Douglas Jacoby Podcast

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

I. THESIS

• Jesus was a zealot, advocating violence to overthrow the occupying Romans as well as the corrupt priesthood.
  • For Jesus, the Kingdom of God is very much of this world [144]. John 18:36 has been totally misunderstood [117]. The kingdom is political.
  • Jesus intended that the twelve tribes be reconstituted for a single purpose: war [123].
  • Jesus was a violent man. The God of violence is “the only God that Jesus knew and the sole God he worshipped” [122]. However, later Aslan seems to backtrack: “Nor can Jesus be labeled a violent revolutionary bent on armed rebellion…” [79].
• Yet Jesus failed to reestablish nation of Israel [19].
• The church changed the true Jesus into a more heavenly figure with merely otherworldly interests. They “transformed Jesus from a revolutionary zealot to a Romanized demigod, from a man who tried and failed to free the Jews from Roman oppression to a celestial being wholly uninterested in any
  earthly matter” [171].

• The apostle Paul was the leader of this reinterpretation. “[Paul’s] conception of Jesus as Christ would have been shocking and plainly heretical, which is why, around 57 C.E., James and the apostles demand that Paul come to Jerusalem to answer for his deviant teachings” [190]. The early church followed suit, and replaced the zealot Jesus with a heavenly figure [144], putting Paul's letters into the N.T. Today we have the wrong N.T., thanks to Paul’s influence [215].
• Yet the Messiah was to be the Prince of Peace. "He will judge between the nations and will settle disputes for many peoples. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore" (Isa 2:4). (Joel 3:10 – preparation for war.) "He will judge between many peoples and will settle disputes for strong nations far and wide. They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation, nor will they train for war anymore" (Mic 4:3).
• How would the church have survived through 60 years of disillusionment, given they knew Jesus’ mission was a failure?
• In short, Jesus was a revolutionary zealot. Not just a radical man with an amazingly spiritual message, but a violent encourager of murder, rioting, and violent takeover.

II. STRENGTHS & INSIGHTS

• Style
  • His no-nonsense approach (despite the many erroneous claims) leaves no doubt as to where the author stands. I find this preferable to the ambling, highly qualified language of many religious writers.
  • Aslan uses highly florid language, which makes reading him rather enjoyable -- provided the reader recognizes the many rare words he uses.
• Historical background
  • Good job describing various sects of the Jews and zealots and pseudo-messiahs.
  • Great analysis of the working relationship between Pilate and Caiaphas.
  • Nice explanation of the origins and thinking of the Samaritans.
• Historical insight
  • Poor farmers of Galilee subjected to indignity of turning over earnings to rapacious priests! [92]
  • Demolishes the Roman Catholic notions of the virginity of Mary and the papacy of Peter [35].
  • Helpful reminder that the Temple served as a bank [7].
  • Unlike other itinerant wonder-workers in the ancient world, Jesus healed gratis [103].
  • The Romans' victory over Israel in the First Jewish War (66-70 AD) wasn’t merely over the Jews, but over their god.
  • John the Baptist's popularity perhaps increased through his not relying on his priestly privileges [82]. (John was a Levite, born to Levite parents -- see Luke 1.)
  • Aslan admits that it is more likely the Gnostics borrowed from Christianity when they constructed their esoteric doctrine and myths, rather than the other way around [261].
  • The belief in a dying and rising messiah did not exist in Judaism [165]. (Right--but that doesn’t mean the Messiah couldn’t die or rise! What about Isa 53?)
• Things you may want to know
  • Interesting parallels between Jesus' Transfiguration and Moses' ascent on the mountain with his three companions [131].
  • Cicero: “barbarian superstitions” of monotheism. Tacitus: “while they permit all that we abhor.”
  • Josephus notes 24 sects in and around Jerusalem. And he calls Annas (Ananus) “the great hoarder of money” [198-199].
• Bible difficulties
  • Critics keep us on our toes!
  • Two examples: Philip’s wife is Salome, not Herodias. A solution? Also, the well-known difficulties surrounding Luke’s census of Quirinius [30].

III. APPROACH

• Arguments from silence
  • John the Baptist doesn’t realize who Jesus is in Mark 1. This means that the story has been jazzed up in the other gospel accounts [87].
  • There is no cliff in Nazareth over which to push Jesus. Aslan is saying that since he does not think there is such a cliff in Nazareth, it didn’t exist. But topography can change. Besides, I have seen such a precipice in Nazareth.
  • The nighttime trial of the Sanhedrin was illegal -- therefore it didn't take place. [157]. Yet the Sanhedrin felt urgency in dealing with this situation before Passover.
  • Barabbas couldn’t have been released because the custom is “nonsensical” [149]. Yet Pilate negotiates with the crowd over Jesus' possible release. Why would such a custom contradict what we know of Pilate?
• Speculation
  • “So when Stephen saw the gaggle of hirsute men and ragged women huddled beneath a portico in the Temple’s outer court—simple provincials who had sold their possessions and given the proceeds to the poor….—he probably did not pay much attention at first” [164].
  • Paul wasn’t asked by the high priest to hunt down Christians… [183] Yet by Paul's own admission (Acts 22:4-5), “I persecuted the followers of this Way to their death, arresting both men and women and throwing them into prison, as the high priest and all the Council can themselves testify. I even obtained letters from them to their associates in Damascus, and went there to bring these people as prisoners to Jerusalem to be punished.”
• Fondness for quoting liberals at far end of theological spectrum.
• Calling into question uncontroversial points, e.g. that Acts is part 2 of Luke [167].
• Leading statements: Jesus’ brothers named after great heroes of Judaism (implying a radical revolutionary tendency ran in the family) [230].
• Shock statements that aren’t quite true… but are later clarified, once the shock has been felt -- usually a few paragraphs later.
  • E.g. the Romans walking up cliff side of Masada, “shields up, swords drawn” – as Aslan makes clear, he well knows it took many weeks for the Romans to advance up that side of the mountain [57].
  • Or that the meeting between Pilate and Jesus is ludicrous…. A reasonable argument can be made for it having happened. Aslan claims the “trial” before Pilate “beggars the imagination” and is “pure legend” [148]. There was no “trial” before Pilate [241]. Yet the gospels never say there was a trial. Further, while at first Aslan mocks the idea, later on he states that for a potential political prisoner, Pilate might well have made time to see him -- and John Meier makes a compelling case for the position [244]!
• Assertions without proof
  • Jesus Christ
    • Jesus could not have understood the "Son of Man" as a divine figure (as in 4 Ezra) [144]. But what about Daniel 7?
    • Mark 9 tells us that Jesus’ transfiguration affected only his clothes [251] (which it doesn't) -- therefore his body (unlike Moses' -- Exod 34) wasn't glowing.
    • There are no OT messianic prophecies that say the Messiah will do miracles [248]. Really?! How about Isaiah 42, 60, etc?
    • More than a few biblical scholars have openly labeled Jesus a magician [108-109]. I know of only one (Morton Smith).
    • All the miracle stories of Jesus have been embellished [104].
    • Daniel’s Anointed One isn’t killed (Dan 9:26), but only cut off [166]. Yet it's not clear whether "cut off" implies death, so there's no room for dogmatism here.
    • Jesus didn't stay in the desert for a time of testing, but in order to spend time learning from John the Baptist [89].
  • Apostles and other leaders
    • Matthew isn’t Levi [97]. Yet two names were common (e.g. Simon Peter, John Mark).
    • Jesus recruited from among “the fishing village’s disaffected youth” [96]. But why can't Simon and Andrew be the same age as Jesus? (Rob Bell wants them to be teenagers, but he goes too far.)
    • Few if any of the apostles agreed that Paul was a disciple [184-185].
    • Paul never recounts his Damascus Road experience, which is a fabrication of Luke [184]. Yet see Acts 22. The fact that the three accounts (Acts 9, 22, 26) have minor differences suggests Luke wasn't making up the story, nor was he concerned to rewrite it to make it less problematic.
    • None of the apostles spoke Greek [193]. Jesus and his disciples were illiterate peasants [203, 226]. Aslan should read Alan Millard's Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus.
    • The Jerusalem Christians didn’t evangelize – they just blended in [263]. Yet Acts 4, 5, 12!
    • James took no baths [197].
    • The church in Rome fell under authority of the Jerusalem church [203].
    • Some assertions have weak proof, e.g. that Stephen led the independent Hellenistic community [181], and that the Hellenists held that Jesus came not to fulfill the law, but to abolish it (!). Or that the Church of Jerusalem was demolished in 70 AD [150, 212]. James and the Jerusalem Christians stayed in Jerusalem, awaiting coming of the Lord, and so were killed by Titus’ army. But that would mean that they ignored Jesus' prophecy [Luke 21:20].

