Category Archives: Ethics

June 19, 2012

Vision for 21st Century Evangelicalism, Book Four

Gregory Boyd is the founder and senior pastor of Woodland Hills Church in St. Paul, Minnesota. He is also the founder and president of Christus Victor Ministries, currently undergoing a transformation.

ReKnew.org will be launched on June 30th.

For sixteen years Boyd taught theology at Bethel College in St. Paul. He is a graduate of the University of Minnesota, Yale Divinity School, and Princeton Theological Seminary. He has authored or coauthored over twenty books.

In 2010, Boyd was listed as one of the twenty most influential Christian scholars alive today.

In April 2004—an election year—Boyd preached a sermon series entitled The Cross and the Sword, which addressed the Christian’s call to love one’s enemies and to give exclusive allegiance to Christ and his kingdom.

As a consequence of challenging the highly politicized American evangelicalism, refusing to promote certain political agendas from the pulpit, and for preaching a radical non-violent commitment to Christ, Boyd lost about 20% of his congregation. Those who left Woodland Hills were later replaced with others who agreed with his vision.

From Boyd’s controversial sermon series came the book, The Myth of a Christian Nation: How the Quest for Political Power is Destroying the Church (Zondervan 2006). This book got Boyd a front-page New York Times profile in July 2006. He was also featured in CNN’s 2007 religious special, “God’s Warriors.” And an interview with Charlie Rose about the book.

I read the book when it was first published. It has not only been one of the most influential books in my life, a milestone in my personal thought, I believe it offers the clarity of vision evangelicalism needs right now—especially this election year.

Here are the contents of the book:

The Kingdom of the Sword
The Kingdom of the Cross
Keeping the Kingdom Holy
From Resident Aliens to Conquering Warlords
Taking America Back for God
The Myth of a Christian Nation
When Chief Sinners Become Moral Guardians
One Nation Under God?
Christians and Violence: Confronting the Tough Questions

Boyd says, “My Thesis, which caused such an uproar, is this: I believe a significant segment of American evangelicalism is guilty of nationalistic and political idolatry.” Boyd believes evangelicals have fused their faith with certain political ideologies. Something Jesus never did.

“For some evangelicals, the kingdom of God is largely about, if not centered on, “taking America back for God,” voting for the Christian candidate, outlawing abortion, outlawing gay marriage, winning the culture war, defending political freedom at home and abroad, keeping the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance, fighting for prayer in the public schools and at public events, and fighting to display the Ten Commandments in government buildings” (p.11).

Boyd dismantles the myth that America is a Christian nation, claiming that the myth “blinds us to the way in which our most basic and most cherished cultural assumptions are diametrically opposed to the kingdom way of life taught by Jesus and his disciples.”

He says that this myth “clouds our vision of God’s distinctly beautiful kingdom” and “harms the church’s primary mission” in the world. He believes that the American flag has “smothered the glory of the cross.”

Boyd contrasts the different versions of the “power over” kingdom of the world with that of the “power under” kingdom of God. “Allegiance to the kingdom of God,” Boyd says, “ is confused with allegiance to America, and lives that are called to be spent serving others are spent trying to gain power over others.”

What is the role of the government until Christ comes? How ought the Christian relate to politics and still carry out Christ’s commission? Boyd persuasively addresses these questions and much more—expositing the words of Christ and the teachings of the apostles in fresh relevant ways.

He even deals with common objections: “What about self-defense?” and “What about Christians in the military?” or “Don’t your views lead to passivity?”

Boyd writes, “Jesus’ teachings aren’t a set of pacifistic laws people are to merely obey, however unnatural and immoral they seem. Rather, his teachings are descriptions of what life in God’s domain looks like and prescriptions for how we are to cultivate this alternative form of life.”

While Jesus acknowledged political realities, he refused to invest his hopes and energies in politics as a solution to the world’s problems. In an examination of moments drawn from history and our own day, Boyd shows that whenever the church is co-opted by politics, we are seen as self-righteous jerks rather than God’s loving servants.

This needlessly turns people away from Christ.

Boyd is tirelessly working to cast a new vision, which is really an old vision, for evangelical Christians who have lost sight of the gospel. It’s time to abandon the quest for political power and begin living out the beautiful kingdom that Christ began with his life and ministry.

D.D. Flowers, 2012.

* Read the final post: Vision for 21st Century Evangelicalism, Book Five

5 Comments | tags: Christian non-violence, evangelicalism, faith and politics, gregory boyd, john howard yoder, non-violence, resident aliens, take america back for God, the cross and the sword, the myth of a christian nation, vision for 21st century evangelicalism, vision for 21st century evangelicalism book four, woodland hills church | posted in Christianity, Church, Culture, Ethics, Faith & Politics, Theology

May 4, 2012

Christ, Community, & Christian Ethics

By David D. Flowers

Christ, Community, & Christian Ethics: The Legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

Since his death, and especially in the last two decades, Dietrich Bonhoeffer (1906-1945) has stirred the hearts and minds of Christians worldwide. It is through his life and writings that he has earned a place in history as one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century. Bonhoeffer presented a stimulating challenge to a church that had colluded with the secular powers, and that had lost the will to resist evil with Christian discipleship.

Bonhoeffer is popularly remembered for his attention to Christ’s demands in the Sermon on the Mount. He provocatively discussed these demands in his book Discipleship. He wrote, “When Christ calls a man he bids him come and die.”[1] However, it is his works on Christology, ecclesiology, and theological ethics that readers have appreciated Bonhoeffer as an innovative Christian thinker.[2] Above all it was Bonhoeffer’s ingenuity amidst a crippled church and his resilience in the face of an evil political regime that has led to his enduring legacy as a Nazi resister.

It is the purpose of this paper to survey the literary and theological contributions of Bonhoeffer by: (1) briefly discussing his particular situation and context, (2) appraising his ideas born out of social, cultural, and political adversity, (3) offering praise and critique of his unique contributions to Christian faith and living. More specifically, this paper will highlight those literary works of Bonhoeffer that reveal the thinking behind his actions as a disciple of Christ. This paper will conclude with a sensitive critique of Bonhoeffer’s theological ethics.

THE WORLD OF DIETRICH BONHOEFFER

Nazi Germany and the Confessing Church

Adolf Hitler ascended to power in Germany in January of 1933. The German Christian Church eventually fell complacent, even submissive to the ideals of the Third Reich. Bonhoeffer shortly after became a founding member of a new church, a “Confessing Church” formally founded at Barmen in May of 1934. Bonhoeffer and the Confessing Church dedicated itself to remaining free of the anti-Semitism that had plagued Germany.

The Barmen Declaration, principally authored by Swiss theologian Karl Barth, plainly stated what the German church had always believed according the Scriptures. Therefore, it rejected the state’s takeover of the church, it repudiated the anti-Semitic agenda of the Nazis, and it denounced other heresies set forth by German Christians.[3]

The following excerpt directly addresses extreme nationalism:

We reject the false doctrine, as though the State, over and beyond its special commission, should and could become the single and totalitarian order of human life, thus fulfilling the Church’s vocation as well. We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church, over and beyond its special commission, should and could appropriate the characteristics, the tasks, and the dignity of the State, thus itself becoming an organ of the State. The Church’s commission, upon which its freedom is founded, consists in delivering the message of the free grace of God to all people in Christ’s stead, and therefore in ministry of his own Word and work through sermon and sacrament. We reject the false doctrine, as though the Church in human arrogance could place the Word and work of the Lord in the service of any arbitrarily chosen desires, purposes, and plans (Theological Declaration Concerning the Present Situation of the German Evangelical Church, 8.23-27).[4]

The Confessing Church received increasing pressure from the Gestapo, and Bonhoeffer soon found himself in the minority as the Evangelical Church turned away from the Gospel of Jesus, the Jewish Messiah. In August of 1937, the Confessing Church was declared illegal. The following month, the Gestapo shut down the church’s Finkenwalde seminary. Twenty-seven of Bonhoeffer’s students were arrested, others were forced to join the army. In January of the next year, the Gestapo banned Bonhoeffer from Berlin, and the Nazis began burning down churches.

Union Seminary and the Harlem Experience

Bonhoeffer first visited the United States in 1931 to study at Union Theological Seminary in New York. He developed a friendship with four Union students: Jean Lasserre (French), Erwin Sutz (Swiss), Paul Lehmann (American), and Albert Franklin “Frank” Fisher (African American).

Jean Lasserre, a devout pacifist, was a major influence on Bonhoeffer’s understanding of the Sermon on the Mount. It is true that Bonhoeffer likely read the antiwar novel All Quiet on the Western Front in seminary, but it was the viewing of the film with Lasserre that brought a lasting change in Bonhoeffer. Eric Metaxas writes:

The sadness of the violence and suffering on the screen brought Bonhoeffer and Lasserre to tears, but even worse to them was the reaction in the theater. Lassarre remembered American children in the audience laughing and cheering when Germans, from whose point of view the story was told, were killing the French. For Bonhoeffer, it was unbearable. Lassarre believed that on that afternoon Bonhoeffer became a pacifist. Lassarre spoke often about the Sermon on the Mount and how it informed his theology. From that point forward it became a central part of Bonhoeffer’s life and theology, too, which eventually led him to write his most famous book, The Cost of Discipleship.[5]

While Lasserre helped to shape Bonhoeffer’s thinking on non-violent resistance, it was Frank Fisher an African American from Alabama that would have the greatest influence on Bonhoeffer’s life and theology. Bonhoeffer was not all that impressed with many liberal churches in New York that had given up the centrality of Christ for social activism, but he was captivated by the experience of Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem.

Fisher introduced him to the African American community that sang and preached Christ with great passion and conviction. It was there at Abyssinian that Bonhoeffer heard Christ-centered preaching that fueled action for social justice on behalf of the oppressed Negro people. At the time, Bonhoeffer had never seen such bigotry and racism.

Bonhoeffer once remarked that there was no “analogous situation in Germany” that compared to the treatment of blacks by whites. “It is a bit unnerving that in a country with so inordinately many slogans about brotherhood, peace, and so on, such things still continue completely uncorrected,” said Bonhoeffer.[6] His experiences in Harlem would prepare him for what he would soon encounter in his own country with the Jews.

