (not that he includes premarital sex, extra-marital sex, probably needed any encouragement!). or unnatural sex (homosexuality, bestial- Verse 11 moves us into even greater ity, etc.). “Flee sexual immorality” (1 Cor sensual and romantic territory. Her lips, 6:18) is God’s command, and a wise per- he says, drip sweetness like the honey- son will always listen to God. Shulamite comb, and honey and milk are under her had listened to the voice of her God con- tongue. The idea that a particular kind of cerning her sexuality. Note the beautiful kissing began in France is put to rest by imagery Solomon uses to describe his 98 bride on their wedding night. a fantasy garden, a lover’s dream. To find pomegranates, henna flowers, spikenard, God Is Pleased When We Keep saffron, calamus, cinnamon, frankincense, Ourselves Pure (4:12) myrrh, aloes, and all chief spices in one Shulamite is described as (a) a garden garden was unimaginable and yet, in his locked up, (b) a spring enclosed (NKJV, bride, he found them all. She would sat- “shut up”) and (c) a sealed fountain. Each isfy his sense of taste, sight, and smell. He pictures her purity and virginity. She had could never be bored. He would enjoy the sealed up herself for her husband. She had multiple pleasures discovered in this gar- saved a precious treasure that belongs den. Each time would be an exciting time, only to him. I have never known of a a new and different adventure. woman, or man for that matter, who ever Solomon now thinks of “his wife” as regretted saving themselves sexually for “A fountain of gardens, a well of living marriage. I have, however, known many waters, and streams from Lebanon” who regretted not doing so. In particular (NKJV). To other men she was locked up, I think of a letter written to Josh McDowell enclosed, and sealed. For her husband she several years ago that probably expresses is wide open, accessible, and available. the regrets of many scarred by the sexual Indeed, her love is overflowing and revolution: streaming down for him. What she once held back from others she now gives to Dear Mr. McDowell, her husband with unreserved passion and Having premarital sex was the most horrifying experience of my abandonment. Why? Because she had life. It wasn’t at all the emotionally saved herself for this day and this man. satisfying experience the world She was no casualty of sexual promiscu- deceived me into believing. I felt as if my insides were being exposed ity. She did not have the wounds of a and my heart left unattended. I young 21 year old who said with pain and know God has forgiven me of this sadness in her voice, “I have had 17 part- haunting sin, but I also know I can never have my virginity back. I ners—too many, I think.”9 Purity and dread the day that I have to tell the pleasure go hand in hand when it comes man I truly love and wish to marry to sex. Be specific in your availability. It is that he is not the only one—though I wish he were. I have stained my worth the wait. life—a stain that will never come out. Monica Let It Be a Place of Sexual Affection (4:16–5:1) God is pleased and we are protected when What do happy couples say about sex? we keep ourselves pure. Reader’s Digest ran an article that answers that question with the caption, “With a God Is Pleased When We Give Each dash of surprise, a pinch of romance and Other Pleasure (4:13-15) a word or two at the right moment, love Solomon extends the imagery of the can be kept simmering even in the long- garden in verses 13–14, describing his est marriage.” Adapting their list slightly bride as an exotic array of fruits, flowers, and adding a couple of other suggestions, plants, trees, and spices. She was unique I think at least 12 things can be said. and valuable, rare and desirable. She was 99 What Happy Couples “Say” About Sex spiritual union nurtured by careful com- 1. They make sex a priority; it is munication. We cannot be certain of all important to them. 2. They make time for sex. that is meant by the imagery of coming to 3. They stay emotionally intimate. the garden and tasting the choice fruits. It 4. They know how to touch and is not difficult to imagine all sorts of good what works. 5. They keep romance alive by meet- things! ing each other’s needs. 6. They keep their sexual anticipa- Encourage Your Mate after Making tion alive. 7. They know how to play and fore- Love (5:1) play (both in and out of bed). The marriage has been consummated. 8. They know how to talk to each The couple has made love. They were not other. 9. They remain lovers and friends. disappointed. They had planned for it, 10. They maintain a sense of humor saved themselves for it, studied up on it, and know how to laugh. 11. They want to please the other. and talked about it. All of their time and 12. They cherish each other as a effort had been rewarded. 10 sacred and precious gift of God. It is beautiful to note that Shulamite invites Solomon to come to “his” garden Shulamite and Solomon certainly in 4:16. Now in 5:1 he calls her “my” gar- intended to fall in the “happy couple” cat- den. In fact, 9 times in this one verse he egory when it came to their sex lives. For uses the word “my.” Note it is used in this the first time in our passage Shulamite manner after, not before, their lovemak- speaks, and her words would have got- ing. In tender words he calls Shulamite ten her husband’s attention immediately. his garden, his sister, and his bride. Com- ing in to her was indeed a garden delight. Encourage Your Mate to Make Love She smelled good, tasted good, and felt with You (4:16) good; and he told her so. Their lovemak- In beautiful and enticing poetry ing had been good. It had been wonder- Shulamite invites Solomon to make love ful. She invited him to come to her and he to her. She who has said twice not to did. He no doubt hoped for many more awaken love until the right time (cf. 2:7; times together just like this, and so he 3:5) now says, “the time is right. I am romantically and tenderly expressed the yours. Come and take me.” North winds pleasure she had given him. are strong and south winds more gentle. In lovemaking Shulamite wants and In a study by Susan Sprecher, Ph.D., needs both. She has been listening to a professor of sociology at Illinois State University, sexual satisfaction every word spoken by her husband, and was greater in relationships in which she too picks up on the imagery of the partners initiated equally or in garden. She is that garden and her beloved which women sometimes initiated sex. Why then, do so many couples is welcome to come in and enjoy. She fall in the pattern of the man being invites him, she guides him, she tells him the only one to suggest having sex? what she is feeling and what she wants. Sprecher and other sex researchers speculate that society’s norms sug- Great sex is the result of good communication. gest that men should pursue and All the parts fit when a man and woman women should be pursued. The come together, but sex is more than mere result may be that women tend to be less comfortable initiating sex. Or mechanical union. It is a personal and 100 it may be that women tend to use subtle, indirect cues—which may not be consciously noticed—to ini- Sex in Marriage Enjoys tiate sexual activity, while men use Divine Approval more direct verbal requests and “Eat, O friends, and drink; drink your other measures. Women who initiate sex frequently are often very sexu- fill” (or “deeply”). The love they share and ally satisfied to begin with, Sprecher the gift of sex was given by God. believes, and this enables them to be more at ease about expressing their He lifts His voice and gives hearty sexual desires. A woman who ini- approval to the entire night. He vig- tiates sex also often stimulates her partner’s sex drive and his desire for orously endorses and affirms the love of this couple. He takes plea- her, which helps drive this entire sure in what has taken place. He is pattern. Several studies have found that many men like it when their glad they have drunk deeply of the fountain of love. Two of His own female partner initiates sex. Matt have experienced love in all the Sess, 39, of New York City, says that he has always been the primary ini- beauty and fervor and purity that He intended for them. In fact, He tiator in his relationship with Laura, urges them on to more.… That is his his wife of eight years. “But when she initiates sex, it’s definitely a turn- attitude toward the giving of their love to each other. And by the way, on,” he says. “It doesn’t happen a lot, that’s also His attitude toward but when it does, it’s a pleasant sur- 12 prise.”11 couples today.

