Customer Reviews

Jesus and Divorce: The Problem With the Evangelical Consensus

5 star:		(3)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(0)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(0)

 

 

Heth and Wenham's work is very important because it debunks the view of of marriage, divorce and remarriage that is held widely by today's Evangelical Church. The authors compellingly demonstrate how the modern evangelical consensus has it origins in the humanist Erasmus, which view was championed by the reformers as a means of overthrowing the marriage-as-sacrament position of the Roman Catholic Church. Heth and Wenham show that in following the humanist approach, the reformers depart from a biblically and historically sound understanding of divorce and remarriage. The analysis of the Fathers through the first five centuries is very decisive and difficult to refute. An excellent treatment of the porneia "exception clauses" in Matthew's Gospel is also very helpful. A must read for anyone who is wrestling with the question of divorce and remarriage.

If you are tired of biblical rationales for spousal abandonment and serial monogamy, you must read this book. Thoroughly documented and supports a distinctly biblical and early church position, though continues with the Protestant nonsacramental view of marriage. Every pastor should have this one in his library before he preaches on divorce or before he counsels on divorce.

Make no mistake. This book *deserves* five stars. It *is* the best case made for the "no remarriage" position among Protestants and quite possibly the best case that will and can ever be made for it and anyone serious about studying this matter, must familiarise themselves with it. However, it is not the last word on the matter.

For anyone seeking the Lord's will on the matter, they would do well to *also* read Craig Keener's ...AND MARRIES ANOTHER and *especially* Dr. David Instone-Brewer's writings on Divorce and Remarriage available in online form at www.Instone-Brewer.com.

For all its considerable strengths JESUS AND DIVORCE suffers from several "sins of omission."

1. For all its attention to the Church fathers, it neglects to mention that Origen and Augustine, while also arguing against "remarriage" wondered aloud about how serious a sin it should be considered.

2. The book neglects the Eastern Orthodox canon law which allows for remarriage "as a concession" on the basis of St. Paul in 1 Corinthians and so leaves the incorrect impression that there was no difference of opinion in the church until Erasmus.

3. Similarly, it neglects the early Anabaptists many of whom allowed for remarriage in the case of being "unequally yoked" with non-Anabaptists as well as in the case of adultery. Whatever the merits of their arguments they probably did not derive from Erasmus. 4. The allowance for divorce (and remarriage) independent of Deut. 24 on the basis of being denied "food, clothing, and love" (Exodus 21:10,11). (It is on *this* basis that God quite literally divorces Israel in Jeremiah 3!)

Finally, for all their uncompromising tone Heth and Wenham "wimp out" toward the end. In the interests of consistency they should insist on the "breaking up" of "adulterous marriages" before being recieved into the church. As it is they settle for denying leadership positions and basically consigning the remarried to "second-class citizenship" where they can have their guilt lorded over them for the rest of their lives.

This is hardly surprising, only Conservative Mennonites and other "plain Anabaptists" (Hutterites, Amish) seem to have the courage other their consistency in this matter.

Therefore let it be the first (or second) book you read, but don't let it be your last!

Well research and thoughtout presentation on the case against any remarriage after divorce. Good sections on church history, OT and NT.

Relevance of this in our cultural setting is obvious. What must be thought out carefully letting Scriptures be our only norm is the exception clauses concerning this topic. Our Lord addresses differing situations in which one would be adulterous, and in violation of the Lord's divine principle that marriage is to be a lifelong union of one man and one woman. While reconciliaton is always the goal, abandonment and sexual unfaithfulness are legitimate grounds for divorce in Jesus' sight. Mindful of the forgiveness that Christ gives for all sins, all reconciling efforts of offended spouse which fail should not burden this one with command against consideration of remarriage.

This however should never be taken or seen as license to get out from under one's marital obligation, but only the recognition that when there has been clear Scriptural breaking of the marital union by human beings, such as willful and sustained abandonment, remarriage of the deserted spouse remains permissible. Not as a liberty that must be utilized, but as a freedom under the kingdom of grace.

It should go without saying, but must be nonetheless that one who divorces for unscriptural reasons and remarries certainly commits adultery.