New Eyes on the New Testament Pt.3

Studying the Letters

III. Interpretive Issues

  1. Understanding the Letters

Contextual Background

Although it is tempting to make assumptions when studying the letters, a good exegesis(1) requires consideration of the following factors. (2)

      (1) Chronology.  Material used to explain one text might not be representative of the time when another text was written. (3)    For example, information written about Judaism in either 500 BCE or 200 CE might not be reflective of first century Judaism. The teachings of the rabbis recorded in the Mishna in 200 CE (4) might not be consistent with the instruction of the rabbis in the days of Jesus.  Similarly, the instruction of religious leaders in 600 CE might not be representative of the teachings in the first century church.

      (2) Geography. Jewish concepts and practices were not necessarily monolithic in the ancient world. Perhaps the term “Judaisms” is a more accurate description than “Judaism”.  Judaism as practiced in Palestine was not totally consistent with the Judaism practiced in Egypt.  For example, in Egypt Jewish women could divorce their husbands while in Palestine they could not. 

      (3) Culture. As is the case today, various cultures had markers that were used to differentiate them from other cultures (ie. festivals, foods, entertainment, traditions, etc.).  When the letters were penned the Jews thought of themselves in contrast to the pagans, and the Greeks thought of themselves in contrast to the barbarians.

      (4) Anecdotal sources. Rabbis and Greek philosophers often held and taught different beliefs.  For example, Rabbi Akiba allowed men to divorce their wives if they found another woman more attractive. (5) Other rabbis were firmly against this practice. 

Hebrew Bible

Paul’s Hebrew roots were deeply imbedded in his theology (Acts 22:3). Taught under Gamaliel’s instruction as a rabbi, he maintained a high view of the Torah throughout his life.  Calling it holy, righteous and good (Rom 7:12), he regarded it as a source for example (1 Cor 10:11), teaching (Rom 15:4), and equipping (2 Tim 3:17).   His confidence in its instruction is further illustrated by his deferring to the Torah when he addressed Christian ethics outside of the Christ event and the character of God (Lev 11:44-45; 19:1; 20:7).

Theological Objective

Unlike the gospels that represent two occasions—the time the events occurred and the time they were recorded—the letters represent only one.  Similar to the gospels, each letter had a theological objective intended to address an issue or, as is the case in First Corinthians, multiple issues facing the church. 

Two of the most influential letters are Romans and Galatians.  In many ways they are similar in content, but very different in objective. The book of Romans was written to achieve unity between the Jew and Gentile factions in the same church.  Paul’s closing remarks emphasized acceptance of others and discouragement of division (14:1; 15:7; 16:17). Galatians was written to oppose a perverted gospel (1:7) and to encourage the new Christians to enjoy the freedom they had found in Christ (5:1-15)

In the Philippian letter Paul emphasized “one spirit and one man” (1:27) and the need to be like-minded (2:2).  In so doing he implied division within the church. Near the conclusion of the letter he mentioned conflict between two Christian sisters (4:2).  As a counter to their discord Paul instructed the church to have the attitude of Jesus, the perfect example of unselfishness and service to others.   He reinforced his teaching with part of an ancient hymn (2:5-11). Understanding the apparent purpose of this letter is crucial in the study of 2:12 for it is within this context Paul urged the church to “continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling”. The salvation under consideration was not one’s personal salvation, but the salvation of the church.  The survival of the church depended upon their willingness to move from selfishness to selflessness.  If the salvation of 2:12 is interpreted as a personal salvation, “working out salvation” contradicts Paul’s understanding of grace and the gospel. 

Different Translations

None of the original texts that comprise our New Testament remain today.  The earliest fragment of a copy is dated 125 CE.  The compiled translations of the letters that now form part of our New Testament represent versions that span the centuries.  It is erroneous to assume that any singular translation is completely honest to the original text.  Good scholarship does not demand knowledge of the original languages, but it does imply an open mind as updated translations from reliable sources are developed. (6) Consider the following two examples.

      (1) Romans 3:25, Philippians 3:8, and Galatians 2:15-16 all include a phrase that traditionally has been translated “faith in Christ”.  The NIV 2011 includes a footnote that explains the Greek preposition in all three passages has been translated as an objective genitive meaning “in” when in reality it functions as a subjective genitive correctly translated “of”.   With this better understanding, the texts take on a very different meaning.  Christians are not saved by their faith in Christ but rather by the faithfulness of Christ.

      (2) First Corinthians 7 is another such example. The 2011 NIV presents four modifications in its translation.  (a) The issue of the chapter is not marriage but sexual relationships (7:1).  (b) The emphasis in 7:2 is not that everyone should be married but that everyone should have sex with his or her own spouse. (c) The unmarried in 7:8 refers to widowers. (d) The subject of 7:27-28 is engaged and non-engaged people not those married and divorced.

Biblical Terms

Accurately defining biblical terms is often difficult.  While Bible dictionaries and Greek Lexicons are helpful, they are not fool proof in determining the meaning of words in a particular text.  For example:

      (1) The word temple in 1 Cor 3:16-17 refers to the whole church.  In 1 Cor 6:19 it signifies one’s body.

      (2) The Greek word for unmarried is agamos and is a combination of the word married (gamos) plus the negative “a” in front of it, hence “unmarried.”  This term is used four times in 1 Cor 7 and, given the contexts, has four different meanings.  In 7:8 it apparently means a widower.  In 7:11 it seems to mean divorced.  The context of 7:32 implies a man who has never married and in 7:34, a female virgin. 

     (3) The word porneia is used in the exception clauses of Matt 5:32 and 19:9. A study of the word reveals it can include all types of deviant sexual behavior. The Greek language had a specific term for adultery (moicheia) and Paul used both terms in 15:19.  This indicates a distinction of the two concepts. (7)  Moicheia is not used in either Matt 5:32 or 19:9; consequently porneia in those passages cannot mandatorily be translated as adultery.   Apparently Matthew was referencing another type of sexual behavior in those texts. In 1 Cor 5:1 Paul used porneia to describe an incestuous relationship.  Likewise, if Lev 17-18 is used to explain the Acts 15:29 text, porneia is referring to incest.

With these and previous thoughts in mind, I will address varying methods of biblical interpretation in the last and final entry of this series.