Bonhoeffer would return to America a second time in June of 1939 to take a teaching position at Union Theological Seminary, as he avoided the military call-up issued by Germany. But Bonhoeffer was deeply troubled as he contemplated the will of God for his life and for Germany in such a dark hour under Hitler. In a letter to Reinhold Neibuhr, he wrote:

I have had time to think and to pray about my situation and that of my nation and to have God’s will for me clarified. I have come to the conclusion that I have made a mistake in coming to America. I must live through this difficult period of our national history with the Christian people of Germany. I shall have no right to participate in the reconstruction of Christian life in Germany after the war if I do not share the trials of this time with my people.[7]

After only twenty-six days in New York, Bonhoeffer resigned and returned to Germany the following month. He committed himself to endure the hardships of his people during wartime.[8]

From Pacifist Pastor to Nazi Resister

World War II began on September 1, 1939 when Germany invaded Poland. In October of 1940, the Gestapo banned Bonhoeffer from speaking in public, and soon after was forbidden to publish his writings. Bonhoeffer had already been receiving inside information for some time from his brother-in-law, Hans von Dohnanyi, who worked with Military Intelligence, and was part of a growing resistance to Hitler.

After having been silenced by the Gestapo, Bonhoeffer would learn of new horrifying details about the Third Reich that prompted him to begin taking an active role against Hitler for the sake of Germany and the church. He was convinced that Hitler must be removed from power.

Hitler was unveiling an evil plan, which he had been waiting to act on since his rise to power. “Hitler received moral support for his claim to be the God-given executor of historical justice, and only a small remnant was able to perceive, precisely here, Satan in the form of an angel of light,” wrote Bonhoeffer.[9]

In July of 1940, Bonhoeffer made the decision to serve as a “V-Man” (Verbindungsmann, or confidential agent) for Military Intelligence under another lead military resister, Admiral Canaris. Metaxas writes:

Canaris and the others in German military leadership thought that Hitler’s bestial nature was unfortunate, but they had no idea it was something that he cultivated and celebrated, that it was part of an ideology that had been waiting for this opportunity to leap at the throats of every Jew and Pole, priest and aristocrat, and tear them to pieces. The German generals had not seen the dark river of blood bubbling beneath the surface of the new Germany, but suddenly here it was, gushing like a geyser. Despite all the hints and warnings, it was too gruesome to be believed.[10]

Bonhoeffer’s sister-in-law once wrote to him saying, “You Christians are glad when someone else does what you know must be done, but it seems that somehow you are unwilling to get your own hands dirty and do it.”[11]

To be clear, it wasn’t out of pressure that Bonhoeffer joined the resistance and decided to get his “hands dirty” in the process, it was out of conviction. Eberhard Bethge, friend and biographer, remembers Bonhoeffer’s shift “from confession to resistance” when they were together during a call to salute Hitler: “Bonhoeffer raised his arm in the regulation Hitler salute, while I stood there dazed. “Raise your arm! Are you crazy?” he whispered to me, and later: “We shall have to run risks for very different things now, but not for that salute!”[12] Bonhoeffer embraced the double-life, the lies, and the deception that goes along with being a conspirator and Nazi resister, and he felt strongly it was the will of God for his life.

Bonhoeffer continued writing and pastoring while he kept his front as Abwehr agent with the Nazi regime. He was engaged in a “high-stakes game of deception upon deception”—convinced that he was being obedient to God. Metaxas writes: “Bonhoeffer was not telling little white lies. In Luther’s famous phrase, he was “sinning boldly.”[13]

The resistance made several attempts to assassinate Hitler, but all attempts failed. Bonhoeffer did manage to help Jews escape Germany and keep pastors out of the military. He made frequent trips abroad in order to communicate with the allies that there was a real resistance to Hitler.

The Nazis were bearing down on the Confessing Church and all those who conspired against them. It was shortly after one resister’s failed attempt to detonate a bomb in his overcoat while in the presence of Hitler that the Gestapo began to close in on the conspirators. In April of 1943, Bonhoeffer was arrested with the rest of the resistance. The Nazis knew of his efforts to help Jews while under the guise as an Abwehr agent. And they would later discover Bonhoeffer’s involvement in the assassination plot.

Bonhoeffer was incarcerated at Tegel prison in Berlin for two years, with a short stint at a Gestpo prison for interrogations. He continued to write letters and papers from prison.[14] He encouraged the inmates there, and even established a relationship with a solider that wanted to escape with Bonhoeffer.[15] But he refused to escape and put the lives of those he loved in further danger. Finally, he was taken to Flossenbürg concentration camp, marched naked to the gallows, and executed for high treason on April 9, 1945. He was 39 years old. His final words were, “This is the end. For me, the beginning of life.”[16] Less than a month later, the war was over.

IDEAS BORN IN ADVERSITY

The Centrality of Christ

In the Summer of 1933, Bonhoeffer gave a series of lectures on Christology at the University of Berlin. Prior to these lectures, he had already been in dialogue with his students about the role Christ plays in all matters of life, including matters of the state.

What was the church going to do about the growing threat of the Nazi regime? How would she respond on behalf of the poor and the oppressed, racist social policy, and the prospect of war? For Bonhoeffer, making Christ central means living in the world, it means social action.

[Bonhoeffer] decried the church’s hesitation to hear Christ’s gospel in movements toward social justice. Crass opportunism coupled with cowardly passivity had rendered the church irrelevant to average workers who had as little use for a capitalist Christ impervious to their needs as for a church rallying the troops around the flag of privilege.[17]

The church in Germany had compartmentalized her faith to a great degree. She had joined the Zeitgeist, the spirit of the age. It was later during Bonhoeffer’s incarceration that he would reflect on his time as a “world come of age.” Jeffrey Pugh writes, “By this Bonhoeffer had in mind a world of increasing maturity that was able to arrange itself very well without the tutelage of religion or God.”[18] Therefore, Bonhoeffer envisioned a new sort of Christianity, with Christ at the center—a new brand of “religionless” Christianity. The only way to get at this kind of faith is to have a real, holistic encounter with the living Christ.

The eternal Christ cannot be shaped to fit our own agendas. As Bonhoeffer said in his lectures, “There are only two ways possible of encountering Jesus: man must die or he must put Jesus to death.”[19] Bonhoeffer believed that the person and work of Christ is central to Christian faith. He said, “This complete Christ is the historical Jesus, who can never in any way be separated from his work.”[20] Christology and soteriology cannot be separated and continue to be true Christian faith.

The soterian (salvation) gospel alone, divorced from obedience to the teachings of Christ, is no gospel at all. Bonhoeffer stated, “It is through the work that I recognize the gracious God. My sin is forgiven, I am no longer in death, but in life. All this depends upon the person of Christ, whether his work perishes in the world of death or abides in a new world of life.”[21] According to Bethge, the Christology lectures in the Summer of 1933 were “the high point of Bonhoeffer’s academic career.”[22]

Christ in Community

Bonhoeffer believed that truth is a person (Jn 14:6). He said, “Truth is not something in itself, which rests for itself, but something that happens between two. Truth happens only in community.”[23] The discovery of God’s will in Christ happens in the context of community. His doctoral dissertation, at the age of twenty-one, was entitled, Sanctorum Communio (The Communion of Saints), and was first published in 1930.[24] Karl Barth called his work a “theological miracle.”[25]

From the very beginning, Bonhoeffer was captured by the sociology of the church, “Christ existing as community.” The Volkskirche (church-of-the-people) would lay in stark contrast to Hitler’s new Germany. For Bonhoeffer, without the church, the communion of saints, all that exists is a community of sinners. That community is broken and incapable of existing for the good of humanity. Only by embracing Christ in community can the world be healed—reconciled to God and to each other.

Bonhoeffer writes, “Community with God exists only through Christ, but Christ is present only in his church-community, and therefore community with God exists only in the church.”[26] In his Life Together (1938), Bonhoeffer writes, “Christianity means community through Jesus Christ and in Jesus Christ.”[27]

God has willed that we should seek and find His living Word in the witness of a brother, in the mouth of a man. Therefore, the Christian needs another Christian who speaks God’s Word to him. He needs him again and again when he becomes uncertain and discouraged, for by himself he cannot help himself without belying the truth. He needs his brother man as a bearer and proclaimer of the divine word of salvation. He needs his brother solely because of Jesus Christ. The Christ in his own heart is weaker than the Christ in the word of his brother; his own heart is uncertain, his brother’s is sure. And that also clarifies the goal of all Christian community: they meet one another as bringers of the message of salvation. As such, God permits them to meet together and gives them community.[28]

This community is bound together in Trinitarian love, a spiritual love. Bonhoeffer contrasts this spiritual love with a human love—a love with conditions and boundaries—a self-love. He writes, “Human love produces human subjection, dependence, constraint; spiritual love creates freedom of the brethren under the Word.”[29] Christ existing as community is manifested in a church that is sustained by a spiritual love, even using that love as its only weapon.[30]

Like the church’s true leader, the communion of saints overcomes through cross-bearing. Bonhoeffer writes, “It is the fellowship of the Cross to experience the burden of the other. If one does not experience it, the fellowship he belongs to is not Christian. If any member refuses to bear that burden, he denies the law of Christ.”[31]

In Bonhoeffer’s view, the church in Germany was guilty of rejecting an incarnational communion of Christ on the earth, and for the earth. The hour was late. The church should seize the moment and boldly profess that Christ alone is Fuehrer, and his Volkskirche is the only life-giving community on earth, or be condemned by her silence.

Theological Ethics

Bonhoeffer was one of the first evangelical theologians to recognize the great evil taking place within the Third Reich, especially as it concerned Hitler’s policies against the Jews. Hans von Dohnanyi warned Bonhoeffer that Hitler was making plans to persecute the Jewish people.[32] Before the Third Reich released the Aryan paragraph, discriminating against Jews, Bonhoeffer presented an essay on The Church and the Jewish Question—a call for the church to take action.