Yes, God is there and he is pleased with No doubt Solomon found Shulamite to be what he sees. “He sees the passion. He something of a “turn on,” and he let her hears the sighs of delight. He watches the know it. He was a wise man indeed. lovers as they caress one another in the Let It Be a Place of Spiritual most intimate places. He is witness to the Approval (4:16–5:1) fleshly, earthly sights, sounds, and smells…. God desires for us to rejoice in The last part of verse 1 has created quite our sensuousness, to give in to it.”13 a bit of interpretive discussion. Exactly who is it who encourages this man and woman in their lovemaking? Some believe Spouses in Marriage Enjoy that it is the friends of the couple. How- Divine Affection Two terms of tender affection flow from ever, the intimate knowledge of this the mouth of God as he looks upon the speaker of all that has transpired in their couple enjoying his good gift of sex as he bedroom would rule this out. Others intended. First, he calls them “friends.” believe it to be the voice of the wind again, Second, he calls them “beloved ones” personified from 4:16. Clearly it cannot be (NKJV). God loves them and he loves either Solomon or Shulamite for they are what he sees. How foreign this is to so the ones being addressed. many persons’ thinking when they try to Though his name never appears imagine what the Creator thinks about directly in the entire Song of Solomon, I sex. He loves us and he likes it when we believe the one who speaks here is God. are engaged in the passion of lovemaking He is the unseen but present guest in their within the covenant of marriage. It can bedroom. He has observed all that has truly be revolutionary and transforming happened this night, and He tells us what when we accurately and correctly get the He thinks about it all. 101 Creator’s perspective. We can become like (Nashville: Nelson, 1998) 89. a woman named Beth who said, 44Carin Rubenstein, “The Modern Art of Courtly Love,” Psychology Today, July Loving my husband can become an 1983, 49. act of worship to God. As my hus- 55 band and I lie together, satiated in John G. Snaith, Song of Solomon (New the afterglow of sexual ecstasy, the Century Bible; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans most natural thing in the world is /London: Marshall Pickering, 1993) 61. for me to offer thanksgiving to my 56 God for the beauty, the glory of our Duane Garrett, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes and sexual joy. I don’t even think about Song of Solomon (New American Com- what I am doing; my heart just turns mentary; Nashville: Broadman and to the Lord and offers praise. Truly His gift of sex is a wondrous thing.14 Holman, 1993) 405. 57U.S. News & World Report, 4 August 1997, Conclusion 62. God intended marriage to be enjoyed 58Cited in Paige Patterson, Song of Solomon not endured. He designed it to be a bless- (Chicago: Moody, 1986) 73. ing not a curse. God’s plan is that we 59Patricia Dalton, “Daughters of the Revo- would find unending joy and pleasure lution,” Washington Post, 21 May 2000. with our mate both in and out of the bed- 10“What Happy Couples say About Sex,” room. A healthy relationship in one area Reader’s Digest, February 1989, 13–16. is usually essential to a healthy relation- 11Julie Walsh, “Who’s Lighting the Fire?” ship in the other. With a marriage and a (WebMD Medical News, 16 March 2000). bedroom dedicated to the Lordship of 12S. Craig Glickman, A Song for Lovers Jesus, we can discover an earthly love that (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, is so much more than we would have ever 1976) 25. imagined. This is one of the good gifts our 13Linda Dillow & Lorraine Pintus, Intimate great Creator gives to His children. May Issues (Colorado Springs: Waterbrook, we find in it all that He planned from the 1999) 17. very beginning. 14Ibid., 19.

ENDNOTES 11Evangelicals have sometimes been hesi- tant in talking about issues of sex and intimacy in the Church. To a certain extent this is understandable, but at the same time it should be noted that the Bible addresses such topics in appropriate and tasteful language. The Song of Solomon in particular addresses these issues and we can greatly benefit from the godly counsel it contains. 22Peggy Fletcher Stack, “What They Didn’t Teach You About Sex in Sunday School,” Religious News Service, 13 October 2000. 33Tommy Nelson, The Book of Romance 102 103 The SBJT Fo r u m : Issues Relating to the Family

Editor’s note: Readers should be aware of the forum’s format. D. A. Carson, C. Ben Mitchell, Bruce A. Ware and Russell D. Moore have been asked specific questions to which they have provided written responses. These writers are not responding to one another. The journal’s goal for the Forum is to provide significant thinkers’ views on topics of interest without requiring lengthy articles from these heavily-committed individuals. Their answers are presented in an order that hopefully makes the forum read as much like a unified presentation as possible.

SBJT: To handle certain categories of body to be excommunicated (as in the divorce and remarriage cases within the terrible situation described in 1 Corin- congregation, some churches have estab- thians 5). lished a kind of “ecclesiastical court.” How does this apply to the matter of What biblical warrant, if any, exists for divorce and remarriage? It applies in at this practice? least two ways. Most Christians hold that D. A. Carson: For some people, the divorce, although always a sign of mari- expression “ecclesiastical court” may be tal failure and therefore something that a little off-putting. It may conjure up God hates in principle, is concessively images of the Inquisition, or at very least permitted under certain circumstances of a room full of black-robed, foul-tem- that (they believe) the Bible spells out. A pered, rule-driven hypocrites, untouched slightly smaller number of Christians, but by the mellowing influence of human probably a majority, also hold that remar- compassion. riage under those circumstances is also Rightly understood, however, the permitted. Inevitably, difficult judgments notion of an ecclesiastical court may be arise as to whether or not a particular case rather helpful. In some parts of the En- falls within the defined bounds. Who glish-speaking world, a “court” is any makes this decision? Should it not be the group that gives a considered judgment spiritual leadership of the church, i.e., D. A. Carson is Research Professor on some matter within their purview. In those primarily charged with teaching of New Testament at Trinity Evangelical such contexts, Christians sometimes speak and upholding the Scriptures—those very Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois. He of the “Deacons’ Court” or the “Elders’ Scriptures from which our understanding is the author of numerous commentar- Court.” All they mean by the latter, for of these matters derives? And hence, we ies and monographs, and is one of this instance, is that the group of elders appeal to the elders’ court (or, more country’s foremost New Testament (pastors) in some church or other gives generically, the “ecclesiastical court”—an scholars. Among his books are Divine rulings on matters within the sphere of expression that focuses less on the body Sovereignty and Human Responsibility their responsibility. For instance, a church that makes the decision, as in “elders’ (John Knox Press, 1981; reprint, Baker, that practices church discipline must have court,” and more on the body for whom 1994) and The Gagging of God: Chris- some mechanism by which a decision is the decision is made). tianity Confronts Pluralism (Zondervan, made as to whether or not some brother In some ways, however, this is a fairly 1996). or sister should be taken before the entire straightforward instance. When some 104 people speak of an ecclesiastical court tical courts?” It is a fair question—and with reference to divorce and remarriage, here are some answers. they are thinking of a more complex prob- (1) Part of the complexity of the situa- lem. This problem is most easily seen tion derives from the thorny history of with an example. Suppose A and B, both marriage in the Western world. In medi- Christians, are married. Suppose A eval times, not only did the Roman Catho- divorces B on biblically illegitimate lic Church understand marriage to be a grounds, and that neither has had an sacrament, but because of that fact mar- affair. The state grants the divorce (on the riage could be performed only by the grounds of, say, “mutual incompatibil- priest. Protestants dropped the language ity”), but because the church does not of sacrament with respect to marriage, but recognize these grounds, it does not long protected the prerogatives of minis- sanction the remarriage of either A or B. ters of the gospel to officiate at weddings. Suppose further that a few years later A, Eventually justices of the peace or other having abandoned the faith, marries C. non-ecclesiastical state-recognized offi- From the Bible’s perspective, the church cials were granted the right to officiate at argues, A by marrying C has committed weddings, not least to accommodate the adultery: A has broken the one-flesh union non-religious among us. All sides recog- with B. Consequently, B is now free to nize that these weddings are every bit re-marry. But the only divorce that B has as valid as a wedding