ENDNOTES:

  1. Exegesis is the process of discerning an author’s intent and meaning. 
  2. I am indebted to a recorded lecture by Dr. Richard Oster for some of these observations.

  3. The daily routines of those in urban centers differ from those in rural Appalachia even though both locations are part of the United States.

  4. The collection of written Jewish teachings called the Mishna was first available in 190-200 CE.  Prior to that time instruction was typically oral. 

  5. It is uncertain to what degree Akiba represented Jewish thought in the days of Jesus.

  6. Increased scholarship in Greek grammar and sentence structure creates better comprehension of the text.

  7. The following texts also list porneia and moicheia separately: Mark 7:21; 1 Cor 6:9; and Heb 13:4.

New Eyes on the New Testament Pt.2

II. Exegetical Issues

  1. Understanding the Gospels

The Synoptic Problem 

Determining the relationship of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, or the synoptic problem, is challenging at best.  Initially it is important to recognize that each of the gospels represents two different occasions:  the occasion of its writing and the occasion the events actually occurred.   It is generally accepted the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) were written in the early to late 60s, however some critics contend that Matthew and Luke were probably written in the 70’s or even 80’s.   Their composition and content indicate that Mark was written first then Matthew, followed by Luke.  Matthew reflects the basic outline of Mark but includes more information.  Luke probably had access to the content of Mark and Matthew and any sources they had.  In fact Luke told his readers he that investigated materials about Jesus from various sources (1:1-3).

Target Audience and Objective

When a writer wanted to convey information to Christians in the first century he chose one of two forms, a letter or a gospel.  While the gospels are more biographical in nature, the objective of their authors was not just to tell a life story.  Their intent was to use life events to convey a specific purpose or objective.

Matthew was a Jew writing to a mostly Jewish audience and/or those who would have been familiar with the Torah and Jewish tradition.  His account is filled with quotations from the Hebrew bible with no explanation of Jewish customs. According to the author of Hebrews some Christians were beginning to question Jesus’s credibility (Heb 5:11-6:6; 12:12).  Apparently Matthew’s objective was to affirm Jesus as the promised Messiah, and also to affirm him as a pro-Torah rabbi. Mark was targeting a mostly Gentile audience therefore he used more Jewish detail in his explanation of events. Consider the comparison of Matt 15:2-5 with Mark 7:1-12.  Both texts address hand washing and support of parents however only Mark provides the Jewish components.  Probably Mark’s objective was to define the nature of discipleship to a mostly Greco-Roman readership.  Luke wanted his mostly Gentile audience to understand Jesus as not just the savior of the Jewish nation but of the entire world.  Accordingly he traced the genealogy of Jesus back to Adam instead of Abraham as Matthew had done.  The gospel of John was probably penned in the mid 90’s and stands in contrast to Matthew, Mark and Luke.  Even though it is not one of the synoptic gospels, it too, illustrates an author pursuing a specific objective.  John informed his readers that his purpose in writing was to provide a basis for the belief that Jesus was indeed the Son of God (John 20:21). 

Significantly, the chronology of events was evidently not important for the gospel writers, nor were the details.  For example consider the following:

  1. Matt 8:26 and Mark 4:40: little faith or no faith in calming the storm.
  2. Matt 7:11 and Luke 11:13: good gifts or Holy Spirit from the Father.
  3. Matt 10:10 and Mark 6:8: take no staff or take a staff when going out.
  4. Matt 17:20 and Mark 9:29: faith or prayer in driving out demons.
  5. Matt 8:15 and Mark 1:31: wait on him or wait on them by Peter’s mother in law.

Selection and Adaptation of Material

The amount of information we have about Jesus’s life is very limited.  John affirmed Jesus did “many other miraculous signs” (20:30), and did “many other things” (21:25) that were not recorded.  Luke indicated three times he knew more information than he “selected” to include in his treatise. One, he said John exhorted the people “with many other words” (3:18).  Two, he reported the guards “said many other insulting things” to Jesus at the time of his death (22:65). Three, he stated that Peter said “many other words” (Acts 2:40).

Because Matthew, Mark and Luke each had a specific audience and theological objective in mind, they selected material that would fulfill their purposes.   This is clearly demonstrated by the conflict concerning divorce between Jesus and the Pharisees.   Both Matthew and Mark chose to include this event but they used it in different ways.  Mark included the dialogue as one of three triads he used to teach against divorce (1).  Mark also seemed to adapt the situation to his largely Gentile audience (at this point talking to the disciples in the house and not the Pharisees) when he added instruction about a woman divorcing her husband.  A Torah knowledgeable audience would have known that under Jewish law a woman was the property of her husband and, as such, could not divorce him.  For that same reason, according to the Torah, adultery could not be committed against the wife.   Matthew used the dialogue as a focal point to illustrate the fallacy of law keeping over servant hood.  Luke would have known of this conflict but “selected” not to record it.   Instead he included only one isolated statement about divorce and apparently used it to illustrate the greed of the Pharisees (Luke 16:18).   

In another example Matthew and Mark adapted the illustration of the fig tree to accomplish two different objectives.  According to Matthew Jesus cursed the fig tree, it immediately withered, and then Jesus used the example to teach about faith (21:19).  In Mark, Jesus cursed the fig tree on the way to Jerusalem (11:12-14).  Upon his arrival there he rebuked the chief priest and teachers of the law (11:18), but it was not until the next morning that the withering of the fig tree was mentioned.  For Mark the cursing of the fig tree appears to be symbolic of Jesus’s judgment of Judaism, followed by his teaching on faith (11:22-26).

Literary Style

The use of various literary devices was just as common in the ancient world as it is today.   A careful study of the gospels reveals that similes, puns, proverbs, metaphors, parables, and hyperboles were often used.   Parables and hyperboles were especially predominate in Jesus’s teaching.  The word parable comes from two Greek words and means to “cast along side of.”  Its intent is to compare something familiar with something that is not.   A hyperbole or overstatement is used to draw attention to an important concept.  For example when Jesus discussed wealth, he used the overstatement of a camel going through the eye of a needle.  A chiasmus is another literary device used in both ancient and modern times to emphasize a teaching, specifically statements are made (A, B) and then the concept is repeated in reverse order (B, A).  A modern day nursery rhyme is a good example: (A)“Old king Cole (B) was a merry old soul (B), a merry old soul (A) was he.”  An example of an ABCCBA chiasmus is found in Matt 6:24:   (A) “No man can serve two masters.” (B)“He will hate one”  (C) “and love the other.”  (C) “He will be devoted to one  (B) and despise the other.”  (A) “It is impossible to serve both God and Money.” A chiasmus can be found in one verse, a group of verses, a group of chapters or even a whole manuscript.