IV. TONE

• Mocking, Sarcastic
• Stephen’s “long and rambling diatribe” [168].
• Luke is Paul’s sycophant [184-185].
• On 500 soldiers accompanying the prisoner Paul: “This is absurd and can be flatly ignored” [266]. But there's a plot afoot involving 40 men determined to kill Paul. The conspirators are armed, armed disturbances were somewhat common in Palestine, and the Romans know it. What number of soldiers does Aslan think the officer should have dispatched: 40? 100? 150? Might not the number of conspirators have been snowballing? Is this not a case of better safe than sorry?
• Reactionary comments -- which are frequently overstatements
  • “With the help of his disciples he blocks the entrance to the courtyard, forbidding anyone carrying goods for sale or trade from entering the Temple. Then, as the crowd of vendors, worshippers, priests, and curious onlookers scramble over the scattered detritus, as a stampede of frightened animals, chased by their panicked owners, rushes headlong out of the Temple gates and into the choked streets of Jerusalem, as a corps of Roman guards and heavily armed Temple police blitz through the courtyard looking to arrest whoever is responsible for this mayhem, there stands Jesus, according to the gospels, aloof, seemingly unperturbed, crying out over the din: ‘It is written, “My house shall be called a house of prayer for all nations, but you have made it a den of thieves.”’” [74-75]
  • Cleansing of temple caused a “riot” in the Court of the Gentiles [147].
  • Jesus’ apostolic band was “armed with swords” [146]. But there were only 2, and Jesus discouraged their use – hence the unanimous pacifism of the early church.
  • The “brief but bloody tussle” although two swords weren’t enough [78].
  • “Thus, on a bald hill covered in crosses, beset by moans of agony from hundreds of dying criminals, as a murder of crows circled eagerly over his head waiting for him to breathe his last…” [159]
  • Disunity and strife suppressed
    • The early Christians were fearful of John the Baptist’s continuing influence: “frantic attempt to reduce John’s significance” – and the truth that “Jesus very likely began his ministry as just another of his disciples” [89].
    • In Acts Luke “paints a picture of perfect harmony between Paul and the council’s members…” [191]
    • Gal 2:11 = “fierce public feud” [266]– yet no evidence Peter lashed out in return, or rejected Paul’s correction.
• Superior attitude
  • Even in the vocabulary: 98 lucubration; 108 Lugdunum (ancient Lyon)
  • As though this were his own insight: “To the Jews, a crucified Messiah was nothing less than a contradiction in terms. The very fact of his crucifixion annulled his messianic claims” [178]. Credit belongs to Paul more than to Aslan. Or the observation that wisdom is personified in Wisdom of Solomon as a woman (Sophia), in order to better connect with those with a Greek philosophical background [179]. But this is in Proverbs, and is well known to those who read the Bible.
  • “Two decades of scholarly research” [xx] – perhaps absorbed from the ultraliberal institutions where he did his study? (Harvard University, U Cal Santa Barbara, Santa Clara University -- Jesuit)
• Negative feeling
  • Palpable hostility towards biblical Christians. Aslan admits his anger – “I angrily discarded my faith as if it were a costly forgery….” [xix].
  • Paul’s anger at James and the original apostles “seeps like poison through the pages of his later epistles” [207].
  • One wonders if Aslan has projected his own negative emotions onto Paul!