He proposed that there were three possible ways the church could respond toward the state: (1) admonish the state’s actions, (2) help the victims regardless of their religious affiliation, (3) not only bandage the victims under the wheel of the state, but “jam a spoke in the wheel itself.”[33]

What exactly did Bonhoeffer have in mind at this time? It is hard to say. While he was certainly insinuating direct political action, it does not appear that Bonhoeffer was thinking of an assassination plot at this time. There is no indication that he had given up his views on pacifism. However, it appears that his ethics were evolving.[34] Bonhoeffer said the church is the “boundary of the state” and must hold the state accountable as God’s instrument of righteousness.[35] This would have no doubt smacked of revolution.

Metaxas writes: “Bonhoeffer’s three conclusions… were too much for almost everyone. But for him they were inescapable. In time, he would do all three.”[36] Geffrey Kelly writes: “Church timidity on this issue was one of the reasons he joined the political resistance movement.”[37] A few years later, after being fully convinced that the church was either unwilling or incapable of responding to the actions of the state, Bonhoeffer would find an opportunity to “jam a spoke in the wheel” of the Third Reich.

When Bonhoeffer returned from America in 1939, he knew that war was inevitable. Dohnanyi had given him disturbing evidence of the evil holocaust well underway. One month before the war officially began, Bonhoeffer became a civilian agent of the Abwehr. Disguised as Nazi military intelligence, Bonhoeffer would aid the escape of Jews and join in a plot to assassinate Hitler. He then began writing Ethics at Klein-Krössin. It is in this book that we glean insights into Bonhoeffer’s thinking. For Bonhoeffer, his actions begin with the will of God.

The will of God may lie very deeply concealed beneath a great number of possibilities. The will of God is not a system of rules which is established from the outset; it is something new and different in each different situation in life, and for this reason a man must ever anew examine what the will of God may be. The heart, the understanding, observation and experience must all collaborate in this task. It is not longer a matter of man’s own knowledge of good and evil, but solely of the living will of God; our knowledge of God’s will is not something over which we ourselves dispose, but it depends solely upon the grace of God, and this grace is and requires to be new every morning.[38]

Bonhoeffer believed that proper ethical action must first be rooted in the will of God. The will of God is not always a “concrete” reality. It is at this point where Bonhoeffer’s thinking takes a radical shift from anything he had previously articulated about the will of God, and his own complicit actions against the state. In a broken and fragmented world, doing the will of God might require actions that are less than the ideal—even actions that are evil in themselves.

Bonhoeffer declared, “What is worse than doing evil is being evil. It is worse for a liar to tell the truth than of a lover of truth to lie.”[39] Considering the context of Ethics, it is safe to assume that Bonhoeffer has his own evil deeds in mind. However, those evil deeds done by righteous men are better than the alternative—a person could actually be evil like Hitler—which is far worse.

The following example illuminates Bonhoeffer’s odyssey of reasoning (rationalizing?) the idea:

For example, a teacher asks a child in front of the class whether it is true that his father often comes home drunk. It is true, but the child denies it. The teacher’s question has placed him in a situation for which he is not yet prepared… The child’s answer can indeed be called a lie; yet this lie contains more truth, that is to say, it is more in accordance with reality than would have been the case if the child had betrayed his father’s weakness in front of the class. According to the measure of his knowledge, the child acted correctly. The blame for the lie falls back entirely upon the teacher.[40]

Bonhoeffer believes the Third Reich stands in the place of the teacher who has abused her power. Is the Christian, or the lover of truth, obliged to “tell the truth” to those who have no interest in the truth—those who indeed despise the truth?

Bonhoeffer did not believe so. In fact, the lover of truth should lie, and lie for all he is worth. For Bonhoeffer, this is the “living truth.” Metaxas writes: “Bonhoeffer knew that the flipside of the easy religious legalism of ‘never telling a lie’ was the cynical notion that there is no such thing as truth, only ‘facts.’ This led to the cynical idea that one must say everything with no sense of propriety or discernment, that decorum or reserve was ‘hypocrisy’ and a kind of lie.”[41]

Therefore, Bonhoeffer was seeking a new kind of ethics in a world where he believed the rules had changed so dramatically under Nazism. According to Bonhoeffer, the old ethics simply did not work any longer. James Burtness has written that Bonhoeffer’s work throughout his adult life reveals the formulation of an “ethical theology.” This theology knows the difference between believing and behaving, between confessing and acting, but attempts to demonstrate connections at every point.[42]

For Bonhoeffer, his theological ethics were always rooted in what he believed was a Christo-centric worldview.

CONCLUSION—PRAISE & CRITIQUE

Finally, what can be said about Bonhoeffer’s shift from the pacifist solution to the problem of evil to involving himself in a conspiracy to kill another human being, even one as wicked and tyrannical as Adlof Hitler? It is rather difficult to understand his thinking because his words so often required a great level of secrecy. Stanley Hauerwas has written:

That we cannot know how he understood his participation in the attempt to kill Hitler and thus how his whole life “makes sense” is not a peculiarity Bonhoeffer would think unique to his life. The primary confession of the Christian may be the deed which interprets itself, but according to Bonhoeffer our lives cannot be seen as such a deed. Only “Jesus’ testimony to himself stands by itself, self-authenticating.” In contrast, our lives, no matter how earnestly or faithfully lived, can be no more than fragments.[43]

While it might be impossible to piece together the “fragments” of Bonhoeffer and acquire answers to all the questions that could be asked of him, it is still necessary to include a brief critique of Bonhoeffer’s expressed thoughts and actions–remembering that he is a fallible man following an infallible Christ.

Bonhoeffer believed that the “will of God” is the launching pad into a world of ethical decisions. I agree that the will of God is not always concrete or a rule to be applied legalistically. However, it should be a serious concern for all disciples to recognize that Christ is the full expression of God’s will for human beings. Christ has expressed the will of God in his own life and teachings—even in the face of his mortal enemies. Therefore, God’s will always looks like Jesus dying for those that crucified him.

The church must give up on the myth of redemptive violence, and dispel the disease of “necessary evils.” The cycle of violence ends on a cross, and exposes the hearts of evil men, even disarming them in shame. If the church ever needs to “jam a spoke in the wheel” of the state again, it should be in the form of creative cross-shaped living. The way of the sword always loses.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a pastor and a prophet to a church that had largely traded the God of the Scriptures for a god of nationalism. His prophetic voice is still needed today.[44] Bonhoeffer did not abandon the church or the German people in one of the darkest hours the world has ever known. He continually counted the cost of discipleship, even as he anticipated his ensuing martyrdom. While not without sin, he was truly a great man of faith.

The courage of Bonhoeffer to stand up and speak truth to power is part of his lasting legacy. His unbridled faith and his belief in a hopeful future despite the odds breathe life into the dark corners of a suffocating, cynical world. His lasting contributions are his passion for the centrality of Christ, his insight into the community life of the church, and his untiring devotion to the cause of social justice in the ongoing quest for an ethical theology.

D.D. Flowers, 2012.

Get the new biography by Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy. Also, view the documentary by Martin Doblmeier, Bonhoeffer: Pacifist, Pastor, Nazi Resister (2004), and the movie, Bonhoeffer: Agent of Grace (2000).

[1] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship, (New York: Touchstone, 1995), 89.

[2] This paper will focus on Bonhoeffer’s thinking set forth in the following books: Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church (MN: Fortress Press, 1998); Christ the Center (New York: Harper & Row, 1978); Ethics (New York: Touchstone, 1995); and Life Together (London: SCM Press, 1954).

[3] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2010), 222.

[4] Ferdinand Schlingensiepen, Dietrich Bonhoeffer 1906-1945: Martyr, Thinker, Man of Resistance (New York: T&T Clark, 2010), 411.

[5] Metaxas, 112-113. The German title of the book is Nachfolge. The English translation is Discipleship.

[6] Ibid., 114.

[7] Eberhard Bethge, Dietrich Bonhoeffer: A Biography (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2000), 655.

[8] For more on Bonhoeffer’s transformational experiences in America, see Ruth Zerner’s, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s American experiences: people, letters, and papers from Union Seminary.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 31, no. 4 (June 1, 1976): 261-282.

[9] Schlingensiepen, 242.

[10] Metaxas, 351.

[11] Ibid., 359.

[12] Bethge, 681.

[13] Metaxas, 370.

[14] See Bonhoeffer’s, Letters and Papers from Prison (New York: Touchstone, 1997).

[15] Metaxas, 493.

[16] Schlingensiepen, 378.

[17] Geffrey B. Kelly and F. Burton Nelson, A Testament to Freedom: The Essential Writings of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (New York: Harper Collins, 1995), 111.

[18] Jeffrey C. Pugh, Religionless Christianity: Dietrich Bonhoeffer in Troubled Times (New York: T&T Clark, 2008), 45.

[19] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Christ the Center (New York: Harper & Row, 1978), 35; Bonhoeffer’s “Christology” lectures were entitled “Christ the Center” in English publications.

[20] Christ the Center, 39.

[21] Ibid., 38.

[22] Kelly and Nelson, 111.

[23] Christ the Center, 50.

[24] Kelly and Nelson, 54.

[25] See Clifford Green, ‘Human sociality and Christian community’, in John W. de Gruchy ed., The Cambridge Companion to Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 122.

[26] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Sanctorum Communio: A Theological Study of the Sociology of the Church (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 158.

[27] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Life Together (London: SCM Press, 1954), 21.

[28] Life Together, 22-23.

[29] Ibid., 37.

[30] Sanctorum Communio, 202.

[31] Life Together, 101.

[32] Schlingensiepen, 125.

[33] Kelly and Nelson, 130-132.

[34] Bonhoeffer did not begin writing Ethics for another seven years, but his ideas on the relationship between church and state were already moving him to a new position.

[35] Christ the Center, 63.

[36] Metaxas, 155.

[37] Kelly and Nelson, 131.

[38] Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Ethics (New York: Touchstone, 1995), 41.

[39] Ibid., 67.