celebrated at First undergone has been the state divorce, on Baptist Church. biblically illegitimate grounds. If one of In fact, I would argue that marriage is the pastors of the church officiates at the a creation ordinance, not a church ordi- (re)marriage of B to D, some eyebrows will nance. I’m not sure that ministers of the be lifted. It is far better for the “ecclesias- gospel should be involved in the legal tical court” to issue a formal decision matters of weddings at all. I rather like stating that the situation has changed the practices that have developed in since the state divorce, and as a result B France (though I admit that they devel- now has biblically legitimate reasons to oped for all the wrong reasons). There, divorce A, and permission to re-marry, every marriage must be officiated by a should he or she wish to do so. (Of course, state functionary. Christians will then there may be personal or other reasons have a further service/ceremony/celebra- why B should not re-marry; I am not tion, invoking the blessing of God and here entering into discussion of the restating vows before a larger circle of complexities of godly counsel, but merely family and friends, brothers and sisters in the broader terrain of what is biblically Christ. Similarly, Christians seeking to be conceded.) married may well undergo pre-marital Someone might well protest at this counseling offered by the church. But the juncture, “But isn’t this a lot of legal wran- legal act of the wedding is performed gling, and a long way removed from the exclusively by the state. That is one way gospel? Doesn’t this sound like hair-split- of making clear that marriage is not a ting pomposity? What conceivable justi- distinctively Christian ordinance (though fication, biblical or theological or even it has special significance for Christians, practical, can you offer for such ecclesias- including typological significance calling 105 to mind the union of Christ and the attention to Christian obligations for hus- church); it is for a man/woman pair bands and wives, reminding all present everywhere, converted or not, Christian of the wonderful typological connection or not—truly a creation ordinance. between Christ and the church, and so Ideally, of course, the state should forth. In France, all of these Christian adopt the same standards for marriage duties are separated from the legal mar- and divorce as those demanded by Scrip- riage vows themselves; here, they are ture. But where that is not so—whether integrated (in church weddings) precisely by sanctioning marriages after prohibited because the minister is serving both as a divorces, or by sanctioning marriages minister of the gospel and as a minister of between persons of the same sex, or what- the state. ever—Christians will be the first to insist It is this intertwining of church-based that because we take our cues and man- and state-based obligations that makes dates from Scripture, our own standards some of these matters of divorce and for what will pass for an acceptable mar- remarriage so difficult. One of the pur- riage will not necessarily be those of the poses of the ecclesiastical court is to sort state. So our own members will observe out the hard cases. the biblical standards, regardless of what (2) In particular, the ecclesiastical court the state permits. The tensions we feel on makes it clear that the church is not sim- these occasions arise from one of the most ply adopting the divorce/remarriage obvious truths in the New Testament: we standards of the surrounding culture. It live in the period of inaugurated gives biblical reasons for its decisions. On eschatology, in the period between the the long haul, the trail of its decisions will “already” and the “not yet.” As a result protect the leadership of the church. For we have two citizenships. We owe alle- instance, if in the example given above a giance to “Caesar,” to our country in this pastor decided to officiate at the world, and we owe allegiance to the king- (re)marriage of B, this time to D, on the dom of God. But where the two alle- grounds that B is now free to re-marry giances conflict, we must obey God rather since A has committed adultery by mar- than human beings. In this light, and rying C, but that pastor does not first make remembering the history of marriage in it very clear that he would not officiate at the Western world, ministers of the gos- the re-marriage of any and every believer pel who perform marriages (as I do) bet- who has been divorced for “mutual ter remember that when they do so, they incompatibility,” sooner or later he will be are not performing a sacrament, or mak- charged with a double standard. Perhaps ing a marriage union more holy; they are the daughter of his head deacon has been functioning as officials of the state, divorced for mutual incompatibility, licensed by them. They are discharging without adultery on either side, and their duties as citizens of an earthly king- now wants to re-marry—and the pastor dom. Then, in the larger service in which declines. Expect a nasty fight, unless the the wedding is performed, they may also church leadership has made it clear why be discharging their duties as Christian there is an exception in the case of the ministers—assigning to marriage a much marriage of B to D, and no exception per- higher value than the state does, drawing tains in the case of the deacon’s daughter. 106 This is most easily done with a “ruling” Henry reminds us that the American or a “decision” that people understand. democratic experiment is just that: an (3) Similarly, the process of working experiment. It is a fragile institution. through these cases, in the light of Scrip- The American democratic experiment ture, not only spreads responsibility began with a set of ideals that were shared among the elders/pastors, but becomes by those who framed our republic. Those the occasion of training for a new genera- ideals provided the cohesion for a govern- tion of young pastors. The church “lead- ment that was sui generis in the world. ers” who say, “Pastor, just tell us what to Those ideals are summed up in the Latin do,” and the pastor who goes along with expression, E Pluribus Unum, found on them, are in a foggy conspiracy to keep our one-dollar bill. “Out of many, One” these so-called “leaders” as ignorant as expresses well the hope of our founders possible. It is precisely in the outworking that the American experiment would of hard cases of many kinds that leader- result in a “nation” that would represent ship is trained, and an entire church is a “more perfect union.” helped to think about ethical and other As Jean Bethke Elshtain puts it: “The matters in a deeply biblical way. Far from great challenge for the Founders was to being a nasty revival of the spirit of the form a political body that brought people Inquisition, a properly run ecclesiastical together and created a ‘we,’ but also court is nothing other than the training of enabled people to remain separate and to new elders/pastors within the matrix of recognize and respect one another’s hard cases, and a means of informing the differences. Modern democrats face the entire church what biblical texts and prin- same challenge.”2 ciples are driving the leadership to its joint Each year since the nation’s founding, conclusions. the president of the United States has given a “state of the union” address, SBJT: What is the relationship between acknowledging at least the unconscious the family unit and the preservation of belief that these United States form a democracy? “union.” And I would suggest that both C. Ben Mitchell: Strong families can exist our founders and their progeny under- under any kind of government, whether stood this union to be more than a joining totalitarian or free. The family flourished together of parcels of land. That is to say, under Caesar as much as under other the “union” involves more than a uniting C. Ben Mitchell is associate profes- forms of government. The God-ordained of the smaller states into the larger nation. sor of bioethics and contemporary cul- institution of the family is extraordinar- This union represents a set of ideals, a set ture at Trinity International University and ily resilient. Democracy, however, can of core beliefs, a moral center of gravity. Trinity Evangelical Divinity School. He exist only where the institution of the fam- Without family, democracy is impos- serves as a consultant on biomedical ily is robustly protected and cultivated. sible. Why? Because family and democ- and life issues for The Southern Baptist One of Carl F. H. Henry’s most recent racy when properly conceived share a Convention’s Ethics and Religious Lib- but lesser known treatises is the slim but similar set of ideals. It is in the context of erty Commission and is a senior fellow rich volume, Has Democracy Had Its Day?1 family, for instance, that one first learns with The Center for Bioethics and Hu- The volume is an expansion of a lecture of the bonds of mutual obligation. Family man Dignity in Bannockburn, Illinois. Dr. he gave at the Acton Institute in Grand is the institution ordained by God that Mitchell is editor of Ethics & Medicine: Rapids in November 1995. In his essay Dr. begins with a covenantal relationship An International Journal of Bioethics. 