Jesus and Divorce: The Problem with the Evangelical Consensus, by William A. Heth and Gordon J. Wenham (Nelson, 1985, 287 pp.; $7.95, paper). Reviewed by V. Norskov Olsen, author of The New Testament Logia on Divorce: A Study of Their Interpretation from Erasmus to Milton. Interview by David Neff.
Most evangelicals have the understanding that if your spouse commits adultery, you are (according to the teaching of the Bible) morally free not only to divorce but also to remarry. But William A. Heth and Gordon J. Wenham say most evangelicals are wrong.
Out of a feeling of moral and spiritual responsibility, the authors have restudied what Jesus and the apostle Paul say about divorce. They conclude that “Jesus gave an absolute prohibition of divorce and remarriage. Should a man be forced [by social custom] to put away his unfaithful wife, … Jesus does not hold him responsible for breaking His command not to divorce. The guilt and the blame lie with the woman who is an adulteress by reason of her offence. And should the hard-heartedness of one of the partners result in an unfortunate divorce, lack of forgiveness and a refusal to be reconciled, Jesus requires His disciples to remain single.”
The authors find this absolute prohibition endorsed by the teaching and practice of the early church. But, they report, the view that divorce and remarriage are justified in certain circumstances was not set forth until Erasmus’s Annotations on 1 Corinthians (1519). It was then adopted by the Protestant Reformers. Heth and Wenham deal with the early exponents and modern defenders of this “Erasmian” view, and then offer a critique based on exegetical considerations.
The Reformers
“Erasmus laid the eggs, and Luther hatched them” went a saying of the time. But did the Reformers follow Erasmus so uncritically that we can say that they all adopted the “Erasmian” view?
In the interval between Erasmus and Milton, the Reformers argued the exegesis of the key biblical passages regarding divorce and remarriage. The Reformers were not of one mind, nor did they reason along the same lines.
The most liberal view was held by Erasmus, Zwingli, Bullinger, Bucer, and Milton, who allowed divorce for many reasons, including mental incapacity and mutual consent. When the Westminster Assembly formulated their statement on marriage and divorce, it was in opposition to the Erasmus-Milton view, and in confirmation of the conservative Calvin-Beza only-one-exception interpretation (adultery, and in some cases, desertion). Therefore Heth’s and Wenham’s statement that the Erasmian view was “adopted by many Protestant Reformers and was later enshrined in the Westminster Confession of Faith” needs modification and clarification.
Further, different exegetical approaches were taken by Luther, the Reformed theologians of Zurich, and those of Geneva. For example, Luther’s teaching of the two kingdoms gives to marriage both a sacred and a secular aspect, and thereby two different norms. And while the Reformed theologians, in their attempt to create a bibliocracy, started by harmonizing the Old and New Testaments, Zurich and Geneva moved in opposite directions. Zurich read Christ’s words in light of the Old Testament, which in their opinion allowed the letter of divorce for various reasons, thus arriving at a liberal view. Geneva, on the other hand, contended that Christ allowed only one exception and read the Old Testament in light of this, asserting that in its passages there was also only one legitimate cause for divorce.
Thus the problem with the evangelical consensus is larger than the ideas of Erasmus. He laid the eggs, but the various Reformers hatched very different chickens.
Evangelical Hackles
Heth and Wenham found that their exegetical results harmonize with the view of the ancient church, which was maintained until the time of Erasmus. They recognize that “the very suggestion will raise hackles” and may mean that “we who … call ourselves evangelicals have been guilty of the kind of mistake for which Christ castigated the Pharisees, namely ‘invalidating the word of God for the sake of our tradition’.”
But the problem of consensus raised by Heth and Wenham is an ecumenical one. What shall we think about the lack of consensus among the Protestant Reformers and their churches? About the evangelical “Erasmian view” being a tradition and not a scriptural teaching? About the ancient church’s belief and practice being used as a key to interpreting Scripture? (This in turn raises the question of how we decide which doctrines and practices of the early church to adhere to.)
In a society where every other marriage breaks up, this timely book should be studied by all who seek to understand Jesus’ words on divorce and remarriage. Christians should not rest until they find, under the Spirit’s guidance, the answer of Scripture.
Tasty Morsels
Liberals for Lunch, by Cal Thomas and Wayne Stayskal (Crossway, 1985, 135 pp.; $6.95). Reviewed by Russ Pulliam, editorial writer for the Indianapolis News.
Most conservative christians only complain about the news media: too liberal, too worldly, too commercial to deal with eternal values. But columnist Cal Thomas and cartoonist Wayne Stayskal are doing something practical and professional about the problem.
Stayskal’s cartoons have been distributed to newspapers throughout the country for more than 20 years, communicating a Christian world view with subtlety and humor.
Thomas, on the other hand, has been writing a syndicated column for only a year, but he is already drawing more reader response than many veteran writers. A former spokesman for Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority, Thomas has also been an award-winning television news reporter.
Thomas has a provocative, reasonable, and witty way of presenting a Christian perspective to readers who might not agree with him. On abortion clinic bombings, for example, he jests: “If you want my opinion, I’m personally opposed to the bombings, but I wouldn’t want to impose my morality on others.”
Readers who already see Stayskal or Thomas in their local newspapers won’t find new material in this book. But they will find that the columns and cartoons offer a much-needed view from “the other side” on issues of lasting concern.
CHRISTIANITY TODAY Talks To William A. Heth
You say you disagree with “the evangelical consensus” on divorce and remarriage. What is that consensus?
Divorce and remarriage are allowed for the two situations of serious sexual sin and desertion by an unbeliever.
Considering that the Protestant Reformers varied from severely restricted to quite liberal positions on divorce and remarriage, how can we say that there is an “evangelical consensus”?
I speak of that consensus in reference to today. I’m certainly not wide of the mark when I say that. Take the Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, for example. David Atkinson wrote the article on divorce. But even though D. A. Carson, in his new commentary on Matthew, criticizes Atkinson’s book. To Have and to Hold, they both say divorce and remarriage are allowed for the two conditions. Even John Stott, in his new volumes on social responsibility, says it is allowed.
You appeal to the ancient church and the church before the Renaissance and Reformation. I expect that from Tom Howard and kindred spirits. But doesn’t it sound odd in the mouth of an evangelical and a Dallas Seminary teacher?
Gordon Wenham and I would agree that only Scripture deserves the honor of adherence by evangelicals. But you must consider the commentary tradition in every era. We look at the early fathers’ interpretations and critique them just as we would critique a Protestant commentator who was writing today. This is just another part of the data we need to consider.
What would you say to those who have divorced and remarried, but who, upon reading your book, decide it was not the Christian thing to do?
We encourage them to remain in the condition they are in. Deuteronomy 24:4 clearly prohibits someone who has divorced and consummated a marriage with another from going back to the first spouse.
Should they not at least dissolve the second marriage to avoid living in sin?
No. In that situation, they should remain as they are and make the very most of the situation they are in. The greater good would be to serve God to the fullest in the state they are in. They have been forgiven in Christ.
People have taken our book and interpreted it more strictly than I would. I would suggest legal divorce or separation for someone who is in the situation of living with a continually adulterous spouse. To live with such a person is to participate in his or her sin. Also, where children’s or wives’ lives are in danger, they should get out of the home. Legal separation or divorce is not the issue so much as remarriage.