Observation

Perhaps we have erroneously tried to blend the gospels into one unit instead of regarding them as separate theological works.  Trying to harmonize them becomes a theological nightmare. The writers did not envision their work being copied or distributed to other audiences (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14); nor could they have predicted that their texts would be combined into one volume.  Note: This would have been true of the letters as well (Col 4:16; Rev 1:3).  Few people were literate and fewer still would have had a copy of a gospel. Rather these works were read and discussed in public gatherings.   I will pursue these thoughts with the New Testament letters in following posts.


ENDNOTES:

1. A triad is composed of a passion statement, misunderstanding by the disciples, and corrective teaching by Jesus.

New Eyes on the New Testament

Restudying the Gospels and the Letters

I. Fundamental Issues

Introduction:
In my early years as a disciple, I saw the Bible as a debater’s handbook. My preaching was mainly topical and I looked for scriptures that would answer what I perceived to be misinterpretations of the text by others. Years of study and maturity have convinced me that the Bible was not written for that purpose. I realize now that my method of seeking the truths within the text was very shallow. It has not been until more recent years that I have developed a more honest way of understanding scripture. Seeking the truths within the pages of the biblical text has been challenging and is a continuing process. My goal in the next several blog entries is to outline some considerations that have been very helpful to me on my quest. Perhaps they will be to you as well.

A. Inspiration

Initially, I want to emphasize that I choose to believe the Bible is the inspired word of God and is the nearest thing to the breath of God I know. Just as I accept but cannot understand how Jesus could be both divine and human, I believe scripture is a result of both divine and human involvement. I am willing by faith to accept the claims of scripture in respect to inspiration, the Holy Spirit’s influence on men of God, and the guidance Jesus promised (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21; John 14:26). But that is the extent of my human understanding. It would be presumptuous of me to surmise how much the divine was involved in the version of the Bible I have today.

B. Translation

The involvement of humans in the construction of our present day Bible presents several challenges. We do not have any of the original texts of the New Testament, but only copies of copies created by scribes. These are called variants. For example, Jesus spoke in Aramaic, the writers recorded his teachings in Greek and scribes made copies of their recordings. Later scribes copied the copies they received (1). Sometimes the scribes made human errors, changed wording, and even added materials (Acts 8:37; 1 John 5:8 and possibly Mark 16:9-20; John 7:53-8:11). As a result numerous copies of the texts existed in the ancient world. Approximately 5000 partial Greek manuscripts of New Testament text have survived to the present day. Textual criticism is the comparison of these variants to create what is considered the most accurate copy of the original manuscript. It stands to reason that our copies of the synoptic gospels do not always agree on events, chronology, and arrangement of materials (2).

Centuries after their composition the gospels were brought together in one book, the codex. Prior to the Reformation Movement, the Latin version of the variants was used to create other translations. However during the Reformation, Erasmsus combined the Greek variants into one manuscript called the Textus Receptus. As a result, many English translations were produced. The King James Version is a comparison of these different translations. When the Westcott-Hort Greek text was created in 1881, it replaced Erasmus’s work. In 1901 Koine Greek was recognized and during the 20th century numerous English translations were composed. With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls a new Textus Receptus called the Nestle-Aland was written. In recent times this text has under gone several revisions.

To a large degree the man in the pew is at the mercy of the textual critics who have tried to determine the best Greek texts from the many variants and the translators’ understanding of the resulting texts. With so many variables it can be conceded that no translation is a flawless rendering of the original text. Certainly the deficiencies of the KJV and other translations have created a number of problems (3).

The final result of all the New Testament writings is God’s communication with his creation through fallen and sometimes uneducated vessels. Just as he did with the Torah (2 Tim 3:16) (4) and regardless of the discrepancies, God guided the original writers’ objectives to provide the needed message. In spite of different recordings of the same events, dissimilarities in vocabulary, the lack of eye-witness accounts, the transmission of the synoptic gospels by scribes, and the creation of a proper Greek text and its translation into English, we acknowledge that in some way God used the divine to provide direction to the apex of his creation.

C. Historical and Cultural Background

Because the New Testament was not constructed in an historical vacuum, it is beneficial to consider the Greco-Roman world from 400 BCE through the first century. Having some understanding of this period makes interpreting the textual references to government, customs, religious factions and practices in Judea and the surrounding areas easier. LeMoine Lewis observed the following:

“Each book in the New Testament was produced in a particular historical context and first spoke to that situation and its problems. If the student of the New Testament wishes to receive anything approaching the fullness of its riches, he must master as much as possible of the history that is relevant…the more the modern reader looks back and knows of history, the better tuned his mind will be to catch the message of the New Testament for that time and for this.” (5)

During this time the Jews were not a homogenous group. Several different sects existed among them including the Pharisees, Sadducees, Essenes, and Herodians. Regardless of their differences however, they all the held to Torah and the function of the synagogue. This is seen throughout the gospels and Acts.

The Jews also shared basic beliefs that had sustained them through the centuries. From 722 BCE the Jewish people had been subject to exile and rule of foreign nations. Deeply imbedded in their minds was the hope of freedom. Two ideas controlled their view of the future. (1) They believed they were the elect and chosen people of God, and (2) they believed the one God who controlled the world would save them as he had done in the past history of Israel. This confidence in a redeeming God formed their views of eschatology or beliefs about the end of time. Consider the example of Paul and his view of an imminent return of Jesus. If a new convert in Corinth had read only one letter from him, he would have concluded the Lord would return in his lifetime (1 Corinthians 1:7; 3:13; 4:5; 5:5; 7:29, 31; 15:50-57; 16:22.) Paul’s later letters show a different attitude. In Phil 1:23 he mentioned being with the Lord before his return. References to an early return of Jesus can also be found in writings of John, James and Peter (Jam 5:8; 1 John 2:28; 1 Peter 5:4). (6)

Historically we must also acknowledge that we do not have all the writings by the apostle Paul. Two and possibility three letters by him are missing (Col 4:16; 1 Cor 5:9; 2 Cor 2:3). (7) We only have hints regarding other communication. His directives regarding marriage 1 Corinthians allude to a present distress (7:27), which quite possibly influenced his response. Historical information confirms the prediction by Agabus (Acts 11:26) that Macedonia area was experiencing a famine during this period of time. If that were the case, providing for a family would be challenging.