107 between a husband and wife. In the words required for the common good. Individual of Genesis, “. . . a man shall leave his family members sometimes sacrifice their father and his mother and hold fast to his own good for the common good of the wife, and they shall become one flesh” family. Parents often do this (or should), (Gen 2:24 ESV). This cleaving and leav- but even children can learn that the whole ing relationship requires mutual respect, is greater than the sum of its parts and that shared obligation, and reciprocal love. they themselves should be willing to give Parents are to model for their children the up their personal wishes or comforts at covenantal obligations entailed in the times for the good of the family. Here, the context of family. Children are to learn similarity with the democratic ideal is from their earliest days that the family is striking. In democracy, individual wishes a place where respect, obligation, and love sometimes must give way to the common are found. good. For instance, even though the This is not to say, however, that fami- majority may desire a particular state of lies are democratic institutions. In fact, affairs (e.g., slavery), democracy exists to families require clear lines of authority. protect the minority from the tyranny of Biblical family life begins with the confes- the majority. The “common good” takes sion that Christ is Lord and that God’s will precedence over individual desires. The is normative for all members of the fam- common good requires that we treat ily. Submission to authority is required of all members of society with respect, not each individual and of the family unit as using them as a means to our own ends, a whole. Similarly, democracy requires but as imagers of God. Only in a context submission to appropriate authority. of mutual respect, mutual obligation, Without appropriate structures of author- submission to appropriate authority, and ity, government becomes anarchy. Author- self-sacrifice for the common good can ity can also be found in totalitarian democracy thrive. It is within the family regimes. Yet under totalitarianism submis- that one first learns to cherish these sion is not voluntary. ideals. Without these ideals democracy is Necessary both to the fulfillment of not possible. mutual obligation and to submission to All of this is to argue that attention to appropriate authority is the notion of the ideal of the biblical family is not self-restraint. One must voluntarily con- merely self-serving. That is, protection trol one’s passions, desires, and other and cultivation of the family is not only emotions if one is to act in ways that are about my personal happiness. Sadly, most morally responsible in both a family and of today’s emphasis on family seems to in a democracy. Without self-restraint, appeal more to self-interest than to inter- self-government is not possible. Without est for others. In fact, attending to biblical self-government, democracy is not pos- family structures and ideals contributes sible. Without strong families and the to the common good, even to the lives of skills they teach and the obligations they those who repudiate the biblical family. entail, therefore, vigorous democracy is Without the existence of the biblical fam- not possible. ily, without the skills learned in the con- Finally, it is in the context of family that text of family, and without the ideals that one learns that sometimes self-sacrifice is inform the institution of family, American 108 democracy cannot long survive. expression of a fundamental spiritual rebellion and insubordination. Egali- ENDNOTES tarianism’s ideal of mutual submission in 11Carl F. H. Henry, Has Democracy Had Its marriage pictures, not the church’s right- Day? (Nashville: ERLC, 1996). ful submission to Christ’s Lordship, but 22Jean Bethke Elshtain, Democracy on Trial her insistence on possessing and exercis- (New York: BasicBooks, 1995) 66. ing supposed equal authority with Christ in their mutually submissive relationship. SBJT: Can questions of proper roles for Here, marriage becomes a picture of trea- men and women in ministry be sepa- son. Whether intended or not, a marriage rated from the question of the roles of modeled after “mutual submission” sub- husbands and wives in the home? verts and distorts the true Reality of Bruce A. Ware: The short answer to this Christ’s authority and the church’s sub- question is, no. Both arenas—the believ- mission of which marriage is the God- ing community and the home—are designed shadow. spheres in which a structure of authority Paul is not alone in seeing marriage’s and submission is inherent, and in which inherent authority and submission struc- men and women alike are called to ture. Peter’s extolling of Sarah “obeying” understand and embrace God’s good and Abraham and calling him “lord” shows wise design of male headship. What is not just how serious Scripture is about this always appreciated is that both of these analogy (1 Pet 3:1-6). Submission and obe- arenas exhibit something of the relation- dience to Christ need to mark the ship of Christ with his bride, the church: Church’s disposition toward her Master, both are spiritual communities reflective and so wives’ embracing (not throwing of a much greater and more glorious spiri- off) submission to their husbands reflects tual Reality. this spiritual relationship. In like manner, Ephesians 5:22-33 (esp. vv. 31-32) Christ’s unsurpassed and unsurpassable makes clear that marriage has been from love for the church must be mirrored by the very beginning a human and finite husbands’ genuine and deep loving care expression and reflection of a glorious for their wives (Eph 5:25-27; 1 Pet 3:7). spiritual Reality. As the wife submits to Where mutual submission is embraced, her husband, and as the husband loves his instead, the reflection intended by this Bruce A. Ware is Senior Associate wife tenderly and sacrificially, both exhibit spiritual Reality is mocked and defiled. Dean and Professor of Christian Theol- the spiritual dynamics and qualities that The church, too, is an arena in which ogy at The Southern Baptist Theologi- are characteristic of Christ’s relationship Christ’s Lordship is to be mirrored. cal Seminary. Before coming to South- with the church. Christ lovingly leads, and Christ’s choosing of 12 male apostles can- ern, Dr. Ware served as a professor at the church respectfully submits, and mar- not have been accidental, nor can it be Bethel Theological Seminary, Western riage is the shadow of this greater and accounted for by appeal to cultural expec- Conservative Baptist Seminary, and Trin- everlasting Reality. Given this parallel tations or limitations. How can one say of ity Evangelical Divinity School. Besides between human marriage and the Christ- the Christ who called the Pharisees “white scholarly articles, he has authored God’s church relationship, the notion of “mutual washed tombs” and who drove money Lesser Glory (Crossway) and co-edited submission” in the home, as understood changers out of the temple, the Christ who Still Sovereign: Contemporary Perspec- and advocated within egalitarianism, is traveled through Samaria and touched tives on Election, Foreknowledge, and unavoidably (even if unwittingly) an lepers and spoke with prostitutes and ate Grace (Baker). 109 with tax collectors and sinners—how can to teach or exercise authority over men— one say of this Christ that he conformed the two roles distinctive of elders in the to social expectations in choosing only church (1 Tim 2:11-3:7). So, from Christ, male disciples. I’m sorry, but this view is through his chosen disciples become only acceptable to those who have already apostles, to the elders who teach and lead made their minds up that the supposed in churches, male authority is part and true Christ came to liberate women from parcel of the church’s own expression of their positions under a false and sinful the nature of Christ’s leadership over the male headship. While it is true enough church. As church memberships submit that Christ came to liberate women from to the teaching and oversight of their God- all the sinful elements that touched their ordained male leadership, they picture lives, as he likewise did for men, what this our relationship to Christ and honor the liberation looks like is not at all what authority he has over our lives. As Peter egalitarians envision. Yes, Mary is com- instructs, elders function as shepherds mended for learning at his feet while over their flocks, and as such they mirror Martha accepted the lesser value of the greater Reality of Jesus the Chief Shep- attending to pressing duties at home; yes, herd, of which human eldership is the women traveled with Jesus and partici- shadow (1 Pet 5:1-4). pated in the support of his ministry; yes, So, can one rightly separate the ques- women were the first witnesses of his tions of gender roles in the believing resurrection as they told doubtful male community and in the marriage relation- disciples this good news. But none of this ship? If we take seriously the shadow- constitutes the abandoning of male Reality pictures involved in both arenas, headship, as exhibited in Jesus’ own min- we realize that great violence is done to istry, and in his commands for the church our understanding of Christ’s relationship that would grow out of his life, death, and to the church if in either sphere male- resurrection. And why was male headship headship is abandoned. Like it or not, retained? It is clear that just as marriage egalitarian marriages, and