V. ERRORS

• Well over 100, not even counting all the mistakes highlighted in other sections of this podcast!
• Life of Jesus
  • Phil 2:7 doesn’t support the incarnation – because Jesus is one of God’s first creations, the "firstborn" [189]. But what about Ps 89:27? "And I will appoint him to be my firstborn, the most exalted of the kings of the earth."
  • The incarnation is rejected [88], as well as the divinity of Christ. But what about Mal 3, Ezek 34, Ps 110, and many other passages?
  • Jesus was a tekton (builder, carpenter, mason...) only in Mark 6:3 [34]. Aslan has forgotten Matt 13:55.
  • “He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire” suggests arson [89].
  • Aslan assumes "the Kingdom of God is at hand" means that the end of world is near [80] –a common mistake among those unfamiliar with the already/not yet of Christian theology.
  • The Parable of the Sower is mainly anticlerical [101]. Yet the parable is about loving one's neighbor.
  • The Temple in Jesus' time was 500m x 300m – this was the complex, not the temple proper. (To be fair, in John's gospel, however, sometimes the entire Temple Mount complex is referred to as the temple.)
  • Jesus was joking when he told the leper to go show himself to the priest, since the leprosy was gone. Aslan seems to have misunderstood Lev 14 [112].
  • There would have been no need for a large band of soldiers to snatch Jesus -- yet later Aslan admits a sizeable crowd went to Gethsemane to arrest Jesus [153]! He seems to be changing his mind, or rethinking, even as he is writing his book.
  • After confessing he's the Messiah, Jesus then muddies everything by identifying himself with the Son of Man in Daniel (Mark 14:62) [144]. Aslan seems unable to grasp the two sides of the Messiah, Lion and Lamb (Rev 5) -- the same mistake so many of Jesus’ Jewish contemporaries made.
  • When the crowd (manipulated by Annas and Caiaphas) is manipulating Pilate – “We have no king but Caesar!” -- Aslan claims they couldn't have said that [152].
  • Pilate is portrayed as a righteous but weak-willed man in the gospels [47]! He is increasingly exonerated in the gospels [151]. He tries to save Jesus because he thinks he may be the Son of God (!) [152]
  • The crucifixion required three iron spikes [159]. Actually, the skeletal evidence of crucified persons indicates the Romans used four nails.
  • Crucified people would hang on the cross for hours [159]. Actually, days were a more common.
  • Mark wasn’t interested in Jesus’ resurrection [29]. Really? What about Jesus' predictions of his resurrection, several of which Mark records?
  • Our author claims the series: Last Supper—Betrayal—Arrest—Sanhedrin—Herod & Pilate—Cross—Burial—Resurrection is what it is for liturgical reasons [153-154]. But what else could it be if Jesus was betrayed?
  • Re: Luke 24:44-46 – there isn’t a single line of scripture on the suffering, death, and resurrection on the third day of the Messiah [177].  But the resurrection is prefigured in Dan 6; Gen 22; Ps 16; Ezek 37 and more clearly identified in Dan 12 and the DSS 4Q521.
• The apostles
  • Paul was uninterested in the words of Jesus [187]. Common claim. What about Acts 20:35? 1 Cor 11? Quite a few allusions to Jesus’ words?
  • James forces Paul to (hypocritically) back down from his anti-Torah position, taking an oath and joining others in this vow (Acts 21:23)….[195-197, 208-209]. But what about 1 Cor 9:20? "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 the law." Besides, Paul has a positive view of the law (read Romans). He argues that the gospel is for the Jew first, then the Gentile (Rom 1:16) – and this is in one of the letters Aslan agrees Paul actually wrote. Further, Paul’s custom was to share the gospel with the Jews, through speaking invitations at synagogues… When he wore out his welcome, then he turned to the Gentiles. If he were as anti-Torah as Aslan insinuates, it is doubtful he would ever be invited back for a second lesson!
  • Paul disagrees with James over salvation [206]. They use the same passages to prove opposite things (James 2; Romans 4). But works and faith are two sides of a coin. Aslan's position is based on an old and tired argument. Paul required nothing for salvation but faith in Christ [215]. Aslan claims Rom 10:13 contradicts Matt 7:21 [187].
  • Aslan misses Paul’s point in 2 Cor – which he calls "Corinthians" (proofreader lapse?) – when he makes Paul call the Jerusalem apostles "servants of Satan…" [192]. But Paul's opponents valued prestige, comfort, honor; they did not suffer. The "super-apostles" Paul excoriates cannot be the Jerusalem apostles, who it seems were nearly as poor as Paul!
  • Re: Paul’s arrest in Jerusalem: He is mistaken for the Egyptian – and this is the only reason he was taken into custody by the Romans [194-195]. But Paul denied being this person, and the text makes it clear that once corrected the commander still decides to refer the case up the ladder of command (Acts 21:39).
  • After his meeting with the Jewish leaders in Acts 28, "Paul vowed from that moment on to preach to none but the gentiles, ‘for they will listen’ (Acts 28:26-29)” [196]. Yet the text indicates a mixed reaction -- some Jews were persuaded by Paul. True, in Acts 28:28 Paul says he will focus on the Gentiles, but not only the Gentiles. In fact, this isn't a change of missionary strategy for Paul, since that has been his method all along: first the Jew, then the Gentile...
  • James (presumably unlike Paul, who cared little about earthly matters) truly cares for the poor [272]. What? Gal 2:10! 2 Cor 8-9!
  • Simon Peter “swore he witnessed the resurrection with his own eyes, as did many others among them…" [156]. This is false. There were no eyewitnesses of the resurrection, unless the Roman soldiers were able to see what was happening (which seems unlikely). Many witnessed Jesus after the resurrection, however.
• Later Christianity
  • Aslan confuses the Circumcision Party (as in Titus 1 and Acts 15) and Jewish Christianity [186].
  • James loses credibility to Paul because of the nascent doctrine of the virginity of Mary (James being Jesus’ brother) [202]. An interesting possibility, and there may be some truth in it, but biblical Christians accord equal respect -- and obedience -- to the teaching of both James and Paul.
  • The Ebionite movement continuing to teach the theology of James [272]. Yet biblical scholars note that this movement wasn't really a Christian movement, since they rejected Christ's divinity. In Zealot Aslan seems to believe that James believed in the Second Coming of his brother -- in contradiction to the Ebionites.
  • Judaean Christians shared with none but their fellow Jews. Love thy neighbor means one's fellow Jew [121]. But what about Luke 23:34, Luke 10:25-37? Matthew 5:38-48?
• Ancient languages
  • Greek errors: Matt 11:12 – the kingdom “operates by force” [251]. In Acts 15, Aslan has krino mean “I decree” rather than "It is my judgment" [270]. Overstated! He spells basileus (king) as "Baselius" [234].
  • Hebrew: He denies that in Isa 7:14 'almah is virgin. Yet the point is that that was how the ancient Jews understood it, as evidenced in the LXX, where 'almah is rendered parthenos. Aslan writes Xristos and Yesus ha Xristos – confusing the two languages!
  • Latin: dinarii should be denarii. Aslan claims Pilatus means “skilled with the javelin” [46] -- yet at most this means "armed with a javelin."
  • Other: the kingdom of Medea [139] should be Media.
• Dating & Chronology
  • Paul’s conversion 37 AD [265] (more like 32 or 33 – which Aslan admits, citing Martin Hengel).
  • Phil about 49 AD [170 AD]. But Paul hadn't even visited Corinth that early. Philippi wasn't a city visited on the First Missionary Journey!
  • 1 Cor written 50 AD [175]. This is too early -- See the Gallio Inscription.
  • Peter and Paul were executed 66 AD [196]. He should have given a range of acceptable dates, since the persecution began in 64, and Nero died in 68.
  • All four the gospels were written after 70 AD [75]. But most scholars put Mark c.65 AD. (E.g., the fire and other details of 70 AD are missing in the prophecy of Mark 13.)
  • Paul wrote only 7 letters….. [264]
  • Aslan makes it sounds like Nero sends Vespasian after Masada. (I had to read this section three times to figure out what was going on!) Simple proof-reading would have caught that [60-61].
  • Gospel of Thomas in late 1st or early 2nd century. More likely dates to the late 2nd C.
  • Eusebius’ church history Aslan puts in the 3rd C – yet it was probably written in the 320s. All scholars consider his Historia Ecclesiae a 4th-century work.
  • The Sepphoris synagogue(s) date to the 5th and 6th century. Yet Aslan implies that the Byzantine period synagogue was there in the 1st century [38]. Aslan fails to mention that, as he paints a picture of cosmopolitan and wordly Jews.
  • Jesus had a two-year ministry. John's gospel suggests a ministry of 3 or 3.5 years.
• Old Testament / Judaism errors
  • Aslan mocks the notion that the law was given through angels, as Stephen claims in Acts 7 [168] Later, however, he but admits the idea does come into Judaism (as we see in Gal 3:19).
  • Passover celebration is mainly a political act [144]. While there are political nuances, it was far more than a mere political statement.
  • Aslan uncritically accepts the tradition that when serving in the Holy of Holies the high priest was tied to a rope, in case he died while on duty [9] , without letting the reader know that this is in doubt. The tradition might be true, but it is a mistake to present a possibility as a fact.
  • His view of the Conquest is extreme (utter annihilation) [15]. The O.T. depicts a replacement of the Canaanite population through war, flight, conversion, and intermarriage.
  • David spoke about himself in Ps 16, not the Messiah [166-167]. Yet that doesn’t mean the application is wrong. In general, the early Christians used texts to prove Jesus was the Christ that were widely accepted in Judaism.