Understanding the culture of the Jewish and Greco/Roman worlds is equally important. Consider the following three examples: One, in the Greco/Roman world a couple was divorced if either party walked out of the marriage. No divorce certificate was required unless money was involved. Incestuous marriages were possible. Because the wife was considered the property of her husband in the Jewish world, only the husband could obtain the divorce. Incestuous marriages were forbidden (Lev 20:11-21). Second, Gentiles could eat meat offered to idols because consuming blood and the meat of strangled animals was acceptable. This was not the case in Jewish culture (Acts 15:29). Most Christian activity took place in houses and the Jews regarded eating as an expression of fellowship. Sharing a meal of questionable food was an issue for Jewish Christians (Gal 2:11). Third, Jesus asked a question: “Which of you, if his son asks for bread, will give him a stone?” (Matt 7:9) Ancient people heated their ovens with hot stones, therefore both bread and stones would be in the oven. (8)

For an extensive examination of the world of Jesus, I would suggest Backgrounds of Early Christianity (third edition)] by Everett Ferguson. In following blog entries I will address the exegetical issues in understanding the gospels and letters of the New Testament.


ENDNOTES:

  1. A scribe helped write at least some of Paul’s letters (Gal 6:11; Rom 16:22). Tertius felt free to add his own greeting to the church in Rome. Paul felt free to insert personal requests (2 Tim 4:13).
  2. Two of the synoptic writers (Mark and Luke) were not eyewitnesses to the accounts they recorded.  The source of their information could have been their own investigation (Luke 1:1-4)  other people (Peter and Paul).

  3. Rom 3:23; Phil 3:9; Gal 2:15-16; 1 Cor 7:28-29; Mal 2:16.

  4. Ps 19:7-9 Torah is perfect, trustworthy, right, radiant, pure and sure. Ps 19:12-13a.  Humans have errors, faults and willful sins, but without them man can be blameless (Ps 19:13b).

  5. Furman Kearley, Edward P. Myers and Timothy D. Hadley, eds.  Biblical Interpretation: Principles and Practice (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1986), 244-45.

  6. Jude 24; Heb 12:28; Acts 1:9-11. See Phil 1:6; 3:20; 4:5; Rom 13:11-12; Col 3:4; Titus 2:13; 1 Tim 6:14 1 Thess 1:10; 2:19; 3:13; 5:23).

  7. Paul was shipwrecked more times than recorded in scripture (2 Cor 11:25).

  8. Sometimes a literal translation of words does not communicate the accurate meaning of a text.

The Occasional Nature of the Pauline Letters

Even though 21st century readers of the New Testament letters usually find them bound in one volume, it is erroneous to assume they were written with that purpose—as a part of the whole. The writers of these letters did not realize their writings would eventually be combined with additional letters and other literary treatises by various authors. These combined versions did not appear until centuries after they were individually penned. Each New Testament letter was written to a specific audience and with a specific purpose in mind (1). The following observations will be limited to the letters of Paul with special attention given to 1 Corinthians.

Written about 56 CE, Galatians and 1 Thessalonians were Paul’s earliest letters. He had established churches in Galatia and his letter indicates a false gospel was being circulated among some of them. This “occasion” necessitated the need for the Galatian Christians to better understand the true gospel (Gal 1:6-9). The occasion of the Thessalonian letters is not as easy to determine although their content indicates confusion regarding Jesus’s return.

Unlike the Christians in Galatia and Thessalonica, the churches in Rome and Colossae did not personally know Paul. This fact alone makes his letters to them unique (Col 2:1-3; Rom 1:11; 15:23-29). The edict of Claudius had been overturned, consequently Jewish Christians had returned to Rome and a mostly Gentile church. This merger was creating friction and Paul was concerned about division. The church in Rome needed to be united because Paul planned to use it as a support base for his future evangelistic efforts in Spain (15:24). These future plans “occasioned” him to write Romans—a letter intended to help the Jewish and Gentile Christians better understand the implications of the gospel and in so doing create harmony in the church (1:14-16).

Paul obtained information from Epaphras that a false teaching was invading the Colossian church (1:7). This “occasioned” the need for a counter and Paul’s letter to the Colossians was his response. The exact nature of this teaching is unknown, but from Paul’s words it is safe to assume it included convincing arguments (2:4), angel worship (2:18), religious days (2:16), false humility (2:23), harsh treatment of the body (2:23), human tradition (2:8), and deceptive philosophy (2:8). Paul’s rebuttal to all of these issues was the nature and work of Christ (1:15-3:4).

The targeted audience of the letter to the Ephesians is vague, but scholarship generally places its destination as the churches up and down the Lycus valley. Apparently Paul had not personally interacted with the Christians in these locations because this letter lacks the personal references of his other letters and he states that he had “heard” of their faith. This would not have been the case if the letter were intended only for the church in Ephesus. He had previously spent three years with the Ephesian church (Eph 1:15) and knew their elders (Acts 20:31). The Ephesian letter was “occasioned” by the need to encourage spiritual development among these churches. This is demonstrated by Paul’s use of the indicative (who you are) in chapters 1-3 followed by his use of the imperative (how you should live) in chapters 4-6.

The church at Philippi can be considered Paul’s “sweetheart” church because of its faithful support of his evangelistic work (4:15-16). However some of the members were not getting along (4:1-2), and the church was experiencing division and selfishness (2:3). Apparently this letter was “occasioned” by a divided church. Paul addressed still another issue in chapter three—too much self-confidence. Because Philippi was a community for retired Romans, this could have easily been an issue. To resolve the two-fold “occasional” problem of this church—selfishness and self-confidence, Paul admonished the Philippian Christians to adopt the attitude of Christ (2:5) and to strive to know him (3:10).

Philemon is Paul’s shortest letter. It was “occasioned” by Paul’s desire to reunite a runaway slave with his Christian owner (1:19). Onesimus had stolen from Philemon and after converting the guilty slave, Paul offered to reimburse the stolen money to Philemon as part of the reconciliation process.