[40] Ibid., 362-363. Christian ethicist, Stanley Hauerwas, discusses this analogy in his article: “Bonhoeffer on truth and politics.” Conrad Grebel Review 20, no. 3 (September 1, 2002): 40-57. For a lengthy discussion on the context of Bonhoeffer’s theological ethics, see: Heinz Eduard Tödt, Authentic Faith: Bonhoeffer’s Theological Ethics in Context (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007).

[41] Metaxas, 366.

[42] James H. Burtness, Shaping the Future: The Ethics of Dietrich Bonhoeffer (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 25.

[43] Stanley Hauerwas, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s political theology” (Conrad Grebel Review 20, no. 3 September 1, 2002: 17-39), 19.

[44] For a modern application of Bonhoeffer’s ideas, see David Wellman’s, “Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s ethic of resistance in George W Bush’s America: a call to progressive Christians in the United States.” Union Seminary Quarterly Review 60, no. 1-2 (January 1, 2006): 69-77.

4 Comments | tags: 1945, abwehr, abyssinian baptist church, adam clayton powell sr., all quiet on the western front, april 9, aryan paragraph, barmen declaration, Bonhoeffer, christ the center, Clifford Green, concentration camp, confessing church, conspiracy to kill hitler, dietrich bonhoeffer, Discipleship, Eberhard Bethge, Eric Metaxas, Ethics, finkenwalde, flossenburg, fuehrer, Geffrey Kelly, george bell, gestapo, hans von dohnanyi, hitler, holocaust, jam a spoke in the wheel, james burtness, jean lasserre, Jeffrey Pugh, karl barth, letters and papers from prison, Life Together, nazi germany, nazis, reinhold neibuhr, sanctorum communio, Schlingensiepen, stanley hauerwas, the church and the jewish question, the cost of discipleship, third reich, volkskirche, world war II | posted in Christianity, Christology, Church, Culture, Ethics, Theology

September 10, 2011

God Behaving Badly

By David D. Flowers

God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist and Racist? (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011) by David T. Lamb

In his 2004 bestseller, The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason, Sam Harris first introduced the world to the popular New Atheism. Listen to leading apologist William Lane Craig talk about the new atheists.

Christopher Hitchens followed with his attack on God in his 2007 book: God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. The very next year, Richard Dawkins made his claim that the God of the Old Testament is “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction” (The God Delusion, p.51).

David Lamb, associate professor of Old Testament at Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield Pennsylvania, believes that Dawkins “simply isn’t reading his Bible well” (p.16).

Lamb, with refreshing wit and respect, responds to accusations being made against God in his book, God Behaving Badly: Is the God of the Old Testament Angry, Sexist, and Racist? (June, 2011).

Lamb says that the avoidance of certain texts by Bible teachers has actually made it seem that atheists are reading the Bible more carefully than those who accept it as God’s word. Far from ignoring problematic texts, this OT scholar writes from his extensive study of history and Scripture to provide insight into the biblical context, which he claims is the key to proper interpretation.

Lamb notes that the God of the OT has a bad reputation. Are the critical perceptions valid? He doesn’t deny the difficulty with certain texts, but he insists that God’s hesed (love) is abundant in the OT. He rejects the Marcionite heresy that the God of the Old Testament is cruel and vindictive, not the same loving God of the New Testament.

He writes “compared to other ancient Near Eastern literature, the Old Testament is shockingly progressive in its portrayals of divine love” (p.23).

Lamb addresses those OT texts that reveal God’s anger, commands of violence, appearances of sexism, racism, legalism, and what seems to be a stubborn inflexibility in God. Lamb touches on those passages that are most often quoted to show that God is a big meanie.

Why did God kill Uzzah for touching the ark (2 Sam 6:1-8)? Does the Bible present an unfavorable view toward women (Gen 3:1-19; 19:5-11)? Is slavery, racism, and genocide being supported in the biblical text (Josh 10:40; 11:12-15)? Does God endorse child sacrifice and violence against enemies (Gen 22; 2 Kings 2:23-25; 19:35)? And what about all those pesky out-dated commandments (Ex 20-23; Lev 17-26; Deut 12-26)?

Lamb believes that the OT text should be harmonized with the life and teachings of Jesus. He seeks to accomplish this by finishing each chapter with relevant passages from the Gospels.

What is God like? Lamb wants to make it clear that “this book is essentially about the nature of God” (p.177). He writes: “Instead of ignoring passages that seem to portray Yahweh negatively, we need to study them, discuss them and teach them to gain understanding. While all our questions may never fully be answered, we will find that Yahweh and Jesus can be reconciled and that the God of both testaments is loving” (p.178).

I’m recommending this book to all of those wrestling with what seems to be a dichotomy within the biblical text—where God appears to be bi-polar and where Jesus finally managed to satisfy the bloodlust of his abusive Father.

God Behaving Badly should be required reading for all skeptics and students of theology, especially those Christians who habitually yank verses from their OT context to skillfully ignore the teachings of Jesus.

I want to thank Adrianna Wright at InterVarsity Press for sending me Lamb’s book to read and review.

D.D. Flowers, 2011

10 Comments | tags: christopher hitchens, david t. lamb, god behaving badly, god is not great, god of the old testament, is god angry?, is god sexist?, is god violent?, marcion heresy, new atheism, richard dawkins, sam harris, the god delusion, what is god like?, william lane craig, yahweh | posted in Christianity, Church, Culture, Ethics, Religion & Spirituality, Reviews, Theology

August 2, 2011

Let No Man Put Asunder

By David D. Flowers

Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce

Jesus’ teaching on divorce appears in the synoptic gospels and Paul.[1] It is because of multiple and abundant attestation that Jesus’ sayings on divorce are considered, even among the most liberal of scholars, to be authentic words of Jesus of Nazareth.[2]

This would usually be reason for a moderate evangelical like myself to celebrate. However, not even evangelicals who pride themselves—rightfully so—on believing in the inspiration of the biblical text, can agree on what Jesus meant by what he said.

The catholic scholar J. P. Meier observes that Jesus’ teaching on divorce, “leads us into a confusing morass of historical, exegetical, and theological problems.”[3] No doubt, a great deal of time and energy has been given to discovering what Jesus really said about divorce and remarriage; in spite of the honest trepidation that can accompany such a hermeneutical endeavor.

The purpose of this paper is to bring some contextual clarity to Jesus’ teaching on divorce through: (1) a brief examination of divorce in the Old Testament and in the literature of the intertestamental period, (2) an appraisal of the legalities of divorce that were seemingly in a state of flux during the Second Temple period leading up to Jesus, (3) an exegesis of the divorce passages found in the synoptic gospels—giving special attention to Matthew 5:27-32; 19:3-9 and the so-called “exception” clauses.

DIVORCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Law

Deut 24:1-4 is the only significant law on divorce in the Pentateuch—which accounts for the debate in early Judaism over the meaning of this passage. What constitutes a legal divorce? It was this one long sentence of casuistic law (“if… then”) that the Jewish leaders sought to extrapolate meaning and application. The center of their deliberations was the obscure Hebrew phrase “erwat dabar” (lit. “nakedness of a thing”) which appealed to the ancient honor/shame culture. This phrase was likely intended to be vague so that it would include a range of marital infractions, but not to include adultery.[4]

In the context, the passage is dealing with a specific case of remarriage. J. Carl Laney writes, “Grammatically the intent of the law is not to give legal sanction to divorce or to regulate the divorce procedure. The intent of the passage is to prohibit the remarriage of a man to his divorced wife in cases of an intervening marriage by the wife.”[5]

Christopher Wright says, “The practical effect of this rule is to protect the unfortunate woman from becoming a kind of marital football, passed back and forth between irresponsible men.”[6] It is clear that Moses was not giving a command or even encouraging divorce. He is merely protecting the people and land from defilement (v.4). The only other law mentioning divorce is Lev 21:7, 13-14, indicating a definite stigma that is attached to divorce in the Pentateuch—divorce is merely tolerated.

The Prophets

Deut 24:1-4 can be seen in the message of three prophets. Yahweh pleads through Jeremiah that Israel repent of her “whoring and wickedness” and return to him (3:1-5). “If a man divorces his wife and she goes from him and becomes another man’s wife, will he return to her? Would not such a land be greatly polluted? You have played the whore with many lovers; and would you return to me” (v.1)? What is impossible under the Law is made possible by God’s grace if they choose to repent (4:1-2).

In Isaiah 50:1, the people of Israel have been sent away for their unfaithfulness, but Yahweh is capable of restoring them to himself if they would only repent and believe that he can redeem them.

Yahweh bends over backwards in Hosea 3:1-3 as he suspends the law against remarriage: “Go, love a woman who has a lover and is an adulteress, just as the LORD loves the people of Israel, though they turn to other gods and love raisin cakes” (v.1). In a bizarre set of circumstances, Yahweh seeks to prove through Hosea’s marriage to the loose woman Gomer that there are no lengths too great that he is not willing to go in order to honor the covenant relationship he made with Israel.

And it is in Malachi that Yahweh denounces the unfaithfulness of men to their young wives (2:14-15). Yahweh declares down through the ages, “I hate divorce” (2:16).

With these sentiments expressed by the Hebrew prophets, how then could there be a debate over divorce in early Judaism? Meier reminds his readers that, “one should remember that prophetic exhortation and condemnation, however fiery, did not possess the same binding force for later Judaism as did the laws of the Pentateuch.”[7] In the day of Jesus, the Law of Moses (i.e. Deut 24:1-4) is front and center in the divorce debate.

THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD

The Qumran Scrolls

The meticulous study of the Dead Sea Scrolls[8] continues to reveal a wealth of information to biblical scholars working to understand the Second Temple period. The sect that lived at Qumran separated from what they believed to be a corrupted Judaism and settled by the northwest shore of the Dead Sea.[9] They carried on a monastic life as they copied and preserved OT manuscripts, as well as some of the Pseudepigrapha.