female pastors has an inherently spiritual dimension, so or elders, picture a church hostile to the too does the church exhibit a fundamen- rightful Lordship of Christ over her. May tal spiritual Reality. Christ (who is male God grant us longings to embrace, not and could not have been female as our resist, that Lordship, and may this be Messiah) is our Teacher and Leader, and made manifest by embracing, not resist- he embodies the principle of male- ing, the human shadows of that Reality. headship in this role. So too, the disciples May our marriages and believing com- of Christ (all male) are charged with tak- munities be finite and human portraits ing his teaching and instructing others displaying the glorious spiritual Reality after his ascension (John 14-16). Moreover, of Christ’s lordship over his submissive the responsibility of the on-going trans- people through responsible and loving mission of apostolic teaching for the male leadership. church continues to be tied to male- headship as elders (always and only male) SBJT: What are the theological implica- are charged with spiritual oversight and tions of the current debate over homo- instructions, while women are forbidden sexuality in the Cooperative Baptist 110 Fellowship (CBF)? versial issues such as homosexuality. In Russell D. Moore: The voices of sexual opposing the pro-homosexual “funda- liberation on the Baptist left are speaking mentalists of the left,” leaders such as with southern accents, and that is perhaps former CBF coordinator Cecil Sherman the only difference between the homo- are using the same arguments against a sexuality debate within the CBF and those pro-gay CBF that they used against a pro- within the other mainline Protestant biblical inerrancy SBC—namely, money. denominations. The CBF General Assem- Baptist social activist groups “can take on bly meeting in Atlanta in 2001 narrowly any issue they want; they don’t have to averted what its leadership warned go to Baptist churches and meet a mission- would be a meltdown on the issue, when ary payroll,” Sherman argued to a CBF the group failed by a surprisingly close historical society. “CBF has to stay close 701-502 margin to rescind the group’s to ordinary Baptist churches, because policy against employing openly homo- ordinary Baptists give the money that sexual missionaries and staff members. sustains missionaries.” This controversy erupted at the same time This is precisely the tactic used by that longer running sexuality debates con- Sherman and the “Gatlinburg Gang” of tinued in other liberal church bodies such SBC moderates against the “conservative as the United Methodist Church and the resurgence” of the 1970s and 1980s. The Presbyterian Church (USA). denomination should avoid issues such as For the CBF, however, the stakes are biblical inerrancy, they asserted, so that much higher than for the rest of old-line Baptists could unite behind the Coopera- Protestantism since the CBF seeks to reach tive Program and the Foreign Mission out to what it considers to be disaffected Board’s “Bold Missions Thrust” program. “mainstream” Baptists for support. As Conservatives rightly discerned, however, such, CBF leaders at first tried to dismiss that mission cooperation could not hold pro-homosexual activists in their midst as the denomination together when, among a tiny “lunatic fringe,” unrepresentative other problems, SBC seminary professors of the group as a whole. This representa- were teaching an entire generation of min- tion fell apart when the “lunatic fringe” isters that explicit faith in Christ is not had enough votes to plunge the entire necessary for salvation. The “moderate” General Assembly into a protracted con- movement is now experiencing what SBC troversy, prompting CBF Coordinator conservatives warned them of years ago. Russell D. Moore teaches Christian Daniel Vestal to plead with the gathering A group cannot hold together long-term theology at The Southern Baptist Theo- not to splinter apart over homosexuality. when its only consensus is on what it does logical Seminary where he also serves The homosexuality issue, however, is part not believe—namely, that Scripture is as executive director of the Carl F. H. of a larger problem of organizational truth without any mixture of error. Henry Institute for Evangelical Engage- identity and theological confusion on the The homosexuality controversy, how- ment. He is a frequent speaker and com- Baptist left. ever, is about more than organizational mentator on the theological issues fac- The crisis of organizational identity is identity. It is at its root exactly what the ing this generation of Southern Baptists. largely a generational conflict within the biblical inerrancy controversy was in the His first book, Why I Am a Baptist, movement. The older generation, led SBC—a theological contest of visions. co-edited with Tom J. Nettles was pub- mostly by retired denominational bureau- Baptist liberalism has been scattering the lished by Broadman and Holman in crats, desperately wants to avoid contro- seeds of this chaos for over a generation. 2001. 111 At the height of the inerrancy controversy, biblical inerrancy? What is the younger then-Southwestern Seminary president generation to make of the fact that Jesus Russell Dilday commended the concept never spoke of homosexuality, leaving the of “soul competency” as “autonomous only NT texts against gay sex authored by individualism.” CBF leaders such as Paul, a biblical figure, they have been Carolyn Weatherford Crumpler have taught, whose writings were often condi- castigated the SBC’s 2000 confessional tioned by a misogynistic, pre-modern statement because it affirms biblical culture? Why, they ask, do CBF leaders authority—an idea they say is in conflict who cheer when the Baptist Women in with the authority of Jesus. A leader in the Ministry group announces that we should moderate-led Baptist General Convention listen to “God, not Paul” on gender issues of Texas denounced the Baptist Faith and not cheer when homosexual activists Message assertion that women should argue the same thing? If “there is neither “graciously submit” to the “servant male nor female” (Gal 3:28) is the end of leadership” of their husband as a “Nean- any discussion on gender roles in the derthal” statement, even though the church and home, then why should it not wording was taken directly from be the end of a discussion on gay mar- Ephesians 5. CBF leaders have applauded riage? If one’s “calling by Jesus” as a Baptist feminists who argue that Paul was woman to the pastorate cannot be ques- in disagreement with Jesus over the questioned, then how can one’s “calling by tion of female pastors. Jesus” as a lesbian to the mission field be In fact, the CBF response to gender questioned? These are very good ques- issues is very instructive of where it will tions indeed—questions that increasingly go on the question of homosexuality. The are revealing that the opposition to homo- Baptist left has not sought to marshal bib- sexuality by the powers-that-be on the lical and theological arguments for Baptist left are informed more by a women in the pulpit. Instead, they have residual revulsion toward homosexuality featured a litany of testimonies of women than by a coherent theological under- who argue that their calling is “between standing of revealed truth. Jesus and me,” so no one can question it. Conservative political theorist Russell When Pauline texts are raised, the CBF Kirk once noted that it is not the liberal leaders have pointed instead to the fact we should fear, since he is living off the that Jesus never spoke to the issue, and borrowed moral capital of past genera- He, after all, is the authority. This has led tions of conservatives. Rather, we should to a confused younger generation of gay fear the liberal’s grandchildren. It is they and gay-friendly Baptist activists who see who have forgotten the traditions of the themselves as applying consistently the past, and who consistently apply the theo- principles they learned from the older ries they have been taught. The CBF generation. leadership should be very worried by How can the older generation awk- the wave of gray hair they saw stand to wardly point to biblical authority against oppose the pro-homosexual position. homosexuality when the very first point After all, the liberal social activists in the addressed in the CBF’s founding CBF are not “fundamentalists of the left” “Address to the Public” was a denial of or the “lunatic fringe.” They are just the 112 “grandchildren.” They have been listening, and learning, and they are not going away. In fact, they will soon be in charge. The SBC’s resurgent conservatives should see the CBF homosexuality controversy as a warning. As our collective memory of the inerrancy controversy dims, there will be increasing suggestions that we soften our now robust confes- sionalism. There will be calls for less emphasis on theological unity, and more emphasis on programmatic unity. There will be the inclination to spend less time teaching the next generation about the issues for which we fought so hard—the total authority of Scripture, the urgency of evangelism, and the exclusivity of salvation found only in Christ. We should resist these temptations—and continually reinforce to the coming generations of Southern Baptists the faith once for all delivered to the saints. After all, we have “grandchildren” too.