Perhaps 2 Corinthians is the most difficult of Paul’s letters to classify, in part because it lacks the continuity found in his other writings (2). Quite possibly it is a compilation of several of his letters. Within this treatise Paul provided a strong defense of his ministry (2:12-6:13) and gave instruction concerning a future collection (8:1-9:15).

The pastoral letters, 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus, were “occasioned” by Paul’s desire to offer direction to two young evangelists serving churches in Ephesus and Crete. He dealt with the appointment of church leaders, issues facing the churches, godly behavior, and the spiritual well being of Timothy and Titus (1 Tim 3:1-15; Titus 1:5-9). He also made some personal requests of Timothy (2 Tim 4:13).

Judging from its wording, 1 Corinthians appears to be the most “occasioned” letter of all of Paul’s writings because it is a direct response to information he had obtained from Chloe and the questions he had been asked (1:11). It reflects not only Paul’s personal perceptions and beliefs but also peripheral issues influencing the church. At the time of his writing, the church was experiencing the challenges of a present crisis—most probably a famine (7:26), and an extremely immoral society (7:2). Shadowing all of Paul’s responses were his views of eschatology (7:29, 31) and his belief that the single life style was best for every Christian (7:32-35) (3). Prior to answering the questions beginning in 7:1, Paul was confident in his directives. He instructed the church to be united (1:10-15), and attributed their division to a lack of spirituality (3:1-23). He provided directions regarding an immoral man (5:1-5) and lawsuits among Christians (6:1-8). He took a strong stance against immorality (6:9-20). His answers to the questions of 8:1, 12:1, 16:1 and 16:12 carry the tone of a confident inspired apostle, (4) and in 14:37 he emphasized his teachings were not his own, but the Lord’s command.

Paul’s answers to the questions in chapter 7 show a tentativeness not seen in any of his other responses, (5) nor in any of his other letters. Only in this chapter does he declare he has no information from the Lord and will rely on his own judgment to provide instruction for mixed marriages, virgins, and widows. (6) Significantly, Paul’s teachings on sexuality and marriage are limited by the questions he received and the time the letter was penned. In no way should I Cor 7 be regarded as his complete theology on the topic. For example, the instruction Paul gave the widows in 7:8 and 7:40 is not the same instruction he gave widows in 1 Tim 5:14. The “occasion” that prompted the writing of 1 Timothy did not include the “occasion” of a present crisis and Paul’s belief in the imminent coming of Jesus.

By acknowledging and attempting to understand the circumstances that occasioned Paul’s letters, we can better understand his teachings. We can also gain a better grasp of the issues that were facing individual churches in the first century world.


Footnotes:

1. Colossians 4:16 is an exception. The synoptic gospel writers did not envision their letters being copied, but only read (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14). Reading was a part of the synagogue service (Acts 13:15; Luke 4:16; 1 Tim 4:13).

2. See Appendix D Arrangement of 2 Corinthians. Jerry Jones, Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage: Seen through the Character of God and the Mind of Jesus. (Joplin: College Press, 2016),160.

3. The Torah did not support Paul’s view of singleness (Gen 2:18; Ps 127:3-5; 1 Sam 1:9-11).

4. Paul appealed to the teachings of Jesus in defending the support of preachers (9:14). In answering a question about the Lord’s Supper, Paul emphasized his teaching was “received from the Lord” and was not his own judgment (11:23).

5. “I say,” “I think,” “I wish,” “what I mean” and “I would like” are examples of his tentativeness.   In an apparent hesitation or even lack of confidence in his teaching, he claimed trustworthiness (7:25) and possession of the Spirit of God (7:40).  Twice Paul said he had no information from the Lord (7:12, 25) and was providing his judgment (7:25, 40).

6. 7:12; 7:25; 7:40.

The Occasional Nature of Paul’s Evangelistic Efforts

Paul was very definitive regarding his purpose and methodology in ministry:

“Though I am free and belong to no man, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible.  To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews.  To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under law.  To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law.  To the weak I became weak, to win the weak.  I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.  I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings” (1 Cor 9:19-23).

In the 1st century CE three boundary markers: circumcision, food laws, and the Sabbath (1), distinctly separated the Jewish and Gentile worlds. While these distinctions had existed for centuries, they did not become problematic until Paul’s mission efforts in the Greco-Roman world produced Gentile converts.  The book of Acts chronicles these struggles (Acts 13:49; 14:2, 21). Even though Peter believed the promise of salvation was for everyone, (Acts 2:39) he was personally hesitant to go to the God-fearing household of Cornelius (Acts 10: 9-23). Subsequently, he had to defend his choice to his Jewish brothers (Acts 11:1-18).  Even later he had difficulty fellowshipping non-Jewish converts in Antioch (Gal 2:11-12). Eventually the problem created by integrating Jews with non-Jewish converts escalated and necessitated the need for the Jerusalem conference of Acts 15.   This conference concluded with the construction of a letter based on the holiness code of Leviticus (Leviticus 17-26).  Meant to disarm the varying schools of thought it was sent to Gentile Christians in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia (Acts 15:23).   

Paul was the undisputed leader in taking the gospel to the Greco-Roman world (Acts 9:15; 13:36).  We have an account of two rather lengthy ministries with Greco-Roman churches.  He worked with the church in Ephesus for three years (Acts 20:31) and the church in Corinth for 18 months (Acts 18:11).  While it is impossible to know the entirety of his teaching to the Corinthians, we do know they sent questions to Paul after his departure.  Specifically they were concerned with how, as Christians, they should relate to the world around them and how they should conduct themselves among other Christians. One of the questions centered on eating meat as forbidden by the Holiness code of Leviticus and the conference letter (1 Cor 8:1).   In a masterful way, Paul shifted the focus from specifics to the overall objective—sharing the gospel.  His approach to evangelism was his willingness to adapt himself to others for the salvation of the lost (1 Cor 9:19-23). 

In three examples Paul demonstrated his willingness to modify his teaching and his actions to fit an “occasion.”  The first example focused on Christians and the Jewish food laws.  Under normal conditions Paul would have supported the directions of the Jerusalem conference letter regarding the food laws in Judaism (Acts 15:29).  However, in response to their question about eating meat offered to idols, he told them there were “two occasions” where it would be permissible: (1) if meat was bought in the market place, the Christian should not ask questions about its origin (1 Cor 10:25); and (2) if an unbeliever invited a Christian to eat meat with him, the Christian was not to ask about the origin of the meat (1 Cor 10:27).     