VI. [OUTLANDISH] QUOTES

• Paul insists he is far superior to all the other apostles [185]. “Simply put, Paul does not consider himself the thirteenth apostle. He thinks he is the first" [186].
• About the Gospels: “Factual accuracy was irrelevant. What mattered was Christology, not history” [154]. Yet Christianity is a historical religion—a faith anchored in history. If God did not visit our world, if Jesus did not take our sins on the Cross and rise from the dead, then our faith is vain.
• “Simon Peter was “displaying the reckless confidence of one uninitiated in the scriptures” [166]. Yet I’m not so sure those lacking training would have been as confident as Simon Peter. After all, he was learned in that he had received three years of training from the best teacher on earth -- far better than the typical course of being a disciple to a rabbi.
• “Paul had no idea who the living Jesus was, nor did he care" [187].
• “Paul’s breezy dismissal of the very foundations of Judaism was as shocking to the leaders of the Jesus movement in Jerusalem as it would have been to Jesus himself” [186].
• “The story of the zealous Galilean peasant and Jewish nationalist who donned the mantle of messiah and launched a foolhardy rebellion against the corrupt Temple priesthood and the vicious Roman occupation comes to an abrupt end, not with his death on the cross, nor with the empty tomb, but at the first moment one of his followers [like Paul] dares suggest he is God” [169]. But Paul was thoroughly Jewish. The idea of Christ’s divinity was not easily digestible -- especially to a Jew.

VII. CONCLUSION

• The thesis – that Jesus was a failed revolutionary – is a failed thesis. It is deeply flawed.
• Aslan makes the same mistake made by those who rejected Jesus as true Messiah in his own day!
• Aslan admits that once he rejected Christianity he was “confused and spiritually unmoored” [xix]. This shows in his book.
• One appropriate adjective for the thesis / book: tendentious.
• Zealot received many accolades—I notice that none are from biblical scholars.
• Should people read this book?
  • Although I cannot recommend the book as a source for solid information, there are some interesting parts.
  • Further, so much is skewed that many Christians will be put off by Zealot. They will feel belittled.
  • However, teachers, preachers, and other church leaders should know their Bibles well enough to be able to refute these claims, to give truth and confidence to those who may be rattled by teachers like Aslan. That means someone needs to wade in and devote some time to untangling the critics' arguments.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

Great lines:

• "The gods are angry" [Lucius]. -- "One of them is [Clavius]."
• "Did he say anything?" [Clavius] -- "It is finished [centurion]."
• "I believe Yeshua will embrace you (Clavius) as a brother, even as you slew him" [Joseph of Arimathea].
• "I pray not to thee today, divine Mars, but to the God of the Hebrews, Yahweh. Hear me. Take back your favor in defense of these people I seek, and relinquish them to me. If you do this with clear and recognizable signs, I found two temples for you and initiate games in your honor" [Clavius].
• "They... are... everywhere!" [Bartholomew, on being asked where the disciples are hiding.]
• "But in the end, what does it matter? In a few years, that'll be us (a corpse)" [Pontius Pilate].
• "Welcome, Clavius. Come join us, brother; there are no enemies here" [Yeshua].
• "I have seen two things which I cannot reconcile: a man dead without question, and that same man alive again" [Clavius].
• "My right hand turned against me. How could he follow [Yeshua]?" [Pilate] -- "Perhaps it's true" [Lucius]. -- "Well, if it is, I'll kill him again" [Pilate].
• "I don't have every answer; we're astounded, too!" [Peter, to Clavius]
• "I don't even know what to ask" [Clavius]. -- "Speak your heart" [Yeshua]. -- "I can't reconcile all this with the world I know" [Clavius].

Room to improve:

• Although grace is abundant, I would have liked a little more on repentance. Jesus is warm and accepting, smiling and encouraging, without any anger or rebuke. Perhaps he could have been a little more serious. On the other hand, he interacts relatively little with the religious establishment -- those whom we know he would have been strongest in his denunciations.
• At the end, Clavius walks off on his own -- he's an independent Christian. What about Christian community?
• Pentecost is missed out completely.
• The biblical consultant(s) made many errors, unless the screen writers paid little attention. Remarkable accuracy of detail often gives way to inaccuracy or unnecessary speculation.

Strong points:

1. The characters are real people. Believable dialogue.
2. It was interesting seeing the foolishness of the cross through the eyes of a Roman soldier.
3. Risen stimulates us to re-vision the events surrounding the life and death of Jesus.
4. Good development of idea of Kingdom of God not being based on power.
5. Jesus' bodily resurrection.  (It's not rationalized or spiritualized away.)
6. No attempt to undermine faith (common in documentaries and even in some films about Christ), or promote sectarian doctrine.
7. Clavius is forced to choose -- good!  We can all relate to him. Even though he still has some changing to do at the end of the film, so do we... None of us has arrived.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

Note: These thoughts on Yann Martel's book (2001; motion picture 2012) will certainly mean the most to those who have read the book or seen the movie.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

What was cool

• Nearly all the theology is orthodox (God, man, the atonement, righteousness judgment, justice, spirituality...)
• Especially good is the exploration of the dynamics among the members of the Trinity.
• Deity is neither male nor female, though he initially appears to the protagonist as female because his own father-wound is so deep.
• The Shack helps us wrestle with the problem of pain, and often on a very personal and emotional level.

What was off

• The notion that God does not punish -- that sin is its own punishment (p.122). While there is some truth to this point, the book misses the punitive aspect of divine judgment.
• "Spending eternity in hell" (p.16) reflects traditional eschatology. For more, see Fudge, The Fire that Consumes, or my paper on Terminal Punishment.
• It is implied, though not stated, that all roads lead to God (p.184). Sounds right in the modern ear; comes rather close to a "politically correct" take on tolerance, in contrast to Jesus' own teaching in Matthew 7:13-14.
• Some will find overly literal interpretation of some of the poetic parts of the Bible (e.g. 136).

Interesting...

• Reference to The Matrix (p.126). Compare "Papa" with "the oracle."
• In Maori religion, the earth mother is called "Papa" (a complete coincidence).
• This book will be of special interest to fathers, and in fact to anyone coming from a background of family dysfunction.

Conclusion

• For those who value spiritually connecting with others, reaching out to unbelievers, this book is good news!
• The book may be written in 2007, but it will be hot for a long time. The Shack is making many people think about God. May it continue to do so!

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

Introduction

One spring day towards the end of 2004, Australian Rhonda Byrne discovered a secret - the secret laws and principles of the universe. Almost immediately her life was transformed, as she began to put into practice what she had learned. And in that moment her greatest wish, and mission, were to share this knowledge with the world.

In The Secret, a book and video and website, Rhonda Byrne offers us a better way of life. If we can envision what we want, truly believing it will happen and willing to act on our dream, then it will happen. We'll get what we desire. We can see debts disappear. We can lose weight. We can become millionaires. (No wonder it's so popular!) It was also made into a pretty nice feel-good movie (despite some questionable philosophy).

"You are God in a physical body. You are spirit in the flesh. You are Eternal Life expressing itself as you. You are a cosmic being. You are all power. You are all wisdom. You are all intelligence. You are perfection. You are magnificence. You are the creator, and you are creating the creation of You on this planet." (The Secret, p.164. New York: Atria Books, 2006).

Guests on Oprah, backing up Byrne's claims, share rags-to-riches stories. If you want to be like them, you will want to know "The Secret." Byrne promises things will go our way -- the universe will work for us -- when we learn the secret.

As I tuned in to Oprah, I heard the following words from guests on her show:

"We have an absolutely unlimited power within us... We are all just energy... Thought and feeling control the flow of energy."

"We all have our own magnetic power... The thoughts we think -- our feelings -- send out a wave into the universe, and anything that's vibrating in a similar level gets attracted into our life."

Thus "we create our own reality, attracting into our lives the things we want, which means that our thoughts are the most powerful things about our lives."

This is because of a fundamental law in the universe: "What you focus on expands... Our thoughts, feelings, actions all have to be firing at the same time..." There are "no coincidences – everything happens by principles and laws in our universe... This is "a time when spiritual traditions and science are in total agreement." Those who discovered the path before us include Einstein, Newton, Edison, Plato, Carnegie, Churchill, and the Buddha!