113 Book Reviews

Speaking with Bold Assurance. By Bert sider it as well. preparation roads following different Decker and Hershael W. York. Nash- There are a couple of things that I preparation maps as they compose ville: Broadman & Holman, 2001, 184 believe our authors could have done their messages. pp., $14.99, paper. that would have improved the book. This book is a practical and proven The alternating of “he” and “she” method in how to improve as a pub- In this book the authors attempt to pronouns throughout was distracting lic speaker. Those who follow its prin- provide skills and strategies that will and unnecessary. There is no foot- ciples will gain a greater confidence enable the Christian more effectively noting, neither is there a bibliogra- when they stand up to speak, and to communicate the truth of God. phy. It would be helpful to know the they will deliver their message with They are quite successful in carrying source of their ideas, and who the a greater clarity and effectiveness. In out their assignment. others are in the field of communica- the age in which we live the preacher The book is a quick and crisp tion theory and what they are saying. and teacher of God’s word must thirty-one chapters, many consisting There is some repetition of subject remember: “What we say is more of just two-to-five pages. Each is well matter that does not really add important than how we say it, but written and informative. “The Nine anything. Finally, “The Decker Grid how we say it has never been more Behavioral Skills” (section IV, chap- System” (section V, chapters 20 – 25), important.” Decker and York will ters 11-19) of effective communica- though an interesting and potentially help all of us say it better. tion adapted from Decker’s earlier helpful device for composing a mes- work, You’ve Got to Be Believed to Be sage, suffers in my judgment at two Daniel L. Akin Heard, is worth the price of the book points. First, I believe it makes the alone. Anyone who is serious about process appear more simple than it Providence and Prayer: How Does God becoming the best Christian commu- really is, especially the time one must Work in the World? By Terrance nicator possible, building on his or invest for effective communication of Tiessen. Downers Grove: InterVarsity her unique individual personality, biblical truth. Second and more Press, 2000, 400 pp., $18.99, paper. will benefit from the insights Decker important, I am not sure it will work and York provide. Their challenge in doing biblical exposition. I was not Every few years a theological book to have “a passion for constant surprised to find that the illustrating comes out that is written with such improvement” (p. 161) is one every of the method did not show how to comprehensiveness and clarity that it preacher and teacher should heed, expound Scripture or even develop becomes a classic text in the field for and their call for constant and hon- a Christian message. It should be years to come. Providence and Prayer est feedback is an important word far noted here that Decker and York are could be just such a magisterial text. too many preachers neglect. Just currently working on another vol- Terrance Tiessen, professor of when was the last time one of your ume: Preaching with Bold Assurance. theology and ethics at Providence messages was really critiqued for Perhaps in this work they will show Theological Seminary in Manitoba, strengths and weaknesses, plusses how the “Decker Grid System” Canada, is the book’s author. He and minuses by someone who would applies to biblical exposition, or they surveys ten different theological tell you the truth; even if it hurt?! My will show us that different types of models to describe God’s providence: appreciation for this book is such that speaking require different methods of semi-deism, process theology, free- I will be using it as one of my texts in preparation, and that the “Decker will theism, church dominion theol- the class, “Ministry of Proclamation,” Grid System” and the biblical exposi- ogy, the redemptive intervention and I would encourage others to con- tor simply travel along different model, Molinist middle knowledge, 114 Thomism, Barthian neo-orthodoxy, views, and because Barthian theology From Molinism he draws the convic- Calvinist middle knowledge, Cal- has few advocates in popular piety tion that God has both simple fore- vinism, and Fatalism. The author or among conservative evangelical, knowledge and middle knowledge. describes how representatives of each mainstream, or liberal theologians. But by holding these two strange of these positions approach petition- Other twentieth century theologians bedfellows together, Tiessen intro- ary prayer and the doctrine of provi- such as Paul Tillich and Langdon duces tensions into his perspective. dence. The descriptions of each view Gilkey have more interesting things He denies the Calvinist doctrines of are written with clarity and insight to say about providence and human immutability and impassibility, opt- in a thorough and evenhanded destiny. Including a chapter on fatal- ing instead for a view of God being presentation. Tiessen concludes each ism is questionable because Tiessen responsive to his creation. At the chapter with a helpful case study himself acknowledges that no major same time, he denies human libertar- about a prayer group that is contemporary theologians advocate ian freewill, which is assumed in requested to pray for a missionary this position (p. 272). The primary most middle knowledge approaches. who has been abducted by terrorists. motivation for including the chapter Because God has middle knowledge Through the case studies Tiessen on fatalism seems to have been to of the future actions of humans with applies how advocates of each of the provide a framework to defend predictable compatibilist freedom, he theological approaches would frame Calvinism against the charge that can adjust providence to appear to the missionary abduction, how they Reformed theology reduces to fatal- be responsive to human petitions. would agree or disagree with those ism, and thus might have more logi- Tiessen affirms that we should offer representing other views of provi- cally been included in the material on petitionary prayer not because it dence, and how they would word a Calvinism. Despite these reser- changes things or causes God to prayer for the missionary. Through vations, each chapter makes for change things, but because it was the methodology of the case studies interesting reading and affords a dis- already part of God’s sovereign Tiessen compares and contrasts these tinctive approach to the doctrine of decree that we should do so. theological approaches not only in providence. The models that Tiessen Providence and Prayer compels the the abstract, but also in a real life situ- examines do provide a helpful spec- reader to think about what he or she ation. The book also has a helpful trum of approaches to these issues. believes concerning these aspects of glossary, bibliography, indexes, and The author reserves most of his the doctrine of God. Since I would chart of the various views, in addi- evaluation of other views until he identify myself within the Molinist tion to thorough documentation in reveals his own Calvinist middle middle knowledge position, I share footnotes. knowledge view. Tiessen presents his many points of agreement with Tiessen presents each view gra- view as the last perspective to be Tiessen’s Calvinist middle knowl- ciously and fairly, from the pens of examined, but theologically it actu- edge perspective. Tiessen’s affirma- its own advocates. One could quibble ally falls in the spectrum of views tion of the sovereignty of God with Tiessen’s selection of which between Thomism and Barthianism squares well with the biblical witness. models to examine in the book. on one side and Calvinism on the He correctly argues that divine fore- Church dominion theology may other side. In his own approach knowledge does not require reverse deserve to be included because of its Tiessen attempts to hold together two causation. Tiessen recognizes that influence in popular piety, but its seemingly incompatible approaches: both God’s special and general provi- paucity of scholarly advocates makes Calvinism and Molinism. From Cal- dence are an expression of God’s it rather uneven with the other chap- vinism he draws the convictions that providential care, and thus aptly does ters. The chapter on Barth seemed God is in total control of all events, not fall into the trap of defining unnecessary since there were already and that humans