In the second example Paul adapted his teaching on circumcision to fit an “occasion”.  The Jerusalem conference had made it clear that circumcision was not a salvation issue and should not be required of Gentile converts. Paul supported this stance in his letter to the Galatian churches (Gal 5:6, 12), using uncircumcised Titus as an example (Gal 2:1-5).  He also argued against the merit of circumcision in his instruction that the Corinthians remain in the state they were called (1 Cor 7:19). When Paul decided to convert Jews, Timothy accompanied him.  On this “occasion” he ordered Timothy be circumcised (Acts 16:3) so that he would be effective in converting Jews.      

In the third example Paul adapted his activities to fit an “occasion” in his reaction to criticism.  He went to Jerusalem to visit James and the elders and reported the success of the Gentile ministry. James and the elders applauded the success of this ministry (Acts 21:17-20), however there was concern that Paul was teaching the Jews who lived among the converted Gentiles to turn away from Torah (Acts 21:21).  This criticism might not have been justifiable, so in order to preserve Paul’s credibility, the Jerusalem church leaders told Paul to pay the purification expenses of four men (Exod 29:37; Lev 12:2-8; 13:6; Num 19:14).    By this action, Paul would prove the reports untrue and verify that he was “living in obedience to the law” (Acts 21:24).  Because Paul had been involved with Gentiles some might have thought him “unclean” (Acts 21:26).  Consequently Paul not only paid the requested amount, he joined in the purification rites. He felt the “occasion” demanded he join in the purification rites and, in so doing, supported the teaching of Torah. Paul’s personal involvement demonstrated his respect for the law.

Conclusion 

Even though other illustrations of the occasional nature of scripture are threaded throughout the New Testament, these three examples underscore Paul’s evangelistic approach:  I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.


Footnotes:

1 The Sabbath and special days like Pentecost were important to Paul (1 Cor 16:8).  His visits to the synagogue on the Sabbath could have been for both evangelistic purposes and his personal respect for observing the Sabbath (Acts 13:5, 14; 16:13; 17:2, 10; 18:7).

2 Peter’s response in Acts 10:14 showed the importance of eating and associating with non-Jews.

A Fifteen-Year Journey, Pt. 3

The next issue that demanded examination was the ‘exception clause’ found in Matt 5:32 and 19:9. Two major concerns became apparent: 1) How should the word porneia be understood, and 2) What was the origin of the clause? Evidently Matthew did not think porenia and the word for adultery (moikia) had the same meaning because he used both terms in Matt 15:19. This distinction is also supported by other texts such as Mark 7:21, Cor 6:9, and Heb 13:4. After extensive research, I determined the two most probable meanings for porneia were incest or unfaithfulness during the engagement. The later supported Joseph’s plan to divorce Mary and the former addressed the issues of Gentiles integrating into Matthew’s Jewish church. Significantly, Mark, Luke and Paul showed no knowledge of the exception clause therefore their Greco-Roman readers would have been oblivious to it. If that were the case, what was its origin? Two options seemed most probable: (1) Jesus could have included the clause but if the teaching were truly significant, why did the other synoptic authors omit it? (2) Matthew inserted the clause to deal with the issues his Jewish audience was facing. Also, If the exception was added by Matthew, the synoptic gospels (and Paul) supported Jesus’s explanation of Gen 2:24 (“what God joined together, let man not separate”), and explained the disciples’ response in referring to marriage in Matthew 19.

The New Testament is strangely silent on issues dealing with marriage and divorce, and after years of study, I was faced with the dilemma of maintaining the integrity of the text and integrating its principles into a 21st century world. The textual silence is especially problematic given the common practice of divorce in the Greco-Roman world and the popularity of the no fault divorce in the Jewish culture. Seemingly if marriage and divorce had been an issue in the early church, it would have been the topic of more instruction. A theology on the topic could not be based in part upon metaphors and hyperboles used to communicate its message.

I was convinced that because of occasion, linguistic style, and historical context, the marriage and divorce texts had built in limitations.

As I reflected on the biblical story as a whole I realized perhaps I had missed the obvious. Paul was the apostle to the Greco-Roman world of the first century (Acts 9:15; Gal 2:7). It was a world of paganism characterize by immoral conduct (Rom 1:26-32; 1 Cor 5:1; 7:2). As I studied the writings of Paul, I concluded Paul’s foundational approach for the ethical and doctrinal challenges he faced in the Greco-Roman world were two fold: the character of God and the mind of Jesus. Whether Paul was dealing with conduct or doctrine, his approach was always the same. Because of his strong rabbinic background and his understanding of the teachings and life of Jesus, this was the natural foundation for his ministry. The more I reflected the clearer a biblical/contemporary pattern of marriage and divorce became.
Because of his understanding of Torah, Paul believed God should be imitated and followed (Eph 5:1; Col 3:10; 1 Peter 1:15-16). God’s marriage to Israel became the standard. God’s patience, compassion, forgiveness and his determination to save marriage became Paul’s paradigm.
The mind and ministry of Jesus became the lens through which he determined the proper conduct for all disciples (Gal 4:19; Col 1:27; 2:6; Rom 8:29; 13:14; 2 Cor 3:18).

Using the character of God and the mind of Jesus as the benchmark, Paul declared what conduct was right or wrong. In an ideal world, divorce would be a non-issue but the world is anything but ideal. We are a flawed people living in a flawed world. People divorce. Perhaps instead of imposing our opinions on how various situations should be viewed, we should take a cue from Paul. When we approach all of life through the lens of the character of God and the mind of Christ, our sight is clarified. Such was the goal in writing my book, Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage: Seen Through the Character of God and the Mind of Jesus. Even with a lack of information on how the early church dealt with specific situations, we can navigate life’s most complex issues, including those surrounding marriage and divorce.

I readily admit my journey is far from over and my treatise is certainly not the final word on the topic. I invite you to join me in the pursuit of the heart of God and the mind of Christ as we study the truths in His word.