This is "so exciting – now the secret has reached mass appeal!"

New Age
As I see it, yes, mass appeal will result whenever you offer people whatever they want. Now I'm aware that Oprah is an amazing woman who has accomplished some pretty amazing things. She has given hope to millions, and has become a highly respected voice and source of inspiration. And yet in my opinion, and to speak bluntly, The Secret, promoted on her show, is taking millions for a ride. After all, you can't change reality just by thinking.

One of my website readers wrote in, "Having been a young adult in the '70s and not yet a Christian, I was into the metaphysical movement now known as the New Age movement. It is all the same self-focus, greedy, mind over matter mumbo jumbo, and to top it all off, The Secret is really old news. There is a book called Three Magic Words (written about 30 years ago) that is full of all the same ideas, and in the end the three magic words are: ''I am God.'' This book gives you the notion that you have the same power that God has, so why would you need him anymore."

Prosperity theology
What makes it so sad that professing Christians are buying into this is that what is being proclaimed on the talk shows is essentially the same as that being peddled by preachers of prosperity theology. (They are those who chant, "Name it and claim it.") This is also called the word-faith movement. Mark 11:24 says that if, when we pray, we believe we have already received, it will be ours. But Jesus is speaking in hyperbole (deliberate overstatement for effect). He also said that if we pray with faith we can move mountains. (Again, an instance of hyperbole -- no mountains have ever literally been moved.) For more on the interpretation of Mark 11:24, click here. [Website membership required]

This kind of thinking actually has more in common with oriental "mind-over-matter" and New Age thinking than it does with the gospel. Bible readers should be able to see through this, especially since it closely resembles the false doctrine 1 - 2 John, 1 Timothy, and Colossians were written to combat: Gnosticism. For more on what the Bible says about personal vision and the possibility of altering the future by vision, click here.

According to recent surveys, 95% of pentecostal/charismatic churches proclaim prosperity theology. That is, they too teach that if you are spiritual enough, you'll get what you want. Why would churches teach this? Maybe because churches tend to reflect the values of the societies in which they live (what the Bible calls the world -- 1 John 2:15-17), and most Americans have been sucked in to this erroneous thinking. This is wrong because it creates a class of Christians who are tempted to appreciate Christ for what he does for us. This is contrary to the spirit of Luke 17:7-10.

Conclusion
Where is God in all of this? Where is the Cross? Where is self-denial? Jesus said, in Luke 9:23, that when we follow him we are going to have to carry our cross -- to suffer. To be even more blunt than I have been so far, I would call "The Secret" nothing but the gospel of "Self and Wealth." No doubt its promoters will become richer and richer, falsely holding out the unreachable hope of riches for the millions who buy their books and videos.

There's a secret, all right. The secret is that the prophets of "the secret" are destined to become rich (the very thing they proffer), while those who help them realize their dreams are never likely to realize their own. I mentioned Byrne's concept to one of our teenagers. Her response: "That doesn't make sense! If you're God, then why wouldn't you always get what you want?" I replied that the answer would be "Because you are failing to realize who you are: that you are God" (!).

Claims Byrne, "The Secret is the culmination of centuries of great thinkers, scientists, artists and philosophers. Here we take an exciting look behind the scenes of The Secret’s life-transforming power." I hope that we are able to smell a rat -- the logical impossibility of such a "secret." And also to resist all perversions of the gospel. (And avoid being quickly parted from our hard-earned money.)

Further study

• Michael Shermer shares his views on Rhonda Byrne's The Secret. Click here to read his article in Scientific American.
• Click to visit Byrne's own website, The Secret.
• Christianity Today also features an article on this popular book/DVD. Click here for Mel Lawrenz's critique.
• You might also want to listen to my book review of The Alchemist (in this series).

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

Scriptures to consider:

• Genesis 2 -- marriage is the norm
• Matthew 19:10-12
• 1 Corinthians 7:6

Biblical celibacy has two components

• Companionship
• The sexual element
• It is assumed that church leaders will be married (1 Timothy 3), as correctly understood by Orthodox clergy.

Celibacy over-emphasized in the 2nd century

An overreaction to Gnosticism, which deprecated sexuality
See Ignatius, the Shepherd of Hermas, Clement of Alexandria, Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Athenagoras
Although the early church took celibacy too far, we (in our culture) are guilty of the opposite error.

Who should stay single?

Those with the gift
Those with certain sexual struggles
Quite possibly those who, like Jesus, are destined to die young
Those who, like Paul, lead a lifestyle inimical to marriage
Some older brothers and sisters who, for whatever reason, are not likely to find a spouse.

Final challenges

• Don't tease the single. This can be embarrassing; it has the power to shame people into marriage; it entails a certain thoughtlessness, a failure to think theologically about celibacy. (If you are a single and are being teased, consider telling others how you feel. And do your best not to be touchy -- such attempts at humor are rarely made spitefully.)
• Social pressure is strong enough (to marry; to have children; to favor male children. Various stigmas are all too familiar to our single brothers and sisters.
• Yet Christians must not capitulate to culture, for we follow a countercultural Messiah.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