have only com- miracles as violations of the laws of two other chapters on Calvinistic patibilist (not libertarian) freedom. nature. God is Lord over nature, not 115 an invader of an alien world. He the proposal of Norman Geisler and dom fashion. These are the only who creates the laws of nature is not others of a robust self-determinism alternatives Tiessen allows for human bound by the laws of nature. (pp. 187-188, 246-247). As Norman agents; so why do they not apply to Having surveyed nine competing Geisler correctly points out, Tiessen’s the Divine Agent in whose image views and then proposing a novel perspective confuses efficient causal- they were created? If Tiessen can alternative, a seasoned scholar such ity with final causality. The reason acknowledge that “God is love, and as Tiessen will be cognizant that such that one acts is the efficient but not we are called upon to be loving, after an approach is to invite criticism from the final cause of an agent’s action. his image and his example” (p. 327), all sides, particularly since his per- The reason for action alone obviously why does he not recognize the paral- spective is not a majoritarian view. I cannot bring about the action. For lel in human agency? If God’s agency would raise several areas of concern example, a person’s desire to have a means that he can originate an action in Tiessen’s perspective. First, he Jaguar motor car is not sufficient to without any external forces exerted seems to be confused at points cause the purchase of the vehicle, as upon him, why would human agency between indeterminism, the perspec- desire-belief psychology might sug- not follow that same pattern? Ties- tive that events at the subatomic level gest. Ultimately, the personal agent sen’s radical bifurcation between are random and unpredictable, and must weigh the reasons and make an human agents and the divine Agent incompatibilism (or self-determinism), informed judgment, which might appears to make his proposal unten- the view that persons choose their even cut against his or her own able. own actions by an exercise of liber- desires. Tiessen also acknowledges the dis- tarian freewill. Advocates of liber- Tiessen acknowledges that tinction between primary and sec- tarian freedom would agree (not humans are created in God’s image ondary causes, but functionally he disagree) with Tiessen’s remarks (p. 327) with the “power of self- reduces all events to God’s sovereign about the danger of applying the determinacy” (p. 291). He even decree. He attempts to avoid the Heisenberg principle of indetermi- acknowledges that God is not the charge that human decisions are nacy to human behavior, since only agent, but created angelic and illusory by appeal to a compatibilist human behavior is accounted for not human beings to be self-determining account in which actions are seen as by randomness but by agent causa- agents (p. 291). He even affirms free so long as humans are not tion. Thus some of Tiessen’s argu- “double agency” in which not only coerced into doing them, but act vol- ments which he directs against God but also humans “have genuine untarily, consistent with their own libertarian freedom may actually agency” (pp. 91, 292). Unfortunately, desires (p. 365). Nonetheless, he apply to indeterminism, but have no Tiessen does not seem to grasp the repeatedly affirms that God is the force against incompatibilism. consequence of these admissions. only real cause, because human Tiessen unfortunately insists that Since he denies that humans share a “agents” act only for reasons and human action is an all-or-nothing, creaturely, finite version of God’s causes prior to themselves. He uses either-or situation. Either the person’s libertarian free agency, Tiessen is primarily Old Testament Scriptures action was determined by prior stuck on the horns of his own cre- in affirming that God causes all causes and reasons which may be ation. Either God does not have lib- things. Tiessen does not address the accurately predicted, or the person’s ertarian freewill (but instead has a issue of why the polytheistic context action was merely random or arbi- limited compatibilist freedom similar of the Old Testament made it impera- trary (pp. 313-314). The only two to humans such that He is bound to tive to emphasize God’s sovereignty options he permits are thus hard act according to His character and to and monotheistic uniqueness rather determinism or hard indeterminism. reasons outside of Himself), or God than secondary causes. While the But he simply begs the question by makes libertarian decisions without New Testament continues to affirm not providing an adequate answer to reasons in a totally arbitrary and ran- the sovereignty of God and proclaim 116 his ultimate victory, it expounds and logical fallacy of denying the anteced- does not act coercively, and he dis- enriches the Old Testament accounts ent. Fatalism is obviously more com- approves of some actions that take by distinguishing more clearly God’s prehensive than Stoicism. Tiessen place. For Tiessen, God “always acts activity as primary cause from the also seems to conflate “fatalistic” and in loving persuasion and never coer- activity of human and spiritual “fatalism.” Doctrines can be fatalis- cively” (p. 314, italics mine); “[t]he beings as secondary causes. The bet- tic if they share some common biblical record leaves us in no doubt ter hermeneutic would take seriously themes with fatalism, but not accept that people often resist God’s persua- the points at which the New Testa- all aspects of fatalism. Tiessen thus sive work and grieve him in so ment informs and completes Old has more work to do if he wants to doing” (p. 314); and humans “nor- Testament theology. relieve Calvinism of its alleged con- mally choose what they do without By affirming that God is respon- nection with fatalism. The starting external constraint” (p. 331, italics sive to his creation rather than being place for an answer must be that mine). How can these apparently a mere impassive observer, Tiessen fatalism is normally an impersonal contradictory claims be reconciled? seeks to avoid the trap that befalls series of events, whereas Christian- Tiessen can’t have it both ways— some Calvinists and has created a ity explains history as a series of either God is in control or he is not! cottage industry for freewill theists. events overseen by a Person. While According to Tiessen’s proposal, how This affirmation further strains Tiessen recognizes the value of a could God always uncoercively per- Tiessen’s consistency, however, when personalistic image of God (p. 311), suade people? Tiessen’s own defini- he also affirms that God is in control he unfortunately appears to agree tion of compatibilist freedom is that of all things. If humans do not have with the assertions of naturalistic and people are free when they act “vol- libertarian freedom, just how much postmodern anthropologists that untarily, spontaneously or willingly, adjustment would be required by humans are merely the contingent without coercion by anything outside God? If human actions are almost products of previous causal events. themselves” (p. 365). If our future mechanically predictable as Tiessen Tiessen agrees with William Pollard actions are already determined and suggests, then God’s actions would that the “I” of the person “is con- predictable by our character and be more like prescripted and prede- trolled by things and instincts, the desires, how could God change us termined plans along the lines of a product of its given heredity and without forcing such a change on us? computer chess program than as environment” (p. 247). The event Not only is Tiessen’s model of divine genuine personal responses to the causation account of human action persuasion reminiscent of process human beings. At the least, the author advocated by Tiessen is determinis- theology, but his ambiguous treat- does not give us reason to conclude tic, if not fatalistic. ment of universalism (pp. 302, 312) otherwise. In his effort to be responsive to and his rejection of divine timeless- There seems to be a logical error freewill theism, Tiessen presents an ness (pp. 321-331) reflect troubling in Tiessen’s discussion of fatalism, in unsatisfying account of divine provi- similarities with process theology which he identifies Stoicism as the dence. On the one hand, Tiessen and freewill theism. primary example of fatalism. He advocates a no-risk view of divine One intuition underlying Tiessen’s seems to think that if he can estab- providence. He claims that “God is approach seems to be that suffering