The most fascinating find is proving to be the sectarian compositions that describe their communal lifestyle, rituals, theology, and beliefs about a coming eschatological kingdom. The Qumran scrolls give insight into one group that prohibited divorce to some degree.[10]

The Temple Scroll (11Q Temple 57:17-19) sets forth conduct for a future king of Israel that is drawn directly from Deut 17.[11] The text indicates that the sect interpreted the prohibition of polygamy (Deut 17:17) to also include divorce: “And he shall not take in addition to her another wife, for she alone shall be with him all the days of her life; and if she dies, he shall take for himself another (wife).” There is some disagreement among scholars on whether this “utopian” life of a future king would apply to the townsfolk.

11QTemple 66:8-11 repeats the command found in the law of Deut 22:28-29 that a man who seduces a virgin not yet betrothed must marry her and “cannot divorce her as long as he lives.” Is the sect confirming that the law against divorce is only binding under certain circumstances?

In light of 11QTemple 57:17-19, it is possible that “unchastity” mentioned in Damascus Document (CD 4:12b-5:11) includes adultery,[12] polygamy, incest, and divorce. Hans Dieter Betz writes, “There appears to be more agreement that the prohibitions do not merely apply to the king but to the common Jew as well.”[13]

Philo & Josephus

Philo of Alexandria (ca. 20 BC-ca. 50 AD), a Jewish contemporary with Jesus and Paul, is an important witness to Jewish thought and practice during the Second Temple period. As a writer influenced by Hellenism and the allegorical school in Alexandria, Egypt, Philo is often read with a critical eye. However, his commentary on Deut 24:1-4 should not be ignored for those seeking to understand Jewish halakhah (legal rulings).

What insight does Philo give as to the interpretation of the text and the Jewish attitude on divorce in the first century?

In his Special Laws (3:30-31),[14] he introduces the woman who was divorced “under any pretence.” Philo aligns himself with the House of Hillel and their view of an “any-cause” divorce. He gives a plain reading of the Law: a woman divorced from her first husband, having “married another,” must not return to her first husband. He indicates that husband who would take his wife back should “bear the reputation of effeminacy” and should be put to death with his wife.

The Jewish historian and Roman sympathizer, Flavius Josephus (37 AD-ca. 95 AD), also agrees with Philo and the House of Hillel that a husband could divorce his wife for any reason whatsoever.

In Ant 4.8.23 §253, Josephus writes:

He that desires to be divorced from his wife for any cause whatsoever (and many such causes happen among men), let him in writing give assurance that he will never use her as his wife any more; for by this means she may be at liberty to marry another husband, although before this bill of divorce be given, she is not to be permitted so to do; but if she be misused by him also, of if, when he is dead, her first husband would marry her again, it shall not be lawful for her to return to him.[15]

Josephus does appear to focus more on the husband and his actions, where Philo focuses on the wife. Also, Josephus is more concerned about the written certificate of divorce (as a second law) and departs from a plain reading of Deut 24:1-4. Josephus, himself having been married a couple of times (Life 75.415), clearly had embraced the liberal Hillelite interpretation of the OT[16] and had joined the cultural plague of divorce.

Hillel & Shammai

The divorce practices of the first century have been made known to scholars today by surveying the vast collection of papyri from Egypt—that includes marriage contracts and divorce agreements.[17]

Scholars are recognizing that marriage and divorce underwent a “revolution” during this tumultuous era.[18] The Mishnah[19] has also proven to be most helpful in gaining insight into the background of Jesus’ teachings amid the first century debate.[20]

The Mishnah reveals two rabbinical schools that were in dispute over divorce: the schools of Hillel and Shammai. N. T. Wright says that by the time of Jesus, “It is likely that the two ‘houses’ of Hillel and Shammai already represented two alternative ways of being Pharisees.”[21]

As the reader might expect, their debate centered around the proper interpretation of Deut 24:1-4—what is the meaning of the Hebrew phrase “erwat dabar” and what are legal grounds for divorce?

The two Pharisaic schools are represented in m. Gittin 9.10. The House of Shammai teaches that a man can only divorce his wife for marital unfaithfulness. The House of Hillel say, “Even if she spoiled his (husband’s) dish.”[22] As for Shammai’s teaching, “adultery” is condemned in the OT and is deserving of death (Lev 20:10; Deut 22:22). The woman “caught in adultery” in John 8:1-11 affirms this rule of law.[23]

However, there is some question about how this was being applied in the Roman period of the first century. Early rabbinic sources reflect a “clear desire to circumscribe as far as possible the sphere in which such a severe penalty was to be enforced. A wife whose life was to be spared was certainly to be divorced.”[24] What is clear is that the Jewish world of Jesus was unclear as to how the Law was to be applied to divorce.

THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS

It has been said that the NT Epistles are one-dimensional in their historical and literary context; the gospels, on the other hand, come to the reader from a two or three-dimensional historical context.[25] For example, Paul speaks directly to his audience in his letters, but the gospel writers collected sayings and narratives about Jesus that were preserved by church tradition and then arranged according to their own purposes.

The gospel redactor weaves together each pericope to paint a unique grandiose picture of Jesus to meet the immediate needs of his own local community. There have been efforts to synthesize the gospels into one story, yet the church has continued to recognize each separate literary account as an “inspired and authoritative work of the Holy Spirit.”[26]

Therefore, it is important that the reader pay close attention to the careful construction of each author’s narrative and the intentional placement of Jesus’ discourse on divorce.

The Gospel of Mark (10:1-12)

The large majority of scholars believe that the Gospel of Mark was the first of the synoptic gospels (i.e. Marcan priority), and probably written in the mid- or late 60’s to a predominately gentile audience.[27] Jesus’ block of teaching on divorce is found within a narrative that has been purposely placed in a section on discipleship—with children and the kingdom of God on each side of the divorce pericope.

It would appear that accepting Jesus’ teaching on divorce is a matter of the kingdom. He says, “Truly I tell you, whoever does not receive the kingdom of God as a little child will never enter it” (10:15).

Since many scholars believe that Matthew relies heavily upon Mark in this narrative, and since this paper thoroughly expounds upon Matthew’s pericope, it is only necessary to briefly point out some of the similarities and differences of Mark to Matthew’s gospel. Both gospels have Jesus entering “Judea beyond the Jordan” (Mk 10:1; Matt 19:1). This would indicate that the teaching happened in the same setting as both writers remember it.

The divorce teaching is prompted by the inquiry of the Pharisees to the question, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife” (Mk 10:2)? Matthew adds, “for any cause” (Matt 19:3).[28] Jesus practically avoids their trap of entering into a debate, and instead points them to God’s original intention for marriage (Mk 10:6; 19:4).

The next part of Jesus’ saying is given only to his disciples “in the house” as a result of their wanting clarification (v.10). Jesus said to them, “Whoever divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery” (10:11-12).

The most obvious difference between Mark and Matthew is found here in the last two verses.[29] Of all the synoptic gospels, Mark shows the woman to have the same ability to divorce as her husband. Unlike Jewish women in first century Palestine, the women in Mark’s gentile audience have the power to divorce their husbands. Also, Mark does not include the so-called exception clause “except for sexual immorality” (Matt 5:32; 19:9).[30]

Meier captures the blunt force trauma of Jesus’ teaching on divorce:

By completely forbidding divorce, Jesus dares to forbid what the Law allows—and not in some minor, obscure halakic observance but in one of the most important legal institutions in society. He dares to say that a man who duly follows the Law in properly divorcing his wife and marring another woman is in effect committing adultery. When one stops to think what this involves, Jesus’ prohibition of divorce is nothing short of astounding. Jesus presumes to teach that what the Law permits and regulates is actually the sin of adultery.[31]

The Gospel of Luke (16:18)

The Gospel of Luke is the longest of all four gospels and is the first volume in his “orderly account” (Luke-Acts) of the life and teachings of Jesus. For those believing in the two-source theory with Marcan priority, both Matthew and Luke used Mark, as well as an unknown “Q” source.[32] It would at first appear that Luke has done a strange thing with the Marcan (and Q?) source of Jesus’ teaching on divorce.

The teaching may at first seem out of place. “The law and the prophets were in effect until John came; since then the good news of the kingdom of God is proclaimed, and everyone tries to enter it by force. But it is easier for heaven and earth to pass away, than for one stroke of a letter in the law to be dropped” (16:16-17). Then Jesus says, “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery, and whoever marries a woman divorced from her husband commits adultery” (v.18).

John Nolland comments on Luke’s thought:

In Luke’s understanding here, the preaching of the good news of the kingdom of God, quite the contrary to offering easy entry into the kingdom, involves an intensification of the demands of the law. The case of divorce is used illustratively… It is clear that in the Lukan understanding the “law and the prophets” are in no sense superseded, but rather added to in the sense of being made yet more rigorous.[33]

The Gospel of Matthew (5:27-32; 19:3-9)

The Gospel of Matthew was used more widely in the early church than any of the other gospels.[34] Reasons for its popularity stretch from the ordering of the gospel to its often poetic and memorable phrases.

The dating of Matthew is difficult to know because it depends on many disputed points. If Marcan priority is accepted and the Gospel of Mark was written as late as AD 65, some scholars believe it would have taken ten years for Matthew to produce his own gospel. D.A. Carson says a written source is circulated quickly and Matthew could have written as early as AD 66.[35] Still other scholars have argued for a date some time after the destruction of the Temple in AD 70.

Anthony Saldarini believes the gospel fits the later development of early church Christology, and also matters of Jewish debate.[36] The divorce passages may be an example of that debate.

Matthew was clearly written to a Jewish audience, yet his gospel is at the same time universal in its scope (13:38; 21:33-43; 28:18-20).[37] The “Jewishness” of the gospel can be seen in the extensive use of OT Scriptures and the substitution of “heaven” for God’s name. Matthew is intent on proving that Jesus is the new and greater Moses.[38]

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus sets his teaching alongside the Mosaic Law (5:21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43).[39] There is a clear emphasis on Jesus’ teaching ministry (5-7)—as it is the largest block to be found in any of the four gospels.