 

To read the previous articles in this series, please follow these links:

A Fifteen-Year Journey, Pt. 2

Using a better grasp of Torah and God’s divorce from Israel as a backdrop, I turned to the marriage and divorce texts in the synoptic gospels. The God of the Hebrew Bible was also the God of the New Testament. He had not changed nor had his will. However in many respects I began to realize my own deficiency in acknowledging God’s continuity in his attitude toward marriage. While at this point I was still years away from finalizing my thoughts, the seeds of a different view on marriage, divorce and remarriage were planted.

When not addressed in person, issues in the early church were addressed by pen—in the form of a letter or a gospel (Jas 1:1). While both were responses to situations, they were constructed differently. The more I learned, the more I realized that unlike biographies of today, the gospels were life stories that were written with theological objectives. I quickly grasped how significant this would be.

I began my study of marriage and divorce in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) with Mark 10:1-12 because it is considered to be the first gospel written. Neither Matthew nor Luke had written their gospels at the time of Mark’s writing so he had no access to their texts, however Matthew could have used the gospel of Mark as a resource. With this in mind I compared the Mark text with a similar text in Matt 19:1-12 and studied the fourteen differences in the recording of the Jesus-Pharisee dialogue by the two authors. This prompted extensive research into the individual gospels and after a period of time I realized my previous approach to their study had been incorrect. I concluded that I had thought and had even taught that the synoptic gospels could be harmonized; however doing so distorted the unique objective each writer had for their readers (Matt 24:15; Mark 13:14). Each gospel writer achieved his objective by the selection, arrangement, and adaptation of the information about Jesus that he included. Efforts to understand each gospel text could not be limited by who wrote it, to whom and why, but should also take into account the selection, arrangement and adaptation of the material in order to grasp the theological objective. For example, Mark evidently adapted his text to fit his mostly non-Jewish audience and his purpose for writing by including Jesus’s reference to a woman divorcing her husband (under Jewish law that was impossible because she was the property of her husband). Matthew, who omitted the illustration, wrote to a Jewish audience who would have recognized a woman could not divorce her husband. When Matthew mentioned Jewish practices he did not explain them as Mark had done to his non-Jewish readers (Matt 15:1-6; Mark 7:1-13). The teaching on divorce in Matthew 19 is one of two examples showing the fallacy of law keeping (a non-issue to Mark’s mostly Gentile audience) as opposed to humble servanthood. As with 1 Corinthians 7, each of the synoptic gospels had an occasion for which they were written. However unlike 1 Corinthians 7, the gospels encompassed two occasions. The first was the occurrence of the actual event and the second how the author used the event to achieve his theological objective when penning his gospel years later. This understanding explained why the events were not recorded in the same way and why some of the writers did not use the same stories or materials.

With this perspective in mind I moved my focus to Matt 5:32 and tried to approach the text as the people would have heard and received it. Like Paul, Jesus was a Torah observant rabbi (Matt 5:17-20). Because the Deut 24:1-4 text is mentioned in three of the marriage and divorce passages in the synoptic gospels I felt the need to revisit that text. Admittedly, defining the word indecent was problematic, but even so the concession was granted because of hard-hearted men. The more I studied, the more I realized the text had a three-fold purpose: (1) to keep divorce from occurring, (2) to protect women, and (3) to protect a second marriage. Building on Jesus’ rabbinic background I returned to Matthew and soon realized, among other things, that Matthew 5:32 could not be understood literally without violating Deut 24:1-4—something Jesus would never do. He had come to clarify (fulfill) the law not to abolish it. Because of his respect for Torah and its intended meaning, throughout the sermon on the mount Jesus had chosen to use a very common teaching style at that time (hyperbole and metaphor) to make his point. With this understanding the teaching of Matt 5:32 became clear: Jesus was opposed to divorce. He was not answering the question can divorced people marry, but can married people divorce. The similarity of the teachings found in Matthew 5, 19 and Mark 10 all provided a uniform message: disciples do not divorce.

The Luke 16:18 text was more of a challenge to understand because of it’s vague context. Luke chose not to include the Pharisee-Jesus dialogue for his readers however the text did compare favorably with Matt 5:32. It is located in a cluster of teachings about money and greed so perhaps this text is best seen as an illustration of those who would divorce and marry to gain another dowry (Luke 16:14). Again the teaching is there: disciples do not divorce.

To be continued…

To read the article previous to this: A Fifteen-Year Journey, Pt. 1

To read the following article: A Fifteen-Year Journey, Pt. 3

A Fifteen-Year Journey, Pt. 1

Perhaps one of the greatest blessings of getting older (I turn 79 this year) is the opportunity to question youthful certainty. As I reflect now, much of my early ministry was rooted in my perceptions of absolutes and non-negotiable concepts. I learned to argue passionately with those in religious communities who disagreed with me, and frequently did so. Through the years time and life have mellowed me, certainly making me older and hopefully wiser. While non-negotiable concepts of my life still stand, they are fewer now—specifically two: Jesus Christ is Lord and the Bible is the word of God. My youthful determination to ‘get it all right’ has faded and I realize that a God who is gracious in my personal life is also gracious in my theology. On my very best day, my life and my theological views need grace. Decades of working ‘in the trenches’ have made me more tenuous in many areas of thought including the issues surrounding marriage and divorce. The ministry Lynn and I were and are involved in brought us almost weekly into the lives of good men and women struggling to do the ‘right thing’ in this area but uncertain as to what that was. My views on the topic had been rather stringent, and I began to wonder if my interpretations could be flawed. I read virtually everything that had been published on the subject in our fellowship and in other communities of faith as well. This only led to more confusion as I discovered vast disagreement on the topic. Many believed one thing but practiced another as the ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’ policy became more accepted. Surely there was a better way. Thus the journey began.

Initially I determined I would try to look at the individual biblical texts—and just the texts—without superimposing other texts as a filter. I began my study with 1 Corinthians 7 since chronologically it is the first recorded information on the marriage and divorce topic in the New Testament. Using only that text, it became quite obvious the information presented was not intended to be a theology on marriage and divorce, but rather a response to the questions Paul had been asked. Like a game of Jeopardy, we knew the answers but could only surmise the questions. Also woven into his responses were Paul’s beliefs in an early return of Jesus, his preference for a single and celibate life, and the present distress (historically a famine). Certain Greek words including unmarried, separate, and bondage begged to be restudied, as did the reason for Paul’s more tentative vocabulary as compared to his other letters. The introduction of the 2011 edition of the NIV proved to be very helpful in the translation of the chapter as I noted four changes in the reading of the text. A more subtle undertone in 1 Corinthians as well as his other letters was Paul’s early rabbinic training (Acts 22:3; Phil 3:4-6). He was a Torah educated Jew and Judaism was his default mindset. In order to correctly interpret Paul, I needed a better understanding of Torah and ancient Judaism.

