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

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