There is no place in the gospel where Matthew plainly states his purpose for writing, but it becomes evident in his particular emphases. Matthew is interested in the church and the needs of the growing Christian-Jewish community. He abridges Mark’s material, likely borrowing from Q as well, and intends to fashion his gospel in a way that is more easily remembered by new believers amidst their Jewish critics.[40]

Saldarini sums up the purpose of Matthew’s gospel:

Matthew does not simply preserve Jewish-Christian traditions which were operative earlier in the century, nor does he effect a synthesis of earlier Jewish with current Christian traditions and customs. The outlook and practice which Matthew promotes in his gospel is thoroughly Jewish and based on the Bible as understood through the teachings of Jesus. Matthew seeks to carry on Jesus’ reform of Judaism and convince his fellow Jews that his understanding of Judaism is God-given (11:25-27) and necessary for Israel and for the gentiles, too.[41]

The Matthean texts will now be examined more critically, as the crux of the debate over Jesus’ teaching on divorce revolves around them.

The first passage for a careful exegesis and examination is found in Matt 5:27-30 NRSV:

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to go into hell.

27. “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’.”[42] Note: Gk. font not available in blog format.

This verse begins the second antithesis in the Sermon on the Mount.[43] Matthew fashions the discourse to show that Jesus has the authoritative interpretation(s) of Torah.[44] “You have heard that it was said…” is abbreviated from the formula in 5:21. The hearing implies a “chain of verbal communication” that has been passed down in time.[45] It is most likely a reference to the OT itself, since 5:21-48 is dealing with the OT instead of oral law or rabbinic teachings.

The word errethe is the “divine” aorist passive form. In other words, Jesus is using a formula that introduces Torah, not tradition.[46] Jesus recalls for his audience the seventh commandment as found in the LXX Decalogue (Exod 20:14 and Deut 5:18). The use of the imperatival future (moicheuseis) makes the law “You shall not commit adultery” a timeless commandment.

28. “But I (myself) say to you that everyone who looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”

Jesus emphatically declares that his words, not the oral traditions of previous rabbis, are the final arbiter of the Law of Moses. He says that adultery begins in the heart of a person who first looks at a woman lustfully.

Daniel Wallace is careful to note that the phrase (everyone who looks at a woman) is a gnomic present participle. It is not a progressive action (e.g. “continually looking”), but rather a general, timeless fact.[47] Therefore, the initial look could very well result in lustful desires of the heart. Regardless of how many looks, it is the sinful thought that Jesus calls “adultery”.

As Davies and Allison point out, “The infinitive after the preposition “pro” represents result and implies that the sin lies not in the entrance of thought but in letting it incite passion.”[48] The aorist infinitive epithumesai is also used in the tenth commandment against “coveting” the wife of your neighbor (Exod 20:17 LXX). Jesus is saying that a real concern for the tenth commandment means a person will root out the evil that first begins in the imagination.

29. “And if your right eye causes you to stumble, tear it out, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members perish than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna.”

The use of overstatement is used by Jesus to express the serious nature of sexual sin that must not be handled lightly.[49] A person looks with the eye in lust and then touches with the hand in adultery (v.30). Grant Osborne points out that the “right” side of the body was seen as the more powerful side in antiquity.[50] Jesus says that if lust of the eyes is a problem, it is imperative that a person exele (cut it out!) and bale (throw it away!) in order that they not suffer the violent death of geennan (Gehenna).

The “fire of Gehenna” was mentioned previously (v.22). “Gehenna” refers to the valley south of Jerusalem (gê-hinnõm) that is believed to be the city garbage dump in the first century.[51] It is also known to be the place of child sacrifice to the god Molech (2 Chr 28:3; 33:6). The whole person will suffer the judgment of Gehenna (i.e. “hell”) if the body is given over to sinful desires and passions. Once again, the divine passive (blethe) indicates that it is God who will judge sinners righteously.

30. “And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it from you; for it is better for you that one of your members perish than for your whole body to depart into Gehenna.”

Notice the first class conditional sentence (“If your right hand…”). Wallace makes the following comment about this verse and its implications for meaning:

Jesus often put forth a number of challenges to current Jewish orthodoxy, such as that appendages and external things are what defile a person. Reading the text in light of that motif yields the following force: “If–and let us assume that this is true for argument’s sake-your right hand offends you, then cut it off and throw it from you!” The following line only enforces this interpretation (“For it is better for you that one of your members should perish than that your whole body should be cast into hell”). Jesus thus brings the Pharisees’ view to its logical conclusion. It is as if he said, “If you really believe that your anatomy is the root of sin, then start hacking off some body parts! After all, wouldn’t it be better to be called ‘Lefty’ in heaven than to fry in hell as a whole person?” The condition thus has a provocative power seen in this light.[52]

Matthew purposely places Jesus’ teaching on divorce immediately following this passage on adultery that begins within a person’s thoughts. Jesus moves from adultery beginning in the heart, to a person acting out their sinful desires, to the much-debated issue of divorce. It should be noted that adultery is still the concern in the next two verses.

It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery. (Matt 5:31-32 NRSV)

31. “And it was said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, give her a certificate of divorce’.”

Davies and Allison state that the verse above is a “legal prescription” that summarizes the procedure in Deut 24:1-4, where the issue of concern is remarriage, not divorce.[53] However, it is important to recall that the raging debate among the rabbis of Jesus’ day was that since Moses allows divorce in Deut 24:1-4, what then are legitimate grounds for divorce?

Once again, the first century rabbinic schools of Hillel and Shammai argued over the minimum requirements that established those grounds (m. Ketub 5:5-8) based on their interpretations of Deut. 24:1.[54]

Daniel Fanous writes, “First-century Judaic thought took a Mosaic prohibition and transformed it into a law allowing divorce. Jesus on the other hand, took the very same prohibition, highlighted and elevated it, and thus created a law prohibiting divorce.”[55]

32. “But I (myself) say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her to commit adultery, and whoever marries the divorced woman commits adultery.”

Jesus now returns to his concern over the committing of adultery. Debate looms over the “exception” clause (parektos logou porneia). The phrase logou porneia is not standard Greek wording and it is likely not “natural” Greek.[56] Krister Stendahl writes that the phrase “renders the Hebrew” and shows Matthew’s “dependence upon Jewish terminology.”[57]

The Hebrew phrase erwat dabar (lit. “thing of nakedness”) is translated into the Greek phrase logou porneia in Matt 5:32.[58] Therefore, the phrase is clearly evoking the language of Deut 24:1.[59]

However, in the context of Deuteronomy, erwat dabar cannot refer to any form of sexual immorality. The Law demanded capital punishment for adultery instead of a written “certificate of divorce” (Lev. 18:6-19; 20:11-21). Instead, the near context indicates that the offense is indecent public exposure (Deut 23:13-14). According to the Mosaic Law, a husband was allowed to divorce his wife only if there was found in her some “indecency” that defiled her and made her unclean.[60]

What then does porneia mean? The semanctic range of porneia includes: unlawful sexual intercourse, prostitution, sexual immorality, unchastity, and acts of fornication.[61] The word encapsulates a number of sexual offences and is a “catch-all term” used throughout the NT.[62] In Matt 5:32 porneias is referring to any sexually immoral deed that counts toward an adulterous infraction of the marital covenant. In ancient Palestine only men were allowed to dissolve a marriage contract.[63] That is the reason that Jesus is addressing men in this passage.

Jesus says that those who divorce their wives poiei auten moicheutheai (cause their wives to commit adultery). Not only does the husband make his wife commit adultery, but he also causes the new husband that comes after to do the same and join in on the adulterous affair.

The clause parektos logou porneia (except for sexual immorality) means that of course the husband has not caused his wife to commit adultery if she has already done so on her own accord.[64]

In Matt 19:3-9, Jesus’ teaching is given in the Marcan narrative form (10:2-12). Jesus’ teaching on divorce comes in response to questions from the Pharisees.

Some Pharisees came to him, and to test him they asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that the one who made them at the beginning “made them male and female”, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her?’ He said to them, ‘It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but at the beginning it was not so. And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery.’ (Matt 19:3-9 NRSV)

3-6. “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause” (v.3)? The Pharisees want Jesus to weigh in on the Hillel/Shammai debate. Also, it could be that they have heard that Jesus was opposed to divorce.

How does Jesus respond to the Pharisees desire to have a divine stamp of approval upon divorce? He evokes covenant language of “leave” and “cleave” (Deut 10:20; 11:22; 13:4; 30:20; Josh 22:5; 23:8; Ruth 1:14-16).[65]

Man and woman become a “one flesh” union.[66] This is not merely a sexual union, but a relational union that is created by God. Jesus responds with “what God has joined together, let no one separate” (v.6). According to Jesus, marriage is not a legal contract that can be cancelled by claiming “irreconcilable” differences.

7-9. This prompts another question by the Pharisees: “Why then did Moses command us to give a certificate of dismissal and to divorce her” (v.7)? Jesus says to them, “It was because you were so hard-hearted that Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (emphasis mine). Jesus shifts the focus from divorce itself (Deut 24:1) to the divine intention of marriage (Gen 1:27; 2:4).

N. T. Wright comments on Jesus’ maneuvering the biblical text:

Jesus responds with an assertion which reveals that he stands at a vitally different point in Israel’s story. Deuteronomy, he says, is part of a temporary phase in the purposes of YHWH. It was necessary because of the ambiguous situation, in which Israel was called to be the people of god, but was still a people with hard hearts. Israel cannot be affirmed as she stands. She is still in exile, still hardhearted; but the new day is dawning in which the ‘the Mosaic dispensation is not adequate’, since ‘Jesus expected there to be a better order’. By quoting Genesis 1:27 and 2:4 to undermine Deuteronomy 24:1-3, Jesus was in fact making it clear that the story to which he was obedient was that in which Israel was called by YHWH to restore humankind and the world to his original intention.[67]

“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery” (v. 9). There is a notable difference in the Greek clause of 19:9. The phrase parektos logou porneia from Matt 5:32 and the verse’s connection to Deut 24:1 is lost.

Instead, the clause in Matt 19:9 is “me epi porneia.” As previously stated, 5:32 simply means that the husband “causes” the wife to commit adultery, parektos logou porneia (except for sexual immorality). If she has already done the deed herself then the husband has not caused it. What about the difference of language and syntax in 19:9—how does it harmonize with 5:32?[68] It is probably best to translate the preposition (epi) as a dative in the temporal: “not during sexual immorality.”