According to ancient Judaism, marriage involved a change of loyalty, exclusiveness, covenant, and the provisions of food, clothing, and marital rights (Gen 2:24; Pro 2:17; Exod 21:10-11). In addition, God instructed his people not to marry foreigners and the home was to be a teaching center for the children (Deut 6:6-7; 7:3; Eph 6:4). Restudying God’s divorce from Israel and separation from Judah served as crucial background material ( Jer 3:6-10; Ezek 16:8-32; Isa 50:1; Hos 2:2-3:13) for my eventual conclusions. The Deut 24:1-4 text was essential in my future examination of the synoptic texts (Matt 5:31; 19:7; Mark 10:4).

Paul’s understanding of Torah provided a foundation for many of the teachings in 1 Corinthians 7. Based on his understanding of Jesus’s teaching, divorce was not a good option for any marriage but if it did occur reconciliation should be pursued. If an unbeliever left, the marriage was over because the elements of the Hebrew marriage (food, clothing, and marital rights) departed as well. The divorce certificate pronounced the end of the marriage and the freedom for a second marriage (Deut 24:1-4). Influenced by his views of the Lord’s return, the famine and his personal preference for singleness, his advice for everyone was to stay where they were. Circumcision and slavery further illustrated this marital concept in 7:17-24. The exception to his teaching of staying single was the issue of self-control (7:9, 37). His parting teaching for the widow to marry “only in the Lord” was based on his understanding of Deuteronomy 6 and 7. The information found in 1 Corinthians 7 was rooted in Torah, his view of the present situation or occasion, and his being trustworthy (7:25, 40).

To be continued…

A Fifteen-Year Journey, Pt. 2

A Fifteen-Year Journey, Pt. 3

Book Review: Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage

Edward Fudge 2Our new book, Marriage, Divorce & Remarriage: Seen Through the Character of God and the Mind of Jesus, has been out for a short time now. We’ve seen several reviews come through. Here is one that comes from Edward Fudge through his gracEmail newsletter. Thanks Edward!


YEARS OF STUDY EVIDENT IN J. JONES’ ALL-ENCOMPASSING NEW BOOK ON MARRIAGE, DIVORCE, REMARRIAGE — BUT ITS WISDOM AND ‘HEART’ POINT TO HIGHER SOURCE

BOOK NOTICE: Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage Seen Through the Character of God and the Mind of Jesus. Jerry Jones. College Press, 270 pages, 2016.

Dr. Jerry Jones had served God as an evangelist, local pastor, church-planter, and chairman of the Bible department in a Christian university, but no matter which hat he wore, he was called on to teach and to counsel other imperfect people on issues of marriage, divorce, and remarriage (MDR). His own views on MDR and the views of others in his faith-tradition were the same as those held by a great majority of evangelicals–views that sported a chain of neatly-arranged biblical proof-verses. But while contemporary churches often required would-be new members to undergo intensive grilling about their marriage history, Jones was struck by the fact that “the book of Acts chronicled how people became Christians, yet their marital status was never mentioned” (11).

The feeling that something was missing in his traditional understanding of MDR continued to nag Jones until he finally surrendered to the conviction that he must restudy the entire subject. That is what he did, for 15 years, and then he wrote this book. ” I had invested 50 years in a somewhat limited view,” Jones writes, ” . . . and changing that paradigm would be quite painful and difficult” (11). The book is practically all-encompassing– in scope, research, application. Along the way, Jones deals with such issues as canon, text, context, hermaneutics, Biblical languages, and culture. This is a work of first class scholarship, well worth the 15-year wait.

But as impressive as all that is, the scholarship is not the book’s greatest feature. That comes, in my opinion, in its “heart” and wisdom, as summed up in its subtitle: “seen through the character of God and the mind of Jesus.” That is the extra ingredient that scholarship alone can never provide, but which resonates with those who wish to replicate God’s character and to have the mind of Christ.

Jones takes on the subject under three major headings. In Part 1 (15-53) he examines Paul’s teaching in 1 Corinthians 7 on sex, celibacy and marriage. Noting that much of 1 Corinthians consists of Paul’s answers to questions from the Corinthians, Jones seeks to reconstruct the “other side” of the conversation. Chapter 7 presents another challenge in Paul’s appeals to a hierarchy of authority– things Jesus said, things Paul believed Jesus would agree with, Paul’s own opinions, etc. Recognizing the importance of cultural background to teaching on MDR, in both the first century and the twenty-first, Jones’ research shines through as he delves into Jewish and Roman practices and laws.

Part 1 concludes with a summary titled “Paul and Marriage,” which includes the apostle’s rationale for marriage, preferred status (single and celibate), and limitations of this chapter. Part 2 (54-110) turns to the teaching of Jesus on MDR in the gospels. Jones takes up Hebrew Bible texts, basic definitions, contextual considerations, comparisons of Matthew 19 and Mark 10, and thoughts on interpreting the marriage and divorce texts.

In Part 3 (111-128) Jones sets forth a theology of marriage, divorce, and remarriage, assigning himself to primary chores. The first concerns “understanding the situational, occasional nature of scripture.” The Bible’s teaching on MDR is not in the form of articles on systematic theology. The second chore is developing “a biblical, contemporary paradigm for marriage, divorce, and remarriage.” These two sections are followed by pastoral considerations and a conclusion to Part 3.

A 16-page selective bibliography provides some indication of the research behind this book. Twenty-five appendices on a variety of related topics, special areas of study, reflect the author’s wide-ranging interests and exhaustive research on MDR.

In closing, serious Bible students with no prior knowledge of Biblical languages can read this book and benefit from it, while its contents will leave the most ardent scholar satisfied as to its methodology and research.

For the past 20 years, Jones and his wife Lynn have been involved in strengthening marriages through their “Marriage Matters” conferences, which they have conducted more than 450 times in 43 states and 6 foreign countries. For more information on the conferences or to order this book, see the website www.marriagematters.ws or by email to marmatsem@gmail.com or call 636-936-1075.

Slider 4