1. 1 Cor 7:10-12, 15
   1. “Not I, but the Lord” and “I, not the Lord.” Paul reveals the Lord’s will on an issue common in the Greco-Roman world: mixed marriages. (“I, not the Lord.”) A Christian has a pagan spouse.
   2. Paul and Jesus agree on the subject of divorces between covenant people. Assuming there are no grounds for divorce—and no remarriage—then anyone who deserts a Christian spouse is still married to them. Ideally reconciliation will be reached. Otherwise, one must live as a single person.
   3. Paul accepted neglect (abandonment) as grounds for divorce and remarriage. He refers also to withholding of conjugal love. Thus the promises of the marriage vows are in the background of everything he writes. In 1 Cor 7 Paul stresses the 4 obligations of marriage (corresponding to the 4 grounds for divorce).
   4. Divorce by separation: Desertion is grounds for divorce as it deprives one’s spouse of essential marital rights.
   5. Since separation was divorce in the Roman world, if the unbeliever left, the Christian spouse was free to remarry (“not under bondage”). If Christians could not remarry, they would still be in bondage to a spouse who had left, even if that spouse had remarried.
   6. 1 Cor 7:39: Paul frees the woman from the strictures of levirate marriage (Deut 25:5) – the brother of the widow is required to marry her so that her dead husband’s lineage will not die out. The language of 1 Cor 7:39 (free to marry whoever she may please) is part of all standard ancient divorce documents.
   7. Thus it appears that widows and divorcees had equal rights – permission to remarry. Yet the traditional church interpretation forbids remarriage except after death or adultery. This does not concur with the understanding of 1stcentury rabbis, Jesus, and Paul.
2. Paul would say to us today
   1. Believers should never cause a divorce, and must not use (any-cause) divorce.
   2. If an unbelieving spouse leaves you, you may remarry.
   3. A believer who wrongly got a divorce should strive to be reconciled, not remarry (which would make the divorce irreversible). If they’re already remarried, of course, it’s too late.
3. The Church Fathers (Patristic writers)
   1. Incorrect teaching because the original debate—the issues of a bygone age—had been forgotten.
   2. 2nd-C Judaism and Christianity alike overreacted in the area of sexual ethics.
   3. The early church often erred on the side of harshness.
      1. No forgiveness for those who deny Christ.
      2. By the 3rdcentury many leaders allowed only one sin after baptism (and some, none at all!). This led to the custom (4th C.) of delaying baptism till near one’s time of death.
      3. Severe church discipline.
      4. Skewed theology of martyrdom.
      5. Immortality of the soul – and the concomitant doctrine of infinite hell, increasingly explicit…
      6. Asceticism (leading in part to the rise of monasticism): Harsh treatment of the body (Col 2:20-23) easily led to harsh treatment of people.
      7. Church polity—the rise of the bishop, the decline of autonomy, and increasing heavy-handedness.
      8. Celibacy—a good thing, according to Jesus and Paul (Matt 19:11-12; 1 Cor 7:7), although it came to be viewed as a badge of spirituality. In the western church, celibacy was more and more expected of “clergy.”
      9. Divorce—lack of grace, lack of appreciation of nuance.
      10. Remarriage – discouraged, despite Paul’s counsel in 1 Tim 5.
   4. Did the 2nd-century church use certificates of divorce? How would we recognize whether such a document had been written for a Christian or a non-Christian?
      1. Keep in mind that the Gentiles wouldn't have this certificate—by far the greater number of Christ-followers—and in Palestine the Christians were still viewed as Jews.
      2. So it probably would not be obvious in a such document whether someone was a Jew (non-Christian) or a Jewish Christian. (This was long before the multitudinous documents of medieval canon law!)
      3. After the Patristic period
         1. The Catholic Church sacramentalized marriage.
            1. No release.
            2. A horrific form of entrapment, for some.
         2. Protestants normally allowed divorce for adultery and desertion.
         3. Later, liberal Protestants (today) are back to “no-fault” marriage.
4. Final thoughts
   1. The four grounds for a valid divorce are found in one’s wedding vows. All are mentioned in the OT; two are mentioned and two more alluded to in the NT. These include adultery, abuse, abandonment, and neglect.
   2. Without proper grounds, a second marriage is adultery.
      1. And yet… we are not told to break up a second marriage, even if improperly grounded.
      2. For if we did, then there would be two wrongs. Consider 2 Sam 12, or John 4.
   3. Divorce is a last resort.
      1. Believers should never be the cause of a divorce—that is, they should not break their own marriage vows, or behave badly in hopes that will trigger a divorce.
      2. Nor should they initiate a groundless divorce—that is, where a spouse hasn’t broken his or her wedding vows.
   4. Cautious humility required, because of:
      1. Naïvete. There are significant gaps in our knowledge. Background information is needed! For too long we may have been taught a naïve way of interpreting the Bible. The meaning of a biblical passage isn't always obvious. Interpretation is essential. Perspicuity of scriptures?
      2. Legalism: It’s too easy for all of us to drift into legalism. It’s easier sometimes to make a rule than to do extra reading, speak with those who know more than we do, or patiently explore the nuance of scripture. Nor will we learn if our hearts are full of hate and legalism.
      3. Pride: We tend to think we are right.
5. A word to church leaders—7 strong suggestions
   1. Read critically—not just books supporting our own view!
      1. David Instone-Brewer, the world’s preeminent expert on 1stcentury M&D customs and documents.
         1. Visit his website, https://www.divorce-remarriage.com. I-B is especially helpful because he provides the ancient Jewish and pagan sources, which paint of picture of expectations and practices in the ancient world.
         2. Click here for a précis of his two books.
      2. Jerry Jones (former head of the Bible Department, Harding College; elder, Boston Church of Christ; with his wife, teaches widely on marriage). Marriage, Divorce and Remarriage: Seen Through the Character of God and the Mind of Jesus (Joplin, MO: College Press, 2016).
         1. His position coincides with Instone-Brewer’s.
            1. “The ‘guilty’ and ‘innocent’ parties do not have to be identified.
            2. A divorce severs the marriage, and the couple is no longer married ‘in God’s eyes.’
            3. A past, failed marriage (or marriages) does not demand a future life of singleness.
            4. Marriages that are destructive or abusive do not have to be maintained until a spouse is sexually unfaithful” (127).
         2. Jones’s specific advice: “Before the decision to end the marriage is made, efforts to prevent divorce should be exhausted and the following questions considered:
            1. What does the character of God dictate?
            2. How does the mind of Christ impact this decision?
            3. Are any of the 4 elements of marriage being violated?” (p.126).
   2. Encourage people to think. Don’t tell them what to do. Jesus often did not immediately answer questions.
      1. “Who appointed me a judge or arbiter…?” “The Law—how do you read it?” “Come and see.” “Bring me a denarius.” “Go and learn what this means.”
      2. Biblical principles internalized help us to become spiritual people, instead of legalists (who tend to read the Bible like a rulebook).
   3. Consider the grounds for divorce carefully.
      1. Verbal abuse – the husband is not protecting his wife – a violation of his vow.
      2. Of course pornography is a violation of the wedding vows. However, that doesn’t mean the offended party should initiate a divorce. That’s up to her [him]. Yet there’s no need to wait to divorce until intercourse has taken place.
      3. Just because someone has stopped coming to church, he isn’t necessarily in the category of the “unbeliever” who leaves the faithful spouse (1 Cor 7). His faithful spouse should not divorce him if things can be worked out. Marriage matters can be intensely stressful, and I wouldn’t take someone’s failure to turn up for a couple of weeks—even if they announce they’re done with church—as the final word. They could well come back.
   4. The victim of broken vows is normally the one who can best decide when the marriage is over—not his or her spouse.
      1. Especially when there is abuse in a marriage.
      2. “Only the Lord knows the heart… We cannot leave it up to the minister or a church leadership team to decide when a marriage ends; it is up to the individual victim, in prayer before the Lord. Only they and the Lord know what their life is really like. Only they know if their partner has expressed repentance, and only they will have to live with the consequences of the decision” (Instone-Brewer).
      3. I’m not saying church leaders should never be involved. But sometimes we are unnecessarily involved—perhaps often siding with the husband over the wife, or siding with the spouse with the more pleasant personality.
   5. Refer the couple (or one of the spouses) to pastoral counseling if you’re not a professional.
      1. And even if you are a trained counselor, make sure your counsel is truly biblical, and not just a reflection of your denomination’s position.
      2. “Marriage counseling is often hampered by the lack of a coherent biblical approach to divorce and remarriage… A Christian counselor can say with confidence that believers do have grounds for divorce in cases of adultery, abuse or neglect but that Jesus asks us to forgive partners who repent after breaking their vows. Jesus allows us to divorce a ‘hardhearted’ partner, but neither he nor Paul chose to define how much neglect is too much—unlike the rabbis, who defined the minimum amount of food, clothing and conjugal love that was due. This biblical teaching gives people who are suffering within marriages both an encouragement to persevere and a safety net when they find they cannot cope with it anymore. They can, if necessary, divorce their ‘hard-hearted’ partner in the knowledge that God himself was forced down this route when Israel hardheartedly broke her marriage vows to him… Divorce is never good, but sometimes it is the only way to end the evil of a broken marriage” (Instone-Brewer, 170-171).
   6. Always be discreet; maintain confidentiality.
      1. Marriages should not be discussed in leaders’ meetings or staff meetings.
      2. There are laws governing the disclosure of personal details.
   7. Relate respectfully to other leaders who may not have arrived at the same conclusions you have. Although how we handle divorce and remarriage is important, it isn’t a central issue of the faith. It’s a “middle circle” item.
6. The apostle Paul