lish that Calvinism is distinguishable realizing his intention at every point” people most need to believe that God from Stoicism, he can relieve it of the (p. 295), controlling “every detail” is in control. But suffering people not charge of fatalism. So the argument (p. 330), and that “God is completely only need to believe that God is in goes as follows: (a) Stoicism is a form in control at all times so that the control, but also that God cares. Ties- of fatalism; (b) Calvinism is not Sto- accomplishment of his purposes is sen’s retreat to mystery as an account icism; (c) Therefore, Calvinism is not never at risk” (p. 332). On the other for human suffering, and his decision fatalism. This argument commits the hand, Tiessen also claims that God not to deal with the problem of evil 117 in this book, offers at best incomplete the fact that he has ordained or say that God’s character and pur- answers to those who suffer. But ensured that the event will come to poses are mysterious and unknow- when he insists that “Satan and the place (p. 252). Setting aside for the able. But while we cannot know demons are never able to act contrary moment Tiessen’s rigid refusal to God’s purposes exhaustively, it is to God’s sovereign purpose” and consider agent causation as a medi- precisely the character and purposes that “[e]ven in their evil action they ating point between hard determin- of God that are revealed most clearly accomplish the will of God” (p. 311), ism and vacuous indeterminism, in Scripture, especially in the life of Tiessen creates enormous theodicy why would this all-knowing God Jesus Christ. Why be an agnostic problems for which there must be suddenly get amnesia when con- about God’s character and purpose? some accounting to offer a coherent fronted with libertarian freewill? Would we not rather place the mys- theology. Why would the existence of human tery within the transcendent, infinite, Tiessen’s approach to divine fore- libertarian freewill be a challenge to and inexhaustible omniscience of knowledge is also rather muddled. the foreknowledge and omniscience God than in the revealed character He rightly acknowledges that divine of an eternal God of infinite knowl- and purposes of God? foreknowledge does not count as a edge and wisdom? Tiessen never While this review has raised case of reverse causation, because presents a clear argument as to why numerous concerns about Tiessen’s foreknowledge is not causally con- foreknowledge of libertarianly free analysis, this should not detract from nected to the events that follow. He creatures is so far beyond God’s grasp. the immense value of this elegant agrees with the Molinist middle In the final analysis, what distin- volume. Rather, raising these issues knowledge doctrine that God can guishes various views of providence underscore the significance and value know actual events chosen by indi- is where to put mystery. Semi-deists of Tiessen’s work. Providence and viduals with libertarian freedom. try to eliminate mystery. Freewill the- Prayer raises important issues, offers But Tiessen parts company with the ists and process theologians remove a variety of perspectives, and pro- Molinist account about counter- mystery from divine foreknowledge, poses interesting answers. It is a factuals. Since he refuses to consider and place it in the future instead. A thought-provoking and interesting agent causation and insists that lib- Molinist middle knowledge advocate book that will be a standard reference ertarian freedom requires random, can affirm but not explain how an for a long time to come. I highly rec- unpredictable, arbitrary choices, omniscient God could have exhaus- ommend it for educated laypersons Tiessen asserts that “precognition of tive foreknowledge of what creatures and college or seminary students. libertarianly free actions is not pos- with libertarian freedom will do. sible even for God” (p. 331). God only How divine election and human free- Steve W. Lemke knows future human actions because will can work concurrently is bound New Orleans Baptist he knows human character and past up in the mystery of divine omni- Theological Seminary and present actions (pp. 317, 345, science. The stringent Calvinist 405-406), but Tiessen asserts that for approach removes this mystery, how- Reformed Confessions Harmonized, With God to know counterfactuals of liber- ever, by affirming that humans do an Annotated Bibliography of Reformed tarianly free persons is “incoherent” not have libertarian freedom. God Doctrinal Works. Edited by Joel R. (p. 317). To utilize the distinction sug- decrees and predestines everything, Beeke and Sinclair B. Ferguson. gested by Paul Helm, Tiessen denies and thus it would seem that there is Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999, xiii + 288 O-foreknowledge, the view that God no mystery in dealing with human pp., $19.99, paper. can know an event ahead of time freewill. But because they cannot without bringing it about, but accepts account for why a loving God would This book lays out a harmony of a variety of A-foreknowledge, in decree such extensive and gratuitous the seven confessions of faith “most which God foreknows by virtue of evil, Calvinists such as Tiessen must diligently adhered to by various 118 Reformed denominations today” (p. Banner of Truth continues its excel- which have made such a strong stand vii). The seven are: the Belgic Con- lent service of reprinting fine works for orthodoxy. Though many Presby- fession of Faith (1561), the Heidelberg of evangelical theology from the past terians today cannot seem to decide Catechism (1563), the Canons of Dort with this wonderful survey of South- what they are going to believe, most (1618-19), the Second Helvetic Con- ern Presbyterian individuals up to the of these brethren of Scottish ancestry fession (1566), the Westminster Con- beginning of the twentieth century. before 1911 did know where they fession of Faith (1646-47), and the Here one finds a constellation of fas- stood. This delightful book will help Westminster Larger and Shorter Cat- cinating accounts of American Chris- us appreciate their contributions even echisms (1647). tianity, from the early migration of more. All in all, it is a good read. The volume follows a topical for- Scottish-Ulster Presbyterians fleeing mat, organized around the various oppression in Ireland in the early Chad Owen Brand loci of theology: theology proper, an- eighteenth century, through Thorn- thropology, Christology, etc. It sim- well and Dabney, and even a chapter ply lines up the various confessions on the redoubtable Stonewall Jack- across the span of both pages in this son. Kentucky Presbyterianism workbook-sized volume so that the receives attention several times in the reader can see at a glance exactly book, especially the founding of what each of the confessions has to Transylvania University and Center say about the topics followed in College, as well as the work of James sequential ordering. The layout McGready and the formation of the makes for a quick and easy reference Cumberland Presbyterian church, an to these important documents from “independent body of Presbyterians the sixteenth and seventeenth centu- who held, for the most part, Armin- ries. Reformed Confessions also features ian doctrines” (p. 211). a short historical introduction to the The book has a few problems. The confessions which helps the reader print is a little hard to handle for the position these works in relation to the feeble of eye. The index is woefully state churches which adopted them incomplete. Publishers are almost and in reference to one another. better off not to offer an index if they This volume is a very fine and are only going to publish partial helpful introduction to the confes- listings of names and places. The sional tradition of the Reformed binding is very stiff in a cloth book— churches which grew out of the Banner of Truth used to have excel- Swiss, Dutch, and English Reforma- lent bindings, but they are declining tion heritage. Anyone interested in in quality these days. I also have a historical theology ought to get a couple of complaints about content, copy. but it is futile to gripe at an author who finished his volume ninety years Chad Owen Brand ago, so I will confine my complaints to the recent publisher. Southern Presbyterian Leaders, 1683- I always encourage students to 1911. By Henry Alexander White. learn their Baptist heritage well, but Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, once they have done that, they ought 2000, 476 pp., $26.99. to take a glance at the other traditions 119