Many scholars prefer to read this Matthean clause as a true exception,[69] saying it is representative of rabbinic halakhah and that Jesus was showing his agreement with Shammai.[70] But if Jesus was agreeing with one known tradition of halakhah, it does not merit the culture shock response of the disciples. They reply, “If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is better not to marry” (v.10).

Since Jesus paid no attention to the cultural norm that a husband could not commit adultery against his wife (Matt 19:9; Mk 10:11), it is unlikely that Jesus considered their halakhah demanding divorce for adultery.[71] Jesus instead calls for a higher ethic that is not matched by any known first century halakhah.

Doug Kennard cuts through the great hermeneutical haze that hovers around this oft-debated Matthean text, as he succinctly writes:

Jesus’ ethic on this point of the Law is more restrictive than the Law in its appeal. Therefore, Jesus’ exception clause cannot be softening and expanding the Law’s exception clause. If Jesus is saying that it is acceptable to divorce a wife for her sexual immorality, then He is denying several commands of the Law that required capital punishment (Lev 18:6-19; 20:11-21) and rendering Himself under His own declaration to be the least in the Kingdom and therefore self-contradictory.[72]

CONCLUSION—TILL DEATH DO US PART

After examining the historical and cultural context of the synoptic gospels, it is clear that Jesus radically internalizes the Law of Moses and gives his audience the authoritative call to discipleship in the kingdom of heaven.

In an initial reading, and due to the various traditional readings and interpretations of this passage, it may have seemed like Jesus was siding with the conservative Rabbi Shammai—agreeing that adultery is a legitimate reason for divorce. But Jesus has given us a higher ethic that protects women from abuse, places them on equal footing with men,[73] and sets fidelity in the relational union of marriage well within the scope of what it truly means to be faithful to God—actively participating in the work of the kingdom to build up, not to tear down.[74]

The so-called “exception” clause in Matt 5:32 and 19:9 cannot be allowing for the dissolution of a marriage, regardless of the oft-debated meaning of porneia or the slight differences in the syntax of one verse.[75] Matthew does not stand in contradiction to Mark and Luke on Jesus’ teaching concerning marriage, divorce, and remarriage.

The synoptic gospels must certainly be allowed to speak their inspired message to their own respective audiences. And at the same time, the reader must know that suspected contradictions rest with the interpreter, not in the inspired written text. Matthew was very much aware of Mark, even relying upon his gospel in his own composition. Therefore, he would not have deliberately altered the clear teaching of Jesus or softened it to accommodate a culture grown numb from a rampant “easy” divorce.

The Pharisees wanted to talk about divorce, but Jesus wanted to talk about marriage. People that are preoccupied with seeking legitimate grounds for divorce prove themselves to be guilty of the very thing Jesus condemned.[76]

As Richard Hays writes, “Those who trust God as revealed through Jesus will not seek such an escape clause from their marriages.”[77]

Jesus’ teachings are not an “interim ethic” as described by the quester Albert Schweitzer.[78] They are the true “character of kingdom life”[79] to be lived out while praying, “Your kingdom come. Your will be done, on earth as it is in heaven” (Matt 6:10).

Robert Stein echoes the very heart of Jesus:

The divine intention is a marriage “until death us do part.” A divorce, any divorce, reveals a failure of the divine purpose of marriage. Divorce, for whatever the cause, witnesses to a failure somewhere of what God originally ordained for his creation. The ideal is a lifelong, monogamous marriage that resembles the love affair of Christ and his Church (Eph 5:22-33). To contemplate divorce and in what instances a divorce may be legitimate is to think very differently from the way in which Jesus thought.[80]

And what were the thoughts of Jesus on divorce? He said, “Therefore what God has joined together, let no man put asunder” (Matt 19:6). He concluded with, “Go… teaching them (all nations) to obey everything I have commanded you” (Matt 28:19a,20a).

D.D. Flowers, 2011.

[1] Mark 10:2-12; Luke 16:18; Matthew 5:27-32; 19:3-9; 1 Corinthians 7:10-13.

[2] J. P. Meier begins his investigation of the historical Jesus’ sayings on divorce in his book: A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus, Vol. 4. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009), 74. Meier has a “sample” bibliography that covers a vast amount of scholarly books and articles which address marriage, divorce, and remarriage in the ancient Near East.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Meier, 79. The context (Deut 23-24) seems to indicate that erwat dabar refers to public exposure or indecency mentioned in 23:13. Whatever this “nakedness of a thing” is in 24:1, it does not include adultery. Marital unfaithfulness was a capital crime punishable by death (Deut 22:22; Lev 20:10).

[5] J. Carl Laney, “Deuteronomy 24:1-4 and the Issue of Divorce.” Bibliotheca Sacra 149, no. 593 (January 1, 1992): 4.

[6] Christopher Wright, Deuteronomy. New International Biblical Commentary. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1996), 255.

[7] Meier, 83.

[8] The “Dead Sea Scrolls” describes a vast amount of ancient scrolls discovered from 1947 to 1956 in a variety of different places in Judea. The “Qumran” scrolls refer to those texts found in 11 Qumran caves on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea. See Wise, Abeg, and Cook, The Dead Sea Scrolls: A New Translation. (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2005), 5.

[9] N.T. Wright, The New Testament and the People of God, Vol. 1: Christian Origins and the Question of God. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 203.

[10] Hans Dieter Betz, The Sermon on the Mount: A Commentary on the Sermon on the Mount, including the Sermon on the Plain (Matthew 5:3-7:27 and Luke 6:20-49). Hermeneia—A Critical and Historical Commentary on the Bible. Minneapolis, MN: Augsburg Fortress, 1995.), 252; Betz writes: “New documents from the Dead Sea Scrolls have provided additional evidence that prohibition of divorce was not as uncommon by the time of Jesus as scholars had once believed.” Meier writes that, “sweeping statements about divorce being prohibited at Qumran should be avoided” (Marginal Jew, 93). Fair enough.

[11] Wise, Abeg, and Cook, 623.

[12] The following scrolls condemn the practice of adultery: 1QS 1:1-6, CD 2:14-16; 4:12b-5:11.

[13] Betz, 252. Meier writes, “On the question of divorce, the historical Essenes may be more elusive than the historical Jesus. The Essenes did forbid polygyny; their position on divorce remains a question mark” (Marginal Jew, 93.)

[14] C.D. Younge, trans. The Works of Philo. New ed. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1993), 597.

[15] William Whiston., trans. The Works of Josephus. New ed. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1987), 120.

[16] David Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. (London: University of London Press, 1956 and Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 371.

[17] Everett Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity, 3d ed. (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans, 2003), 134. Ferguson has a discussion of Jewish and Greco-Roman marriage on pgs 72-79.

[18] David Instone-Brewer, “Marriage and Divorce.” The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. ed. John J. Collins and Daniel C. Harlow, 916-917. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2010), 916.

[19] The Mishnah is a major source of Jewish religious practice and rabbinic legal reflection. It is an official codification of the oral law. It was codified ca. AD 170. Two types of material appear: halakhah (law) and haggadah (stories).

[20] Meier is skeptical of any pre-70 debate within Judaism. He believes this may be anachronistic of NT scholars to read the Mishna back into Gospels. See his Marginal Jew, 94-95.

[21] Wright, N.T. The New Testament and the People of God, Vol. 1: Christian Origins and the Question of God. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1992), 201. Wright says, “Disputes between the different Pharisaic schools are the stuff of which the Mishnah is made up.”

[22] Darrell L. Bock and Gregory J. Herrick, Jesus in Context: Background Readings for Gospel Study. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005), 85. After Hillel, Rabbi Aqiba said a man could divorce his wife if he found someone else more attractive! Divorce was out of control in first century Palestine.

[23] There is some question as to the place this passage has in the biblical text. Regardless, the story has all of the historical and biblical signs of a real event in the life of Jesus.

[24] John Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34. Word Biblical Commentary. (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 817.

[25] Gordon D. Fee, New Testament Exegesis: A Handbook for Students and Pastors, 3d ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 20.

[26] Mark L. Strauss, Four Portraits, One Jesus: An Introduction to Jesus and the Gospels. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007), 32.

[27] Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament. (New Haven: Yale Univ. Press, 1997), 111; 163; also Stanton’s The Gospels and Jesus. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993), 34.

[28] This addition by Matthew is likely due to the “any cause” divorce teaching of the school of Hillel. The Gospel of Matthew has more of a Jewish concern than does the Gospel of Mark.

[29] Meier, 110.

[30] This will be addressed in detail within the section on the Gospel of Matthew.

[31] Meier, 113.

[32] Brown, 116-122. See R.E. Brown’s Introduction to the New Testament for an overview of “Q”.

[33] Nolland, Luke 9:21-18:34. Word Biblical Commentary. (Dallas: Word Books, 1993), 820.

[34] Stanton, 59.

[35] D.A. Carson, “Matthew.” The Expositor’s Bible Commentary. ed. Frank E. Gaebelein, Vol. 8. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1984), 20. It may well be that Carson is reticent to accept that Matthew was written later in the 80’s or 90’s, despite convincing arguments from internal evidence, because some “anti-supernatural” critics presuppose that Jesus could not have foretold the events of AD 70. Regardless, the early Markan testimony of Jesus still remains (13:1-2). Therefore, the weight of Jesus’ words regarding the destruction of the temple is not diminished with Matthew writing of a fulfilled prophecy “after-the-fact”.

[36] Anthony J. Saldarini, Matthew’s Christian-Jewish Community. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1994), 4. Saldarini locates the Matthean community in Syria toward the later end of the first century.

[37] Matthew does not hesitate to show Jesus’ appeal to Gentiles (2:1-12) and he is the only Gospel writer to use the word ekklesia “church” (16:18; 18:17). See Saldarini’s discussion (100-107).

[38] Jacob Neusner, Judaism When Christianity Began: A Survey of Belief and Practice. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 24.