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

1. Introduction

• As we have learned, in Matt 19 / Mark 10 Jesus is weighing in on the Shammai-Hillel debate. He rejects the any-cause divorce of Hillel.
• Familiarity with this debate is crucial if we are to appreciate the interaction between Jesus and the Pharisees.
• Yet Mark doesn’t mention the exceptions. In Mark 10 it sounds like all divorce is wrong. (Which it is—often—but many times it’s not the problem it’s the solution.)
• Knowledge of the ancient world is essential for accurate translation of ancient languages, balanced and nuanced theology, and appreciation of the topography of scripture.
• By 2nd C, the interpretation of the House of Hillel rules. “Any cause” divorce is now the only kind among the Jews. The condensed language of the remarriage passages was no longer intelligible. Critical facts relating to divorce and remarriage were forgotten.
• But we’re in a great position to be better informed. Since 1850 every major commentary on Matt has covered the S/H disagreement. Sadly, many scholars don’t pass on this information to their church. Most predictably follow the party line of their denomination. Let’s not do that. You can study the ancient sources and become informed. If you want to do some historical study, I-B’s books are very helpful.
• Let’s do our best to respect God’s Word, taking into account these ancient sources. (As for 2nd-4th century Church Fathers, we will address these in the final talk.) By “ancient sources” I mean essential background information yielded by rabbinic Judaism, Roman law, and numerous M&D documents.

2. Matt 5:31-32

• Jesus overstates (hyperbole) to grab our attention. Immorality wasn’t the only ground for divorce in the Bible. Jesus is saying that divorce must be justified.
• "Makes her commit adultery?" The woman becomes defiled, or adulterated—assuming she remarries; she isn't automatically an adulteress.
• Matt 5:32 literally understood directly contradicts Deut 24:1-4, which permitted remarriage after divorce.

3. Hyperbole

• Common in Semitic speech and throughout the Bible. Examples: Hate your father and mother; everything is possible for the one who believes; speaking in languages of angels; faith moving mountains.
• This section of Matt 5: v.28 is full of hyperbole.
  • Examples: lust is adultery in the heart (v.28); pluck out an eye (v.29); lop off a hand (v.30); remarriage is adultery (v.32).
  • Elsewhere in Matthew, consider 6:3; 7:5; 19:24; and 23:24.
  • Thus interpreting this part of Matt 5 figuratively is well precedented and exemplified.
• Non-literal interpretations don’t necessarily weaken the force of Scripture, or make it impossible to settle on a clear meaning. Jesus clearly (and shockingly) teaches:
  • Monogamy; divorce not compulsory in the case of adultery (“allowed,” not commanded”); marriage not compulsory for anybody; hence infertility is not a legitimate ground for divorce; divorce for "any matter" is invalid—and so remarriage after this divorce is adulterous; marriage to be lifelong—it’s against God's will to break up a marriage.

4. Jesus' position

• He's not saying:
  • Divorce is always wrong—but there must be valid grounds.
  • Sexual immorality is the only ground for divorce—only that this is the topic of Deut 24.
  • Remarriage is wrong. Craig Keener: “If the exception [of Matt 5 and 19] permits divorce, the average first-century Jewish reader would ​assume that it permitted remarriage, unless explicitly informed otherwise; part of the very nature of the divorce document was to free the wife to remarry.”
  • Divorced persons are still mystically bound to their ex-spouse, unless that person has died.
  • Those remarried without proper grounds must return to the previous spouse.
    • He doesn’t tell the Samaritan woman to return to her first—or fifth—husband.
    • Two wrongs don’t make a right: breaking up remarriages based on any-cause divorce and requiring a return to one’s original spouse. (This is actually forbidden in Deut 24:4.)
  • We should disfellowship the divorcee, or glare at them disapprovingly.
• He is saying:
  • Divorce for just "any cause" is invalid—and so remarriage after this divorce is adulterous.
  • We should respect God’s original plan: monogamy with fidelity.
  • Celibacy is also good.
  • Even if a divorce is justified, we should be slow to carry it out. Consider God's "divorce" of  Israel and Judah.
  • Marriage is meant to be lifelong—it’s against God's will to break up a marriage. Work at your marriage!

5. Conclusion

• There are some things in the Bible that we don’t understand without some background information, or without the benefit of careful study.
• The ancient dispute: Is any-cause divorce legitimate, or are grounds necessary, as stipulated in Torah?
• Jesus’ teaching turned popular teaching on D&R on its head—not because he was forbidding D or R, but because most religious teachers had drifted so far from God’s holy standards.

Next: Paul’s on divorce and remarriage in 1 Cor 7. We depart from the Jewish world and enter the Greco-Roman world.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

Mark 10:

2-3, 10-12

• Jesus is quizzed. Where does he stand on the divorce issue?
• Mark indicates absolutely no exceptions!
• Don’t read through filter of other passages (like 1 Cor or Matt). Mark was writing for a Roman audience. It is doubtful they had access to Matthew—if Matthew was even written yet—and the Jewish issues addressed in Matthew would not have been all that relevant to them.
• Matthew gives more information, alluding to the “any cause” divorces common in the 1st. Notice how Matthew differs from Mark 10:2-12: “I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another commits adultery” (Matt 19:9).
• See a parallel in Mark 8:11-12 / Matt 12:39, where Mark indicates to exception, but Matthew does.
• Just as Mark doesn’t give the whole story, neither does Matthew. We need to get behind the scenes. It’s easy to draw incorrect conclusions if we don’t realize the nature of gospel writing—abbreviation, arrangement, simplification. It won’t do to just quote a passage and claim the Bible "means what it says." Rather, we need to be careful interpreters.
• It turns out that what appears to be both simple and absolute (Jesus’ words on divorce in Mark 10) turns out to be neither absolute—there are exceptions—nor as simple as we may have thought. Back in those days, there were no law firms such as Jensen Family Law, and that is why topics such as divorces resided in grey areas.

Matt 19:3-11

• Here’s the backstory Matthew leaves out—as it would have been of little benefit to his readership.
  • House of Shammai (50 BC – AD 30)
    • Limited grounds for divorce to the four in Deut 24 and Exod 21.
    • “The indecency of the matter” (the wording in Deut 24) they took to mean sexual infidelity.
    • Their influence was waning in Jesus’ day, though divorce for broken marriage vows (once the infidelity was proven in court) was still practiced up to 70 AD (when the Romans destroyed Jerusalem, along with its temple).
    • By Jesus’ day, no-fault divorce (“any cause”) was predominant. What’s that?
  • House of Hillel (110 BC – AD 10) – grandfather of Gamaliel, tutor of the apostle Paul.
    • “Any cause” divorce. If your wife burned the dinner, or you no longer found her attractive, you can get a new one.
    • This "no fault" divorce was often considered more righteous than Shammai's stricter ruling, since it brought less shame on the family.
    • It was in the ascendant in Jesus’ day. “Any cause” divorce was the new normal.
  • Listen again to the question: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause?” Is the question about legality of divorce? Of course not, since divorce is lawful—it's in the Torah. Or is the question about “divorce… for any cause”? No quote marks in original ancient languages.
    • NET: “For any cause.” NJKV: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” NASB: “for any reason at all.” NIV: “for any and every reason” (helpfully paraphrased) NLT: “Should a man be allowed to divorce his wife for just any reason?” “Just any reason” shows better understanding of the ancient disagreement than does “for any cause.”
  • Asked where he stands on divorce issue: Liberal, any-cause? or Conservative, grounds-required?
    • Jesus agrees with Shammaites (divorce must have grounds) and repudiates Hillelites.
    • Yet he goes farther, pleading for return to spirit of God’s original plan.
    • “Jesus used the same terminology as the Shammaites, in the same context, at the same period, and in a debate where Shammaites or their rivals the Hillelites were present. We may therefore confidently conclude that… when the Shammaites said ‘except… for a matter of indecency’ in the context of this debate about ‘any matter’ divorces, they meant that Deuteronomy 24:1 allows no type of divorce except that for indecency. They did not mean that Scripture allows no divorce except that for indecency—because they allowed other divorces on the grounds in Exodus 21.” (David Instone-Brewer)
  • Also, in commenting on Deut 24, Jesus is not ruling out remarriage.
    • He does not explicitly state that a person can remarry after divorcing someone for marital unfaithfulness. Perhaps this is because it was assumed.
    • In 1st C Judaism, if a person divorced another person for any reason (Hillel) or only for cause (Shammai), they were allowed to remarry. Shammaites disagreed with Hillelites, but recognized their marriages as valid, even if lamentable.
    • No 1st century Jewish group prohibited remarriage after divorce. In the Roman world, remarriage was mandatory after 18 months; not to remarry was to break the law. Thus it would be quite strange if Jesus and Paul taught against remarriage.
  • Nor is Jesus explicitly ruling out other grounds for divorce.

Keep in mind:

• The language of Matt 19 is compact and simplified: all grounds v. specific grounds. That is the debate—whether no-fault divorce is allowed, not whether divorce is allowed.
• Mark 10 and Luke (16:18) are even more compact—no exceptions at all. In the Roman (Mark) and Greek (Luke) worlds, divorce was separation. It was easy and it did not afford protection to the vulnerable. The Jewish world (Matthew) was different.
• The Bible is easily misunderstood if we fail to take into account the nature of biblical language, or if we don’t read these texts with an understanding of the background situation.

Does this make us uncomfortable: the claim we need history, geography, and language to understand the text?

• Goal: to understand issues like the original recipients of the Scriptures.
• There are significant gaps in our knowledge of ancient world. Are we surprised there are some things in the ancient world we don’t understand?
• Similarly, there are gaps in the theology of the Bible.
  • In Scripture we don’t have a developed theology of the afterlife, or the communion meal, or how often Christians assembled. The Bible has nothing directly to say about marijuana.
  • And there’s no comprehensive doctrine of marriage, divorce, and remarriage—which means we have homework to do if we want to come to informed conclusions.

Conclusion

• I’m not saying we can’t understand scripture unless we are theologians, or must know the biblical languages, or that the scriptures are generally murky, or self-contradictory.
• Quite the contrary: We can understand them, some quite easily and quickly, but others only with serious spadework.

For additional notes and resources check out Douglas’ website.

Podcast notes:

Exod 21:10-11: If a married man takes a second (slave) wife, then the food, clothing, and sexual love—material support plus emotional support—received by the first wife must not be reduced. If the husband reneges, the first wife may be released from the marriage.

• The rabbis correctly saw that if a slave had such rights, so did a free woman, who implicitly expected his faithfulness as a husband.
• If any of these four rights is neglected, there may be grounds for legitimate divorce. The four grounds are withdrawal of physical support (food or clothing), withdrawal of emotional support (manifest in sexual engagement), and (implicitly) adultery.
• Incidentally, ancient Sumerian law required that a man provide a prostitute who has born him children with gifts of grain, oil, and clothing. To withhold material support, in other words, was illegal.

Deut 24:1-4: The purpose of the divorce certificate was to protect the woman against future claims by her husband, thus enabling her to remarry. (A certificate not needed by a man, since he could marry any Jewish woman he wanted—as polygamy was condoned in the OT.)

• A man unsure of whether the first husband was coming back to claim his woman, or the children, or her assets, would be far less likely to marry her.
• The divorcée needs a clean break!
• “[The] certificate, which was the right of a few privileged women in some ancient Near Eastern legal systems, was extended by the Pentateuch to all divorced women. This certificate freed women from the fear that their ex-husbands could reclaim them after abandoning them. The wording of the ancient Near Eastern certificates was similar to the traditional rabbinic get, which states ‘you are free to remarry any man you wish.’” (David Instone-Brewer)
• The right of remarriage after divorce is implied in Lev 21:7, 13-14—others could marry a divorced woman, but not a priest.
• Deut 24 was not originally understood as referring to adultery.
  • After all, the Law of Moses already had a death penalty for adultery.
  • The word adultery does not appear. Rather, it is literally "the indecency of the matter." This was commonly interpreted to refer to sexual sin.
• Deut 24 allows divorce, assuming there are grounds; it does not support arbitrary divorce.
• This doesn’t mean there should be a divorce, only that if the innocent party initiates proceedings, she may legally divorce.
• Deut 22:13-18 implies that groundless divorce was not permitted—with possible severe financial penalties to those who initiated a divorce unlawfully.
• These provisions are reflected in other O.T. texts, like Deut 24:5; Psalm 132:9-16; Ezek 16:8-19; and Hos 2:5. See also Eph 5:29.

Mal 2:16

• The older rendering “I hate divorce” is taken to imply that the Lord disapproves of all divorce (or most divorce). However, this translation (as in the NKJV and NRSV), is far from certain.
• The Hebrew does not say “I hate,” but “he hates.” It refers to the husband: he is treating his wife hatefully.
• Better translations are the ESV and the (current) NIV.
  • “The man who hates and divorces his wife,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “does violence to the one he should protect,” says the Lord. So be on your guard, and do not be unfaithful.” NIV
  • But if you hate [your wife] and put her away, says the Lord God of Israel, then ungodliness shall cover your thoughts, says the Lord Almighty: therefore take heed to your spirit, and forsake [them] not. LXX (the Greek version of the OT, made a couple of centuries before Christ, and which was the Bible for most Jews in the time of Jesus, as the majority lived outside the land of Israel.)
• Mal 2:16 is still a strong passage against divorce, but it is not a passage forbidding divorce.

Summary

• The OT permitted divorce.
• Four grounds for divorce can be detected in Exodus 21, Deuteronomy 24, and other passages.
• The divorce certificate—still in use in Jesus’ day, and well beyond that time—extended much-needed protection to the women.
• God is opposed to those who do violence to or otherwise hate and divorce their wives.

British scholar David Instone-Brewer

• PhD in Rabbinic Judaism. For three years he studied the Dead Sea Scrolls, Midrashim (ancient comnmentaries/expansions of biblical texts), Mishnah (the oral law supposed received by Moses on Mt. Sinai, codified around 200 AD), Talmud (discussions of the Torah and Mishnah, written in c.400-600 AD), Philo and Josephus (the two most prominent Jewish writers of the first C. AD), and the rabbinic literature. He is well qualified to understand issues surrounding marriage and divorce in 1st C.
• Two helpful books:
  • Divorce & Remarriage in the Church: The Social & Literary Context (2002)—scholarly. Assumes familiarity with Hebrew and Greek.
  • Divorce & Remarriage in the Church: Biblical Solutions for Pastoral Realities (2003)—for the general reader, especially those involved in counseling or pastoral work.
• His work is important for the next part of our series, as we look at what Jesus said about divorce. Instone Brewer's position: “I agree with the two traditional grounds of adultery and desertion by an unbeliever, and two other OT grounds that are alluded to by Paul and Church tradition. These two are emotional neglect and material neglect and are alluded to in 1 Corinthians 7:3-5, 32-34.”