[39] This can also be seen in Matthew’s borrowing of phrases from the story of Moses to describe events in Jesus’ life (cf. 2:13, 20-21; 17:2, 5; Exod 2:15; 4:19-20; 34:29; Deut 18:15).

[40] Robert H. Mounce, Matthew. New International Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998), 4.

[41] Saldarini, 7.

[42] All of the English translations of the Greek are my own.

[43] John Nolland. The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text. The New International Greek Testament Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), 228. The first of six antitheses begins with Jesus internalizing the Law on the matter of anger/murder (see Matt 5:21-26).

[44] Jesus said that did not come to abolish the Law and the Prophets with his teaching (5:19).

[45] Nolland, 229. The “men of old” in 5:21 are the Jewish ancestors of the wilderness generation.

[46] W.D. Davies and Dale Allison. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel According to Saint Matthew, Vol. 1. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 511.

[47] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), 523, 616.

[48] Davies and Allison, 523.

[49] Robert H. Stein, The Method and Message of Jesus’ Teachings. Rev. ed. (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1994), 9. Stein makes a distinction between overstatement and hyperbole.

[50] Grant R. Osborne, Matthew. Zondervan Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2010), 196.

[51] Davies and Allison, 514-515: “without ancient support, although it could be correct.”

[52] Wallace, 693.

[53] Davies and Allison, 527.

[54] Instone-Brewer, 917. As previously mentioned, the rabbinic school of Hillel taught that a man could divorce is wife for any cause (e.g. “Even if she spoiled his dish…” m. Gittin 9.10). The school of Shammai was more conservative and taught that a “cause of indecency” (i.e. adultery) was the only legitimate grounds for divorce.

[55] Daniel Fanous, Taught by God: Making Sense of the Difficult Sayings of Jesus. (Rollinsford, NH: Orthodox Research Institute, 2010), 21; also E. P. Sanders writes, “Moses did not command divorce, he permitted it; and to prohibit what he permitted is by no means the same as to permit what he prohibited” in his book, Jesus and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1985), 256.

[56] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 244.

[57] Krister Stendahl, The School of St. Matthew and Its Use of the Old Testament, 2d ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1968), 137. An older book that is still worth its salt.

[58] Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew, 245.

[59] Davies and Allison, 528. Matthew’s Jewish audience would immediately recognize this intentional Semitism. It is Matthew’s way of linguistically connecting Jesus’ interpretation to Deut 24:1.

[60] Douglas W. Kennard, Messiah Jesus: Christology in His Day and Ours. (New York: Peter Lang, 2008), 122. Kennard understands Deut 24:1 in light of covenant nomism and the holiness code.

[61] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Christian Literature, 3d ed., ed. Fredrick W. Danker. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 854; also in Friedrich Hauck and Siegfried Schulz. “porneia” in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, vol. 6. ed. by Gerhard Kittel, 579-595 (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964), 579; Word meaning abounds! Robert Guelich believes “porneia” refers to an incestuous relationship. See his book, The Sermon on the Mount: A Foundation for Understanding. (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1982), 245. Craig Keener believes this view is much too narrow. See his commentary, The Gospel of Matthew: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009), 467; A small number of scholars believe that “porneia” is unfaithfulness during the Jewish betrothal period. See David Jones, “The Betrothal View of Divorce and Remarriage.” Bibliotheca sacra 165, no. 657 (January 1, 2008): 68-85; also Abel Isaksson, Marriage and Ministry in the New Temple. (Lund: C. W. K. Gleerup, 1965). This is a plausible view. However, the exact meaning of “porneia” is not that critical to the claims of this paper, since 5:32 and 19:9 are not seen as escape clauses.

[62] Richard B. Hays, The Moral Vision of the New Testament. (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1996), 355. Hays has a nice overview of the way “porneia” is used in the NT on pgs 354-356.

[63] Instone-Brewer, 917. See also, Meier, 74-75; and D. Daube, The New Testament and Rabbinic Judaism. London: University of London Press, 1956 and Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1998), 362-372.

[64] This may be an interpretive clause inserted by Matthew for his Christian-Jewish audience. If that is the case, it is a simple clarification on what was already a hard teaching of Jesus to Law-abiding Jews. It may never be known what actually prompted Matthew to include this explanatory clause.

[65] William A. Heth, “Divorce and Remarriage : The Search for an Evangelical Hermeneutic.” Trinity Journal 16, no. 1 (March 1, 1995): 83. For Heth’s full perspective, Heth and G.J. Wenham. Jesus and Divorce: The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus. (Nashville: Nelson, 1985). Heth and Wenham believe adultery allows for divorce, but they do not believe Jesus permitted remarriage. If God has joined husband and wife in a relational (kinship) unity, then only death can destroy that relationship.

[66] Paul uses this language to depict the unity Christ has with the church (Eph 5:22-33).

[67] N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1996), 285.

[68] Some MSS include the phrase “poiei auten moicheuthai” which appears to be an attempt to harmonize 19:9 with 5:32. See Bruce Metzger’s A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 2d ed. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994), 38.

[69] For a full discussion of views on Matt 5:32 & 19:9, see D.A. Carson’s Matthew, 413-418.

[70] Brad H. Young, Meet the Rabbis: Rabbinic Thought and the Teachings of Jesus. (Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson Publishers, 2007), 40; also Markus Ν. A. Bockmuehl, “Matthew 5:32; 19:9 in Light of Pre-Rabbinic Halakhah,” NTS 35 (April 1989): 295. Jesus agrees with Shammai? What about Matt 5:20?

[71] James M. Weibling, “Reconciling Matthew and Mark on Divorce.” Trinity Journal 22, no. 2 (September 1, 2001): 229n.

[72] Kennard, 124. See Matt 5:18-19; Mk 10:11-12; Lk 16-18.

[73] Amy-Jill Levine offers her polemical case against the idea that Jesus was elevating women in his teaching on divorce, in her book, The Misunderstood Jew: The Church and the Scandal of the Jewish Jesus. (New York: HarperCollins, 2006), 139-145.

[74] 2 Cor 5:16-21

[75] “In our judgment, the issue cannot, unfortunately, be resolved on exegetical grounds. Matthew’s words are too cryptic…” Davies and Allison, 529.

[76] John R. W. Stott, The Message of the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7). (Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1978), 98.

[77] Hays, 350.

[78] Albert Schweitzer, The Quest for the Historical Jesus. (London: SCM, 1906, 2000 2d ed.), 352.

[79] D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered. Christianity in the Making, Vol. 1. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 610. Dunn emphasizes the eschatological “already/not yet” tension of kingdom living.

[80] Robert H. Stein, “Is it Lawful for a Man to Divorce His Wife.” JETS 22, no. 2 (June 1, 1979): 120-121. Also see Stein’s article, “Divorce.” Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels. ed. Joel B. Green and Scot McKnight, 192-199. (Downers Grove: IVP, 1992). He writes, “It is difficult to counsel a Christian that divorce is an option for them. Clearly the burden of proof weighs heavily on anyone considering divorce, for God hates divorce. Divorce is never good, for it witnesses to a failure of the divine purpose” (p 198).

27 Comments | tags: adultery, albert schweitzer, bible and divorce, bock, brad young, christopher wright, d.a. carson, daniel fanous, daniel wallace, darrel bock, david daube, david instone-brewer, dead sea scrolls, divorce, early judaism, everett ferguson, exception clause, exegesis, gordon fee, graham stanton, grant osborne, hans dieter betz, hillel, j.p. meier, jewish debate, john nolland, john stott, josephus, kennard, let no man put asunder, luke 16, mark 10, mark strauss, marriage, matthew 19, matthew 19:9, matthew 5:32, meier, midrash, mishnah, n.t. wright, philo, porneia, qumran, raymond brown, remarriage, richard b. hays, robert mounce, robert stein, saldarini, second temple, shammai, teachings of Jesus, the gospel of matthew, w.d. davies, wayne allison, wiliiam heth | posted in Christianity, Church, Culture, Ethics, Theology

The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ

Category Archives: Ethics

Vision for 21st Century Evangelicalism, Book Four

Christ, Community, & Christian Ethics

Christ, Community, & Christian Ethics: The Legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

THE WORLD OF DIETRICH BONHOEFFER

Nazi Germany and the Confessing Church

Union Seminary and the Harlem Experience

From Pacifist Pastor to Nazi Resister

IDEAS BORN IN ADVERSITY

The Centrality of Christ

Christ in Community

Theological Ethics

CONCLUSION—PRAISE & CRITIQUE

God Behaving Badly

Let No Man Put Asunder

Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce

DIVORCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Law

The Prophets

THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD

The Qumran Scrolls

Philo & Josephus

Hillel & Shammai

THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS

The Gospel of Mark (10:1-12)

The Gospel of Luke (16:18)

The Gospel of Matthew (5:27-32; 19:3-9)

CONCLUSION—TILL DEATH DO US PART

BLOG NEWS!

Today’s Top Ten

WELCOME!

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Popular Tags

The Centrality and Supremacy of Jesus Christ

Category Archives: Ethics

Vision for 21st Century Evangelicalism, Book Four

Share this post!

Christ, Community, & Christian Ethics

Christ, Community, & Christian Ethics: The Legacy of Dietrich Bonhoeffer

THE WORLD OF DIETRICH BONHOEFFER

Nazi Germany and the Confessing Church

Union Seminary and the Harlem Experience

From Pacifist Pastor to Nazi Resister

IDEAS BORN IN ADVERSITY

The Centrality of Christ

Christ in Community

Theological Ethics

CONCLUSION—PRAISE & CRITIQUE

Share this post!

God Behaving Badly

Share this post!

Let No Man Put Asunder

Jesus’ Teaching on Divorce

DIVORCE IN THE OLD TESTAMENT

The Law

The Prophets

THE INTERTESTAMENTAL PERIOD

The Qumran Scrolls

Philo & Josephus

Hillel & Shammai

THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS

The Gospel of Mark (10:1-12)

The Gospel of Luke (16:18)

The Gospel of Matthew (5:27-32; 19:3-9)

CONCLUSION—TILL DEATH DO US PART

Share this post!

BLOG NEWS!

Today’s Top Ten

WELCOME!

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Popular Tags